Should radio programmers listen to radio listeners?

[BOZ Profit]

Aside from my memory and my rose-colored glasses, there are elements of radio that truly have been lost. Things that I miss, that I believe were some of the reasons that radio was once so important to generations of kids, are now so very not.

Do kids listen to radio? Certainly, yes. Do they love radio and identify with any station? Hardly.

http://www.presstelegram.com/arts-and-entertainment/20140319/missing-the-glory-days-of-top-40-radio

Read the article, as he makes some fine points.

 

[TheBigA]

I've read lots of similar articles. Typically they come from baby boomers who miss their youth and want to relive their childhood.

Radio in the 60s was what social media is today. I believe doing social media for a radio station is a key part of engaging with the audience. It's more direct, and can be done without affecting or interrupting the on-air presentation. I know DJs who do a completely different show online at the same time they're hosting a format on air. That's what radio is today. Will it return to the way it used be? Maybe when the government outlaws the internet and cell phones. Until that happens, it's absolutely the job of the on-air people in radio to use social media to connect with their listeners.

In answer to your subject line, ALL programmers listen to radio listeners. Every hour, every day, every week, and every month. We listen and we respond. I see all emails, tweets, and other correspondence. Plus we have that thing called Nielsen.

 

[Unregistered]

I've read lots of similar articles. Typically they come from baby boomers who miss their youth and want to relive their childhood.

Radio in the 60s was what social media is today. I believe doing social media for a radio station is a key part of engaging with the audience. It's more direct, and can be done without affecting or interrupting the on-air presentation. I know DJs who do a completely different show online at the same time they're hosting a format on air. That's what radio is today. Will it return to the way it used be? Maybe when the government outlaws the internet and cell phones. Until that happens, it's absolutely the job of the on-air people in radio to use social media to connect with their listeners.

In answer to your subject line, ALL programmers listen to radio listeners. Every hour, every day, every week, and every month. We listen and we respond. I see all emails, tweets, and other correspondence. Plus we have that thing called Nielsen.

When the social media -- if it happens -- comes at the expense of the over the air product, no wonder radio is being killed by Pandora and iPods when it comes to connecting with kids today. How many listeners connect with the station via social media? Maybe 1 percent? So the other 99 percent lose out because no one pays attention to the air product.

If any of what is written above is true ... radio is worse off than anyone thought.

 

[ok walters]

When the social media -- if it happens -- comes at the expense of the over the air product, no wonder radio is being killed by Pandora and iPods when it comes to connecting with kids today. How many listeners connect with the station via social media? Maybe 1 percent? So the other 99 percent lose out because no one pays attention to the air product.

If any of what is written above is true ... radio is worse off than anyone thought.

But the number of listeners keeps growing despite all of the options available today. Go figure.

 

[TheBigA]

When the social media -- if it happens -- comes at the expense of the over the air product, no wonder radio is being killed by Pandora and iPods when it comes to connecting with kids today.

Pandora & iPods "connects" with kids? Really? Talk to your iPod. If it talks back, let me know.

Pandora and iPods are today's version of your portable cassette recorder or home stereo. You download songs rather than buy them and listen to them on demand. That process is very different from radio. Back in the 60s, how did you connect with your favorite radio station? Call them with a request? Imagine doing more than that. Imagine engaging in actual conversation whenever you want. Kids today are used to more interaction than you ever had as a kid. Cell phones have changed everything, and everyone has the ability to interact with anyone at any time. Even the best radio station is basically one-way communication. Radio CAN be a part of that group of trusted friends, or it can be an appliance. The choice is up to the people at the station.

The thread here is "should radio programmers listen to radio listeners," and the programmers can't listen TO them or WITH them if they're too busy talking AT them.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I've read lots of similar articles. Typically they come from baby boomers who miss their youth and want to relive their childhood.

Or, from those of us who are the parents of the baby boomers. I guess what we miss is a bit different than what the Boomers miss, but the concept is similar.

Radio in the 60s was what social media is today. I believe doing social media for a radio station is a key part of engaging with the audience. It's more direct, and can be done without affecting or interrupting the on-air presentation.

Thank you for capturing a meaningful description of the 'concept at work'. Yes, it works in just about all segments of society, but what you wrote may be the most vivid picture of what needs to happen in the world of LPFM operations, and small-market, rural-market radio.

I have said for some time that up until now, people sometimes ask: "Does your radio station have a website?" Going forward the question might be: "Does your website have a radio station?"

Going back 40 years ago, give or take, Jerrell Shepherd in Moberly, MO and some other creative genius type folks were showing us how to make small-market/rural-market radio something to be excited about. I have at times sat down and tried to write a modern day formula to describe what would be the content today that is as valid as what the content for success was back then. The Internet has now made all the elements that were critical to the non-music part of radio in that era instantly available on line. So why would anyone camp-out on their radio waiting around for the hog prices or the school menu of the results of the rowdy city-council meeting last night when they can go on-line and get the info, no waiting. And why hang onto the phone to participate in the "Party Line" broadcast, when you can go on line and post your two-cents on your timetable.

So is today's formula: The biggest, baddest BLOGGER in town is the one using a radio broadcast to herd folks to the blog-site?

 

[TheBigA]

So is today's formula: The biggest, baddest BLOGGER in town is the one using a radio broadcast to herd folks to the blog-site?

I agree...I think one of the reasons why internet radio stations haven't had any impact, and really haven't capitalized on their advantages, is the public doesn't know about them. People criticize OTA radio as being done cheaply, but they spend millions more on content than internet radio. Same problem with LPFM. If no one knows you're there, no one will listen. It's not a content problem, but a marketing problem, and let's face it: Most LPFM owners are mainly content people.

My point is that radio has become more than one platform. If all you're focused on is that one platform, you're leaving "money on the table," so to speak. It's a platform that didn't exist 20 years ago, but fits logically with what we're all doing on air. We just have to train ourselves to think more like Communicators and less like radio people. If the goal is to ENGAGE listeners, you have to go where they are, and engage with them. Not sit in a dark studio waiting for the song to end, and then say things that you hope will relate to the listener. The listeners have changed. They're a lot busier now. Other competing devices have distracted them and diluted the information superhighway. So we have to get out and be a part of that highway with them. And when we do, we'll see they know who we are, and will engage with us in ways they never could before.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Social Media, like many other communications delivery-systems, is not a one-size-fits-all mechanism. Obviously Facebook is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. But in face-to-face conversation, and in reading forums, I find a significant number of people.... adults in particular... are having to 'hold their nose' to jump into the Social Media swamp and go for a swim. There typically is no "managing Board Editor" to keep participants in line. (Yes, there are 'join this group' options in Facebook where someone rules with a heavy hand!) but I have conversation with a lot of people who are totally turned off by the range of conversation. People you have conversed with for years on more modest discussion groups, people you went to school with and only see once every five years at a class reunion, show up on your Facebook with political content that turns your stomach. Churches are now trying harness Facebook to replace traditional mailings and websites. What a road full of landmines they are stumbling across. When you sent out a printed newsletter, the pastor or other appointed guardian proofreads and protects the integrity of the content. Churches are finding that a youth-oriented Facebook page can quickly become a meeting place for predators and newly found victims.

I am intrigued by the idea of having an entity that has a franchise or license to protect (FCC broadcast license is an example) being the driving force behind a Social Media channel. The corporation that is the Chamber of Commerce in a community usually assumes it has a reputation to protect. We are a nation that claims to believe in something close to total freedom and we have political organizations that come unglued when people like me promote the idea of 'structured restraints'... but in every city in America you can drive through parts of town and see consumers walking the sidewalks who obviously don't know how to completely manage total freedom in their lives, and they are walking past and into business places and running into 'entrepreneurs' working the sidewalks that certainly give evidence they don't want to play by the rules of 'self control' that go with unrestrained freedom.

All of that to say: On a nationwide basis, Facebook and similar social media seem to work well and effectively. But when it gets down to the community/local level... we probably need more people who have backgrounds and training in broadcasting, publishing and other well-structured lines of business driving the local versions of Social Media.

Shame on any neighborhood oriented broadcaster who doesn't give it a try.

 

[landtuna]

Nailed it! Social media didn't replace radio, the Sony Walkman did. As soon as it became easy to create your own personal playlists you could dump the DJ that didn't play your favs. You could dump the DJ that talked over the top of your favs. You could dump the station with the 6 minute commercial blocks. And that is exactly what happened.

Social media today is exactly what the phone and malt shop were to previous generations. A way to hook up with peers. They weren't exactly entertainment in the true sense but a way to pass the time. Music was a lot more important back then and a major way of peer-to-peer socialization. The crap being produced today in the pop genre anyway can't even be described as music much less something to dance to.

Radio in the 50's, 60's and 70's was a way that youngsters communicated with each other. Much like their parents did in the 20's, 30's and 40's. Then the music died and radio along with it.

 

[davideduardo]

Nailed it! Social media didn't replace radio, the Sony Walkman did. As soon as it became easy to create your own personal playlists you could dump the DJ that didn't play your favs. You could dump the DJ that talked over the top of your favs. You could dump the station with the 6 minute commercial blocks. And that is exactly what happened.

Yet the absolute peak of radio listening occurred from the mid-80's to the mid-90's, with the longest hours-per-week-per-person since Arbitron began measurement in 1965. Obviously the Walkman, whether CD or cassette, was a compliment to radio listening, not a substitute.

 

[TheBigA]

Yet the absolute peak of radio listening occurred from the mid-80's to the mid-90's, with the longest hours-per-week-per-person since Arbitron began measurement in 1965. Obviously the Walkman, whether CD or cassette, was a compliment to radio listening, not a substitute.

Which...by the way...is exactly what we're seeing now with Pandora and iPods. People who use them to listen to music ALSO listen to FM radio about 6 hours a week for the latest in music. Then they download those songs, and listen constantly.

 

[landtuna]

Yet the absolute peak of radio listening occurred from the mid-80's to the mid-90's, with the longest hours-per-week-per-person since Arbitron began measurement in 1965. Obviously the Walkman, whether CD or cassette, was a compliment to radio listening, not a substitute.

You don't qualify what Arbitron means by "absolute peak". More listeners? More listening hours per listener? And what has Arbitron had to say on this subject since the mid-90's? There are obviously many more people living in the USA now than 20-50 years ago and the stations catering to specific ethnic groups make it easier for them to listen nationwide than years ago instead of just the border states.

We all know there are many ways to structure statistics however the one I see are kids walking down my street from the high and junior high school. Most are plugged in. But not to the radio. Neither are people in the car next to me. Neither were the youngest of my kids. Know how I know? I asked those kids as well as my own. They know who is listening to what. Virtually none of the teens and very few of the young adults listen to music radio (the exception being some of the morning zoo programs).

I don't have a stake in the popularity of radio. I am neither an investor, owner nor an employee. My career was not defined by entertainment radio (just the military variety). I don't need to quantify my opinions with the number of years I spent playing stacks of wax or oping the board or designing marketing programs. I was an avid listener and my comments come from that perspective.

I got to live through the same good times the author relates and I agree with virtually every reason he gives for radio's decline. Arbitron has always been a self-serving statistic generator who can't have the capability to give advertisers bad news. As a percentage of the total population radio was once the predominate communication and entertainment venue. It is no longer that. The reasons are many and most have been detailed on these boards - along with some unwarranted disrespect toward each others opinions - because even opinions backed by statistics are still just opinions.

Like other types of radio communication the broadcasting industry is dwindling. The same is happening to other communication types such as amateur radio. With the Internet, Skype, Twitter and cell phones there is really no necessity to learn the technical background necessary for a ham license nor to invest the substantial monies required to set up a ham shack. The means of communication has changed and broadcast radio is no longer what it once was. Likely, it never will be again. But that won't stop some of us for wishing for the good old days.

 

[davideduardo]

You don't qualify what Arbitron means by "absolute peak". More listeners? More listening hours per listener? And what has Arbitron had to say on this subject since the mid-90's?

I said, "the absolute peak of radio listening occurred from the mid-80's to the mid-90's, with the longest hours-per-week-per-person."

There are obviously many more people living in the USA now than 20-50 years ago and the stations catering to specific ethnic groups make it easier for them to listen nationwide than years ago instead of just the border states.

Weekly hours spent listening is independent of population. It was at its highest in the time period specified.

In the 80's and 90's there was no shortage of African American and Hispanic targeted stations.

The major difference is that those that were on AM have migrated to FM.

The Hispanic population was a far smaller percentage of the US Population in the 80's, and while the number of stations has increased, the big change is the creation of large Hispanic populations in places like Raleigh, Indianapolis and Des Moines where none existed before, creating a need for stations in Spanish. But the places with big Hispanic populations in the 80's had them... Tucson or Miami or LA or Fresno.

But changes in ethnic composition does not change overall national listening anymore than the current popularity of country among teens and 18-24's does.

We all know there are many ways to structure statistics however the one I see are kids walking down my street from the high and junior high school. Most are plugged in. But not to the radio. Neither are people in the car next to me. Neither were the youngest of my kids. Know how I know? I asked those kids as well as my own. They know who is listening to what. Virtually none of the teens and very few of the young adults listen to music radio (the exception being some of the morning zoo programs).

And that is in your circle of acquaintances. While nowhere near the 95% of teens that listened to Over the Air radio listen that way now, they do listen to radio via other delivery systems. Pandora is radio... iHeart Radio is radio... and the streams and sidechannels of many broadcasters is also radio.

Arbitron has always been a self-serving statistic generator who can't have the capability to give advertisers bad news.

Nielsen Audio is audited by an organization made up predominantly of national advertisers and agencies with some radio presence. That group, the MRC, has some of the best statisticians and polling experts in the nation, and they monitor all electronic media measurement to make sure advertisers get an accurate picture of viewing and listening. They would be out of business if they gave inaccurate or exaggerated estimates to advertisers.

Like other types of radio communication the broadcasting industry is dwindling. The means of communication has changed and broadcast radio is no longer what it once was. Likely, it never will be again. But that won't stop some of us for wishing for the good old days.

You are confusing an aging distribution method with "radio". Radio is not AM or FM... it is content, and it is now increasingly distributed by other channels.

 

[Unregistered]

>Radio is not AM or FM... it is content, and it is now increasingly distributed by other channels.<

So we can both agree that AM and FM are dead ... and perhaps further that AM and FM would not be dead if programmers paid attention to what went over the air instead of everything else ... like the author of the article basically said?

 

[landtuna]

I said, "the absolute peak of radio listening occurred from the mid-80's to the mid-90's, with the longest hours-per-week-per-person."

It is very difficult for me to believe that statement after researching how popular radio programming was to entire families during the heyday of 1930-40's radio.

The Hispanic population was a far smaller percentage of the US Population in the 80's, and while the number of stations has increased, the big change is the creation of large Hispanic populations in places like Raleigh, Indianapolis and Des Moines where none existed before, creating a need for stations in Spanish. But the places with big Hispanic populations in the 80's had them... Tucson or Miami or LA or Fresno.

Agreed. Which means it is easier today for someone desiring to listen in Spanish to find an outlet than it was in most of the USA in years past.

And that is in your circle of acquaintances. While nowhere near the 95% of teens that listened to Over the Air radio listen that way now, they do listen to radio via other delivery systems. Pandora is radio... iHeart Radio is radio... and the streams and sidechannels of many broadcasters is also radio.

I disagree. We are specifically talking about a specific medium. At least I am. Music delivery over-the-air terrestrial radio (AM and FM specifically) not through the Internet or satellite systems.

Nielsen Audio is audited by an organization made up predominantly of national advertisers and agencies with some radio presence. That group, the MRC, has some of the best statisticians and polling experts in the nation, and they monitor all electronic media measurement to make sure advertisers get an accurate picture of viewing and listening. They would be out of business if they gave inaccurate or exaggerated estimates to advertisers.

If there were such a thing as "polling experts" we would never have an election surprise, would we?

You are confusing an aging distribution method with "radio". Radio is not AM or FM... it is content, and it is now increasingly distributed by other channels.

Go out on any street in America and ask whomever you meet to describe "radio". In virtually every case the reply will be a broadcaster having call signs/frequency and a place on the broadcast dial on either AM, FM or both. Ask that person to pick their favorite "radio" station and most will say K-something or W-something, not XM or Pandora.

And, as is the case in most conversations on this board, the unmentioned content is music even though much of radio still consists of non-music content. That is the general meaning by the average person on the street and even on this board. "Other channels" are just that, other channels. Not "radio".

 

[davideduardo]

It is very difficult for me to believe that statement after researching how popular radio programming was to entire families during the heyday of 1930-40's radio.

In one of my posts I specified "since Arbitron began (measuring radio) in 1964. Even then, remember that in the heyday of network radio in the 30's and 40's, radio was little used in the daytime... and what estimates are available (such as the 1950 data from Garay's biography of Gordon McLendon) show no more listening than in the 80's and 90's.

Agreed. Which means it is easier today for someone desiring to listen in Spanish to find an outlet than it was in most of the USA in years past.

No, it does not mean that. In the 80's, particularly the early 80's, the big increase in immigration of Hispanics had not begun; it was triggered by plenty of jobs in the Reagan era. So, in the places where Hispanics lived in the early 80's, there were and had been stations for many, many years. Once Hispanic populations began building in markets which previously had few, stations also appeared.

I disagree. We are specifically talking about a specific medium. At least I am. Music delivery over-the-air terrestrial radio (AM and FM specifically) not through the Internet or satellite systems.

That is what will kill radio: thinking we are in the transmitter business when we are in the content business. "Radio" can be delivered by AM, FM, satellite, streams or sci-fi proton beams. It does not matter what the conveyance is... it is the content that is being consumed that matters.

If there were such a thing as "polling experts" we would never have an election surprise, would we?

In an election, one vote can tip the results. In media, only reasonably accurate approximations that are within 5% or even 10% of "perfect" are needed. To get perfection, we need a census, not a poll. And you could not do a daily census or radio and TV viewing.

Approximations are fine, as there is no single winner or loser. Stations with more listeners charge more, and those with fewer listeners charge less... but stations at nearly all levels of listening can find ways to make money.

Go out on any street in America and ask whomever you meet to describe "radio". In virtually every case the reply will be a broadcaster having call signs/frequency and a place on the broadcast dial on either AM, FM or both. Ask that person to pick their favorite "radio" station and most will say K-something or W-something, not XM or Pandora.

Not any more. Most Millenials and Gen-Xs will respond with Pandora or iHeart if you ask about "radio".

And, as is the case in most conversations on this board, the unmentioned content is music even though much of radio still consists of non-music content. That is the general meaning by the average person on the street and even on this board. "Other channels" are just that, other channels. Not "radio".

The differences are quite clear... curated music content, listener selected music content and separately identified things like news, sports, talk. They are all independent of the delivery system for anyone under 40... and in increasing fashion, for people of all ages.

 

[landtuna]

The differences are quite clear... curated music content, listener selected music content and separately identified things like news, sports, talk. They are all independent of the delivery system for anyone under 40... and in increasing fashion, for people of all ages.

I have five people all under 40 in my household that, in addition to me, disagree with you. I submit perhaps it is because you are inside the radio career envelope.

None of those five, BTW, listen to terrestrial radio and only one is a part-time listener to Internet "radio". They all prefer their own playlists on mobile media.

 

[davideduardo]

I have five people all under 40 in my household that, in addition to me, disagree with you. I submit perhaps it is because you are inside the radio career envelope.

No, my observations come from talking with listeners outside of radio stations in one-on-one or small group situations. I have been inside a radio station exactly 3 times in the last 18 months.

Could it be that the people in your household are influenced by your strong opinions about radio?

In research we often see household opinion leaders setting the tone for the whole family's responses.

None of those five, BTW, listen to terrestrial radio and only one is a part-time listener to Internet "radio". They all prefer their own playlists on mobile media.[/QUOTE]

That requires a certain degree of affluence... to purchase the songs... that not all people and families have. In the "mass appeal" situations I experience, few people have over 100 songs of their own, but use Pandora, station streams and YouTube as much as OTA radio.

 

[landtuna]

No, my observations come from talking with listeners outside of radio stations in one-on-one or small group situations. I have been inside a radio station exactly 3 times in the last 18 months.

What I meant by my remark was that you have had an intensive radio career and are therefore far closer to it than a mere listener (like me).

Could it be that the people in your household are influenced by your strong opinions about radio?

BWA HAAA HAAAAA!!!!! Do you have kids? They are not affected (unfortunately) by my opinions about anything. Especially politics or entertainment.

In research we often see household opinion leaders setting the tone for the whole family's responses.

As much as I would have liked that to be the case I think it disappeared about the time they individually reached age 12.

That requires a certain degree of affluence... to purchase the songs... that not all people and families have. In the "mass appeal" situations I experience, few people have over 100 songs of their own, but use Pandora, station streams and YouTube as much as OTA radio.

It's funny but when I was a youngster a 45 cost about $1 and as far as I can tell that is also about the cost of a digital download today.

The oldest boy and the oldest girl (a 30 something and 20 something respectively) each have a far larger library than the others and both have music going practically all the time. The majority of those libraries have been downloaded over time.

 

[TheBigA]

I have five people all under 40 in my household that, in addition to me, disagree with you.

After the election, I saw an interview with a distraught woman who told the reporter, "I can't understand how our guy lost. Everybody in my family and my church voted for him!" When your universe is only those around you, it's possible that they all think exactly like you. But one can't extrapolate that experience beyond that circle, regardless of how convincing it all appears to be.