so, what is "radio" good for?

[Garrett Wollman]

<<On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:40:15 -0400, "Alan Tolz" <atolz@comcast.net> said:

> Just because a more egalitarian delivery system than transmitters
> and towers will reign won't change what people want - A connection
> with a personality, their immediate geographical area, and their
> favorite audio entertainment, whether it's music, talk, sports,
> news, whatever.

Radio people often say that, since it's the one thing that radio as a
medium offers that other media don't.  It's not at all clear to me
that this is true of many people under the age of 35 (no matter what
the NAB's annual exposure studies may say).

My experience among the younger people I work with (admittedly a
biased sample consisting mainly of technophiles) is that what they
want for audio entertainment is very simple: the music they like,
24x7.  No personality -- in fact, no talk at all; *definitely* no
advertising.  Certainly no "crap" music (by whatever that particular
listener's definition is).  In other words, they are perfectly happy
with their iPods, thank you very much, and don't have much interest in
what radio -- at least, commercial radio -- thinks it has to offer
them.

The one sort of conventional radio that does seem to capture at least
some of the 18-34s I know is public radio.  And not the
too-hip-by-half public-radio programming that is supposedly directed
at that demo, either: we're talking regular ME & ATC & Car Talk
public-radio listeners here.  (But these people are generally not
listening via conventional broadcast; streaming and podcasts are the
technologies of choice, which may bode ill for terrestrial public
stations.)

-GAWollman