so, what is "radio" good for?

[Dan.Strassberg]

Those who prefer iPods and similar music players have to devote a
goodly amount of time and, I guess, money updating their collections
of MP-3 files and the music mixes that their players provide them.
Radio's advantage (though perhaps not yet with 20<something>s), is
that, in return for listening to commercials (or public radio
beg-a-thons) and for giving up a lot of control over the music mix,
listeners don't have to spend the time and money required to be their
own program/music directors. Don't you think that, as these kids get a
little older and acquire family responsibilities, which are highly
demanding of both time and money, they will (perhaps reluctantly, but
also at least partly out of boredom with playing PD/MD) relinquish
their "night" jobs and largely abandon their iPods for entertainment
they can access without the large expenditures of time, effort, and
money.

The delivery medium may not be terrestrial towers or satellites but,
for technical reasons, I can guarantee that it won't be WiFi, which is
a short-range technology that is unsuited to covering large
metropolitan areas. WiMax may work, but it has already been the
technology of the year for nearly a decade. To me, that doesn't sound
like a good omen.

You can make a good case that American society has never been
especially tolerant of those who choose to live in a state of
perpetual adolescence. Nevertheless, all of us do it to some extent, I
guess. Even so, as the iPod generation matures, an unabated
continuation of its love affair with iPods would seem to necessitate
carrying that lifestyle to unprecedented lengths. I'm skeptical of the
fad's durability--except in the age group (kids and teens) that has
the time to squander on it and that doesn't have to earn the income
needed to support it.

-----
Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net)
eFax 1-707-215-6367

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Garrett Wollman" <wollman@bimajority.org>
To: "Alan Tolz" <atolz@comcast.net>
Cc: <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: so, what is "radio" good for?


> <<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
>