THE YOUTH QUESTION Greg Diamond – ByrnesMedia The thought that the next generation may bypass the radio medium completely is, quite obviously, scary. This is by no means a new issue. In fact, it’s been a topic of discussion for a number of years now.
We are gathering more and more evidence that suggests we are in grave trouble with today’s youth. At the recent Canadian Music Week conference, Mike Henry of Paragon Media held a session entitled “Getting Today’s Youth Interested In Radio Again.” His point was that younger people are not listening to the radio as they once did and if we fail to start reaching out to them by “talking their language” we may suffer the dire consequences of losing them forever.
In the just-released Bridge Ratings study, “‘Gen-Y’ Media Use & Attrition”, an even bleaker picture is painted. Their research predicts that the weekly use of traditional radio by people born between 1980 and 1993 will drop to less than 40% by 2020! The main reason given is “In order to reach, connect and engage these emerging decision-makers, marketers must first embrace them.” The entire study can be found at www.bridgeratings.com.
While both Paragon and Bridge are first-rate research entities, I still can’t help feeling that a fundamental flaw exists in their conclusions. Is it not fair to say that people change as they grow older and more responsibility is placed on them? One would be hard-pressed to argue that, and therefore, it can be added that people’s media usage also changes over time.
When we look closer at ‘Gen-Y’, we find a group of people that have taken “early-adoption” to an entirely new level. In previous generations, young people also sought out and used newer technologies when they became available. Like today, there’s always been a certain cachet associated with being ahead of the curve. ‘Gen-Y’, however, has grown up in a digital world where change has been so constant and rapid that the need to search for new technology is largely moot and instead, adoption and openness to change is their all-encompassing way of life – in short, they have been born to it.
With that in mind, is it any wonder radio plays a less-conscious role in their lives? Such mature “push” technology has been replaced by newer “pull” media where “on-demand” is the conscious preference of youth. Yet, does that really mean radio plays a dramatically lesser role in their day-to-day existence? I would argue that it doesn’t – at least not to the extent that some data would have us believe. In my mind, the real question is “Are they just not listening, or are we unable to quantify it under present-day measurement?”
As mentioned above, we all know that kids love new things. It’s that same love that inevitably moves them on to something else, thus we see things like “iPod-fatigue” becoming prevalent. Technologies like mp3 players, cell phones, computers, etc. all require an action by the user – a conscious action. Radio requires no real action (once it’s been turned on, of course) and, therefore, plays a greatly diminished conscious role in the lives of youth (or any other generation, for that matter). It’s that inherent passivity of the medium that makes it so difficult to gauge under an active (diary) ratings system.
The biggest factor in our inability to more accurately measure youth listening is the lifestyle of that demographic. This has been written about ad nauseum, so I will spare you the obvious except to point out that until a passive measurement system (i.e. Portable People Meter) replaces the current model, we will be unable to get a better read on teens. This, by the way, goes for both diary ratings and perceptual studies. Both are actionable and, therefore, both have the same problems in determining the true scope of ‘Gen-Y’ radio usage.
The eventual implementation of the PPM will usher in an entirely new way of selling and programming radio. It, too, has its drawbacks and to this day technological issues are still being ironed out, but its fundamental passivity will undoubtedly give us the clearest picture of listening levels in all demos and dayparts. In the case of the youth demo, it also doesn’t hurt that a PPM is a “gadget”, which fits in well with their tech-savvy mindset.
PPM data has already been released that points to what many of us have suspected all along – kids have not abandoned radio… and certainly not to the extent some other research has shown.
In June of 2005, BBM released a report based on findings compiled during PPM tests in Montreal. The results showed “Diaries… skew towards larger older audiences while the PPM reports younger. Teen listening is 50% higher with PPM measurement than with diaries. Conversely, the size of 65+ audiences is 20% higher with diaries than with the PPM.”
This would indeed back up the earlier assertion that younger listeners are not gone, but rather not being counted at present. It should be noted, that Arbitron studies concur with the BBM results.
One reason why the difference is so high among teens when listening is measured passively is their high degree of multitasking. Like change, multitasking has been a lifelong habit of this age group and is as natural to them as breathing. Radio is the perfect medium for those that multitask since it takes the least amount of direct attention. What works against radio in a diary system turns out to be a real strength under PPM measurement.
I alluded earlier to changes in lifestyle that come with age. We shouldn’t simply resign ourselves to ever being able to cater to today’s youth if we don’t do so now. As people get older, radio’s local characteristic begins to play a more important function in their lives. This covers everything from local issues to traffic reports. Further, as one ages, ease of use becomes more desirable and as the Bridge Ratings study shows, ‘Gen-Y’ already considers radio to be the easiest medium to consume.
That said, by no means am I advocating a head-in-the-sand approach to this issue. The fact is younger people do have more media at their disposal than before and the generation that follows will almost certainly have even greater choices. The onus is on us to make our programming more inclusive for today’s youth.
With the CRTC licensing many more signals than ever before, larger urban centers are now seeing stations targeting younger audiences by necessity. Not only must they do this as part of the application process itself, but the positioning opportunities of a given market will also usually force this to occur.
That in itself will aid our need to reach this generation, but existing stations in almost every format can also target youth (albeit in more indirect ways), without jeopardizing their core demographics.
For instance, AC stations can increase the number of giveaways that incorporate tech prizes (e.g. game consoles, mp3 players, computers, cell phones [with minutes], etc.). The prize may not be as appealing to mom as a day at the spa, but she doesn’t mind winning for her kids, as well. You may even look at putting the spa and the gadget into a prize package that becomes a win for both mom and the kids.
Stations can involve themselves in charities that target young people – youth shelters, drop-in centers, and sports facilities to name just a few. There’s also myriad ways to involve the station in schools. Trips, exchange programs, and computer equipment are all things that academic institutions need help with.
For CHR’s and other formats that already target a younger audience, thought should be given to incorporating the quickly-evolving language of texting into your marketing and imaging. You could also look at things like having your jocks record school announcements.
Is the goal to measurably increase audience from this segment of society? Not really, since it’s unlikely you would see the return in ratings given all the reasons listed above (and more). The point is to involve the medium with youth and make it a more conscious component in their lives so the relationship can be taken advantage of in the long term. If we can do this without noticeably altering our stations, then why wouldn’t we?
The “youth question” is one that should concern us, but I strongly believe that much of the overtly negative data on the subject will prove itself to be largely incorrect as ‘Gen-Y’ matures. By that time, though, we’ll probably be looking at the next generation and asking the same questions about them. |