US radio, especially public radio, is like a bad restaurant ...

[MattParker]

Menu limited, portions too small and the food is bad.

Very interesting - and provocative - article in Sunday's (09/26/2010) LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-cultural-exchange-radio-20100926,0,86260.story

Radio 4 in Britain is evidence that the medium is as popular as ever
More Britons are listening to the radio than ever — over 90% of all adults in the U.K. — and the channel offers quality programs unequaled in the States.

The article also points out that Brits listen longer.  US time spent listening is two-thirds what it is in Britain.  The article attributes radio's popularity in Britain to a combination of quality and variety which makes US public radio sound pathetic by comparison.  Even US radio during the medium's so-called "golden age" seems anemic next to Radio 4 (what used to be called "The Home Service").  And Radio 4 is only one BBC radio "channel" among 10 national channels and 40 regional channels (plus "independent" or commercial radio). 

The article makes the case that radio over there is still relevant to real people (folks other than people in the biz and radio geeks) and beyond that, still has buzz.  It's one thing to think radio has lost it from listening but it's another to think radio has lost it, maybe never had, from hearing what others can get.

[Zach]

Um, I don't think it's really fair to compare US and UK radio.  They're really two different beasts in so many ways… regulation, programming choices, stations' geographic "coverage", etc.

Radio in the US might've turned out the same if we'd had TV license fees and national networks with heavy government intervention.  But we chose the free'r route, for better or for worse.

[aaronread]

Soooo...basically this is an argument for the US government to basically add a decimal point or two to the amount CPB gets funded every year?

[MattParker]

@Zach: I don't see this as unfair comparison.  It's not about financing.  Listeners don't care about that.  It's about good programming that engrosses and entertains.  It's about programming people listen to, not just have on.  Brits have all the same media options we do (maybe more).  Yet a lot of them are still listening to radio and talking about radio at work.  Here radio has no buzz.  HD Radio?  What's that?  But you can turn around without hearing about tablets, smartphones, apps and Internet TV boxes.  Radio has made itself irrelevant to most people. 

@Aaron: As I say, it's not about where the money comes from.  Public radio could do fine without CPB money.  And advertiser supported radio might do better with engaging programming. 

[TheBigA]

It's not about financing.  Listeners don't care about that.  It's about good programming that engrosses and entertains. 

That's not what the article says:

"The reason why radio sounds so different here from North America is completely a product of public funding," said Grant Goddard, a London-based radio analyst. "

He's right.  Public funding takes the profit motove out of programming.  You're free from the lowest common denominator, and able to do the absolute best, regardless of the popularity. 

[MattParker]

It's not about financing.  Listeners don't care about that.  It's about good programming that engrosses and entertains. 

That's not what the article says:

"The reason why radio sounds so different here from North America is completely a product of public funding," said Grant Goddard, a London-based radio analyst. "

He's right.  Public funding takes the profit motove out of programming.  You're free from the lowest common denominator, and able to do the absolute best, regardless of the popularity. 

A lot of advertisers are not targeting the lowest common denominator.  And public radio does operate on the profit motive, regardless of what they say.  And they "sell" to some of those "class, not mass" advertisers.

A lot of for profit businesses operate with a commitment to quality (like Japanese automotive and electronics manufacturers).  In many industries you can make a direct comparison between American companies committed only to quarterly numbers and overseas companies committed to quality, customer satisfaction and long-term growth and profitability.  The same disease that has destroyed the radio hardware industry in the US is destroying the radio software (programming, content) industry. 

[TheBigA]

A lot of advertisers are not targeting the lowest common denominator. 

Really?  Do you talk with their ad agencies?  If you did, you'd discover that regardless of the client's image, at the end of the day it's all about delivering the maximum audience for the minimum price.  Even companies like Rolex and Hallmark work that way.

And public radio does operate on the profit motive, regardless of what they say.  And they "sell" to some of those "class, not mass" advertisers.

Part of that is because they lost public funding.  So they have to go after the same companies the commercial broadcasters target.  Back when almost all of their funding came from the government, they were more like the BBC.   

But the bottom line is that you're wrong when you say programming isn't related to funding.  It's ALL about where the money comes from.  And right now, we're trying to kill any kind of government subsidy for broadcasting.  It will take us right back to where we were in 1964 when Newton Minnow called it a "vast wasteland."

[MattParker]

A lot of advertisers are not targeting the lowest common denominator. 

Really?  Do you talk with their ad agencies?  If you did, you'd discover that regardless of the client's image, at the end of the day it's all about delivering the maximum audience for the minimum price.  Even companies like Rolex and Hallmark work that way.

Maximum target audience.  The operative word is "target."  Add with "minimum waste."  Hallmark is a mass marketer.  Rolex is not.

[TheBigA]

It all goes back to funding.

[Talk_Dude]

A lot of advertisers are not targeting the lowest common denominator. 

Really?  Do you talk with their ad agencies?  If you did, you'd discover that regardless of the client's image, at the end of the day it's all about delivering the maximum audience for the minimum price.  Even companies like Rolex and Hallmark work that way.

That's not quite accurate. Some companies deliberately choose to maximize their profit margins by attempting to create a mystique about their product being exclusive. Rolex is an excellent example. They only advertise in upscale media to maintain their aura of luxury. Their products aren't that much better than any other brand of watch, but no other brand has the same status symbol cachet. Their customers don't buy Rolexes to be better able to tell the time, they buy them to flaunt their ability to afford one.

A more accurate observation is that advertising is intended to convey the message about the product that best increases the advertiser's profits. Mass market products and services use mass market advertising, but niche market products use different strategies.

Public radio seems to attract underwriting from companies that benefit from having a "good citizen" image, even if that is nothing but smoke and mirrors.