Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

"teenagers don't listen to radio"

Surely that begs the question as to why the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú are pouring lots of license payer cash into "visualising" Radio One or any other radio for that matter. If "they" don't want it then why is the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú throwing cash trying to get them to do something they don't want to do? Don't you have a great reason to close Radio One?

And, how does all this research go with your recent claims of success with Michael Jackson coverage where, apparently, no arm of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú could do wrong?

I worry about how you are all chasing "customers" as if that is the only marker you actually understand. Don't you ever think about what your "real" audience want, the people (teenagers included) who are listening to you today and every day? Do they not count because you already have them?

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is a public service broadcaster, not a barometer by which all other media must be judged. A quick check on my radio dial shows a lot of stations broadcasting music that I am sure a lot of teenagers dig, but how would you capture that in a survey when they are not listening to or interested in you one little bit? They are a happy bunch so let them alone.

Why does the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú have to act like a kleptomaniac so far as audiences go? Are there not enough people to go around everybody according to their tastes?

Rod, this shows two things..

1/ You didn't read his article properly. His point about cinema was that it was seen as a destination for meeting up with friends not simply about seeing a specific film [NOT 'movie'..] - so that if they went to the cinema they might decide what to go and see when they got there.

2/ You are falling into the trap of the City boys - 'The Wisdom of Crowds' is about tapping into the views of many people to get information about trends and preferences for music and the media.

Of course, you are right to 'call him out' on this, but I suspect he did not ever really try to spin this as being the 'truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth'. Even though he tries to draw some wide conclusions with few caveats, I'm sure he would not have presented this as really anything other than the view, based on his experience, of one person.

See also Mark Damazer's 'student roadshow' post on the Radio 4 blog..

1. At 2:02pm on 15 Jul 2009, Humblebeginnings wrote

If "they" don't want it then why is the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú throwing cash trying to get them to do something they don't want to do? Don't you have a great reason to close Radio One?

I can't help feeling that the closure of Radio 1 wouldn't contribute a single penny towards the output of high-quality, dumbed-up programing. Mind you, why on Earth should it if younger teenagers aren't interested in that? Think numbers.

I agree with the twitter referance. NOBODY uses twitter, nobody i know anyway. Everybody uses facebook.

For some reason the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú on radio, TV and the internet keep shoving the idea down peoples throats that twitter is suddenly the new 'in' thing.

Well it isn't. The only people who like twitter are vain celebrities which is why all the old folks working at the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú go on about it, they think it makes them cool.

Well it doesn't it's sad and egotistical.

#4

"it's sad and egotistical"

...and Facebook isn't? ;)

Zane's show is a must.

It really isn't.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I agree, Twitter's uses are too limited for friend networks; excellent for fanning and bizbulletins. No one cares if I'm cooking a pizza. Radio is as dead as people are willing to go other places for their media addictions. Radio funding via adverts is dead. Difference is: Radio is live; her saving grace, even if pre-programmed. Try finding live anything else save a phone call. Text isn't live. Tweets aren't live. Social networks aren't live. Radio is broadcast; it's piped out real time. HighPrime info will get to you faster still via broadcast. Make sure your mobile has a radio. You'll be sucking your lips the day you need to know what's the ups and can't get a phone signal.

Stop the presses! Teenagers claim to hate everything! Hardly new is it? The only thing that is more depressing than a bored, spoilt teenager banging on about how rubbish everything is, is a corporation like the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú fussing after them like an old hen trying to get them interested and passionate about stuff when, for now, they simply can't see the point of getting out of bed in the afternoons. In their desperation to please a group of people who, almost by definition can't be pleased, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú radio stations have resorted to acting like teens, putting on broadcasters who can barely string two words together, dumbing down the news and current affairs, and having presenters yammer incessantly about where they've been and which celebs they've seen on their programmes rather than just play music! And for all the good it's done, you might just as well have not bothered! Why the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú spends so much time and energy trying to engage with teens, when they simply don't want to be engaged with anything is beyond me. Just leave them alone!! Go about your business playing music, informing, educating, presenting. If they want to get involved they will. If you try and chase them, you'll just scare them away. BTW was the article written by a teenager? It's all over the place!

" 5. At 3:58pm on 15 Jul 2009, dotconnect wrote:
#4

"it's sad and egotistical"

...and Facebook isn't? ;)"

No it isn't because on facebook you are showing your information to your family and friends. On twitter anybody can 'follow' you which is why it is vain and egostistical.

Celebs and Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú broadcasters like to compete with each other for how many of the plebs or 'civillians' as they like to call them follow them.

It is incredibly eogstistical. Facebook is completely different.

I think you will find that teenagers do not have "listening habits" - they have "hormone habits" - and if a bunch of media marketers think they have the answers to those hormones then I think they should visit somewhere like the Priory. Believing in your own fantasies is at least a third of the journey to madness. Or is is just plain stupidity?

Teens are on the cusp of adulthood - the point where they realise that these corporations only want to engage with them for financial purposes. That their interest in teens is solely based in how much money they can wring out these consumer units. And the really amusing thing that the article highlights is that teens are behaving in exactly the way that these companies don't want - they are trying to get as much stuff for free as they can!

So radio listening amongst teenagers is "declining - but still holding up?" Isn't that a contradiction?

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú wants a younger audience. I wonder who, which person originally voiced what has now become the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's holy grail at great expense to the licence payer.

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú alone does not recognise that our population is getting older by the minute; ipso facto (like that; I'll do it again) ipso facto, the younger folk will always be the minority audience.Conversely, the older folk will always form the majority audience. Simple. (Meerkat noise.)

As someone rightly says, leave the teenagers to their teenageing.

Children had the same treatment until Aunty Beeb's middle class Aunties and Uncles were found to be warbling and chirping to themselves when there were no kids in the vicinity sitting comfortably.

No matter what there is to do, every teenager will tell you there is nothing to do. That's what being a teenager is all about. Well, it was in my day.

Then I discovered R3. Joy, thrice joy. Mind you, even that is a changing in its search for, yes, a younger audience. Pah!

I am struggling to understand what all the fuss is about, and why this is suddenly so novel, or why wall-street cares (given teenagers have no money according to the report).
Why is it that we "adults" insist on viewing those "teenagers" as some foreign land, when we have all been there ourselves; do we develop amnesia at 20?
Further, if we "adults" were all teenagers now, we would do the same thing, no doubt. This is nothing to do with teenage years as such, and everything to do with context.
Comparing to my experience in the 80's:-
1. Teenagers have no money
It was ever thus; some are rich, most are poor.
In reality, teenagers (via their parents) have access to vastly more products than previous generations.
I recall saving for a portable radio with earphones in the 80's for 6 months, and then allowing 28 days for delivery.
2. Teenagers don't read newspapers
Shocking ..... ly, unsurprising.
I'm sure some do, some don't.
I'm sure that the proportions of who do and don't are probably the same as they were in the 90's, the 80's, the 70's etc
3. Teenagers (male at least) talk to their friends when playing computer games
Again, as a youth, I used to cycle to see friends, and play computer games at their homes; an vice versa.
All the internet does is save the cycling part.
Making phone calls was rare, because local calls were expensive back then.
And yes, you would still call a girlfriend on the phone (land-line of course).
4. Teenagers don't buy music
Some do, and others borrow. With the casset in the 80's most teenagers would have a huge network for exchanging tape to tape music. Again, nothing new there.
5. They don't bother listening to the radio
In the 80's, again, you just taped what you wanted from the radio, and then listened to that. You never made time for listening to the radio as such.
6. Cinema
Again, sometimes you went, mostly you didn't. The video casset recorder saw to that in the 80's, as the DVD does today.
7. Sony Erricson is the superior
... as was the Sony Walkman in the 80's.
So again, why all the fuss?

One of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Radio's problems is it's failure to promote programmes across the channels. I listen to R2, R4, R5, R6, World Service and Talksport. I have to check the websites to find out what 'specials' are on, or what topics are being covered. My 19 year old daughter listens to R1; the local independent radio station; and her iPOD which contains contemporary music plus 60's Kinks, Small Faces, Beatles. She's interested in anything to do with art, psychology and some young people's issues. My 21 year old son listens to R1, the local independent radio station and CD's: mostly the latest bands AND 60's/70's Rolling Stones. He's interested in sport, cars, films, the environment and current affairs. Neither could be bothered to check websites for programme information; it needs to be selectively promoted. Listeners to Radio 1 want choice and information, in addition to a particular type of music. Tell them when 'World Have Your Say' is discussing Drugs, Sex, Tatoos. Tell them when Radio 2 has a 'special' about the Beatles. Tell them about the latest comedy programme on Radio 4: don't forget 'Little Britain' started on R4.

Here's a few of the topics covered on the World Service 6.00pm prog 'World Have Your Say.'

IS WHITE STILL RIGHT IN THE FASHION INDUSTRY?
Do you believe in fate?
HAS THE SUSAN BOYLE STORY REVEALED A WORLD OF PREJUDICE?
DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SHARE EVERYTHING ON THE INTERNET?

Many more would listen if they knew about it. Instead they turn R1 off when its style changes. I suspect individual station chiefs are too concerned about audience size for each channel, but as a licence funded service Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú can afford to take more risk with its audience.

When the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, and of course all other media outlets, top reporting incomprehensive 'studies' such as these as being factual, evidence based findings, then your views on them will be of interest to me!

I wonder, Mr McKenzie, do you think there may be a difference in the behaviour between middle class teens and working class teens? I ask because of the unhealthy interest you seem to have in "visualising" everything. Do you not believe in multitasking teens? Those who, for example, quite happily read Harry Potter and listen to music playing in the background in a middle class home, and the predominately working class with their portable music who listen and dance in a "public" place.

Despite the many various ways kids can amuse themselves these days the core values of teen years are the same as ever. To become the individuals they aspire to be they distance themselves from anything that seeks to trap them. They are on their own unique journey to adulthood and we should thank our lucky stars that they are.

I can understand that with an MP3 player, music radio is going to have problems with younger audiences, but the fact they are not listening to speech radio is also very important, and in particular speech radio. The best way to provide intelligent speech to the "under 40s" would be to get the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú to create a "Radio 4 Remix" channel.

R4R could take all the best bits from Radio 4 and reschedule them with a "younger" presentation. This would provide more linear opportunities to listen for this excellent speech radio output.

There's plenty of room on the commercial digital multiplex, and space easily found on satellite, cable and Freeview.

R4R would dispense with the longer news programmes, Woman's Hour, You and Yours, and provide all the comedy, analysis, history, science and drama (but not the Archers, please) on a stripped-and-stranded schedule.

Existing (older) Radio 4 listeners could use R4R to "listen again", and other listeners could find the "intelligent speech" with a more lively, accessible schedule and presentation.

For example, the afternoon drama could be on at 8pm. A selection of comedy and topical programmes from 6am-9am. Have a "Men's Hour" from 10am (history and science), comedy at 1pm, 6pm and 10pm.

There are some interesting themes here about the use of media. The current model for broadcasting is a push model. "We send it you ... you can have it now" modified by 'listen again' or the use of the PVR. The object is the programme, and the attraction is the presenter/personalty. So for music it's background with chat..... in the "shade" more of less of Jimmy Young (or Brian Redhead for factuals.) These are supposed to keep us tuned. But actually there is a demand for selection and choice (Richard SM and Briantist. above0 Curiously even the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú NEW MEDIA people are trapped. They want us to tag the programme "and tell your friends" while I want them to tag the programm and tell us what its is about.... (and even tag items within the programme) preferably linked to the schedules, so I can choose to catch something, (and why not tag the play list so we can catch a song or in my case a classical work.)
Of course we might for a start have a fully functional text, audio and visual search engine that worked!

Incidentally Kidbrook Arts College, Matthew Norman's school seems to have exactly the right demographic for at least London teen tastes and practices. Maybe R1 should send a staffer for 'work experience".... find the reality behind the 'hard research'

#21 - Briantist.

I'd buy that.

Right, if the teenagers aren't listening to radio, quit revolving Radio 1 around them.
Look at the latest DJ changes - you've taken off an experienced DJ, who actually knows a fair bit about music and replaced her with someone who knows very little. And you've put her on at a time when the teenagers will be at school.

R1's target audience should not be age driven. It should be music taste driven. There are plenty 30-somethings who would like to listen to modern contemporary music, without being forced to go to Radio 2, and the choice of 6 Music is not a choice, as DAB is a pup.

As a teenager, I never listen to the radio. In the car I have my iPod connected or a CD in because my particular taste in music (rock/metal) is not covered by any station (I get Rock Radio, local to Paisley/Glasgow, but it's aimed at middle aged people who quite rightly like to listen to music from their teenage years), beeb or comercial. The problem is this, why should I listen to half a dozen songs from artists I don't like before hearing a song that I already have on my iPod. I have yet to find a radio station that offers what I want, and if there is one then it will have a very narrow target audience. Music has become more diverse, radio stations cannot keep up. The closest I have got to listening to the radio is on Spotify, which has a specific tab for heavy metal, enables me to skip and pause songs and lets me select which decade to listen to. This did allow me to find a couple of bands that I had never heard of before so perhaps this is the future of music on the radio. As for chat shows, either what happens is I switch on to a political show where everyone speaks in the posh bbc voice and speaks about groups like teenagers as though we are incapable of coherent thought without consulting us. The other option is a presenter who insists on shouting over a loud drumbeat and trying to be young.

"I think you will find that teenagers do not have "listening habits" - they have "hormone habits" "

Well, I listen to music and the specific choice changes depending on who I'm with, the situation etc, surely that's a listening habit?

Let's take Radio. It's true than the non-visual aspects of radio is less appealing for younger teenagers than 20-somethings. That's why Radio 1 is increasingly visualised - at the moment we are running Zane Lowe and Chris Moyles "in vision" live streamed.

Radio listening among youngest teenagers is declining - but still holding up - and not every teenager is like every other teenager. For example if you want to check out new music and don't want to rely entirely on your mate's dodgy taste - Zane's show is a must.

---

Uhh Rod - I am a fan of Radio 1 but you seem to be trying to force it onto teenagers because that's where it's supposed to be

You provide no evidence that teenagers like radio 1, you just promote a new gimmick that is supposed to make them want to go to radio 1, then admit teenage listener numbers are declining, 'but holding up' - yes, but still declining...

I never listened to radio as a teenager, and was never attracted to the fuddy-duddy Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú radio, now I'm in my twenties I actually listen to it

I know you have to support the official line, but really it's time to reassess radio 1's purpose - it's pointless aiming at teenagers, radio 1 is listened to by millions, but they aren't kids, you need to start realising that or your various enemies are going to get in first and attempt to sell off the channel for 'failing' (as reported in yesterday's daily mail)