Radio Public Attitudes

How does the public view the transition from radio to audio?

Sorting through the answer shows several components, but a key one is whether listeners’ attitudes toward how they get radio — whether they are willing to pay for it, how portable they want it to be and whether they want it commercial-free —matter more than what content they want there. Another major question in a changing information landscape is how much people will turn to radio as a source for news.

As noted in the section on audience, only 30% of Americans believe that the new audio will result in the complete demise of traditional radio.1 Another study, by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, found that of the 11% of Americans who an MP3 player or iPod, only 30% had ever downloaded a podcast or Internet radio program so they could listen to it later. In short, the penetration of the new audio technology is only beginning.2

Still, there is evidence that people are open to new sources. In a study commissioned by the Public Relations Society of America with Harris Interactive, the vast majority of adults, 71%, indicated they had a defined set of news sources that they trusted. Of that number, a sizable minority 42%, said they relied on “independent sources like Internet chat rooms, blogs or other alternative media to get news and information.”3 Only a slight majority, 54%, stated they continued to rely exclusively on traditional sources. Perhaps most interesting, more than half, 65%, said they “actively look for news and information that challenges [their] political opinions and social beliefs.”4 Whether they really do is uncertain, but the numbers suggest they believe they should.

So it might be that the growing array of options is not replacing so-called old media outlets, but supplementing them.

The question for radio is to what extent people want to continue to hear the news, rather than to read it as text or see it on video.

There are some answers already. When it comes to national and international news it appears only a minority look to radio as a prime source. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center indicated that less than a quarter of survey participants got this kind of information from their radios — just 22%, compared to 74% for television, 44% for newspapers and 24% for the Internet. (Survey respondents were able to select more than one response, so the total figures add to more than 100%).5

This may be a chicken and egg dilemma. Perhaps people don’t turn to radio for this type of information because it’s not available there. If it were available, as in the past, maybe more people would rely on the medium for it.

There is some indication that the same low numbers may also be true nationally for breaking news. In a separate survey conducted by the Pew Research Center , only 17% of respondents indicated that they were getting their news about Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath from radio, compared to 89% for television, 35% for newspapers and 21% for the Internet.6

In truth, a national overview about media may not offer the full picture of radio’s value. During Hurricane Katrina, for instance, the accessible nature of radio —including the portability of radio receivers, the low cost of buying radios and free nature of the content, and ability to run on multiple power sources even when the electrical grid is down — made it a critical lifeline for those stranded by the storm.

That was true not just for those in New Orleans who utilized resources like the constant information stream provided by the United Radio Broadcasters (See Ownership), but also for those evacuated to the Houston Astrodome, where radios were distributed and a mini-radio station was set up to aid communication and speed family reunions. In other words, while there will always be a desire to move to the ”next big thing,” there must also be consideration of what can potentially be lost.

Will the new media make the old no longer economically viable, or will they be added on as an interconnected web? The answer will have important civic as well as economic implications.

And one factor in all this may be regulatory. In early December 2005, Chairman Kevin J. Martin of the FCC suggested the creation of so-called “à la carte” offerings for cable television. As a way to provide people with greater control over the media content that comes into their homes, Martin proposed that cable companies allow consumers to pick and choose what individual channels they receive and pay for.7

The success of that proposal could have broad implications on which cable producers survive, and what they produce. It could also set the parameters of how other new technologies develop, and whether older technologies like print can begin to get money from their online activities by bundling them the way cable has.

It is difficult to guess how such a change would affect satellite radio, but the basic situation is virtually identical. Like cable, satellite listeners have intentionally purchased special equipment to receive content and have made the decision to receive that content by paying a membership fee. Also like cable, XM Satellite even offers a blocking option. On its Web site, the home page of the “Opie and Anthony” radio show (a shock jock duo whose antics on traditional radio included the broadcast of a couple supposedly having sex in St. Patrick’s cathedral as part of a competition) includes a link to information on how to use XM’s channel blocking. And Sirius satellite radio’s Web site, like some television programming, advises parental discretion for programs like the Howard Stern Show.

If an á la carte system like the one Martin has proposed for cable were to be applied to satellite radio, the biggest question would be how, exactly, members would be charged for the pick-and-play system. Would members choose nine stations for one price and then ten more for an additional fee? Turning to content, would a changing membership structure affect the networks’ willingness to program channels that might not be able to attract enough members to pay for themselves? Would an “á la carte” system degrade the niche content that originally made satellite radio desirable?