There’s nothing more disconcerting than being a leader and then having to go through the anguish of being deposed – especially at the hands of a younger, less experienced upstart.
But if you’re a Baby Boomer, that’s what’s happening right now – for the first time in your life. That’s because for going on six decades, Boomers have run the show, called the shots, been in the majority, garnered most of the attention, and dominated the spotlight.
Until now.
New U.S. Census Bureau information reveals that the biggest one-year group as of 2013 is now 22 year-olds. Technically, that age group sits right on the cusp between Generation Z (born in 1993 or later) and Millennials. And now there’s more of them than are of us.
Back in the ‘80s, Bill Moyes (the guy who launched the Research Group) invented a radio concept called Format 41, and a big part of that calculus was appealing to women who were right at that target rich age and psychographic. Of course, it made sense because everything Moyes did was strategic and geared toward appealing to the most potential listeners.
So today, wouldn’t that be the creation of a Format 22 – a media package that understood the mindset of that pivotal “tweener” group – between adolescence and adulthood?
CEOs talk a lot about scalability – finding solutions and strategies that are most efficient and that will return the biggest share for the best buck. And repeat.
If that’s the case, where’s the 22-year-old strategy?
To help us stay a bit ahead of that curve, here’s a 35,000 foot view of Generation Z, that headphone wearing, smartphone toting group that is moving away from Facebook and speeding toward Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat:
Now, if anyone utters that traditional radio naysayer excuse that 22 year-olds aren’t really in the “money demo,” let me remind you that two of the world’s biggest, richest, and most powerful companies – Apple and Facebook – are doing everything they can to reach and cater to this group.
Facebook knows the writing is on the wall with teens. Young people see their parents posting 50th wedding anniversary pictures and they’re moving out of the Facebook house faster than they’re moving out of their parents’ houses. And they’re rapidly adopting Instagram, WhatsApp, and other platforms that are more congruent with their lifestyle and their needs. More and more, they’re discovering music via YouTube, Pandora, and other services, rather than on FM radio. This is a different generation, and it requires different strategies in order to connect with them.
That’s why Facebook bought Instagram (a bargain at just $1 billion two short years ago), and WhatsApp (for 19 times that price a few months ago). That’s where teens have moved, and Zuckerberg knows that if he’s going to remain competitive, this generation is required.
And then there’s Apple. You can debate all you like about why they’re so desirous of buying Beats Electronics. Whether the deal is consummated or not, it may be more about the headphones than anything else. While audio engineers will tell you the quality of these Dr. Dre-branded headphones is terrible, that’s not the point. Smart marketers and trend observers don’t bother themselves with technical specs. Consumers buy iPhones, Minis, and UGGs – not because they’re better made or designed – but because they’re cool. Apple acquiring Beats for $3.2 billion (the rumored price) will dent that company about as much as Cumulus picking up another FM in Bakersfield.
All you need to know about Beats headphones is right here on this chart from Statistica. What will happen to Beats’ nearly 50-share of this space after Apple buys them and that gets added to their 25-share of branded earbuds? Goodbye, Skullcandy, Sony, and Bose.
Oh, and then there’s the automakers, racing to create hot, connected products for…yup, 22 year-olds. That’s why they are pouring billions of dollars, resources, and talent into their “center stacks” – to ensure that the next generation of car buyers actually lusts after and buys cars.
So if the best and brightest executives on the planet are all focusing their efforts on 22 year-olds, radio should be taking notes…and action.
Shouldn’t every five station cluster have one station that’s an initiative to appeal to those 22 year-olds (and as the chart shows, 21 and 23 year-olds ought to be included, too)?
Shouldn’t every company be including some questions in strategic research studies that are designed to take a deeper dive into that 22 year-old mindset?
And shouldn’t every broadcaster have an initiative to ensure that this mega-group is recruited for positions within their clusters and corporate staffs? (And that doesn’t mean unpaid internships.)
I wonder what Bill Moyes would say about this.
Jacobs Media has consistently walked the walk in the digital space, providing insights and guidance through its well-read national Techsurveys.
In 2008, jacapps was launched - a mobile apps company that has designed and built more than 1,300 apps for both the Apple and Android platforms. In 2013, the DASH Conference was created - a mashup of radio and automotive, designed to foster better understanding of the "connected car" and its impact.
Along with providing the creative and intellectual direction for the company, Fred consults many of Jacobs Media's commercial and public radio clients, in addition to media brands looking to thrive in the rapidly changing tech environment.
Fred was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 2018.
- Old Man, Take A Look At My Ratings - December 20, 2024
- In The World Of On-Demand Audio, How Do We Define Success? - December 19, 2024
- Scenes From The Classic Rock Highway – 2024 Edition - December 18, 2024
This is an awesome post with so much to ponder and digest.
My first thought is yes, radio should focus on the 22 year old and never should have abandoned him/her. Plenty of other mediums have had no trouble attracting youth focused dollars, suggesting that the problem is with radio’s strategy more pie size.
My second thought is that if one was to develop a format around early twentysomethings, would it be on FM or online? I know quite a few college kids and apart from their cars, few if any own a radio. Would it be better to just meet them where they already live? The obvious problem with going the online route is that its a guaranteed money loser. When you pay 70+% of your revenue in royalties there’s no way to earn a profit much less meaningful ROI.
Which brings me to a point that I’ve made before – that at some point the current royalty structure will prove to be radio’s albatross. Your illustration shows that 22 year olds like to get their music online/on their phones and listen to it through lousy headphones. This isn’t a minor issue, it’s a defining one and its shocking to me that few seem to see it as I do.
The younger a person is, the more they want their music online. And there is no way to provide it their without losing money. Am I missing something here?
Bob – I think you nailed it but just didn’t see it. Music is the problem. The commodification of Music marches on and for this group -online, personal, customizable music services are preferred to one way lean back broadcasts. Jumping into that space we more me-too music streams seems pointless. Original, engaging non music content is an answer I’m most interested in seeing us focus on.
More broadly – there’s a nasty short term thinking problem in Radio that will prevent most groups from pursuing new product creation targeting the 22yo.
Even if someone were tempted to try something they might expect it to succeed by measured on todays terms using today’s metrics. That’s a mistake, The reason all these other companies are focusing on this demo is not to make this Quarter – or even this year – but to lay groundwork for a life-long relationship with the next wave of users. That means a lot of experimentation – a lot of efforts that don’t pay off in immediately obvious ways today – a lot of vision and focus on the future potential.
If all we can imagine is how to get Beats to advertise on a tweener focused music Radio station – we’re missing the point, and the future.
Good points, especially concerning radios short term focus. That was a necessary survival tactic in 2009 but not now.
I think you may be overestimating the 22 year old’s appetite for non music audio. And there is a lot radio could do to add value to today’s customized streams imo
This reminds me of another one of Radio’s blind spots: They can only see opportunities in serving Mass audiences.
I don’t think that’s the only way – or even the best way to engage today’s 22yo.
Sounds like we need a little research. 🙂
Unfortunately, by the time the research project is designed and hits the field, comes back, is interpreted and a decision can finally be made and then implemented, the desired target may well have moved on to something else! Besides, researching context versus content has more often than not been a losing proposition. If researching context was easy, reliable or infallible, we could all spend a few bucks, in comparison to the potential return, and effortlessly launch the next big thing.
Format 41 was successful because it had a specific target. The number 41 represented the middle of the highly desirable 25-54 demo. Perhaps surprisingly, the “right aged” listener wasn’t the primary focus. “Music of You Life”, which fairly quickly became the music of somebody else’s life, was the target. It was entirely marketed as a replacement for that dusty format to be “the station everybody can agree on” for at work listening. Of course, actionable perceptual research and some pretty slick common thread/cross format music testing was used to fine-tune the format. Not surprising, the format very successful.
As immediate a medium as radio is and should be, it needs to be far more nimble and ready to pro-act. The missing element here is having real forward thinking folks in the key positions and then allowing them to make the necessary decisions and act in a more deliberate fashion. That’s why we see more independent innovation while radio, as a whole, continues to be reactive.
Hard to argue with any of these points, John. It was a well-conceived plan that understood the mindset and ethos of the times. We need more of that today, as you indicate. Thanks for the comment and for taking the time.
Agree completely, Jeff, that playlist radio (with 12 minutes of commercials an hour) isn’t going to get it done for a 22 year-old. You look at what Fallon is doing on TV and I think you can envision how music (and general entertainment) can be presented differently and appeal to not just Gen Y consumers, but a broad range of consumers. The great news is this digital environment is that great experiences are shared, opening up the doors for growth. But you are right that it’s about relationships with consumers and that leveraging them to try different things.
Thanks for the comment, Bob. You and others may disagree, but I think that 22 year-olds may not be a whole lot different than anyone else when it comes to desired content. Where it comes from is secondary to what it is. Many of them still have the ability to listen to radio while driving, so the environment is right, whether the programming is good or not.
As for the long-term profitability of the streaming model, you may be correct (for now, at least) that it is not viable in its current format. The structure will have to be changed legally for a model to work where the more listeners you have and the more time they spent, the more it costs.
Appreciate it, Bob.
An important and timely observation, Fred. Some Boomers like me have thoughts on some ways to go but are ignored or dismissed because we are thought to be too old. I offer this format idea again to reach this growing demo.
https://www.radioinfo.com/2014/02/07/pssst-buddy-wanna-hear-idea-cool-new-music-radio-format/
Bill, I did not see this last February, but I’ve had similar thoughts. I invite readers of this blog to check it out and comment here. Again, I’ve asked the question about why that “dog” station in a cluster isn’t used for trying something new and different. When you think about the possible fruits of consolidation, some level of experimentation was always supposed to be part of the deal. Sadly, rarely does that happen. Thanks, Bill.
Re: “…why that “dog” station in a cluster isn’t used for trying something new and different.”
“New and different” – Isn’t this supposed to be a main reason for HD Radio’s existence?
Here is data on how listening to online radio has changed through the years – https://audiographics.com/spclreport/radiorow_devices.htm – The division is between desktop units, smartphones, and tablets; represented as a percentage of total visitors to our RadioRow. The chart begins when Google Analytics first split the information, in April, 2009.
And one more frightening fact: Visitors to RadioRow listened to radio online using 334 different “mobile devices” (smartphones and tablets) over the last 30 days. That explodes to 748 mobile devices if I parse it out from January 1 2014 through today.
Ken, there should be experimentation somewhere – that loser FM station that’s being bonused, an HD2, or a stream. And “22” is a good excuse to try something that might become a mainstream format.
Your statistics support what we see everywhere – mobile continues to become more dominant (and we know those numbers would be even higher among Gen Y and Z). So why not a mobile app dedicated to this “experimental” station. thanks for taking the time.
Where the shame is (and I think it is an underlying theme of your article), there are few twenty-somethings programming today.
I’m speaking of giving youth the power to make decisions on talent, music, events, etc; just like when we started. Bob Pittman was 23 years old when given the reigns of WNYC in New York City. Before that he programmed in Pittsburgh and Chicago.
We had twenty-something programmers all over the nation. You can probably rattle off a dozen names. It’s time radio gives power back to youth.
Most of the greats were programming in their twenties. And yes, that’s part of the challenge – positioning radio broadcasting as an industry where Milennials would love to work. Thanks, Ken.
Jeff, this is really well said and i appreciate you reminding me of that NAB panel 14 years ago (a possible reason why I won’t be appearing this year!). And thanks for not calling ME the dinosaur.