I don't know if I am uncommon among my age cohort, but I'd like to think not. Maybe this is where demography plays a role, who knows. I read a piece today about the decline of radio, and I came away thinking either the popular press is out of touch or I am an anomaly.
Growing up in the Boston area, I still read Boston.com (The Boston Globe website) to get my daily news and information on what's happening in the old neighborhood. It's pretty good for all other news too. This morning, I caught the headline for a story featured in the Inside Boston.com section on the homepage entitled,
Internet Killed the Radio Star?
I guess WBCN's demise caused a fury. I am kind of surprised to see this article. I can only conclude that folks at the Globe must be wondering how a well respected rock-n-roll institution like BCN could suffer such an ignominious fate, or maybe they just have their heads up their arses. Before sharing the link, two things bothered me about this piece:
1) The demise of the recording industry as it existed for decades is well documented, and radio was a logical domino to fall in the process.
You don't have to look hard to find a good piece of journalism that describes the decline of traditional recording sales. Factors contributing to this are the cost of CDs, electronic file sharing, and electronic downloading as a method of purchasing these media.
Logically, music radio was the next domino to fall. This is an industry that had no viable competitor for a long time. Advertising was at a premium for radio powerhouses until mp3 players, the Internet and satellite radio became legitimate forms for consuming media. Couple these changes with the continued corporatization of stations, and the product became bland, and almost indistinguishable from city to city across the United States. Increased advertising to compensate for diminishing revenues and a crappy product has led to decreased audiences nationwide. Simply put, people were sick of what was available, and when novel and better alternatives emerged, they moved to them.
The podcast and the mp3 have redefined the radio and music industry respectively. Consumers have more options and bands have a bigger reach due to corporate America weakening a little. I sincerely believe that we are approaching a state in music where the greater good is being served by undercutting the power bases of recording industry giants. It's an odd analogy, but it resembles the rise of microbrews in the late '80's and early 90's. Smaller breweries became successful and took hold, and beer drinkers and connoisseurs reaped the benefits. We're seeing the same thing for audiophiles.
2) The piece from Boston.com assumes that this movement is limited to younger consumers.
I don't know, but I was taken aback with the supposition that this trend is limited to young people. Is this really the case? Or is it a specific kind of music consumer?
This is where I question how typical I am among my age cohort, and where I believe demography might better explain who this new market is. I am guessing I am not much different than folks between 30-50 who are college educated, computer savvy, and interested in music. I don't want to make any assumptions about race or gender, but I am guessing my status as a white male could factor into this as well. I am sure income plays a role too. Regardless, I think that demography could also explain something similar for younger listeners. Not all younger listeners have adopted this new pattern of consumption, trust me, I spend a lot of time with college-aged folks and plenty still listen to the radio. The point is, this trend is bigger than one generation and that the radio broadcasting and recording industries are undergoing major changes as a result.
Here is the piece:
Yeah... I was out of the country for part of the summer... I am not impressed with the album, but... read more
on Tweetviews: Noisettes and The Strange Boys