RADIO STATION AGE DEMOGRAPHICS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST
In the current deregulated broadcasting environment the market
supposedly provides for the public interest through serving the
goals of advertisers seeking a vehicle to reach consumers. It is
assumed that the public interest is identified by advertisers who,
seeking to accomodate the audiences' needs, finance appropriate
programming.
This paper focuses on the relationship between age group
demographics and audience satisfaction. Because advertisers have
found it profitable to perceive consumers as members of specific
age groups, commercial broadcasters have been compelled to
conceptualize audiences in the same manner. One might assume - if
the marketplace serves the public interest - that a number of
different audience age groups are being pursued by advertisers and
broadcasters, and that individuals in the demographically more
"attractive" age groups are generally more satisfied with the
programming.
This analysis explores the relationship of age groups to
advertisers' goals, radio broadcasters' programming decisions, and
listeners' satisfaction in one large size midwestern city. The
objective is to provide empirical evidence - for this market - as
to the efficacy of the public interest being understood as a
function of the marketplace.
In 1981 the Federal Communications Commission began
deregulating radio when it released its "Report and Order: In
the Matter of Deregulation of Radio." (1) The doctrine
Radio Age Demos pg 2
presented a thorough and convincing argument that the
marketplace was the best determinant of the public interest.
Regarding broadcast programming, it defined the public interest
as "the wants and needs of the public - what economists call
consumer satisfaction," and reiterated that these wants and
needs could best be satisfied by the competitive forces in the
marketplace, rather than by government regulation. (2) It was
claimed that, through the marketplace, broadcasters and
advertisers would seek to serve specific, narrowly defined
audience groups - and that the combination of these specialized
audiences would represent the needs of the total public. (3)
The result of this deregulatory strategy is that listeners are
perceived as members of consumer groups. The terms "public
interest" and "marketplace" have therefore become interchangeable.
As the Report and Order itself stated,
It is not the public interest standard that we proposed to
eliminate. . . Rather, since marketplace solutions can be
consistent with public interest concerns, we sought to explore
in the proceeding the question of whether or not in the context
of
radio the public interest can be met through the working of
marketplace forces rather than by current Commission regulations.
(4)
Thus, it seems rather straightforward that deregulation - and the
adoption of a marketplace strategy - perceives listeners as
consumers in a particular marketplace.
There may be two problems with this approach. First,
because the majority of advertising dollars is spent in the
pursuit of a theoretical, specifically defined group of people,
Radio Age Demos pg 3
the public represented by the marketplace may actually be quite
narrow in its conception; (5) even though the model relies on the
assumption that every significant group in society, every
legitimate special interest, will be served by the business
instincts of advertisers.
A second problem might stem from the fact that the audience
demographics constructed by advertising agencies are artificial
entities. In a sense, these narrowly defined attractive
audiences exist only on paper. They do not reflect the
individual natures of consumer sub-groups, nor how different people
use the media in different ways. Just because a large number of
individuals of similar age, income, gender, and race can be
statistically grouped does not guarantee they have common tastes
and needs. Research has indicated that radio audience groups of
the same age have radical differences in their programming
preferences. (6) Eileen R. Meehan argued that ratings (the
application of age groups to station rankings) merely reflect the
wishful thinking of advertisers and broadcasters:
Ratings are tools designed by firms to achieve economic
success - control over ratings production. Forms of
measurement are selected on the basis of economic goals, not
according to the rules of social science. Not everybody is wanted
by advertisers, so a ratings firm must try to exclude those
persons
who are not in demand. (7)
Similarly, Dallas Smythe concluded, "The elements that make up
a market simply do not exist on the broadcaster-program-
audience axis. We are left therefore with metaphors - figures
of speech, repeated by rote - that conceal the reality." (8)
Therefore it is likely that the concept of "audience" is more
Radio Age Demos pg 4
complex than the conceptualization advertising agencies, and
therefore broadcasters, use to make programming decisions.
Why then, do the ratings which some people believe
conceptualize the audience on shakey ground continue to be
faithfully utilized by the industry? Perhaps it is because no
practical alternatives exist to the current system. The
prevailing method of organizing individuals into specific
audience demographic groups - based primarily on age - if
nothing else, provides advertisers with something to look at.
No other methodology exists which provides information in a
quantifiable, concise form.
James G. Webster said there are five benefits to audience
ratings data: (9)
1. They're flexible. Although he does not explain this
benefit in great detail, presumably he means that one can
manipulate numbers in any number of ways to elicit meaning.
2. Audience ratings are objective. Quantitative
ratings methodologies are generally perceived as being unbiased.
3. Ratings are familiar. It is rare that a week passes
without publication of the TV ratings from the previous seven
day period.
4. Ratings are continual. Reports appear at regular
intervals.
5. They're accessible. Newspapers, magazines, and
journals containing ratings information are available to nearly
everyone.
Radio Age Demos pg 5
While Webster acknowledged that ratings are constructed for
the benefit of advertisers, he believes the advantages of the
system outweigh the shortcomings. However, Donald Hurwitz
argued that who asks the questions, and for what purpose,
axiomatically determines the nature of a ratings system. (10)
Hurwitz contended that ratings were devised, not for
conveying accurate audience information, but for achieving
industry needs: the ability to make money. Hence, the
institutionalization of the ratings system precludes the
industry from having to actually know its audience because
financial success can be achieved by creative statistical
maneuvering of meaningless numbers, derived from fictional
demographic categories. (11)
While it seems evident our current ratings system has flaws,
few concrete changes seem to be on the horizon. Criticism of our
market driven media system is not new, its flaws having been
challenged from its inception in the 1920s. (12) During this
earlier period many fought for greater government involvement in
broadcasting to counteract the natural shortcomings of the market.
However, FCC efforts to interject format diversity on the radio
medium have been virtually nonexistent, and without lasting effect.
And, the FCC's claim that empirical evidence countering the
marketplace philosophy does not exist, remains practically
unchallenged.
Radio Age Demos pg 6
Method
The larger project from which this analysis was gleaned
surveyed a cross section probability sample of a large Midwestern
market area, and asked respondents to judge how well the local
radio programming reflected the community. If the FCC's
prediction was accurate - that a number of different interest
groups would be sought by advertisers - it is reasonable to assume
that this respondent group would rate the radio formats as
generally reflective of the diversity of people living in the
community.
To facilitate this audience assessment, three phases of data
collection were implemented. The first phase involved
identifying the different types of listeners that the local
radio stations identified as their target audiences. This was
accomplished through personal interviews with each of the
market's radio station general managers, and with personal
interviews with executives and owners of five different local
advertising agencies. Questions were asked as to how audience
groups are identified, and then targeted, through various
formats and programming features. It was anticipated that, if
the FCC's expectations were realized, the advertisers and
programmers would identify different community target audiences,
and that these targets would roughly reflect the characteristics
of the local population.
The radio station general managers and the advertising
agency executives were interviewed over the two-and-a-half week
Radio Age Demos pg 7
period of October 7-26, 1993. (13) During preliminary telephone
conversations with the radio managers, during which the
interview appointments were arranged, each manager was asked to
identify the advertising agencies in town that had the most
expertise in buying radio time. From their recommendations,
five agencies emerged as generally being considered the most
active and proficient in purchasing radio. Then, the local
owners or chief executives of each of these agencies were also
contacted for interviews.
The study's second phase entailed surveying a probability
sample of 650 adult individuals from the local market area, to
determine how well these people felt local radio programming
reflected the community's diverse interests. A mail questionnaire
was designed to measure respondents' attitudes toward the group of
radio formats in the market, and how well the respondents felt this
collection of formats reflected the needs of the different groups
people in the community. In the survey, respondents were asked if,
ideally, the group of formats should be reflective of the
community. Secondly, they were asked if the group of local
stations reflected the diversity of the community. And finally,
they were asked if they were personally satisfied with the local
format choices. Questions were also included that pertained to
topics such as race relations, gender equity, sexual preference,
as well as respondents' perceptions of advertisers, and of
"community." (14)
Radio Age Demos pg 8
On January 11, 1994 the first mailing was sent to the
randomly selected 650 area adults. This mailing included the
survey booklet and a self-addressed, stamped return envelope, along
with a cover letter explaining the project. One week later, on
January 18, 1994 a reminder letter was sent to each respondent,
encouraging them to complete the survey if they hadn't already done
so. Three weeks following the second mailing, another letter,
survey, and stamped return envelope were sent to the individuals
who had not yet responded, providing them further encouragement to
take part in the study.
Results
Before audience responses to the mail survey could be
contextualized, it was helpful to understand the methods and
practices of the local broadcasters and advertisers, and how these
individuals identified and defined their consumer targets.
The Advertisers' Conceptualization of Consumers
During the conversations with the ad agency executives three
main questions were asked of each interviewee:
1. How do you determine which consumer groups will be
the targets of your clients' products?
2. What are the different demographic categories that
you consider when deciding what stations will be in on
the buy?
3. What demographic group is the most popular with your
clients and why? How would you describe the ideal
consumer?
From the executives' answers to these questions, it appeared
that each had a sincere desire to serve their agency's clients.
Radio Age Demos pg 9
Most of the executives expressed taking a personal interest in
their clients' businesses, and even sensed sharing a partnership
with their clients. Consequently, the executives felt an
obligation to wisely spend their clients' advertising budgets -
to ensure that the money was being spent to the greatest effect,
and that as much exposure as possible was gained from each
dollar spent.
The executives generally expressed valuing qualitative
information about consumers - what the target consumers' lives
were like, what their interests were, and how these individuals
could be motivated to purchase a particular product. However,
they also admitted to depending primarily on quantitative
ratings data for most of their final decisions. All the
advertising executives agreed that the age demographic of
25-54 is the one most often used to conceptualize the target
audience. These responses represent the tone of all the ad exec's
opinions:
Twenty-five to fifty-four is what everybody in the world will
tell you they want to target because that's really the only way
they can take a good look at it in the broadest sense . . .
25-54
works pretty good. It is the biggest number of people out
there too.
Literally . . . 75% of your retailers and your service
businesses are targeting a demographic between the ages of
twenty-five and fifty-four. It's where the money is. It's where
the active people are.
Consequently, there does not appear to be a wide range of audiences
targeted by the advertisers in this market.
Radio Age Demos pg 10
By viewing Table #1 one will notice that the target group used
most often by these agencies is within the broader 25-54 Arbitron
demographic. One will also notice that the "ideal consumer" of
each of these agency executives is narrowed down even further so
that a picture emerges of a college educated individual, preferably
a woman in her thirties, living in a two-income family, with two
children.
The advertising executives were generally uncomfortable in
precisely defining target audiences for radio, but preferred to
speak in terms of the broad age demographics of the Arbitron
ratings company. They regarded their task as marketing a product
to a mass audience. However, when they were pressed to
specifically define the "ideal consumer," they all essentially
described the same individual - someone between the ages of
twenty-seven and forty, educated, white collar, in a two income
family with children - as shown in Table 1. There does not appear
to be a broad range of consumer-types being pursued by the
advertisers. Again, the ad agency personnel appeared sincere in
finding out as much as they could about their clients and the
potential market for their products. Nevertheless, they felt
bound by the constraints of doing business in a competitive
industry where mass audiences are defined by a limited number of
ratings categories. Consequently, advertisers defined the
potential markets for various products in very similar - if not
exactly the same - terms.
Radio Age Demos pg 11
It should be again noted that generally the agency executives
were not comfortable with narrowing down their target consumers so
specifically. Their daily business decisions were based on the
more broadly conceived targets of the 25-54 Arbitron demographic.
Yet, when pressed to conceptualize the ideal consumer of most of
their clients, their answers were strikingly similar.
What, then, caused these different individuals, working for
different advertising agencies, and different clients, to
conceptualize the ideal consumer in such a homogenous manner? The
answer appears to lie with the realities of age-based ratings
demographics. Even though advertising agencies value
individualized, qualitative information about potential consumers,
they ultimately conceptualize their target consumers through the
age demographics of Arbitron ratings. By negotiating the purchase
of airtime based on ratings, the executives are able to
substantiate their decisions to themselves and to their clients.
Additionally, the pursuit of young adult consumers, who are
establishing their lifestyles, has historically proven profitable
to advertisers. The fact that individuals in other age groups also
purchase products, and the fact that the people within this one
attractive, young adult age group have diverse interests, is beside
the point to most individuals in advertising agencies. While they
are sensitive to these realities, their job is to move product.
One executive summarized it this way:
Manufacturers, or advertisers, whoever they are, they got a
business to run. They've got products to sell this quarter.
They've
got needs to get done, they've got backorders to get out. The
daily
business requires action. So we can't sit
Radio Age Demos pg 12
here and theorize . . .
When the Federal Communications Commission deregulated radio
broadcasting in 1981, it did so partly with the belief that the
marketplace would seek to serve diverse audience interests. The
report stated that as the deregulated marketplace encouraged new
broadcasters to enter the industry, each radio station would
seek to serve "specialized audiences." (15) These audiences
would have unique demands and interests that the different
stations would seek to serve. However, based on the interviews
with these ad executives, and regardless of the efforts agencies
expend on personally understanding their clients, it appears
advertisers in this market are compelled not to picture their
target consumers as being "specialized," but rather as being part
of one profitable, easily identified, consumer-type. The influence
that this conceptualization has had on the programming of radio
formats became obvious in the interviews that followed with the
area's radio station managers.
The Broadcasters' Conceptualization of Audiences
The general managers of each local radio station were
interviewed to ascertain how they conceptualize the audiences of
their stations. The general manager is usually the highest
ranking individual at a station. He or she oversees all of the
station's operations such as sales, programming, promotions,
accounting, and engineering, and is ultimately responsible for
the station's financial performance.
Radio Age Demos pg 13
This local community is served by a variety of radio
formats that appear to target a number of different audience
interests. The list of formats is much the same as other medium
to large markets. During the time this study was conducted, the
format mix included three News/Talk type stations, two Classic
Rock stations (oldies with a little "harder" edge mainly from
the 70s and early 80s,) one Oldies station (popular hits from
the 50s and 60s,) one Middle of the Road station playing Frank
Sinatra - Tony Bennett - and Johnny Mathis type music, one
Alternative Rock station (new music with its recent roots in the
angry lyrics and tone of the British Punk bands of the early 80s,)
one Eclectic Rock station (a mixture of more obscure new music and
album cuts mainly from the 80s,) one Lite Rock station playing
softer hits from the past twenty years, two Country, one Adult
Contemporary (consisting mainly of pop songs from the last ten
years,) one Contemporary Hit Radio playing current hits that
teenagers enjoy (previously known as Top 40,) and two Public
Broadcasting stations. The list seems quite diverse, and
representative of most of the different formats in existence
elsewhere.
The questions asked of the general managers were very
similar to the ones posed to the advertising executives, with
the main purpose being to determine how many different types of
people are being targeted by the group of radio stations in the
market. Here are the five basic questions that were asked of
the GMs:
Radio Age Demos pg 14
1. Demographically, how would you describe your target
audience? Do you have an ideal listener-type?
2. Why do you target this audience?
3. What does your audience want and need from your
station?
4. How do you determine your audience's wants and
needs?
5. What is the audience demographic that most stations
would like to serve?
As expected, the general managers' answers were very similar
to the advertising agency executives' responses. Because all
radio stations - other than the public broadcasting operations
- support themselves solely by providing advertising, it is
understandable that the radio managers might conceptualize their
target audiences the same way that advertisers perceive their
target consumers. So it was in this study.
Table 2 summarizes the managers' responses. Because each
manager was guaranteed confidentiality, the stations are identified
by letter. In answering the first question, the public radio
stations and a few commercial AM stations identified their target
audiences as being adults over the age of thirty-five. However,
the remainder of the stations generally described their targets
according to the broad demographics of the Arbitron company; as did
the advertisers. It is also meaningful to compare the similarities
in the characteristics the managers used to describe their target
audiences, with the characteristics the advertisers used to
describe their ideal consumers in Table 1. The manager of
Station H said, "We shoot for an upscale audience, an active
Radio Age Demos pg 15
audience." He described the people who attended one of his
station's promotional events as his ideal listener.
A thousand of em women, and all (station) fanatics. And if you
come to that thing you see that ideal listener that you're
talking about a thousand times over. And she's typically low
to mid 30s, working person leaning more to the professional as
opposed to the clerical. . .
We want to get so many ratings points among 25-54 because
that's what the client wants - that's his target
audience. . . the fact is most advertising buys are placed
25-54. And that's why most of the stations in town are
targeting 25-54, or some cell within that range.
Similarly, here are comments from two other managers explaining the
similarity of target groups.
You have people from their late twenties to late thirties who
are consumed with raising their family, buying a home, maybe a
second home, two cars and all the things that go with that.
Those people are a great consumer group to be reaching. Maybe
they don't have as much discretionary
income, but their income is going to a lot of big dollar
items and frequent purchases. (Station F manager)
The bulk of the advertising dollars are 25-54, and you've
gotta perform well there in order to survive. (Station M
manager)
When asked why listeners are not conceptualized in ways
outside of this singular audience-type, specifically those
individuals older than their mid forties, the responses again
correspond to those of the advertisers for the same question.
Station J's GM answered, "I think to challenge in that demo you
have to provide features that are going to be expensive to get,
aka a big news department." Station B's manager was slightly
more colorful in his response, "Broadcasting is the last area of
legal discrimination. They (advertisers) think that if you're
past fifty-five, you're dead. We would probably go broke (if
they had to focus on an older demographic)."
Radio Age Demos pg 16
The FCC anticipated that specialized audiences would be
different from each other. However, according to these interviews,
this apparently has not happened. To the contrary, most of the
broadcasters seemed to be competing for the same individuals. The
broadcasters and advertisers did describe specific
audience/consumer types; but each description was the same. This
does not seem to be the diversity anticipated in 1981. And this
lack of diversity is not lost on at least one of the general
managers.
The (local) market is becoming more like a lot of the other
large markets. . . with the haves and the have-nots, you know.
It's a very difficult market if you're not in the top three or
four
radio stations, particularly in this 25-54. And of course
everybody wants to program 35-44. . . The unfortunate part about
it is. . . there's not enough money there for all of us. There's
going to have to be some people break out of the mold.
(Station N manager)
Broadcasters' concerns about profitability aside, the answer to the
question of how well the local public interest is served through
the conceptualization of audiences as a function of age groups,
became clearer with analysis of listener responses to the mail
survey.
Mail Survey
Of the original 650 names selected for the survey, only 625
were legitimate potential respondents. Three-hundred-sixty-two
usable surveys were returned for a response rate of 58%.
The survey was used to test three models; each comparing the
relationships between the group of radio formats in the market,
and the respondents' perceptions of what those formats were
Radio Age Demos pg 17
accomplishing. The first model is the Normative Preferences Model,
which measured opinions of how target audiences should be
programmed to by radio stations. Questions were asked such as "Do
you feel that the group of radio formats should reflect the ethnic
diversity of a community?" and "Do you feel the group of radio
formats should reflect the age diversity of a community?"
Similar questions covered the areas of religiosity, gender
interests, and sexual preference interests. The goal of the
Normative Model was to determine the degree the respondents
felt different community groups were entitled to representation
in the mix of formats.
The second model - the Performance Model - where the
listeners rated the extent that the current mix of formats did
indeed represent, or reflect, the specific characteristics of
the community, consisted of the question, "Generally speaking, do
you feel the collection of local radio formats reflects the
different groups of people living in the community?" So, while the
Normative Preferences Model rated the extent to which the
respondents felt radio formats should reflect the community, the
Performance Model measured how well the listeners believed the
formats were, in actuality, reflecting the types of people living
in the area.
The third model is the Personal Satisfaction Model, and
consisted of the single question, "Generally speaking, how well
does the group of radio formats in (town) satisfy your personal
needs and expectations?" This question was designed to measure
Radio Age Demos pg 18
the respondents' personal satisfaction with the format
selection, regardless of how they perceived the services to
other groups of people.
These three models - Normative Preferences, Performance, and
Personal Satisfaction - served as the study's primary dependent
variables. Numerous independent variables were tested against the
dependent variable models, including age groups, community
attachment, attitudes on diversity, and perceptions of advertisers.
Dependent Variable Index Construction
The Normative Model
Of the three dependent variable models, the Normative Model
involved the creation of indices from more than one question. The
Performance and Personal Satisfaction models each were measured by
one item.
Table 3 shows the results from the Factor Analysis and
Reliability tests for the six Normative Model items. Each of
the items measured the extent the respondents believed different
community groups should be represented in the format mix. One
question asked for their opinions in a general sense; the others
dealt with specific community groups. The factor analysis
indicated that one factor was being measured by all six items.
The Standardized Item Alpha of .88 (on a scale from 0 to 1.0)
denotes a strong relationship in the combination of these items
for measuring the normative preferences of the respondents.
Radio Age Demos pg 19
The Baseline Model
Table 4 displays the baseline model used to evaluate the
correlations between the three dependent variable models and
numerous other independent variables. This chart shows the zero
order regression coefficients for the different variables.
Generally, Table 4 shows that age, education, and income
had limited influence on the respondents' evaluations. It is
particularly relevant that age played no part in the critiques
- especially the Personal Satisfaction Model - because the local
general managers and advertisers were age-oriented in their
audience conceptualizations.
From looking at Table 4 one also can readily see that items
described as Diversity factors are significant in predicting each
of the three dependent variable models at the .01 significance
level, and seem to be the most consistent and powerful predictors
of any index, or single variable, in the survey.
Essentially, the diversity factors were derived from a series
of questions designed to measure attitudes toward individuals
perceived as being different from oneself. The responses tended to
cluster into three groups: Comfort - the degree to which one is at
ease around different types of people, Decision Making - the extent
one believes different types of people should be included in
decision-making processes, and Friends - the willingness to develop
personal relationships with different kinds of people. At least
one element of Diversity is a strong predictor for each of the
Normative, Performance, and Personal Satisfaction models.
Radio Age Demos pg 20
Regarding the other less consistent predictor variables,
Race had an influence in evaluating how well the formats reflect
local diversity, but was surprisingly insignificant in
predicting personal satisfaction. Gender was significant in
predicting normative responses (the -.26 indicates a female
orientation), with women having higher expectations than men.
Of the factors that measured the respondents' sense of
community, feeling "a part of" the area was an important element
in determining the extent that one is personally satisfied with
the format choices. But, individuals who regularly converse
with others about current events ("Connecting"), tended to have
higher Normative Preferences of what the medium should be
providing for the community.
Religiosity, as measured by church attendance, played a
significant role in predicting Personal Satisfaction. This
item asked respondents if they attend religious services. (The
table also shows that "frequency of attendance" at these
services was not a significant factor.) The -.17 value under
Church Attendance indicates that attendees generally express
less personal satisfaction than people who do not attend
religious services. Perhaps religious messages referring to
society's moral dilemma resonate with how one might interpret
various elements of radio programming. However, this is only
conjecture and is not measured by data in this study.
Finally, the amount of time spent watching television is a
contributing factor in predicting responses to personal
Radio Age Demos pg 21
satisfaction criteria. According to the data, the more time one
spends watching television the more one is likely to be
personally satisfied with the radio format mix.
The Age Component
Perhaps the most ironic finding of the study regards the
function of age groups, because advertising agencies and radio
station management conceptualized audiences primarily according to
age considerations. This system, even with its acknowledged
limitations, appears to be the most familiar and workable to the
marketplace and industry. With the current system of
conceptualizing audiences, advertisers are able to identify
their target consumers according to age guidelines that have
historically proven to be profitable. Station management, while
occasionally cursing the ratings based system used to rank
stations, nevertheless continues to conceptualize its audiences
according to these same age-based guidelines, so as to present
a case for their stations as strong advertising vehicles.
With all of the emphasis on age as a prime component in
understanding audiences, one might presume some aspect of age
would help predict the answers to the survey questions. In
reality, just the opposite proved to be the case. Regardless of
how age groups were delineated in the data analysis, they proved
to have no significance and very small coefficient values in all
tests. In other words, when asking the questions posed in the
Normative Preferences, Performance, and Personal Satisfaction
models, age was never a factor in determining the answers. Even
Radio Age Demos pg 22
in the Personal Satisfaction model, where individuals rated
their own personal happiness with the format selection, age was
not a factor.
Table 5 displays the results of the zero-order correlations
of four different configurations of age demographics, on the
three dependent variable models. The first configuration is a
straight test of age as a variable, without organizing it into
specific demographic groups. However, the other three
configurations arrange age according to the popular demographic
groupings described by advertisers and radio management during
the personal interviews.
For example, the second configuration - Ideal - is based on
a description of the "ideal" consumer/listener as being an
individual between the ages of twenty-seven and forty. The age
cells in this configuration, both younger and older, were formed
proportionally around this primary twenty-seven to forty year
old group.
The demographic description of audiences offered most often
in the interviews was individuals aged twenty-five to
fifty-four. This is the large group of people targeted en masse
by almost every radio station and advertiser. Therefore, this
age range formed the central demographic group of the third
configuration.
The fourth configuration also resulted from descriptions of
the target audience offered in the interviews. When asked to
describe a demographic more specific than 25-54, the programmers
Radio Age Demos pg 23
acknowledged that 35-44 was really the age group, conceptualized
by Arbitron, within which most stations would like to rate well.
So, to summarize how the age demographics for this analysis
were arrived at, configurations three and four were based on the
most popular Arbitron demographic conceptualizations, and the
second configuration was determined by what the advertisers and
managers described in the personal interviews as the "ideal"
consumer/listener.
In looking at Table 5, the coefficients for each of the
correlations of the dependent variables are insignificant, most
of them not even close to significance. Therefore, from these
data, one might conclude that age - regardless of how it is
demographically organized - was not a factor in determining how
individuals evaluated the performance of the local radio
stations. Tables 6 - 8 provide more detail into the lack of
age significance, by highlighting the "sameness" of answers for
each age group.
Table 6 displays the frequencies and statistics for each of
the three dependent variables according to the demographics
determined by the "ideal" listener-type of twenty-seven to forty
year olds. One will notice that the answers to each question
were very similar, regardless of age group. (The Normative and
Personal Satisfaction models were constructed on a scale from
one to ten, ten being high.)
Table 7 tabulated the answers to the same questions, for
the age groups resulting from the popular Arbitron 25-54 age
Radio Age Demos pg 24
break-out. Table 8 did likewise for the age groups based on
the Arbitron category of 35-44 year olds. In each case, the
answers to the questions were essentially the same, regardless
of how the age groups were organized. Therefore, the practice
of conceptualizing audiences by age group is limiting, in this
market, in terms of identifying how one evaluates and uses radio.
Most listeners - regardless of age - were basically personally
satisfied with the format choices, but believed the local formats
were not reflective of the types of people who live in the
community.
So, while advertisers and radio station programmers
essentially identified target audiences by age demographics, this
conceptualization may be virtually meaningless in predicting how
listeners regard the medium, and rate their personal satisfaction
with it. In general, results from the mail survey indicated that
standard demographic conceptualizations of audiences have
limited application in predicting how listeners evaluate radio
formats, or how they rate personal satisfaction with
programming. Age groups were virtually meaningless as
predictors. Rather, other audience characteristics such as
gender, race, sense of community, and attitudes about diversity
were more reliable in influencing how respondents evaluated the
format mix.
Discussion
It has been suggested that one of the reasons the academy has
been slow to respond to deregulatory/marketplace shortcomings is
Radio Age Demos pg 25
the lack of an easily understood frame from which to explain and
communicate. (16) Information such as that provided in this study
may serve as a starting point for such a frame.
Because advertisers want to reach as many people as they can
within a demographic description, radio stations tailor programming
to attract that particular target. However, as has been shown,
advertisers are not targeting diverse audience groups, but rather
tend to focus on similar age demographics. And, the few
demographics that are being used are ineffective in predicting
audience satisfaction. In other words, empirical evidence may be
emerging that indicates - in the current scheme - audience the
marketplace claims to serve most effectively may be misunderstood.
According to the data, regardless of how age is categorized in
the industry, grouping the respondents in these ways is virtually
meaningless for gaining understanding into how audiences perceive
radio programming. These findings seem to support those already
presented by individuals such as Dallas Smythe, who argued that the
mass media audience is not a true "market" in the economic sense
(18), and Donald Hurwitz, who stated that ratings systems serve the
agendas of those who design them. (19) Ien Ang described the
current age-based ratings descriptions as, "abstracted, amplified
fictions." (20) Perhaps this study adds a chapter to those
conclusions by showing that there is quantitative evidence that in
one representative market the conceptualization of audiences as a
function of age-based demographics may not have adequately served
the public interest.
NOTES
1. Federal Communications Commission, "Report and Order In the
Matter of Deregulation of Radio," 49 FCC 2d (1981).
2. Ibid., 1023.
3. Ibid., 1024.
4. Ibid., 974.
5. David Robinson, "A Buyer's Eye View of Rehashed Radio,"
Mediaweek (Sept. 9, 1991): 30, recalled how it was noticed that five
Baltimore radio stations were playing the same song at the exact same
time.
The song hadn't been on the charts for years.
6. Harvey C. Jassem and Roger J. Desmond, "Pluralistic Programming
and Radio Diversity: a Review and a Proposal," Policy
Sciences 14 (1982): 355.
7. Eileen R. Meehan, "Why We Don't Count," in Logics of
Television, ed. Patricia Mellencamp (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1990), 127.
8. Dallas W. Smythe, "Radio: Deregulation and the Relation of the
Private and Public Sectors," Journal of
Communication (Winter 1982): 197.
9. James G. Webster, "The Role of Audience Ratings in
Communications Policy," Communications and the Law (June 1990): 59.
10. Donald Hurwitz, "Broadcast Ratings: The Missing Dimension,"
Critical Studies in Mass Communication (June 1984): 207.
11. Ibid., 208.
12. Robert W. McChesney, Telecommunications, Mass Media,
and Democracy: The Battle for the Control of U.S. Broadcasting, 1928-1935
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
13. Two of the radio station managers were not interviewed in this
time period because they had been personally interviewed a year
earlier in
a pilot project for this study. It was felt that because their
stations'
formats were unchanged, and they had provided the needed information
in the
previous interview, further contact was not necessary at this time.
14. Keith Stamm, Newspaper Use and Community Ties (Norwood, New
Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1985) and Jack M. McLeod et. al.,
Community Integration, Local Media Use and
Democratic Processes, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Atlanta,
Georgia, August, 1994. Both of these studies provided explications of
community identification that were used in this project.
15. Ibid. at 3.
16. Duncan H. Brown, "The Academy's Response to the Call for a
Marketplace Approach to Broadcast Regulation," Critical
Studies in Mass Communication 11 (1994): 257-273.
17. Ibid. at 1, 1033.
18. Ibid. at 8.
19. Ibid. at 10.
20. Ien Ang, Desperately Seeking the Audience (London: Routledge,
1991), 160.
Table 1. - - Advertising Agency Target Group and
Ideal Consumer Typologies
Agency Target Group Ideal Consumer
37 year old female,
A college degree, two
cars, two kids,
suburbanite
B 25-45 35-44 years old,
sophisticated, eager,
bright, not contented
C 30-44 "elite", value-
conscious, family
person
D 30-45 white collar, one or
two children
E 25-49 female, two children
Table 2. - - Radio Station Target Audiences and
Ideal Listener Typologies
Station Format Target Audience Ideal Listener
A News & 35+ 40 year old,
Infor. male, upper
income
B Classic 25-40 Family person
Rock
C MOR 35+
D Alternative 18-34 Female, late 20s
Rock professional
E Lite Rock 25-49 Female
F Country 18+
G News/Talk 25-54 Male
H Adult 25-54 Female,
Contemporary early 30s,
professional
I Classic
Rock 25-54 Male, mid 30s,
professional
J Eclectic 25-34 Male, 32 years
old, upscale,
married,
no children,
two-incomes
K Country 25-44 Female, 27 years
old, upscale,
has children
L News/Talk 25-54 Male, 40 years
old
Table 2. - - Radio Station Target Audiences and
Ideal Listener Typology (cont.)
Station Format Target Audience Ideal Listener
M Contemporary 18-39 Female, 27 years
Hit Radio old, educated,
two-income
household,
children
N Oldies 35-44 Two-income
family, busy
lifestyles,
involved in the
community
O
Public 30+ educated, child-
P educated centered,
involved in the
community, low
to medium income
Table 3. - - Factor Loadings and Corrected Item-Total
Correlations of Normative Preferences Index
First-order factors Standardized Corrected Mean S.D.
and items Item Alpha Item-tot.
Corr.
.88
Generally speaking,
do you feel that the
collection of radio
formats in a town
should be representative
of the different groups
of people who live there? .74 7.42 2.11
More specifically, do
you feel that the
group of radio formats
should reflect the:
ethnic diversity of
a community? .79 6.99 2.26
age diversity of
a community? .77 7.45 2.12
gender diversity of
a community? .66 6.42 2.51
religious diversity of
a community? .60 5.70 2.50
sexual preference
diversity of a community? .57 4.92 2.85
Table 4. - - Zero-order Associations with the Dependent
Variable Models
Dependent Variables
Independent
Variables Norm. Perf. Personal
Satis.
Diversity
Factors
Comfort .18** .01 .21**
Decision-
Making .28** -.14** .09
Friends .19** -.14** .04
Gender -.26** .02 .01
Community:
"a part of" .10 .00 .23**
Connecting .12* -.08 .09
Public Radio .11* .09 -.16**
Religiosity:
attends church .08 .00 -.17**
frequency of
attendance -.02 -.12 -.03
Race .01 .13* -.02
Use of other media:
Time spent
watching TV .00 .06 .11*
Time spent
reading
newspapers .02 .03 .00
Education .10 -.05 -.04
Income -.09 -.05 .09
Age -.06 .06 .07 * p <
.05 ** p < .01
Table 5. - - Zero-order Correlations by Age Groups
Age Group Normative Perf. Pers.
Demographics Prefs. Sat.
Age (continuous) -.06 .06 .07
Ideal lo-26
(27-40) 27-40 -.04 .03 .05
41-55
56-hi
Target lo-24
(25-54) 25-54 -.09 .02 .04
55-hi
Target lo-24
(35-44) 25-34 -.04 .05 .08
35-44
45-54
55-hi
Table 6. - - Dependent Variable Models by Ideal Listener
Demographic
Frequency Percent
26 & under 29 8
27-40 (target) 144 40
41-55 137 38
56 & older 41 11
missing 11 3
Normative Model - "Should formats be representative?"
Mean
26 & under 7.87
27-40 (target) 7.39
41-55 7.56
56 & older 7.12
Performance Model - "Does (local) Radio Reflect Groups?"
Under reflects Reflects Over reflects D.K.
26 & under 45% 35% 21%
27-40 (target) 38% 39% 2% 19%
41-55 41% 29% 2% 27%
56 & older 39% 37% 5% 20%
Personal Satisfaction Model - "Are you personally
satisfied?"
Mean
26 & under 7.03
27-40 (target) 7.26
41-55 7.57
56 & older 7.30
Table 7. - - Dependent Variable Models by 25-54 Arbitron
Demographic
Frequency Percent
24 & under 15 4.1
25-54 (target) 286 79.0
55 & older 50 13.8
missing 11 3.0
Normative Model - "Should formats be representative?"
Mean
24 & under 8.27
25-54 (target) 7.50
55 & older 7.00
Performance Model - "Does (local) Radio Reflect Groups?"
Under reflects Reflects Over reflects D.K.
24 & under 53.3% 26.7% 20.0%
25-54 (target) 39.7% 35.5% 1.8% 23.0%
55 & older 40.0% 34.0% 4.0% 22.0%
Personal Satisfaction Model - "Are you personally
satisfied?"
Mean
24 & under 6.53
25-54 (target) 7.41
55 & older 7.37
Table 8. - - Dependent Variable Models by 35-44 Arbitron
Demographic
Frequency Percent
24 & under 15 4.1
25-34 76 21.0
35-44 (target) 129 35.6
45-54 81 22.4
55 & older 50 13.8
missing 11 3.0
Normative Model - "Should formats be representative?"
Mean
24 & under 8.27
25-34 7.39
35-44 (target) 7.34
45-54 7.87
55 & older 7.00
Performance Model - "Does (local) Radio Reflect Groups?"
Under reflects Reflects Over reflects D.K.
24 & under 53% 27% 20%
25-34 44% 33% 1% 21%
35-44 (target) 38% 38% 2% 21%
45-54 38% 33% 1% 28%
55 & older 40% 34% 4% 22%
Personal Sat. Model - "Are you personally satisfied?"
Mean
24 & under 6.53
25-34 7.33
35-44 (target) 7.20
45-54 7.83
55 & older 7.37
|
