You may have seen the highlights of iHeartMedia’s “AudioCon 3.0: The Human Consumer” in Radio Ink‘s headlines last week. It reinforced the idea that too many humans are spending way too much time staring at screens. This is what stuck out for me:
Despite technology saturation, 86% of adults say physical proximity to other humans makes them feel safer, and 90% believe trust cannot be replicated by AI. Overall, 95% value knowing someone cares, and 92% believe technology cannot replace meaningful relationships.
The connection to something real, something human, is a fundamental need for all of us. We certainly learned that hard lesson during the pandemic.
Naturally, I felt the point of this study was to showcase radio’s strength as a companion. How real people sharing genuine emotions in a one-to-one style is what sets us apart from the sterility of the digital landscape. It sort of did that…
The presentation of the study apparently “emphasized” that advertisers can use these insights to “align advertising with human-focused experiences”.
We can think of two possible interpretations.
- I acknowledge that revenue is vital to the industry’s survival, but I wonder if the study advocates using isolation as a marketing opportunity?
- Is the study contrasting the human connection talented radio hosts can generate with that of other ad platforms, such as digital ads?
Here’s the money quote from Bob Pittman: Sports, radio, live media, and human-led storytelling offer a rare sanctuary of trust, empathy, and shared experience. We must continue listening to Americans more closely than ever and focus on ways to foster real connection and amplify our collective humanity.”
So, radio is a “sanctuary of trust”?
Is this why every fall we see mass layoffs of personalities at companies like iHeartMedia? Is this why so many music stations deemphasize their spoken word content? Is this why we use disembodied out-of-market voices that cannot correctly pronounce a local town or landmark?
We know radio is a powerful, emotional medium. We certainly tout that to our advertisers. But let’s not fool ourselves. Radio, as an industry, is mostly in a spiral of cost-cutting by downsizing. To paraphrase an old radio campaign: less is not more.
We are living in a polarized society. We have generations of digital natives who cannot spend three minutes at a stoplight without doomscrolling their phones. We also find it more difficult to separate truth from fiction.
There was a time when radio actually rallied people. It formed a sense of community. Heck, it was PART of the community. While there are many great stations, programmers and personalities that continue to do that, are we truly committed, as an industry, to delivering “human-focused experiences”?
The prevailing wisdom is that superstar personalities resonate in any market. No one cares where Bobby Bones or Charlamagne Tha God is broadcasting from. Entertainment is entertainment. But what of the remainder of the broadcast day? Are we filling those shifts with compelling talent or just filling those shifts? Would we be better served by having truly local personalities outside of AM Drive who can make a connection with the local audience? As for the idea that outside of mornings, listeners want more music and less talk. For that, I give you Spotify.
Follow the money. How much do we invest in acquiring, training, and supporting the humans who create the experiences listeners crave? We certainly talk the talk. Do we really walk the walk?
