We used to be of the belief that a radio presenter should "understand and relate" to an audience not sound younger than most of them. So whose idea was it to put children on really high profile radio stations?
We were in the gym recently listening to a long section of radio and the DJ spoke around 18 words every 35 minutes or so and sounded like he was 11. Surely there is a plan here right? We get it... if your listeners are 11 then they will relate to an 11 year old? Or will they? What if some of your listeners were older than 11? What if we owned a shop, are all our customers also 11? Do 11 year olds help us sell products in our shop where we have the radio on and subsequently then we buy airtime?
When we were kids our mentors were always older, we looked up to them, we wanted to be cool like them and they influenced us with an air of maturity, but were also at the same time very cool. The only thing we can see that has changed in this mindset of radio management is that 11 year olds are cheaper than 27 year olds.
Look we love student radio (well to a point) and we also work with new talent but there is a very thin line between a young person on the air and a child on a huge radio station with zillions of listeners.
When we are young and we are desperately trying to a. not get fired b. sound cool cause the boss says we need to be hip it can also sound rather like a very bad drama lesson gone wrong. Humans are much cleverer than some radio stations make out and they can tell the difference between Tinchy Strider and someone who would sell a lung to be him.
It may be that younger talent is easier to manage, cheaper and have lower emissions, which is reasonable, but do they also have to sound thick? Our theory is that there has been a shortage of talent at various ages, or more accurately a shortage of young voices with an air of timbre about them. Greg James is a good example, sure he sounds young but definitely not thick.
We would like to prove the point that young talent on the radio is no bad thing, and we are all for new opportunities, but I wonder if we spread our horizons and dug a little deeper if we might find some better younger talent out there that have something more to offer than a petrified scream over a deliberately way too loud donut.
We sometimes image how Jennifer Lopez or Jay Z might feel stepping into their limo hearing his or her multi million dollar selling single being introduced by someone who seems to be inflicted with rapid-speech-syndrome. (By the way, is it cooler and more credible to speak fast?) Well maybe they don't care as long as the record is being played but soon enough these stations will be cited by previous listeners as "oh yeh I used to listen to x y z when I was a kid, but I don't anymore, it makes me feel old"
Case in point. Is Tim Westwood not the most credible DJ?
Sure he is, and we grow with him, we still relate to him, the kids love him and we never feel too old or too young to listen to him.
How old was the listeners and DJs of Radio 1 in the 80s and 90s. How old were the listeners and DJs on Capital in the 80s. Neither Capital nor Radio 1 employed runny nosed kids in those days?
Do movies cast actors the same ages as the target viewers? No they do not, well discounting Twilight, and even then we doubt the lead actor (pale face big hair) was 15.
There is a lot to be said for radio presenters with an air of intelligence, wit, charm or timbre and some stations are missing out on valuable revenue by completely misunderstanding targeting. Replicating listener age demographics with on air talent if that is some form of strategy is nonsense.
If radio stations want to kill the DJ and have the capacity to do so, then do so. There is nothing worse than a hyperactive pseudo cool, we'd rather just have a sweeper thanks.
Author
Penny Laine
Radio presenter jobs
No comments:
Post a Comment