Youth radio stations? We have them

By DAVID INNES*

Neil Finn wrote in a Dialogue column of his passionate support for a commercial-free (and thus taxpayer-funded) radio network for what he sees as disenfranchised "youth".

He seems to feel that there is some sort of gap in serving the needs of youth - broadly defined as teenagers.

The commercial radio sector can assure him that we care about young listeners with equal, if not greater, passion. For starters, we spend about $2 million a year monitoring and enhancing our understanding of exactly what brings people to radio.

Certainly, the main emphasis of commercial stations is on listeners with reasonable spending power, but that does not deter teenagers from tuning into commercial stations in big numbers.

In Auckland, for instance, the five most appealing stations to teenagers are Mai FM, ZM, More FM, Channel Z and The Rock, attracting 80,000 or more listeners a week.

This hardly seems like a disenfranchised group.

Research shows little interest in some of the social issues raised. This is not to suggest that they aren't real, but that the expectation of solving complex social issues such as drug and alcohol abuse, depression and alienation through providing a government radio station is drawing a very long bow indeed.

Commercial radio already contributes to debate on challenging social issues with programmes such as The Green Room, The Chatroom and The Voice. And, in October 2000, members of the Radio Broadcasters Association offered to significantly increase this contribution with innovative programmes such as My Town, Wassup and Chatback.

Commercial radio knows how to attract young listeners - it has to, to survive. If anyone can get to teenagers on complex social issues, it is the many young and talented broadcasters working in the commercial sector.

We have also shown our willingness to accept a government briefing on social issues that could be addressed by radio.

Finn also refers to the setting up of "youth" radio stations in other countries, such as Australia. He is no doubt referring to JJJ in Australia.

In a highly restricted radio environment such as Australia, the limited number and high price of licences means broadcasters have to appeal to mass audiences, with very little of the segmented programming common in New Zealand.

But even in Australia, JJJ can no longer be considered a success. It has a declining share of market and an ageing audience and is a substantial cost to the taxpayer.

JJJ shows clearly that trying to force-feed listeners according to someone's preconception of what makes "good" radio fails against broadcasters who listen carefully and often to what their audience wants to hear.

The issue of creating a platform for emerging musical talent which cannot make it on to commercial radio has also been raised. But it ignores the outstanding work done by New Zealand On Air as an incubator of emerging musical talent, mostly quite young.

In the past two years, its new recording artists scheme has put no fewer than 77 new bands on to radio. If a band are unable to get over the very low hurdle of commercial potential required by NZ On Air, it is hard to see that they have some automatic right to be broadcast.

A further proposition was that a youth radio network would somehow "bring communities together". The modern phenomenon of networking is a powerful way of connecting listeners from Invercargill to Kaitaia without having to drive a mobile studio from one end of New Zealand to the other.

And in case you were thinking networking means "one size has to fit all", remember that most network stations also provide significant breakout opportunities for local programming, including listener dialogue.

Finally there's the notion of complementarity - "we'll only do the things that commercial radio can't do".

But even this concept has nowhere to go. If a youth radio network concentrated mainly on social issues, very few people would listen to it.

The alternative will inevitably mean developing formats including commercially popular music. And this, of course, would bring such a network into direct competition with other leading-edge youth stations such as Channel Z, ZM Network, The Edge, student radio, and (in the case of Auckland) Mai FM.

Ironically, a youth radio network which used music to build an audience would threaten the viability of the very stations and their staff which have been strong in appealing to young people, have paid their dues in addressing social issues, and have been the champions of new New Zealand music.

The proposal raises questions that have almost without exception been answered, and can result only in a network that would either have a tiny audience, or a broader audience which would undo the good work being done by a combination of commercial broadcasters, and no-charge licensees such as student radio and iwi stations.

* David Innes is the executive director of the Radio Broadcasters Association.