September 8, 2015
"Content on VICE, I think, is very strong. It's just that stylistically, it's very different."
"So you have the NYT and The Guardian and I shouldn't use the word 'stuffy.' Just observing it, the style is very important."
"They talk about trust and the implication is that we don't trust a VICE. Well, young people do trust a VICE. That's the real point. It's just the way they deliver news is markedly different."
"What I was getting at, maybe 'stuffy' is the wrong word, is that younger people trust different sources. Or they look at different sources or they look at sources differently to the way we trust them."
"We naturally trust the BBC, the New York Times, or The Guardian. But younger people, centennials or millennials, don't naturally feel that way."
"If they see something on Buzzfeed or VICE, or watching Periscope, the way they react to it is very different."
All those quotes are from a very interesting article that you can read HERE.
Interesting because I think the speaker is on to something insightful.
And because radio is having a hard time attracting younger listeners to our News/Talk programming.
I've posted about VICE News before. You can see that HERE.
And I'm not suggesting that attracting younger listeners to any News/Talk programming radio may offer will be easy.
But right now, we're not even trying.
You'd think one of the big boys of consolidated radio in America would at least try in one of their markets where they have seven stations, three or four of which suck.
Come on! Don't just accept the inevitability that millennials won't listen to N/T.
Find someone with no News/Talk experience, but a huge curiosity about our world, and set them loose with a staff of like-minded rebels.
Isn't that how FM radio grew so rapidly? Pot-smoking progressives tracking whole albums, playing stuff no AM station would even have in the building?
When did we become so risk-averse and complacent?