The Psychology of Radio - 1935 style

“It has already grown from the insignificance of an embryonic idea in the minds of technicians to the stature of a Goliath in industry and public affairs. Vigorously endowed and shrewdly directed, it has developed sturdily, and with lightning speed has fashioned for itself a place in our national life” 

So says a 1935 book called ‘The Psychology of Radio’. 

The book was written in America, back in the days when radio was but a small child, and self-appointed experts were penning articles and posturing about it.  Just as they do about this digital thing nearly eighty years later.

It’s a fascinating read.  It makes mention of an impressive early experiment, conducted when there was an appetite to understand better this new fangled thing.  An evangelist gathered an audience and preached in a hall.  His sermon was relayed by sound only, as if a radio broadcast, to a neighbouring hall.  As the call came for the congregation to step forward and participate, the genuine assembly started to take action.  Members of the radio audience in the second hall were not motivated in the same way.  They stood there like lemons.

The author explained he felt this was not through some flaw in this otherwise miraculous medium, but simply because the vocal delivery on radio needed to be different.  In structure, it was said that a live speaker works for “immediate rather than long-run results, for emotional fervour rather than for future action”.  

He concluded:

“A radio spellbinder would have spoken quite differently. He would have used less bombast and more artistry, less brute force and more cunning. He would have directed his attention to the invisible audience and would have made each listener feel welcome as a member of the circle. He would have aroused the listeners' sense of participation in the occasion. "Friends, this is Huey P. Long speaking.."

All those years ago, the authors (Hadley Cantril  & Gordon Allport) had already recognised that radio was a one-to-one thing; and you had to address a single listener as you spoke if you really wanted to motivate.

The chapter observed that the voice on radio is different from a person addressing in real life in that:

• “In the minds of the listeners (radio) places music in the preferred position among radio program(me)s.
• It frees the listener from the necessity of conventional politeness toward public performers.
• It interposes a serious psychological barrier between the broadcaster and his audience through the destruction of the normal circular relationship.
• It virtually eliminates social facilitation among the auditors with the result that they are less crowdish, more critical and individualistic”.

Witness the medium’s educational prowess too. The publication suggests that radio improves the capacity of the average man to listen. And even “probably increases the vocabulary of the average listener”.

“It was discovered that the college student, with his long training in listening to lectures, is far better able than the untrained listener to understand and to recall what he hears. His advantage, furthermore,is discovered to be greater for auditory than for visual material. It appears, therefore, that intelligent listening is par excellence the mark of the educated man.”

“Although there is a prevailing tendency to use the radio as a background for other tasks, when the dial is turned to a specific program and when attention is directed fully to its message, an auditory training is provided for millions of people and its long-range effects may be exceedingly important. For increasing the world's population of "good listeners" radio deserves an extra star in its crown”.

So, if the boss ever tells you to stop streaming Gem 106 at your desk, just smile patiently and assure him that it’s training you to listen better to his wisdom.

Even back then there was a worry that radio might put people off their work

“Take, first, the case of the housewife or the student who is completely preoccupied with work. The loud-speaker emits its stream of sound, but it falls on deaf ears. The distraction is completely inhibited. As long as attention does not shift, the radio's effect, if it has any at all, is entirely subliminal. In such a case the effort required (and unconsciously exerted) to overcome the distraction may actually enhance concentration on the task in hand.... The stronger the potential distraction the greater is the compensatory attention”.

Attention, RAB! The article goes on to provide early thoughts on the topic addressed in more recent years by Saatchi & Saatchi's 1981/1995 'Ironing Board Study' and Classic FM’s/Bournemouth University's 1995 'Jigsaw study'. The theory that listeners zone in and out depending on what interests them:

“However, attention is at best a restless thing, always waxing and waning, and shifting from one focus to another. The sounds of the radio are seldom inhibited for more than a few minutes at a time.  The mind wanders from the task in hand to the distracting sound”.

Some things have come to pass:

“In certain ways radio is a dangerous competitor of the newspaper.”

And some prophetic observations on the delinquent use of radio’s immense power:

“The Nazi propagandist minister, Goebbels, uses it ubiquitously to spread the doctrines of Hitler and says that ''Some day the radio will be the spiritual daily bread of the whole German nation."

What about children though?

“About one-third of the children say that they lie awake in bed thinking of things they have heard over the radio. The same number report that they frequently dream of radio plots : three- fourths of these dreams are nightmares”.

Given American radio was, by then, already into commercial radio full throttle, the book also alludes to what later became ‘pester power’ in terms to children hearing advertisements and then lobbying poor Mama for said goodies:

“ The advertising appeal is ingenious and effective. It is directed toward the child's desire for physical superiority (victory at games and ''pep"). It comes just before the supper hour when hunger facilitates mental associations pertaining to food. It arouses the powerful motive of sympathy and compassion by asking the child to tell his mother about the product... Through repetition, tedious to the adult but interesting to the child, the association between the fantasy of the story and the product in question is indelibly established”.

Ah. Repetition builds reputation.

What of station formats?

• “a slight majority of this station's hours are devoted to network”
• “far more network programs are broadcast on Sundays than on weekdays;
• “the early morning hours (6-8) contain entirely local programs”
• “three-fourths of the programs broadcast during the best evening hours (7-10) are network relays;
• “the days when listening habits are least dependable (over the week-end) are filled with sustaining network broadcasts to keep the station on the air most economically..”

So, the truth is out.  In implementing 'The Future of Radio' in 2007, OFCOM just copied and pasted from this 1935 book for its Localness Guidelines.

By the way, according to the 1930 US census (which likely enjoyed jolly COI-type ads saying “fill in the form y’all”), there were suggestions that 70 per cent of homes were, were “supplied with radios”.  

If the behavioural assertions above are to be believed, the rest of the homes contained thick Americans with fairly chilled kids.

This is amazing. Average listening time was 19.6 hours a week. In 2014, it is 21.5.  The sample size was 507, by the way if Ipsos/Mori are reading this.  

Popular programme elements included ‘Dance Orchestras’ at Number 1 in the chart, followed by football and symphonies. Wow.  It’s commercial national radio. Absolute, Talksport and Classic.  Sports and old songs are in there too, in the next two positions, so thank goodness we have Smooth.  Least popular thing? “Advertising messages”.

How many stations in the listening repertoire back in the 1930s?

 “The average listener is not accustomed to tune in to all available stations. His habits at the dial are likely to be rutted: 5.6 per cent listen regularly to only one station while 76.6% per cent never listen to more than three stations”.

All these years later, the ‘habits at the dial’ of the average punter are much the same.

There’s some handy listener research, suggesting that 84% preferred music programming, with the remainder opting for speech. It also suggests that speech is used as foreground listening and music as background.

Forgive me for just lapping up the experiments on presenter voices, conducted by WEEI in Boston involving the tones of  twenty-four male (but of course) speakers and over six hundred judges. They sought to establish whether people could judge appearance by a voice.  We must try that trial again. A great contest for your breakfast show, maybe.

They  found that it was challenging to establish height from a voice, although some favourable results were uncovered owing “primarily to the case of a short fat man whose voice was thick, mellow, and "chuckling." . Give that guy a job on Radio 2.

Voices were matched to  handwriting “about one and a half times as frequently as would be expected by chance.”

Photos and voices were matched with some success as was political preference.  Close your eyes. Listen to Nick Ferrari and try to establish which way he votes.

I shall leave you with a brief glimpse into Chapter 7.

“Most people would rather hear a man than a woman speak over the radio. Yet few listeners are able to explain this preference: they can tell neither how the sexes differ in their vocal appeal nor why. Even the supervisor of broadcasting at the studio can seldom give reasons why his announcing staff is entirely male.”

I bet he can’t.

They resorted to another fab experiment with men and women reading articles into a microphone and  respondents were asked to score on various factors. 

"Women were found to be rated higher in some qualities and men in others. In general men are judged to be more natural and more persuasive. Except in poetry and abstract passages, the listeners felt that men took more of an interest in the material they were broadcasting. In four out of seven experiments, women's voices were judged as more attractive".

Before the analysis, 95 per cent of the listeners had already stated that men's voices were more attractive.  The conclusion states:

“This result shows a noteworthy difference between stereotyped and analytic judgments. It indicates that the preliminary judgment was based to a considerable degree upon mere prejudice”

How far have we really come in 80 years?

Grab my book 'How to Make Great Radio'. Published by Biteback. https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/how-to-make-great-radio

Muttering darkly over muffins

O

Sheila Borrett was said to be the first women  'announcer' on UK radio.  Despite the BBC's enthusiasm, the Radio Times was cautious when announcing her arrival in 1933.  It suggested that retired colonels might "mutter darkly over their muffins".

The predictions of unrest were correct and thousands of letters were received criticising poor Sheila.  Mainly from women.  After three months, she was moved on from the role; and one can but imagine the probation conversation with HR in those distant non-PC days.

80 years on, it's high time the topic was indeed back on the agenda; and Tony Hall is to be congratulated on doing rather more than floating an encouraging remark.

Thankfully, men and women are different.  As the best-selling book suggests, 'Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus'. They each have, in general terms, a different way of looking at the World around them; and they communicate in different ways. 

In the magnificent 'Watching the English' book by anthropologist, Kate Fox, she observes that women communicate in a group as one melee. When they assemble socially, they may all readily speak at once and enjoy a simultaneous conversation.  Men tend to shout through the gaps.  Kate's female focus groups lamented too that men are not good at gossip. It was suggested the guys miss out the crucial 'he said/she said' attribution; and use a 'flat unemotional manner'.

I muse that when son or daughter calls home, they chat to dad about 'what they're doing' and to mum about 'how they're feeling'.  Research suggests that male-to-male phone conversations last 4.6 minutes, versus a 7.1 minute average for a women to women call*.  Women can talk incessantly about a range of topics.  Men often resort to sport, jokes, work; or the pub argument.  The latter is safe territory and it frequently bores me stupid.

Over time, might it be that men on-air have learnt to compensate for the inadequacies of their gender?  They have adopted coping techniques from each other over the generations; and just maybe there are too few female role models for women to adapt similarly with ease.  I can point to a handful of stunning male broadcasters I emulated in my early days; and I borrowed  a skill from each one.  Given the paucity of women on-air, can a fresh women broadcaster draw from the same range of excellent performers with ease?

I have a hunch that on-air, men become the people they'd like to be.  They draw out the most favourable characteristics and amplify them, turning up the sympathy and emotions, and turning down the rough edges.  And succintness, well, that's blokes all over.  Women, being more social animals, are probably themselves on-air, and behave 'normally'.  Whilst 'be yourself' is a useful adage, every broadcaster knows that 'being yourself is not enough; and sounding 'normal' is an art.

Men are often less expressive than women in how they dress and how they animate conversations;  so little is absent when the voice is their only tool.  Women make much use of those additional dimensions, which are stripped away when only the voice remains as the sole communication conduit.

Women have shorter vocal chords and thus, generally, higher voices.  I'm sure you've heard about that mysterious bit of research which suggested that both women and men prefer listening to men on the radio.  I'm equally sure you've never seen a copy.  There is lots of research into recall of, and passion for, various tones of voices, although most data appears to lack the context of radio.  

Some of the earliest 'pop radio women', for example Annie Nightingale, did draw upon deeper tones; and we know that Margaret Thatcher was trainedto lower her voice by a coach from the National Theatre.  We also know that blokes on-air have a hissy fit if someone tampers with the butch settings on their EQ.  

'Deeper voices' may well be found more attractive but many great women on air have rounded, beautifully rich voices; and many successful men on-air have not.  Neither Jonathan Ross nor Chris Evans have perfect radio voices, but they've enjoyed a modicum of success.  

It is true, however, that radio listeners like the familiar more than the unfamiliar, and male voices on air have come to be expected.

There are some pretty awful women on the radio; and there are some pretty awful men. Statistically, there are many more awful men than awful women.

Radio 4's 'Today Programme' gender dilemma has been played out publicly. John Humphrys has suggested that when he eventually ceases his dawn harrumphing, his stints will likely be assumed by a woman.  Already, with Mishal Hussain's arrival, the jostling has begun.  

We recall the redoubtable Sue MacGregor and lament the fact that we have yet to hear any other woman on that programme recently with quite her conviction and ability.  Mind you, I could similarly, frankly, draw my own league table of the blokes on the programme too. The weaker links in the male chain, and they surely do exist on that programme, will wrongly attract less scrutiny than the women.

Witness too the wonderful  Anne-Marie Minhall on Classic FM; and, I have to say, there was something endearing about Sarah Kennedy's ramblings.  Jane Garvey has talents to die for.  Gloria Hunniford is sadly lost to radio, but I would cite Vanessa Feltz as being one of the more  interesting characters on-air.  Whilst I would not say I am a huge fan of everything she does, the challenges of her own life have enriched her act.  Her openness and thus seeming vulnerability help a listener feel that they know her.  Caroline Martin at BBC WM also shares that 'flawed' charm; and it's a huge asset for both sexes.  Too rarely do you hear women really being women on the air.  Too many pretend to be men; and that's a shame.

As I write the above paragraph, I smile and think of women I know who despise some of the above-named with surprising venom.  Are women more critical of each other than any man would wish to be?

In commercial radio, there are few  lead women presenters on breakfast shows.  Jo & Twiggy, however, was one such act on Nottingham's Trent (now Capital), which enjoyed huge success and a mantelpiece of awards.   UK radio has shifted from 'performance' to 'real'; and the women on-air now are rightly picked for their story telling and humour rather than just as a giggling sidekick.  Might it be that women have better abilities at bantering  with real people (as a co-host) than as a sad solo presenter just pretending to talk to someone?  If that plays to a strength, then let's not ignore it.

What of the early days?  Lots of male presenters begin their radio lives as anoraks, sitting alone with  their acne in their bedrooms, listening to radio and growing to love it.  They then pursue that hobby with unhealthy energy.  Women strike me as generally less obsessive and altogether more balanced and sensible.  I know few female radio anoraks as sad as I was; although Beccy Adlington would hit me with her rubber swimming hat and remind me that there are successful female obsessives in other fields.

Skillset suggests some women make a "conscious decision to care for their children full-time or enter a different and less demanding industry". I have to say I am utterly in awe of  women I have known in senior positions who have balanced their families with huge responsibilities and jobs which are rarely 9 to 5.  I don't know quite how they do it, but they have proven they do.  In sales and often in newsrooms, there is a decent gender balance; although there is often a paucity round the Board table (17%, suggests Skillset**).  As a bloke unable to talk about football, I can quite see why women might not feel at home.

I don't count the number of audition MP3s and Soundcloud files I get sent each week, but I would hazard a guess that  well over 90% of unsolicited auditions come from lads.  When more high quality auditions are submitted by women, more will be recruited.  And we programmers must not nurture that irrational fear of two successive women on a programme schedule. 

Is it appropriate to engineer a 50% ratio of women on BBC Local Radio breakfast programmes by the end of 2014?  I would question that tactic; although I welcome a strategy. 

Is it correct to aim for a better gender balance and benchmark how the situation evolves over time? Absolutely. 

Mind you, let's remember that this self-op, multi-source, single-header breakfast show is possibly one of the most complex gigs in UK radio, and a challenge for anyone new, regardless of sex.

Listeners want their programmes to be the best they can, whomsoever presents those shows.  I wonder whether target listeners might prefer  BBC local radio to focus its efforts on how old the on-air staff are and how abreast they are of their 50+ audience rather than whether they wear a frock or not.  The BBC's first obligation is to its licence payers.

I would commend the efforts being made by the BBC to identify more female presenters; and to offer training and support to encourage those women to hone their talents.  I only hope the BBC finds within its ranks those with the skill and instinct to help coach in the above areas.  Just maybe that's a time to look outside BBC News, to which Local Radio is strangely assigned,  for those with a real insight into how radio engages if the gender imbalance is to remedy itself genuinely.

*Smoreda & Licoppe (2000) 
** Women in the UK Radio Industry, Skillset 2011