The Listener's Voice: Early Radio and the American Public by Elena Razlogova (review)

Elena Razlogova gives us a well-researched book full of interesting anecdotes, pertinent examples, and useful insights, all in support of a questionable premise. She tells us, for example, how fan reaction shaped the sound, style, and, in the author's words, the "feel" of boxing matches broadcast live on the radio. She explains how early soap opera writers paid attention to listener letters as they shaped story lines. The book is packed with such interesting observations growing out of Razlogova's research into letters to broadcasters in the early days of (commercial) radio. She looks back on those days as a time when "the listener's voice" was more authentic than the corporate-based, profit-driven research and ratings that dominate contemporary decision making. Anecdotal reactions to programming are portrayed as more valid—more inclusionary—than scientific reactions as reflected in ratings and other forms of audience research.

Public radio, where I made programming decisions for thirty years, is neither corporate nor profit driven, but it does not operate under the romantic vision of individual listener involvement the author recalls so fondly. Some public radio listeners today still assume they should have a direct say in programming and complain vigorously when their individual comments do not generate the impact they wish. "You don't care what listeners want," they often say, "you only care about the ratings," as if there was a difference between the two.

Over 30 million individuals listen to public radio every week in the United States. The individual reactions of any one of them cannot count for much. The collective reaction of all of them does matter, and public broadcasters, like commercial broadcasters, measure that collective reaction through research. Both take audience research seriously in measuring how well they achieve their goals. The difference is in the goals they choose to measure.

At the most fundamental level, however, Razlogova is correct about the importance of the individual rather than the collective in creativity. New ideas come from the minds of individuals, not from the collective. Research has never generated a fresh idea; only individuals do that. Only the mind of Garrison Keillor would have come up with "A Prairie Home Companion." As it turned out, subsequent research showed that public radio audiences loved Garrison's imaginary world, but it might have turned out to be as loopy as it seemed when he first proposed it. Audience research would never have suggested that public radio needed a program like "Car Talk." Every innovation comes from an individual creator or decision maker relying on his or her gut, which may be informed by the comments of others, including listeners.

Fresh ideas are always scarce and they can come from almost anyone, professional or amateur. The more that are thrown into a decision-making hopper, the better, but ultimately someone needs to decide which warrant pursuing and which—the majority—do not. The author is correct to the degree that she is saying audience research does not produce original ideas.

As one of the creators of "All Things Considered," I know for certain that research played no role whatsoever in its development. We started with a clean slate and the assignment to come up with something original that would contribute to the quality of life in America. A group of mostly young, inexperienced people tossed out a variety of ideas that often conflicted with one another. Persons from outside the organization tossed in even more. Interestingly, some of the least original ideas came from the most experienced and the most professional participants. With no need for immediate success, we tried out ideas, the good and the not so good. The inclusive vision of program director William Siemering provided a single guide against which to judge ideas, but it was anything but scientific.

Initially, anecdotal audience reaction provided our only feedback, much as in the early days...