Public radio is at a crossroads. Technology like MP3 players and digital radio draw younger audiences away from radio. Competition from satellite, digital, and private radio continues to eat away at our listener share. Perhaps most urgently, our average listener is aging. Even though more people are tuning in, we are not attracting younger listeners.

Public radio's reaction to these trends has largely been to continue plodding away at what we know: Making the same sounding shows, programming in linear blocks, and spending more time studying technology than experimenting with it. If we are to maintain relevancy in the coming years, we need to rethink how we distribute our award-winning content.

Linear Listening: The Model to Date

Until now, our entire concept of programming has been based on a linear view of a day schedule. We expect listeners to leave the station on the whole day and passively hear shows as they advance through the day, and largely this is how most listeners do consume our content today. There will always be people who want to consume radio this way.

However, there exists another opportunity to program our content "vertically" that is, to permit listeners to listen by content, not by program.

First, let's look at the traditional model of programming: Linear Listening.

This is a typical linear schedule. Shows are programmed as blocks of time on a schedule. Of course, as programmers, we know that shows are not long blocks of homogenous content. An average two-hour program is composed of a variety of segments.

Nevertheless, we expect our audience to listen "horizontally," listening to all segments of each show, "tuning out" for a moment when individual segments do not interest them. This is why we've created pacing mechanisms like stings or resets to provide "audio on- ramps" to draw listeners back in who may have tuned out for a bit.

A more accurate representation of a two-hour show looks like this:

The show is made up of a variety of segments, each of which can be defined by a few common characteristics, such as:

• Tone: Funny, touching, provocative, etc.
• Content: Fisheries, technology, jazz musicians, etc.
• People: David Suzuki, Amy Sedaris, Elton John, etc.
• Treatment: Documentary, long-form interview, drama, tape-talk, etc.

Listeners, by simply being human, tend to gravitate to programming based on these characteristics; some people prefer funny items regardless of the topic, others only care about legal topics regardless of tone, others enjoy long-form interviews of interesting people but don't care about the topic. And yet, the linear model of public radio today asks listeners to stay tuned in case something interests them.

Public radio needs to recognize it creates content, not shows. Shows are simply the vessel into which we've placed that content.

I want to be clear: I do not believe the model of shows flawed. But neither is it our only option any more.

Vertical Listening

Now imagine that listeners could listen "vertically." Rather than having the radio deliver a linear stream of topics that happen to be programmed at that time, listeners would have their device deliver the topics (or treatments or tone) that they prefer, or screen out items they dislike. For instance:

• Any time David Suzuki is interviewed
• All stand-up comedy routines, regardless of topic
• Any piece about healthcare in New Mexico
• All documentaries less than 10 minutes in length

In the graphic above, the example is a listener who has asked their device to capture segments about only one topic (jazz), regardless of the segment's treatment or tone. But this selection could also be done by treatment:

In this case, the listener is selecting by treatment, not topic or tone.

Further, while the time block in this example is 1-3 PM weekly, but it could extend to a full day. More interestingly, the left axis need not be days of the week; it could just as easily be other radio stations public and private.

People will record their favourite programming regardless of the station on which it is aired. As much as we would like to think otherwise, consumers of electronic media are loyal to programs, not to stations. Luckily for public radio, our stations are usually the only public radio option in each market. But the Internet has changed all that. Until now, it's just never been easy to record other stations. Now, it is.

Podcasting "networks" have already launched which plan to do exactly that.

Why Act Now?

The Playlist Generation Demands It
Let's not mince words: To be relevant in the future, we need to gain stronger listenership among younger listeners. Only by acting now can we ever hope to develop the trust and loyalty we have in our current, and aging, audience.

Today's young adults demand customization in all aspects of their life. They have never lived in a world without instant access to information. For them, broadband Internet is simply a utility, like sewer or electricity.

Media is not an entity that provides content, it's a platform which helps them program their own information stream. They categorize their music listening into playlists on their MP3 players. They customize everything from their cell phone ringtones to their vehicles.

And don't be fooled by popular wisdom: The playlist generation is not simply interested in entertainment. Quite the contrary; they are information-hungry. MTV no longer programs music videos; its schedule is dominated by documentaries, thought-provoking reality shows (yes, there is such a thing), and serious issue forums.

The playlist generation will customize their consumption of media -- whether we want them to or not. We can either make it easy for them and become a relevant part of their lives, or we can be ignored by them.

It's Going to Happen Anyway
Indeed, it's not just the playlist generation who will customize their listening; the devices and software coming into the market today do that tweaking automatically.

Again, we can be proactive or we can keep plodding along in a linear mindset and be passed over by media consumers.

Revenue
There is no reason why stations, networks and independent producers can't charge for this kind of service.

Technology can extend our listenership, build a stronger brand, and add new revenue channels. We can choose to embrace the change or be made irrelevant by it. But in the end, that choice is ours.

Tod Maffin is a radio producer, host, and technology columnist for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. His web site, iloveradio.org, is one of the leading sites covering public radio.