Content uploaded by Steve Craig
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Steve Craig on Apr 22, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of
Broadcasting;
& Electronic Me(liii/\unc 2004
How America Adopted Radio:
Demographic Differences in Set
Ownership Reported in the 1930-1950
U.S. Censuses
Steve Craig
Radio set ownership data reported in the U.S. Censuses of 1930, 1940,
and 1950 suggest that several factors affected the rate of radio adoption
during these decades. Although a majority of U.S. households were
radio-equipped by 1931, substantial numbers of poorer Americans, espe-
cially those living in the South, could not afford
sets
until much
later.
A
majority of African American families, the poorest of all, did not own
radios until well into the 1940s. It was not until 1950 that 95% of all
American households owned receivers.
There is little doubt that when radio first arrived in the 1920s, it caused a great deal
of excitement. Sterling and Kittross (2002) describe it as a time when "the country
was afire with radio fever" (p. 69). Barnouw (1956) writes of the early "euphoria" of
radio set manufacturers who "couldn't produce fast enough" (p. 91), and Hilliard and
Keith (2001) maintain that "people were buying radio receivers as fast as they could
afford to" (p. 31). Such descriptions are justified since the number of licensed
broadcasting stations jumped from just 5 in 1921 to over 500 by 1924 (Sterling &
Kittross, 2002, p. 827) and by 1927 Americans were spending $198 million annually
on radios (U.S. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, 1930, p. 841).^
The decade of the 1920s was a prosperous period for many Americans, especially
those who lived in the urban areas of the North and West. Good economic times
meant that many city dwellers had the luxury of buying the new radio equipment as
soon as it appeared on the market. In addition, early radio stations were usually built
near urban centers where signals could be received by the maximum number of
affluent consumers. By 1928, there were 28 stations broadcasting in the New York
City metropolitan area, 36 in Chicago, and 24 in Los Angeles (U.S. Federal Radio
Commission, 1928, pp.117-123).
Yet America's phenomenal radio boom was primarily experienced in the cities of
the North and West. In the nation's poorer regions, radio's arrival was much slower.
In 1928, Atlanta had only three radio stations and New Orleans seven. For the 44%
Steve Craig
(Ph.D.,
Florida
State
University) is a
Professor
in tbe Department of
Radio,
Television, and Film
at the University of North
Texas.
His
research interests
include broadcasting history and gender in media.
O 2004 Broadcast Education Association lournal of
Broadcasting
&
Electronic Media
48(2),
2004, pp. 179-195
179
180 lournal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2004
of Americans who still lived outside the cities, service was spotty or non-existent.
Several large rural states had fewer than six radio stations, and these tended to have
smaller transmitters than their urban counterparts. For example, in 1928, the entire
state of South Carolina had only two stations transmitting with an aggregate power
of 90 watts (U.S. Federal Radio Commission, 1928, pp. 117-123).
While the coming of radio may have been a sensation in some parts of the country,
other Americans were suffering from economic hard times—even in the years before
the Great Depression struck in 1929. In these
areas,
many families were in economic
crisis,
few entrepreneurs were willing to build stations, and widespread radio
adoption was still years away.
Despite the considerable interest in radio's early industrial history, little detailed
research has been reported on how receivers were adopted in the United States.
Starch conducted surveys on radio adoption in the 1920s (Spalding, 1963-1964, pp.
36-37) and Cantril & Allport (1935, pp. 85-86) made early use of Census data to
describe the growing radio audience. Lichty and Topping (1975, pp. 451-455, 521)
and Sterling & Kittross (2002, p. 862) described overall adoption rates for several
years based on data from industry and Census sources.^ Jeliison (1993, p. 61) used
1930 Census data to examine different rates of radio ownership among farm families
in several midwestern states, and Craig (2001) discussed the relative slowness of
early adoption by rural families. But none of these sources investigate in depth the
differences in radio adoption patterns nor do they attempt to detail the social factors
that helped determine when families decided to buy their first radio.
Without
a
clear understanding of how American families adopted radio, historians
have an incomplete picture of the audience during these years. The fact that
adoption rates varied widely among different regions and between urban and rural
areas means that the demographic make-up of the radio audience changed as time
went on. A fuller explanation of the sociological dimensions of these changes can
shed light on historical decisions that took place in the industry in such areas as
advertising, programming, and regulation. Further, an understanding of the factors
that affected radio adoption rates may provide insight into audience acceptance of
contemporary and future media technologies.
This paper attempts to fill the gap in our understanding of radio's adoption by
using the available U.S. Census data on radio ownership in the years 1930, 1940,
and 1950. Rogers' (1995) past work in the diffusion of innovations provides a
framework for the examination of geographical and ethnic differences in patterns of
radio ownership over the three critical decades it took for radio to be adopted in 95%
of American homes.
Method
United States Census Bureau reports for the decennial Censuses of 1930, 1940,
and 1950 were examined for data on the ownership of radio by U.S. households.•* In
Craig/HOW AMERICA ADOPTED RADIO 181
each of these years, census takers determined whether or not households "contained
a usable radio set or one only temporarily out of repair" (U.S. Bureau of the Census,
1943,
Vol. II, Pt. 2, p. 5). In 1930 and 1940, attempts were made to gather these data
for each U.S. household enumerated, but in 1950, a sample of 20% of occupied
households was used.^ Radios in places of
business,
institutions, and hotels were not
counted.
Findings were compiled by geographic location and, in some years, by race
and parentage of the head of household.
Geographic Categories
The Census.Bureau presented summaries of its results using various state groupings to
yield several different geographic categories. To allow for comparison among the three
decades, the data in this paper are reported based on the four regions used in the 1950
Census: Northeast (with about 27% of U.S. households). North Central (with about
32%),
South (with about 29%), and West (with about 12%).^
The Censuses also reported radio ownership based on whether the households
were "urban," "rural non-farm," or "rural-farm." For 1930 and 1940, the Census
Bureau defined "urban" as a city or other incorporated place having 2,500 inhabit-
ants or more.^ Rural households were defined as those located outside these urban
areas and further divided into "rural non-farm" households and "rural-farm" house-
holds.
Since preliminary analysis indicated that radio ownership patterns in rural
farm and non-farm households were similar, this distinction was collapsed into the
single category of "rural."
Race,
Nativity, and Parentage
In all three Censuses, the Bureau gathered information based on the "race and color"
of the head of household.'' Unfortunately, the method of tabulation and presentation of
these data varied from Census to Census, and in 1950, radio ownership data were not
reported by race at
all.
This paper presents the available findings on race and parentage
for 1930 and 1940 separately in the form made available by the Bureau.
Some results categorized households based on whether the head was "White," or
"Nonwhite," with the latter category including "Negroes, Indians, Japanese, Chinese,
and other Nonwhite races." ^ A label of "Mexican" was used for "persons of Mexican
birth or ancestry who were not definitely Indian or of other Nonwhite race." Such
"Mexicans" were classified as "White" in the 1940 and 1950 data, but as "other
races"
in the 1930 report (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1953b, Vol. II, Pt. 1, p. 35).
In the 1930 Census, White heads of households were categorized based on their
nativity and parentage. The category "native White-native parentage" included
U.S.-born Whites both of whose parents were also U.S.-born. Other categories
included "native White-foreign or mixed parentage," and "foreign-born White."
Nativity and parentage was not determined for those classified as "Negro" or "other
races"
(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1933, Vol. VI, p. 6.).
182 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2004
Findings
U.S. Census data from 1930, 1940, and 1950 present
a
picture of radio ownership
in relation to three major variables: Geographic region (Northeast, North Central,
South,
or West), whether located in an urban or rural area, and, for 1930 and 1940,
by race of the head of household.
Finding 1: Radio adoption occurred at different rates in different parts of the
country with patterns consistent in all three Censuses.
Finding la: Rates of radio adoption were fastest in the Northeast, followed closely
by the North Central and Western regions, and with the South lagging
appreciably behind.
Finding Ib: Rates of radio adoption were faster in urban areas than in rural areas.
Finding Ic: The pattern of difference among these variables was consistent across
all three Censuses. That is, in all years, adoption was fastest in the
urban Northeast and slowest in the rural South.
Table
1
shows the percentage of U.S. households with radios in 1930, 1940, and
1950.
Adoption in the urban Northeast, urban North Central states, and urban West
was over 50% in 1930 and over 90% in 1940. The urban South lagged significantly
behind the other regions with only 78.8% of households owning radios by 1940. In
all four regions, rural households adopted radio at a slower rate than urban
households. Perhaps most striking is the degree to which Southern rural households
lagged behind all other groups. In 1930, only 9.2% of Southern rural households had
radio compared to 40.3% of all U.S. households. By 1940, 96.2% of Northeastern
urban households had radio, but only 50.9% of Southern rural households did.
Table 1
Percentages of Urban and Rural U.S. Households with Radio by Geographic
Region in 1930, 1940, and 1950
Northeast
N. Central
South
West
U.S.
Urban
56.9
53.8
28.6
50.9
50.0
1930
Rural
48.1
39.1
9.2
33.0
26.9
All
55.0
47.8
16.4
44.0
40.3
Urban
96.2
94.6
78.8
92.2
91.7
1940
Rural
88.2
82.2
50.9
81.5
69.6
All
94.4
89.7
62.1
88.9
82.8
Urban
98.5
97.9
94.4
97.4
97.2
1950
Rural
96.6
95.8
88.8
93.3
92.7
All
98.1
97.1
91.7
96.3
95.7
Note:
Calculated from data in U.S. Bureau of Census (1933, Vol. VI, p. 53) U.S. Bureau of
Census(1943, Vol. II, Pt. 1, pp. 38-39), and U.S. Bureau of Census (1953a, Vol. 1, Pt. l,p. 1-9). '
The data used to produce this and other tables are available on request from the author.
Craig/HOW AMERICA ADOPTED RADIO 183
Finding 2: Based on data from 1930 and 1940, radio adoption took place at
different rates among different racial and ethnic groups.
Finding 2a: Adoption was faster among Whites than Nonwhites.
Finding 2b: In 1930, households headed by native-born Whites who had at least
one parent born abroad were more likely to own radios than other
White groups.
Finding 2c: Southern Nonwhites living in rural areas were much slower to adopt
radio than any other group.
The 1930 Census reported radio ownership by the race of the head of household.^
In addition. Whites were further classified by whether they were native-born with
native parents, native-born with foreign or mixed parents, or were foreign-born. The
results are shown in Table 2. In the United States as a whole. White families whose
head had at least one foreign-born parent were far more likely to own a radio
(57.3%) than were White families whose head was either foreign-born (43.6%) or
native-born (39.9%). Relatively few Negro families owned radios (7.5%).
Table
2
Percentages of Families Having a Radio in each Region by Nativity and Race of
Head of Household (1930)
Northeast
N. Central
South
West
U.S.
Native
White,
Native
Parentage
59.9
47.3
20.2
46.7
39.9
Native
White,
Foreign or
Mixed
Parentage
65.0
55.7
38.5
51.9
57.3
Foreign
Born White
45.4
43.5
30.9
40.1
43.6
Negro
30.1
23.1
2.2
30.8
7.5
All
Families'"'
55.0
47.8
16.4
44.0
40.3
Note.
Calculated from data in U.S. Bureau of the Census (1933, Vol. VI, pp. 52-53).
"Includes "other races."
When these data are broken down by geographic region, the pattern is inconsis-
tent. While White families whose head had at least one foreign-born parent were
most likely to own radios in all four regions. White families with native parents were
more likely to own radios than families with foreign-born heads of household in the
Northeast, North Central, and Western states, but less likely to do so in the South.
While Negro families were the least likely to own radios in all four regions. Southern
Negro families were considerably less likely to do so than Negro families in the other
regions.^"
184 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2004
Table 3 shows the percentage of families owning radio sets in selected large cities
in 1930. The overall adoption rates closely follow the patterns of the regional urban
data reported in Table 1, and ownership patterns of the various White parentage
groups are generally consistent with the regional data in Table 2. Once again, the
disparity of ownership among Negro families is striking. Negro families were the
least likely group to own radios in every city listed. However, those who lived in the
relatively prosperous cities of the Northeastern, North Central, and Western states
were far more likely to own radios than those living in the Southern cities of Atlanta,
Memphis, and New Orleans. At the extremes, 74.6% of native White families with
foreign or mixed parentage owned radios in Chicago, but only 3.2% of Negro
families in Atlanta did.
Table 3
Percentages of Families Having Radio Sets by Race and Nativity in Selected
Cities of 100,000 or More (1930)
City
Atlanta
Chicago
Denver
Detroit
Los Angeles
Memphis
New Orleans
New York
St. Louis
Washington, D.C.
Native
White,
Native
Parentage
37.2
73.6
53.4
67.0
63.8
42.4
29.7
71.7
55.7
63.5
White,
Foreign or
Mixed
Parentage
52.4
74.6
56.4
69.8
64.9
51.5
29.7
73.5
59.7
66.8
Foreign
Born White
40.6
54.1
43.9
49.9
55.9
41.8
23.2
50.6
41.7
54.4
Negro
3.2
42.6
25.8
29.6
46.0
3.7
3.3
40.1
18.5
25.2
All
Families"
26.0
63.2
50.8
58.0
58.8
26.2
21.0
59.2
50.2
53.9
Note.
These cities were chosen
as
the most populous in each of
the
four regions. For complete
data on all cities of 100,000 population or
more,
see U.S. Bureau of
the
Census
(1933,
Vol.
VI,
p. 70).
"Includes "other races."
The 1940 Census reported racial data somewhat differently. In that year, radio
ownership was presented using the categories "White" and "Nonwhite" both by
geographic region and whether the household was in an urban or rural area. Yet
in 1940 the category of "Nonwhite" was virtually synonymous with the Census
subdivision "Negro" since, overall, that group outnumbered other races in the
"Nonwhite" category by a ratio of nearly 25 to 1. However, this proportion varied
somewhat among the geographic regions (LJ.S. Bureau of the Census, 1944, p.
15).
The results are presented in Table 4. In the United States as a whole and in
Craig/HOW AMERICA ADOPTED RADIO 185
all geographic regions and categories. White families were more likely to own
radios than Nonwhite families. Similarly, both in the United States as a whole and
in each of the geographic regions, urban families were more likely than rural
families to own radios. "
Table 4
Percentages of Households Having a Radio Set by Race in Urban and Rural
Areas,
by Region (1940)
Urban Rural All
Northeast
White 96.5 88.5 94.7
Nonwhite 89.1 69.3 87.4
All 96.2 88.2 94.4
N. Cent
White 95.3 82.6 90.1
Nonwhite 83.3 50.4 78.9
All 94.6 82.2 89.7
South
White 88.1 61.1 71.9
Nonwhite 48.6 16.8 29.8
All 78.8 50.9 62.1
West
White 93.9 82.9 89.7
Nonwhite 82.2 41.3 65.1
All 93.5 81.5 88.9
United
States
White 94.4 75.7 86.6
Nonwhite 64.6 19.8 43.3
All 91.9 69.6 82.8
Note.
Calculated from state data in U.S. Bureau of the Census (1943, Vol. 2, Pt. 2-5).
By 1940, the overall U.S. radio adoption rate of urban White families was
approaching saturation at 94.4%. Among rural Whites, the rate was 75.7%, and only
19.8%
among rural Nonwhites. In the
South,
the rural Nonwhite rate was even lower
(16.8%).
Southern families of both racial groups and in both urban and rural areas
were appreciably less likely to own radios than their counterpart groups in the other
regions. These findings are consistent with the patterns found in 1930. In the United
States as a whole, only 43.3% of Nonwhite families owned radios by
186 lournal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2004
Discussion
The findings indicate that the introduction of radio into American homes was a
process that took place over a period of about thirty years, with clear and consistent
differences in adoption rates among the three major variables: geographic region,
urban or
rural,
and race. Although 40.3% of all U.S. households had purchased radio
receivers by 1930, most of these early adopters were in urban areas of the North and
West. It was not until 1950 that national penetration reached 95%, but even at that
late date, radio ownership in the rural South remained under
90%.^''
The decades of radio's adoption were a time of economic uncertainty for many
American families. Rogers (1995, p. 213) suggests that for some innovations and
adopters, the economic cost of a new technology may be the single most important
predictor of the rate of adoption. An analysis of the Census data in light of the
historical events of the period suggests that this may well be the case for radio.
The Cost of Radio Receivers
Early radio receivers were expensive, and, for most families, the decision to purchase
one represented a major financial investment. The average cost of
a
radio in 1930 was
$78,
an amount comparable to $845 in today's economy.^'* Once the set was pur-
chased,
the owner
had
the additional ongoing expense of service
and
maintenance. One
contemporary expert advised owners that the family radio was "a delicate musical
instrument deserving the same care as a fine piano" (Abbot, 1937, p. 35) and recom-
mended the set be tuned regularly and the tubes checked twice a year.
During the 1920s and 1930s, radio was a luxury many families felt they simply
could not afford. Yet, as with most new technologies, the average cost of a radio set
fell dramatically as time went on (see Table 5). Receiver design also improved
rapidly. Tubes and batteries that lasted longer were developed, making set mainte-
nance cheaper and easier. Furthermore, circuit improvements yielded better signal
reception and sound quality.
Table 5
Average Cost of U.S. Radio Receivers, 1925-1950 and Adjusted to 2004
Year
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
Avg.
Cost
$83
$78
$55
$38
$40
$26
2004 Dollars
$889
$845
$749
$506
$416
$205
Note.
The costs of receivers came from Sterling & Kittross (2002, p. 862). Currency equiva-
lencies were calculated using the January, 2004 Consumer Price Index.
Craig/HOW AMERICA ADOPTED RADIO 187
Rogers (1995, p. 213) argues that when the price of a new product decreases
dramatically during diffusion, a rapid rate of adoption is encouraged. Yet despite
improving technology and falling prices, it was not until 1950 that U.S. radio
adoption reached
95%.^^
A crucial intervening factor was the severe economic
downturn of the Great Depression that took place at this critical point in radio's
history. Although radio sets became cheaper and more functional during the 1930s,
widespread unemployment and poverty meant that those lowest on the economic
ladder—often,
the last to adopt a technology—still found purchasing a radio beyond
their means.
At the same time, evidence suggests that many impoverished families were willing
to sacrifice other essentials to buy a radio Oellison, 1993; Podber, 2001; U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 1946). As Barfield (1996) notes, "whether in the city or
the country, the household's first radio was typically borne home like a proud trophy,
a symbol of victory in the family budget wars" (p. 15). While the Great Depression
may have delayed many families' decision to purchase a radio, it did not stop
adoption altogether.
During the period between 1941 and 1946, World War II introduced yet another
limiting factor: scarcity. Electronics factories were ordered to cease production of
home receivers and concentrate resources on the manufacture of war materials. For
about five years, new radio receivers were virtually unavailable, slowing overall
adoption even further.
Geographic Differences
in
Adoption Rates
American family income during this period varied widely among the regions of the
country, and the differences in radio adoption rates found among these groups can
be largely attributed to this disparity. There was, for example, a large gap between
the incomes of urban and rural families. In 1939, the median family wage or salary
income for the nation's urban dwellers was $1,463, but only $453 for rural farm
families (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1944, p. 390).^*^
Besides this urban-rural inequality, household income also varied widely depend-
ing upon the region of the country in which the family
lived,
with Southerners being
especially disadvantaged. Even before the onset of the Depression, the South was the
nation's poorest region. In 1929, the annual per capita income for those living on
Southern farms was only $186, compared to $528 for farm dwellers in the rest of the
country, and the Great Depression made matters even worse. By 1938, President
Roosevelt was calling Southern poverty "the nation's number one economic prob-
lem"
(Carlton & Coclanis, 1996).
Compounding the South's economic difficulties was the institutionalized racial
discrimination and systematic economic exploitation experienced by the region's
African American population. During this period, many African Americans fled the
South,
seeking better economic conditions in the industrial North, especially in
Chicago and New York City. Although those who moved north were still confronted
188 lournal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2004
with racism and were often paid less than Whites, many still fared better than their
Southern counterparts.^^
The apparently high correlation between regional income levels and earliness of
adoption suggests that differences in family income explain much of the difference
found in the Census results. Americans living in the cities had more money than
those in rural areas and those living in the Northeast, North Central, and Western
states were better off than those in the South. Nonwhites were the least prosperous
of
all.
Poorer Americans were simply less able to afford the cost of
a
radio during the
economic hard times of that period.^"
Differences in Radio Station Coverage
Although family income played a major role in adoption rates, a related factor was
the number and quality of radio signals a potential adopter could expect to receive.
Within a few years of radio's inception, the airwaves were in chaos. Poor frequency
spectrum management and the absence of a clear government regulatory mandate
led to widespread interference. In many cases, this was so severe that good reception
was virtually impossible. The situation was much worse after sunset, when radio
waves at some frequencies in the AM broadcast band can travel much farther due to
ionospheric refraction.
The Radio Act of 1927 established the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) and gave
the new body a mandate to address the interference problem. Within two years, the
FRC had established and begun to enforce new rules regarding frequency and power.
Some stations were forced off the air while many others were reassigned to new
frequencies or restricted to daytime-only operation. Certain frequencies were set
aside as "clear channels" to improve long-distance service. By the early 1930s,
reliable radio reception was taken for granted in large urban areas and interference-
free nighttime coverage of many rural regions had been improved.^^
Yet geographic differences in consumer income also played an important part in
determining radio coverage. Broadcasting evolved as a largely commercial enter-
prise with advertising eventually emerging as the primary source of revenue. For this
reason,
early stations tended to be clustered around larger cities, especially those of
the prosperous Northern and Western states. Concern in Congress that radio was
becoming geographically concentrated led to the 1928 Davis Amendment, legisla-
tion that required the FRC to allocate transmission facilities equally among five
geographic zones.
Although Zones 1 through 4 had approximately equal populations, economics
mandated that they did not have equal radio coverage.^° The FRC reported that in
July, 1927, the Southern states of Zone 3 had 97 radio stations, with an aggregate
power of only 44,080 watts. This was the least of the five zones, and less than a third
of the aggregate power of the 203 stations in the Midwestern states of Zone 4. Illinois
alone had 63 stations with an aggregate power of 69,470 watts (U.S. Federal Radio
Commission, 1928, pp. 64-65).
Craig/HOW AMERICA ADOPTED RADIO 189
In response to the requirements of the Davis Amendment, the FRC established a
quota system based on the number of stations and their power in each zone. During
the early 1930s, new license allocations were controlled by this quota system to
encourage the growth of stations in the less prosperous regions. Yet demand for new
station licenses in the impoverished South remained relatively weak and the Com-
mission was never able to achieve parity among the zones. The Davis Amendment
was finally repealed by Congress in 1936 (Sterling & Kittross, 2002, p. 170).
Radio coverage remained unreliable in some areas for several years. In 1937, the
Commission estimated that only 62% of the area of the continental United States had
effective radio coverage during the day and 43% had it at night. However, when
examined from the perspective of population, the FCC reported that 92% of
Americans could receive a usable radio signal during the day and 83% at night (U.S.
Federal Communications Commission, 1940, p. 178). In short, urban dwellers,
especially those in the North and West, were more likely to be able to receive strong
local radio signals while rural families, especially those in the
South,
had less reliable
service, even when they could afford to purchase a receiver.
The Added Complexity of Rural Radio
Rogers (1995) suggests that another factor in the rate of adoption is complexity—
"the degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand
and use" (p. 242). For those who lived in rural areas, the complexity of owning a
radio set was increased by two major problems. First, rural homes generally required
a more sensitive and selective receiver along with a lengthy outdoor antenna to pull
in stations. Fven
then,
reception could be limited and electrical storms could wipe
out signals altogether. Second, electric lines had yet to be run to most rural areas and
listeners had to rely on batteries and/or generators to power their sets. While 85% of
urban households had electric service by 1930, only 10% of farm households did,
and it would not be until the mid-1940s that even half of U.S. farm households were
electrified (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1975, Pt. 2, p. 827).
Keeping batteries charged or continually purchasing replacements added greatly
to the difficulty and cost of radio ownership. Oral histories reported by Podber (2001)
suggest that worries over conserving battery power even changed the way rural
families listened to radio, making it a more structured and scheduled activity. Radio
set makers responded to the rural market through the sale of specially-designed "farm
radios," which began to appear in the early 1930s. By the end of that decade,
low-voltage tubes had been introduced that greatly reduced battery consumption,
but powering the radio remained a concern for many rural families.^^
Relative Trialability and Observability
Two additional factors in determining innovation adoption rates are trialability—
defined by Rogers (1995) as "the degree to which an innovation may be experi-
190 lournal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2004
mented with on a limited basis" (p. 243)—and observability—"the degree to which
the results of an innovation are visible to others" (p. 244). Most rural families had
fewer occasions than their urban counterparts to visit stores and witness radio
demonstrations and sales presentations. They also tended to live farther from their
neighbors and so were less likely to see and hear sets in operation. Yet, only the most
isolated families did not have at least some opportunity to see and hear about radio.
Many rural families received magazines and newspapers through the mail and these
were filled with articles and ads concerning radio. From an early date, agricultural
publications featured radio columns and advertising. The mail order catalogs of
companies such as Sears, Roebuck and Montgomery Ward offered a wide variety of
radio sets and parts on the installment plan (Craig, 2001). When a rural family did
purchase
a
set, neighbors were frequently invited over to listen, and special programs
were sometimes cause for a community gathering (Barfield, 1996; Podber, 2001). In
addition,
both federal and state agricultural bureaus made major efforts to encourage
radio use among rural families and provided programming geared to aiding farm
business, including market reports, weather forecasts, and agricultural how-to fea-
tures (Craig, 2001). Although urban dwellers did have somewhat more opportunity
to try out and observe radio sets, it is doubtful that this was a major differentiating
factor in adoption rates.
Attractiveness of Radio Programs
The whole point of purchasing a radio receiver was to gain access to the
ever-growing schedule of programs. As the 1930s progressed, the quality of radio
programming steadily improved. The expansion of the networks and the growth of
radio advertising meant the medium attracted better writers, bigger
stars,
and a wider
variety of shows. Research on radio audiences of the time contains ample evidence
of radio's positive impact on listerners' lives
(e.g.,
Cantril & Allport, 1935; Riney-
Kehrberg,
1998; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1946). But if the programs were the
ultimate reason for buying a radio, it is unclear to what degree the programs
themselves can explain differences in the rates of adoption.
Hilmes (1997) argues that early radio programming helped bring about a national
American identity by enabling a diverse and widespread population to share
common cultural experiences simultaneously, thus creating and reinforcing the
notion of America as a single community. The data in Tables 2 and 3 could be
interpreted to support the notion that White families whose head of household had
at least one foreign-born parent adopted radio earlier than native-parentage Whites
because radio programs helped them find their place in the emerging national
community.
But economics was also a significant factor. Immigrant families of this period
tended to settle in urban areas where economic opportunities were better and family
incomes were generally higher. This may well account for some of the difference.•^^
Yet, as Table 3 shows, the pattern remains consistent when only urban areas are
Craig/HOW AMERICA ADOPTED RADIO 191
considered. In all but one city listed. White families whose head of household had
at least one foreign-born parent were more likely to own a radio than any other
group.
Throughout this period, radio programs excluded most African American perform-
ers and almost universally portrayed African American characters in the same
negative stereotypes found in contemporary minstrel and vaudeville shows (Hilmes,
2001). Smulyan (1994, p. 25) suggests that such White-dominated programming
held little attraction for African American listeners and actually deterred them from
buying radios. However, the findings of this study support the idea that slower radio
adoption by African Americans was rooted mainly in the group's widespread
poverty. A majority of the nation's African American population lived in the South,
many in rural areas. These factors combined with institutionalized racism to make
Southern African Americans the poorest of the poor. As Table 3 shows, Negroes who
were living in New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles in 1930 had rates of
adoption that were actually higher than those of the White, native-born, native-
parentage families who lived in the Southern cities of Atlanta and New Orleans.
Once African Americans escaped the South's abject poverty, they bought radios at a
rate not far behind that of Whites. This suggests that the reason African Americans
were less likely to own radios had more to do with lower family incomes than with
objections to racist programming.^^
Conclusion
The coming of radio to American homes was a process that spanned three
decades. While it may be true that families living in urban areas of the North and
West rushed out to buy early sets, many of America's poorer families had to wait far
longer. Tough economic times played a major role in slowing the spread of radio,
and many Americans on the lower economic rungs were without receivers until well
into the 1940s. At the same time, capitalist economics determined that the strongest
radio stations were located primarily in the more prosperous regions of the country
where entrepreneurs and advertisers could efficiently reach consumers with more
income. Although regulators attempted to address this imbalance, radio coverage in
some places remained spotty for years.
African American families, lowest on the economic ladder, were the last to adopt
radio.
Although the Census data on race and radio ownership are lacking after 1940,
it is reasonable to conclude that
a
majority of African American families did not own
radios until well into the 1940s and so were effectively disenfranchised from the
listening audience during much of radio's Golden Age. While radio programs of the
1930s may have served to bring a diverse White population together as a single
national community, African Americans were largely excluded, not only as perform-
ers but also as listeners.
192 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2004
Notes
' In addition to the five stations licensed to broadcast in 1921, listeners could also receive
signals from several experimental stations, many of which would later become full-fledged
broadcast outlets.
^ The overall radio adoption rates given by industry sources (Sterling & Kittross, 2002, p. 862)
vary somewhat from those reported by the U.S. Census. Some broadcasters took issue with the
number of radio households reported in the 1930 and 1940 Census and revised the figures
upward.
A survey conducted by CBS purported to show nearly 2.5 million families with radio
had not been enumerated in the 1930 Census, and the National Association of Broadcasters
estimated that the 1940 Census was undercounted by almost 800 thousand radio households
(LI.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1975, Pt. 2, p. 793). Thus, industry sources report overall radio
penetration for 1930 as 45.8% while the U.S. Census reports 40.3%. For the years 1940 and
1950,
the numbers are much closer with the Census data indicating slightly higher rates of
overall adoption than industry figures. At least some of the discrepancy may have due to the
different times during the year that the data were selected.
^ These censuses were chosen since they measured the three decades in which radio
adoption took place (by 1950, nearly every U.S. household was radio equipped). During the
1920s, industry sources reported that the percentage of households with radio grew from .2%
in 1922 to
10.1%
in 1925, 23.6% in 1927, and 34.6% in 1929 (Sterling & Kittross, 2002, p.
862).
''In both the 1930 and 1940 Censuses, radio ownership information was inexplicably
unrecorded for a relatively small percentage of households. For example, in 1930 this
amounted to 2.8% of all households. Percentages in this paper have been calculated based on
the number of reporting households.
' The percentages are based on the 1940 Census and varied somewhat from 1930 to 1950
as population gradually shifted from the Northeast and North Central states to the South and
West. By 1950, the West had 14% of U.S. households. The states were divided into regions as
follows: Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont), North Central (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin),
South (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia), and West (Arizona, California Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming) (U.S. Bureau of the Census,
1953b, Vol. I, pp. 1-8).
*• In 1950, this definition was modified slightly to allow some unincorporated suburban areas
to be included as urban.
' By 1950, the Census Bureau had begun to recognize that its system of racial classification
lacked "scientific precision," but argued that it was derived from the concept of race "com-
monly accepted by the general public" (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1953b, Vol. II, Pt. 1. p. 35).
Compounding this strategy's vagaries was the fact that the determination of "race" and "color"
was generally based on the enumerator's personal observation rather than in response to a
question.
" The Census Bureau used the term "Negro" to describe those whom enumerators deter-
mined were of African American descent. In this paper, the original term has been retained
when directly reporting Census findings; otherwise the term "African American" is used.
^ In 1930 and 1940, those classified as "Whites" represented 89.8% of the enumerated U.S.
population. "Negroes" constituted 9.7% in 1930 and 9.8% in 1940 and "other races" made up
the remaining .5% and .4%, respectively (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1944, p. 15).
'" In 1930, the Census listed the South's population as 8,653,481 households, or 28.9% of
the total U.S. population of 29,904,663 households. There were 2,803,756 Negro households
in the United States (9.4% of the total
U.S.).
So while the South had less than one third of all
Craig/HOW AMERICA ADOPTED RADIO 193
U.S. households, over three-quarters (2,193,357 or 78.2%) of the nation's Negro households
were there (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1933, pp. 52-53).
" The racial breakdown ofall households in 1940 was as follows: The Northeast had 28.9%
ofall White households, 10.8% of all Nonwhite households, and 27.2% of all U.S. households.
The North Central region had 33.6% of all White,
12.1%
of all Nonwhite, and 31.6% of all U.S.
households. The South had 24.9% of all White,
73.1
% of all Nonwhite, and 29.4% of all U.S.
households. The West had 12.7% of all White, 4.0% of all Nonwhite, and 11.9% of all U.S.
households.
'^ This pattern continued well into the 1940s. A 1946 survey conducted by the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) on radio use in rural communities found that among its
national sample of rural dwellers only
21%
of Negroes owned a working radio compared to
79%
of Whites (p. 57).
^^ Radio generally followed the S-shaped curve found in the introduction of new technol-
ogies described by Rogers (1995, p. 257) in which adoption rises slowly at first, accelerates to
a maximum until half the individuals in a system have adopted, and then increases at a slower
rate.
''' This was an average cost—radio sets were available in a wide range of prices and designs.
For example, the 1925 Sears catalog featured models ranging from a high-end $150 (or $20 a
month after $30 down) to a basic headphones-only two-tube set for $32.50 (Sears Roebuck,
1925/1926, pp. 548-551). Crystal sets were sometimes advertised in the 1920s for as little as
$15,
but these had no tubes, were relatively indiscriminate in what they tuned, and generally
required the listener be located within 5 miles of the station.
'^ As a matter of comparison, it took 15 years for radio to reach 75% of U.S. homes, but it
took television only 8 years to reach that level.
'^ The disparity in incomes is somewhat misleading as farm families often grew much of their
own
food.
Yetthefact remains that rural families had less hard currency to buy consumer items.
^^ Large-scale African American migration to the North began early in the century but
slowed during the Depression years of the 1930s. It increased again during World War II with
the demand for wartime labor.
'® This conclusion is supported by a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) study
on radio use in rural communities in 1946. It found that "the lower the income of the
household,
the more likely it is to be in the group that have never had radios" (p. 47).
''when the Federal Radio Commission was organized in 1927, there were 732 stations
licensed to operate. By November, 1929, that number had been reduced to 584. While some
stations simply quit operating in the face of tough new FRC rules, others were forced off by the
refusal of the FRC to renew their licenses. Denial of licenses was based on a case-by-case
review and included both technical problems and programming issues. See U.S. Federal Radio
Commission (1929).
^° The states assigned to each zone were as follows: Zone 1: Connecticut, Delaware, District
of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Zone 2: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and West Virginia; Zone 3: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Missis-
sippi,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas; Zone 4: Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Wisconsin;
and Zone 5: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming (U.S. Federal Radio Com-
mission,
1928, pp. 64-65).
^' The low-voltage tube was designed to reduce power consumption and lengthen battery
life.
Operating with filament voltages as low as 1.5 volts, they drew much less current than
older types. According to a 1939 RCA farm radio sales brochure, these tubes eliminated the
need for charging by extending battery life "up to 1000 operating hours." The implication was
that battery drain was so low that consumers could economically switch to more convenient
disposable batteries.
^^ According to 1930 Census figures, only 47.8% of the "native White, native parents"
194 journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2004
population lived in urban areas compared with 73.4% of the "native White, foreign or mixed
parentage" group and 80.3% of the "foreign-born White" group (U.S. Bureau of Foreign and
Domestic Commerce, 1933 p. 19).
^^ The findings of the previously cited 1946 USDA study on rural radio audiences support
this conclusion. When rural Negroes who had never owned a radio were asked why they did
not own one, 67% cited economic reasons (p. 54).
References
Abbot, W. (1937). l-iaridbook of
broadcasting.
New York: McCraw-Hill.
Barfield,
R. E. (1996). Listening to radio, 1920-1950. Westport, CT.: Praeger.
Barnouw, E. (1966). A Tower in
Babel:
A history of
broadcasting
in the United
States:
To 1933
(Vol.
1). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cantril,
H., & Allport, C. W. (1935). The Psychology of
Radio.
New York: Harper.
Carlton,
D. L., & Coclanis, P. A. (Eds.). (1996). Confronting Southern poverty in the Great
Depression:
The
report
on
economic conditions of the
South
with related
documents.
New
York: St. Martin's Press.
Craig,
S. (2001). "The Farmer's friend": Radio comes to rural America, 1920-1927. Journal of
Radio
Studies,
8, 330-346.
Hilliard,
R. L., & Keith, M. C. (2001). The broadcast century and beyond: A biography of
American broadcasting (3rd ed.). Boston: Focal Press.
Hilmes, M. (1997). Radio
voices:
American
broadcasting,
1922-1952. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Jeliison,
K. (1993/ Entitled to
power:
Farm women and technology, 1913-1963. Chapel
Hill:
University of North Carolina.
Lichty, L. W., & Topping, M. C. (1975). American broadcasting; A source book on the history
of radio and television. New York: Hastings House.
Podber, J. J. (2001). Early radio in rural Appalachia: An oral history. Journal of
Radio
Studies,
8, 388-410.
Riney-Kehrberg, P. (1998). The Radio diary of Mary Dyck, 1936-1955: The listening habits of
a Kansas farm woman. Journal of
Radio
Studies,
5, 66-79.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4'^ ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Sears
Roebuck and Company FallAVinter Catalog 1925/1926 (1925/1926). Chicago, IL: Sears
Roebuck and Company.
Smulyan,
S. (1994). Selling radio. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Spalding,
J. W. (1963-1964). 1928: Radio becomes a mass advertising medium. Journal of
Broadcasting,
8, 31-44.
Sterling,
C. H., & Kittross, |. M. (2002).
Stay
tuned:
A history of American
broadcasting (3rd
ed.).
Mahwah,
NJ: Eribaum.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1933). Fifteenth
Census
of the United
States:
1930: Population.
Washington, DC: United States Covernment Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1943). Sixteenth
Census
of the United
States:
1940: Housing.
Washington, DC: United States Covernment Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1944).
Statistical
Abstract of
the
United
States,
1943.
Washington,
DC:
United States Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1953a).
Census
of
Housing:
1950. Washington, DC: United States
Covernment Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1953b). Census of Population: 1950. Washington, DC: United
States Covernment Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1975). Historical
Statistics
of
the
United
States,
Colonial Times to
1970. Washington, DC: United States Covernment Printing Office.
Craig/HOW AMERICA ADOPTED RADIO 195
U.S. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. (1930). Statistical abstract of the United
States,
1930. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. (1933). Statistical abstract of the United
States,
1933. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1946). Attitudes of rural people toward radio service.
Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
U.S. Federal Communications Commission. (1940). Fifth annual report of
the Federal
Commu-
nications Commission, fiscal year ended
June
30, 1939. Washington, DC: United States
Government Printing Office.
U.S. Federal Radio Commission. (1928). Second annual report of the Federal Radio Commis-
sion to the
Congress
of
the
United
States
for year ended June 30,
1928.
Washington, DC:
United States Government Printing Office.
U.S. Federal Radio Commission. (1929). Third annual report of
the Federal
Radio Commission
to the
Congress
of
the
United
States,
October 1, 1928 - November 1, 1929. Washington,
DC:
United States Government Printing Office.
