How America adopted radio: demographic differences in set ownership reported in the 1930-1950 U.S. censuses.

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. (9) 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%).

When these data are broken down by geographic region, the pattern is inconsistent. 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. (10)

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.

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 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1944, p. 15). The results are presented in Table 4. In the United States as a whole and in 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. (11)

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 1940. (12)

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%. (13)

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. (14) Once the set was purchased, 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 recommended 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 maintenance cheaper and easier. Furthermore, circuit improvements yielded better signal reception and sound quality.

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%. (15) 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 (Jellison, 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). (16)

Besides this urban-rural inequality, household income also varied widely depending 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 problem" (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 with racism and were often paid less than Whites, many still fared better than their Southern counterparts. (17)

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. (18)

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.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates