Radio is Dead (and not just AM)

[landtuna]

That's an old dictionary definition. Most Americans under 50 consider the word to mean a real time audios source that does not have pictures. Since radio and advertising are consumer driven, that is the definition the industries have to follow.

Actually, it's not. Current dictionary definition. Published date: 2013.

Just for fun I asked several of my friends (all over 50) to define radio. Every single one said something like this: <call letters> or <brand name> or <frequency>. Not one said anything about pictures or the lack of them.

Redifiussion may be a brand in that specific case, but in general it is written with a lower case "r" as in rediffusion. It was first used in the 30's to distribute radio programs by wire, with one use being to provide programming that was not allowed over the air due to government monopolies. Places as diverse as Hong Kong, Bermuda and Trinidad had redifussion systems with separate programming which was called "radio " although distributed by wires. It is a nearly 80 year old example of how the perception of radio is not just LW, MW, SW and FM RF signals.

I traveled extensively within S.E. Asia in the 60's and the only place I ever heard "rediffussion" was in Hong Kong where it was the brand of a local TV station. I appreciate your experience in other parts of the world but submit that Trinidad and Bermuda are rather isolated, tiny markets and to use them as examples doesn't make a ton of sense.

Only where English was spoken. It was not called "wireless" in Latin America or wherever else English was not the language. In America, wireless tended to be thought of as point to point communication, with radio being the broadcast application. However, publications used "wireless" generically well into the 20's. But an example of the transformation was "Wireless Age" becoming "Popular Radio" in the mid-20's, while in England "Wireless World" continued on for about 80 years.

Well, yes. I don't have much experience in non-English speaking countries outside Asia so that was my context. I was in Britain quite a lot in the 80's and they were still using the term "wireless" there at the time.

But if, for example, folks stop using "phone" as part of "cellular phone" the companies that market them will adapt to the terminology without batting an eyelash. You are using what in marketing is called the "manufacturing model" where the design engineers know what the public should have. Those using the "marketing model" consult with the consumer and make products that they want.

To a point but history is full of products that people didn't want and you as a Spanish speaker must remember the unfortunate naming of a GM car called the "Vega". Not only a bad product but a descriptive name to boot.

Manufacturers are language prostitutes. They care nothing about accuracy, rather euphoric descriptive words that will sell their products no matter how useless or poorly designed or built. Some products are classic however and those few have given us synonyms for the real product. "Kleenex" for "tissue" and "Xerox" for "copy". It doesn't mean it replaces correct English though.

Consumers call all forms of real time audio "radio" so that is the correct definition of the term. To insist otherwise is a formula for bankruptcy.

Perhaps for people who need to sell me something but otherwise they are just wrong.

You are looking at how the thing is made. The consumer looks at how it is used. One of its functions is being a radio.

No, one of its functions is being a streaming device.

Commercial loads today are, on average, at least 25% lower than in the 50's and 60's. And one persons banality is another's entertainment.

Talking about today's music radio I would estimate that most people would not agree with you. They see commercial loads being more intrusive than in year's past and tend to complain about the in-between song "entertainment". When I was a kid the longest commercial I can remember were on locations. A DJ at a car dealer or restaurant opening would tend to blab on and on about his sponsor but otherwise, in normal programming, we would never hear more than a couple ads in a row and certainly not the 5,6,7 minute crashes we have today. Even if the total load is less the perception is not and perception is everything. Totally bad move by both radio and TV.

You have admitted to be pushing 70. Radio cares little for 55-64 and not at all for the geezer demos. They can't make any money from them, so they don't try to serve them directly.

Yes, and I return the favor. They make not a cent from me.

 

[TheBigA]

A DJ at a car dealer or restaurant opening would tend to blab on and on about his sponsor but otherwise, in normal programming, we would never hear more than a couple ads in a row and certainly not the 5,6,7 minute crashes we have today.

You are correct that in the 60s, there were usually no more than 2 or 3 commercials at a time, BUT they ran those two or three between EVERY song. At least 15 minutes of commercials an hour, according to the logs in my file. Back then, it was common to run :60 spots. Today they each run :30 or less.

 

[Ravens]

Some did. Many did not. Possibly you've heard of the Durant-Dort Carriage Company. No, maybe you know them as General Motors.

There's a reason why the auto industry took root in Michigan. That's where the carriage and wagon makers were.

Radio broadcasters could take a lesson from those old carriage makers.

This is a good point. But once the auto industry became a real thing, the product had its own word. Radio DOES need to embrace digital distribution methods, but unless your main signal is going out over the airwaves, it's not radio.

 

[LKellerIII]

You are correct that in the 60s, there were usually no more than 2 or 3 commercials at a time, BUT they ran those two or three between EVERY song. At least 15 minutes of commercials an hour, according to the logs in my file. Back then, it was common to run :60 spots. Today they each run :30 or less.

Yes - I realize that the commercial load on music radio today is probably no worse, or perhaps even better than in the heydey of Top 40, when it was song-2 commercials-song-2 commercials, etc. And the advantage today is that you get to hear 4 or more songs in a row without interruption. The problem is - a five to seven minute stop set is pretty mind-numbing. I generally change the station.

If I were an advertiser, I wouldn't be thrilled to have my commercial 3 minutes into a 6 minute stop set. I would want my commercial right after the previous song. Perhaps advertisers can pay more for placement these days(?)

 

[TheBigA]

If I were an advertiser, I wouldn't be thrilled to have my commercial 3 minutes into a 6 minute stop set. I would want my commercial right after the previous song. Perhaps advertisers can pay more for placement these days(?)

The advertisers pay the money, and this is the system they want. If they didn't like it this way, we'd change to suit them. Anything they want, they get.

 

[landtuna]

I'm with Keller. I will never understand why advertisers would want their message embedded in a lengthy stop set that at best is being ignored and at worst has lost its listeners.

The only reason I can think of is that the price is where the advertiser can pay for it but that doesn't seem to be a good deal unless it is driving sales.

 

[TheBigA]

The only reason I can think of is that the price is where the advertiser can pay for it but that doesn't seem to be a good deal unless it is driving sales.

As I said, we wouldn't do it if they didn't want it that way.

While we're on the subject, count the number of TV spots in a row. Tell me how many in a typical cluster. Is it ever less than 5?

 

[landtuna]

As I said, we wouldn't do it if they didn't want it that way.

Which is a possible reason most of us consider marketing types somewhat nuts.

While we're on the subject, count the number of TV spots in a row. Tell me how many in a typical cluster. Is it ever less than 5?

Which is why a great number of us don't watch shows presented with commercials - or we skip them on our DVR's.

This time of the year it is especially relevant to raise this particular issue as the number of political ads has gotten way out of hand. The other evening I counted ten ads in a row - all political. And know what they basically said? Neener, neener, neener. Nothing whatever of substance. Most were negative. The only ones I pay attention to are those funded by out of state interests and they get an immediate "NO" vote. No questions. No consideration. A flat NO! Are these people wasting their money on me? No. It is much worse than that. I taught my wife and kids how to decipher this BS so they have lost 7 votes, not just 5. Do I consider them idiots? Must you ask?

In other than election season it is typical for the evening news programs to be inundated with car ads. Five in a row. One after another. They are all the same (except Suburu - thank you!) and say nothing of importance, just dazzle and glitter. Ask anyone after sitting through that mindless chatter if they remember any of them not to mention any specific one. Nope. Just noise. Expensive noise, I'm sure.

 

[TheBigA]

Which is why a great number of us don't watch shows presented with commercials - or we skip them on our DVR's.

It's not as great as you think. Most people are lazy. The point is that radio isn't the problem. Advertising is the problem. In a few years, you'll have commercial clusters on YouTube and Pandora. It may come sooner than that, if the RIAA has anything to do with it.

 

[landtuna]

It's not as great as you think. Most people are lazy. The point is that radio isn't the problem. Advertising is the problem. In a few years, you'll have commercial clusters on YouTube and Pandora. It may come sooner than that, if the RIAA has anything to do with it.

Will lazy people remember what is being advertised and retain it long enough to go buy it? I think the jury is out on that one. Chances are, IF someone is in the market for something at this very moment they MIGHT remember the ad and take a chance (assuming it is a new product). Otherwise, most will forget about the ad immediately.

I never said it was "radio's" problem but is the placement of ads, as in a 5-minute stop set, "radio's" problem or the ad buyer's problem? And, if an ad (or series of ads) on radio doesn't work wouldn't that be "radio's" problem? And, as I have said many times before, if either the ad buyer or the radio station pisses off a potential customer by one of their actions isn't that a "radio" problem? After all, there aren't any presets to switch ad buyers but there sure are for radio stations.

 

[TheBigA]

And, as I have said many times before, if either the ad buyer or the radio station pisses off a potential customer by one of their actions isn't that a "radio" problem? After all, there aren't any presets to switch ad buyers but there sure are for radio stations.

I understand what you're saying, and it all sounds very logical. But advertisers spend lots of money to find out if their advertising reaches their customers, and they seem to feel that it is, regardless of all the logic you present. That's why everyone in radio, TV, and almost any other ad supported platform does what they do. And as I said, expect it to hit other things very soon.

 

[davideduardo]

Just for fun I asked several of my friends (all over 50) to define radio. Every single one said something like this: <call letters> or <brand name> or <frequency>. Not one said anything about pictures or the lack of them.

I said that "radio" was perceived by listeners to be any realtime audio source that did not have pictures.

Thus, consumers call Pandora "radio" but YouTube is not radio. They call XM/Sirius "radio" but generally don't call cable TV audio services the same.

I did not say that consumers said anything about "pictures". I said that they labeled any and all real-time audio sources that did not have video as "radio".

When your consumers use a different terminology than you do, you are headed towards obsolescence. And that is why smart marketers like Apple call their streaming service "radio". They know how people use language today in the marketplace, and are not rigid, stodgy, old skool and antiquated in their use of popular terminology.

I traveled extensively within S.E. Asia in the 60's and the only place I ever heard "rediffussion" was in Hong Kong where it was the brand of a local TV station. I appreciate your experience in other parts of the world but submit that Trinidad and Bermuda are rather isolated, tiny markets and to use them as examples doesn't make a ton of sense.

Well, the term was used first in England where redifussion systems got around the government monopoly on RF based distribution. Is England big enough for you? And as I said, the term is an English language one and was used in quite a few of the colonies, big and small.

To a point but history is full of products that people didn't want and you as a Spanish speaker must remember the unfortunate naming of a GM car called the "Vega". Not only a bad product but a descriptive name to boot.

"Vega" is an Hispanic surname or the word for a meadow. It has no negative connotations. You are likely thinking about the Nova, which, if written as two words, "no va" means "doesn't go". However, a Nova in Spanish is a star that experience a sudden burst of brightness and energy, just as in English. The whole "Nova" thing is urban legend, rapidly sucked up by monolingual Americans.

Manufacturers are language prostitutes.

Manufacturers, per se, are not prostitutes. Marketers, however, are not whores but slaves to the language of the consumer. You can't sell to the peeps without cred. You can't get cred without knowing the terms.

They care nothing about accuracy, rather euphoric descriptive words that will sell their products no matter how useless or poorly designed or built.

Language used in advertising has nothing to do with the quality of the item being promoted. The Yugo was promoted with the same style of language as the BMW and Toyota of the day, despite obvious differences in quality. But the ad agencies of all those marks knew that they had to address the potential consumer of each vehicle in their own language and terms.

Some products are classic however and those few have given us synonyms for the real product. "Kleenex" for "tissue" and "Xerox" for "copy". It doesn't mean it replaces correct English though.

In the two cases you cite, you refer to the first entrants who created an entire product category. Haloid-Xerox created a copier in the 50's that was years ahead of any other plain paper copier. Kimberly-Clark took a product used for centuries in Japan to remove cold cream and other facial creams, patented the process and trademarked the name and refocused it as a handkerchief replacement and owned the market for many years. In both cases, the product name became synonymous for the technical term for the product even after others entered the market. In any event, these two names were associated with good products. But there were plenty of good names associated with bad products, and the marketplace took care of disposing of them.

No, one of its functions is being a streaming device.

But to the consumer, when using that function, they are listening to radio. The smartphone is a phone, a camera, a radio, a TV, a record player, a notepad, a calculator, a thermometer and lots of other things.

Yes, and I return the favor. They make not a cent from me.

Of course. You want oldies, and radio gives throwbacks. Time to move on.

 

[landtuna]

Ads In General

There are two kinds of excellent ads - those you remember at buy time and those you remember but do not use. Here are a couple of examples of mine:

Budweiser. Great ads particularly at Christmas. I will stop whatever I am doing to watch. I will recommend most to my friends. I do not buy their beer. I don't like it. In beer taste is the only thing that matters to me and Bud is crap.

Suburu. I love most of their ads. I find them intelligent and some are genuinely heartwarming. I have even saved some of them in my personal ad collection. When I went to buy a new car did I consider Suburu? No. For a number of reasons. They can sell new cars for $10 a pop and I still would not buy one because it doesn't fit me.

There are others that repel you and are repulsive:

Hyundai. Hate their ads. They have typical "screaming dealer" ads here locally with nothing to distinguish them as being unique and, in fact, most are irritating. When I went to buy a new car did I consider Hyundai? Yes. I bought one. Was it related to the ads? Not in the least. I went to a number of cars pubs and read customer and expert opinions on a number of cars in the genre I wanted to buy. Am I happy with my purchase? Yes.

Anything I buy that is over a couple hundred bucks I research in the above manner. Electronic ads mean nothing to me. They are universally ignored in my house. The only ads that might make a break through are those advertising a new restaurant my wife wants to try and even then I will ask around before going. I rarely take a chance on a new business or product with some sort of personal recommendation from someone I trust.

 

[TheBigA]

Anything I buy that is over a couple hundred bucks I research in the above manner. Electronic ads mean nothing to me. They are universally ignored in my house. The only ads that might make a break through are those advertising a new restaurant my wife wants to try and even then I will ask around before going. I rarely take a chance on a new business or product with some sort of personal recommendation from someone I trust.

You are the perfect example of why advertisers won't support radio that programs to the over-50 group. Because of people like you. You & I have talked about this many times before, and I know you don't care. But every time some boomer complains about advertisers ignoring them and their money, I want to introduce them to you.

It's too bad, because radio stations could add 20 more years on their lives by programming to over-50s. But they'd go broke.

 

[landtuna]

You are likely thinking about the Nova, which, if written as two words, "no va" means "doesn't go".

Yes, I was thinking of the Nova. However, I remember the Vega being a lot worse product.

But to the consumer, when using that function, they are listening to radio. The smartphone is a phone, a camera, a radio, a TV, a record player, a notepad, a calculator, a thermometer and lots of other things.

As has been noted on these boards many times, smartphones do not have radio chips and thus have no radio capability. They do have Internet connectivity and thus have streaming capability. Idiot smartphone owners who use the term radio are incorrect and showing their ignorance. Idiot smartphone manufacturers or marketeers who use radio as a substitute term are equally ignorant and incorrect.

Of course. You want oldies, and radio gives throwbacks. Time to move on.

I have. I dumped radio.

 

[davideduardo]

As has been noted on these boards many times, smartphones do not have radio chips and thus have no radio capability. They do have Internet connectivity and thus have streaming capability. Idiot smartphone owners who use the term radio are incorrect and showing their ignorance.

If you look to Sprint, you will see that your statement is wrong. Sprint, thanks to an initiative pushed by Jeff Smulyan of Emmis, has activated the FM reception capabilities of millions of smartphones. It appears that a large percentage of such devices, upon activation and the installation of a tuner app, can be used as OTA radios.

So in several ways, smartphones are radios.

Those of us in broadcasting have infinite respect for the consumer and their perceptions while you appear to look with contempt at consumers in general and, particularly, those younger than you.

 

[Ravens]

My last two phones have been Windows Phones. (HTC Trophy and Nokia 635). Both have had FM tuners. I've never used them. The only time I even stream is when I listen to out of market football games, and the coverage isn't good enough for a reliable signal more than 90% of the time. We're still a LONG way from streaming being dominant.

 

[landtuna]

You are the perfect example of why advertisers won't support radio that programs to the over-50 group. Because of people like you. You & I have talked about this many times before, and I know you don't care. But every time some boomer complains about advertisers ignoring them and their money, I want to introduce them to you.

It's too bad, because radio stations could add 20 more years on their lives by programming to over-50s. But they'd go broke.

I can't think offhand of any product that would be attractive to 50+ except perhaps what TV has done with all the "fall down alerts", "burial insurance", "walk-in bathtubs" etc. TV seems to have made a good living off us old farts and you are saying radio can't make it work? Baloney.

 

[landtuna]

If you look to Sprint, you will see that your statement is wrong. Sprint, thanks to an initiative pushed by Jeff Smulyan of Emmis, has activated the FM reception capabilities of millions of smartphones. It appears that a large percentage of such devices, upon activation and the installation of a tuner app, can be used as OTA radios.

So in several ways, smartphones are radios.

Those of us in broadcasting have infinite respect for the consumer and their perceptions while you appear to look with contempt at consumers in general and, particularly, those younger than you.

I am going by comments made on these boards by people who are much more familiar with smartphones than I. You are the first person to date that has said smartphones contain radio circuits. If that is true then for those specific phones they have radio and I stand corrected. It seems though the vast majority still do not.

 

[landtuna]

Those of us in broadcasting have infinite respect for the consumer and their perceptions while you appear to look with contempt at consumers in general and, particularly, those younger than you.

I do not find people younger than me generally contemptible but I do find a lot of them, how shall we say, inexperienced and naive. I think that is quite normal.