Radio Is Dead? Really? What are we really saying?

[Avid Listener]

There is no end to the posts over the years that "radio is dead"...and here we are discussing radio, which is very much alive - in the car, in the house, in the office, live streamed on the computer, and so on and so forth.

Sorry, but "live streamed on the computer" is not "radio", for the purpose of this discussion. It's what's killing radio as we know it. How long do you think OTA radio stations can stay in business selling commercial spots to local advertisers who want to reach local listeners when the local listeners are listening to out-of-town stations streaming on the internet, and the local station's listeners are mostly people from out of town listening to internet streaming? Do you think local OTA stations will survive long if they cannot sell local ads?

 

[TheBigA]

Sorry, but "live streamed on the computer" is not "radio", for the purpose of this discussion. It's what's killing radio as we know it.

Key words being "As we know it."

Radio is changing and evolving, and the audience is changing it. We are not in the device business. Our job is to get our content (and our advertising) on every device available. We don't care if it doesn't fit the historic definition of radio. We're not running museums.

 

[davideduardo]

Sorry, but "live streamed on the computer" is not "radio", for the purpose of this discussion. It's what's killing radio as we know it. How long do you think OTA radio stations can stay in business selling commercial spots to local advertisers who want to reach local listeners when the local listeners are listening to out-of-town stations streaming on the internet, and the local station's listeners are mostly people from out of town listening to internet streaming? Do you think local OTA stations will survive long if they cannot sell local ads?

The major issue is not listening to out of town stations, which is not particularly prevalent, but listening to pureplays like Pandora and the pureplay or customized channels of iHeart Radio or Uforia and other heritage broadcasters.

There is likely to be greater geofencing of streams, if for no other reason than to control the costs of streaming to listeners who are not "useful" to the business side of a station.

These are issues traditional radio stations face in adding new dimensions to their distribution platform. But from the listener perspective, real-time audio without pictures is "radio". To listeners, Pandora is radio, Slacker is radio, Sirius / XM is radio. And if the listener thinks it is radio, good marketing sense tells us to not go against broad based perceptions.

To the listener, streaming is radio. Their smartphone is their radio. (most streaming is not "live streamed on the computer" but via smartphones, newer car dashboards, etc.)

 

[TheBigA]

Their smartphone is their radio. (most streaming is not "live streamed on the computer" but via smartphones, newer car dashboards, etc.)

Let me add that I've been harping on this point for a long time: Radio companies don't make radios. Electronics manufacturers make radios, and they haven't come up with anything new for that category in over 20 years. The Consumer Electronics Show is going on this week in Las Vegas, and they're not talking about releasing any cool exciting radios. Meanwhile, personal phone usage has exploded. Computer use as a media device has exploded. The radio HAS been replaced in the home and office by other devices. We have no control over any of that. All we can do is make our content available on those devices. It costs much more money for us to do that, but it's what we HAVE to do in order to be where our listeners are. We're taking criticism from traditional radio users that we're diverting money from on-air to online, but that's just the reality of the situation.

 

[K.M. Richards]

In a market with 20 or more radio stations, only one can be "#1". But all 20 or more can be profitable.

In any given market of 20 or more radio stations, the ones that are profitable are the ones that use the tried and tested programming methods that those on the other side of this argument continue to attack as "not working".

It would appear that the opposite is true. The methods do work and stations are profitable using them. As has been said elsewhere in this thread, if doing it differently would create higher ratings and greater profits, don't you think we'd be doing it that way already?

What we hear broadcast on the air proves that the decisions that make are based on playing it safe.

Because that is what brings in listeners in sufficient quantity to get ratings, sell time, and turn a profit. You did say that was important?

It's about being a profitable business enterprise.

Yes, I thought you did.

 

[Avid Listener]

Key words being "As we know it."

Radio is changing and evolving, and the audience is changing it. We are not in the device business. Our job is to get our content (and our advertising) on every device available. We don't care if it doesn't fit the historic definition of radio. We're not running museums.

And when it changes into something so different that it isn't the same any more, it's no longer what it was, and becomes something new.

And when this new day dawns, will the new audio entertainment transmission media that you are claiming will still be radio include DJs with alleged "personalities"? Will it include microscopically small, over-tested playlists? Will it include long stop sets of bland and boring commercials? How much room will there be in the new media that you're insisting will be "radio" will there be for suits like you who work in terrestrial, OTA Radio? Won't people like you be as useful in the new media as railroad engineers and conductors are to airlines?

 

[Avid Listener]

The major issue is not listening to out of town stations, which is not particularly prevalent, but listening to pureplays like Pandora and the pureplay or customized channels of iHeart Radio or Uforia and other heritage broadcasters.

So, since I was writing about how listening to music streaming on the internet will hurt the ability of local OTA stations to sell advertising, how does this pedantic "correction" dispute what I was saying?

And what about all the people who participate in this forum who report that they spend most of their time listening to internet streamed radio listening to stations from other markets?

 

[TheBigA]

And when it changes into something so different that it isn't the same any more, it's no longer what it was, and becomes something new.

Our side of it hasn't changed. The part we can control. We're still providing the content.

Your issue is either with the manufacturers or the people who use the devices. Maybe they have a message board.

 

[Avid Listener]

Our side of it hasn't changed. The part we can control. We're still providing the content.

According to Eduardo, "The major issue is not listening to out of town stations, which is not particularly prevalent, but listening to pureplays like Pandora and the pureplay or customized channels of iHeart Radio or Uforia and other heritage broadcasters." How will you radio suits be providing content to those "pureplays"?

 

[davideduardo]

According to Eduardo, "The major issue is not listening to out of town stations, which is not particularly prevalent, but listening to pureplays like Pandora and the pureplay or customized channels of iHeart Radio or Uforia and other heritage broadcasters." How will you radio suits be providing content to those "pureplays"?

iHeart has lots of pureplay channels and also has custom channels. Uforia has many pureplay channels. A number of the other companies have purplays, which are also used for programming of HD-2 and HD-3 channels.

 

[TheBigA]

iHeart has lots of pureplay channels and also has custom channels. Uforia has many pureplay channels. A number of the other companies have purplays, which are also used for programming of HD-2 and HD-3 channels.

CBS Radio owns Radio.com. Cumulus is part owner of Rdio.com.

 

[davideduardo]

So, since I was writing about how listening to music streaming on the internet will hurt the ability of local OTA stations to sell advertising, how does this pedantic "correction" dispute what I was saying?

Groups that monitor the location of each session start know that about 90% and up of streamed listening is in the normal coverage area of the OTA signal.

And what do you consider "pedantic" about stating that listening to out of market streams is not the challenge, while competing with Pandora and other pureplays is?

And what about all the people who participate in this forum who report that they spend most of their time listening to internet streamed radio listening to stations from other markets?

All 15 of them?

 

[b-turner]

A couple of pages back, I read Avid Listener's comments that broadcast or over the air radio listened to via an online application was not radio. I think that is wrong headed thinking and very incorrect.

When we talk about over the air radio or broadcast radio, we are talking the audio. However the audio is received, whether over the air via an actual radio, over a mobile device or via computer is still broadcast radio since the content is the same. My point is no matter the listening platform it is still the over the air radio signal that is heard. This is precisely like television. If you watch the local network TV station over cable versus over the air is the signal received not the same except the for the way the signal is delivered? Would a local TV station viewed over cable not be considered a broadcast TV station?

 

[Ravens]

A couple of pages back, I read Avid Listener's comments that broadcast or over the air radio listened to via an online application was not radio. I think that is wrong headed thinking and very incorrect.

When we talk about over the air radio or broadcast radio, we are talking the audio. However the audio is received, whether over the air via an actual radio, over a mobile device or via computer is still broadcast radio since the content is the same. My point is no matter the listening platform it is still the over the air radio signal that is heard. This is precisely like television. If you watch the local network TV station over cable versus over the air is the signal received not the same except the for the way the signal is delivered? Would a local TV station viewed over cable not be considered a broadcast TV station?

You're still watching it on a TV. So it's TV.

 

[TheBigA]

You're still watching it on a TV. So it's TV.

So if I listen to the internet on a device that I bought in a store called an internet radio radio, then it's radio?

 

[davideduardo]

You're still watching it on a TV. So it's TV.

But I can watch TV... live TV... on my tablet or smartphone from my cable company. And I can watch TV on an LCD monitor that has no tuner if I connect it to the cable or to a streaming sources, such as Netflix.

Has audio & pictures and is realtime: TV
Has audio & no pictures and is realtime: Radio

It's not just my opinion. Just ask anyone of the 80 million active users of Pandora if they are listening to "radio" when they connect to Pandora. 99% will say they are.

 

[Avid Listener]

A couple of pages back, I read Avid Listener's comments that broadcast or over the air radio listened to via an online application was not radio. I think that is wrong headed thinking and very incorrect.

When we talk about over the air radio or broadcast radio, we are talking the audio. However the audio is received, whether over the air via an actual radio, over a mobile device or via computer is still broadcast radio since the content is the same. My point is no matter the listening platform it is still the over the air radio signal that is heard. This is precisely like television. If you watch the local network TV station over cable versus over the air is the signal received not the same except the for the way the signal is delivered? Would a local TV station viewed over cable not be considered a broadcast TV station?

No, the content for OTA radio is determined by the suits who run the stations, based on outdated concepts that some ad agencies still cling to, and high levels of corporate inertia. When you listen to an OTA station from a distant market over the station's internet stream, then that is "the content is the same". But, if it's an internet only "station", then the selection of content is not made using the outdated OTA formulas. I had assumed that most internet "radio" listening was to out-of-market OTA stations, but was informed that I was wrong. Most listening to internet "radio" are to programming that is exclusive to the internet. It isn't programming the same way as OTA stations. The content isn't ultra-tight little lists of over-tested, over-played, and burned-out "hits". And a great deal of internet audio content is totally on-demand, where the listener selects the specific songs that they actually want to hear, not what some suit tells them they want to hear.

Your comparison to using a cable feed instead of an antenna to listen to a local TV station holds no water. The comparison would be more like watching car shows the Overhaulin' when they are scheduled on the Velocity Channel on cable, or watching Jay Leno's Garage whenever you choose to either on his website or on Youtube.

It's not just my opinion. Just ask anyone of the 80 million active users of Pandora if they are listening to "radio" when they connect to Pandora. 99% will say they are.

And how many people say they are "dialing" the phone when they're pushing buttons on a touch pad? How many people say they're "taping" a TV show when they're recording it on a digital DVR, without a spec of tape involved? How many people refer to a new song they heard on an iPad that was digitally downloaded as a "record". How many people say they're blowing their nose on a Kleenex, when in fact it is a Puff's facial tissue?

You've proved that people are lazy when it comes to precision in nomenclature. Nothing more.

 

[TheBigA]

Most listening to internet "radio" are to programming that is exclusive to the internet. It isn't programming the same way as OTA stations. The content isn't ultra-tight little lists of over-tested, over-played, and burned-out "hits". And a great deal of internet audio content is totally on-demand, where the listener selects the specific songs that they actually want to hear, not what some suit tells them they want to hear.

You have some facts to go with that opinion? Like maybe how many people listen to these home-made streams vs. people who listen to OTA streams?

The on-demand stuff you mention is different from internet only radio stations. They're two very different things, and there are numbers available for each of them.

 

[Avid Listener]

You have some facts to go with that opinion? Like maybe how many people listen to these home-made streams vs. people who listen to OTA streams?

The on-demand stuff you mention is different from internet only radio stations. They're two very different things, and there are numbers available for each of them.

That's what Eduardo said to me in a reply. I was referring to what he said. If you don't believe it, take it up with him.

 

[davideduardo]

And how many people say they are "dialing" the phone when they're pushing buttons on a touch pad? How many people say they're "taping" a TV show when they're recording it on a digital DVR, without a spec of tape involved? How many people refer to a new song they heard on an iPad that was digitally downloaded as a "record". How many people say they're blowing their nose on a Kleenex, when in fact it is a Puff's facial tissue?

You've proved that people are lazy when it comes to precision in nomenclature. Nothing more.

But it does not matter in this case. A perception that listening to a stream is "radio" means that OTA radio stations have to focus on this new platform, as listening is migrating in that direction due to ease, convenience, portability and a variety ofther factors.