Here's what I know: The recording industry tracks the home grown internet radio stations, because those stations pay a royalty for use of the music. They say that small internet radio gets a fraction of the audience music gets on OTA radio. So there are thousands, maybe millions of those little internet stations. But together, they don't add up to much. The on-demand stuff is completely different, and tracked separately by the RIAA. On-demand is similar to jukebox play. That isn't the same as OTA radio.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Radio Is Dead? Really? What are we really saying?
- Thread starter b-turner
- Start date
Here's what I know: The recording industry tracks the home grown internet radio stations, because those stations pay a royalty for use of the music. They say that small internet radio gets a fraction of the audience music gets on OTA radio. So there are thousands, maybe millions of those little internet stations. But together, they don't add up to much. The on-demand stuff is completely different, and tracked separately by the RIAA. On-demand is similar to jukebox play. That isn't the same as OTA radio.
There is a difference between the BDS / MediaBase and trade publication charts and "tracking airplay".
The charts only track major outlets for music, such as radio stations in larger markets and significant streaming sources. And they weight the plays on each outlet in proportion to the listening levels of each station or stream. So a CHR in LA might count 10 times as much as one in Reno. And a stream averaging fewer concurrent sessions would be wieghted lower than one with many sessions.
MediaBase and BDS and others sell their service to radio and the record industry as well as to the remaining retail outlets that stock product based on popularity. The publishers & authors rights organizations also use these airplay quantifications to determine how to allocate the monies collected from public performances to their members who wrote the songs.
For artist and label royalty payments, digital public performance is tracked. This is to insure proper payment under the DMCA regulations. It's not for the purpose of doing a chart.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Yeah, factors like not being stuck with a tiny little over-tested, over-played, burned-out playlist!
And
I don't give a damn. I am a listener. I like music. I like to listen to music, especially good music. I care about what music is available to listen to. How you suits measure things is your problem, and your issue.
Last edited:
This is a board called "Radio Discussions." If it pertains to radio, we discuss it. If you're not interested, you don't have to participate. Or you can go to a music discussions board.
But we will continue to discuss radio subjects. How it pertains to you is your problem, and your issue.
So first you question my response to Music Lover, and when you don't like the answer, you say you didn't care anyway. That would seem to fit one of the key qualities of the species webbus trollium.
It would also describe the 60-something anoraks who hang around the vinyl record shop here (described in detail elsewhere.) There's always a conspiratorial "they" (who?) that keeps "our" music off the radio. Face it, for most people there are some songs that sink into their memories and some that bounce off. And no two people are alike, and you can't please everybody. The task at hand for a radio programmer seems to me one of reaching a consensus.
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
Not so much precision in nomenclature for the first three as a case where one technology replaced another and was similar in concept, so the old term was still comfortable.
We still "dial" a phone because "dial" = "putting the number in".
We still "tape" television shows because "tape" = "record something".
We still have "records" because "record" = "something that, when played, emits audio".
English is a flexible language and over time many words have come to have different meanings from what they were when the word was first coined. Pedantism is not a very good choice of debating techniques as a result.
As for "kleenex" coming to mean "facial tissue", that was a sore point for the manufacturer of Kleenex® tissues, who continue to fight that genericization with advertising and lawsuits.
I hear vinyl is big in South Carolina.
As did Xerox which came to mean "copy".
As did Kodak which came to mean "camera" (although I haven't heard that one lately).
As did Coke which came to mean "any soft drink".
The beat goes on.....
A
Avid Listener
Guest
And people still call services like Pandora "radio" for the same reason. It's similar in concept. However, similar is not the same as identical.
But to most consumers under about 45 the only difference is the device by which radio is received. But it is all radio to most consumers.
So if you are in marketing, you know that "radio" has become device independent and simply means real-time audio without pictures.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
You just have to keep claiming you're right, don't you? Even when the reasons you state have nothing to do with the subject at hand. This thread is about the projected fate of OTA radio AS WE KNOW IT TODAY, including the impact on the industry and the people in it when and if it changes. For the purpose of this discussion, if radio transitions from OTA broadcasting AS WE KNOW IT TODAY into some alternative mode of delivering audio content without pictures, then all of you suits with all your experience doing the same things over and over and over and over on OTA Radio will be out of work.
So, that's one impact of the end of OTA Radio AS WE KNOW IT TODAY. I don't know how old TheBigA or any of the other suits are, but your age is obvious from your website. So just because you'll be dead or retired from radio when OTA Radio AS WE KNOW IT TODAY is dead and gone, that doesn't mean that for the purposes of this thread and this discussion, the subject is OTA Radio AS WE KNOW IT TODAY.
Not if we're the ones transitioning it from what it is today to what it will become.
The discussion is about RADIO and how Over The Air Radio is still strong. I started this thread. The claim is RADIO is dead. I disagree. My initial point is RADIO, as in over the air programming, is not dead as a growing number of people are now listening to RADIO over platforms other than the device we all know as radio. If we will think product or the audio part, I think radio is strong as people listen with radios, computers and wireless devices.
A buddy of mine works in a cubicle on a floor with about 300 after working for years in radio. The rule is you can listen to whatever you want but must wear headphones or ear buds. Needless to say. listening was done on devices other than a conventional radio. As he has been there a while, he knows everyone of his floor and for the fun of it asked his coworkers what they listened to. His findings were pretty shocking in his mind. With all the complaints he got from so many on his floor about how there was no radio station that really played what they wanted to hear, about 75% listened to a local radio station that streamed their signal. About 15% listened to what he termed 'niche' formats, mostly of over the air stations. About 5% listened to their own music or a customized music service. About 5% didn't listen to anything. This is about 2 years old as I write this so the percentages may have changed somewhat. Ironically, the #1 station in town was #1 in office listening in his polling. He noted most everyone in the office was in the 25 to 40 age group and about 65% women.
The most frequent reason for listening to a local over the air station: I feel in touch with where I live by listening. When asked about the music, many said the music was simply okay and most of the time they weren't really listening to the music very intently. I gather that to be somewhat like having the TV on for ambient sound. I found this very interesting. I wondered if that percentage would be as high if there was a listing for internet streams, somewhat like radio-locator, that lists all stations.
I think listening to radio with a radio is going to be the bulk of listening for several more years simply because of ease of access and the cost to receive the signal. With data plans as they are and monthly fees, it will take some changes before streaming can achieve that group that simply listens via the radio because it is free, available and easy to use.
Some have commented about how the under 24 crowd is not coming to radio, as in over the air. I can say that looking at some actual figures from some internet only college stations that effectively promote themselves, they aren't listening to the streams either. In fact, at one University where the college station' s audio was on a message channel of the college TV cable system as well as online, only 22% listened online with 78% choosing the TV audio. All the stations had aps available. All stations did what I considered a good to better than good job at creating awareness and promoting the station including Facebook, Twitter and other such platforms. When a college of over 11,000 only gets about 1,000 'clicks' in a month, that's not a huge group.
A buddy of mine works in a cubicle on a floor with about 300 after working for years in radio. The rule is you can listen to whatever you want but must wear headphones or ear buds. Needless to say. listening was done on devices other than a conventional radio. As he has been there a while, he knows everyone of his floor and for the fun of it asked his coworkers what they listened to. His findings were pretty shocking in his mind. With all the complaints he got from so many on his floor about how there was no radio station that really played what they wanted to hear, about 75% listened to a local radio station that streamed their signal. About 15% listened to what he termed 'niche' formats, mostly of over the air stations. About 5% listened to their own music or a customized music service. About 5% didn't listen to anything. This is about 2 years old as I write this so the percentages may have changed somewhat. Ironically, the #1 station in town was #1 in office listening in his polling. He noted most everyone in the office was in the 25 to 40 age group and about 65% women.
The most frequent reason for listening to a local over the air station: I feel in touch with where I live by listening. When asked about the music, many said the music was simply okay and most of the time they weren't really listening to the music very intently. I gather that to be somewhat like having the TV on for ambient sound. I found this very interesting. I wondered if that percentage would be as high if there was a listing for internet streams, somewhat like radio-locator, that lists all stations.
I think listening to radio with a radio is going to be the bulk of listening for several more years simply because of ease of access and the cost to receive the signal. With data plans as they are and monthly fees, it will take some changes before streaming can achieve that group that simply listens via the radio because it is free, available and easy to use.
Some have commented about how the under 24 crowd is not coming to radio, as in over the air. I can say that looking at some actual figures from some internet only college stations that effectively promote themselves, they aren't listening to the streams either. In fact, at one University where the college station' s audio was on a message channel of the college TV cable system as well as online, only 22% listened online with 78% choosing the TV audio. All the stations had aps available. All stations did what I considered a good to better than good job at creating awareness and promoting the station including Facebook, Twitter and other such platforms. When a college of over 11,000 only gets about 1,000 'clicks' in a month, that's not a huge group.
There is NO difference between over the air radio and the same programming being streamed online. It is the product that is the radio station. A stage is just a stage but when the actors and actresses perform on the stage, it is a play. Radio is not a frequency or a transmitter but a product that can be distributed via several different venues. From that perspective, radio is not dead. Sure, more are listening with something other than a radio but the irony of it, from all the figures I have seen, the average listener is tuning to the streaming platform of the over the air station.
And Avid Listener, please work on contributing to the conversation. To cut folks down and make sarcastic remarks to justify your opinion makes me think your opinion must not be worth much if you have to tear down other opinions to make yourself look good. Remember, we're just talking and if I disagree with you, we're just two folks with different opinions, that's all. It's not personal. It makes your opinion no less worthy. You have some good points to make, just let them stand on their own.
And Avid Listener, please work on contributing to the conversation. To cut folks down and make sarcastic remarks to justify your opinion makes me think your opinion must not be worth much if you have to tear down other opinions to make yourself look good. Remember, we're just talking and if I disagree with you, we're just two folks with different opinions, that's all. It's not personal. It makes your opinion no less worthy. You have some good points to make, just let them stand on their own.
The thread title says "radio" and not "OTA Radio".
When FM was kickstarted in 1967, nobody said "radio is dead" even though, for most people, listening the the "new kind of radio" required a new piece of hardware.
Today, radio is not dead either. Listeners decided they liked multifunction devices that included "radio" in the options. They had to buy a new device, a smartphone, to get radio in the new way. But it's still radio to them.
Either you are consumer driven and say "if they think their phone is also a radio, then I will deliver my content that way, too" or you adopt a production based model where we know what the listener wants, and they are gonna' like it no matter what and then we give them an Edsel.
We are already transitioning. Clear Channel became iHeart because the new media platform is where they believe growth is going to be. CBS and Cumulus and Univision have "Radio" "Rdio" and "Uforia" with lots of additional channels and formats and very rich content related to the music and listener lifestyles. Many broadcasters have joined with Jeff Smulyan to push FM activation on smartphones; Emmis also has streaming products of considerable depth. Many smaller stations and groups have associated with bigger operations to stream and provide content.
The pureplays do not yet have a sustainable economic model. As it stands now, the viable model of OTA radio does transfer to streaming but may require some adjustments as to things like commercial load, geofencing, negotiating the DCMA payments, etc. But traditional radio groups are moving as fast as the audience to new media with the advantage of having sustainable positive cash flow.
What possible difference does my age, or anyone else's age make in this discussion? Those of us interested enough in this discussion to post obviously care about the industry and the profession, not just our individual jobs and paychecks. There is no need to make this personal while ignoring the fact that those of us in the business today are taking part in creating the path to full new media distribution of radio. RADIO: No matter what distribution platform is.
As I said, the OTA radio companies have the only profitable streaming operations and they are looking for additional options in the new media area. But in the meantime, the OTA part of the business is making money and, even with gradual erosion, the OTA operations will be the most profitable for some time to come.[/SIZE][/FONT]
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Relationships with other participants develop over time. I don't need a newbie lecturing me on interactions with individuals I've been interacting with for months.
Maybe you should instead concentrate on learning to write more clearly so that your launch posts won't be misunderstood.
And Avid Listener, please work on contributing to the conversation. To cut folks down and make sarcastic remarks to justify your opinion makes me think your opinion must not be worth much if you have to tear down other opinions to make yourself look good.
I think Mr. Turner may well have been a participant here in the past and for whatever reason found it necessary to get a new log-in. In other venues I have been exchanging messages with him for a long, long time. He is in the business, you are not. He has a C.P. for a new LPFM. He has traveled through the territory where you and I live to see radio stations that fit his interest, and he has made such travels nation-wide.
What was the day like? Was the sun shining? Was it raining? Was there the sound of rushing wind? Could you hear the sound of trumpets? Did the angels sing? I'm speaking of the day that apparently God anointed you to cut as many people off at the ankles as you could get to.
Yes, relationships with other participants develop over time. I would give the Turner lad a bit more time if I were you. He can be a relationship worth developing.
- Status