Internet Radio

[wadio]

Bloomberg Business Week (on Bloomberg Radio) this weekend is featuring a story about Howard Stern and his Sirius contract.

Something the reporter said made a lightbulb go off in my head. He speculated about whether Howard could now do for Internet Radio what he did for Sirius 10 years ago -- if he wanted to take up the challenge. The idea being that a Howard Stern site might be the go-to point that could help Internet Radio reach critical mass. Critical audience mass also means critical advertising mass and because it's the Internet advertisers have the ability to target more specifically.

The lightbulb is that, when you think about it, that's what Facebook did for social media, YouTube for video, etc. Before that there were plenty of places to find that content but no focal point. If Facebook and YouTube disappeared tomorrow people would just go elsewhere. But because they're so widely used they're seen as indispensable.

Yes, we already have iHeart Radio, TuneIn, etc. but that's no different from Satellite Radio, pre-Howard. It took a personality with a huge, loyal following and all the publicity he was able to generate to really put Sirius on the map. Glenn Beck has attempted to do this for Internet Radio but he's way too narrow a niche.

So imagine a site with unique content that everyone talks about -- a "must hear." For many people, that could easily become tomorrow's "radio," the way Facebook is today's social media.

Until we have easy access to WiFi in cars maybe it's early, but the fact that not everyone has cable didn't stop HBO from becoming a go-to place for original content. Stern is in his 60s and probably doesn't need the challenge so maybe he's not the guy, but it's an interesting concept.

 

[Radiojar]

You are exactly right.

 

[b-turner]

The idea is sure a valid one. I'm not sure who the person is that could create enough buzz and demand to take internet radio to the next level. Even Howard Stern is more niche than mass appeal but then again so is everyone else. We have well known musicians that we could throw in the mix and Hollywood stars too. Even so, our world today is splintered in a thousand pieces. An organized effort with a hand picked group might have better success. I think it boils down to establishing the proverbial water cooler talk that is essential in creating the sampling. With that said, internet radio certainly is a different animal with a more accessible and personal quality that can certainly help. Maybe some big companies out there might want to give it a shot.

 

[Ravens]

Who is going to pay $80 million a year to have Howie do a podcast? And how would they make the money back? It's not like Stern is going to take a pay cut to have even fewer paying listeners.

 

[b-turner]

Good point. There are some that see the glass half full and other see it half empty. We need both types to analyse risk. From what I've seen, XM/Sirius has about a 1.4 share and that includes vehicles with the first year free. At most, fewer than 5% of the country has the ability to hear XM/Sirius. If big names can better that percentage via internet radio, then what are those financial possibilities? After all, the more you have the more risk you can take. Certainly the potential based on the number of internet connected devices exceeds the number of XM/Sirius receivers. Obviously the way internet radio is today, the chances are slim but even XM/Sirius started at zero and moved forward. I'm not saying it wouldn't take very deep pockets not unlike taking on something like eBay and actually giving it a solid run for its money but it is something that has been repeated many times historically in the business world and something tells me it will happen again, maybe not internet radio, but rather something we will wish had been our idea.

 

[TheBigA]

You have to think of it the way he does: What's in it for Howard? The problem with the internet is monetization. If it was so easy, Pandora would be profitable.

I really don't get a sense that Howard cares about creating a platform the way Beck did. Howard likes the idea of having people pay him, not investing in platforms. So if iTunes or Beats wants to pay him to be the face of their new service, that might interest him. But to create it himself isn't what he does.

 

[b-turner]

I really don't think Howard Stern is the guy to do this, nor do I think one person is. You are right that monetizing is the issue. Nothing has worked yet but I think something will. We are thinking outside the box here, not comparing the past to the future. We're looking at how there might be a model never before attempted.

 

[Ravens]

The way to monetize internet streaming (IT'S NOT RADIO) is something no one has even thought of yet. The person who comes up with it will be a billionaire. Right now the problem is this: Anyone and their mother can do a podcast, and do. There's too much content and no way to know what's good and what's some guy yelling about pro wrestling or video games into a gaming headset.

The solution is going to be advertising. Just like it was on radio. Now the hard part is making ad buyers see that there is value in the product. Right now there just isn't.

 

[umfan]

Perhaps its simply not a platform that can be effectively monetized. Some investment capital has been attracted from sources with excess capital in case they can hit 'the next big thing'. This, eventually, will cease, and the platform will sustain on what advertising it can sell or fees it can collect. Some version of the platform will endure, but not to the point that a 'billionaire' will be minted IMO.

I think the trend is what has been seen, that being the big radio conglomerates are building one stop digital sites, like iHeart, as a portal for their content and leveraging their sales for whatever incremental revenue can be had by this. Not sure there's more there than this.

Regarding Stern, I don't think he has much left in him, and even if he did, he's not nearly as relevant now as he was at the time of the shift to Sirius. He's not the one to lead the charge, and I'm not sure there is anyone who can.

Further, a lot of personalities already monetize their content with paywalls for podcasts, etc. like Limbaugh does. I don't see the personalities with real clout, which means real ratings, giving up that cash.

 

[b-turner]

I really have to agree with the above two posts. I feel what will monetize the internet is an unknown and it will likely be quite different from what we suspect. Folks like Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh, while known names with a good following, I suspect their thinking is monetizing their website or contract versus thinking outside the box.

My Dad hated the music I listened to as a kid. In his words it was not music, they couldn't sing and the music made him nervous. I remember when Rap and Hip Hop caught on. Although it doesn't make me feel nervous, the music was so far removed from what I grew up with I felt myself thinking the same words my Dad had said. My Dad said the music my kids would like would likely be so vastly different that you'd hardly recognize it. I think the monetizing will be beyond what we know the internet to be.

I do think radio can be monetized on the internet. I agree Sound Exchange has to make some changes in a big way but it is such a natural platform for current media. The money might come from something other than audio streaming. Just what that is beyond me which explains why I haven't been spotted laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[flybynight]

When Stern went to satellite, many people weren't terribly aware of the service. It was this new concept that took some getting used to. His move led people to check it out and maybe subscribe.

Internet "radio" (which isn't really "radio") is basically internet-fed audio, which the general public is extremely aware of, as well as it's video counterpart.

The idea that any "one" person or website is going to suddenly pique people's interest in a medium they already use regularly, is ridiculous.

The biggest problem with internet "radio" is that most of it's content is absolutely godawful; sloppy, boring, often amateurish and unlistenable. It's a sea of mostly garbage.

The only thing Howard Stern---or any other audio superstar---is going to do for internet "radio", is get subscribers for whatever site they're on, nothing more. Kind of how it is already.

 

[wadio]

The idea that any "one" person or website is going to suddenly pique people's interest in a medium they already use regularly, is ridiculous.

Yep. In 2004 the suggestion that Facebook could dominate the social media space was ridiculous.

 

[NewsStud]

The way to monetize internet streaming (IT'S NOT RADIO)

Yes, it is "radio." The anti-SiriusXM crowd started using this slogan more than a decade ago, as if traditional terrestrial broadcasting was the only type of "radio" out there. Now the anti-streamers use it. They think it legitimizes non-broadcast audio.

While you can argue "internet radio" isn't radio since the delivery method isn't employing EM waves, but IP, the truth of the American media consumer is this: All audio-only mass-mediated programming and information is "radio" no matter the delivery.

I could easily say terrestrial broadcasts are nothing but Electromagnetic Streams.

Or I could face reality: All audio-only mass media is competing (or needs to compete) for audience and dollars with other audio-only mass media in order to one day be successful.

 

[flybynight]

Yep. In 2004 the suggestion that Facebook could dominate the social media space was ridiculous.

Again, you're talking about something that was NEW. Listening/watching things on the internet is NOT NEW. Most already do that now...and have been for years.

The sea of garbage that populates internet "radio" now, will remain there. If Stern, for example, moves to the net, it'll certainly help the site that offers his show, but the sea of internet "radio" garbage will continue to exist unremarkably.

 

[b-turner]

That is a good point, defining radio. Here;s how I describe it: audio that originates and can be heard at an over the air broadcast radio station as well as any other platform that allows a person to hear that audio. In just the same way you might view an over the air television station via cable, via satellite, online, etc. it is still television, only the device or receiver has changed. The same goes for radio.

 

[wadio]

Again, you're talking about something that was NEW. Listening/watching things on the internet is NOT NEW. Most already do that now...and have been for years.

The sea of garbage that populates internet "radio" now, will remain there. If Stern, for example, moves to the net, it'll certainly help the site that offers his show, but the sea of internet "radio" garbage will continue to exist unremarkably.

Actually I'd say you're wrong. You said:

The idea that any "one" person or website is going to suddenly pique people's interest in a medium they already use regularly, is ridiculous.

Facebook was just one website in a sea of Internet sites (Myspace, AOL, individual websites, etc. etc.) Well, one person, Zuckerberg, developed one website that ignited people's interest and now, to many people, Facebook is the Internet!

Back in 2004, Facebook to me was just another Website and one I didn't particularly like. But there's no denying what happened. I think we'll see the same thing happen with what we now call "radio." All we don't know is what the catalyst will be.

 

[flybynight]

Actually I'd say you're wrong. You said:


Facebook was just one website in a sea of Internet sites (Myspace, AOL, individual websites, etc. etc.) Well, one person, Zuckerberg, developed one website that ignited people's interest and now, to many people, Facebook is the Internet!

Back in 2004, Facebook to me was just another Website and one I didn't particularly like. But there's no denying what happened. I think we'll see the same thing happen with what we now call "radio." All we don't know is what the catalyst will be.

You are really comparing apples and oranges by using Facebook as an example of how internet "radio" could suddenly explode in popularity with just the right show.

Facebook, while just another website in a sea of websites, offered people a unique experience: that is, connecting with people from all over the world, particularly people they know and/or are related to---or haven't seen in a thousand years, etc. etc.

Facebook made itself popular by nature of what is and what it offers. It DID NOT suddenly make the internet more popular. The net was doing just fine when facebook came along. If anything, the already existing popularity of the internet is what made facebook possible.

In that same regard, a star personality going on the net will only enhance the popularity of whatever site offers that show. It WILL NOT suddenly make internet radio, or internet audio in general, any more popular. That's not even logical considering how most people already watch and listen to things online.

And again, when Stern went to satellite, that was completely different than your facebook example or the internet radio hypothesis, since satellite really was a brand new audio medium that consumers needed to be dragged to just to have them sample it. Totally different dynamic.

 

[b-turner]

I think many are missing the whole point. There's so much out there on internet radio and most of it garbage. True Facebook is only a website. You are comparing existing to non-existing. I think what we are looking for are things not yet utilized that can create demand for internet radio. Obviously what is out there is not working. We're talking something not unlike eBay that brought people to the internet to buy and sell or Amazon. Have you any ideas you feel might work? I'd be quiet and trying to create millions if I had the magic answer.

 

[wadio]

That's right. The fact that a creative idea -- often the brainchild of a single individual -- can bring focus to a field that's in chaos is not ridiculous at all. And it doesn't matter how long the technology has been around.

I'm not going to repeat what I said in my original post but I didn't suggest that, "internet radio could suddenly explode in popularity with just the right show." I do believe a creative individual -- a unique personality who more likely than not will be a part of the content -- will develop a focused platform that will largely replace terrestrial radio.

That concept doesn't just apply to media -- the computer tablet had been around for some time before one individual tweaked it and made it "cool." At the time more than a few critics said a computer without a keyboard was "ridiculous."

 

[TheBigA]

I do believe a creative individual -- a unique personality who more likely than not will be a part of the content -- will develop a focused platform that will largely replace terrestrial radio.

A lot of things have to change, and one of them if the profit motivation of ISPs, and I don't expect that to happen. Until then, OTA radio will be omnipresent and free, and internet radio will be subject to wifi availability, and will be limited by bandwidth costs.

Sure the federal government and various local governments have talked about providing free wifi, but so far it really hasn't happened.