-
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
Is Terrestrial Radio Facing Its Judgment Day With Fierce Digital Competition?
- Thread starter Bongwater
- Start date
Radio will be fine
It's not like in 10 years FM be the new AM, All you hear is Church Stations
People still listen to CHR/Hip Hop/Rock on it
It's not like in 10 years FM be the new AM, All you hear is Church Stations
People still listen to CHR/Hip Hop/Rock on it
The problem with this article is it's ignoring the fact that the majority of radio stations in this country don't have debt problems. There are 14,000 radio stations and the two companies mentioned own less than 10% of them. So if you're going to jump to conclusions about radio, you should base them on a larger number of stations. Not take the easy way out and blame the two biggest companies for everything you can think of. The reality is the two biggest companies, the ones with the biggest debt, are actually the ones in the best shape for dealing with digital competition. Meanwhile the smaller stations are the ones who are still operating as though it's 1980, and don't actually have a digital plan.
I find it incredible that a publication with the reputation like Billboard can publish an article like this with so many factual errors. KFOG did NOT "lose its entire staff." They changed the format and REPLACED the staff. They're all local. The biggest iHeart stations still have lots of live and local personalities. Gorman complains about "national programming," but obviously that's what the public is seeking, with options like Sirius and Pandora. Tell me all the local personalities on Pandora. None.
For some reason, the article doesn't mention the fact that the "digital competition" also has a lot of debt. Pandora is hundreds of millions in debt, and has never turned a profit. Same with Spotify. There is no money to be made in digital media right now because of high music royalties. That issue was completely overlooked in this article.
The reality is that any company that gets into owning radio stations, whether it's big or small, will be faced with the exact same problem, and that is the fact that are simply more options than there were 25 years ago, and those options aren't going away, regardless of debt or programming. No amount of local programming will get people to give up their phones or computers. The 1996 Communications Act did NOT create the internet or other forms of media. The truth is a lot of different things all happened at the same time. And none of those things are going away, including OTA radio. But the budgets will be smaller. And that's just a fact of life.
I find it incredible that a publication with the reputation like Billboard can publish an article like this with so many factual errors. KFOG did NOT "lose its entire staff." They changed the format and REPLACED the staff. They're all local. The biggest iHeart stations still have lots of live and local personalities. Gorman complains about "national programming," but obviously that's what the public is seeking, with options like Sirius and Pandora. Tell me all the local personalities on Pandora. None.
For some reason, the article doesn't mention the fact that the "digital competition" also has a lot of debt. Pandora is hundreds of millions in debt, and has never turned a profit. Same with Spotify. There is no money to be made in digital media right now because of high music royalties. That issue was completely overlooked in this article.
The reality is that any company that gets into owning radio stations, whether it's big or small, will be faced with the exact same problem, and that is the fact that are simply more options than there were 25 years ago, and those options aren't going away, regardless of debt or programming. No amount of local programming will get people to give up their phones or computers. The 1996 Communications Act did NOT create the internet or other forms of media. The truth is a lot of different things all happened at the same time. And none of those things are going away, including OTA radio. But the budgets will be smaller. And that's just a fact of life.
Last edited:
Digital audio by and large is no competition to OTA for revenue and a minor player for listeners. No, "everybody" isn't listening to obscure indie bands or 10,000 oldie rotations on digital. People seem to really think that if the Telecom act had never happened, radio would have been frozen in time, and everybody who was live in 1996 would be live today. That I wouldn't have bet the farm on
Same old illogic: Granny isn't dead yet, therefore Granny will live forever. Radio didn't die in 1957, therefore radio will not die in 2017.
Movies did not kill the legitimate stage because theater offered an experience movies can not (however, theater's niche became a lot smaller). But on demand will kill broadcast audio because there is nothing broadcasting offers than on demand can't do more and better.
Movies did not kill the legitimate stage because theater offered an experience movies can not (however, theater's niche became a lot smaller). But on demand will kill broadcast audio because there is nothing broadcasting offers than on demand can't do more and better.
Except that broadcast is easier and cheaper. And for many, that's more important than more and better.
Only for late adopters and others not important to advertisers.
Cheaper? Not really. You get a smartphone, you get new media thrown in.
The article fails to distinguish between the programming and the platform. Since almost all terrestrial broadcasters have a digital component, it's the programming that must survive and attract new listeners regardless of where or how they consume it.
Everything moves in cycles. When Millennials tire of hearing song-after-song-after-song programmed by a robot with no live, human commentary - and they will - we'll see a shift back to what we think of as "radio." Will it be terrestrial or digital? Who knows? Who cares?
Everything moves in cycles. When Millennials tire of hearing song-after-song-after-song programmed by a robot with no live, human commentary - and they will - we'll see a shift back to what we think of as "radio." Will it be terrestrial or digital? Who knows? Who cares?
On demand requires you to know what you want. Most don't know.
On demand costs more. The royalty to the creators is higher, and that cost will at some point get passed to the consumer. In some places, it already is.
Look...another thing the article didn't mention is that listenership isn't down at popular OTA radio stations. It's about the same as it was 25 years ago. Don't confuse corporate debt with lack of use. They're not the same thing. People are still using radio in large numbers. Why? Because it's cheap and easy.
I walk into my local gas station/convenience store and the clerk has the radio on. I'm just not imagining the universe where this clerk is self-programming 8 hours of tunes to play on his/her smartphone (on a pre-paid plan). There would be a lot to overcome to replace OTA with digital.
The argument has always been that as soon as people can choose thousands of streams of unfamiliar music, they'll leave the limited playlists of OTA and the towers will come crashing down. We've had the ability to select deeper cuts since the dawn of XM and Sirius, but folks don't seem to be taking advantage.
The argument has always been that as soon as people can choose thousands of streams of unfamiliar music, they'll leave the limited playlists of OTA and the towers will come crashing down. We've had the ability to select deeper cuts since the dawn of XM and Sirius, but folks don't seem to be taking advantage.
Pandora is free.
Podcasts are free.
And the article didn't mention it because it's not true. Time spent with radio is down. For people younger than Baby Boomers, way down or non-existent. It's not the same as 1990, let alone 1960. Why do you think advertisers have abandoned terrestrial radio?
I still hear plenty of advertising on any terrestrial station I listen to. They by no means have abandoned it.
For those that have (or supplement it), the competition isn't the guy in his basement playing obscure indie bands; it's this big corporation known as Facebook.
Where are all these great personalities on Pandora? You still have to spend time "training" the Pandora algorithm
Not to mention Pandora losing $19 million in the last quarter of 2015 alone. Once venture capitalists get tired of throwing money at it, how long does it survive?
For those that have (or supplement it), the competition isn't the guy in his basement playing obscure indie bands; it's this big corporation known as Facebook.
Where are all these great personalities on Pandora? You still have to spend time "training" the Pandora algorithm
Not to mention Pandora losing $19 million in the last quarter of 2015 alone. Once venture capitalists get tired of throwing money at it, how long does it survive?
Not for long. Pandora is hundreds of millions of dollars in debt. They have stockholders. The record labels don't like music to be given away for free. So the free Pandora channels will be going away. Same with podcasts. There will be subscriber fees for everything you want. The popular podcasts have commercials. Everybody wants to make money. Greed is good.
Advertisers haven't abandoned terrestrial radio. Once again, you're misreading the information. Ad budgets may be getting spread thinner, but advertisers are still spending on OTA radio. The top-rated radio stations in many cities are the ones that appeal to millennials. Take a look. Z-100. KIIS. All aiming at people under 35. It actually IS the same as 1990. You'd be surprised. When you place online streams or satellite channels against OTA stations, you see the difference. OTA radio stations attract large numbers of people, while the digital options each get a few here and there. Once again, the usage number for OTA radio is 92%. You don't get a number that big without people younger than baby boomers.
People who don't use Radio won't be included in any
Radio industry sponsored research. Many former listeners have moved
on and aren't ever coming back. They have options they didn't have
20 years ago.
Asking a customer in a McDonald's if he eats at McDonald's isn't
relevant data. I've heard that McDonald's usage is also down...
Radio industry sponsored research. Many former listeners have moved
on and aren't ever coming back. They have options they didn't have
20 years ago.
Asking a customer in a McDonald's if he eats at McDonald's isn't
relevant data. I've heard that McDonald's usage is also down...
Nielsen (Arbitron) radio ratings include non-users of radio, and always have. This is why there is a percentage of persons who do not listen to the radio at all in each ratings book.
Last edited:
Users of radio in Los Angles, last three months in 18-34: 94.1% In 12-17 it is 95%.
Yes, Time Spent Listening is down, but there are simply lots more choices. In fact, TSL started registering declines with the advent of video games, so time is being divided among many new choices, not just Pandora.
The largest reason why TSL is different today than it was 10 or 20 years ago is the implementation of the PPM measurement which showed the exact listening times and all the interruptions, and that resulted in about a 40% decrease in real TSL.
If you have research that you accept, other than your personal opinion, post it here.
What's interesting is TSL for Pandora. Typically it's 3 songs, or about ten minutes. About the same for YouTube.
The problem is that the article was written from a perspective that only allowed the nay-sayers a voice. The actual session had much more balance. Some people whining about jobs they lost decades ago and blaming the industry for their own problems. Others mentioned radio as a reach medium and still the only profitable option in the space.
Why the writer picked only the most negative comments of the most negative speakers is beyond me. But journalism long ago became a profession where getting a second opinion is often enlightening.
- Status