I was listening to the radio and i heard an advertisment saying that radio reaches more people than TV. Anyways do you see AM/FM commercial radio as a promising industry in the future. Or do you see more and more future audiences flocking to streaming and things like pandora and spotify in the future. Do you think iheart and Audacy should be concerned about the future for the radio industry
-
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
The future of Radio
- Thread starter CassChopper96
- Start date
Radio is not restricted to the AM & FM band. You can listen to radio stations online, on your phone, so forth. Radio, or radio stations in their various listening options do reach more people than TV in percentages. Radio has fared amazingly well against all the other options. Online listening, such devices as phone and the Alexa devices will increase, I think, but for some reason people tend to want to connect with their community via radio. The big issue for radio is to monetize online listening. Making online listening profitable is pretty elusive.
As others have stated in various discussion threads, smart station owners and companies like iHeart and Audacy not only have terrestrial stations, but have also invested in apps, streaming and social media. It only makes sense that "radio" reaches more people than TV as many people listen to radio while at work, in the car, at home, while working in the garage or workshop, etc. Conversely, to really reach people effectively, in most cases TV requires the viewer to be positioned in front of their set and watching, which most generally happens at home. Granted, some have their TVs on in the background, but if that's the case, when speaking of advertising specifically, their eyes aren't seeing the product being sold if they're just passively listening. Also, as has been mentioned elsewhere, that "TV" audience isn't just watching broadcast or CATV. Many are streaming content, watching stuff they've downloaded or otherwise accessed, etc.
"Radio" can of course mean many things as well, and doesn't just refer to OTA terrestrial broadcasts on stations in the market where that particular listener is located.
"Radio" can of course mean many things as well, and doesn't just refer to OTA terrestrial broadcasts on stations in the market where that particular listener is located.
Last edited:
If radio adequately adapts to streaming instead of towers and transmitters, there is a good future there. The problem is that pure ad supported media can't make a profit off streaming so that is a separate issue impeding further "free radio" online.
There are many families and people who can't pay for music streaming services, and want ad supported free ones. Only when the music industry recognizes the discriminatory nature of free streaming charges to stations and finds a way for broadcast radio to provide ad-supported services with an affordable rights fee payment will that group of listeners ceased to be discriminated against by the music industry.
Both companies own their own streaming platforms and podcast platforms. They each have good business plans beyond traditional radio. The companies that should be worried are the small mom & pops with stations in the suburbs.
Do you think smaller companies like Beasely, Hubbard and Cummulus have something to be worried about
In this context, they're not really smaller. All three have very active podcast divisions, and Cumulus owns Westwood One
Smaller companies are single station owners who don't have a digital plan or anything besides their air signal.
The decline in terrestrial radio began in 1996 with the overhaul of the ownership rules. Everything now is cookie cutter with actual local focus the exception to the rule a la WDAS-FM, KYW, WMGK, WMMR..the stations that still have live personalities. To be honest, I listen to about 2 minutes of terrestrial radio when KYW comes on my clock radio..I hit off or snooze when I get the top of the hour headlines. That said while driving, I do listen to 102.9 hd 2.
Absolutely wrong. Ownership rules have nothing to do with anything. The decline statistically began in 1988 when people found other things to listen to besides radio, such as personal mix tapes and personal music collections. Once people could listen to their own playlists, they slowly stopped listening to the radio. That caused time spent listening (TSL) to decline, and that began in 1988.
The cookie cutter complaint is because the music became more cookie cutter as record companies started merging also in 1988. That was the year RCA was sold to the German conglomerate BMG and Columbia was sold to the Japanese conglomerate Sony. Then Sony bought RCA from BMG. So now we only have three major music companies in the world.
Kenneykop - Everything is cookie cutter and saying that's partly why radio is in decline.
Let me explain why that is patently false: the ownership rules being overhauled meant radio companies became publicly traded companies. You can bet stockholders did not say do a format that causes listenership to decline because we don't want a dividend from our investment. We want to have to sell commercials for less and make less money. No, they want the most listeners so commercials can be priced higher and dividends assured. What company is going to give their customers something their customers don't want and say that's their plan for success? The answer: None.
Cookie cutter formats exist because they work. Likely the biggest or most popular cookie cutter format was Top 40, a format that began in the late 1950s. In fact radio listening is 89% of the USA tuning in weekly. They listen on various devices and the radio itself.
In fact, I have to admit, if it wasn't for the frequently despised big radio corporations, radio would be worse off. Advances in technology and operations have improved dramatically. Lots of moms and pops would be gone without those advances. Those advances came because when a big boy would buy your product there was the investment dollars to produce an exceptional product. If these companies were selling one at a time, they couldn't get the backing to maximize the product to perfection. So, it's big corporate radio that fueled the technology that makes it possible for the little guy to survive.
Let me explain why that is patently false: the ownership rules being overhauled meant radio companies became publicly traded companies. You can bet stockholders did not say do a format that causes listenership to decline because we don't want a dividend from our investment. We want to have to sell commercials for less and make less money. No, they want the most listeners so commercials can be priced higher and dividends assured. What company is going to give their customers something their customers don't want and say that's their plan for success? The answer: None.
Cookie cutter formats exist because they work. Likely the biggest or most popular cookie cutter format was Top 40, a format that began in the late 1950s. In fact radio listening is 89% of the USA tuning in weekly. They listen on various devices and the radio itself.
In fact, I have to admit, if it wasn't for the frequently despised big radio corporations, radio would be worse off. Advances in technology and operations have improved dramatically. Lots of moms and pops would be gone without those advances. Those advances came because when a big boy would buy your product there was the investment dollars to produce an exceptional product. If these companies were selling one at a time, they couldn't get the backing to maximize the product to perfection. So, it's big corporate radio that fueled the technology that makes it possible for the little guy to survive.
The decline started with Docket 80-90 which multiplied the number of stations in most markets, particularly medium and smaller ones. The end result was that over half of all stations were not profitable. So the FCC could only help by allowing economies of scale, and they deregulated to allow consolidation.
Technology allowed voice tracking, not consolidation. We would have done that earlier if it were easier, just as we stopped having engineers at the transmitter site and doing logs manually.
Ford discovered how well it worked when he mass-produced the Model T. When you have a good product, you make it available to everyone.
Even earlier. KOWH went to Top 40 in the early 50's and by Spring of 1952 it was #1 on a 500 watt daytimer in Omaha.
Radio companies have been publicly traded companies since the 1920s. Westinghouse, GE, and RCA were all publicly traded companies. I'm pretty sure Crosley was publicly traded. Several newspaper companies that owned radio were publicly traded. There is nothing in the ownership rules that say anything about the types of companies that could own radio stations. The only thing the ownership rule did was eliminate a national cap on the number of stations a company could own. But it retained local caps in local markets based on the type of service. That's all the rules did. Nothing about programming, nothing about staffing, nothing about studios or syndication. Nothing.
Everything that people attribute to the 1996 Act actually happened in the 1980s. The aforementioned Docket 80-90 in 1984 over-licensed the spectrum and devalued licenses. At that point, many of the legacy radio companies sold off their stations. NBC, GE, National Life, and many more got out of radio. At the same time, there were mega-mergers taking place in the TV business. That brought in the venture capitalists and investment companies. Robert F. X. Sillerman, Kolberg Kravitz, the Bass Brothers. Lots of big money coming into what was originally a pretty quiet business of broadcasting.
But the decline between 1985 and 1990 was minimal... daily TSL per person went down by about 6% over those 15 years. And PUR did not decline at all.
Yet in nations where there were lots of independent companies in the music business, such as Mexico, Argentina, Brazil and Colombia (combined population greater than the USA) the same things happened. Radio further consolidated, and companies discovered techniques where they could determine the songs and formats to play.
In those nations, consolidation existed back as far as the 50's. It did not affect listening levels except to increase the use of radio. I know; I had 9 stations in one city myself before 1970!
Yet perhaps the most successful radio group... one that bought dozens of stations just last week... has learned how to combine new media with old radio and make lots more money.
Exactly, which is why I said the companies that should be worried are those without a digital plan or anything besides their air signal.
I'm just pointing to when & why the decline began. PUR declined when other devices came into play, and the electronics industry stopped developing exciting new radios for people to buy.
I didn't say that consolidation affected listening levels, because it didn't. In the 30s and 40s, most of the radio programming came from three companies: NBC, CBS, and Mutual. That's a smaller source of content than today, and we call it the Golden Age of Radio.
Consolidation of the music business affected the cookie cutter sound of today's music. When you have a small group of people behind the scenes writing the hits, producing the records, and guiding the record labels, it all starts to sound the same. But it hasn't affected the listening to music. In fact, I'm reading that music is consumed more today than at any other time.
- Status