• 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

Adult Content on Radio and TV (from Seattle Board)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Research? Got it. ;) How much was your subscription?
Yep, actual research. Research is free. There were newspaper articles about the industry at the time that OF was considering pulling the plug on pr0n, and content creators have their own discussion boards on Reddit,. where they talk about the business side of things, including the money they make, the size of their viewership, all that.

When content channel sites like Pr0nHub were scrutinized a couple years ago I heard about it on the CBC (radio), and several news stories I found about it mentioned the massive reach these pr0n content aggregator sites have.

Some studies say up to 91% of men and 60% of women have looked at such sites at least once a month. So, as I mentioned previously, the concept of just a small number of content channels having as many viewers as a medium sized sporting event isn't all that far fetched.


It's another side to the fascinating world of media consumption demographics, Kelly. ;)

Back to pr0n radio. Obviously, it would have potential audience (see the above linked stats on pr0n use) but I think the biggest drawback would be advertising revenue. If a station is owned by a large company, they wouldn't want the type of non-traditional advertisements that such programs might attract, and few if any of the more traditional advertisers would want to have their spots on a program that is dedicated to sex talk. I just don't think it would work, revenue wise.
 
I did some research when OnlyFans threatened to cut off all adult content, because I was curious as to how such a company could seem to be pulling in so much money -- and in doing that research I saw just how much they were making off your neighbors, the guys you may be working with, and men you see on the highway or walking around in your local box store.
To put it bluntly, sex sells and it always has, going back to the days when young men had pinup photos of Marilyn Monroe. The primary difference is that it's now online for most anyone to access, but think about the late 1980s just to pick a reference point: Print magazines like Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler were popular, most every city had an "adult bookstore" and/or strip club, and larger cities had multiple. Places like truck stops openly advertised "peep shows" and their adult shops on billboards along the interstate. Cut to 2023 and all those things have more or less moved to the internet and it's been that way for some years. OnlyFans has been a real boon because it's kind of a win/win. The models who place their content on that site get more $$ than they'd make working through a traditional adult film studio, while people who subscribe pay a relatively small amount of money to follow the models they like best, see all their videos and content, and can even get specialized stuff done just for them by those same actors for a small fee. None of this is a secret, even NPR did a full hour about it several months back, including interviews with adult film stars who once worked for traditional studios but now feature their own content online, etc.
It's a multibillion dollar business, with some individual content creators' channels having the same number of viewers as a medium sized sports arena. Many of the content creators may make more than you do. Some of the channels may have more cume than most radio stations.
That said, this isn't just the case with adult content. There are many, many people who make a very handsome living just by posting (non-adult) content on social media sites like Instagram and YouTube. There are numerous stories of people who liked to travel, for instance, and they started posting photos and details from their travels on social media. They garnered a ton of followers and posted lots of original content so they got $$ from the social media sites where they were posting. Next, they started getting offers for sponsorships from airlines, hotel chains and other travel-related companies so now traveling and posting about it (and giving shoutouts to their sponsors) has become their sole source of income. There are others who are into wellness and bodybuilding. Again, they posted lots of videos and content documenting their fitness journey, they built up a thousands of followers which meant they were earning serious $$ from the social media sites, then they got sponsorships for things like the supplements they use, the gym clothing they wear, their hair products, etc. and they didn't need a "regular" job...And are making more than many who have traditional 9-5 positions.
As for any of this being on radio, even if it were legal to run on the airwaves I don't see it ever happening. What Stern was able to get away with was probably as far as it could ever go, and as BigA mentioned, Stern got fined.
I don't think anyone would seriously try to emulate what Howard Stern did back in the day. Radio is a much different business now, the days of "shock jocks" and even traditional "morning zoo" formats have passed and while there are some who've tried to be like Stern, the majority have fizzled out or been dropped by their employers. Keep in mind as well that the stuff that was considered cutting edge and "shocking" back when Stern was doing it, would probably be considered relatively tame by today's standards, so you'd need to keep pushing the boundaries and the envelope more and more, which could get one into trouble. Also keep in mind that the standards of decency and what's PC and acceptable have changed. Some of the bits and comments that may have been funny and laughable back when Stern did them would be cringeworthy today, and may even garner HR complaints if someone tried to listen to them in the workplace, etc.
 
Yep, actual research. Research is free. There were newspaper articles about the industry at the time that OF was considering pulling the plug on pr0n, and content creators have their own discussion boards on Reddit,. where they talk about the business side of things, including the money they make, the size of their viewership, all that.
Talking online about the 'size of their viewership'... Heh. I'll bet.
Some studies say up to 91% of men and 60% of women have looked at such sites at least once a month. So, as I mentioned previously, the concept of just a small number of content channels having as many viewers as a medium sized sporting event isn't all that far fetched.
These days the qualifier; "Some studies" is thrown around a lot. Especially on social media. Usually, it's used for nothing more than to justify a particular narrative that may be otherwise looked down upon by a greater society, or just to push a flat-out lie.
It's another side to the fascinating world of media consumption demographics, Kelly.
A yes, you're researching porn in the name of science. Got it. Sounds a lot like the old days of a Playboy subscription for the articles. :rolleyes: Yeah, right.
Back to pr0n radio. Obviously, it would have potential audience (see the above linked stats on pr0n use) but I think the biggest drawback would be advertising revenue.
Wouldn't that be why anyone features a particular format?
If a station is owned by a large company, they wouldn't want the type of non-traditional advertisements that such programs might attract, and few if any of the more traditional advertisers would want to have their spots on a program that is dedicated to sex talk. I just don't think it would work, revenue wise.
We agree there. It would be difficult to pay the power bill on advertising from 'head shops' and the local sex toy store.
This whole topic makes me feel like I need a tetanus shot.
 
Talking online about the 'size of their viewership'... Heh. I'll bet.

These days the qualifier; "Some studies" is thrown around a lot. Especially on social media. Usually, it's used for nothing more than to justify a particular narrative that may be otherwise looked down upon by a greater society, or just to push a flat-out lie.

A yes, you're researching porn in the name of science. Got it. Sounds a lot like the old days of a Playboy subscription for the articles. :rolleyes: Yeah, right.
Yeah, they talk business. They have direct access to the number of viewers they get, and the number of 'hits', the amount of engagement, all that web demographic stuff that anyone with a website or web channel who is trying to make money has to pay attention to. You claim to have set up internet streaming for radio, and because you're in television there is an implication that you're aware of online stats for the TV networks' and stations websites, amount of web traffic, and their relevance to the business model.

With any website that attempts to make money, it is no different.

As I said, news articles have pointed out that many of these content creators make high six figures, and many make seven figures. This is because 91% of men are consumers of it in general (the vast majority of the other 9% are probably lying to the survey takers).

RE: Studies: the NIH, which link I quoted, doesn't throw the studies they publish around lightly. They don't post research gained from social media.

Pub Med is not "social media".

We agree there. It would be difficult to pay the power bill on advertising from 'head shops' and the local sex toy store.
This whole topic makes me feel like I need a tetanus shot.
It's sort of like cannabis shop advertisements. The activity is legal in many jurisdictions, but not many radio companies are probably seeking out their advertisements. And, of course, the FCC seems to have a hands-off regulatory policy on cannabis shop ads for the time being, but it seems a lot of radio owners don't want to go there.
 
It's sort of like cannabis shop advertisements. The activity is legal in many jurisdictions, but not many radio companies are probably seeking out their advertisements. And, of course, the FCC seems to have a hands-off regulatory policy on cannabis shop ads for the time being, but it seems a lot of radio owners don't want to go there.
It's still a Schedule 1 drug under U.S. law, just like heroin. Are there really radio station owners who want to test the FCC on this? I'm in Vermont, which has legalized recreational marijuana. It's a liberal state, with several radio stations with a hippie throwback vibe that you'd think would be perfect vehicles for cannabis advertising. I haven't heard an ad yet.
 
It's still a Schedule 1 drug under U.S. law, just like heroin. Are there really radio station owners who want to test the FCC on this? I'm in Vermont, which has legalized recreational marijuana. It's a liberal state, with several radio stations with a hippie throwback vibe that you'd think would be perfect vehicles for cannabis advertising. I haven't heard an ad yet.
I live in WA state, a similarly liberal state (at least the Western half), which was one of the first states to legalize recreational cannabis use (I think Alaska was first to decriminalize it, maybe in the 1980s or 90s), and I don't recall hearing a cannabis shop ad on the radio, and as I don't watch TV much anymore, I've never seen one on TV. I think there have been some who have said in the past on RD that they've heard such spots before in this state, maybe in another part of the state.

They're probably rare, though. Cannabis users pretty much know what they want, and know where the shops are. Some shops use these massive billboards that are hard to miss, but those are usually located near the shops.
 
It's sort of like cannabis shop advertisements. The activity is legal in many jurisdictions, but not many radio companies are probably seeking out their advertisements. And, of course, the FCC seems to have a hands-off regulatory policy on cannabis shop ads for the time being, but it seems a lot of radio owners don't want to go there.
That's because smart owners won't risk putting their license up to be challenged because of advertising a federally controlled substance on a federally licensed facility.
 
That's because smart owners won't risk putting their license up to be challenged because of advertising a federally controlled substance on a federally licensed facility.
It's actually more severe than that. Under current law, there doesn't need to be a challenge. The FCC can straight-up revoke a license for advertising several controlled substances, among them cannabis, whether it's legal for sale in the broadcaster's area or not.

A bill that would have allowed advertising of legal cannabis on radio and television passed the House of Representatives about a year ago, but apparently never made it through the Senate:

 
It's still a Schedule 1 drug under U.S. law, just like heroin. Are there really radio station owners who want to test the FCC on this? I'm in Vermont, which has legalized recreational marijuana. It's a liberal state, with several radio stations with a hippie throwback vibe that you'd think would be perfect vehicles for cannabis advertising. I haven't heard an ad yet.
It depends on the state. Spent a couple weeks in eastern Colorado 5-6 years ago and did see ads for a Denver dispensary late night on KWGN-TV. It was bizarre, some guy laughing during the entire 30 second commercial. No VO…just video of their wares and a 3 second slide showing logo, address, and phone number at the ending.
 
It depends on the state. Spent a couple weeks in eastern Colorado 5-6 years ago and did see ads for a Denver dispensary late night on KWGN-TV. It was bizarre, some guy laughing during the entire 30 second commercial. No VO…just video of their wares and a 3 second slide showing logo, address, and phone number at the ending.
This is continuing to swerve off topic a bit, but yes, there are stations which have rolled the dice by providing sponsorships to pot shops that sell federally controlled substances. From a purely legal definition; those stations wouldn't be in violation of local state laws, but could be considered in violation of their federal license to broadcast over the air.
Granted, the Commission hasn't announced they would be rounding up stations that run ads for pot shops yet, but when the window opens for license renewal, it would be a simple matter of one community member filing an objection that the station violated federal laws, to start the dominoes falling. Once pot spots are run, you can't go back from having already been caught up in a government rules violation.
I would argue that the stations that got caught up in the controversy would likely spend more on lawyer's fees to defend themselves than they would have ever collected in gross revenue from selling ads to pot shops.
 
It depends on the state. Spent a couple weeks in eastern Colorado 5-6 years ago and did see ads for a Denver dispensary late night on KWGN-TV. It was bizarre, some guy laughing during the entire 30 second commercial. No VO…just video of their wares and a 3 second slide showing logo, address, and phone number at the ending.
See above. It does not depend on the state.

Given that you were in Eastern Colorado, I'm wondering if that was the local cable channel (unregulated by the FCC) slipping in a local buy.
 
See above. It does not depend on the state.

Given that you were in Eastern Colorado, I'm wondering if that was the local cable channel (unregulated by the FCC) slipping in a local buy.
You mean "local cable company," not "channel," I assume. KWGN-TV is a licensed station but your cable provider can sell time to local advertisers for insertion on the numbered cable position on which that station is carried. Does federal law apply to those local inserts, shown on a cable television system, which, like, say, YouTube, doesn't need a license to operate? Does KWGN even have to be consulted or told what Boondocks Cable is going to be running during its slot for local advertising?
 
You mean "local cable company," not "channel," I assume. KWGN-TV is a licensed station but your cable provider can sell time to local advertisers for insertion on the numbered cable position on which that station is carried. Does federal law apply to those local inserts, shown on a cable television system, which, like, say, YouTube, doesn't need a license to operate? Does KWGN even have to be consulted or told what Boondocks Cable is going to be running during its slot for local advertising?
I did mean “company”. And yes, local systems do that sort of thing. My understanding from my TV days is that they have slots that are permissible to cover, which are part of the retrans agreement.

There is no case-by-case approval required, but if the station gets enough complaints from upset viewers, they could call the cable company and ask them to stop with a certain client. The cable company is often selling a specified reach and frequency, but not a specified station or show.
 
I did mean “company”. And yes, local systems do that sort of thing. My understanding from my TV days is that they have slots that are permissible to cover, which are part of the retrans agreement.
Back in the '80s, the cable operator in my part of Connecticut, Dimension, used to run a musical ad soliciting advertisers for those slots. They consisted of a pair of dancing feet and a Rudy Vallee-type singer going "We've got your :30s, we've got your :60s, we've got availabiliTEEEES, yes-SIRRRR!" That was supposed to represent the "same old song and dance" other cable operators would use on potential advertisers. Of course, Dimension stressed later in the spot that they were different and would help advertisers craft an effective cable strategy rather than just collecting their money every week.
 
It is possible. I was in Limon…about 100 miles east from Denver proper. And yes, it was definitely received via cable. However, it was for a Denver-metro dispensary (at best 75 miles from Limon). It could be that the cable provider is the same as in Denver, as it is with Comcast in most of Western WA…

It is also possible it was permitted due to the skirting around of the rules. No “call to action”, no selling of anything. literally a 27 second video of a pot shop with a guy laughing. 3 seconds of a slide with info on it. Saw it several times on overnights (only on KWGN). But definitely possible it was inserted in Denver over KWGN’s OTA signal and sent to Limon via cable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom