An interesting take on terestrial vs internet radio.

[PTBoardOp94]

I can point to at least three examples of people, just in Indianapolis who got real radio jobs after working in Internet radio for a while.

- Abdul Hakim-Shabazz - now has a weekend talk show on WIBC and has been filling in regularly weekdays after hosting a podcast at his website for about two years
- Greg Rakestraw - now program director at WFNI after managing and being lead PxP guy at HomeTownSports.com
- Jason & Hammer - now at WRZX after hosting a (very funny) weekly podcast for three or four years

That's about half of the hires in Indianapolis over the last year.

 

[TheBigA]

Here's the test. Apply for a real radio job and put your podcast on your demo or resume. See if you get the job.

I wouldn't even listen to the podcast. I'd look at the subscriber numbers and metrics for the site. I can tell pretty quickly if the applicant has an audience. That's all I care about.

 

[ok walters]

I can point to at least three examples of people, just in Indianapolis who got real radio jobs after working in Internet radio for a while.

- Abdul Hakim-Shabazz - now has a weekend talk show on WIBC and has been filling in regularly weekdays after hosting a podcast at his website for about two years
- Greg Rakestraw - now program director at WFNI after managing and being lead PxP guy at HomeTownSports.com
- Jason & Hammer - now at WRZX after hosting a (very funny) weekly podcast for three or four years

That's about half of the hires in Indianapolis over the last year.

Many radio industry people who find themselves without a radio job turn to the internet as there is no entry cost, but also no listeners. How many had worked in radio before? How many have new radio jobs that pay a living wage?

There is also the dynamic nowadays of people working almost for free, so sometimes the lowest bid wins the job. Have no idea in these cases, but there are a bunch of high paid people being replaced by low paid people industry wide for no reason other than money.

 

[ProducerGuy]

I wouldn't even listen to the podcast. I'd look at the subscriber numbers and metrics for the site. I can tell pretty quickly if the applicant has an audience. That's all I care about.

If you did that much, you'd be ahead of almost every PD out there. It's not like they're the kind to take chances.

 

[ProducerGuy]

I can point to at least three examples of people, just in Indianapolis who got real radio jobs after working in Internet radio for a while.

- Abdul Hakim-Shabazz - now has a weekend talk show on WIBC and has been filling in regularly weekdays after hosting a podcast at his website for about two years
- Greg Rakestraw - now program director at WFNI after managing and being lead PxP guy at HomeTownSports.com
- Jason & Hammer - now at WRZX after hosting a (very funny) weekly podcast for three or four years

That's about half of the hires in Indianapolis over the last year.

How many of them have no real radio experience? I find it hard to believe someone went straight from doing a podcast to being a PD of a radio station. The owner of that station would have to be insane.

 

[KMGX]

Radio is AM and FM. Not the Internet.

And definitely not those satellite impostors.

Point taken. Satellite radio is still radio.

The Internet still isn't. 99.999% of "Internet radio" is a bunch of people screaming into gaming headsets and pretending to be Howard Stern.

As someone that did internet radio for more than ten years, I'll disagree. I operated several stations of varying formats that were all semi-successful or very successful (at least in internet terms). I was part of a company that made $75,000/month online. I voiced, produced imaging and hosted a talk show for a long time and I would put any of my work against most of the terrestrial any day of the week.

Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it worse/lesser quality and shouldn't be so smugly dismissed. I'd submit my podcast to any PD anytime... the problem? I am not good at the professional wrestling act that is talk radio---meaning I am not a blowhard conservative or a flaming liberal because not everything is so easily put into terms of 1's and 0's.

The presupposition that someone on the internet wouldn't be as compelling as someone that's currently on terrestrial radio is just shameful and is precisely why the industry is in the toilet. Same old formula for so many years---old white guys (with a few women) being 100% conservative or 100% liberal and that's what you do. Meetings before the show to talk about what you're going to say and then be as inflamatory as possible to generate ratings. At least you're more likely to get a real opinion on the internet, whether that's a good thing or not is a matter of taste, but at least it isn't the WWE of broadcasting.

Here's the test. Apply for a real radio job and put your podcast on your demo or resume. See if you get the job.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

How many of them have no real radio experience? I find it hard to believe someone went straight from doing a podcast to being a PD of a radio station. The owner of that station would have to be insane.

The owner of that radio station is Emmis Communications, currently far and away the best-managed cluster in the market (not hard when your competition is Cumulus and Clear Channel)

Rakestraw and Hakim-Shabazz had previously worked at second and third tier stations in Indianapolis. I don't think the Jason & Hammer duo had prior radio experience, but am not certain of that.

 

[ok walters]

Radio is AM and FM. Not the Internet.

And definitely not those satellite impostors.

Point taken. Satellite radio is still radio.

The Internet still isn't. 99.999% of "Internet radio" is a bunch of people screaming into gaming headsets and pretending to be Howard Stern.

As someone that did internet radio for more than ten years, I'll disagree. I operated several stations of varying formats that were all semi-successful or very successful (at least in internet terms). I was part of a company that made $75,000/month online. I voiced, produced imaging and hosted a talk show for a long time and I would put any of my work against most of the terrestrial any day of the week.

Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it worse/lesser quality and shouldn't be so smugly dismissed. I'd submit my podcast to any PD anytime... the problem? I am not good at the professional wrestling act that is talk radio---meaning I am not a blowhard conservative or a flaming liberal because not everything is so easily put into terms of 1's and 0's.

The presupposition that someone on the internet wouldn't be as compelling as someone that's currently on terrestrial radio is just shameful and is precisely why the industry is in the toilet. Same old formula for so many years---old white guys (with a few women) being 100% conservative or 100% liberal and that's what you do. Meetings before the show to talk about what you're going to say and then be as inflamatory as possible to generate ratings. At least you're more likely to get a real opinion on the internet, whether that's a good thing or not is a matter of taste, but at least it isn't the WWE of broadcasting.

Here's the test. Apply for a real radio job and put your podcast on your demo or resume. See if you get the job.

So you were part of an internet radio station that made $75K per month online? I don't think so - something else made the revenue, not an internet radio station. How much is the $75K per month business doing now? Is the station even making a dime? If it is, it is among the few that are.

You can be the next Wolfman Jack, but the fact that most internet radio IS idiots screaming into a gaming headset makes you very difficult to find among all of the nonsense.

 

[KMGX]

So you were part of an internet radio station that made $75K per month online? I don't think so - something else made the revenue, not an internet radio station. How much is the $75K per month business doing now? Is the station even making a dime? If it is, it is among the few that are.

You can be the next Wolfman Jack, but the fact that most internet radio IS idiots screaming into a gaming headset makes you very difficult to find among all of the nonsense.

The network as a whole had between 15-20k concurrent listeners---occasionally more during it's peak. I wouldn't know how that particular group is doing these days (at least financially) but I would imagine the revenues are down a fair bit. By the time we paid royalties, server costs and whatnot there was still a decent chunk to divide amongst the various people involved.

I found most stations were actually just people putting a playlist on shuffle more than idiots screaming into gaming headset mics as you have proclaimed. Some people---a few very good people---put in a lot of hard work for many years on internet streams as it was more than just some hobby to them.

As for me, PD's see internet stuff on a resume and they don't seem to care, but if they took the time to listen they would find that I am comperable, if not superior to, the product they have. Unfortunately it takes a lot of convincing to get people to take a chance in today's radio landscape. I won't totally disagree that the internet broadcast genre is somewhat tainted with some garbage, but there are some diamonds in the rough.

 

[ok walters]

Needle in a haystack, diamond in the rough, etc. are too hard to find. Too much nonsense and too many wannabes to weed through. There are a bunch of playlist only guys on the web, but you only remember the ones who open their mouth

 

[ok walters]

So you were part of an internet radio station that made $75K per month online? I don't think so - something else made the revenue, not an internet radio station. How much is the $75K per month business doing now? Is the station even making a dime? If it is, it is among the few that are.

You can be the next Wolfman Jack, but the fact that most internet radio IS idiots screaming into a gaming headset makes you very difficult to find among all of the nonsense.

The network as a whole had between 15-20k concurrent listeners---occasionally more during it's peak. I wouldn't know how that particular group is doing these days (at least financially) but I would imagine the revenues are down a fair bit. By the time we paid royalties, server costs and whatnot there was still a decent chunk to divide amongst the various people involved.

I found most stations were actually just people putting a playlist on shuffle more than idiots screaming into gaming headset mics as you have proclaimed. Some people---a few very good people---put in a lot of hard work for many years on internet streams as it was more than just some hobby to them.

As for me, PD's see internet stuff on a resume and they don't seem to care, but if they took the time to listen they would find that I am comperable, if not superior to, the product they have. Unfortunately it takes a lot of convincing to get people to take a chance in today's radio landscape. I won't totally disagree that the internet broadcast genre is somewhat tainted with some garbage, but there are some diamonds in the rough.

15000 listeners at the current webcast royalty rate of .0022 per song, would translate into about $400-500 per hour in royalties alone. If that happened half of the time, it would cost $180K per month, or more than twice what you are taking in as a whole.

The webcaster business model doesn't add up at this point - at least until the royalties are brought into realistic amounts.

 

[ProducerGuy]

Rakestraw and Hakim-Shabazz had previously worked at second and third tier stations in Indianapolis. I don't think the Jason & Hammer duo had prior radio experience, but am not certain of that.

I bet they did have experience.

 

[ProducerGuy]

I am comperable, if not superior to, the product they have.

Do you have experience with real radio? You didn't get to be better than the product they have without someone teaching you how to do it.

 

[SaltyDog]

Many radio industry people who find themselves without a radio job turn to the internet as there is no entry cost, but also no listeners. How many had worked in radio before? How many have new radio jobs that pay a living wage?

If someone has listeners on terrestrial radio, moves to a podcast and has no listeners, then it is the station owner that is providing the value. It must be. It's the same air personality. No wonder the job pays so few a decent wage.

I listen to a lot of podcasts. Freakonomics gets 4 million downloads a month, Bill Simmons' B.S. Report gets 2 million downloads a month. I also listen to the John Madden Podcast uploaded by KCBS after it airs live on the terrestrial radio. These people have a lot to say and entertaining personalities. How many air personalities do, either in what those in the business call "real radio" or online?

 

[ProducerGuy]

The station owner doesn't provide the "value". They provide the means to listen with no effort.

And these podcasts that get millions of downloads still don't make money. That's the problem. Every single one of these shows either promotes something else, or the host has a day job.

For radio guys out of work, a podcast is a great way to keep in practice and work on your craft. But don't expect people to listen, and don't expect to make money. Because they almost likely won't, and don't.

Hell, I do a fairly popular morning show in my market, and my stream usually has zero listeners. I just do it to give friends and family a way to listen.

 

[SaltyDog]

The station owner doesn't provide the "value". They provide the means to listen with no effort.

Exactly. That's where the value is. If a personality gets no listeners on a podcast, and lots of listeners on an over-the-air radio station, it would be logical to ask why. You and I both seem to agree that the answer is that the radio station, which the owner provides, is the reason for the listeners. That's where the value is. The air personality, as you agree, gets radically fewer lisenters or even no listeners at all, without the owner's station. Where is the value in a host no one finds worthwhile listening to if there is the slightest bit of trouble. ?

And these podcasts that get millions of downloads still don't make money.

Do you have a source for that? Simmons gets 2 million downloads and Subway sponsors them. Deadspin says $400,000 would be "a stretch". Okay, but it's not nothing.

Freakonomics has sponsors too. It gets 4 million downloads each month, twice Bill Simmons, and you say it makes no money? Again, I'd like to see where you got that info.

For radio guys out of work, a podcast is a great way to keep in practice and work on your craft. But don't expect people to listen, and don't expect to make money. Because they almost likely won't, and don't.

I give them credit for doing something and not blaming consolidators for their plight, but if no one is listening, it's because they aren't very good.

If Howard Stern left satellite radio tomorrow, and was available only via podcast, he would lose most of his listeners, but he'd still have a lot of listeners.

As we agreed, more people listen to a terrestrial station just because it's easier, although that's no longer true for some of us. It's just one of several shortcuts on the home screen of my phone and on my tablet.

Pew Research says 69% of people like or love radio. Impressive. By comparison, 41% like or love audio podcasts. It's well behind, but it's hardly insignificant, and certainly not "nobody". http://stateofthemedia.org/2012/audio-how-far-will-digital-go/audio-by-the-numbers/

 

[TheBigA]

The air personality, as you agree, gets radically fewer lisenters or even no listeners at all, without the owner's station. Where is the value in a host no one finds worthwhile listening to if there is the slightest bit of trouble. ?

Exactly. Forgive me if I've said this many times before, but the job of on-air talent isn't much different from being a recording artist. By that I mean recording artists are able to become big stars and make money because their record label promotes their music, and it gets airplay on the radio. But the long-term benefit of that lies in the artist's relationship with his fans. The fame and radio hits will be shortlived. But if that artist has built a strong relationship with his fans, his career will continue even after the radio hits stop. Same with an on-air personality. Too few realize that until they're sitting on the beach. But had they cultivated a direct relationship with listeners, either via social media or newsletters, they might have a career as long as Willie Nelson, who still performs for large audiences even though he hasn't had a hit in a while. That work isn't the job of the radio station or the corporation that owns it, but of the talent himself. But most are either lazy or they think their popularity will last forever. It won't. Personalities need to invest in themselves if they hope to have a career that lasts.

 

[KMGX]

I am comperable, if not superior to, the product they have.

Do you have experience with real radio? You didn't get to be better than the product they have without someone teaching you how to do it.

I learn nuances and pick up on things quickly. I taught myself to use various audio editing software (Audition, et al) and certainly know my way around automation systems. Sometimes you have to teach yourself how to do things... I have never taken a piano lesson either and yet I play well.

This isn't the 70s anymore where someone shows you the finer details of cutting up tape with razor blades or how to queue up a cart... information is out there to be learned if you take the initiative to do so.

The other part of the equation is getting someone to acknowledge that and give you an opportunity.

 

[TheBigA]

This isn't the 70s anymore where someone shows you the finer details of cutting up tape with razor blades or how to queue up a cart... information is out there to be learned if you take the initiative to do so.

Right...back in the old days the main impediment to learning was getting the equipment, which is big and expensive. Not any more.

 

[Small Market Guy]

I learn nuances and pick up on things quickly. I taught myself to use various audio editing software (Audition, et al) and certainly know my way around automation systems. Sometimes you have to teach yourself how to do things... I have never taken a piano lesson either and yet I play well.

This isn't the 70s anymore where someone shows you the finer details of cutting up tape with razor blades or how to queue up a cart... information is out there to be learned if you take the initiative to do so.

The other part of the equation is getting someone to acknowledge that and give you an opportunity.

There is more to doing radio than knowing how to use the equipment. In fact, that's the easy part.