Apple to Integrate iPod With Car Radios

[SayNoToIBOC]

According to Mark Ramsey, President of Hear2.0, the audio entertainment strategy company, this new technology will substitute, for at least, some of the listening that would otherwise be devoted to car radio - this is another competitor to HD Radio (remember, the "HD" does not stand for High Definition - it doesn't stand for anything, when applied to HD Radio):

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060803/automakers_apple_ipods.html?.v=7
http://www.hear2.com/

On a different note, I went by Radio Shack today and found out that Nextel offers Wi-Fi access on some of their cell phones- how cool is that, with access to over 8,000 radio stations, from around the world !

Last night on TV, the new Verizon, "Chocolate", cell phone was advertised, but nothing was said (obviously, nothing needed to be said) except a note that the new phone was coming this month. Today, I heard a, "Discover It!", advertisement on radio for HD Radio - now, I understand Mark Ramsey's problems with the new advertising campain for HD Radio (from the HD Radio advertising thread).

 

[IBOCRocks]

According to Mark Ramsey, President of Hear2.0, the audio entertainment strategy company, this new technology will substitute, for at least, some of the listening that would otherwise be devoted to car radio - this is another competitor to HD Radio (remember, the "HD" does not stand for High Definition - it doesn't stand for anything, when applied to HD Radio):

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060803/automakers_apple_ipods.html?.v=7
http://www.hear2.com/

On a different note, I went by Radio Shack today and found out that Nextel offers Wi-Fi access on some of their cell phones- how cool is that, with access to over 8,000 radio stations, from around the world !

Last night on TV, the new Verizon, "Chocolate", cell phone was advertised, but nothing was said (obviously, nothing needed to be said) except a note that the new phone was coming this month. Today, I heard a, "Discover It!", advertisement on radio for HD Radio - now, I understand Mark Ramsey's problems with the new advertising campain for HD Radio (from the HD Radio advertising thread).

Wow. I bet it will have the same effect as cassettes and 8 tracks. IE: Not a whole lot. You also talk as if HD will be an "add-on", competing with other add-on's like iPods, etc. It won't be. You will have an AM/FM/HD radio with CD, iPod jack, and whatever. As for the cellphones? It's the same as an MP3 player.

BTW: Nobody cares what HD Radio does or does not stand for. Except for some angry anti-IBOC folks who are trying to find any small thing since they can't win their arguments on any technical merit.

Keep he posts coming. It's enjoyable!

 

[jras20]

I wish I didnt buy my dell DJ, that thing is almost non existent now.

 

[dbdigital]

According to Mark Ramsey, President of Hear2.0, the audio entertainment strategy company, this new technology will substitute, for at least, some of the listening that would otherwise be devoted to car radio - this is another competitor to HD Radio (remember, the "HD" does not stand for High Definition - it doesn't stand for anything, when applied to HD Radio):

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060803/automakers_apple_ipods.html?.v=7
http://www.hear2.com/

On a different note, I went by Radio Shack today and found out that Nextel offers Wi-Fi access on some of their cell phones- how cool is that, with access to over 8,000 radio stations, from around the world !

Last night on TV, the new Verizon, "Chocolate", cell phone was advertised, but nothing was said (obviously, nothing needed to be said) except a note that the new phone was coming this month. Today, I heard a, "Discover It!", advertisement on radio for HD Radio - now, I understand Mark Ramsey's problems with the new advertising campain for HD Radio (from the HD Radio advertising thread).

Wow. I bet it will have the same effect as cassettes and 8 tracks. IE: Not a whole lot. You also talk as if HD will be an "add-on", competing with other add-on's like iPods, etc. It won't be. You will have an AM/FM/HD radio with CD, iPod jack, and whatever. As for the cellphones? It's the same as an MP3 player.

BTW: Nobody cares what HD Radio does or does not stand for. Except for some angry anti-IBOC folks who are trying to find any small thing since they can't win their arguments on any technical merit.

Keep he posts coming. It's enjoyable!

Yep, this is great news. In an article by the Detroit Free Press it stated that 65% of iPod owners (myself included) wanted a means to integrate their iPods with their car's audio system.

I especially enjoyed this quote from the article: "And satellite and terrestrial radio broadcasters, already in fierce competitive battles, will surely see the number of listeners erode once millions of vehicles are equipped for iPod ease."

Meanwhile Radio & Records reports that most of corporate media saw a drop in revenue from their radio station clusters.

And their best and only hope is HD Radio? Man, are these media giants in trouble.

db

 

[IBOCRocks]

According to Mark Ramsey, President of Hear2.0, the audio entertainment strategy company, this new technology will substitute, for at least, some of the listening that would otherwise be devoted to car radio - this is another competitor to HD Radio (remember, the "HD" does not stand for High Definition - it doesn't stand for anything, when applied to HD Radio):

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060803/automakers_apple_ipods.html?.v=7
http://www.hear2.com/

On a different note, I went by Radio Shack today and found out that Nextel offers Wi-Fi access on some of their cell phones- how cool is that, with access to over 8,000 radio stations, from around the world !

Last night on TV, the new Verizon, "Chocolate", cell phone was advertised, but nothing was said (obviously, nothing needed to be said) except a note that the new phone was coming this month. Today, I heard a, "Discover It!", advertisement on radio for HD Radio - now, I understand Mark Ramsey's problems with the new advertising campain for HD Radio (from the HD Radio advertising thread).

Wow. I bet it will have the same effect as cassettes and 8 tracks. IE: Not a whole lot. You also talk as if HD will be an "add-on", competing with other add-on's like iPods, etc. It won't be. You will have an AM/FM/HD radio with CD, iPod jack, and whatever. As for the cellphones? It's the same as an MP3 player.

BTW: Nobody cares what HD Radio does or does not stand for. Except for some angry anti-IBOC folks who are trying to find any small thing since they can't win their arguments on any technical merit.

Keep he posts coming. It's enjoyable!

Yep, this is great news. In an article by the Detroit Free Press it stated that 65% of iPod owners (myself included) wanted a means to integrate their iPods with their car's audio system.

I especially enjoyed this quote from the article: "And satellite and terrestrial radio broadcasters, already in fierce competitive battles, will surely see the number of listeners erode once millions of vehicles are equipped for iPod ease."

Meanwhile Radio & Records reports that most of corporate media saw a drop in revenue from their radio station clusters.

And their best and only hope is HD Radio? Man, are these media giants in trouble.

db

As an iPod owner, I sure would like an easy way to hook up my iPod. I also would like a way to get local traffic and weather, and hear about local events. Will the iPod integration do that for me?

The media giants are doing just fine, thanks.

 

[dbdigital]

According to Mark Ramsey, President of Hear2.0, the audio entertainment strategy company, this new technology will substitute, for at least, some of the listening that would otherwise be devoted to car radio - this is another competitor to HD Radio (remember, the "HD" does not stand for High Definition - it doesn't stand for anything, when applied to HD Radio):

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060803/automakers_apple_ipods.html?.v=7
http://www.hear2.com/

On a different note, I went by Radio Shack today and found out that Nextel offers Wi-Fi access on some of their cell phones- how cool is that, with access to over 8,000 radio stations, from around the world !

Last night on TV, the new Verizon, "Chocolate", cell phone was advertised, but nothing was said (obviously, nothing needed to be said) except a note that the new phone was coming this month. Today, I heard a, "Discover It!", advertisement on radio for HD Radio - now, I understand Mark Ramsey's problems with the new advertising campain for HD Radio (from the HD Radio advertising thread).

Wow. I bet it will have the same effect as cassettes and 8 tracks. IE: Not a whole lot. You also talk as if HD will be an "add-on", competing with other add-on's like iPods, etc. It won't be. You will have an AM/FM/HD radio with CD, iPod jack, and whatever. As for the cellphones? It's the same as an MP3 player.

BTW: Nobody cares what HD Radio does or does not stand for. Except for some angry anti-IBOC folks who are trying to find any small thing since they can't win their arguments on any technical merit.

Keep he posts coming. It's enjoyable!

Yep, this is great news. In an article by the Detroit Free Press it stated that 65% of iPod owners (myself included) wanted a means to integrate their iPods with their car's audio system.

I especially enjoyed this quote from the article: "And satellite and terrestrial radio broadcasters, already in fierce competitive battles, will surely see the number of listeners erode once millions of vehicles are equipped for iPod ease."

Meanwhile Radio & Records reports that most of corporate media saw a drop in revenue from their radio station clusters.

And their best and only hope is HD Radio? Man, are these media giants in trouble.

db

As an iPod owner, I sure would like an easy way to hook up my iPod. I also would like a way to get local traffic and weather, and hear about local events. Will the iPod integration do that for me?

The media giants are doing just fine, thanks.

If I really need to hear news and traffic, I can temporarily switch over to KFWB. But here again, I, like many people, also get my morning news from the internet which is just as up-to-the-minute as anything on radio...and that includes local news.

What I don't need radio for is music and moronic chatter.

db

 

[IBOCRocks]

"I, like many people..."

Really? How could you possibly know what many people do? I don't go to the internet every morning for news. Neither does my wife, or my Mother. In fact I can think of a lot of people I know that watch TV and then listen to radio in the car on the way to work, or while exercising.

I'm glad to hear that you don't need radio for music or moronic chatter. Neither do I, so I listen to stations that either have music I like, or non-moronic chatter.

Just because YOU have no need for radio doesn't mean OTHERS don't.

 

[davideduardo]

I especially enjoyed this quote from the article: "And satellite and terrestrial radio broadcasters, already in fierce competitive battles, will surely see the number of listeners erode once millions of vehicles are equipped for iPod ease."

Meanwhile Radio & Records reports that most of corporate media saw a drop in revenue from their radio station clusters.

Gee, since only 30% of listening is in the car, and most of us already had CD changers anyway, this is just an alternative. Radio did not go down when cassetes were put in cars, or when cassettes changed to CDs

iPods have comepted with in home and at work listening since they came out. So have tape decks, CD players, 8 tracks, record players. Surveys show that owners of these devices listen to more radio.

On the other note, radio revenues are not off due to a decline in listening. In fact, in the top 25 markets, Spring had increased listening levels. Radio revenues are off because of the automotive sector. GM is mired in talks of bankruptcy or a takeover, Ford now sells less than Toyota, and the spending has decreased because business is bad in that sector.

Some comanies, like Cox, are up. Some, like Univision Radio, are up considerably, Hispanic automotive spending is much more robust. Some like Entravision are up. Up or down, the issue is not audience size, which in 18-54 is stable, but revenue... when folks spend more on gas, they spend less at retail, an that curtails radio ad spending. TV, too.

 

[dbdigital]

"I, like many people..."

Really? How could you possibly know what many people do? I don't go to the internet every morning for news. Neither does my wife, or my Mother. In fact I can think of a lot of people I know that watch TV and then listen to radio in the car on the way to work, or while exercising.

I'm glad to hear that you don't need radio for music or moronic chatter. Neither do I, so I listen to stations that either have music I like, or non-moronic chatter.

Just because YOU have no need for radio doesn't mean OTHERS don't.

I said "many" people, not all, not most, many. And what I said about many people reading news from the internet is not "news". The media has reported the same thing, particularly as it relates to how young adults get their news and information.

See yours (and David's) fear is that radio will one day become irrelevant, at least terrestrial radio anyway. And while I don't hold that terrestrial radio will be totally irrelevant, its dominance will lessen which, in fact, is already happening. It will be just one of a wide array of outlets from which to choose music and information.

And who is to blame for this loss of dominance? Technology? No. The finger points to media conglomorates who have bought up most of the local stations, particularly in or near rated markets, turning them into cash cow satcasters and making radio irrelevant to local audiences. That's why people who look to HD Radio as a savior for the industry are to be pitied. They just don't get it. Still

Oh yes, something else I don't need radio for...commercials.

db

 

[IBOCRocks]

"I, like many people..."

Really? How could you possibly know what many people do? I don't go to the internet every morning for news. Neither does my wife, or my Mother. In fact I can think of a lot of people I know that watch TV and then listen to radio in the car on the way to work, or while exercising.

I'm glad to hear that you don't need radio for music or moronic chatter. Neither do I, so I listen to stations that either have music I like, or non-moronic chatter.

Just because YOU have no need for radio doesn't mean OTHERS don't.

I said "many" people, not all, not most, many. And what I said about many people reading news from the internet is not "news". The media has reported the same thing, particularly as it relates to how young adults get their news and information.

See yours (and David's) fear is that radio will one day become irrelevant, at least terrestrial radio anyway. And while I don't hold that terrestrial radio will be totally irrelevant, its dominance will lessen which, in fact, is already happening. It will be just one of a wide array of outlets from which to choose music and information.

And who is to blame for this loss of dominance? Technology? No. The finger points to media conglomorates who have bought up most of the local stations, particularly in or near rated markets, turning them into cash cow satcasters and making radio irrelevant to local audiences. That's why people who look to HD Radio as a savior for the industry are to be pitied. They just don't get it. Still

Oh yes, something else I don't need radio for...commercials.

db

Once again, you project your thoughts onto others.

How can you possibly know what my fears are? Why would I possibly fear that radio would become irrelevant? My world certainly doesn't revolve around it (unlike others around here, I believe there is room for all technology - I don't believe one is superior to the other. Radio could shut down tomorrow, and I would go on with life.)

As for "many" or "most", you are still framing that as fact, when it's simply opinion.

So you don't need commercials. Congratulations. Despite that, people are still listening to free radio, knowing that commericials are the price they pay.

Fortunately, you are in the minority with your dislike for terrestrial radio.

 

[dbdigital]

"I, like many people..."

Really? How could you possibly know what many people do? I don't go to the internet every morning for news. Neither does my wife, or my Mother. In fact I can think of a lot of people I know that watch TV and then listen to radio in the car on the way to work, or while exercising.

I'm glad to hear that you don't need radio for music or moronic chatter. Neither do I, so I listen to stations that either have music I like, or non-moronic chatter.

Just because YOU have no need for radio doesn't mean OTHERS don't.

I said "many" people, not all, not most, many. And what I said about many people reading news from the internet is not "news". The media has reported the same thing, particularly as it relates to how young adults get their news and information.

See yours (and David's) fear is that radio will one day become irrelevant, at least terrestrial radio anyway. And while I don't hold that terrestrial radio will be totally irrelevant, its dominance will lessen which, in fact, is already happening. It will be just one of a wide array of outlets from which to choose music and information.

And who is to blame for this loss of dominance? Technology? No. The finger points to media conglomorates who have bought up most of the local stations, particularly in or near rated markets, turning them into cash cow satcasters and making radio irrelevant to local audiences. That's why people who look to HD Radio as a savior for the industry are to be pitied. They just don't get it. Still

Oh yes, something else I don't need radio for...commercials.

db

Once again, you project your thoughts onto others.

How can you possibly know what my fears are? Why would I possibly fear that radio would become irrelevant? My world certainly doesn't revolve around it (unlike others around here, I believe there is room for all technology - I don't believe one is superior to the other. Radio could shut down tomorrow, and I would go on with life.)

As for "many" or "most", you are still framing that as fact, when it's simply opinion.

So you don't need commercials. Congratulations. Despite that, people are still listening to free radio, knowing that commericials are the price they pay.

Fortunately, you are in the minority with your dislike for terrestrial radio.

Good grief! Unless you've been living in a cave what I stated is not news.

Your fears are evident by how vigorously you defend HD Radio. If the technology is that great and that inevitable then you have nothing to fear and nothing to defend.

And I don't dislike all terrestrial radio, just the crap that programmers who have a pathological obssession with ratings dish out.

Unfortuantely for us city dwellers that is the state of most radio.

db

 

[davideduardo]

And I don't dislike all terrestrial radio, just the crap that programmers who have a pathological obssession with ratings dish out.

Unfortuantely for us city dwellers that is the state of most radio.

And that is because ratings establish the value of our ad time. And the value of our ad time establishes how much each of us is paid. A programmer who is not interested in increasing the size of the audience is not going to bbe programming for very long. One who decreases the audience size is going to last even less time.

 

[dbdigital]

And I don't dislike all terrestrial radio, just the crap that programmers who have a pathological obssession with ratings dish out.

Unfortuantely for us city dwellers that is the state of most radio.

And that is because ratings establish the value of our ad time. And the value of our ad time establishes how much each of us is paid. A programmer who is not interested in increasing the size of the audience is not going to bbe programming for very long. One who decreases the audience size is going to last even less time.

Now how many radio stations are in the LA/Orange/Riverside County areas? 40 or 50+? Obviously only one can be No. 1 and only 10 can be in the top 10 when it comes to audience share. The rest have to find their audiences as best they can. And they can do that with niche programming. If station owners had understood that years ago instead of chasing after the biggest audience share by becoming sound-alikes, radio would be a lot healthier and more vibrant than it is today. Today it is moribund.

Why do you think those people who have satellite radio love it so much? Because, in part, satellite radio has picked up the gauntlet of niche programming long ago thrown down by terrestrial radio. There's so much on satellite to choose from in addition to the clear audio. The same holds true for internet radio.

This is one reason why I admire Saul Levine. As he once said, he long ago threw out the Arbitron book and programs his stations as he sees fit, with programming that is unique to L.A. What's more, he has an audience for his stations.

db

 

[IBOCRocks]

"I, like many people..."

Really? How could you possibly know what many people do? I don't go to the internet every morning for news. Neither does my wife, or my Mother. In fact I can think of a lot of people I know that watch TV and then listen to radio in the car on the way to work, or while exercising.

I'm glad to hear that you don't need radio for music or moronic chatter. Neither do I, so I listen to stations that either have music I like, or non-moronic chatter.

Just because YOU have no need for radio doesn't mean OTHERS don't.

I said "many" people, not all, not most, many. And what I said about many people reading news from the internet is not "news". The media has reported the same thing, particularly as it relates to how young adults get their news and information.

See yours (and David's) fear is that radio will one day become irrelevant, at least terrestrial radio anyway. And while I don't hold that terrestrial radio will be totally irrelevant, its dominance will lessen which, in fact, is already happening. It will be just one of a wide array of outlets from which to choose music and information.

And who is to blame for this loss of dominance? Technology? No. The finger points to media conglomorates who have bought up most of the local stations, particularly in or near rated markets, turning them into cash cow satcasters and making radio irrelevant to local audiences. That's why people who look to HD Radio as a savior for the industry are to be pitied. They just don't get it. Still

Oh yes, something else I don't need radio for...commercials.

db

Once again, you project your thoughts onto others.

How can you possibly know what my fears are? Why would I possibly fear that radio would become irrelevant? My world certainly doesn't revolve around it (unlike others around here, I believe there is room for all technology - I don't believe one is superior to the other. Radio could shut down tomorrow, and I would go on with life.)

As for "many" or "most", you are still framing that as fact, when it's simply opinion.

So you don't need commercials. Congratulations. Despite that, people are still listening to free radio, knowing that commericials are the price they pay.

Fortunately, you are in the minority with your dislike for terrestrial radio.

Good grief! Unless you've been living in a cave what I stated is not news.

Your fears are evident by how vigorously you defend HD Radio. If the technology is that great and that inevitable then you have nothing to fear and nothing to defend.

And I don't dislike all terrestrial radio, just the crap that programmers who have a pathological obssession with ratings dish out.

Unfortuantely for us city dwellers that is the state of most radio.

db

That's where you're mistaken. I am not "vigorously" defending HD Radio. I am responding to the "vigorous" and may I add, mostly incorrect, bashing of HD Radio.

I have never started a post supporting HD Radio. I have never gotten into a thread to support HD radio. I have joined simply to shed light on some obviously biased opinions. A "ying" to the hater's "yang" as it were.

It seems to me that people with the highest post counts are the ones trying to convince the world that HD Radio is dead. I would think that if that we're true, the high post count would be unnecessary.

 

[davideduardo]

Now how many radio stations are in the LA/Orange/Riverside County areas? 40 or 50+? Obviously only one can be No. 1 and only 10 can be in the top 10 when it comes to audience share. The rest have to find their audiences as best they can. And they can do that with niche programming. If station owners had understood that years ago instead of chasing after the biggest audience share by becoming sound-alikes, radio would be a lot healthier and more vibrant than it is today. Today it is moribund.

Why do you think those people who have satellite radio love it so much? Because, in part, satellite radio has picked up the gauntlet of niche programming long ago thrown down by terrestrial radio. There's so much on satellite to choose from in addition to the clear audio. The same holds true for internet radio.

This is one reason why I admire Saul Levine. As he once said, he long ago threw out the Arbitron book and programs his stations as he sees fit, with programming that is unique to L.A. What's more, he has an audience for his stations.

There are 75 radio stations in the LA metro. Not all cover the entire geography, but all are "eligable" for the local ratings, as are stations that are peripheral to the market, such as some of the San Diego stations in lower Orange County. So there are about 85 stations that have decent signals over at least part of the market.

You have the business model wrong, because you are thinking about 12+ numbers and considering that the #15 station is a "loser."

Radio is not bought by broad demo rank. In fact, none is bought on 12+. Most is bought by subsets of 18-54. Men 18-24, or women 25-44 or Hispanic Men 18-49 or Blacks 18-34 and so on would be typical advertiser goals in any market. So there is a different list of staitons for each significant demo.

An advertiser may buy 5 to 10 deep... so a station that is not top 10 in 12+ may very well be top 5 in the target. This is why KNX and KFWB, the two AM news stations which are not even top 20 12+ are 8th and 12th in market revenue.

Even a station like KWIZ-FM, which is the only Spanish station home to Orange County, can show excellent rankings in an Orange County only Arbitron ranker on Spanish Dominant Hispanics... and the station is like 34th in 12+, but makes several million a year profit!

Since there are subsets of even things like 18-34 Hispanic (there are at least 4 different and non-duplicated formats there, too) it is not surprising that stations go where there is audience that will produce revenue. If it is younger than 18 and older than 55, it is not salable.

The LA market will be up 4% this year, to over $1.1 billion in revenue. That is hardly moribund. That is an increase of over 30% vs. 2001, just five years ago. Moribund, my foot!

Terrestrial threw down the niche guantlet? Give me a break. (To throw down a guantlet is to issue a challenge, so the term is not appropriate and improperly used... but I know what you mean)

There are more different terrestrial formats now than ever before. Previously, before consolidation, there was no cluster strategy, where groups have a spectrum of formats to offer. Before, every owner wanted one of the top formats, so you had 3 or 4 ACs and 3 or 4 CHRs and, in many markets, 3 or 4 Country stations. Screw the Blacks, the Hispanics, etc., because you could not generally be perceived as winning unless you had one of the big formats.

When I was a kid, my market had 4 Top 40's and 3 MOR/AC stations, and one black daytimer. How is that for niche programming. On the other hand, in Mexico City at the same time, where they allowed duopolies then, there was enormous diversity... over 20 distinctly different formats in one market.

There are so few satellite users when compared to terrestrial users. 94% of Americans use terrestrial radio, while satellite does not even generate a half a share point. Satellite is nice for those who did not listen to terrestrial (5% or so) and the light listeners (7% give or take), but it is already developing a huge churn rate (listen to the analyst questions on the XM earnings call) so the satisfaction is waning.

Sol has nearly no audience for his rather dreadful classical station (I have owned one classical staiton ande managed another) and no audience to speak of for his bizarre AMs. He is eccentric, and if he wants to play radio in a big market, fine. His stations are not very good, though. KUSC, with a lesser budget essentially ties KMZT.

 

[SayNoToIBOC]

The iPod is becoming a “must-have” accessory in U.S.-made cars.

"Apple to Integrate iPod in Ford, GM, Mazda Vehicles"

http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/index.php

 

[davideduardo]

The iPod is becoming a “must-have” accessory in U.S.-made cars.

"Apple to Integrate iPod in Ford, GM, Mazda Vehicles"

1970: "Cassetes are becoming a must have accessory in US made cars."

1990: "CDs are becoming a must have accessory in US made cars."

Big deal. There have been mobile music sources in cars for nearly 40 years...

Oh, and since when is Mazda a US made car? Mine says that 95% of the car is not US components.

 

[dbdigital]

Now how many radio stations are in the LA/Orange/Riverside County areas? 40 or 50+? Obviously only one can be No. 1 and only 10 can be in the top 10 when it comes to audience share. The rest have to find their audiences as best they can. And they can do that with niche programming. If station owners had understood that years ago instead of chasing after the biggest audience share by becoming sound-alikes, radio would be a lot healthier and more vibrant than it is today. Today it is moribund.

Why do you think those people who have satellite radio love it so much? Because, in part, satellite radio has picked up the gauntlet of niche programming long ago thrown down by terrestrial radio. There's so much on satellite to choose from in addition to the clear audio. The same holds true for internet radio.

This is one reason why I admire Saul Levine. As he once said, he long ago threw out the Arbitron book and programs his stations as he sees fit, with programming that is unique to L.A. What's more, he has an audience for his stations.

There are 75 radio stations in the LA metro. Not all cover the entire geography, but all are "eligable" for the local ratings, as are stations that are peripheral to the market, such as some of the San Diego stations in lower Orange County. So there are about 85 stations that have decent signals over at least part of the market.

You have the business model wrong, because you are thinking about 12+ numbers and considering that the #15 station is a "loser."

Radio is not bought by broad demo rank. In fact, none is bought on 12+. Most is bought by subsets of 18-54. Men 18-24, or women 25-44 or Hispanic Men 18-49 or Blacks 18-34 and so on would be typical advertiser goals in any market. So there is a different list of staitons for each significant demo.

An advertiser may buy 5 to 10 deep... so a station that is not top 10 in 12+ may very well be top 5 in the target. This is why KNX and KFWB, the two AM news stations which are not even top 20 12+ are 8th and 12th in market revenue.

Even a station like KWIZ-FM, which is the only Spanish station home to Orange County, can show excellent rankings in an Orange County only Arbitron ranker on Spanish Dominant Hispanics... and the station is like 34th in 12+, but makes several million a year profit!

Since there are subsets of even things like 18-34 Hispanic (there are at least 4 different and non-duplicated formats there, too) it is not surprising that stations go where there is audience that will produce revenue. If it is younger than 18 and older than 55, it is not salable.

The LA market will be up 4% this year, to over $1.1 billion in revenue. That is hardly moribund. That is an increase of over 30% vs. 2001, just five years ago. Moribund, my foot!

Terrestrial threw down the niche guantlet? Give me a break. (To throw down a guantlet is to issue a challenge, so the term is not appropriate and improperly used... but I know what you mean)

There are more different terrestrial formats now than ever before. Previously, before consolidation, there was no cluster strategy, where groups have a spectrum of formats to offer. Before, every owner wanted one of the top formats, so you had 3 or 4 ACs and 3 or 4 CHRs and, in many markets, 3 or 4 Country stations. Screw the Blacks, the Hispanics, etc., because you could not generally be perceived as winning unless you had one of the big formats.

When I was a kid, my market had 4 Top 40's and 3 MOR/AC stations, and one black daytimer. How is that for niche programming. On the other hand, in Mexico City at the same time, where they allowed duopolies then, there was enormous diversity... over 20 distinctly different formats in one market.

There are so few satellite users when compared to terrestrial users. 94% of Americans use terrestrial radio, while satellite does not even generate a half a share point. Satellite is nice for those who did not listen to terrestrial (5% or so) and the light listeners (7% give or take), but it is already developing a huge churn rate (listen to the analyst questions on the XM earnings call) so the satisfaction is waning.

Sol has nearly no audience for his rather dreadful classical station (I have owned one classical staiton ande managed another) and no audience to speak of for his bizarre AMs. He is eccentric, and if he wants to play radio in a big market, fine. His stations are not very good, though. KUSC, with a lesser budget essentially ties KMZT.

Again, David, you're discussing the business of radio.

What I'm talking about is the aesthetics of radio which I feel has been lost in a haze of numbers. Other than some broad catagories, radio programmers have pretty much stayed the course and not ventured beyond them. Jack, like it or hate it, has been probably the only attempt among mainstream radio to try something new and it really isn't all that adventerous. We already know listeners hate long-winded DJs and long sets of commercial breaks. Jack programmers have simply taken that knowledge and just mixed different eras of music together. Even the notion of mimicing an iPod is an indication that programmers are running scared.

As for satellite radio not having the listener numbers of terrestrial radio; well let's see, how much of a head start has terrestrial radio had? About 80 years? So that comparison isn't meaningful.

You're right about the gauntlet referrence. I should have said 'thrown down the torch', perhaps. And it's "gauntlet" not "guantlet".

I disagree with you about the programming on Saul Levine's stations, especially since their are no other stations playing Adult Standards from that era. And KMZT is a very good classical station (although I think KUSC is a little better). Anyway that's just your opinion.

For that matter, I think KLVE stinks. But that's only my opinion.

db

 

[davideduardo]

Again, David, you're discussing the business of radio.

What I'm talking about is the aesthetics of radio which I feel has been lost in a haze of numbers. Other than some broad catagories, radio programmers have pretty much stayed the course and not ventured beyond them. Jack, like it or hate it, has been probably the only attempt among mainstream radio to try something new and it really isn't all that adventerous. We already know listeners hate long-winded DJs and long sets of commercial breaks. Jack programmers have simply taken that knowledge and just mixed different eras of music together. Even the notion of mimicing an iPod is an indication that programmers are running scared.

As for satellite radio not having the listener numbers of terrestrial radio; well let's see, how much of a head start has terrestrial radio had? About 80 years? So that comparison isn't meaningful.

You're right about the gauntlet referrence. I should have said 'thrown down the torch', perhaps. And it's "gauntlet" not "guantlet".

I disagree with you about the programming on Saul Levine's stations, especially since their are no other stations playing Adult Standards from that era. And KMZT is a very good classical station (although I think KUSC is a little better). Anyway that's just your opinion.

For that matter, I think KLVE stinks. But that's only my opinion.

I would hope you thought KLVE stinks. It is programmed for Hispanic females exclusively. If you liked it, I would know something was wrong.

KMZT is a bit on the pompous side, complete with the cutsie name. I am in thier demo, and am a classical fan coming from a family that was very involved with the miusic... and I never listen to KMZT. I prefer my CDs. Again, opinion... but in this case, the opinion of someone who owned a classical station and has some background.

Radio programmers are not "conservative." Listeners are. Formats that did not exist in the 70's, ranging from Urban AC and Gospel to Hispanic AC and reggaetón to all sorts of general market formats from Soft Jazz to Alternative to AAA and so on come from the rise in interest in this music by listeners or the willingness of programmers and management to try formats that perviously did not have any sales appeal.

Radio does not and never has changed taste... it reflects taste. Rock 'n Roll existed before there were shows on the radio, as one example. When there is a new niche, radio fills it.

Most listeners do like hosted shows. But one segment is resistant to it and therein lies the appeal of a Jack. If everyone dislike jocks, jack would be #1. In most places, it is only working moderately... a few major wins, and a number of strike-outs. So only about 3% to 5% of listeners really want a station that has no jocks and a wide contemporary playlist. Interestingly, KLVE and Jack in LA are tied in cume... yet KLVE only serves 25% of the market, those who are Spanish dominant.