-
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
Article: Is internet streaming FM's last gasp?
- Thread starter rtc
- Start date
I'd say the MP3 player/iPod is doing more damage. One big advantage FM has over internet radio is the fact that its free and mobile. Mobile internet can be expensive and drop out in bad coverage areas. The MP3 player is doing more damage because it is just as portable nowadays as an FM radio and it plays what you want with no commercials. Portable CD and tape players had limited space for audio avaliable and battery life wasn't the best. Today's MP3 players can go several hours on a single charge and are now very affordable.
Ibiquity has no idea what they are doing trying to "fix" FM. If you ask young people whats wrong with FM almost nobody is going to say the audio quality is too low. Most of the complaints I hear is that there are too many commercials or nobody plays music they like. And few stations are fixing this with secondary HD streams, most are playing a niche format or relaying another station. Of course stations have to play commercials to pay the bills but some stations seem to play a lot. Its also hard for FM to compete with your MP3 player which plays exactly what you like.
Ibiquity has no idea what they are doing trying to "fix" FM. If you ask young people whats wrong with FM almost nobody is going to say the audio quality is too low. Most of the complaints I hear is that there are too many commercials or nobody plays music they like. And few stations are fixing this with secondary HD streams, most are playing a niche format or relaying another station. Of course stations have to play commercials to pay the bills but some stations seem to play a lot. Its also hard for FM to compete with your MP3 player which plays exactly what you like.
spunker88 said:
This here's the problem. Or, put another way, the problem from the listeners point of view is that stations "court" advertisers, but they "tolerate" listeners. Listeners can sense this.
Convince listeners you love them, and they'll stick with you through thick and thin; there may not be an overwhelming number of them, but they're yours. But when they get a whiff of the sense they're simply being tolerated, they'll find some other way to spend their free time. A commercial break that's longer than an average song (or that seems longer) is a good indication to a listener that they're being tolerated.
It's also just another way for me to say "the way to fix HD Radio is to fix Radio"...
Theres also the problem of cookie cutter stations. The radio conglomerates have made many stations clones of one another and the local feeling of that station is lost. There are few stations out there that try to connect with their listeners and make them feel in charge. Its mostly independently and locally owned stations that still do things the old fashioned way.
I know I'm a lone wolf in the woods on this one but I don't think the money demos even care if a station is local or not, just whether it plays what they want and is entertaining in the process.
Ryan Seacrest and Kidd Kradick and John Tesh and Delilah and all the other national shows wouldn't stick around if they didn't garner ratings, and they don't garner their ratings by being local, they do it by being (apparently) entertaining.
In the small towns where locally owned and operated still do things the old fashioned way, they get a lot of listeners by being one of a few choices. In LA, homespun top 40 would not do any better than KIIS or whoever else is doing it these days.
Without going on about the technical limitations and costs associated with streaming, I will say that I believe streaming will not be that much different for radio than TV (and later cable TV) has been for the OTA networks. The off the air channels have had to adapt and seek new revenue streams but they are still the most watched channels on the cable lineup, even if few are picking them up via antenna.
If streaming ever takes off, the air signal will be the compliment to the "cable channel" that is the internet stream. And when the internet isn't available, free local broadcasting will be there.
Ryan Seacrest and Kidd Kradick and John Tesh and Delilah and all the other national shows wouldn't stick around if they didn't garner ratings, and they don't garner their ratings by being local, they do it by being (apparently) entertaining.
In the small towns where locally owned and operated still do things the old fashioned way, they get a lot of listeners by being one of a few choices. In LA, homespun top 40 would not do any better than KIIS or whoever else is doing it these days.
Without going on about the technical limitations and costs associated with streaming, I will say that I believe streaming will not be that much different for radio than TV (and later cable TV) has been for the OTA networks. The off the air channels have had to adapt and seek new revenue streams but they are still the most watched channels on the cable lineup, even if few are picking them up via antenna.
If streaming ever takes off, the air signal will be the compliment to the "cable channel" that is the internet stream. And when the internet isn't available, free local broadcasting will be there.
Zach said:
I wouldn't shoot down Seacrest, et. al. any more than I would begrudge the television networks their prime time access. Entertaining programming is entertaining, and if scale provides a better quality of entertainment, then so be it.
The main thing that the people that cry "live and local" are railing against, I think, is the voice-tracking cluster host who'd be more engaging if they were actually in the market their listeners are in. They're not bad, but nobody'd mistake them for Seacrest, and they're certainly not getting a bigger budget to work with to make it a more entertaining show. The benefit of scale is only directed toward the cluster owner; listeners can tell something's missing, even if they can't put their finger on it, and they're the ones who lose.
Advertisers lose, too, when the programming sends listeners to their iPods.
hubcity said:
I don't think that's the case, though. I don't think most listeners are aware or care that the voice they're hearing is coming from some other state, as long as it's entertaining to them.
I'm not in the business but have had the opportunity to talk to lots of people who know radio is my bag, and the several times I've brought up voicetracking and satellite formats, people have been clueless. Before I moved back to Alabama I lived in a small Mississippi town with 4 stations (but only two were on the air). The oldies station was satellite fed most of the day but some didn't know or care that Ron Clark or Dave Michaels or Larry King weren't actually local personalities. I would say, "Doesn't it seem odd that these guys with big radio voices and seamless delivery are being heard in a small unrated radio market?" The response would range from, "Well I dunno," to "I never met 'em but I assumed they came from (outside the town) to work." The rest knew and just thought that's how radio was supposed to be.
They honestly didn't know better, and when it was explained to them, they did not care.
Satellite feeds aside, even I am easily fooled by voicetracking. I couldn't tell you who in my market is live and local, or voicetracked locally, or is piped in from some other station in Dallas. And I suspect that, outside radio people themselves, no one else really can, either. Short of someone mispronouncing a name, who's gonna know?
Being 'live and local' means discussing current events and that means music or commercials aren't playing. People, in my humble experience, simply don't want disc jockeys pontificating on anything between songs anymore, they want music and short commercial breaks (or none at all!) Listener interaction is GREAT, if you're the listener the DJ is interacting with. Otherwise, it's just background chatter. It's the rare jock who can put calls on the air and really hold the audience's attention with the interaction. Those people should be allowed to exercise their creativity, yes… the rest of the note card readers doing that would just drive away listeners.
Don't look at this like a 100% total disagreement though because radio WOULD benefit from having more creative people on the air, but with corporate ownership and the bottom dollar attitude those creative people will find more fulfilling work elsewhere. Like McDonald's.
The simplest reason for syndication and VT is MONEY. Most broadcasters are willing - if not eager - to cut costs by cutting local talent and bringing on canned content. It has nothing to do with putting on what listeners want. It has everything to do with the bottom line.
It's a short-sighted strategy that makes building a relationship with listeners difficult, if not impossible. Add the corporate strategy of continually restricting the role that local talent plays by restricting the number of live breaks, and you make it that much more difficult to build that relationship.
Of course, people who succeed in spite of the restrictions expect compensation for their efforts and popularity. So, we get the myth of "overpaid, overpampered, egotistical disk jockies". Yes, there are a FEW of them out there - including Howard Stern - but they are very few and very far between.
As far as Stern in concerned, I'm aware that he has his fans, but he was an also-ran in most markets where he had credible competition. He was the refuge of the stations that were getting their ass kicked, and didn't have a clue when it came to hiring and developing local talent. Stern was cheaper than actually developing a decent morning show, and got "good enough" numbers.
The down side was what happened when Stern pulled out. How many stations still haven't recovered from losing their morning show? How many groups finally realized that putting all your eggs in the bastket of an ego like Howard's, and not developing your own talent, might not be the best long-term option? Worse yet, how many groups DIDN'T realize that mistake, and plugged in another "saviour" (Opie & Anthony, Bubba, Bob & Tom, etc.)?
Radio needs to offer content that the Internet can't. Good live and local content gives you a sense of immediacy and relatability that a pure music service can't duplicate. If you're simply a music delivery system, radio is going down. Why would I bother, when I can go to Slacker or Pandora, skip the commercials, and simply hit "next" when a song comes on that I don't like? If there isn't more to the content than that, radio will lose.
PS - HD is not only completely irrelevant, it creates actual interference on AM. Bring back AM stereo. At least that worked.
It's a short-sighted strategy that makes building a relationship with listeners difficult, if not impossible. Add the corporate strategy of continually restricting the role that local talent plays by restricting the number of live breaks, and you make it that much more difficult to build that relationship.
Of course, people who succeed in spite of the restrictions expect compensation for their efforts and popularity. So, we get the myth of "overpaid, overpampered, egotistical disk jockies". Yes, there are a FEW of them out there - including Howard Stern - but they are very few and very far between.
As far as Stern in concerned, I'm aware that he has his fans, but he was an also-ran in most markets where he had credible competition. He was the refuge of the stations that were getting their ass kicked, and didn't have a clue when it came to hiring and developing local talent. Stern was cheaper than actually developing a decent morning show, and got "good enough" numbers.
The down side was what happened when Stern pulled out. How many stations still haven't recovered from losing their morning show? How many groups finally realized that putting all your eggs in the bastket of an ego like Howard's, and not developing your own talent, might not be the best long-term option? Worse yet, how many groups DIDN'T realize that mistake, and plugged in another "saviour" (Opie & Anthony, Bubba, Bob & Tom, etc.)?
Radio needs to offer content that the Internet can't. Good live and local content gives you a sense of immediacy and relatability that a pure music service can't duplicate. If you're simply a music delivery system, radio is going down. Why would I bother, when I can go to Slacker or Pandora, skip the commercials, and simply hit "next" when a song comes on that I don't like? If there isn't more to the content than that, radio will lose.
PS - HD is not only completely irrelevant, it creates actual interference on AM. Bring back AM stereo. At least that worked.
SirRoxalot said:
The funny part here is that for the most part, the demise of live and local talent is a myth. Throughout the country, live and local talent is (well) alive! In another thread, someone said that Entercom will be discontinuing its syndicated night time show, The Second Shift with Alan Kabel. The fears that Clear Channel would replace all local talent with syndication and VT haven't been realized. KSCS Dallas has stopped using the syndicated 7 to midnight The Jeremy Show, a syndicated evening show based in Dallas, syndicated by its owner Citadel. Live and local DJs are returning to the evening dayparts in lots of markets. The key thing is that live & local talent is left alone (1) in certain formats, like country, oldies, urban, and CHR; and (2) in certain dayparts, where the majority of people listen, such as mornings and afternoon drive. However, it is also a myth that listeners are changing their listening habits once live and local returns. We aren't seeing a widespread discontinuation of Slacker or Pandora. So the idea that live & local is a solution to the challenge of other devices is very clearly a myth. LIsteners aren't using other devices because radio is bad. They're using them because those new devices are good and unique and personalized. They do things radio can't do. Pandora doesn't have talent on its music streams not because it can't. It doesn't offer talent because its customers don't want it. And that's a reality that's hard to accept.
But here are some realities you have to live with if you're going to have live & local talent: (1) They aren't going to listen to you in real time. They will listen at their convenience. That means you must podcast your best bits. (2) They love social media. So you must Twitter and Facebook continually, and the talent has to do it, not some intern. (3) You need to make personal appearances. There's no point in being local if listeners can't see you. Being locked up in a studio won't work. (4) You need to build a fan base. Like it or now, if you're local, you're a star. You have to look, act, and dress like one. That's hard for radio people to do, but those who learn will succeed.
TheBigA said:
That is a completely true statement. The only people that claim radio is somehow suffering or in decline because of not having local talent on the air are those being disenchanted ex-radio people or a tiny cross-section of hobbyists.
In surveys with actual radio consumers, listeners believe that if your radio station is located in their local area, it's a local station. A listener listens for content, period, not whether grandpa is on the radio doing swap and shop. In all instances, even small market stations benefit from having a big market sound with major market talent and researched music, usually through a syndicated provider, at a much more cost effective model than trying to hire local people on how to sound major market.
The internet and mobile devices have forever changed the expectations that people have for their media. Interactive is the new normal. For better or worse, local is not that relevant when the whole electronic media world is your neighborhood. Whether or not a program is live or not is even less interesting.
Why wait for a DJ to tell you the local weather or comment on some song? You can Google or Bing anything in a matter of seconds from wherever and whenever.
Why wait for hours on hold for some talk show only to get dumped at the last minute because the time ran out? Not a problem for a blog commenter. Besides, you can have a 'talk show' with your friends anytime or all the time.
Why wait around for some favorite tune to maybe or never get played? You can discover it, download it and play it in combination with any other music you like whenever you like.
No more "nothing but blues and Elvis, and somebody else's favorite song."
Anybody can be their own programmer now, not just a select few. One-way, top-down media are no longer the only way to participate and nobody is looking back except us. Older people still listen to the radio because they're accustomed to it. Anybody else who still listens does so because it's cheap and convenient and they can't get on the internet or cellular network for some reason or other.
If this 'live & local' issue is so important, then why aren't we talking about it on the radio instead of on an internet discussion board?
Don't get me wrong. I don't like this reality any more than anybody else who posts here, but it the truth cannot be denied. We'll just have to make the best of a bad situation and hope that internet and cellular access get really, really expensive.
Why wait for a DJ to tell you the local weather or comment on some song? You can Google or Bing anything in a matter of seconds from wherever and whenever.
Why wait for hours on hold for some talk show only to get dumped at the last minute because the time ran out? Not a problem for a blog commenter. Besides, you can have a 'talk show' with your friends anytime or all the time.
Why wait around for some favorite tune to maybe or never get played? You can discover it, download it and play it in combination with any other music you like whenever you like.
No more "nothing but blues and Elvis, and somebody else's favorite song."
Anybody can be their own programmer now, not just a select few. One-way, top-down media are no longer the only way to participate and nobody is looking back except us. Older people still listen to the radio because they're accustomed to it. Anybody else who still listens does so because it's cheap and convenient and they can't get on the internet or cellular network for some reason or other.
If this 'live & local' issue is so important, then why aren't we talking about it on the radio instead of on an internet discussion board?
Don't get me wrong. I don't like this reality any more than anybody else who posts here, but it the truth cannot be denied. We'll just have to make the best of a bad situation and hope that internet and cellular access get really, really expensive.
I've been listening to local AM radio for almost 50 years and there is a dearth of local talent on almost all radio nowadays as far as I can see. You used to know the station almost instantly or at least know you had a different region by it's ads, it's jocks and some times even it's songs and they were ALL different, there even used to be live farm reports early in the morning on some stations. Nowadays I can do a band scan and many times only know what station I have because I happen to know the dial. I don't know if as the above poster is saying that local is now irrelevant because of the internet but I do know that radio is not local anymore except for a few stations.
TheBigA said:
Our station's coverage area has lots of farms, so we still broadcast the farm report from 5 to 6 AM. And if the farmer wants to hear it later in the day, it's now available as a podcast on our website.
- Status