• 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

B101 will stop streaming this Sunday March 15

Does being a small one station company rather than owned by a major radio company give you a disadvantage in paying these fees? Can a CC cover all their stations with one fee, or does each individual station owe the same fees?
 
Seems like kind of a double edged sword to me. I understand his point and what he is trying to do, but on the other hand, by pulling down the webstream, you are just begging office listeners to stream crosstown "Now 97.5" instead. In fact, if I was at Now 97.5, I would have a promo on the air the day that B101 pulled the audio talking about it and inviting listeners to check out their webstream. The webstream may not pull in the biggest ad dollars at the station, but in this tech savvy age, it is an invaluable tool and link to the listeners that draws them in and gets them to listen to the actual over the air station. I think the webstream should be viewed more as a promotion tool and link to listeners, more than a nuts and bolts, money making asset. So, while I think the increasing fees are bad, I really don't think this protest will work or will be followed by other major companies.
 
Yes it does show in the PPM's ... but the spot rate difference on a web stream vs. what does out over the air is so much different, that there is no justification to stream if the royalty rates eat 30-50 of that streaming revenue, which don't even compare to the spot rate over-the-air. So what do you have? Streaming costs on top of exhorbitant royalty rates, with short rated spots that don't compare to the over the air signal.

B-101 can't afford to have all office listeners tuned into the stream in the metro, because it takes away from the numbers it gets in the PPM on the air ... thus pulling an audience share away from the main over the air signal.
 
oaktree said:
Yes it does show in the PPM's ... but the spot rate difference on a web stream vs. what does out over the air is so much different, that there is no justification to stream if the royalty rates eat 30-50 of that streaming revenue, which don't even compare to the spot rate over-the-air. So what do you have? Streaming costs on top of exhorbitant royalty rates, with short rated spots that don't compare to the over the air signal.

B-101 can't afford to have all office listeners tuned into the stream in the metro, because it takes away from the numbers it gets in the PPM on the air ... thus pulling an audience share away from the main over the air signal.
Click to expand...

Big mistake. You basically have to be living under a rock if you don't understand that streaming is the next platform. CBS made that mistake years ago under Mel when they decided there would be no streaming. It took them years to recover their business plan once they decided it was in their best interest.

He should take the 30-50% revenue cut in streaming media and stick with it. A smarter move would be to turn off the goddamn HD and stop paying iBiquity to use it (and the added power bill with all the wasted RF). HD is DOA, streaming is the future.

The argument that PPM pulls audience away from over-air is bunk. Streaming may be the future, but it hasn't arrived yet. Saying that, leaving the internet is a huge mistake.
 
Sorry, but I disagree.

With the royalty battles going on and a 50% increase in such royalties by 2013 ... and no payment for AFTRA performers to do spots on streams, stations in major markets will not be wanting to pay the high royalty rates without a non-limit on revenue ... especially in this economic climate.

At the same time, it is not "growing" Jerry Lee's audience ... it only gives him another share, duly reported on another line, as the station can't combine numbers without it being a complete simulcast, which it is not, because of having to pull spots from the stream due to AFTRA regulations.

He'd lose a lot more money in his revenue model if he does stay the course with streaming. While I enjoy streaming, especially for horrible audio, no coverage AM's, the only people making mone on terrestrial streaming are the RIAA, Sound Exchange and the attorneys.

It will be sad to lose the many broadcasters who are tired of dealing with the unfair rate increases, but if they aren't making moeny from the stream (just as many aren't making money on over cluttered web sites,) many have no choice but to turn the stream off ... especially when a huge industry force like Jerry Lee decides to do so in a large market.

In this economy, streams have to pay for themselves and/or make some revenue.

I do, however, agree with your comments on HD and Ibiquity. Some are still saying "hang on" to it ... that it will take time to "grow" the technology and Jerry Lee is a pioneer in the "contemporary" business ... having been there for over 40 years. Not a "dumb" move on his part ... plus, he has the benefit of putting two other channels on his 'air' and a way to fit into that growth IF it ever works ... which, as of today, doesn't look so promising.

But the streaming is regularily costing him revenue ... while, in time, he could grow some solid revenue in the future IF HD were to take off in the years to come with solid and successful HD-2 and HD-3 channels.

From David Eduardo on the LA Board ...

Radio says goodbye to Streaming
« on: March 13, 2009, 09:31:37 pm »
Reply with quoteQuote
Just had a good conversation with several owners at a conference and have it on good authority you will see many stations dropping streaming in the near future. The rising costs in a down economy make streaming a waste of money. Web and Internet revenue cannot and will not support it. Radio will follow Yahoo and others in shutting down streams. The cost, plus the intense competition from niche web only broadcasters makes this effort dead. Add to this that streaming in a PPM world actually "takes away" from the core radio audience on terrestrial radio. (streams are measured seperately and run different commercials) Radio on the web is dead and it is the artists who are killing themselves. Web only broadcasters are also dropping like flies. Artists need to view radio and the web as partners exposing their music, not the enemy in my humble view.

Expect all small companies to abandon streaming in the next year. A few major groups may keep going, but not for long. I expect the first announcement coming from this group by next Monday. This will be big. Radio is going back to it core business and it is about time in my humble view. Focus less on texting, HD, Streaming and more on making your core product sound better. The audience will follow.
 
I'm all for making the core product better, but let's be real. What does it take to make the core product better?

$$$$$

Just what they don't have to continue streaming.

And I still disagree... you need to be in developing media. Radio cannot run and hide in the corner and rely on traditional AM & FM. Where will it be 10 years from now if radio doesn't branch to other platforms? It's losing its footing with the next generation already and the fact that streams are already starting to show up in the PPM's should be a wake up call. Show those numbers in 5 years?

As far as the economic downturn? If we're still in the doghouse in 2013, most broadcast companies will have probably gone bankrupt or turned in the license.

Either way you look at it, it's going to cost $$$$. And where are you getting it?
 
oaktree said:
Yes it does show in the PPM's ... but the spot rate difference on a web stream vs. what does out over the air is so much different, that there is no justification to stream if the royalty rates eat 30-50 of that streaming revenue, which don't even compare to the spot rate over-the-air. So what do you have? Streaming costs on top of exhorbitant royalty rates, with short rated spots that don't compare to the over the air signal.

B-101 can't afford to have all office listeners tuned into the stream in the metro, because it takes away from the numbers it gets in the PPM on the air ... thus pulling an audience share away from the main over the air signal.
Click to expand...

Thats true but if you look at the PPM numbers you will see that they are the only one pulling in numbers each month on their stream. They are over 30,000. In internet radio thats really good. I think its a mistake because most people are listening to the station in the offices during the day. A lot of building have interference with some signals. Lets face it the world is going wireless and cars are starting to have wireless installed in them. Cutting their stream is a big mistake
 
Once again, folks, this is not about some big corporation with its head in the sand. This is a very successful local owner who wants to make a statement. Here again is the first line of the R&R article:

As a protest against rising online music royalty rates negotiated by SoundExchange

Jerry Lee is doing this as a PROTEST, not just to save money. He wants to inspire others to join him in his crusade about unfair royalty rates. That's what this is about.

He goes on to say: "I don’t expect anyone to follow my lead, but I'm one guy out there saying enough's enough."

And he happens to be the most successful guy in Philadelphia. Is that enough to get the attention of the government? Maybe not. Yahoo turned over their streams to CBS last year because they could no longer afford the royalties.

But this is not about short-sighted broadcasters. This is about the recording industry cartel that is forcing radio to pay excessive royalties for digital broadcasting, and also wants to extend this same royalty to on-air radio. Someone has to stand up to this cartel. Jerry Lee is the first.
 
Jerry Lee is in the wrong here.

You have much more leverage as an insider, as opposed to an outsider looking in. Mr. Lee is turning his station into the latter from the former.
2015 is still six years away-plenty of time to continue to grow online listenership while continuing to fight Sound Exchange in Congress.
Also, the ban on spots is now over SIX YEARS OLD. What hasn't any agreement about THAT been attempted in all those years?

Radio is making itself irrelevant more every day-and turning your back on the future (and those that don't believe that streaming IS the future are a herd of Luddites!) does not help radio one bit!

So Jerry, if you want to cut off your nose to spite your face, then go at it-but don't whine to me later on about how ugly the scar left on your face is!
 
oaktree said:
Yes it does show in the PPM's ... but the spot rate difference on a web stream vs. what does out over the air is so much different, that there is no justification to stream if the royalty rates eat 30-50 of that streaming revenue, which don't even compare to the spot rate over-the-air. So what do you have? Streaming costs on top of exhorbitant royalty rates, with short rated spots that don't compare to the over the air signal.

B-101 can't afford to have all office listeners tuned into the stream in the metro, because it takes away from the numbers it gets in the PPM on the air ... thus pulling an audience share away from the main over the air signal.
Click to expand...

Oaktree is right. If you run the numbers you get 10-12 times more bang for your buck if a listener listens on-air instead of online. After their change, even though a few B-101 online listeners might be lost because they don't stream anymore, that's just a little collateral damage because even if only 1 out of 10-12 (a tiny fraction) migrate to on-air, the station has broken even. Any more than that is just gravy.
 
I disagree with Jerry. I haven't seen that many stations in the past few years drop their streaming. And like every few weeks or months there's always new ones to the experience. I just found that WHAJ J104.5 - Bluefield, WV, KYSJ 105.9 (yes, a smooth jazz station which is the most failing format in radio today) - Coos Bay, OR, and WIRX Rock 107.1 - Benton Harbor, MI are now streaming. I think it's ridiculous that there are such high royalty fees for this feature and every station no matter how small the market is should have a button to be listened to anywhere in the world. More so that people don't have to drive or live in the coverage area to hear how great a station sounds like, for example KATF 92-9 Kat FM out of Dubuque, IA. That station is a true gem of a hot AC that doesn't overplay songs like so many others. It used to stream online but now it doesn't since the big drop many years ago.

But I don't think I will miss B-101 very much. I listened to it a few times and the music mix is boring compared to other ACs. I had to turn it off and turn on KLNN Luna 103-7 from Taos, NM a market much smaller than Philadelphia. Medium sized radio stations sounds the best IMO. I'd rather listen to something like KUMU 94.7 - Honolulu, HI or KHME Soft Rock 101.1 (Winona, MN) than to boring B101.
 
Thank you, Barman ...

Now, a couple of other points.

Yes, it is "a protest" by Jerry Lee against high and higher royalties that have doubled in the last three years and will certainly do so in the next three and three years after that.

Second, is this ... and Mr. Lee, who isn't hurting financially like so many other broadcasters are: He is quoted as saying that with the stream being "listed" by Arbitron ... say, 30,000 listeners (and we're not taking that number apart to see just how many add to his "in market" bottom line ... not listeners online from out of market,) he notes that the migration of listeners from his over-the-air "stick" is just plain "bad business for radio."

Many have been saying for quite some time, and I refer to Jerry Del Colliano, a former programmer in Philadelphia who stays close to the market despite living in Arizona, that "terrestrial streaming" only of over-the-air signals (sans commercials) is not what makes for another successful revenue stream for radio stations.

Yes, it adds to those situations where AM sounds better, frequently, on the Internet ... if broadcasters pay the rate for higher than 32k streams. A lot do not.

Yes, it adds to those situations where AM & FM "coverage" is greatly extended out-of-market ... but does it contribute to the bottom line of a given station in a given market? NO.

Yes, it will, eventually, erode the aspects of operators buying towers, transmitters and costly STL systems to broadcast to as many sets of ears possible in a metro coverage area.

Internet streaming is like "cable radio." It's not even HEARD on a radio, outside of what I have and listen to religiously, a wideband wireless Internet Radio (a "SoundBridge" appliance by Roku Labs ... and several others available. These are not, however, radios ... any more than HD radio means 'High Definition' radio.) The Internet is merely, to streaming terrestrial radio, another "delivery system" ... NOT a "platform."

So, yes, a different "platform" is the potential for a new "revenue stream" for radio in the near future, as Jerry points out in his Inside Music Media blog (www.insidemusicmedia.com ).

In the interim, streaming, as B-101's Jerry Lee points out ... is causing the erosion of local listeners away from his highly radio station "over the air signal" ... where he expects fully two-thirds of the 30,000 listeners on his stream to "come back home."

Either that ... or he loses 50% of the revenue he'd make in six years from exorbitant royalty rates with no chance of their going down to zero.

He also notes the the RIAA/Sound Exchange cartel is not into "helping" the artists they allegedly are representing by forcing the potential "industry" of Internet radio / streaming to not gain traction to further aid in the promotion of these artists and, thus, sell more music.

Mr. Lee is the first. When the Clear Channel's, CBS, Cumulus, Emmis and all the others decide to go by the wayside, the RIAA will still say it doesn't give a damn ... but it will lose out on the extortion that it's trying to promote to radio as it is. I feel that's it's a shame the NAB doesn't include webcasters and not just radio stations in their battle to fight ... as then you'll hear a mighty roar from the record label cartel which then will hear "The Sounds of Silence" ... as the sale of CD's heads further south than it is now.

Then see what the artists say. They'll be very angry, because they won't be getting the royalties they hoped for ... anyway.

Let the protest begin ...
 
The first rule of negotiation is you have to be willing to walk away, to say no. That's what he's doing. Up til now, no one has said no. Better gameplans don't work if they feel they have you by the short ones. And they feel they do.

The next step is to come up with royalty free content that competes. That's the way to break a cartel. Cartels hate competition. Break the cartel, and you can negotiate.

The artists don't care. It's the major labels who are pushing this royalty. They are the ones who have the most to lose.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom