The battle for Radio to stay relevant
Monday, August 27, 2007 at 6:23 AM
Tags: Terrestrial, The Competition
The Baltimore Sun has a great writeup on "good old-fashioned terrestrial radio" and its struggle to stay relevant amid the increasing competition for our ears.
There's some interesting facts and figures in the piece, but one quote that struck me was from a GM at an AM station:
"Because of satellite radio, more affluent people are going to use that service, so we have a smaller piece of the pie to slice up with the people remaining, who are not so affluent," said Bob Pettit, general manager of WCBM, the Baltimore talk-radio station at 680 AM. "The younger people are going to the new technologies. Radio used to be a very effective way to reach people aged 18 to 34. Now, not so much."
As a result, Pettit said, national advertisers are not turning to the old medium the way they once did, leaving the field to cheaper, and often local, ad buyers. In turn, the stations are obliged to charge less money because their demographic is poorer, he said, leaving the stations with less revenue.
That whole statement says, in no uncertain terms, "we are competing head-to-head with satellite radio." And it's valid. A decrease in cume numbers means less ears that are hearing an advertisers spot. And when the demos are less and less influential, even the smaller numbers become less valuable.
The savior for terrestrial radio is supposed to be "localism" - because unlike satellite radio, iPods or any other listening medium - only terrestrial radio can be local.
But I think the value of terrestrial goes beyond just reporting the local high school football game scores. If every station you switch to is playing the same song, then what's the point? It's a point that is referred to in the Baltimore Sun article:
"It's cool to hear a reggae channel, but no FM owner seems to dare to commit to one,"
It's not just being "local" that matters - it's being relevant. The only thing preventing terrestrial radio from playing Bluegrass, or Jazz, or Folk music is the corporate old guard who care about nothing other than squeezing the last penny out. But there's a whole new generation of Marketers who don't use the word "brand advertising" in their vocabulary. They use terms like "segmentation," "targeting," and "relevancy" to craft their campaigns.
And Radio is just not appealing to them.
[Baltimore Sun]
Maybe foramts that have been tossed aside should be looked at again, programming can improve, demos that have been deemed undesirable may offer a 2nd chance.
Monday, August 27, 2007 at 6:23 AM
Tags: Terrestrial, The Competition
The Baltimore Sun has a great writeup on "good old-fashioned terrestrial radio" and its struggle to stay relevant amid the increasing competition for our ears.
There's some interesting facts and figures in the piece, but one quote that struck me was from a GM at an AM station:
"Because of satellite radio, more affluent people are going to use that service, so we have a smaller piece of the pie to slice up with the people remaining, who are not so affluent," said Bob Pettit, general manager of WCBM, the Baltimore talk-radio station at 680 AM. "The younger people are going to the new technologies. Radio used to be a very effective way to reach people aged 18 to 34. Now, not so much."
As a result, Pettit said, national advertisers are not turning to the old medium the way they once did, leaving the field to cheaper, and often local, ad buyers. In turn, the stations are obliged to charge less money because their demographic is poorer, he said, leaving the stations with less revenue.
That whole statement says, in no uncertain terms, "we are competing head-to-head with satellite radio." And it's valid. A decrease in cume numbers means less ears that are hearing an advertisers spot. And when the demos are less and less influential, even the smaller numbers become less valuable.
The savior for terrestrial radio is supposed to be "localism" - because unlike satellite radio, iPods or any other listening medium - only terrestrial radio can be local.
But I think the value of terrestrial goes beyond just reporting the local high school football game scores. If every station you switch to is playing the same song, then what's the point? It's a point that is referred to in the Baltimore Sun article:
"It's cool to hear a reggae channel, but no FM owner seems to dare to commit to one,"
It's not just being "local" that matters - it's being relevant. The only thing preventing terrestrial radio from playing Bluegrass, or Jazz, or Folk music is the corporate old guard who care about nothing other than squeezing the last penny out. But there's a whole new generation of Marketers who don't use the word "brand advertising" in their vocabulary. They use terms like "segmentation," "targeting," and "relevancy" to craft their campaigns.
And Radio is just not appealing to them.
[Baltimore Sun]
Maybe foramts that have been tossed aside should be looked at again, programming can improve, demos that have been deemed undesirable may offer a 2nd chance.