• 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

Demise of Big Group, Radio StationS will HASTEN!

J

joshzz

It's just a matter of time before companies like Clear Channel and other behemoths operating under a bankruptcy scenario realize that they are never going to pay down their debt service but instead sink further into the hole of doom.

Their demise will hasten due to the fact that they rely on regionally and/or nationally syndicated programming to keep afloat.... programming that listeners will stop responding to as they find other ways to listen to the programming... Listeners are no longer tied to the local station's feed anymore.

As a for instance, anyone can listen to ESPNRADIO.COM directly by just going to their website. I expect the same is being offered for fans of Hannity, Rush etc.,...

The local stations that provide truly UNIQUE, LOCAL PROGRAMMING will survive and indeed flourish but to the large group owned stations that viewed themselves as nothing more than advertising companies and thought the best way to run radio was to fire the talent and flip on a satellite feed .. their end is in sight. joshzz
 
Their demise will hasten due to the fact that they rely on regionally and/or nationally syndicated programming to keep afloat.... programming that listeners will stop responding to as they find other ways to listen to the programming... Listeners are no longer tied to the local station's feed anymore.


Sheesh...these posts are like SHOUTING into the Grand Canyon. They KEEP ECHOING, repeating, duplicating.

STANDBY for more same old rehash in 3...2...1.
 
Dusty Springfield said it best in 1964: "Wishin' and hopin.'" Keep dreaming for some benevolent benefactor to come along and pay for local DJs again, and we'll all return to the way things used to be.

I get sick and tired of the same old wishful thinking. Aren't you the guy who keeps talking about buying radio stations? Go ahead. Buy lots of 'em and show everyone how easy it is to make money with unique local programming. Everyone I know had the same youthful enthusiasm when they started, and after a few years of losses, went to the satellites. You will too. Unless you're wealthy. In which case, give me your phone number. I have lots of ways to spend your money on unique local programming. So far, no one is rushing to pay for it.
 
I still have yet to hear someone explain how creating an audience for content that people can get from the web via webcast or - worse - podcast - is good for local radio stations? Josh has a point.
 
As I've said many many times before: I will listen to content I want, regardless of where it comes from.

For some reason, Rush-heads listen live every day, even though they have other options. And they are willing to listen to their hero on lousy AM radios.

People are willing to freeze in the snow to watch their favorite football teams, even though they could get the same exact game, with replay, in their warm homes on TV.

Don't ask me to explain it, but it happens every day. Live and local doesn't matter, unless it's something I want. And it doesn't matter if it comes from Clear Channel or the Communist Party. People are buying home heating oil from Hugo Chavez, even though he speaks out against the US government. The minute you figure out why people do what they do, let me know.
 
SirRoxalot said:
I still have yet to hear someone explain how creating an audience for content that people can get from the web via webcast or - worse - podcast - is good for local radio stations? Josh has a point.
Click to expand...

Simple, because one thing is constant, terestrial radio is free. If you want to listen to streaming, Podcasts, or whatever, one has to (typically) pay for a connection to the public Internet. To date, you can't stream to your car and that even will cost money when available. Free and easily accessible always trumps cost, especially in tough economic times or when man-made or natural disasters take out utilities carrying the Internet.
 
Gee it's hard to imagine a world with relatively ubiquitous wireless Internet access - and simple applications to play your favorite programs. I don't think that radio should concern itself about building an audience for syndicated shows that have no time-sensitive or local component, and won't need radio for distribution in the foreseeable future.[/sarcasm]

PS - Has anybody else noticed that auto manufacturers are now selling "entertainment centers", not radios?
 
HowardMBurgers said:
Simple, because one thing is constant, terestrial radio is free. If you want to listen to streaming, Podcasts, or whatever, one has to (typically) pay for a connection to the public Internet. To date, you can't stream to your car and that even will cost money when available. Free and easily accessible always trumps cost, especially in tough economic times or when man-made or natural disasters take out utilities carrying the Internet.
Click to expand...

Right now, you can stream from your car using any of the "smart phones' or computer air cards. Just plug it into your radio's "Aux In" jack. I've been doing it for at least a couple of years. It actually works, at least along the Interstate highway system. I also get emails from people telling me they are listening to my (terrestrial) radio station in their car in Minnesota or some such place that is very far removed from my location in Texas. FM just5 doesn't travel that far….

This will become a lot more common in the not too distant future. Buick is advertising that one of their models is a "Forty gigabyte media player and entertainment device that also has wheels." Chrysler has offered mobile Wi-Fi connectivity in some models for up to five users. There is much more on the horizon.

The way we are headed, I'm not sure the "free" will always be the deciding factor about what people listen to. At least, it may not be in the way we've always thought of it. To some degree, users consider Internet radio to be "free" because it comes along with your Internet service, which they already pay for. An awful lot of people want - and will pay for - Internet access, whether or not "radio" comes along for the ride. If you are a radio broadcaster, you might want to think about ways to go along for that ride.

I suspect the folks who have the most to lose in this transition is satellite radio. When Internet becomes commonly available in cars, the choice will be, "Should I pay for Sirius-XM or should I pay for Internet access wherever I go?" Even if it costs more, the answer for me is "Bye, bye satellite, hello Internet." Although I am well past the age demographic that most mobile devices are aimed at, I'd still like the access. There are simply a lot more things you can do with it. The cell phone carriers seem to be keenly aware of this trend which is why you see and hear about the great spectrum grab that is currently going on.

I think it behooves traditional broadcasters to figure out ways to work with this trend, rather than fight an uphill battle. Radio may always be free, but if people are listening or watching something on the Internet, they aren't going to be tuned into your terrestrial transmitter.
 
SirRoxalot said:
PS - Has anybody else noticed that auto manufacturers are now selling "entertainment centers", not radios?
Click to expand...

They are profit centers. The companies involved either PAY the auto companies cash or they give them profit sharing. Name a local radio station that does that, or a traditional radio manufacturer.

The satellite companies really changed the ballgame almost ten years ago, by essentially buying their way onto the dashboard. Once that happened, other companies said, "If that's all it takes, we'll pay too." Radio never had to do that. Radio was free, and still is. But other devices can actually make money for a car company. Now if Clear Channel came to the table, and did a similar deal with a radio that could only receive CC-owned stations, I imagine the FCC would get pretty upset.

But at the end of the day, the money has to come from somewhere, and it will come in various monthly subscription fees that customers will be forced to pay. If you feel that you're already paying enough, then you listen to terrestrial radio.

Everyone knows the monopoly is over, and ended 5 years ago. There's nothing anyone can do to shove the toothpaste back into the tube. All you can do is know that you'll be sharing audience with lots of other devices, your shares will be dropping, no amount of money you spend will change that, and so you need to adjust your ad rates and operating budgets accordingly.
 
Rush is not available live directly from his website, only Rush 24/7 subscribers can access podcasts. You can hear him online from your local or any other station, my guess is most Dayton OH online listeners are listening to local WHIO's stream, not KFI or WABC's. I'm not sure about Hannity; Clark Howard offers a podcast but only a couple of days after the show's original airing.

Local DJs aren't coming back; and I question what "unique local content" will actually hold an audience. There's nothing more boring than Dayton politics, and I doubt that would engage many people for very long. This dream that all these companies will collapse and bring owners who have enough cash or can get financed to the point of bringing back DJs and doing radio in the 70s is a pipedream.
 
Read this article in the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/business/media/18carr.html?ref=television

Audiences for all media: TV, radio, and newspaper, are getting smaller, and will continue to get smaller. The reason is not because of the companies, the executives, the money they spend, or the quality of their content. The reason is because the audience has more choices. So the audience for network TV will continue to drop, regardless of what they do. Same with radio. The ONLY thing these companies can do is adjust their budgets to the new reality, and attempt to diversify so they can make revenue from some of the alternatives audiences have. This is why the networks invest in cable, and shows like The Sopranos and other more expensive dramas appear on HBO and other pay channels rather than free TV. And even with all the money spent on those dramas, they only get a fraction of the audience they might have received on free TV. But it doesn't matter. HBO collects its money from subscribers.

So the day of big audiences for free TV are over. Other than major sports events, like the NFL playoffs, the Super Bowl, or the BCS Championship, network TV ratings are getting smaller. When those big events move to cable, as Monday Night Football did a few years ago, those numbers will follow, and the cable channels will make more money there than they would have if the same shows aired on free TV. That's the future, folks.
 
TheBigA said:
Read this article in the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/business/media/18carr.html?ref=television

Audiences for all media: TV, radio, and newspaper, are getting smaller, and will continue to get smaller. The reason is not because of the companies, the executives, the money they spend, or the quality of their content. The reason is because the audience has more choices. So the audience for network TV will continue to drop, regardless of what they do. Same with radio. The ONLY thing these companies can do is adjust their budgets to the new reality, and attempt to diversify so they can make revenue from some of the alternatives audiences have. This is why the networks invest in cable, and shows like The Sopranos and other more expensive dramas appear on HBO and other pay channels rather than free TV. And even with all the money spent on those dramas, they only get a fraction of the audience they might have received on free TV. But it doesn't matter. HBO collects its money from subscribers.

So the day of big audiences for free TV are over. Other than major sports events, like the NFL playoffs, the Super Bowl, or the BCS Championship, network TV ratings are getting smaller. When those big events move to cable, as Monday Night Football did a few years ago, those numbers will follow, and the cable channels will make more money there than they would have if the same shows aired on free TV. That's the future, folks.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%!

10 years ago who would have thought a cable company would be more powerful and profitable and buying NBC/Universal. The tables have turned.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom