The person listening doesn't care about that though. Keep the player with a name everyone knows.
Better yet, brand the player to the local stations.
Last edited:
-
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
Entercom To Rebrand as Audacy
- Thread starter AceBiscuits
- Start date
Better yet, brand the player to the local stations.
The station doesn't have that kind of infrastructure.
Also, people use this site to access stations outside their area. So branding it with a local station makes no sense. They can just tune in over the air.
The issue to many listeners is not based on "local" at all... it's based on finding the music or show that is most appealing.
With the exception of occasional interest in local news and sports teams, neither "live" nor "local" are strong selling points to most people under 50 today.
And those people don't care who owns the station. They like what they like not based on who owns it.
No, it has to do with "radio" being considered "old" by most people under 30 or so and over a third of all US homes having no "radio" at all. The idea is sound; a name that covers all distribution channels.
However, the implementation is poor and the name is terribly difficult to spell. Most of the big new media sites are phonetically spelled: Facebook, Google, YouTube and so on. "Oddity" or however it's spelled is not intuitive and subject to a lot of mistaken spellings: a poor choice for a non-visual medium.
That's OK. The word is just a word. People don't care who owns Spotify, but that's the name they use.
The company site (audacyinc.com) is different. This is meant as a consumer portal.
The new name for Entercom is not an "ownership" brand. It's about the company wanting to promote its new media expansion under a single umbrella.
My gut instinct when I first saw it was "wow, Audacity is used to edit music by millions of people, and Entercom is in the music delivery industry -- what were they thinking?" Not that there would be legal issues, but difficulty to differentiate the two in the eyes of the general public. But then, I'm sure this went through a ton of consultants and research and whatnot, and so consequently it's a great name for a company.
What average listener will know that?
Over time, and as they integrate the new acquisitions in the podcast area, they will have a name that fits everything they plan to do in the future.
Keep in mind that the average listener is moving to new media. In 2005, "mr or ms average" listened about 18 to 21 hours a week, depending on the market. Today, the number is around 8 hours... audio listening is done on more platforms and Entercom has decided to put its money on a name that covers all of them.
Didn't Disney and ABC try something like this a decade or more ago with go.com? How did that work out? Not good.
That was because the website sucked.
What is the breakdown of podcast listening. Is it more iTunes, Spotify, or the "radio apps".
People, generally speaking, are perfectly capable of understanding how things like this work in the 21st century.
One would think, yet common sense seems to be lacking greatly.
Exceptions to common sense do not disprove its existence. People who figure these things out don’t make a lot of noise nor spend copious amounts of energy complaining. A comparatively few contrarians, and sometimes trolls, do, however.
I just don't think most people care what corporations own their local station.
Did they assume people would be confused over podcasts on a platform called Radio.com? I'm pretty sure most people consider programmed audio to fall under the umbrella of "radio," whether it's OTA or streamed, live or on-demand.
If anything, the word "podcast" seems more antiquated than "radio." That word spun off from iPods, and when was the last time you used one of those? At least radio has evolved for 100 years.
Anyway, Entercom had no reference to radio in its name. In fact, it was short for Entertainment Communications which was pretty all-encompassing and would have easily remained relevant for any further media expansion.
I still think this particular rebrand seems really pointless.
Joe and Jane Average only listen to eight hours of radio a week? No wonder revenues are down. That's not much time for ears to be attuned to advertising. Not like it apparently was in 2005.
Sort of like a radio station changing its slogan to "the NEW ______".
- Status