Erik Scott Smith Joins KILT-FM/Houston as Morning Co-Host

[davideduardo]

How many terrestrial stations have filed for bankruptcy in the past decade? Have you noticed how commercial radio licenses have lost so much value in the past 15 years?

I went back to the FCC financial reports from the late 50's and early 60's. Back then, stations had to file complete financial data and report profits or losses.

Half the US stations in that era were not profitable.

Since then, the FCC has licensed more stations than the rate of U.S. economic growth could justify. Consolidation in the mid-90's was due mostly to the disastrous effect of Docket 80-90 with severely overpopulated the FM band nationally with no revenue improvement.

Nothing new and your point is not valid.

Or what about the fact that just about every new vehicle in the market has Bluetooth as a standard feature?

And the average vehicle in the US is over 12 years old. Current car sales would project that it will take more than a decade to get Bluetooth into just half of all cars.

 

[BamaTX]

What "false information" was that?

You're welcome to reread the thread. It's all there. You falsely claimed that streamers preferred subscription based listening experience than Ad-based experiences.

Again, you chose to believe what you want to believe, you jump to irrational conclusions, and keep hammering at things that have absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.

 

[davideduardo]

The fact that streaming and podcasts have continued to grow over the past few years.

Again, radio is not in the tower and transmitter business. It's in the content business. Radio companies are streaming, their talent is producing podcasts.

 

[BamaTX]

I went back to the FCC financial reports from the late 50's and early 60's. Back then, stations had to file complete financial data and report profits or losses.

Half the US stations in that era were not profitable.

Since then, the FCC has licensed more stations than the rate of U.S. economic growth could justify. Consolidation in the mid-90's was due mostly to the disastrous effect of Docket 80-90 with severely overpopulated the FM band nationally with no revenue improvement.

Nothing new and your point is not valid.

So stations practically losing a vast majority of their license value and several major players going through bankruptcy have nothing to do with the future of radio?

Got it!

And the average vehicle in the US is over 12 years old. Current car sales would project that it will take more than a decade to get Bluetooth into just half of all cars.

Hence my point that we are seeing an ongoing shift. How fast or how slow that shift depends on several variables (one of which includes how radio continues to cater to listeners in a new age).

 

[davideduardo]

You're welcome to reread the thread. It's all there. You falsely claimed that streamers preferred subscription based listening experience than Ad-based experiences.

They do. The fact that there are more free vs. paid customers only indicates that many, many people don't have the money or don't want to spend it for paid content.

Again, you chose to believe what you want to believe, you jump to irrational conclusions, and keep hammering at things that have absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.

The conversation on your end continues to confuse broadcast radio with the broader context of audio distributed in real time via any transmission facility available.

A decade ago Clear Channel ditched a core radio name for a broader term. We have known about that stuff for decades, you know.

 

[BamaTX]

Again, radio is not in the tower and transmitter business. It's in the content business. Radio companies are streaming, their talent is producing podcasts.

I didn't claim this.

 

[davideduardo]

So stations practically losing a vast majority of their license value and several major players going through bankruptcy have nothing to do with the future of radio?

The greatest effect on valuation had to do with the recession of 2008 and the bankruptcy of overextended leveraged buy-out deals.

In any case, AM and FM are not the future cores of the good audio companies. That is why, as I just mentioned, many have changed their name... even Radio One did it for the same reason.

Hence my point that we are seeing an ongoing shift. How fast or how slow that shift depends on several variables (one of which includes how radio continues to cater to listeners in a new age).

Again, you are stuck in considering that radio is JUST AM and FM.

 

[davideduardo]

I didn't claim this.

But you are ignoring it. Totally.

Another example: look at Townsquare which uses radio as a core for local marketing for clients. AM and FM and streams are just part of a full marketing agenda for customers.

 

[BamaTX]

They do. The fact that there are more free vs. paid customers only indicates that many, many people don't have the money or don't want to spend it for paid content.

Source?

The conversation on your end continues to confuse broadcast radio with the broader context of audio distributed in real time via any transmission facility available.

There's absolutely no confusion.

Maybe you missed this when I replied to you earlier, but I specifically said the following;

For all intents and purposes of this conversation, radio = AM/FM.

LINK

A decade ago Clear Channel ditched a core radio name for a broader term. We have known about that stuff for decades, you know.

That was 7 years ago. And it further proves my point of how companies are positioning themselves for the growth of streaming and the inevitable death of terrestrial radio.

iHeart, Audacy, Cumulus, etc. will continue to do what they do. But the avenue their product is delivered in will change as consumption habits change.

 

[BamaTX]

But you are ignoring it. Totally.

Am I? Because I made myself clear to you what I meant by "radio".

Not once did I claim that audio entertainment was dying. If you can find where I said this, then source it.

Otherwise, you're just being pedant (which there is absolutely no need for).

 

[davideduardo]

Source?

Paywalled.

There's absolutely no confusion.

Does not seem that way.

iHeart, Audacy, Cumulus, etc. will continue to do what they do. But the avenue their product is delivered in will change as consumption habits change.

So, the issue is really whether ad supported media can survive when there are many paid, ad-free services.

The unfortunate thing in this argument is that when free services are no longer available or less varied, people in the lower economic strata will be deprived of service.

This is becoming more obvious in video: When I bought my first TV when I moved to Puerto Rico from Ecuador in 1970, I paid for it and watched free stuff.

Now, I pay the cable company well over $100 a month and get more channels. But the "good stuff" is now on paid services. So I need high-speed Internet. That's over $100 a month for my 1tb/1tb service. And then I have the paid services from HBO+, Amazon, Netflix and several others. We are now at over $4,000 a year.

That is creating yet another area where there is economic classism

 

[BamaTX]

Paywalled.

Marvelous!

Obviously most people would rather have an ad-free experience when asked for a preference (I mean, who wouldn't?). Just like how most people would rather take the toll road or fly first class. But if most people don't think the cost is worth their while, they won't spend the money (and many don't).

The fact is that there is a market for ad-supported listeners at the moment. There's way more ad-supported subscribers than there are paid subscribers on Spotify.

Now making a profit off of them is a different story. Once the streaming market matures more, we will likely have our answer. I think we will need to see some consolidation before we see a profitable and healthy streaming service that can offer both subscription and Ad-based service.

Does not seem that way.

Maybe because you choose to be a tad bit too anal-retentive. I explained myself in a reply, yet you still chose to nitpick the fine details when you knew exactly what I meant by the term "radio". (Nevermind that the actual definition of "radio" can fit more than just audio entertainment outlets).

So, the issue is really whether ad supported media can survive when there are many paid, ad-free services.

The unfortunate thing in this argument is that when free services are no longer available or less varied, people in the lower economic strata will be deprived of service.

This is becoming more obvious in video: When I bought my first TV when I moved to Puerto Rico from Ecuador in 1970, I paid for it and watched free stuff.

Now, I pay the cable company well over $100 a month and get more channels. But the "good stuff" is now on paid services. So I need high-speed Internet. That's over $100 a month for my 1tb/1tb service. And then I have the paid services from HBO+, Amazon, Netflix and several others. We are now at over $4,000 a year.

That is creating yet another area where there is economic classism

That's a whole other argument you're jumping to on the assumption that ad-supported streaming may not very feasible.

That's a complicated argument that I won't jump to since there is data for and against the viability of streaming. The reality is that nobody knows what streaming will look like down the road. All we know is that it is the future. How companies will capitalize it seems to be the real question.

 

[TheBigA]

First you said this:

You falsely claimed that streamers preferred subscription based listening experience than Ad-based experiences.

Now you say this:

Obviously most people would rather have an ad-free experience when asked for a preference

Which is it? It can't be both.

 

[BamaTX]

Which is it? It can't be both.

That's not even the original argument you made. You're moving your own goal posts for the sake of a win. Go read what you posted before you try a "gotcha".

Here's what you originally claimed;

The latest data on Spotify is people are CHOOSING the ad-free version.

Yet the data doesn't show that. The data shows Spotify ad-supported base grew more than their subscription based users.

 

[TheBigA]

Here's what you originally claimed;

You're taking me out of context. This was my original comment:

What we're seeing is users prefer subscription streaming rather than ad-supported.

 

[BamaTX]

You're taking me out of context. This was my original comment:

No, that's just moving goal posts.

And to further expand on "believing your own truths", you also falsely claimed that terrestrial radio stations weren't owned and instead "leased".

 

[TheBigA]

No, that's just moving goal posts.

Not at all. It's my original comment.

you also falsely claimed that terrestrial radio stations weren't owned and instead "leased".

I never said that. Here's what I said. Please read:

Radio companies don't own the radio frequencies they use. They only license them.

In fact I said it twice:

But radio stations don't OWN the frequency. They're renters. It's not their job to "save radio."

Do you understand the difference between the frequency and a station?

 

[BamaTX]

Not at all. It's my original comment.

I retract the the lease statement, but I still stand by your Spotify comments. You're simply moving the goal posts.

 

[TheBigA]

I still stand by your Spotify comments. You're simply moving the goal posts.

I haven't moved anything. Just posted what I said.

 

[BamaTX]

I haven't moved anything. Just posted what I said.

Well, the post is there. You only changed your tune after David pointed out that people wanted Ad-free, but didn't want to pay for it.

You never mentioned that in any of the rebuttals, hence you moved the goal posts to save face.