• 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

How Long Does Radio Have Left?

Don CT said:
MTV was killed by the internet. The same thing killing radio. Habits have changed the model across the board. Radio, TV.
Click to expand...
MTV as a music video channel was dying long before the Internet was a significant factor. Non-music programming started creeping in during the early nineties when programs like "Real World" first appeared. Ten years later, it felt like the music videos had become filler between other programs, and that is long before most people had connections that would support streaming music videos over the Internet.

In the end, it turned out that running a cable network that was essentially a radio station with pictures was just too "niche" and the audience size too limited, so management started branching out in hopes of attracting a larger audience who would tune in for specific programs. It's the sort of dilution that turned out to be pretty common in the cable TV world -- looking at the utter crapola that they air today, it is hard to believe (for example) that TLC actually started out as an educational channel (TLC originally stood for "The Learning Channel") and that Bravo focused on high culture before heading down market.
 
I agree with some of what was said in the posts after my last one.

Radio has always adapted. I believe it will survive but it will never go back to the type of formatics that so many wish for (in vain). I expect only a relative handful of AMs to still be on the air in another decade and I also think music formats on FM will be less than half of its use in a typical market. That's also going to eliminate a lot of competition, because what will be left will be more generic formats which will serve the needs of mass audiences. Those who don't want the mass appeal have pretty much all gone to services like Spotify already.

Ironically, it was MTV that handed Classic Hits radio its foundation going forward. The core years of that format coincide with the years that MTV played videos around the clock. That is what has made that decade's music memorable and thus desirable to radio users.

MTV was not so much killed by the Internet as it was by its original format. One of my many long-time friends in the business is Les Garland, who was a VP there when they started programs like "Remote Control". He tells me that it was incredibly difficult to sell the agencies on the "radio with pictures" because -- like radio -- the viewers came and went all through the day. What's killing all the television networks now, both cable and broadcast, is the on-demand model. It's not just MTV that was affected.

Someday there will be some technological innovation that replaces the Internet as a prominent media source. It's inevitable.
 
Don CT said:
The telegraph will never die,
Click to expand...
No, it is now called "texting".
Don CT said:
the newspaper will never die.
Click to expand...
No, it is now called internet news service.
Don CT said:
Technically evolves.
Click to expand...
Yes, the technology changed. But the content did not.
Don CT said:
Will radio stop existing, no. Will it be a prominent media source in 20 years, probably not.
Click to expand...
But audio services delivering content such as music, conversation, news, sports, will continue.
 
TheBigA said:
They're all still there. None have been replaced. In fact most of the DJs in LA are local. What's your point?



Nobody likes firing people. There are lots of on air talent working right now. They haven't stopped people from using other devices.
Click to expand...
I think we agree and I am not articulating myself well. My point is that traditional radio still has something to offer. My fear is that as the audience "ages out," radio will not be able to retain some of the talent (I am reacting to the article that you shared). Of course people will use other devices. But traditional radio is not one of those devices that the under-30 set is using.
 
K.M. Richards said:
Someday there will be some technological innovation that replaces the Internet as a prominent media source. It's inevitable.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure the internet will be replaced, as it's simply a network platform that things run on top of (a bit like RF wasn't replaced in the transition from radio to television). What is going to happen, and is already happening, is the replacement of the World Wide Web in its original sense as a mass media platform.

For an increasing number of internet users, the online experience consists of picking up a device and opening an app run by someone like Meta, and experiencing the world through that. They're touching the Web only in a limited sense, going to the occasional news article or "ha ha look at this funny shit" page, but all via their Facebook or Insta or TikTok app. The Web is already on the way out.

The people still using the web in its original form, to read people's own web pages and post on forums like this, are dinosaurs like me.
 
AM-FM-DXer said:
My point is that traditional radio still has something to offer.
Click to expand...

And the fact is that a lot of people still listen. They listen for all kinds of reasons, regardless of whether or not the stations have local hosts.

AM-FM-DXer said:
But traditional radio is not one of those devices that the under-30 set is using.
Click to expand...

And as I said, radio companies are not in the device business. There's nothing the companies can do about the devices people use. So what they're doing is creating content that can be heard on other devices. That's where the focus is, not trying to "bring people back" to their old devices. That's not going to happen. Instead, radio companies have to go where the listeners are, and provide content that new generations want.
 
TheBigA said:
My view on that is it will become less "technical" and more direct. The use of things like URLs and .coms will disappear. Alexa was the start.
Click to expand...
The Internet backbone is here to stay. What will change is the speeds will get to a point that we won’t even think about it anymore. Cars will be connected in a way like we can’t imagine. Streaming will go from clunky to second nature.
 
The audio content industry makes a huge mistake by identifying itself with an obsolete, century old distribution technology. Nothing new there. The broadcasting establishment, rooted in AM, did their best to kill FM some 85 years ago. The product is not the means of distribution. Any anything that does not adapt will perish, as Charles Darwin first taught us. If you define "radio" as audio entertainment and information, then no it isn't going away. If you define it as broadcast wireless transmission, then it is.

I do not understand why people in broadcasting are so fascinated by towers and transmitters. People in publishing don't care about presses and typesetters.
 
Miss Tuned said:
I'm not sure the internet will be replaced, as it's simply a network platform that things run on top of (a bit like RF wasn't replaced in the transition from radio to television). What is going to happen, and is already happening, is the replacement of the World Wide Web in its original sense as a mass media platform.

For an increasing number of internet users, the online experience consists of picking up a device and opening an app run by someone like Meta, and experiencing the world through that. They're touching the Web only in a limited sense, going to the occasional news article or "ha ha look at this funny shit" page, but all via their Facebook or Insta or TikTok app. The Web is already on the way out.

The people still using the web in its original form, to read people's own web pages and post on forums like this, are dinosaurs like me.
Click to expand...

Much of your prediction will depend not only on what individuals but what the legal entities in both Europe and the U.S. do regarding sites such as Meta. Right now, Meta is being sued in both the U.S. and Europe for monopolistic practices because it dominates the social media sphere. It lost the first round in the European court; and it's only now just beginning the fight in the U.S. legal system.

And Tiktok, because of its Chinese ties, still faces a very uncertain future in the U.S. While the Trump administration set back its doomsday here for a limited amount of time for a U.S. corporation or conglomerate to make a deal with the Chinese owner to take over the app and while that time has been extended, Tiktok is still not on stable ground in the U.S., despite its popularity among twenty-somethings.
 
K.M. Richards said:
MTV was not so much killed by the Internet as it was by its original format. One of my many long-time friends in the business is Les Garland, who was a VP there when they started programs like "Remote Control". He tells me that it was incredibly difficult to sell the agencies on the "radio with pictures" because -- like radio -- the viewers came and went all through the day. What's killing all the television networks now, both cable and broadcast, is the on-demand model. It's not just MTV that was affected.
Click to expand...

K.M. Richards said:
I think you're touching on a very basic problem that David Eduardo has also eluded to in past posts. What the advertising agencies want is a single media entity that will reach all consumers through a single medium. It could be a network of "stations" or it could be just one programming source but the agencies only want to have to deal with one media buyer for all consumers.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for the agencies, this is exactly what consumers *do not want.* In terms of music formats, what the Internet is proving is that individual tastes do not necessarily fall into the strict formats defined by broadcasters; worse yet, consumers, when being handed over the controls for musical choice, are choosing not to hear music they *don't like.* More importantly from a political and democratic perspective, people are proving by their Internet choices that they are unwilling to listen to anybody who disagrees with their viewpoints on the world, whatever that viewpoint might be.

The only way that the ad agencies can get what they want would be for one company to control everything everyone hears and sees both on the Internet and over-the-air. And *that* under both current U.S. and European laws is patently illegal.
Click to expand...
 
ted chittenden said:
Unfortunately for the agencies, this is exactly what consumers *do not want.* In terms of music formats, what the Internet is proving is that individual tastes do not necessarily fall into the strict formats defined by broadcasters; worse yet, consumers, when being handed over the controls for musical choice, are choosing not to hear music they *don't like.* More importantly from a political and democratic perspective, people are proving by their Internet choices that they are unwilling to listen to anybody who disagrees with their viewpoints on the world, whatever that viewpoint might be.
Click to expand...

I couldn't get it out through editing, but the second block that begins with K.M. Richards said is incorrect--it is my response to his paragraph above.
 
ted chittenden said:
Much of your prediction will depend not only on what individuals but what the legal entities in both Europe and the U.S. do regarding sites such as Meta. Right now, Meta is being sued in both the U.S. and Europe for monopolistic practices because it dominates the social media sphere.
Click to expand...

The government will discover, in both Facebook and TikTok, that the voice of the people can't be stopped. The president has realized that with TikTok. That's why he's changed his approach. He will make the same realization with Facebook. People love Facebook because it's easy and free. What makes it free is the exact thing that makes it a monopoly. The monopolistic aspect attracts the money that in turn makes it free for users. This is the same tradeoff we had in radio. We will see how the government handles the Google decision, because it's the same thing. Money drives the system, and the money comes from advertising. Google, Meta, and TikTok deliver the numbers advertisers want. Some of the practices Google did were anti-competitive, and those practices have to stop. But the business model is built on size, and that business model is what keeps it all free to users. The president should understand that since he himself owns a social media company.
 
TheBigA said:
The government will discover, in both Facebook and TikTok, that the voice of the people can't be stopped. The president has realized that with TikTok. That's why he's changed his approach. He will make the same realization with Facebook. People love Facebook because it's easy and free. What makes it free is the exact thing that makes it a monopoly. The monopolistic aspect attracts the money that in turn makes it free for users. This is the same tradeoff we had in radio. We will see how the government handles the Google decision, because it's the same thing. Money drives the system, and the money comes from advertising. Google, Meta, and TikTok deliver the numbers advertisers want. Some of the practices Google did were anti-competitive, and those practices have to stop. But the business model is built on size, and that business model is what keeps it all free to users. The president should understand that since he himself owns a social media company.
Click to expand...
People don’t love Facebook. They use it because that’s where everyone else is.
 
The third block also displayed as quoted text, but I presume it was also meant to be your comment since I don't see it in previous posts by others.

ted chittenden said:
I couldn't get it out through editing, but the second block that begins with K.M. Richards said is incorrect--it is my response to his paragraph above.
Click to expand...

I imagine that multi-quote is more difficult for a blind person to use. Thank you for the correction.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom