Ichabod's Back......

[Bongwater]

From http://www.nwbroadcasters.com

- 11/25/10 - Long-time KMPS-FM 94.1 Seattle morning host Ichabod Caine and his former co-host/producer wife Scallops have launched Internet station Wild Boar Radio. Caine began his broadcasting career in the mid-’70s at KPUG Bellingham, later moving to KJRB Spokane, then KJR Seattle before joining KMPS in 1983. He left KMPS in December 2009. The new station features Best Of All Radio or BOAR, a country-leaning eclectic mix.

http://www.wildboarradio.com/

 

[fremont]

An internet radio station: The 21st Century equivalent of buying a pizza parlor. (Further explanation supplied by the "PayPal Donate" button.)

 

[Bongwater]

An internet radio station: The 21st Century equivalent of buying a pizza parlor. (Further explanation supplied by the "PayPal Donate" button.)

Hey, he's got something going and it's good to hear he's still around and rockin'.......

Haven't really listened to Wild Boar radio yet, but I'll check it out this weekend....

 

[Jay Peninger]

An internet radio station: The 21st Century equivalent of buying a pizza parlor. (Further explanation supplied by the "PayPal Donate" button.)

I like it when people poo poo Internet Radio as being insignificant. The more people in the business think that the fewer we have to compete with down the road. Thomas Monaghan bought Pizza Parlor back in 1960 and did okay for himself he called it Domino's Pizza and I think they do just over $2 billion in sales and old Tom is in Forbes 500 richest Americans...

I like your analogy who knows what Internet Broadcaster will get the bull by the horns and ride it to the top of the pile. One thing is certain you can't cross the finish line first if you don't have a horse in the race...

Not sure how successful a multiple format station will be playing so many different genre's but if it make the man happy and the people that like him now have a place to find him.

 

[TVradioguru]

Not sure how successful a multiple format station will be playing so many different genre's but if it make the man happy and the people that like him now have a place to find him.

Exactly. Whereas nobody that I've heard makes much if any money off personal-based or even subscription-based Internet radio streaming, mainly because there are just too many of them. Who cares if a retired broadcaster wants to keep their talent sharp and try their hand at it? Really it doesn't cost much to start and I suspect over the years Mr. Evans has socked away enough to support it.

Who knows, maybe someday, someone on-line will discover the secret sauce to make Internet streaming a profitable venture. Until then, it's a fun hobby.

 

[LITTLEBOYBLUE]

I'm sensing that the measure of success is that Internet can knock the broadcast model sideways? Isn't success really anything that can show black in their business model (a secondary definition would be those who want to put content out for various altruistic reasons)?

So if someone like Ich puts out an eclectic mix that is completely different than broadcast .. and it develops a following enough to support some kind of subscription or ad or ?? model that pays the costs ... then it's probably successful even it an overall audience isn't strong enough to match the worst PPM performer.

The low threshhold to entry (unresolved royalty issues aside) is what will likely give us variety and the success will likely be measured on how well a niche is served. Same deal when cable networks hit .. none of them likely to knock NBC off the perch, but we sure have enough cable net's that each serve a content niche and do well (that ignores, of course, the fact that most of them are OWNED by the biggies).

The other issue is that net not limited by geographic/regulatory constraints than terrestrial stations are so the potential audience is global vs. specific DMA.

Still..the factor that will make/break is developing content that is interesting to enough people. This board, for example, not huge by internet standards .. but it does its job at sucking all of us into reading it all the time. I think the online stream model is quite viable by the same measurement.

 

[TVradioguru]

I'm sensing that the measure of success is that Internet can knock the broadcast model sideways? Isn't success really anything that can show black in their business model (a secondary definition would be those who want to put content out for various altruistic reasons)?

You're sensing wrong I suspect.

To date, no Internet-only radio model has made a dime in profit. Remember Broadcast.com back in the 90's? The only person who has made money from Internet streaming was Mark Cuban who sold Broadcast.com on the same premise you're assuming. That premise has yet to materialize.

It's not like streaming is something all that new and upward moving in popularity. In fact, I argue that there are a higher number of streams on the Internet than there are listeners listening to streams as compared with broadcast, the other way around. The main problem with trying to pull off a successful stream these days, is there are thousands of them to pick through, let alone the opportunity of finding a favorite.

Internet streaming has the 'potential' of being a global or national focus whereas broadcast will always be locally focused. Even with a local focus in a small market, your average radio station will be heard by more people than even the most popular stream available to the world.

The other problem is advertising. National advertisers interested in Internet advertising go to Internet-only websites, not streams trying to sound like traditional local radio.

A friend and I were discussing the subject the other evening at a dinner party. We both agreed that the only non-hobby successful streaming model would be subscription-based from an already syndicated talent like Howard Stern.

 

[Jay Peninger]

I'm sensing that the measure of success is that Internet can knock the broadcast model sideways? Isn't success really anything that can show black in their business model (a secondary definition would be those who want to put content out for various altruistic reasons)?

You're sensing wrong I suspect.

To date, no Internet-only radio model has made a dime in profit. Remember Broadcast.com back in the 90's? The only person who has made money from Internet streaming was Mark Cuban who sold Broadcast.com on the same premise you're assuming. That premise has yet to materialize.

It's not like streaming is something all that new and upward moving in popularity. In fact, I argue that there are a higher number of streams on the Internet than there are listeners listening to streams as compared with broadcast, the other way around. The main problem with trying to pull off a successful stream these days, is there are thousands of them to pick through, let alone the opportunity of finding a favorite.

Internet streaming has the 'potential' of being a global or national focus whereas broadcast will always be locally focused. Even with a local focus in a small market, your average radio station will be heard by more people than even the most popular stream available to the world.

The other problem is advertising. National advertisers interested in Internet advertising go to Internet-only websites, not streams trying to sound like traditional local radio.

A friend and I were discussing the subject the other evening at a dinner party. We both agreed that the only non-hobby successful streaming model would be subscription-based from an already syndicated talent like Howard Stern.

Success is subjective term when you are talking about Internet only broadcasting... With the growth in broadband and mobile devices Internet broadcasting will see growth as well and broadcasters who provide more than just audio content are going to capture the largest audience.

It's a marathon not a sprint and if you can establish yourself a niche as you said there will be opportunities out there to make money. And that is my goal with RDSN & KXRX stay in the race and hopefully we find that niche that will allow us to grow and be profitable. We have been here a year as of November 5th and our audience has been growing at a great pace and while we are not making a profit we are able to pay the bills, and have some left over to buy the equipment we need to get out and start doing live broadcasts at clubs and events.

And unlike most of the terrestrial stations we can actually embrace the local artists, promote their music and their shows to every ones mutual benefit.

I would venture to guess that a online station like The X serves far more listener minutes per month than you imagine and while it may not have the scope of terrestrial radio the listeners are just as passionate, maybe even more so because we get to interact with them more than our terrestrial counterparts.

Will we ever reach as many people as a terrestrial Rock station like KISW or KNDD probably not but then again I don't think we will have to in order to see a profit from our efforts.

The thing about it is it brings me great pleasure to bring all the pieces together and to put something out there to be consumed... It is very rewarding to be able to do something you have had a passion for, not to mention all the interesting people I have met and things I have learned along the way.

 

[TVradioguru]

As I said originally, the fact you have a hobby playing radio via a stream is great. My point was to BlueBoy's premise that Internet streaming could compete with traditional local radio has little chance however. They are two completely differrent models with disparate listener bases and scope. Don't get me wrong, I think streaming is a great way to provide an audience (albeit potentially small) to garage bands and as a way to make folks like you feel that you're making an artistic difference.

Just curious though.. Minus the garage bands, how much in SoundExchange or Recording Industry performance licensing fees do you pay yearly to organizations such as RIAA, BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC? Among the requirements, you as an Internet Broadcaster must know the licensing organizations for each and every song you play and obtain a license from each. Most licensed traditional radio operations bundle streaming licenses into their existing broadcast agreement, negotiated with the various licensing organizations, but it is a significant added expense, especially in these economic times. I believe BMI charges fees based on a gross revenue calculation, whereas SESAC provides a license based on the number of monthly page requests. That being said, the DMCA has specific limitations on what and how often it can be played, no listener requests, etc. Are you currently operating srtrictly under the DMCA definitions, or using a company such as Yahoo streaming or Live365?

 

[bossbill]

Which begs the question:

How many internet-only streamers are actually in compliance? I ask because terrestrial broadcasters are already on the radar, with Sesac, BMI, ASCAP licenses, so when we opt to stream, we hear from licensing organizations within milliseconds.

Also, I wonder how many terrestrial broadcasters are actually in compliance and reporting to Sound Exchange.

In other news:

I don't think anyone has discussed scalability. With terrestrial radio, we build a transmitter site, and everything about it becomes a fixed expense, including electricity. If we double our listener base, the cost per listener drops by half.

With internet, not the case. We pay the streaming provider based on number of listeners, and we pay Sound Exchange based on number of listeners. Double the listeners, double the cost.

 

[LITTLEBOYBLUE]

With internet, not the case. We pay the streaming provider based on number of listeners, and we pay Sound Exchange based on number of listeners. Double the listeners, double the cost.

Was involved with a test venture about a year ago .. it was stream-only and making a profit. The way we were dealing with the costs was to limit streams so we knew what the maximum expense could be. Plan was if we ever hit the max we could reevaluate the model and decide if we wanted to try to scale upward.

As "X" points out ... there are many tools that exist in the interactive world that make it so much easier (knowing exact counts, source IP's, etc.) to gauge the audience. As you point out, though, it's relatively more expensive to run the thing as those numbers fluctuate. That's why I think the model has to be based on realizing benefit for a specific demographic -- then you can decide it it's better to solicit subscription revenue (there has to be MAJOR value as people who have done "free" sites then flip to subscription almost always shut down or go back to free) or find niche advertisers that support it. No different than the model of a trade mag, really -- not like Orban would advertise in Time Magazine, but might be inclined to have a presence in trades that are read by engineering. Same deal for hobby, professional groups, communities that are interested in specific content -- a model can be made for those; but none would be of scope of a WGN or KGO audience size (yet still can be $$ successful).

Guru's summary of my observation wasn't all that accurate but that's ok. What I was saying is if you identify a specific target and figure out how to serve it, that is the model that is likely "success" -- not a comparison to a terrestrial counterpart. If your goal is to take on audience scope of terrestrials that challenge will be steep and failure is imminent. If your goal is to serve a niche then more realistic and the content which you develop to cater is easier to identify.

Ultimately look at sites like reelradio. Many of us love it because it's content we like. It dropped off significantly when he asked us to support it $$-wise, but the hardcores stepped up and it's still operating. Great example of a niche that's not on the radar of the masses, but serves a core with content that is much different than a site like Ich or "X" are generating.

Everyone who does this learns something. I find the winners are the ones who try not to emulate the same thing that's on air in the online context; unless it has a variable that is completely different ... but in those cases the royalty compliance issue will take the chance of success down at the knees.

 

[TVradioguru]

Was involved with a test venture about a year ago .. it was stream-only and making a profit. The way we were dealing with the costs was to limit streams so we knew what the maximum expense could be. Plan was if we ever hit the max we could reevaluate the model and decide if we wanted to try to scale upward.


Everyone who does this learns something. I find the winners are the ones who try not to emulate the same thing that's on air in the online context; unless it has a variable that is completely different ... but in those cases the royalty compliance issue will take the chance of success down at the knees.

So who do you consider being "the winners", when it comes to on-line streaming to date. I'm fairly well connected and have not heard of any non-interactive classified streaming making money, including Pandora.

The test venture you were involved in; what was the name and how much of a profit did it make? Did it continue, or was it merely a test? If it was so successful, why didn't it continue?

 

[TVradioguru]

Which begs the question:

How many internet-only streamers are actually in compliance? I ask because terrestrial broadcasters are already on the radar, with Sesac, BMI, ASCAP licenses, so when we opt to stream, we hear from licensing organizations within milliseconds.

That's indeed a good point, and part of the reason I asked Mr. X about his costs after being in business around a year. If the RIAA or Sound Exchange ever got busy with compliance, they could hit the jackpot collecting back fees and fines for all not in compliance or paying attention. When that happens, and you know it will, you'll see the thousands of basement-produced streams drop to hundreds domestically.

When you REALLY take the time to research and comply with the DMCA rules, it looks like a lot of work to track and document all the music aired. That and all the restrictions on what you can't do, including taking requests. To me it hardly seems worth the effort.

 

[SRP]

One other point regarding internet radio: It ain't nearly as ubiquitous as terrestrial radio.

Standalone internet radios are still in the three-figure price range and we're probably a decade or so away from seeing internet access as standard equipment in cars. That more than anything is what's limited the reach of internet radio.

And I too am interested in learning more about that "test venture" that was profitable. But I'm betting that there will be some lame excuse why full disclosure won't be provided...

If the RIAA or Sound Exchange ever got busy with compliance, they could hit the jackpot collecting back fees and fines for all not in compliance or paying attention. When that happens, and you know it will, you'll see the thousands of basement-produced streams drop to hundreds domestically.

And then the RIAA could stop trying to extort money from terrestrial radio...but that's a different thread.

 

[Jay Peninger]

Just curious though.. Minus the garage bands, how much in SoundExchange or Recording Industry performance licensing fees do you pay yearly to organizations such as RIAA, BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC? Among the requirements, you as an Internet Broadcaster must know the licensing organizations for each and every song you play and obtain a license from each.

In our case we pay a yearly fee that is bundled into our Server/Bandwidth costs. Our Automation system logs everything for reporting purposes. And that seems to be the popular model with most major streaming server providers these days. And yes that fee does increase moderately as users increase, but it goes up much more significant based on our annual revenue, if we were to turn a large profit our fee's would soar which I feel is very unfair given already crazy limitations in place...

And somebody mentioned no requests? That isn't totally true you can take requests you simply can't play them for at least an hour after they are made, a stupid rule... And of course the Automation software can tuned to comply with the other playback restrictions.

Had we got into this to make $$$ we would have gone down a different path like a leasing a property, but we will save that for when we quit our day job.

 

[TVradioguru]

How timely to our discussion! This just in today: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9163084

If Sound Exchange moves forward with the new rates, I suspect Mr. X and other on-line streaming organizations who claim not to care about making money, will need to re-think their strategies.

 

[scott salvatori]

i bought a CCWiFi radio in 09 @149.95. one of the coolest purchases ive made in years, and im getting another one for the other part of the house. sitting in front of a computer to listen to radio gets old. 16,000 + radio stations available on the CCWiFi, through reciva. including internet radio stations. but, i rarely have used this unit to listen to internet radio streams. nothing against internet radio stations. a few years ago, i almost gave that a shot with my country stuff. but, i guess im old school. i like my radio to be a legit broadcaster on the AM or FM first. and yes, there are a number of extremely independent programmed AM/FM formats out there, besides the lame cookie cutter big corporates in the major markets. right now i'm listening to KZAM 98.7 in pleasent valley, texas, while i rap up my nights paper work.

internet radio station listeners will grow, but its gonna take a few more years, and may take the next generation of kids who will mainstream it.

 

[Steenman]

Fellas, I plug my gPhone into my ipod jack and listen to Pandora for hours in my car, or jog, or lots of other places (there are lots of other services and stations I could choose from too). Since my data plan (and most people's) is 'all you can eat" it don't cost me a cent. Free, convenient, no ads. As an ad guy this is a pretty powerful model and certainly one I am interested in watching.

 

[SRP]

Fellas, I plug my gPhone into my ipod jack and listen to Pandora for hours in my car, or jog, or lots of other places (there are lots of other services and stations I could choose from too). Since my data plan (and most people's) is 'all you can eat" it don't cost me a cent. Free, convenient, no ads. As an ad guy this is a pretty powerful model and certainly one I am interested in watching.

Good for you, Steenman.

Can your grandma do the same thing? Can your uncle who's technically inept do the same thing? No.

And until listening to internet radio is as easy as it is listening to terrestrial radio, I'd say that "powerful model" is rather flaccid.

 

[AQH]

Fellas, I plug my gPhone into my ipod jack and listen to Pandora for hours in my car, or jog, or lots of other places (there are lots of other services and stations I could choose from too). Since my data plan (and most people's) is 'all you can eat" it don't cost me a cent. Free, convenient, no ads. As an ad guy this is a pretty powerful model and certainly one I am interested in watching.

With the rollout of 4G from the carriers and more iPads and iPhones certainly to be sold in 2011, carriers are already starting tiered data plans. That's not to say internet radio listening will completely go away, but it could be a small factor in the near future.

And don't think the no ads thing is forever.