• 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

Ichabod's Back......

Steenman said:
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.
Click to expand...

As others have pointed out your experiences are well and good, but your "data plan" costs a monthly subscription plus Pandora indeed costs you money. How much does good old fashioned FM radio cost you? Nothing. In society, free trumps subscription every time.

Many use Satellite radio as an example of how radio should be done, but comes with subscription and requiring purchase of a non-standard consumer item. After all the predictions of satellite subscription-based no-commercial music delivering a crushing blow to traditional radio, several years have elapsed and both satellite radio companies were on the verge of going under, finally being forced to merge to improve operating margins. Now satellite radio holds less than one percent, nationwide of radio listening.

We will all watch and see what the future holds, but as I said earlier if Sound Exchange, the RIAA, et all, raise their rates, most of these new free and subscription "radio" services on line will be going the way of the dodo.
 
Ditto the bandwidth comments. As 4G devices become more popular and soon hit auto dashboards the data plans will have to go up. The "Free unlimited" is a thing of the past. Bandwidth is a limited resource and mobile users will soon be coughing up the bucks for their mobile service. To be sure there will be a healthy market for this service but radio's one to many, unlimited bandwidth system still makes great financial sense.
As it has in the past, radio will have to morph and re-invent itself to continue to prosper but make no mistake about it...it will survive. In the end, money talks!
 
Money doesn't talk these days. It SCREAMS.

But folks do like FREE. But if what's on the radio is as bland and genteel as your weekly shopper rag in the free magazine rack at the supermarket, they may take a few more steps to the coffee shop or underground record shop and pick up a copy of The Stranger.

That's how I view terrestrial radio and specialty online radio.

KEXP does a great job, but it covers as much as it can with one frequency. Some folks want to hear all blues. Or all Norwegian death metal, alt-Country, pure street hip-hop (the kind that will NEVER get signed to the majors), Laotian throat-singing - whatever.

It's these avant-garde little "misc." niches that find solid, albeit very modest, listenership online (I'm not EVEN talking about "success", most of these outlets are simply happy with a few dedicated listeners.) Mostly because such genres are usually off the radar of Sound Exchange (they can't be everywhere at once any more than any single FCC inspector can bust every pirate station out there.) But most of all, they're doing radio THEIR way. Free of any "consultants" or micromanagement. It's the purest form of radio freedom remaining.

It doesn't mean any mainstream Country, Active Rock, CHR or AC station can't find some success (or at least a few good listeners) as an online only outlet, but they have other forces breathing down their backs (ahem, Sound Exchange.) And the usual bandwith and server issues.

So I give the online broadcasters a good pat on the back for what they do. They are going uphill in an avalanche, but they don't care. The terrestrial dial is very limited, the online dial is not. And in the end, it's always the adventurous listener that wins.

And if they want to leave a PayPal tip jar on the counter, more power to 'em. If they really need whatever genre of music, they WILL drop a few bucks in.....
 
Bongwater said:
It's these avant-garde little "misc." niches that find solid, albeit very modest, listenership online (I'm not EVEN talking about "success", most of these outlets are simply happy with a few dedicated listeners.) Mostly because such genres are usually off the radar of Sound Exchange (they can't be everywhere at once any more than any single FCC inspector can bust every pirate station out there.) But most of all, they're doing radio THEIR way. Free of any "consultants" or micromanagement. It's the purest form of radio freedom remaining.

It doesn't mean any mainstream Country, Active Rock, CHR or AC station can't find some success (or at least a few good listeners) as an online only outlet, but they have other forces breathing down their backs (ahem, Sound Exchange.) And the usual bandwith and server issues.

So I give the online broadcasters a good pat on the back for what they do. They are going uphill in an avalanche, but they don't care. The terrestrial dial is very limited, the online dial is not. And in the end, it's always the adventurous listener that wins.

And if they want to leave a PayPal tip jar on the counter, more power to 'em. If they really need whatever genre of music, they WILL drop a few bucks in.....
Click to expand...

And folks, there you have it.

A perfect dissertation that proves internet radio is nothing but a drop in the bucket and will always be that way.

Meanwhile, terrestrial radio will do what IT does best - adapt and survive - just as it has for nearly a century.
 
.......and meanwhile back at the ranch, here we have ichabod, who successfully spent decades sucking at the teets of commercial radio, giving internet broadcasting a go.

on his wildboar websight he even states: "i cant begin to tell you how many times, in my career in radio, a boss said to me, why are you playing that song, its not in the format........my deep down conviction was always that the listeners wanted more.......i never gave up the dream that one day the Lord would put me in a position to free up the music."

"free up the music" hmmmm? some of us been singin' that song for years! okay, so the point is, a radio veteran like ichabod, is a feather in the cap to internet broadcasting. kinda like a proffesional nascar cup driver, running street stocks with the hobby boys.

hey, ichabod, why not consider an AM'er as well? surely one like you could gather up a list of investors at $50k-$100k+ a pop. especially with you, and your life long business/advertisement connections. ichabod, at the helm of a morning "freed up music" country radio show, sounds good. i know of one at 1450 AM. i hearead somewhere, the owner may consider financing, and throw in the KLSY calls for $$.
 
I guess the big question is why is Sound Exchange and these boys gathering their forces and lobbying so hard for these higher rates for streamed music?

Could it possibly be because they have seen the writing on the wall and Internet broadcasting is and will continue to gather more listeners and it will become mainstream, two major auto manufacturers are already installing Wi-Fi enabled devices in cars and more are sure to follow.

Yes these guys want their foot way inside the door so when things break big they are hoping for a payday they have been fighting with the NAB to get for years...

Yes essentially the new rates if adopted would drastically change what is heard on The X but is certainly doesn't mean we would be going anyplace. Obviously some of us are doing something right because otherwise this wouldn't be a discussion right now.

And lets face it independent Internet broadcasters are and easy target because we don't have an organized lobby on our side and we have to ride the coat tails of the larger corporations when it comes to putting up a fight.

Yes we are a ways off from mainstream internet radio but its not as far or as meaningless as many would think. 1 in 4 Americans have listened to an iPod or MP3 player connected to their car radio, people are a lot smarter than you give them credit for, and the grannies and grandpa's are one of the largest growing segments of that audience...

Watch this Arbitron Webinar it's eye opening when it comes to digital media...

http://www.arbitron.com/study/digital_radio_study.asp
 
TheX-KXRX said:
I guess the big question is why is Sound Exchange and these boys gathering their forces and lobbying so hard for these higher rates for streamed music?
Click to expand...

I think it's mostly because the record brain trust completely botched their model and opportunity. They have now lost their lunch to Steve Jobs' iTunes (sure they get paid for a downloaded cut ... but not making the kind of money they used to when in control of distribution, the entire CD/Vinyl platter, etc.). Much of the music is flat-out stolen now -- so still thinking with lawyer hats they look for anyone with a wallet and still in the play-our-songs food chain.

ALL OF THIS could have worked out well for all involved...but the lawyers, as usual, screwed it up. The effect sky-high royalty rates will have is to force many indy-outlets out, meaning less exposure for a handful of artists, etc. and we're back to the same old, pardon the expression, tune. They could have had a multi-tiered model that would expose new music, have commercial operations pay a reasonable share, used electronic downloads for out-of-print material (getting revenue otherwise declared "dead") -- but their stance has always been to come to the table in "argue" mode.

I view it as kind of a last gasp from the publishing/recording industry to hang on to revenue streams that have otherwise passed them by at their own hand.
 
scott salvatori said:
hey, ichabod, why not consider an AM'er as well? surely one like you could gather up a list of investors at $50k-$100k+ a pop. especially with you, and your life long business/advertisement connections. ichabod, at the helm of a morning "freed up music" country radio show, sounds good. i know of one at 1450 AM. i hearead somewhere, the owner may consider financing, and throw in the KLSY calls for $$.
Click to expand...
Scott, I already tried that one and failed. Everyone wants to complain about CC or whoever but no one wants to take an entrepreneurial throw. I guess they all think they can pull down Gary Lockwood type salaries forever. (What do you think $250K in 1980 dollars is worth today?? Heck, that's like Seacrest numbers....)
 
Dude, my Mom doesn't understand how google works either.

And.... a more relevant question to ask might be to ask me if my 20 year old knows how to use internet radio (or his younger brother who was the one that figured it out in the first place).

But hey you guys thanks for setting me straight that streaming radio isn't worth anything and is a nothing technology with no future. I'll keep that in mind the next time one of my local radio sales reps points out a whole bunch of reasons why I should add some digital or streaming to my buy with them.

(or not)
 
Well in the end if higher per usage fee's become a reality then the RIAA and all concerned will have shot themselves in the foot when it comes to piracy and compliance with royalty reporting.

If they adopt a plan that promotes growth and reasonable fee's online broadcaster will do their part and be solid citizens, but if they go down this path aimed at driving the average online broadcaster out of the business then they will fail completely on two fronts...

They will force many who now pay reasonable rates to abandon their efforts thus drying up that source of income and those who remain in the game will gladly take 24 hours and migrate their services over to providers in Sweden where the same rules do not apply thus eliminating their revenue in the royalty game as well plus creating a vast array of Pirate Stations operating outside their control and granting them all instant popularity with the 12-24 crowd who as they always do vote anti-establishment every chance they get.

I have no issues paying reasonable fee's based on the stations revenue and total listeners but certainly not what they are describing...
 
fremont said:
I guess they all think they can pull down Gary Lockwood type salaries forever. (What do you think $250K in 1980 dollars is worth today?? Heck, that's like Seacrest numbers....)
Click to expand...

Whoa, please tell me you aren't making the naive comparison that some former local morning show personality making a (by your probably incorrect estimate) $250,000 a year in salary, to the reported $60,000,000 radio-only contract that Ryan Seacrest makes today? You can't be serious.
 
I'm going on memory here, but I believe Lockwood's 1981 contract at KJR was 500K for six years. So just 84K per year. Not chump change for that era, but not extravagent either. I'm sure there were some renegotiations later, but these numbers were not anywhere near today's 60M, adjusted, for Seacrest.
 
fremont said:
Nailed again by the Irony Police. ::)
Click to expand...

The irony (no need to capitalize) of it is you compared a local Seattle air talent with a nationally syndicated radio host. I was just curious as to whether you actually believed that the world of radio revolved around Seattle, or whether you actually felt that a former local morning show host was on par with a nationally syndicated one.

Ironynoun, plural -nies.
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
2. Literature .
a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b. (esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
3. Socratic irony.
4. dramatic irony.
5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
6. the incongruity of this.
7. an objectively sardonic style of speech or writing.
8. an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality, etc.
 
TheX-KXRX said:
Only on this board can you have a 4 page debate and never mention the subject of the thread past page 1...
Click to expand...

No kidding.

Thread hasn't gone full-circle yet, no mention of Robin and Maynard or how this compares to Canadian radio stations.
 
AQH said:
TheX-KXRX said:
Only on this board can you have a 4 page debate and never mention the subject of the thread past page 1...
Click to expand...

No kidding.

Thread hasn't gone full-circle yet, no mention of Robin and Maynard or how this compares to Canadian radio stations.
Click to expand...

Well I heard Robin & Maynard were sought for afternoons but Roy Otis kicked Ichabod in the shin and blew the whole deal... :D
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom