If you're male, mid 50's and still listening to radio, what the heck is there?

[Element9]

NPR, my own music mixes, which include everything from the Beatles to Black Keys on CDs or my personal music player, as well as a few Canadian stations, which can be quite diverse, even if they're playing 30 to 40 year old music or new stuff.

 

[rdcuffpa1]

NPR, my own music mixes, which include everything from the Beatles to Black Keys on CDs or my personal music player, as well as a few Canadian stations, which can be quite diverse, even if they're playing 30 to 40 year old music or new stuff.

Apropos to this discussion, WHYY's "Newsworks Tonight" had a story yesterday from Tom McDonald about the state of AM radio in Philly.

It's an interesting read.

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/homepage-feature/item/43619-what-is-the-future-of-am-radio-?Itemid=1&linktype=hp_featured

Richard in Allentown

 

[KC2LDY]

Digital-radio technology simply isn't robust enough for any kind of reliable over-the-air listening... at least not until the industry stops trying to have it both ways. If they want digital and the extra channels it allows, it's time to set a hard transition date, a la HDTV. When we hit that date, the analog signals should be turned off. and the digital signals should come up to full strength. Then maybe there'll be enough stations to serve all age groups.

The radio industry really has no choice. The feds have decided that radio is not going to follow TV towards a digtal future. The FCC has declared that if radio wants digital, its only option is HD Radio. Not much of an option.

The truth is, the FCC made its decision after heavy lobbying from the radio industry. All those general managers and sales managers were terrified they'd come out on bottom if Americans were forced to go out and purchase digital receivers. So there is no hard transition date. Instead, the radio industry wanted to have it both ways and that's what we got: The analog signals continue along with the digital channels. Except the digital channels will create noise under the analog signal unless the power of those digital signals is kept very low (less than 10%). Low enough, in fact, to render so-called HD Radio completely meaningless. Perhaps if those digital signals could operate at full power HD Radio would work.

Instead, the radio industry continues to erode, listeners are offered cheap (but rarely compelling) programming... and both iPods and Internet radio sound better and better by the day. Of course, the FCC shares some of the blame. It has no motivation to turn off the analog signals because, unlike with TV, it won't result in tons of spectrum being returned to the government to be auctioned off for big money. Don't take my word for it. It's factual radio history from the 1990s. Look it up.

 

[TheBigA]

The truth is, the FCC made its decision after heavy lobbying from the radio industry. All those general managers and sales managers were terrified they'd come out on bottom if Americans were forced to go out and purchase digital receivers.

Not true. No lobbying by the radio industry on this issue. In fact, the radio industry is doing everything it can to claim its own platforms in the digital marketplace. Radio companies would love to have the same opportunity telecom companies have of buying and owning digital spectrum. The government isn't selling, and it's not because of any lobbying.

However, I agree that consumers will not, under any circumstances, buy digital radio receivers. Unless those receivers are mandated by the FCC, and installed for free in cars and other devices, consumers will not buy them. Just as they haven't bought satellite radios. The only reason satellite is doing well is because they're installed as OEM in all new cars.

Instead, the radio industry continues to erode, listeners are offered cheap (but rarely compelling) programming... and both iPods and Internet radio sound better and better by the day.

Say what you will, but the cheapest OTA radio programming is still better and costs more than the most expensive internet radio programming. And the audiences for OTA have been holding steady for the past ten years despite competition from satellite, iPod, and internet. Don't take my word for it. It's factual radio history as measured by Arbitron.

 

[musichead1029]

the radio industry is doing everything it can to claim its own platforms in the digital marketplace.

As well they should. Radio companies are content providers with heritage terrestrial ties. With iHeart and TuneIn on phones, the variety is only limited by what stations and companies offer. Of course they compete with the thousands of other stations on the net as well. HD isn't going to be the dominant app, if it survives at all. And no need to mandate a conversion when no new spectrum is being consumed to host the digital and analog side by side. Unfortunately, the OTA digital system isn't robust enough to stand up to the analog. Until that's fixed, HD is a non-starter. But internet is a go.

However, I agree that consumers will not, under any circumstances, buy digital radio receivers. Unless those receivers are mandated by the FCC, and installed for free in cars and other devices, consumers will not buy them. Just as they haven't bought satellite radios. The only reason satellite is doing well is because they're installed as OEM in all new cars.

Satellite has the advantages of unique content (at least in the music department) and overall good reception where web radio can be problematic and/or expensive, and the disadvantage of cost. I have satellite in the car and wouldn't give it up until mobile web streaming is ubiquitous and reliable (gonna be awhile). I have an HD radio at home as a toy, really - it serves as a way to listen to some AMers with better fidelity and less interference. Too much noise for AM HD reception despite 50kWers in my backyard.

Say what you will, but the cheapest OTA radio programming is still better and costs more than the most expensive internet radio programming. And the audiences for OTA have been holding steady for the past ten years despite competition from satellite, iPod, and internet.

For good programming, the audiences should hold, but for bad or pedestrian programming, those audiences are gone, part of why OTA TSL is down for most formats (that and PPM keeping them honest). Since OTA still has to attract a mass audience and internet radio audiences are splintered to the point of being miniscule 99% of the time, the best programming should be available via terrestrial stakeholders, but some talents shut out of or discarded by terrestrial are attracting decent audiences via streaming and podcasts. Since terrestrial radio generally got out of the business of developing talent, the next host/programmer to gain traction could well come from cyberradio. And terrestrial will be glad to embrace them to fill the talent vacuum.

 

[TheBigA]

Satellite has the advantages of unique content (at least in the music department) and overall good reception where web radio can be problematic and/or expensive, and the disadvantage of cost.

Simple question: Would you pay money for a home satellite radio receiver?

For good programming, the audiences should hold, but for bad or pedestrian programming, those audiences are gone, part of why OTA TSL is down for most formats (that and PPM keeping them honest).

TSL has absolutely nothing to do with the programming. It has everything to do with all the other distractions people have today. If you want to see awful TSL, check out the numbers for Pandora sometime. It's a fraction of OTA radio.

 

[musichead1029]

Satellite has the advantages of unique content (at least in the music department) and overall good reception where web radio can be problematic and/or expensive, and the disadvantage of cost.

Simple question: Would you pay money for a home satellite radio receiver?

Indeed I do. I have a portable XM Pioneer Inno with the boombox which is hooked up at home, though it gets less use than the web radios. It's good for power failures to listen to national news and talk when no internet is available (gotta get that generator one day).

I also have four other radios on the account (including the car unit) for relatives who enjoy formats unavailable on terrestrial radio (Easy Listening, New Age, Book Radio, 40s Music, CNBC and Bloomberg Finance).

And I don't own a smart phone, so I'm obviously not the typical media consumer.

For good programming, the audiences should hold, but for bad or pedestrian programming, those audiences are gone, part of why OTA TSL is down for most formats (that and PPM keeping them honest).

TSL has absolutely nothing to do with the programming. It has everything to do with all the other distractions people have today. If you want to see awful TSL, check out the numbers for Pandora sometime. It's a fraction of OTA radio.

Absolutely. As I mentioned, web radio garners miniscule audiences per station. The free version of Pandora's problem is essentially bait and switch. You set up a station and Pandora plays what it can with artist restrictions and what it wants to promote, much of which can be unfamiliar. I look at that as an advantage, but the listener most likely to enjoy terrestrial's lowest common denominator playlists likely wouldn't.

The heritage terrestrial stakeholders will be producing most of the quality programming outside of music by virtue of their business plan - reach a maximum audience. But they'll do so on different platforms with different competition. Those competitors may not garner large audiences individually, but as a whole, they will be another option for terrestrial's audience. Terrestrial is fighting back with podcasts and social media connections. As long as they have decent programming, they should do well.

But there are several generations behind us for whom terrestrial radio has never been the first choice of media. That's going to present a challenge to terrestrial stakeholders who don't maximize their exposure through all available media forms. And cookie cutter music formats with large stop sets are already becoming the first to fall by the wayside as inferior to low ad-load webstreams and the file player.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm obviously not the typical media consumer.

You are correct. Home satellite receiver sales are lower than HD radio sales.

As I mentioned, web radio garners miniscule audiences per station.

But we weren't talking about audience. We're talking TSL. And TSL for Pandora is measured in minutes, not hours

And cookie cutter music formats with large stop sets are already becoming the first to fall by the wayside as inferior to low ad-load webstreams and the file player.

Not true. The majority of music listeners have very pedestrian taste, which is perfect for OTA radio. And most would rather listen to commercials than pay $15 a month. The only format that's hurting because of playlist and commercials is rock. But formats like country, urban, and AC haven't lost anything, and most are actually gaining.

 

[rdcuffpa1]

Not true. The majority of music listeners have very pedestrian taste, which is perfect for OTA radio. And most would rather listen to commercials than pay $15 a month. The only format that's hurting because of playlist and commercials is rock. But formats like country, urban, and AC haven't lost anything, and most are actually gaining.

Sirius/XM is begging me to return for ~$4.50 per month, not $15 per month...while I am still too cheap to pay that, I am more than willing to go to some effort to avoid 4 stopsets per hour at 5 minutes per stopset.

I can easily download audio from a suitable webcaster with a lot lower commercial load and stuff that onto my i-whatever.

And if I want Traffic & Weather Together on the 8's I can pause my iPhone once I figure out when the OTA stations air traffic reports.

Richard in Allentown, PA

 

[TheBigA]

I can easily download audio from a suitable webcaster with a lot lower commercial load and stuff that onto my i-whatever.

All of your points take time and effort. Most people don't have that time and don't want to exert the effort. They're fine with having someone else program the music for them for free in exchange for some commercials. And they're really not very fussy about the music they hear. For that reason and others, 93% of the public listens to OTA radio.

We all pick and choose what we're willing to put up with. I know a lot of people who hate paying tolls on the Turnpike. They prefer to take the local roads. But I'm fine with paying a couple bucks to avoid the traffic. It's all about what you're willing to put up with.

 

[Radio Wreck]

It's interesting that no one has brought up Cruisin' 92.1 in this discussion.

 

[joshzz]

I like some of the jocks on WVLT 92.1 but unfortunately, I feel like it's a different station throughout the day. Sometimes it's the oldies I grew up and other times it's doowop, a brand of music before my time. I like Fleetwood but the rest of the weekday jocks lean more towards the older stuff.

They could gain a lot more listeners, in my opinion, if they moved to late 60s, 70s and 80s. If they picked up #1 Oldies WCBS's playlist in NY they would be TRULY GOLD!

HERE ARE THE TOP 10 MOST PLAYED SONGS ON WCBS. You will seldom if ever, hear these songs on WVLT.

Sister Golden Hair, America; FRANKIE VALLI, Grease; A TASTE OF HONEY, Boogie Oogie Oogie; TAVARES, Heaven Must Be Missing An Angel; CARL CARLTON, Everlasting Love; BOSTON, More Than A Feeling; HOLLIES, Long Cool Woman (In A Black..);BILLY JOEL, My Life; EVELYN KING, Shame; PLAYER, Baby Come Back.

 

[benale]

Every classic hits/oldies station plays those late 60's,70's and 80's songs. It's nice there are stations that do skew older like WVLT. Very few oldies stations play Pre-Beatles music anymore. This was a great era for music and it's great WVLT plays them. I do agree, a little more consistency in programming would be nice.

 

[joshzz]

I do agree that it was a great era for music. This was the era that really started it all. The real problem with the format is that the listeners of that format are disappearing quickly. In ten years from now they'll be talking about 1980s and 1990s being the oldies era. I guess the bottom line is our time on this earth is fleeting.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

Disclosure: I used to be in my mid '50s...

Most of the posts here seem to concern themselves with music, especially the most recent, replies #31, 32 & 33. I however trend toward information first, ie traffic reports, weather and the news, which, in this market, are most dependable on the AM band. Occasionally I will surf FM for classic rock. And if that fails, I hold my nose and turn to the so-called country sations, which don't really play true country music anymore.

 

[landtuna]

I do agree that it was a great era for music. This was the era that really started it all. The real problem with the format is that the listeners of that format are disappearing quickly. In ten years from now they'll be talking about 1980s and 1990s being the oldies era. I guess the bottom line is our time on this earth is fleeting.

NO! Pre-Beatles music listeners are not "disappearing quickly". We are being ignored because advertisers do not think we are worth their ad dollars.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

I do agree that it was a great era for music. This was the era that really started it all. The real problem with the format is that the listeners of that format are disappearing quickly. In ten years from now they'll be talking about 1980s and 1990s being the oldies era. I guess the bottom line is our time on this earth is fleeting.

NO! Pre-Beatles music listeners are not "disappearing quickly". We are being ignored because advertisers do not think we are worth their ad dollars.

Sorry Josh, Land Tuna is right. Quoting a newly popular catch-phrase, you GAFFed on this one.

 

[joshzz]

I could be wrong. Maybe Doo-wop is making a come back.

Concerning the comment on country music. I do wonder if a more traditional country music station, featuring mostly 60s 70s and some 80s stuff, could make it today. I don't know of any so many there is room.

 

[TheBigA]

I do wonder if a more traditional country music station, featuring mostly 60s 70s and some 80s stuff, could make it today. I don't know of any so many there is room.

If they had little or no expense, maybe. Classic country isn't a big ratings-getter, and consequently makes little money.

They are very different audiences among those three decades. Some folks might like Haggard or Willie and hate Kenny Rogers and Ronnie Milsap. So it's hard to program by era without taking into account the sub-genres.

 

[uncamark]

I do wonder if a more traditional country music station, featuring mostly 60s 70s and some 80s stuff, could make it today. I don't know of any so many there is room.

If they had little or no expense, maybe. Classic country isn't a big ratings-getter, and consequently makes little money.

They are very different audiences among those three decades. Some folks might like Haggard or Willie and hate Kenny Rogers and Ronnie Milsap. So it's hard to program by era without taking into account the sub-genres.

Isn't that the problem Sirius XM had in merging Willie's Place and The Roadhouse? The Willie fans who loved the Texas music were hostile to the Roadhouse's more mainstream lean on classic country (which, of course, became dominant in the merged Willie's Roadhouse channel).