• 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

Indie 103.1 audio streaming

N

NickMichaels

I just heard Indie 103.1's audio stream and it is probably the best sounding stream I've heard so far, with the exception of the Apple site itself.

I've read that Arbitron with begin to include web listening in their polling. When will this take place and will a web listener have the same weight as a broadcast listener?
 
Audio streaming ratings

> I've read that Arbitron with begin to include web listening
> in their polling. When will this take place and will a web
> listener have the same weight as a broadcast listener?

As with anything else, when enough listeners who are diarykeepers log an amount of listening to any stream that equates to at least .1% of the market listening (one-tenth of one percent), it will be included.

I would suspect that in-market listening to local stations' streams already would count if logged in a diary; however, you would have to get a lot of listening to an out-of-market stream before it went above the threshold for inclusion.

There are already ratings for nationwide (non-radio station-affiliated) streams.

It's going to take some time, in other words. To cite a parallel, right now the total nationwide listening to all of XM and Sirius' channels <u>combined</u> is less than the listenership of the #1 station in New York City.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: Audio streaming ratings

I believe it has to be a 100% simulcast on the web to get Arbitron credit.
Stations cannot air most commercials and if some are covered by music or web only spots, it's not a 100% simulcast.

Example: if a station got a .5 share increase from web streaming, it would not benefit the advertiser because their spot would not air on the stream. Therefore, they would pay for the .5 increase but not reach the additional .5 audience.

Got to be a 100% simulcast to be able to combo the station and the stream.
Bill in NC


> > I've read that Arbitron with begin to include web
> listening
> > in their polling. When will this take place and will a web
>
> > listener have the same weight as a broadcast listener?
>
> As with anything else, when enough listeners who are
> diarykeepers log an amount of listening to any stream that
> equates to at least .1% of the market listening (one-tenth
> of one percent), it will be included.
>
> I would suspect that in-market listening to local stations'
> streams already would count if logged in a diary; however,
> you would have to get a lot of listening to an out-of-market
> stream before it went above the threshold for inclusion.
>
> There are already ratings for nationwide (non-radio
> station-affiliated) streams.
>
> It's going to take some time, in other words. To cite a
> parallel, right now the total nationwide listening to all of
> XM and Sirius' channels combined is less than the
> listenership of the #1 station in New York City.
>
 
Re: Audio streaming ratings

That does makes sense, but why would a station choose to not "air" the same commercials on the web? Is it that the income from web sales would outweigh any potential increase in ratings?

I can see where a signal like 103.1 could benefit from web listeners, since the signal doesnt hit the whole market. Maybe that's why they are putting up such a good stream.


> I believe it has to be a 100% simulcast on the web to get
> Arbitron credit.
> Stations cannot air most commercials and if some are covered
> by music or web only spots, it's not a 100% simulcast.
>
> Example: if a station got a .5 share increase from web
> streaming, it would not benefit the advertiser because their
> spot would not air on the stream. Therefore, they would pay
> for the .5 increase but not reach the additional .5
> audience.
>
> Got to be a 100% simulcast to be able to combo the station
> and the stream.
> Bill in NC
>
>
> > > I've read that Arbitron with begin to include web
> > listening
> > > in their polling. When will this take place and will a
> web
> >
> > > listener have the same weight as a broadcast listener?
> >
> > As with anything else, when enough listeners who are
> > diarykeepers log an amount of listening to any stream that
>
> > equates to at least .1% of the market listening (one-tenth
>
> > of one percent), it will be included.
> >
> > I would suspect that in-market listening to local
> stations'
> > streams already would count if logged in a diary; however,
>
> > you would have to get a lot of listening to an
> out-of-market
> > stream before it went above the threshold for inclusion.
> >
> > There are already ratings for nationwide (non-radio
> > station-affiliated) streams.
> >
> > It's going to take some time, in other words. To cite a
> > parallel, right now the total nationwide listening to all
> of
> > XM and Sirius' channels combined is less than the
> > listenership of the #1 station in New York City.
> >
>
 
Re: Audio streaming ratings

> That does makes sense, but why would a station choose to not
> "air" the same commercials on the web?

Many voice over talents are AFTRA members. AFTRA rules require additonal payment for spots that will be used in any additional medium, and streaming is not covered in normal payments for radio spots. So, ad agencies and advertisers prohibit the streaming of the spots. Advertisers, so far, see no cost benefit from streaming, so they prohibit it. This is a case where AFTRA shot istself in the foot.

> Is it that the income
> from web sales would outweigh any potential increase in
> ratings?

There is nearly no income from web sales. Web presence is mostly promotional, and very few stations even cover costs.
>
> I can see where a signal like 103.1 could benefit from web
> listeners, since the signal doesnt hit the whole market.
> Maybe that's why they are putting up such a good stream.

With the percentage of AFTRA spots in LA, where nearly everyone is AFTRA and most advertising agencies will not cut a non-AFTRA spot, there is not much chance the pure stream would be a simulcast. On the other hand, most listeners do not think of a stream as a separate thing, but just a "part" of one of the stations they listen to, so it is unlikely that, locally, they would identify it as a stream.
 
Someday that's all Indie 103.1 will be...

Just a Stream!. There are hundreds of Indie Stations on the Web. Indie would be truly independant if they only played Music from Independant sources & unsigned acts. It would also help if Indie wasn't owned by a Major Broadcasting Company?



> I can see where a signal like 103.1 could benefit from web
> listeners, since the signal doesnt hit the whole market.
> Maybe that's why they are putting up such a good stream.
 
Re: Someday that's all Indie 103.1 will be...

Madman,

My post was about web streaming.

I didn't ask what you think Indie should be playing.

What about being owned by Entravision is unhelpful?
Find me a commercial rock station that isn't owned by a major company.
Even though Indie has a less than full market signal, that property is valued at around 70 - 100 million dollars. Even if Indie 103.1 were a companies only property, it would be a major company, especially compared to a guy streaming songs on a web server.

You make no sense. You're saying that if 103.1 were only on the web playing obscure unsigned bands then that would make them better or more sucessful?

I supposed KFSH should only be playing songs about fish, and KFrog should stick to songs about frogs.

103.1 plays more independent and unsigned bands than any commercial station that I know of. Can you name another?
Their programming is independent because many of their dj's can "play what they want" and they have no consultants or "National President of Programming" telling them what research shows they should play.

Better to just drop the subject.
David has answered the question that I posted about.




> Just a Stream!. There are hundreds of Indie Stations on the
> Web. Indie would be truly independant if they only played
> Music from Independant sources & unsigned acts. It would
> also help if Indie wasn't owned by a Major Broadcasting
> Company?
>
>
>
> > I can see where a signal like 103.1 could benefit from web
>
> > listeners, since the signal doesnt hit the whole market.
> > Maybe that's why they are putting up such a good stream.
>
 
Re: Audio streaming ratings

Thank you David.
You have answered my questions.


> Many voice over talents are AFTRA members. AFTRA rules
> require additonal payment for spots that will be used in any
> additional medium, and streaming is not covered in normal
> payments for radio spots. So, ad agencies and advertisers
> prohibit the streaming of the spots. Advertisers, so far,
> see no cost benefit from streaming, so they prohibit it.
> This is a case where AFTRA shot istself in the foot.
>
> With the percentage of AFTRA spots in LA, where nearly
> everyone is AFTRA and most advertising agencies will not cut
> a non-AFTRA spot, there is not much chance the pure stream
> would be a simulcast. On the other hand, most listeners do
> not think of a stream as a separate thing, but just a "part"
> of one of the stations they listen to, so it is unlikely
> that, locally, they would identify it as a stream.
>
 
Re: Someday that's all Indie 103.1 will be...

Scott, I have to agree with Nick. You hijacked the thread into yet another discussion of Indie's format.

Thank heavens a certain contentious Indie fan is gone, or this would already be under control.

All that said, I agree with David's statement that AFTRA shot itself in the foot by not allowing ads voiced by their members to be included in station streams. I would hope that they will reevaluate the issue at some point to differentiate between what is a "national" stream and what is simply an extension of a local station's transmitter. My personal feeling is that a station-affiliated stream is not, by design, a national one (even though there may well be listening outside the local area, it is likely that the majority of stream listeners are local).

David's point about local listeners not identifying their listening to local streams as specifically via Internet is likely true as well. Diarykeepers are not sophisticated in the area of ratings, for the most part, and listening to Indie on the Net is, to them, the same as having the radio tuned to 103.1, so 99.9% of them won't log the difference in reception mode.

That leads me to wonder how much of Indie's wobbly share comes from Net listening and how much from the relatively weak Class A transmitters.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: Someday that's all Indie 103.1 will be...

> the relatively weak Class A transmitters.

Unless the xmtrs aren't operating properly, they aren't "weak." They are performing to spec, reaching the areas they are designed to serve.

Class As may not be competitive in terms of service area in a large market like L.A. But describing them as "weak" is inaccurate.
 
Re: Someday that's all Indie 103.1 will be...

> Their programming is independent because many of their dj's
> can "play what they want" and they have no consultants or
> "National President of Programming" telling them what
> research shows they should play.

That's really too bad. While such programming can appeal to a
small audience, I'd feel better knowing (through research) what
my listeners wanted to hear instead of what any individual air
talent thinks...

But this is getting off topic..
 
Re: Someday that's all Indie 103.1 will be...

Indie's highest rated daypart is 10-3, which contains Steve Jones's show and his show is completely freeform. It is the antithisis of the chain store approach to radio and it is working.

But please. Let's not make this a debate over programming, that was not the intention of this thread.


> > Their programming is independent because many of their
> dj's
> > can "play what they want" and they have no consultants or
> > "National President of Programming" telling them what
> > research shows they should play.
>
> That's really too bad. While such programming can appeal to
> a
> small audience, I'd feel better knowing (through research)
> what
> my listeners wanted to hear instead of what any individual
> air
> talent thinks...
>
 
Re: Someday that's all Indie 103.1 will be...

> > the relatively weak Class A transmitters.
>
> Unless the xmtrs aren't operating properly, they aren't
> "weak." They are performing to spec, reaching the areas they
> are designed to serve.
>
> Class As may not be competitive in terms of service area in
> a large market like L.A. But describing them as "weak" is
> inaccurate.

To clarify my intent and context:

"Relatively weak" is intended as a comparison to the full market Class B signals. I would classify the Recuerdo simulcast, the KDAY simulcast, the Super Estrella trimulcast, the Jill trimulcast, and the Que Buena trimulcast in the same way (more or less).<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: Someday that's all Indie 103.1 will be...

but there's always the weakest of the weak, the meekest of the meek, and that's 103.1, separately or together.


> > the relatively weak Class A transmitters.
> >
> > Unless the xmtrs aren't operating properly, they aren't
> > "weak." They are performing to spec, reaching the areas
> they
> > are designed to serve.
> >
> > Class As may not be competitive in terms of service area
> in
> > a large market like L.A. But describing them as "weak" is
> > inaccurate.
>
> To clarify my intent and context:
>
> "Relatively weak" is intended as a comparison to the full
> market Class B signals. I would classify the Recuerdo
> simulcast, the KDAY simulcast, the Super Estrella
> trimulcast, the Jill trimulcast, and the Que Buena
> trimulcast in the same way (more or less).
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom