Is audacy good for radio?

[radiogal]

I do not get Audacy as a company...seems like they care less and less about the stations and more and more about their app....
So now they want us to create our own audio formats for the app....and they want us to tell our loyal fans to go listen to us on the app..
Is that good for radio....so now they will have more and more micro stations on apps at the expense of our main terrestrial brand...
and wasn't www.radio.com a great name for an app--despite that everyone is in love with the term audio? Oh well ...I think they will probably regionalize me off the air pretty soon..........................hope not..still love radio...

 

[TheBigA]

I do not get Audacy as a company...seems like they care less and less about the stations and more and more about their app....

Why not both? Today people are multi-media users. Audacy is a company that provides content across multiple platforms.

Consider Apple. They don't just make computers. They have iTunes, Apple TV, Apple's App Store, and lots more. Amazon isn't just online retail. They have Amazon Prime, where you can watch first run movies or MLB sports. These tech companies are pretty pushy too about getting you to use all of the products in their universe. They want you to sign up for their newsletter, and give them your credit card number. Audacy isn't asking for that.

But sure, one of the limitations for on air stations is you have to listen to the music they pick. Maybe you want to make your own playlist. You could do it on Spotify, or Apple, or Audacy. It's not one or the other. It's all of the above. They're not leaving traditional radio because there's a lot of investment there. But the growth is in digital, and at some point the digital will pay for the on-air radio. That's good for radio.

 

[scanman1]

I do not get Audacy as a company...seems like they care less and less about the stations and more and more about their app....
So now they want us to create our own audio formats for the app....and they want us to tell our loyal fans to go listen to us on the app..
Is that good for radio....so now they will have more and more micro stations on apps at the expense of our main terrestrial brand...
and wasn't www.radio.com a great name for an app--despite that everyone is in love with the term audio? Oh well ...I think they will probably regionalize me off the air pretty soon..........................hope not..still love radio...

I prefer listening to live radio, whether it's over-the-air or through a streaming app. The only time I listen to any customized playlists is when I play my own music collection, and that usually occurs when I wanna hear something very specific.

 

[louis_p]

I do not get Audacy as a company...seems like they care less and less about the stations and more and more about their app....
So now they want us to create our own audio formats for the app....and they want us to tell our loyal fans to go listen to us on the app..
Is that good for radio....so now they will have more and more micro stations on apps at the expense of our main terrestrial brand...
and wasn't www.radio.com a great name for an app--despite that everyone is in love with the term audio? Oh well ...I think they will probably regionalize me off the air pretty soon..........................hope not..still love radio...

Audacy has evolve for the digital age or else the company will go down in history with the likes of Blockbuster, Nokia and Blackberry. The growth is in platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, and Pandora. The company formerly known as Clear Channel realized this several years ago and changed the company name to iHeart (effectively erasing 40 years of brand equity). This strategy has helped iHeart remain relevant in the digital age even though they haven’t overtaken Spotify.

I work in the tech industry which has a large share of millennials, and none of them have listened to the radio in the last 5 years. One guy told me that he has no idea what the local radio stations are in the area and that he’s never programmed the presets on his car radio. For most of these people, their “go to app” for music is Spotify (due to the social aspect) with a minority preferring Apple, TuneIn, or iHeart. The Audacy app isn’t even a blip on the radar and I doubt any of the millennials are aware that Audacy exists.

The suits at Audacy are aware that these people are their future market and they better react to the changing landscape. They won’t win over any young ears by doubling down on over-the-air broadcasting when other platforms offer the music that they want to hear along with the social aspect. Antiquated brands like radio.com, broadcast.com, audionet.com, and RadioTime may be appealing to an older crowd seeking nostalgia from the dot com era but they mean nothing to future generations.

The other business case for Audacy is more targeted advertising. Digital platforms can deliver results with a granular level of focus. Broadcast radio has to rely on audio meters and diaries to extrapolate the age and number of listeners that heard the ad.

Audacy is doing what it needs to do to keep radio alive while leveraging the medium to drive listeners to their next-gen platform.

 

[Kent]

I do not get Audacy as a company...seems like they care less and less about the stations and more and more about their app....
So now they want us to create our own audio formats for the app....and they want us to tell our loyal fans to go listen to us on the app..
Is that good for radio....so now they will have more and more micro stations on apps at the expense of our main terrestrial brand...

Audacy's problem is pretty simple but simultaneously complex. Radio is the side of its business that makes it money. It's also a slow to no growth revenue stream. The growth is in digital, but the startup and operating costs are high, and the margins are low. It's trying to figure out a way to monetize the higher growth digital side of its business while maintaining the broadcast revenue. Cumulus has been trying to figure out a way to solve a similar problem, though it's not relying as much on in-house apps to develop its digital stream.

and wasn't www.radio.com a great name for an app--despite that everyone is in love with the term audio? Oh well ...I think they will probably regionalize me off the air pretty soon..........................hope not..still love radio...

While I liked the Radio.com name, I get what Audacy was trying to do. It didn't want the name contributing to people thinking it was just radio. I hope they don't regionalize you off-the-air. I haven't listened to any of Audacy's CHR's since the regionalization, but I was disappointed with the sound of the alternative stations afterward.

 

[Kelly A]

Audacy's problem is pretty simple but simultaneously complex. Radio is the side of its business that makes it money. It's also a slow to no growth revenue stream. The growth is in digital, but the startup and operating costs are high, and the margins are low. It's trying to figure out a way to monetize the higher growth digital side of its business while maintaining the broadcast revenue. Cumulus has been trying to figure out a way to solve a similar problem, though it's not relying as much on in-house apps to develop its digital stream.

And that's what traditional radio is becoming; just another way of delivering audio content. I predict eventually radio stations will just be transmitter sites around the country broadcasting highly produced music or opinion-talk/news programming, along with that same content offered as podcasts or live streams.

While I liked the Radio.com name, I get what Audacy was trying to do. It didn't want the name contributing to people thinking it was just radio. I hope they don't regionalize you off-the-air. I haven't listened to any of Audacy's CHR's since the regionalization, but I was disappointed with the sound of the alternative stations afterward.

Entercom needed to shake the just-radio-guy's stereotype for Wall St., by announcing their gradual reinvention through a rebrand.

 

[TheBigA]

And that's what traditional radio is becoming; just another way of delivering audio content. I predict eventually radio stations will just be transmitter sites around the country broadcasting highly produced music or opinion-talk/news programming, along with that same content offered as podcasts or live streams.

The problem long term is there are fewer and fewer devices that receive traditional radio. It's great that AM/FM is still included as standard equipment in cars. But the statistics for free standing devices are not encouraging. The consumer electronics industry has stopped investing in radio devices. You don't see exciting new radios available, like the Walkman or the Boombox. Sure you can buy one if you want one, but the drive to buy one is not there any more. The device people use to listen to things is either the phone or laptop. We were all very excited when Amazon came out with their Echo or Alexa home audio device. It was the first new radio in 30 years. But it only receives internet radio. There is no antenna in it for AM or FM. That's the future. There's nothing radio companies can do about it. Great exciting content is not going to get people to throw away their phones and computers.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Our house has about two functioning radios. Mostly for internet outages in severe weather, and that’s if cellular is disrupted alongside wifi. So basically never used. And I’m not a spring chicken. I stream local, and out of market, radio alongside Pandora, iHeart, XM and whatever other content that’s not coming to mind. But a stand-alone radio? No thank you.

 

[Kelly A]

The problem long term is there are fewer and fewer devices that receive traditional radio. It's great that AM/FM is still included as standard equipment in cars. But the statistics for free standing devices are not encouraging.

You're right. It could very well be that eventually there might not even be a need for call lettered transmission sites. Everything will be streamed to the vehicle. Sites will be maintained as long as people still 'listen to the radio'. Once radios are no longer offered in cars, radio could go the way of AM radio. Aging-out.

Great exciting content is not going to get people to throw away their phones and computers.

It will be great exciting content being delivered to those devices too.

 

[TheBigA]

It could very well be that eventually there might not even be a need for call lettered transmission sites. Everything will be streamed to the vehicle.

It's really up to the FCC. The government sees broadband as part of infrastructure, and that's where they're directing money. All of the infrastructure for broadcasting is regulated and licensed by the government. If declining station ownership is a problem, the FCC needs to address it. Radio companies have realized they don't own the frequencies, just the content, and that content can be delivered to any device. That's where the emphasis is.

 

[Kelly A]

It's really up to the FCC. The government sees broadband as part of infrastructure, and that's where they're directing money.

To that point, the Commission has long since moved on from helping broadcast. Last couple of commissioners have thrown water wings to drowning AM broadcasters, but beyond that, there's no government Calvary coming to rescue broadcasting as a business. With the emphasis on collecting auction fees from selling desired spectrum, AM and FM is/will be on the back burner to live or die based on marketplace decisions. Traditional radio spectrum has little to no value on the current market.

All of the infrastructure for broadcasting is regulated and licensed by the government. If declining station ownership is a problem, the FCC needs to address it.

Don't know how or what their motivation would be to get involved. They're being told that 'wireless services' are the future and traditional broadcasting is the past. Wireless carriers are emphasizing their case by throwing dump trucks of money at the FCC. I don't see many AM or FM broadcasters doing that. Not that AM/FM broadcasters could even fill a Toyota pickup bed with money by comparrison.

Radio companies have realized they don't own the frequencies, just the content, and that content can be delivered to any device. That's where the emphasis is.

And maybe that's how the government separates the men from the boys of traditional radio: Existing broadcast spectrum will be auctioned off to the highest bidder. Once you own that piece of spectrum, as with Cell/PCS, you own it and as long as you stay in your lane (literally), you can do what you want with it. Will some broadcasters be forced out of the biz? Sure. Will some groups think it's not worth the effort? Probably. In the end, the bands will be much less congested, and owner that have no business being in the business, will be eliminated. Think of it as a radio version of The Hunger Games.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

I work in the tech industry which has a large share of millennials, and none of them have listened to the radio in the last 5 years. One guy told me that he has no idea what the local radio stations are in the area and that he’s never programmed the presets on his car radio. For most of these people, their “go to app” for music is Spotify (due to the social aspect) with a minority preferring Apple, TuneIn, or iHeart.

While I would doubt that literally none of them have listened to the radio in the last five years, I do think there are many people who listen to radio infrequently, say less than 30 minutes a day.

The Audacy app isn’t even a blip on the radar and I doubt any of the millennials are aware that Audacy exists.

I agree. BigA recently shared a study from Edison Research that found people age 13-24 listened to radio (content) almost exclusively on a radio (device) and not via streaming. I think the ratio was something like 91% to 9%. I'm not sure what the implications there are.

 

[TheBigA]

While I would doubt that literally none of them have listened to the radio in the last five years, I do think there are many people who listen to radio infrequently, say less than 30 minutes a day.

All young people don't think alike. I know a lot of young people who aren't very attached to music. They'll listen if it's put in front of them, but it's not important. They have other more pressing interests. So they won't be paying for streaming music services. Listening to free radio is just fine for them.

 

[davideduardo]

While I would doubt that literally none of them have listened to the radio in the last five years, I do think there are many people who listen to radio infrequently, say less than 30 minutes a day.

That has always been the case... some just listen for the commute, and it may just be a 10 to 15 minute drive for certain people or in certain markets.

 

[oldradiotapes]

And that's what traditional radio is becoming; just another way of delivering audio content. I predict eventually radio stations will just be transmitter sites around the country broadcasting highly produced music or opinion-talk/news programming, along with that same content offered as diskcasts or live streams.

You mean they aren't already?

They'll listen if it's put in front of them, but it's not important. They have other more pressing interests. So they won't be paying for streaming music services. Listening to free radio is just fine for them.

On the other hand, I'm younger (mid-late thirtysomething). I tend to be quite attached to music and I've never paid for a stream a day in my life. (Yes, it really is possible.) I primarily use local libraries comprised mainly of stuff from CDs and Youtube downloads. I haven't even voluntarily turned the radio on in years. I only wake up to KQAC because being jolted out of bed by a symphony is a far more pleasant way of being brought out of the nightly coma than a grating bleeper.

My current automobile doesn't even have a tuner, it has a small component amp that I connect various audio devices to.

But then I'm just that proverbial barely blip-on-the-radar mentioned above. Works fine for me. You may not think so; you might argue what horrid criminal underworld scum I am for not toeing the industry party line because my contemporaries do, but 15 years or so of personal experience has proven otherwise.
[/steps off pulpit]

 

[TheBigA]

I haven't even voluntarily turned the radio on in years.

I understand. You want what you want, not what some programmer gives you.

 

[b-turner]

I am quite attached to music myself and never pay for any online service. What I don't get is a person that does not listen to the radio intentionally chooses to post on a board dedicated to what they don't use. That just seems illogical to me. As for me, I work in radio.

 

[TheBigA]

I am quite attached to music myself and never pay for any online service.

The problem with that is some of those musicians depend on the subscription money for their income. They're the ones who keep pounding the streaming companies to eliminate ad-supported streaming. They're also the ones who keep lobbying for higher streaming rates. They just won another increase too.

 

[KeithE4]

My current automobile doesn't even have a tuner, it has a small component amp that I connect various audio devices to.

The problem with that is that it's difficult at best to change stations/providers while driving, even if the phone/tablet/other device is securely mounted. In some states, such as Arizona, where I live, it's illegal for the driver to even touch his/her phone when the vehicle is in motion. There's a reason for that.

I'm surprised the cellphone manufacturers haven't developed a drop-in replacement for a car radio, but with TuneIn, Spotify, Amazon Prime, and/other online music providers included, as well as FM (maybe not AM) radio, connected via a service provider (Verizon, T-Mobile, etc). Maybe they do, but I have not heard of them.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

A problem, but at least with iPhones, I simply ask Siri to do my bidding. Covers most of what I need while in the actual act of driving. Anything else can wait.