Is Internet Radio "REAL" Radio?

[nitnitr]

Well, I like to think that Internet radio can be it's own version of radio IF it's done right. HD radio is / was nice. I am currently in between gigs after being laid off from KTCS in Fort Smith back in January. So in late june, I started an online radio station using all the knowlegde I have collected in the 9 years I have been in over-the-air radio. Go to www.thebigjohnshow.com and listen to it. I run my station as a local station with local advertisers. It's really tough to do sometimes, but I do it all and just try to keep up.

I am looking to get back on the air (terrestrial) and keep my online station, but I supposed this will have to do until I can get back on normal radio.



Thank you for your time,

John Horton
TBJS Radio Network
703 Pearl Street
Poteau, OK 74953
Phone: 918 649-1462
www.thebigjohnshow.com

I commend you for keeping up with everything, launching an Internet station. I have been operating an Internet only Christian station for almost 5 years, and also looking to get back into terrestrial radio.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I believe Internet radio is "real radio." I will admit, as you did, it has to be done right. LMTTRR is automated, but we still have lots of interludes that are different from day to day. We also chime in personally from time to time as our schedules allow.

"Normal radio" is terrestrial radio, or what we have been accustomed to over the years (at least for us old farts). As technology progresses, radio has become abnormal, if that is by streaming or by satellite. Who knows what future technology will hold for the realm of radio and the delivery methods.

 

[deltas69]

from the devils advocate corner..no trickery here.. just an observation..if internet radio is "real radio"..then HULU and similar sites must be "real TV"....is Netflix a real movie theater ?? ...all give what audiences are looking for and can't find via OTA transmitting...it's simply D*M*D*...Digital Media Delivery..and I for one am thrilled I can watch "McHales Navy" and other vintage shows..via this method of entertainment...If I my wife did not have to have Lifetime or Hallmark...I'd have no use for Cable TV at all..just the internet connection...my 2 cents worth..

 

[TheBigA]

from the devils advocate corner..no trickery here.. just an observation..if internet radio is "real radio"..then HULU and similar sites must be "real TV"....is Netflix a real movie theater ??

I was in a meeting with some folks who think YouTube is "real TV." They've shut out organized media completely. And I'm not talking about high school kids, but serious business folks. In their world it's about access to media, which everyone now has. Not about reach. So their strategy is about creating a YouTube video and waiting for it to go viral, hoping that will sell their products.

 

[Tom Wells]

Internet and all content delivered by it are REAL. REAL REAL REAL. REAL something...REAL Internet,
quite valid, and I'll NOT demean the REAL value.

You "can" do the "radio" thing on it, as well as so many other things.

But a Swiss Army Knife is NOT a spoon, even though it has one.
In this case radio would be te spoon and the computer would be the Swiss Army Knife.

It's a bit unwieldy as a spoon, but kinda works.
A spoon can only be a spoon.
The radio is primarily a musical instrument, as incepted and developed.
As with all musical instruments, to burden an instrument or with self-interfering effects or modes is not only silly but antithetical.
We can MAKE a computer behave and sound as though it's doing radio, and in my podcasts try my damndest and maybe they do,
but that includes making it be an actual rf aircheck and sometimes adding variable 10khz whine at -33 db.
Many, many streams have a very strange downward-compression gating that drives me crazy.
It's like an anti-reverberation that suck the life and presence out of any music.
The music sounds like a person dying of starvation looks.

Radio is still radio if it's not iboc. All TV has gone beyond the digital divide.
The internet is its own thing, and can do a great job of presenting audio in what comes across as a "radio" presentation.
With a foot in each domain, I see them as useful equivalents, but completely apples/oranges, and not directly
comparable.

Hulu is its own thing, so is Netflix. I use both. But they are not TV any more than escarole is lettuce.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The radio is primarily a musical instrument, as incepted and developed.
As with all musical instruments, to burden an instrument or with self-interfering effects or modes is not only silly but antithetical.

A well thought out essay, Tom.

I realize my position on the topic of radio is like trying to swim up-stream, starting at the bottom of Niagara Falls. In my presence, you just as well walk over to a chalkboard and scratch your fingernails across the surface and make that irritating noise as to proclaim: "Radio is primarily a musical instrument."

I realize that is what it has become... not necessarily because that is it natural place in life. I grew up in a place where I guess we challenged God's plan for earth: We grew cotton out in the desert.... assisted by that newly built irrigation district. I used to play Dodge Ball with the rolling tumble weeds coming through our fields. To find a town of 40,000 or more we had to drive 200 miles or more. And out of that radio came Fibber McGee and Molly, and World War II, and weather information (important when you live in hurricane country), agricultural market prices, and Sky King and Jack Armstrong... All American Boy. We never a TV in the home until after I left home. I was 22 or 23 years old when my wife and I reached way down into our rather empty pockets and bought our first TV.

Time marches on. Things change. But radio.... and audio-on-the-Internet does not have to be ALL music. It will be MOSTLY music.... but society is cheated out of something if it is ALL music.

 

[Tom Wells]

Never meant that radio equals music, only that SO much work went into making radio sound natural and musical.

If musical instruments had to be cheapened like radios, all violins would be made of tin, and all brass instruments would be
polystyrene, etc. No one would ever hear the difference, right?

Most manufacturers boasted of some special audio magic design to make all listening, especially music, more lifelike.
Before radio, entertainment was a different thing.
People lucky enough to have music had either made it themselves, heard live music or had cylinders or acoustic 78s.
When live radio came along, it began to sound really good by 1930, if someone had the money to keep up with the advances.
All improvements to audio in the interest of music reproduction serve all program material, not just audio.

I really did love the CBS Radio Mystery Theatre in the 70s, and many things besides music.

 

[listener-in]

I have 3 WiFi radios in my home, because my local radio stations don't give me what I want, other than for the NPR station. Much of what I hear is terrestrial radio that is also webcast, but some is webcast only. To me, ALL of it is "Real" radio, because I tune into something I want and I listen. My ear isn't aware of the technology that brings it to me.

 

[TheFonz]

I recently watched an interview with a guy I worked with over 50 years ago in a small market. He moved on to bigger and better things, eventually becoming a Chicago radio legend. In the interview he said that radio is dying. The future is, what he called, "WiFi radio", which I can only assume would be Internet Radio. For a guy who made a great career out of terrestrail radio, that really surprised me. Especially since the interview was from 2008.

At least the guy spoke the truth since people in younger demographics tend to use their Iphones more for music.

And let's remember that commercial radio dumps the 55+ audience................listeners that were with them for decades. If I want "real" oldies, I have to go the internet. So who's left to listen to commercial radio?

 

[nitnitr]

I recently watched an interview with a guy I worked with over 50 years ago in a small market. He moved on to bigger and better things, eventually becoming a Chicago radio legend. In the interview he said that radio is dying. The future is, what he called, "WiFi radio", which I can only assume would be Internet Radio. For a guy who made a great career out of terrestrail radio, that really surprised me. Especially since the interview was from 2008.

At least the guy spoke the truth since people in younger demographics tend to use their Iphones more for music.

And let's remember that commercial radio dumps the 55+ audience................listeners that were with them for decades. If I want "real" oldies, I have to go the internet. So who's left to listen to commercial radio?

I don't see what we have termed "real radio" going anywhere soon. It may be re-formulated in many ways, but terrestrial radio will survive.

As for Internet radio, or streaming, it provides a radio presence across the Internet. As technology progresses, "net radio" will become even more of a presence in everyday life. It is there now in many ways, with the advances of tablet computers and smart phones, and the connections available through WiFi or 4G.

As for dissing the 55+ market, you bet there isn't a presence on terrestrial radio now days, at least in general. I have a friend in Phoenix that programs the old MOR format on the Internet. Can't find that on the dial anymore. He does have a niche market, and he's not in it for the money, (as you know, there isn't really any in Internet radio, at least for now), but he loves what he is doing, and bringing this old format to those that love it as well.

 

[Casey]

The problem is terrestrial radio is not adapting, while internet radio is.

Internet radio is evolving quickly and showing listeners that almost anything is possible. Terrestrial radio at this time is simply sitting behind their mountains of extensive research. The research that shows them what they want to see and how to make more money, not why listeners are leaving their stations in favor of the internet. The research does not accurately show the stations what little things listeners do not like, nor how to survive the internet radio revolution. It is time they starting listening to the listeners.

 

[TheBigA]

The problem is terrestrial radio is not adapting, while internet radio is.

That's a vast over-generalization.

 

[Casey]

The problem is terrestrial radio is not adapting, while internet radio is.

That's a vast over-generalization.

What makes you say that? Terrestrial radio stations are well known for their tiny playlists, bad jocks, etc. What has terrestrial radio done to change this? They are far removed from reality. Look at how Cumulus controls markets from Atlanta. Look at how some artists are completely ignored while others receive excessive airplay. Radio at one time was a major part of life, now it is only something to help pass the time. If listeners thought highly of terrestrial radio, HD radio would be flying off the shelves. Average listeners have no idea what any of the problems are with HD radio, only that is has benefits. The fact that they are not buying into it says that radio is dying.

I agree some internet radio stations/networks are not adapting. Accuradio and 1.fm I would place in that category. Regardless, I would say internet radio as a whole is far more adaptable.

 

[TheBigA]

What makes you say that? Terrestrial radio stations are well known for their tiny playlists, bad jocks, etc.

You need to be specific. Even within companies, there are variations in terms of staffing and playlists from market to market. Perhaps the stations you listen to in your market have problems, but if you broaden the view beyond your favorites and your market, situations change.

If listeners thought highly of terrestrial radio, HD radio would be flying off the shelves.

Huh? What does one have to do with the other? Radios in general are not selling. HD is no exception, but the same holds for internet radios that aren't part of other devices.

 

[Casey]

What makes you say that? Terrestrial radio stations are well known for their tiny playlists, bad jocks, etc.

You need to be specific. Even within companies, there are variations in terms of staffing and playlists from market to market. Perhaps the stations you listen to in your market have problems, but if you broaden the view beyond your favorites and your market, situations change.


Perhaps it is the stations that you listen to that don't have problems and the rest do.

I have yet to hear of a single market where people come out and say they love their stations playlists. They love syndication. They love their jocks. It doesn't happen. But people raving about their favorite internet stations? Pandora? People raving about sirius? That does happen.

Sure some markets have some niche stations that have a dedicated following. The playlists will make some people happy. But for the majority, I would say their loyalty to a station is fleeting at best. Once they figure out a better alternative they are gone. Internet radio is only one alternative. Spotify, Rhapsody, Sirius, etc. are others. All have been growing quite rapidly. Interestingly, all either have or are capable of having wider playlists. All except sirius are jock-less. They all have less commercials compared to commercial terrestrial radio. Some have none. Sirius and Internet radio would not even have gotten off the ground had terrestrial radio not been caught sleeping.

If listeners thought highly of terrestrial radio, HD radio would be flying off the shelves.

Huh? What does one have to do with the other? Radios in general are not selling. HD is no exception, but the same holds for internet radios that aren't part of other devices.

More than you would think. HD Radio has failed. Why has it failed? Well as we have established many times, consumers simply don't care about it. To me, it is quite obvious why they don't care. It is not because of the technical problem with HD Radio, as most people don't know any exist. They do know what they heard advertised on the local radio stations, about how great HD Radio is. The reason they do not care is because they no longer care about terrestrial radio. They may be able to get more stations with HD, but why would they want some more of the same poorly programmed crap they get on analog? They don't. That's why HD is dead. HD radio's failure is completely the fault of the radio industry.


How has terrestrial radio adapted to the changing market? I can't find anything to show that it has. Nothing positive anyway. Launching a web-stream could maybe be considered adapting, but I would argue that all it has really done is introduce people to other internet radio services.

 

[TheBigA]

Sure some markets have some niche stations that have a dedicated following. The playlists will make some people happy. But for the majority, I would say their loyalty to a station is fleeting at best. Once they figure out a better alternative they are gone.

Believe what you want to believe, but the facts simply don't agree with you. Most people are cheap and lazy, and don't want to pay for satellite or internet, and don't want to take the time to build their own stations or playlists. Most currents-based formats are filled with new music and lots of variety, and consequently get great ratings. And numerous surveys have been done that show that people are quite happy with OTA radio. You're not one of them, but that's OK. People like you have been predicting the end of radio for 50 years.

More than you would think. HD Radio has failed. Why has it failed? Well as we have established many times, consumers simply don't care about it.

For some reason you've made some connection between the failure of HD radio to OTA radio in general. That is a false connection. As I said, all radio-only devices are failing. That includes internet and satellite radios. If those radios come with something else, like a car, a computer, or a phone, people will use them. HD Radio's failure is the failure of iBiquity, the company the owns the copyright. No one else. The radio industry has been lukewarm to HD for years because they say no money in it. So don't blame anyone in radio for HD.

How is radio adapting? Who is #2 in internet radio after Pandora? CBS. Who is #3? Clear Channel. The major companies have all invested a lot of money in new digital platforms and are providing programming for hundreds of millions of people. If people aren't listening to their own playlists, they will listen to an OTA station via either internet stream or mobile app. There is no single internet radio station that comes close to the listeners in a market with the internet stream from OTA radio.

Once again, feel free to believe what you want to believe. To you, radio is dead. Don't let the door whack you on the way out.

 

[Casey]

Well luckily for our cheap and lazy people, they don't have to pay for internet radio, nor take time to build playlists if they do not want too. There are plenty of stations out there. And despite you claiming I am wrong, Pandora is growing at an amazing rate. Why is Pandora growing? It certainly is not because of the availability in comparison to AM/FM. The sound quality is not so great. The content is the key. Interesting, those annoying dj's don't exist on Pandora, and I don't hear many people complaining. Clearly the growth rate of Pandora shows that people like the service. It also shows that people are not satisfied with their OTA stations, because if they were, Pandora would be DOA regardless of customization. Same for all the streaming stations. If listeners were satisfied their the OTA stations, the streaming stations would not be getting the listeners which they are. And as you said, people are lazy. They wouldn't be bothering to switch to this other content if they were happy with OTA. The fact that they are and are even downloading necessary apps to listen to these services or are subscribing speaks volumes.

I am speaking more of HD Radio in general, not just the receivers. The only reason the receivers were brought up is because very few people have them and they are necessary to receive HD Radio. And iBiquity is only part of the reason HD radio failed. HD Radio could only have been a success if the stations could prove to consumers that the upgrade was worth the money. With carefully programmed subchannels and migrating select content to HD-only, this could have been achieved. As is, this didn't happen. The NAB clearly wants HD Radio to live on, so the fact that it is suffering proves that someone in Radio is to blame, as iBiquity is not the company that should be promoting this to consumers. That is radio's job.


CBS just lost AOL radio, so chances are they won't be #2 once the new rankers start coming out. If they lost Yahoo, it would be another good chunk of listeners. How much more of their streams are last.fm? So I would say that although they are making a successful run online, much of their success is from online streams which are not terrestrial broadcasts. Also, Clear Channel obviously sees that the future of radio is not terrestrial broadcasts nor their online streams. The new Iheartradio player's custom features show this pretty clearly. Clear Channel threw a whole concert this new player and is expected to lose a lot of cash at the start. Why would Clear Channel bother if they didn't think it was the future?

 

[TheBigA]

It also shows that people are not satisfied with their OTA stations, because if they were, Pandora would be DOA regardless of customization.

It's not a one-or-the-other thing. People use both. For different things. At different times. In almost every market, the most popular, most used streaming stations are the streams of OTA stations. It's obvious when you see the numbers that the problem for people isn't the content, but the device itself. They prefer to hear OTA radio programming on their phones or computers. No problem!

The NAB clearly wants HD Radio to live on, so the fact that it is suffering proves that someone in Radio is to blame, as iBiquity is not the company that should be promoting this to consumers. That is radio's job.

I think it's clear that radio is done with HD. Has been for several years. The technology is old, like satellite radio. Both are done. The radio industry has moved on to internet and phone apps. Only NPR seems attached to HD.

 

[JohnnyElectron]

Satellite Radio wouldn't be old if they offered decent playlists and live on-air DJ's on the decades channels like XM did BEFORE their horrible merger with Sirius. They were two very different services and philosphophies and now we're stuck with Mel's unimaginative 'vision'. Mel wrecked SatRad by getting rid of dedicated niche stations and putting 'payola' single artist channels on forever. Firing the XM music programmers was his other mistake. I want my old XM back..

in the meantime, I'm happy that I've found REWOUNDRADIO.COM - what a breath of fresh air - deep playlists, no repeats, plays what the listeners request - half-way decent sound quality - what more could you ask for?

 

[Casey]

It's not a one-or-the-other thing. People use both. For different things. At different times. In almost every market, the most popular, most used streaming stations are the streams of OTA stations. It's obvious when you see the numbers that the problem for people isn't the content, but the device itself. They prefer to hear OTA radio programming on their phones or computers. No problem!

The most popular stations may very well be the OTA stations, solely because the OTA stations push their webstreams quite hard to listeners. No other streaming service has this kind of promotion. Yet, despite little promotion these services are continuing to grow. If people were truly happy with OTA radio webstreams, these other services would not be growing. Simple as that. Those who go to the OTA webstream are finding that there are other great internet radio services available and are accessible with relatively little effort.

There are two main things holding back internet radio. One is the limited accessibility. This problem is quickly going away. The second is the lack of awareness. This problem is also going away. The increase in smartphone usage and the increase in internet radio in the automobile will continue to drive internet radio listening number higher. Increased deployment of LTE will enable internet radio availability virtually anywhere.

It is quite obvious why internet radio is growing. The ability to listen to any genre, deep playlists, less commercials, no annoying DJ's, and will play any artists (not just the chosen ones). This is what makes internet radio. Without annoying air-staff and less staff in general, you don't need as many annoying commercials. The station owner can play whatever they want. The capabilities grow when you go to customizable radio and grow even further when you reach on-demand. Although on-demand is arguably not radio, it is capable of replacing it.

I think it's clear that radio is done with HD. Has been for several years. The technology is old, like satellite radio. Both are done. The radio industry has moved on to internet and phone apps. Only NPR seems attached to HD.

On AM yes. On FM I would still argue that the NAB is promoting it as strongly as ever.

The age of the technology really doesn't matter. If people are happy with it, it will live on indefinitely. But in the case of HD Radio, people are not happy, so it is dying. In the case of satellite radio, millions are happy. Millions more would be happy if it didn't cost so much.

 

[GeneSavage]

They prefer to hear OTA radio programming on their phones or computers.

This makes NO sense to me at all... WHY would people prefer to fire up their computers, launch a web browser, load the webpage of the radio station, click a link to load a new pop-up player, wait for an ad to buffer and play, then wait of the lo-fi stream to load...

...as opposed to leaning over and pushing one button on a radio for instant hi-fidelity?

I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong on this point; I'd just LOVE to know how this makes any sense.