Is Terrestrial Radio Facing Its Judgment Day With Fierce Digital Competition?

[wadio]

Radio owners and operators who think they are in the broadcasting business will perish. Any of who realize they are in the audio entertainment and information business will continue.

Exactly. It gets back to what I was saying above about the platform vs. the programming.

Personally I'm platform agnostic. I'm a news/talk junkie so when I'm in the car I try my best to listen to AM radio through the static. At home it's Internet streaming of AM content. For personal listening with earbuds it's AM content through a phone app.

Once cost-effective streaming in the car is a reality I may never use terrestrial AM radio again, but I hope the programming doesn't disappear. That's a danger when everything is streamed. Will the equivalent of all-news radio sound like, "Hey Guys, what's up? We've got like 22 minutes, or maybe an hour, to talk about like, you know ... stuff."

Broadcast radio provides structure and requires a certain amount of discipline. For music it's personality, putting songs into some context and adding other elements of interest. For news it's a tight clock. For talk radio it means the hosts can't just ramble on forever. In the glory days of radio there was a PD who kept it all together and flowing.

I don't worry so much about losing towers but i do worry about losing what we know of as "radio." If radio management would focus more on the programming and less on creating so called "synergies' across digital and social media I think there would be less danger of losing the programming that's kept broadcast radio flourishing all these years. As digital technology and usage evolves the synergy will take care of itself.

 

[tested]

The article that started this thread contained several valid points and some that missed the mark. The most valid: 21% of the population does not own a radio. In 2008 that number was 4%. Where will that number be in 8 more years? 40%?

Undoubtedly a lot of radio folks will say that doesn't matter because of streaming. But that seems to miss the point. When you are using a radio you're not using a device that has access to tens of thousands of streaming stations or apps like Pandora, Spotify or Slacker. It's a radio that picks up stations that are generally broadcast locally. When you cut down the number of people using radios, you are cutting down on the potential audience of local radio stations. Some of that audience may stream, but most of it won't. The higher the number of people without radios, the worse off the business will be. I don't see that number dropping unless broadcasters get into some aggressive promotion to give away radios to people who didn't know they needed one.

There will be a point at which a lot of radio stations will simply have to go away. I don't know when that time will come, but when it does, it won't be pretty. I'm not sure what will be left behind either.

 

[TheBigA]

The article that started this thread contained several valid points and some that missed the mark. The most valid: 21% of the population does not own a radio. In 2008 that number was 4%.

Except as pointed out in post #22, it's not correct. The truth is 98% of the population has a radio in some way shape or form. Mostly in their car. The truth is 92% of the population listens at least once a week. You don't get a number like that when 21% don't have radios.

 

[gr8oldies]

Just because there are 10,000 streams, that doesn't mean that any random grouping of 10,000 people are going to listen to one stream apiece. Whoever has the promotional budget is still going to matter. The 4 nets still have most of the TV viewing (though not all).

 

[wadio]

Except as pointed out in post #22, it's not correct. The truth is 98% of the population has a radio in some way shape or form. Mostly in their car. The truth is 92% of the population listens at least once a week. You don't get a number like that when 21% don't have radios.

It would be hard to listen to radio less than once a week. Millennials hear it in public places, in carpools and relatives' homes.

"At least once a day" would be a more meaningful stat.

 

[TheBigA]

It would be hard to listen to radio less than once a week. Millennials hear it in public places, in carpools and relatives' homes.

"At least once a day" would be a more meaningful stat.

You miss the point completely. This is in response to the incorrect statement that 21% don't own radios. The point is they don't have to own them to hear it.

Same with music. Millennials aren't buying music, but they listen to it constantly. It's about usage not ownership.

 

[davideduardo]

It would be hard to listen to radio less than once a week. Millennials hear it in public places, in carpools and relatives' homes.

"At least once a day" would be a more meaningful stat.

If you used "at least once a day" you would have found that less than two-thirds qualified in the 70's and 80's.

The "once a day" or figure came up with the 2008 rollout of the PPM.

 

[Bongwater]

And yes, KEXP is being streamed into some of those places without OTA signals. That is obvious. And a warning.

 

[TheBigA]

And yes, KEXP is being streamed into some of those places without OTA signals. That is obvious. And a warning.

The point is that the station raised $15 million mainly from local listeners. That demonstrates a certain level of passion, don't you think?

Remember that radio stations don't own their frequencies. They're just licensees. So if people are streaming, perhaps the owner of those signals should take note. As in the FCC.

 

[KeithE4]

Remember that radio stations don't own their frequencies. They're just licensees. So if people are streaming, perhaps the owner of those signals should take note. As in the FCC.

The FCC doesn't own squat. They administer the spectrum according to laws passed by Congress, and signed by the President. But they all work (theoretically and Constitutionally, at least) for the American people. WE own the frequencies, and it's about damned time our government at all levels recognized that.

 

[TheBigA]

WE own the frequencies, and it's about damned time our government at all levels recognized that.

OK if you're taking responsibility, I have a list of things I want fixed with my frequencies. Starting with overcrowding of the FM band. Get back to me as soon as you fix it. Thanks! You're my man!

 

[Groove1670]

The FCC doesn't own squat. They administer the spectrum according to laws passed by Congress, and signed by the President. But they all work (theoretically and Constitutionally, at least) for the American people. WE own the frequencies, and it's about damned time our government at all levels recognized that.

and while you are at it... I need another 3000 watts added to my signal.

 

[KeithE4]

OK if you're taking responsibility, I have a list of things I want fixed with my frequencies. Starting with overcrowding of the FM band. Get back to me as soon as you fix it. Thanks! You're my man!

and while you are at it... I need another 3000 watts added to my signal.

I'll get my representatives at the esteemed Washington law firm of Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe right on it for both of you.

Seriously, you know what I mean. Just because we own the roads doesn't give any of us the right to run red lights or drive on the left side of the freeway. Government is necessary, but they've gone way too far.

If what both of you want is technically possible and doesn't hurt anyone else, there shouldn't be any reason why you shouldn't have it. But Congress effectively gave the Federal Government pretty much direct ownership of the electromagnetic spectrum back in the late '80s, to be sold off to the highest bidder in many cases. Show me where in the Constitution that they have such authority. SCOTUS should have thrown that out 20 years ago.

 

[TheBigA]

Congress effectively gave the Federal Government pretty much direct ownership of the electromagnetic spectrum back in the late '80s, to be sold off to the highest bidder in many cases. Show me where in the Constitution that they have such authority. SCOTUS should have thrown that out 20 years ago.

Laws don't get SCOTUS approval. For them to "throw out" a law, someone has to challenge it in court. No one has.

But Congress has done similar things with other national resources, such as water, grazing, and mineral rights. So there is precedent.

My point is that it's not the job of radio stations to protect and preserve OTA broadcasting. Radio stations simply keep those stations on the air with programming they create. At the same time, it behooves them to place that same programming on other platforms, if that's what the audience wants. So if the audience is going to phones for their audio content, that's where radio companies need to be.

 

[Oscar Madison]

Laws don't get SCOTUS approval. For them to "throw out" a law, someone has to challenge it in court. No one has.

But Congress has done similar things with other national resources, such as water, grazing, and mineral rights. So there is precedent.

My point is that it's not the job of radio stations to protect and preserve OTA broadcasting. Radio stations simply keep those stations on the air with programming they create. At the same time, it behooves them to place that same programming on other platforms, if that's what the audience wants. So if the audience is going to phones for their audio content, that's where radio companies need to be.

Not quite. They keep stations on the air with the spots they sell. They sell spots by attracting an audience. But it's not about what the audience wants. It's what the advertisers want.

The concept of "programming" is becoming obsolete. The term reflects the broadcast model, which is fast being replaced by the on-demand model. No more gatekeepers deciding what the audience wants. "Content" has replaced "programming."

 

[FreddyE1977]

One of the main things to watch will be whether free Community Access WiFi takes off. It exists in a few pockets across the country.
Regulatory barriers to it exist in others. But if access to WiFi is free and ubiquitous like the air you breathe, broadcasters may be facing a Doomsday Scenario indeed.

 

[vchimpanzee]

From what I was told some years back they decided to no longer do church closings since so many of the churches who paid for airtime already have their own websites and yes whenever services are cancelled its right there on their website.

I wouldn't turn on my computer, but there's a device at my church that calls everyone if there is news we need to know about. It's usually the pastor who records the message that we hear.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Gorman complains about "national programming," but obviously that's what the public is seeking, with options like Sirius and Pandora.

In general, that's what I have liked. ABC Stardust had Joe Lacina, Eddie Hubbard and Ron Baxley. Until recently, America's Best Music had Jeff Rollins and Carl Hampton. Music of Your Life used to have Gary Owens, Wink Martindale and Peter Marshall. You just can't have this kind of talent on a small, local station without a dish.

On the other hand, WAME Statesville NC is a small local classic country station and they have a great mix of music and personalities I thought were national until I realized they knew about local events. It was "Classic Hit Country" until around the time Cumulus took that over. WBRF Galax VA is another really good classic country station, with a powerful FM signal, and really good personalities who talk a lot more than the jocks on WAME but have lots to say about the music and the artists.

 

[semoochie]

Not quite. They keep stations on the air with the spots they sell. They sell spots by attracting an audience. But it's not about what the audience wants. It's what the advertisers want.

The concept of "programming" is becoming obsolete. The term reflects the broadcast model, which is fast being replaced by the on-demand model. No more gatekeepers deciding what the audience wants. "Content" has replaced "programming."

What the advertisers want is for the stations to attract an audience in their desired demos. I don't think they care what the programing is.

 

[TheBigA]

Not quite. They keep stations on the air with the spots they sell. They sell spots by attracting an audience. But it's not about what the audience wants. It's what the advertisers want.

And the advertisers want audience. That's what they're paying for. So by extension, it's what the mass audience wants. And even with all the available choices, nothing delivers the bulk audience as efficiently as old fashioned broadcasting.