-
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
Is there ANY hope for radio
- Thread starter jamesh
- Start date
If you're a music station - you'd better produce a LOT of (well researched) music with fewer interruptions.
There are too many options that are just better than radio in it's current format (6 minute stopsets)
I think we'll see this impact more when Internet radio is prevalent in more cars. And thats just a matter of time
If you're an information station (news, sports, etc) - you probably have more wiggle room because that audience is almost expecting longer stopsets and live reads. But all you've got to sell is your on-air personality, and I don't know how we groom future personalities if there's no way for them to "break in" to begin with
All in all, I believe there is still hope for radio.
But it is frustrating that, so far, corporate radio has given us no reason to believe that they can make it better
There are too many options that are just better than radio in it's current format (6 minute stopsets)
I think we'll see this impact more when Internet radio is prevalent in more cars. And thats just a matter of time
If you're an information station (news, sports, etc) - you probably have more wiggle room because that audience is almost expecting longer stopsets and live reads. But all you've got to sell is your on-air personality, and I don't know how we groom future personalities if there's no way for them to "break in" to begin with
All in all, I believe there is still hope for radio.
But it is frustrating that, so far, corporate radio has given us no reason to believe that they can make it better
TheBigA said:
More now than ever? How can that be?
There's more VTing, automation, syndication, et al.
How does that allow more opportunity for new talent to break in??
I know stations like Earth are the exception, but there is one place corporate radio still takes risks --- on translators. Both Chuck-FM and, particularly, X98.5, probably wouldn't have ever seen the light of day in GSP without translators (which are, I think, a nice even if unintended side-effect of HD radio). Chuck's variety hits format died when it was Charlie-FM on a main signal (albeit also skewing a bit younger in the playlist). And I don't think Alternative would have made it into the market.
Now, the unfortunate part of that is that most of the time, these stations don't have any on-air personalities so it doesn't help talent or localzation. It's really not that much different than Pandora.
Now, the unfortunate part of that is that most of the time, these stations don't have any on-air personalities so it doesn't help talent or localzation. It's really not that much different than Pandora.
GordonSims said:
Keep in mind SOMEONE is doing the VT & syndication. Those people have jobs. And most of them are pretty young. You may have to leave South Carolina. No big deal. If you want to be a recording artist or a movie star, you have to move too. Heck I've lived in ten different states during my career.
I've said this over and over but the reason HD radio hasn't worked and hasn't taken radio by storm is the same reason AM stereo never caught on big time. If you only make expensive niche receivers that can receive the signal it will never catch on. People are not going to go out and waste money on some "new fangled " expensive receiver just to "try out" some new technology. Nope they'll stick with what they have because it works. Once AM Stereo had a standard for broadcasting (remember there were many competing technologies at the time, FCC didn't standardise till 1993), they should have started making every single new receiver with AM Stereo circuitry as standard. This is the same thing that should have happened with HD Radio. If they had started doing that it would have caught on but no it flopped. It's still even hard to find more than a couple of receivers that even have the technology for HD radio built in, you can find more HD Ready (which means not HD) radios than the actual thing and still its rare. As I said, people are just not going to go out and drop a load of money on some exotic receiver just because it receives that when they aren't sure if the technology is worth it or will even stick around. Also reminds me of Dolby FM but thats another fly by night thing that passed into the history books. Sure we have several stations in the area that broadcast HD channels but the majority of people cannot hear them including me. I'm a radio nut and I am not convinced enough to go out and buy an HD receiver. Why? Well it may be gone tomorrow with the tiny minority that actually listens to it. Why would I be motivated to buy such a receiver? So no until they start making it standard on receivers it's never going to catch on. AM Stereo was a wonderful technology once they solved the platform motion problem but it was dead before it got started. They had hoped it would revive AM and I believe it would have had all manufactures been required to include the technology into every new receiver sold. If that happened then people would understand and have liked it. In fact CQUAM AM Stereo is far superior than HD radio on the AM band, that IBOC HD signal plays havoc ont he AM band, its a mess to say it lightly. Anyway that is my rant as to why HD isn't going to catch on.
^^ Yeah, I know HD radio as a whole has pretty much been a failure. I don't know the technology behind it, but is that what enabled the possibility of "translator" signals? The reason I ask is that stations like Chuck-FM and X98.5 are technically reported as WJMZHD2 and WJMZHD3. That's why I mentioned that translators may have been the one benefit that came out of HD radio (being able to have niche stations on smaller signals even for those without HD radios).
Again, I'm not sure about the technology surrounding it so I guess my question would be -- would translator stations be possible if HD radio hadn't come about?
Again, I'm not sure about the technology surrounding it so I guess my question would be -- would translator stations be possible if HD radio hadn't come about?
No translators were around way before HD, it doesn't have anything to do with HD. But yeah had they done HD like I said, I think it would have taken off. Most people that come out with a new technology don't look beyond tomorrow, they look for that quick fast buck. Had they just reduced costs and made it available everywhere and had the FCC mandated all new receivers to include it, it would be popular. They then could have made it make money for them, more listeners more money! They were short sighted just as things were with AM stereo.
clemsonbloke said:
OK. I wasn't completely sure since they are, at least in the GSP cases, registered as WJMZ-HD2 and WJMZ-HD3. I suppose that's probably just to avoid having to register the stations under different call letters and WJMZ is the source of the signals, just the "HD" part of it that threw me off.
Not exactly true. 98.5 and 97.7 couldnt exist without the HD2 and HD3. Translators can't originate programming. Many were surprised when the FCC allowed the HD side channels to be used as primaries, then repeated on translators. Cox is the only major player that was able to take advantage of the loophole here, since the other guys already are maxed out with 5 FM's.
But Mark 98.6 and 97.7 aren't HD channels. Translators really don't have anything to do with HD radio, they've been around forever, way before HD radio was even a blip on the scope.
No, they aren't. But there would be no original programming for them to simulcast without the HD2 and HD3. So they wouldn't be there. Translators have been around for a while to fill in holes that the main signal doesnt cover (i.e. 97.7 in Asheville for WSPA-FM). When HD side channels came around, but nobody bought HD radios, translators began to serve another purpose.
I stand by what I said about HD radio and why it never caught on. If they'd push it heavy in receivers it might still have a chance but I think the newness has worn off and people have dubbed it a failure.
Wait, I thought you could be maxed out and still have translators? I don't think they count towards ownership counts, do they?
clemsonbloke said:
Well, I agree with what you've said about HD radio itself, but I guess for my own selfish preferences, I'm glad that Cox found a way to use the loophole to use the translators to send out the programming that otherwise would have been restricted to HD radio. So, HD radio, sure, it never got the traction it needed. But at least Cox was sneaky enough to figure out how to make some money off of it on the side.
- Status