K-G-Oh my gawd!

[DavidKaye]

I gotta figure there will be no place for music radio in a decade. I haven't gotten up on my soapbox in a long time, but it annoys the hell out of me how thousands of radio stations use pre-recorded music as the basis for their programming and except for songwriter royalties they pay squat for it. Not only do they get that programming for free, but they more often than not won't even give any credit to the artists or identify the titles of the songs they play. And worse yet, most stations can't even be bothered to play new music.

Radio stations do NOT pay "squat" for it. Royalties make up a substantial part of a radio station's expenditures. I once worked for a talkradio station that restricted hosts' theme songs to 55 seconds, to be sure that the themes were under :60. The owner thought that he wouldn't have to pay royalties on music that was less than 1 minute long. Well, no. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC also collect for theme songs. He got hammered by BMI over that one.

 

[LKellerIII]

I think radio will have a place for some time, at least until wireless Internet access is ubiquitous. You still can't beat radio for talk, news and traffic updates.

Uh, yes you can. Anywhere you have a simple cell phone you can get news and traffic updates. Heck, with my simple flip phone with nearly 10 year old technology I can get accurate bus schedules, traffic, news, and stock quotes. I can bank and trade stocks online.

As for talk? Well, I have friends for that, friends that I see in person, people I play board games with, people I have dinner with, people I work on art projects with. And the talk is way more engaging than listening to what "Joe in Moraga" has to say about things.

I couldn't agree more. The (mostly) lame callers ("Joe in Moraga" etc.) are the reason I mostly gave up Talk Radio a decade or so ago. That and the fact that the incendiary nature of most talk radio gets my blood pressure up...and I don't need that anymore.

I get most of my news, traffic, and weather info off the internet - unless I am in the car, naturally, and KQED has higher quality news and the same traffic reports as the commercial stations. There's a reason newspapers are dying...perhaps radio is not so far behind.

 

[davideduardo]

Like I said in other threads some cars like Toyota, Ford and Tesla already have Dashboard internet. But we will have to wait 8-10 years like DavidEduardo said until it is implemented.

What I actually said is that it will take a long time to bring factory internet dashboards to a large portion of the population.

The average age of a car in the US is now over 10 years, so assuming every new car sold from today on had an an internet dashboard, in one year only about 5% to 6% of all cars would have it... and 10% after two years, etc.

Of course, there are plug-in options with smart phones, some that can be done now without rebuilding the car. But not everyone has a smart phone.

More significant is the cost of streaming as opposed to off the air radio. Read Sean Ross' column this week here on the radio-info site; he explains what can happen to your cellular data plan and rate if you use a lot of streaming media.

 

[davideduardo]

I wonder how feasible it would be to reduce the spectrum in areas where wireless Internet is readily available while still allowing that spectrum to be used for terrestrial radio in rural areas.

Please read Sean Ross' column today.

Not everyone has a smartphone.

99% of cars do not have internet dashboards.

Not everyone can afford data plans that allow lots of streaming.

Off the air radio is free. None of the other options are.

 

[davideduardo]

I gotta figure there will be no place for music radio in a decade.

In case you have not noticed, terrestrial radio is morphing into multi-platform radio. Look at Clear Channel's iHeart operation, which is obviously the designated heir to their terrestrial operations.

I haven't gotten up on my soapbox in a long time, but it annoys the hell out of me how thousands of radio stations use pre-recorded music as the basis for their programming and except for songwriter royalties they pay squat for it.

Looking at the new accord with one of the two major performance royalty entities, the payments will amount to around 4% of revenues... based on perhaps a 30% margin today, that means that radio is paying over 10% of its profits for music rights... along with salaries, rent, insurance, utilities, taxes, etc. Hardly "squat" particularly if you realize that historically about half of stations break even or lose money.

Not only do they get that programming for free, but they more often than not won't even give any credit to the artists or identify the titles of the songs they play. And worse yet, most stations can't even be bothered to play new music.

Stations now provide artist information via online "playing now" or RDS displays. First you say that radio as we know it know will go away, and then you give no credit if radio uses new technology, such as for artist data... including "buy it now" options... online.

Most people don't want to hear new music, or, at most, want very little of it.

Young people have already migrated to other media for their music.

No, they haven't. Look at the usage by teens and young adults. Well over 80% user radio, but just not as much as in the past. Radio is an option, just as streaming is. While we are in an obvious transition, there are still lots of barriers to an all-streaming world.

 

[kirksan]

I think radio will have a place for some time, at least until wireless Internet access is ubiquitous. You still can't beat radio for talk, news and traffic updates.

Uh, yes you can. Anywhere you have a simple cell phone you can get news and traffic updates. Heck, with my simple flip phone with nearly 10 year old technology I can get accurate bus schedules, traffic, news, and stock quotes. I can bank and trade stocks online.

The point I was trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to make, is that radio will be around until wireless Internet is everywhere. Even your 10 year old phone is useless where there's no cell coverage, and there are plenty of places, particularly for drivers, where there's no way to stream or access anything. Once that changes we have no need for over the air Radio though.

As for talk? Well, I have friends for that, friends that I see in person, people I play board games with, people I have dinner with, people I work on art projects with. And the talk is way more engaging than listening to what "Joe in Moraga" has to say about things.

That's nice, but talk radio has long been a popular format because there's plenty of times folks want to listen to analysis, interviews, other viewpoints, and so on. Even you have said that some hosts are entertaining, and to quote Gene Burns, that's why they make chocolate and vanilla.

 

[kirksan]

Please read Sean Ross' column today.

Not everyone has a smartphone.

99% of cars do not have internet dashboards.

Not everyone can afford data plans that allow lots of streaming.

Off the air radio is free. None of the other options are.

I just read Sean Ross' column and the points he makes echo my experience, with the exception that I listen to a lot of streaming that isn't available over-the-air, particularly twit.tv. As streaming becomes more available and popular I think we'll see content providers that have little or no over the air presence. Twit.tv is one example, there's Leo Laporte's weekend show, but the weekday stuff is 100% streamed. Another would be Glenn Beck, as vile as he is, the syndicated radio show is a small part of his operation. In the next few years I believe we'll see lots of live streaming "stations" that aim for niche audiences. Twit.tv is an example for the techie crowd, and it makes sense they were among the first; the same applies with far-rightwing hosts like Glenn Beck. Why not live talk for tango dancers (trust me, they're rabid)? How about soccer enthusiasts? It's cheap to setup the operations, and bandwidth costs increase with the number of listeners, so ad revenue should increase linearly.

One potential problem Sean Ross brings up is the ridiculous caps the mobile providers put on Internet usage. This pisses me off. My daughter, who's on my AT&T plan, has a grandfathered unlimited data plan for $30/month and she recently got notified that she's in the top 5% of users and her bandwidth will be throttled if she goes over next month. According to AT&T's website she's used 1.5GB during the past month. That may sound like a lot, but the metered plan AT&T offers has a $30/month option that gets you 3GB/month of data -- twice what she's currently using. Of-course, there's no bandwidth throttling on the metered plan, if you go over you pay $10 for an extra GB.

This is the insidious nature of these new throttling policies. For those of us who have been paying for unlimited usage we're now forced to self-limit the amount of data we consume. If they always chop off the top 5%, before long unlimited usage will be throttled well before we get our money's worth. If the top 5% of AT&T users are truly using just 1.5GB of data a month then AT&T shouldn't be throttling at all.

Of-course, this situation needs to change before streaming can truly replace over-the-air radio.

 

[DaveBayArea]

Of-course, this situation needs to change before streaming can truly replace over-the-air radio.

I had a thought about that. Why does it have to be streaming live? Internet radio is largely canned music that is pre-programmed. Your portable or mobile devices could easily grab the programming for your few dozen favorite stations via high-bandwidth wifi, then store it locally for playback as you move around. Kinda like an automatic podcast retrieval system.

Dave B.

 

[kirksan]

I had a thought about that. Why does it have to be streaming live? Internet radio is largely canned music that is pre-programmed. Your portable or mobile devices could easily grab the programming for your few dozen favorite stations via high-bandwidth wifi, then store it locally for playback as you move around. Kinda like an automatic podcast retrieval system.

Dave B.

That works for music. You can download an hours worth of music in a few seconds, get exactly what you want, and there's no need for Internet after the initial download. This is one of many reasons I think music over the air will die soon. I don't think it works as well for talk though. Sure, you can grab a bunch of podcasts, and I certainly listen to my fair share -- check out Dan Carlin's Hardcore History, it's fantastic, if a bit long.

I do think there's still a space for live talk radio though. Sometimes call-in shows are nice, but even without callers, topical discussion on recent events (politics, sports, niche interest groups) are better live IMHO. Until there's ubiquitous mobile Internet I don't see the large demo's (probably politics and sports) moving to the Internet exclusively. We're already seeing special interest live shows popping up on the Internet though, the aforementioned twit.tv is a good example.

 

[jussomeguy]

Internet cars and the history of music radio are both interesting topics, but eight pages of posts later I'm wondering how this thread meandered off to those topics from K-G-Oh my gawd.... and where it will go next?

 

[DavidKaye]

Internet cars and the history of music radio are both interesting topics, but eight pages of posts later I'm wondering how this thread meandered off to those topics from K-G-Oh my gawd.... and where it will go next?

This topic drift isn't so bad because the real topic is whether radio is relevant anymore.

 

[MC]

start it over when some new information is available.

 

[chris319]

Come back in a month to see how much further KGO's ratings have plunged.

 

[onairb]

Sometimes being in the business can give you tunnel vision.
David Kaye's informal survey at a Bart station 8 years ago resonated with me.
During my 20 years in SF, KSFO, KGO-TV and radio I aways thought that KGO was a household word.
Then I actually met people in the 80's & 90's who never heard of KGO. Yeah, I was surprised ...welcome to the real world.

Jerry Gordon, Jack B. show, Salem radio network

I grew up in the Bay Area during the '80s and 90s. Aside from some kids in junior high and high school who listened to Giants and A's broadcasts, I don't think the other 99.9% of my classmates knew what AM radio was. I do remember some discussion when KSFO changed ownership in '83, since it seemed like evryone's parents listened to that station, but by the late '80s, FM radio was so dominant, that I think I was the only one in my schools who listened to it for more than sports.

What is "FM"? Never heard of it

Fading Memory ;D

 

[Bongwater]

Internet cars and the history of music radio are both interesting topics, but eight pages of posts later I'm wondering how this thread meandered off to those topics from K-G-Oh my gawd.... and where it will go next?

This topic drift isn't so bad because the real topic is whether radio is relevant anymore.

The radio industry has had a history of denying internet radio. While keeping one foot cautiously in the pool, they usually say

"Yeah RIGHT! It's a geek toy. And it sounds like CRAP" (1999)

"When you can drag a desktop PC anywhere, let me know. But this HD Radio! That's as far as you'll ever get" (2003)

"Have you seen it out there? We're in a RECESSION. Everybody's cutting back on everything. Trust me, it ain't gonna happen" (2007)

"Have you seen the data plan prices?" (2011)

Yet somehow, there's a rush in this biz to create their own cyber services and apps by the same people who deride internet radio on the whole.

It's the same argument made by the land line companies vs. the cell phone in 1995. The reality is it's HERE, increasingly available and just starting to gain traction. The only way you can stop it is to stop the march of mobile technology. And good luck doing that.

When products and unlimited streaming data plans come down to the affordability of even the poorest of folks (and like the cell phone did, they will. Check back here in five years if you think I'm kidding) traditional terrestrial radio will REALLY be in for the fight of it's life.

The demand is there. Mobile availability is growing. To assume it's still off in the distant future or something that will never amount to anything more a niche is self delusional at best.

The next 10 years are going to be interesting......

 

[EastBay]

The demand is there. Mobile availability is growing. To assume it's still off in the distant future or something that will never amount to anything more a niche is self delusional at best.

The next 10 years are going to be interesting......

There is a lot of truth to that, though there are some technical realities that will keep terrestrial radio relevant for a while. I think we can all agree that the quality and variety of choices with terrestrial radio has diminished, which is why many have reached out for alternatives like XM or even just their own iPods.

That said, there are many, many places- especially here in California- where a high-bandwidth cell signal is just not available. I can get a lot of internet radio stations using an app on my iPhone (like SOMA FM), and use a 3G signal to pull in the music. But when I travel in between cell towers or up in the hills, that 3G signal is pretty unreliable at best. With terrestrial radio, the signal is omnipresent- granted it has some limitations too, but not like a digital signal.

Even XM, which I have, is not always totally reliable. In the flats it's perfect, but when I'm in the hills (which is all the time), the signal can be blocked by hills and/or trees.

Bongwater is probably right in the long run, but there are some serious technical challenges to overcome before we can truly say that terrestrial radio is on its deathbed.

 

[stewie]

The demand is there. Mobile availability is growing. To assume it's still off in the distant future or something that will never amount to anything more a niche is self delusional at best.

The next 10 years are going to be interesting......

There is a lot of truth to that, though there are some technical realities that will keep terrestrial radio relevant for a while. I think we can all agree that the quality and variety of choices with terrestrial radio has diminished, which is why many have reached out for alternatives like XM or even just their own iPods.

That said, there are many, many places- especially here in California- where a high-bandwidth cell signal is just not available. I can get a lot of internet radio stations using an app on my iPhone (like SOMA FM), and use a 3G signal to pull in the music. But when I travel in between cell towers or up in the hills, that 3G signal is pretty unreliable at best. With terrestrial radio, the signal is omnipresent- granted it has some limitations too, but not like a digital signal.

Even XM, which I have, is not always totally reliable. In the flats it's perfect, but when I'm in the hills (which is all the time), the signal can be blocked by hills and/or trees.

Bongwater is probably right in the long run, but there are some serious technical challenges to overcome before we can truly say that terrestrial radio is on its deathbed.

You're both right and I agree with your assessment in rural areas. Internet delivered radio (media) has grown a TON in the last few years and will continue to gain momentum in the next few years. The big downfall is the lack of support for a "multicast" broadcast. Radio's advantage continues to be it's biggest disadvantage, a one to many approach where as Internet radio remains point to point.

It will get better, sooner than later.

 

[DavidKaye]

There is a lot of truth to that, though there are some technical realities that will keep terrestrial radio relevant for a while. I think we can all agree that the quality and variety of choices with terrestrial radio has diminished, which is why many have reached out for alternatives like XM or even just their own iPods.

The only thing, and I mean the ONLY thing terrestrial radio has going for it is "live and local". That's it. Take that away and local radio simply can't compete with the internet.

 

[EastBay]

The only thing, and I mean the ONLY thing terrestrial radio has going for it is "live and local". That's it. Take that away and local radio simply can't compete with the internet.

Agreed, except when you're in a car- that's where terrestrial radio still has the technical advantages. In a building, all bets are off.

 

[DavidKaye]

Agreed, except when you're in a car- that's where terrestrial radio still has the technical advantages. In a building, all bets are off.

Cell phones. I have a friend who docks his iPhone in his car and the thing plays internet streams through his car radio speakers. This is the bee's knees in audio/radio these days.