FYI
I'm just wondering if they are going to use AI to program their radio stations as well.
I'm just wondering if they are going to use AI to program their radio stations as well.
-
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
LiveOne Plans to Cut an Additional 25% of Staff by Year-End With a Continued Focus on Utilizing AI
- Thread starter OldiesFan55
- Start date
Which radio stations? I'm not aware they own any.
Their curated stations
What is a "curated station"?
In that case, yes they're likely all automated. The whole Slacker operation was automated a few years ago.
Meaning they are programmed by a programmer.
All stations that are not a simulcast of another station are "programmed by a programmer".
RE: "Their curated stations": it's in their blurb, on their website. In their definition, a "station" is what the rest of us would call an internet streaming "channel".
"LiveXLive has streamed over 1,800 artists since January 2020, a library featuring close to 30 million songs, 500 expertly curated radio stations, 235 podcasts/vodcasts, hundreds of pay-per-views, personalized merchandise, an NFT business, and has created a valuable connection between brands, fans, and bands."
Either way, looks like another streaming service is cutting staff. 25%. That's a fairly large chunk.
"LiveXLive has streamed over 1,800 artists since January 2020, a library featuring close to 30 million songs, 500 expertly curated radio stations, 235 podcasts/vodcasts, hundreds of pay-per-views, personalized merchandise, an NFT business, and has created a valuable connection between brands, fans, and bands."
Either way, looks like another streaming service is cutting staff. 25%. That's a fairly large chunk.
I guess it was just a matter of time. Spotify recently cut staff as well. It's sad to see this happen right before the holidays. I guess a lot of companies will be turning to AI technology.
The odd thing about it is that streaming is the future. Eventually all music will be consumed via streaming sites. Even what we still call "radio" will just be another bunch of streaming sites of various levels of importance.
And yet the big streaming sites right now don't appear to be making a lot of profit, and this is after maybe 8 years of streaming being one of the two dominant music consumption models (the other one still being terrestrial radio).
Good points
Seems strange on the surface, until you look at the high cost of music royalties. And they go up every three years.
I mentioned Slacker, and they were sued last year for $10 million by SoundExchange for non-payment of music royalties.
That doesn't include ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.
Royalties will be going up 5% next year. They will either pass that on in subscription fees or more commercials.
The unfortunate thing that may happen is that music will be a paid commodity and no longer available "for free" as it has been for over 100 years on radio.
"Free" commercial radio is fading due to less add money and lower audience levels. Free streams with ads seems not to be profitable, leaving paid services. And there is a percentage of the population, both in the US and the world, that can not pay for such sources.
What the regulators who determine artist and label royalties don't seem to take into account is the accessibility of music to people of lower income... and in the world view, in less prosperous nations. Will music become a luxury item like Netflix?
That's really what the recording industry wants. They have a campaign called "Music Has Value" that is trying to force the big streamers to eliminate ad-sponsored streaming. My take is that subscription fees are artificially low now in order to encourage people to subscribe, and that will look better to record labels. But companies such as Apple and Amazon can afford to lose money on their streaming services, in order to make it up elsewhere. Companies like Spotify, LiveX, or TuneIn don't have such deep pockets.
That's what happens when you have royalty judges making these decisions, rather than a negotiated royalty as we have in radio with the PROs. The music industry likes having judges, because they always favor music makers, while a negotiated royalty is based on market conditions. When radio companies talk about adding a label royalty, they always want a negotiated royalty, and MusicFirst doesn't.
So, as the poster who seems to have the greatest rights knowledge and experience, how do you see music fees affecting radio, free ad supported streams and the costs of paid streams and on-demand services 5 to 10 years out?
The one thing radio companies keep saying is they want a discount for streaming music royalties in exchange for any new royalty on broadcasting. Joe Crowley at Music First says that's not going to happen, and he still wants congress to impose their royalty without any radio involvement. If he gets it, that's the end of free radio as we know it. Radio companies have held to the concept of no pay walls on their streams, but it becomes harder every time the fees go up.
I read, on a website that is musician-oriented, which lists the digital royalties that are paid out to artists by the streaming services, that the streaming services in places like India and other parts of the 'Third World' charge less in subscriptions and consequently pay less in royalties to artists (worldwide), apparently by government fiat, or by negotiation between record companies, musical content creators, and those countries' streaming services.
Obviously, nothing like that can happen here in the US, where your subscription cost is fixed, not on a rolling scale depending on your income level. But I wonder if -- at some point in the distant future -- something like that would be considered. Because once radio goes, and if online streamers no longer use adverts to cover streaming costs, the bottom 10% (or more) will be SOL when it comes to music consumption. I sort of doubt there would be a revival of the CD, MP3 player, or MP3 file sharing (aka 'piracy'). But you never know.
Probably if royalties make subscriptions less affordable to enough people, the market forces would dictate and keep the royalties lower. Music content creators would complain, but one would think the music marketplace can only support a certain level of royalties.
I know that BigA once said a year or so back that the royalty issue may be what keeps FM, OTA radio alive. Because the cost is free.
- Status