S
-
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
It's just a learning deficiency. And the inability to comprehend a reality check.
I
imhomerjay
Guest
Wow, what a surprise. Educated, credentialed experts are of course wrong compared to an Internet hobbyist.
The point of the article is right. So far, no other challenger has emerged with a viable business model that replicates the ease and uniformity of experience. From the nightstand clock radio to the shower radio to the kitchen cabintet radio to the living room/family room setero to the portable radio out in the garage to the one on the worksite (especially those folks not working on an Internet connected computer all day) to the car radio...that's a lot of different places where the technology works essentially the same way. The Web stuff is an amusing enough little diversion, but it has light years to become as affordable and viable for all of those type of listening environments. Never mind the pesky issue of attracting enough listeners to attract enough $ to ever be much more than the jukebox they decry over-the-air radio as being. Satellite? At least they moved in the right direction for portability, and there is a big lesson to be learned there.
Other business models may emerge that find space to co-exist, but that does not mean they will replace the existing dominant model, just take some bites here and there, silly and pompous claims to the contrary.
Broadcast TV changed and adapted to the competition; so, too, can radio. No, it won't resemble the 1960s or 70s or 80s, and it may resemble more the broadcast TV model of today with mostly syndication. Not all will survive, but the model will continue to evolve, just as it did when it survived the advent of TV.
The point of the article is right. So far, no other challenger has emerged with a viable business model that replicates the ease and uniformity of experience. From the nightstand clock radio to the shower radio to the kitchen cabintet radio to the living room/family room setero to the portable radio out in the garage to the one on the worksite (especially those folks not working on an Internet connected computer all day) to the car radio...that's a lot of different places where the technology works essentially the same way. The Web stuff is an amusing enough little diversion, but it has light years to become as affordable and viable for all of those type of listening environments. Never mind the pesky issue of attracting enough listeners to attract enough $ to ever be much more than the jukebox they decry over-the-air radio as being. Satellite? At least they moved in the right direction for portability, and there is a big lesson to be learned there.
Other business models may emerge that find space to co-exist, but that does not mean they will replace the existing dominant model, just take some bites here and there, silly and pompous claims to the contrary.
Broadcast TV changed and adapted to the competition; so, too, can radio. No, it won't resemble the 1960s or 70s or 80s, and it may resemble more the broadcast TV model of today with mostly syndication. Not all will survive, but the model will continue to evolve, just as it did when it survived the advent of TV.
Look Homer, I appreciate that you are attached to your radios. I find that endearing. However, I personally have 35-years of professional experience with the broadcast sciences and my family decades before that. When I tell you the technology and listener trends have already changed dramatically, you’d be best to take that under advisement. A handy scattering of working antiques scattered around your house and in your shower does not make a for via investment future.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/cq?d=v1&...i,JRN,cmls,sbgi,cxr,cbs,fsci,bbgi,sga,evc,arb
Get a new cell phone and you’ll rarely listen to your antiques again. Discover portable internet protocol and change your life.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/cq?d=v1&...i,JRN,cmls,sbgi,cxr,cbs,fsci,bbgi,sga,evc,arb
Get a new cell phone and you’ll rarely listen to your antiques again. Discover portable internet protocol and change your life.
The only way to make terrestrial radio viable again (and I don't believe it's too late, but it's ALMOST there) is to make radio the way it should sound. Open up the playlists. Bring back local DJ's, news, and community interest. As radio stands now, there's no reason for anyone to turn off their internet, their Ipod, their phone, their whatever thing that plays music. But if radio is made exciting again like it was say 25 years ago, then we may be on to something.
I don't think the last nail is being hammered into radio's coffin just yet. And It's hysterical that you're calling them antiques already. I guess the millions of people that tune into hear their favorite morning show or some tunes in the shower, kitchen or car are living in the past! You make it sound like Ralphy tuning into Little Orphan Annie in A Christmas Story!
I think we ALL know about technology and listener trends. There are plenty of other options. But, not everyone is a tech head or even a little tech savvy and not everyone is catching on as quickly as you think. And here is a quote from the first article I googled about radio listenership...
“AM/FM radio listeners increased by 3 million in 2008, bringing the number of weekly radio listeners to 235 million”
That's a really high percentage of the population. (Granted a few articles about internet listening being up 36% also came up in the same google search.) But if that many people are still tuning in AND it's going up. The medium can still be viable.
Radios will be around in 5 years, 10 years and 20 years. Who will own them and what will they sound like? That's anybody's guess.
We are years and years away from your Average Joe and Betty discovering portable internet protocol. And will it really change the life of the dude that just wants to hear a rock song and a girl that just wants to hear the hot top40 song of the moment?
I think we ALL know about technology and listener trends. There are plenty of other options. But, not everyone is a tech head or even a little tech savvy and not everyone is catching on as quickly as you think. And here is a quote from the first article I googled about radio listenership...
“AM/FM radio listeners increased by 3 million in 2008, bringing the number of weekly radio listeners to 235 million”
That's a really high percentage of the population. (Granted a few articles about internet listening being up 36% also came up in the same google search.) But if that many people are still tuning in AND it's going up. The medium can still be viable.
Radios will be around in 5 years, 10 years and 20 years. Who will own them and what will they sound like? That's anybody's guess.
We are years and years away from your Average Joe and Betty discovering portable internet protocol. And will it really change the life of the dude that just wants to hear a rock song and a girl that just wants to hear the hot top40 song of the moment?
J
JimmyJames
Guest
Ever browsed the files people share or what they put on their custom playlists, pandora, last.fm music charts, etc?
Practically no "format" accounts for people's actual listening.
Practically no "format" accounts for people's actual listening.
Yeah so? Every look at somebody else's ipod? They all have a 1,000 or more songs, but they listen to same 100.
235 million people listen to radio every week. Just because the hipsters online like to out hip each other doesn't mean radio is dead.
235 million people listen to radio every week. Just because the hipsters online like to out hip each other doesn't mean radio is dead.
J
JimmyJames
Guest
I'm not referring to indie rock snobs, I'm referring to people who have a variety of pop/rock/country/oldies/hits. They may be listening to popular/mainstream artists but their variety is still a lot more in terms of texture than even Jack FM pulls off.
I
imhomerjay
Guest
OK, Sam, I'll take it all under advisement.
Eh, I almost said it with a straight face. Your self-promoting is laudable, probably even necessary. And bully for your family history. None of it changes he fact that IP is not now and will not for decades at least be anything more than a cute little niche business for however many people want to play radio guy.
Cell phones? Seriously? Mobile carriers are already bumping up against the limits of how many more add-ons people are willing to pay for. Get past those early tech geeks who throw money away on everything just because it exists and let's see how popular it is on a wide scale. Never mind the impracticality of replicating the experience in all of the ways radio already can, and you've got something already with strikes against it.
The highway of technology is littered with plenty of grandiose promises and declarations of death for what came before. A relative few succeed because they make things easier, not harder. IP ain't in that category for the function radio fulfills.
It isn't going to be a future of local DJs all day (and certainly not news on music formats in an era of news at your fingertips). It's going to be leaner, and like much of American life, less localized (hellllllo, we are a much more transient society now than decades ago). But it isn't close to dead yet when you recognize that economic downturns are cyclical, even this brutal one. It's an effecient delivery mechanism for advertisers that no one else has been able to supplant yet. New technologies will dilute the pool as they always do, but like broadcast TV, it's here to stay for some time to come.
Eh, I almost said it with a straight face. Your self-promoting is laudable, probably even necessary. And bully for your family history. None of it changes he fact that IP is not now and will not for decades at least be anything more than a cute little niche business for however many people want to play radio guy.
Cell phones? Seriously? Mobile carriers are already bumping up against the limits of how many more add-ons people are willing to pay for. Get past those early tech geeks who throw money away on everything just because it exists and let's see how popular it is on a wide scale. Never mind the impracticality of replicating the experience in all of the ways radio already can, and you've got something already with strikes against it.
The highway of technology is littered with plenty of grandiose promises and declarations of death for what came before. A relative few succeed because they make things easier, not harder. IP ain't in that category for the function radio fulfills.
It isn't going to be a future of local DJs all day (and certainly not news on music formats in an era of news at your fingertips). It's going to be leaner, and like much of American life, less localized (hellllllo, we are a much more transient society now than decades ago). But it isn't close to dead yet when you recognize that economic downturns are cyclical, even this brutal one. It's an effecient delivery mechanism for advertisers that no one else has been able to supplant yet. New technologies will dilute the pool as they always do, but like broadcast TV, it's here to stay for some time to come.
I'm supposed to listen to something like radio on a tiny little speaker about half an inch wide?
Or am I expected to interface to yet another device for some kind of meaningful audio output?
Neither is acceptable when radios, antique or not, come in complete packages with real speakers.
Nor is the price for "unlimited streaming" on a cellphone device.
1960's pocket transistor radios still sound better than any audio I've heard on my Motorola cellphone, and I'm not about
to "upgrade" to something that's not quite a phone or a computer but wants to be both.
The cell systems haven't the bandwidth or capacity to serve as many listeners as radio does.
There's really no difference in streaming audio over a cellphone, and just having a dial-up method where you could listen to
the stations audio on a plain-old telephone line, except for all the whiz-bang golly-gosh hi tech of the cellular system.
Except the POTS audio would be limited to 3k, and wouldn't have the artifacting of a digital lo-bitrate stream.
Or am I expected to interface to yet another device for some kind of meaningful audio output?
Neither is acceptable when radios, antique or not, come in complete packages with real speakers.
Nor is the price for "unlimited streaming" on a cellphone device.
1960's pocket transistor radios still sound better than any audio I've heard on my Motorola cellphone, and I'm not about
to "upgrade" to something that's not quite a phone or a computer but wants to be both.
The cell systems haven't the bandwidth or capacity to serve as many listeners as radio does.
There's really no difference in streaming audio over a cellphone, and just having a dial-up method where you could listen to
the stations audio on a plain-old telephone line, except for all the whiz-bang golly-gosh hi tech of the cellular system.
Except the POTS audio would be limited to 3k, and wouldn't have the artifacting of a digital lo-bitrate stream.
My transistor radio I had when I was 11 sounded better than my cellphone. I don't understand why it's cool,to listen to audio that sounds like a tin can.
I never believed that "everybody" is going to be listening to a way-out, hyperniched format on the internet and that that will lead to the death of radio. The answer to radio's problems is not to roll the clock back to 1972, however.
I never believed that "everybody" is going to be listening to a way-out, hyperniched format on the internet and that that will lead to the death of radio. The answer to radio's problems is not to roll the clock back to 1972, however.
To take a true temperature of radio's health, it pays to look more at revenue streams than listeners.
With the exception of larger markets, radio's advertiser base is faced with less costly and more effective methods of getting the word out.
Consider the advertising options available for Joe Business Owner in Anytown USA. He most likely has the community newspaper (if one still exists, perhaps hobbled by the same plight as radio) as well as hyper-targeted print offerings such as 'weekend' type publications, as well as print that targets a specific region or neighborhood. Joe also has his choice of cable offerings, that can be drawn down to specific program if not by geography as well.
Also, Joe could get a web site. Not to say it'll be effective, but at least some of Joe's advertising dollars are going to be used up in that venue.
Large market stations have the luxury (and audience) to sell to big-budget advertisers (you know, the ones who don't give prices AND hours AND addresses) whose measure of success isn't the number of widgets they sell, but the effectiveness of keeping a brand in the mind of the consumer.
Is radio being passed by? Sure.
But not merely in the way we normally think. There are far more causes of death than just iPods, downloads and satellite.
With the exception of larger markets, radio's advertiser base is faced with less costly and more effective methods of getting the word out.
Consider the advertising options available for Joe Business Owner in Anytown USA. He most likely has the community newspaper (if one still exists, perhaps hobbled by the same plight as radio) as well as hyper-targeted print offerings such as 'weekend' type publications, as well as print that targets a specific region or neighborhood. Joe also has his choice of cable offerings, that can be drawn down to specific program if not by geography as well.
Also, Joe could get a web site. Not to say it'll be effective, but at least some of Joe's advertising dollars are going to be used up in that venue.
Large market stations have the luxury (and audience) to sell to big-budget advertisers (you know, the ones who don't give prices AND hours AND addresses) whose measure of success isn't the number of widgets they sell, but the effectiveness of keeping a brand in the mind of the consumer.
Is radio being passed by? Sure.
But not merely in the way we normally think. There are far more causes of death than just iPods, downloads and satellite.
imhomerjay said:
Tom Wells said:
Ignorance is bliss.
Sam Lit said:
The basic concept of broadcast radio is ONE transmitter feeding an "UNLIMITED" number of receivers.
Internet service does not acheive anywhere near the level of efficiency (of method, if not power-wise) and requires a separate stream to each listener.
How many servers do you need to stream to 10,000 listeners?
I don't want to argue, because I do podcast, but my part 15 station on AM has a dedicated 100% uptime "server" which gathers no invoices.
I have a lot more faith in the laws of physics than any wired network.
And I'm not suggesting that YOU are ignorant, so please keep this conversation adult and civilized.
EVERONE is ignorant, just on different subjects.
If you have more points and explanations to make, do so.
What's the point of calling something an antique? Automobiles are "antiques" by your standards.
So is "walking". Do you get around on a Segway?
Far from the dismissive "ignorance" comment there were some serious questions raised and it might be nice to have an answer rather than an insult. is "everyone" really going to pay another monthly fee for streamed content for their cellphone or some other device? Has "everyone" subscribed to satellite (threatening bankruptcy by the way). What about the streaming issue? Can you really stream to 10000, or even 100000 at once?
I
imhomerjay
Guest
Lacking any meaningful evidence or track record to the contrary, we see that all the IP prophet can offer is juvenile insults. Classy, oh so classy.
Ironic, too, to come to a board about such an antique medium to spam with insults and tirades about the death of said medium.
Cost, practicality...these are hugely significant issues. True ignorance is pretending they don't exist.
Ironic, too, to come to a board about such an antique medium to spam with insults and tirades about the death of said medium.
Cost, practicality...these are hugely significant issues. True ignorance is pretending they don't exist.
another listener here. when satellite radio emerged I refused,and continue to refuse,to pay a monthly subscription to a service that requires I buy their equipment AND thier services. Sirius has swallowed XM and is STILL headed for bankruptcy. FM continues to broadcast to any FM reciever that can grab the signal. Yes it has commercials....so does cable TV and everyone PAYS for THAT even though the original idea was that subscriber revenue made the need for commercials obsolete. I do happen to stream my favorite stations while at home but only because the terrestrial signals are now HD or web only.
Tom Wells said:
Well, I can only speak for Hy Lit Radio Technologies. We own all of our own infrastructure. Therefore, subsequently, the inherent sophistication of our network systems can stream across all platforms a practically unlimited number of streams from redundant server systems. This provides global capacity, using the highest bit rates, for a sound quality and system integrity that exceeds many traditional forms of media. Granite perhaps, we may be unique to that degree. This was part of the criteria that Hy defined at the point of our launch many years ago.
The idea that one singular transmitter is a prerequisite definition for broadcasting is as sound as a *dodo.
*The dodo (Raphus cucullatus) was a flightless bird endemic to the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius. Related to pigeons and doves, living on fruit and nesting on the ground.
1. Any of several clumsy, flightless, extinct birds, related to pigeons but about the size of a turkey, formerly inhabiting the islands of Mauritius.
2. Slang. A dull-witted, slow-reacting person.
3. A person with old-fashioned, conservative, or outmoded ideas.
4. A thing that is outmoded or obsolete
I do not suggest that a transmitter is prerequisite for sound transmission.
I suggested that it is optimal for several reasons that do not require any infrastructure, as the "ether" just works.
Except for major solar eruptions and sun spot "storms" (very rare) I see few problems with depending on something so dependable.
But here I am on the internet, so I do appreciate the usefulness of such infrastructure.
As a radio engineer, I see it as a hugely wasteful, inefficient way to make "radio".
No problem with your mode of distributing audio, it good! It's not radio, though. When it works like a radio, I'm buying one,
unless it's supposed to be in my cellphone.
I suggested that it is optimal for several reasons that do not require any infrastructure, as the "ether" just works.
Except for major solar eruptions and sun spot "storms" (very rare) I see few problems with depending on something so dependable.
But here I am on the internet, so I do appreciate the usefulness of such infrastructure.
As a radio engineer, I see it as a hugely wasteful, inefficient way to make "radio".
No problem with your mode of distributing audio, it good! It's not radio, though. When it works like a radio, I'm buying one,
unless it's supposed to be in my cellphone.
- Status