Radio at a cross roads ...

[SDRadio]

Is radio at a cross roads? Satellite, internet streaming, your cell phone, cable/satellite TV with audio music channels.

[*]Would you pay for local radio over the net? For example, if there was a service that had most (if not all) of San Diego's station for a subscription for webcasting, would you pay for it?

[*]What about HDRadio, the In Band, On Channel digital service that is being heard in the market. Would you invest in a radio that could get two audio channels, and a fast data stream?

[*]What about good ole analog service -- is it a relic?

Your comments, as always, are appreciated, see YOU on the radio ... and remember to look BOTH WAYS before crossing the super internet highway,

Stay Tuned<P ID="signature">______________
+--
Chris
SDRadio.net</P>

 

[Crusty_Bob]

> Would you pay for local radio over the net? For example, if
> there was a service that had most (if not all) of San
> Diego's station for a subscription for webcasting, would you
> pay for it?
>


Why pay for "local" radio which, for the most part, is local only in its commercials (and even those typically get deleted from webcasts)?


I might pay for premium access to something like live365.com, but really I can listen for free to outstanding radio from all over the world that far surpasses anything on local radio.

 

[hipman]

> Is radio at a cross roads? Satellite, internet streaming,
> your cell phone, cable/satellite TV with audio music
> channels.

iPods, mp3s on CD-Rs, video games, illegal movie downloads,
etc. Today's broadcaster never had it this competetive before.

>
> Would you pay for local radio over the net? For example, if
> there was a service that had most (if not all) of San
> Diego's station for a subscription for webcasting, would you
> pay for it?

Only if: 1) 128kbps streams were available without network congestion.
2) some kind of advertising (no thanks to the greedy AFTRA actors) to help
offset the cost. 3) at least 24 hours of a radio station is set aside for
public access either barter or paid by the host. Radio needs to start giving
something back to the people they are serving.

> What about HDRadio, the In Band, On Channel digital service
> that is being heard in the market. Would you invest in a
> radio that could get two audio channels, and a fast data
> stream?

Possible if it offered whatever is missing from the local airwaves such as
most of the concepts on satellite radio.

> What about good ole analog service -- is it a relic?

It used to be a thrill back in the 70s and 80s, but with Internet streaming,
it's made the barrier to pick up an out of town station almost vanish. Every station worth its weight in gold needs to stream its station to remain competetive with the other mediums that are now engrained into today's culture.
I myself have been an Internet radio freak for nearly nine years at home, and if wireless Internet radio ever takes off, the local broadcasters better rev up to keep pace with the other streamers.

> Your comments, as always, are appreciated, see YOU on the
> radio ... and remember to look BOTH WAYS before crossing the
> super internet highway,

Rats! I got a flat. I'm stuck listening to Channel 933 until I replace it with a spare.

> Stay Tuned
> <P ID="signature">______________
http://www.sandiegoradionews.com/ - stuff not seen in the papers.
http://radiosd.proboards3.com/ - new SDN forum.
</P>

 

[TradingSpaces]

Crusty Bob said:
"I can listen for free to outstanding radio from all over the world that far surpasses anything on local radio."

Is THAT ever true! How does a local broadcaster even BEGIN to compete with that?

 

[k9ez]

> Crusty Bob said:
> "I can listen for free to outstanding radio from all over
> the world that far surpasses anything on local radio."
>
> Is THAT ever true! How does a local broadcaster even BEGIN
> to compete with that?
>


Easy....most listeners are tuned in while in their cars. Most people do not have laptops, wireless access or another type of unit that can connect to the internet to listen to these stations.

Your typical listener does not want to take the time to set up things to listen to stations "all over the world". They want to turn their radio on and get something they can listen to.... local news, weather, music, traffic.

Terrestrial radio is easy, there is no set up, and most people can find something to listen to.

 

[johndavis]

> Would you pay for local radio over the net? For example, if
> there was a service that had most (if not all) of San
> Diego's station for a subscription for webcasting, would you
> pay for it?

No. Why bother?

> What about HDRadio, the In Band, On Channel digital service
> that is being heard in the market. Would you invest in a
> radio that could get two audio channels, and a fast data
> stream?

If they give me better content in digital than they're giving in analog, maybe. If it's the same 20 commercials an hour with the same crappy voice tracks, why bother?

> What about good ole analog service -- is it a relic?

Sounds fine to me. I don't listen to the radio for its technical qualities, I listen to the content that's on the radio.

As much of a techno-geek that I am, I'm more interested in what comes out the speakers than how it comes out the speakers. Entertain me or I'm gone.<P ID="signature">______________
...co-moderator of the Satellite Radio, Phoenix, and San Diego boards...</P>

 

[Seven_Costanza]

Simple...

radio will follow the TV model.

Some players will become content providers (think ESPN) and others will beomce content deliverers (think Dish Network). Some local stations will become "super stations" (think WTBS), some will network (think HSN) and some will fail.

Some of us will depend on WIFI, some on satellite, some on HD, etc., etc.

Nothing will disappear, nothing will dominate. People that loose their jobs as DJ's may start syndicating as pod-casters. Good programmers will show why they are good programmers.

Basically, it will all come out in the wash.

 

[Garrett]

I do not think radio is at it's end just yet. The radio is, for most people, an appliance like a toaster. They set it to their own personal level and leave it. Most people do not pay much attention after that.

There is certainly potential for things like internet streaming on cell phones to momentarily take some of the bite out of radio listenership. But such things are not a threat right now, because there's no real convention for it. If you want to hear music or news in a hurry, I think the first inclination by most folks is snap on the radio.
In addition, I don't think that the average radio listener is going to fork out money just to hear similar fair on a satellite station. Remember, it is only us radio geeks who most often notice the small differences between what's on satellite subscription radio, and what we can get for free.
Plus the Jack FM concept is proof that radio is already adapting to the changing habits of listeners.

As far as HD radio goes, I think this is a different story, and may even strengthen terrestrial radio, since it only improves the vehicle for transporting sound. Since AM can be produced with high fidelity, I can foresee music returning to AM. On the FM side, it will allow some stations to broadcast more than one station (and within FCC's legal limits). The question is, how long will it take. If this is done properly, (in the same fashion as HDTV) everyone's radio will be HD. However, if they do this like AM stereo, with only a few companies interested, than I do not see HD radio going anywhere.

> Is radio at a cross roads? Satellite, internet streaming,
> your cell phone, cable/satellite TV with audio music
> channels.
>
> Would you pay for local radio over the net? For example, if
> there was a service that had most (if not all) of San
> Diego's station for a subscription for webcasting, would you
> pay for it?
>
> What about HDRadio, the In Band, On Channel digital service
> that is being heard in the market. Would you invest in a
> radio that could get two audio channels, and a fast data
> stream?
>
> What about good ole analog service -- is it a relic?
>
> Your comments, as always, are appreciated, see YOU on the
> radio ... and remember to look BOTH WAYS before crossing the
> super internet highway,
>
> Stay Tuned
>

 

[Jay_F]

From an advertising perspective, one of the problems with the new technology is that there are too many choices. It is fragmented hundreds of thousands ways. As long as at least 75%-90% people listen to local radio (I believe it's still over 90% to this day), I think radio will be OK because of it's mass locally concentrated audience. It will still be appealing to advertisers, although revenue growth may be very slow like it is today.

For radio to survive against all of the new technology,it needs to go in the OPPOSITE direction that it has over the past decade. There needs to be a return to localism and interacting with the audience. This is by far radio's greatest strength over new technology. If radio starts seeing live,local,interactive shows as a strength rather than an unneccesary expense, it will greatly improve it's prognosis for survival.

I would really hate for the new tech to replace radio. I don't say that just as somebody who is employed in the industry, I say that as a radio lover. Just following the business and all of the different stations has brought me so much joy over my life. I see people get angry at the smallest things, for example they will get frustrated to the point of rage in traffic. I think it's because there is nothing in life they have a passion for,when there is nothing in life you love, life becomes a mere existence. Sorry to get so philisophical, but just the thought of radio as we know it dying brings me great sadness. I hope local radio finds a way to adapt and survive.





of Is radio at a cross roads? Satellite, internet streaming,
> your cell phone, cable/satellite TV with audio music
> channels.
>
> Would you pay for local radio over the net? For example, if
> there was a service that had most (if not all) of San
> Diego's station for a subscription for webcasting, would you
> pay for it?
>
> What about HDRadio, the In Band, On Channel digital service
> that is being heard in the market. Would you invest in a
> radio that could get two audio channels, and a fast data
> stream?
>
> What about good ole analog service -- is it a relic?
>
> Your comments, as always, are appreciated, see YOU on the
> radio ... and remember to look BOTH WAYS before crossing the
> super internet highway,
>
> Stay Tuned
>

 

[TradingSpaces]

I don't think the "typical listener" exists anymore.

Can you win with only "in car' listening?

 

[KMRichards]

> I don't think the "typical listener" exists anymore.
>
> Can you win with only "in car' listening?

A good chunk of today's ratings are from "in-car" listening. How much varies depending on market size.

BTW, when having discussions like these, it is helpful to remember that we are not "typical" radio listeners. Just because we know how to listen to Internet radio, or have a XM or Sirius radio, does not mean we have the right to state definitively that these new technologies will "kill" terrestrial radio.

k9 was right in pointing out that most of radio's audience like it because it is as simple as turning it on and finding a station you can stand listening to.

<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[jefflaurence]

Crusty Bob said:
"I can listen for free to outstanding radio from all over the world that far surpasses anything on local radio."

Another poster mentioned that (as of today) one needs to go through a lot of steps to listen to world class streamed radio over the net..let alone in the car. I had my laptop with me on vacation last week and listened to www.rivieraradio.mc out of Monte Carlo while driving through Texas. AND I stopped at a truckstop and got one of those cigarette lighter FM transmitters, and ran the audio from the laptop in the back seat to the transmitter (plugged into the back seat lighter) and listened in total comfort all week to stations everywhere.

WATCH out! I have a client in Switzerland who told me that he has an Isuzu that is outfitted with an Alpine IP enabled 3G audio system. It's a CDMA reciever (using existing cellular networks)that you can assign IP addresses to "button" on the radio. It gets standard FM and AM and has a CD changer. For fun he listened to Cool 99.3 while leaving the office tonight..in his car! True, the current bandwidth/audio quality issue is there, but he says that he uses an AAC decoder (part of the player software in the unit) and can hear CD QUALITY audio at 48kbps with NO buffering from selected internet stations all over the world. That's only a year or two away from becoming reality here.

LOCAL is the only path to take for any terrestrial radio to stay afloat. HD radio or not as another poster said..the same crappy voice tracks will kill the medium. There is simply too much for us to hear to be bothered with putting up with cardboard radio. And LOCAL means localized..NOT just from a computer LOCATED in a market.

Want to hear a great LOCAL station? Try 95.9 The Ranch www.959theranch.com licensed to Mineral Wells/Fort Worth. It SOUNDS like Texas. The stream is usually on. And the air talent is in a studio lcoated DOWNTOWN with a big window so passers by can see what's happening. They open a mic outside and gab with the locals and tourists, and become a part of life in that city. Small company..big plans, and as Jay F said..PASSION for what they do. that PASSION creates same for the listener..it's how we get them motivated.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by jefflaurence on 07/09/05 04:17 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[awj223]

jefflaurence wrote:
> "I can listen for free to outstanding radio from all over
> the world that far surpasses anything on local radio."
>
> Another poster mentioned that (as of today) one needs to go
> through a lot of steps to listen to world class streamed
> radio over the net..let alone in the car. I had my laptop
> with me on vacation last week and listened to
> www.rivieraradio.mc out of Monte Carlo while driving through
> Texas. AND I stopped at a truckstop and got one of those
> cigarette lighter FM transmitters, and ran the audio from
> the laptop in the back seat to the transmitter (plugged into
> the back seat lighter) and listened in total comfort all
> week to stations everywhere.

What were you using for your laptop internet connection? Did you have any buffering problems when it was doing handoffs from tower to tower? I have streamed audio over Cingular's GPRS service, but only when stationary.

 

[jefflaurence]

I used Verizon Wirless PC card with the PC5250 (I think) card from Sierra Wireless..No hand off problems in larger markets..sort of got quiet in the middle of nowhere though.

In Fort Worth and Dallas it connected to the Verizon National Broadband service and NO buffering problems..Very cool

I also have the former ATT "EDGE" card, and it worked quite well with the Sony/Erricson PC card

 

[zumahans1]

No. Radio WAS at a cross roads ... and now it's too little, way too late

The train has already left the station.

IPods. XM. CD rips. Downloads.

My high school kids and their friends - who set their own listening habits, thank you - spend ZERO hours per week listening to radio. They spend 3-4 hours a day listening to music - but NONE to radio.

College kids do not listen to FM.

No one under 25 listens to AM.

American broadcasters stopped giving a s*** about radio listeners 10 years ago.

And the listeners are returning the favor. Adios mass market.

 

[THEInsultant]

Re: No. Radio WAS at a cross roads ... and now it's too little, way too late

> The train has already left the station.
>
> IPods. XM. CD rips. Downloads.
>
> My high school kids and their friends - who set their own
> listening habits, thank you - spend ZERO hours per week
> listening to radio. They spend 3-4 hours a day listening to
> music - but NONE to radio.
>
> College kids do not listen to FM.
>
> No one under 25 listens to AM.
>
> American broadcasters stopped giving a s*** about radio
> listeners 10 years ago.
>
> And the listeners are returning the favor. Adios mass
> market.
>

When some form of broadband becomes prevalent nearly everywhere, look for the economic model to run the big corporate pig broadcast companies to totally come apart. Fire sale time! You are 100 percent right about the "kids" not giving a damn for radio. Radio doesn't serve them and they found some suitable replacements. Face it, the industry has done it to itself. <P ID="signature">______________
--- THE Insultant ---</P>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Radio is not dead.

> The train has already left the station.

Gross generalization.
>
> IPods. XM. CD rips. Downloads.

45's, cassettes, LPs... there has always been music listening that does not include radio. It's all about "how much" and not about "whether."
>
> My high school kids and their friends - who set their own
> listening habits, thank you - spend ZERO hours per week
> listening to radio. They spend 3-4 hours a day listening to
> music - but NONE to radio.

In LA, nearly 93% of all teens listen to radio. they DO listen less than 15 years ago, but they do listen.
>
> College kids do not listen to FM.

18-24 listening is comparable to 25+ listening in the 94% to 95% range weekly. This has always been a difficult demo for radio due to lifestyle, not due to downloads or iPods.
>
> No one under 25 listens to AM.

They have not listened for 25 years... this is nothing new, and is about technology and not about radio.
>
> American broadcasters stopped giving a s*** about radio
> listeners 10 years ago.

No, not true. Broadcasters do not care about demos that do not produce revenues... and that means 12-17 and 55+. Blame advertisers and agencies.
>
> And the listeners are returning the favor. Adios mass
> market.

Radio usage is within a pair of hours a week, average, with what it was in 1952 at the dawn of Top 40.

Sure, there is a problem and a challenge. But radio is hardly dead.

 

[allisonmarie]

Re: Radio is not dead.

> > The train has already left the station.
>
> Gross generalization.
> >
> > IPods. XM. CD rips. Downloads.
>
> 45's, cassettes, LPs... there has always been music
> listening that does not include radio. It's all about "how
> much" and not about "whether."
> >
> > My high school kids and their friends - who set their own
>
> > listening habits, thank you - spend ZERO hours per week
> > listening to radio. They spend 3-4 hours a day listening
> to
> > music - but NONE to radio.
>
> In LA, nearly 93% of all teens listen to radio. they DO
> listen less than 15 years ago, but they do listen.

Did this statistic come out of an arbitron diary survey? I find this one
just a little bit hard to believe, source please david?
> >
> > College kids do not listen to FM.
>
> 18-24 listening is comparable to 25+ listening in the 94% to
> 95% range weekly. This has always been a difficult demo for
> radio due to lifestyle, not due to downloads or iPods.
> >
> > No one under 25 listens to AM.
>
> They have not listened for 25 years... this is nothing new,
> and is about technology and not about radio.
> >
> > American broadcasters stopped giving a s*** about radio
> > listeners 10 years ago.
>
> No, not true. Broadcasters do not care about demos that do
> not produce revenues... and that means 12-17 and 55+. Blame
> advertisers and agencies.
> >
> > And the listeners are returning the favor. Adios mass
> > market.
>
> Radio usage is within a pair of hours a week, average, with
> what it was in 1952 at the dawn of Top 40.
>
> Sure, there is a problem and a challenge. But radio is
> hardly dead.
>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Radio is not dead.

> >
> > In LA, nearly 93% of all teens listen to radio. they DO
> > listen less than 15 years ago, but they do listen.
>
> Did this statistic come out of an arbitron diary survey? I
> find this one
> just a little bit hard to believe, source please david?

Arbitron. I took a cross section of markets and did the market cume on different demos. Remember, diaries with no listening are tabulated.