Radio Ink's Convergence...

[jdweaver]

Lot's of noise at Radio Ink's Convergence 2010. Look at all the different platforms and ideas broadcasters have to use. Here in Seattle, Bonneville is doing a community portal, Sandusky is using Quu and of course lots of stations using Hip Cricket...but how do you sort through all this noise and both help your station and continue to engage listeners? Couple of thoughts...love feedback... http://jdweaver.wordpress.com/

 

[LITTLEBOYBLUE]

Experimentation in unproven arenas doesn't seem to dovetail with the corporate mindset of getting the cleanest, expense-free net-income statement. Until THAT convergence can happen, I suspect the broadcast/new media convergence is more of a talking point at an annual shareholder meeting.

While it's nice to see people experimenting ... the real barometer in my mind has always been: WILL THE CLIENTS RENEW WHEN IT IS TIME TO DO SO? If yes, the experiment is successful. If no, the hoop-la was a short-term revenue "patch". LOTS of patches in the last ten-plus years.

 

[TVradioguru]

In my view radio need not get bogged down in focus as TV has, with trying to chase other forms of media, social media, etc. looking, hoping, praying, for that allusive NTR golden ring. Hip Cricket and the whole SMS thing doesn't even come close to bridging the gap between new media and traditional media. In fact, pounding your demos with ads, offers, coupons, etc., to their phones or mobile devices will cause them to find you less relevant or appealing than ever, or even swiftly grow to hate you.

New and social media stands alone as should radio. Each needs to do what they do best; broadcasters broadcast to the masses, social media interacts with your friends, family, and people with similar focus or interests.

 

[TheBigA]

Experimentation in unproven arenas doesn't seem to dovetail with the corporate mindset of getting the cleanest, expense-free net-income statement.

On the contrary...I find it much easier to get corporate funding for NEW revenue sources than to increase a budget on an existing one. I think if you examine all of the biggest broadcasting companies, from CBS to Clear Channel to Cumulus to Citadel, they've all invested a lot of money in new media. It's the only growth area in the industry right now.

 

[TheBigA]

In my view radio need not get bogged down in focus as TV has, with trying to chase other forms of media, social media, etc. looking, hoping, praying, for that allusive NTR golden ring.

Depends on what business you see radio as being in. If radio is a towers & transmitters business, then you're right. It's a huge distraction, and doesn't promote the core business. If radio is a content business, then platform doesn't matter, and social media is simply another way to provide content, further the brand, and connect with an audience. It's also not always about short term money. It's about providing multiple options for a client. I've been bonusing my social media, to build a future business. Advertisers appreciate it.

 

[TVradioguru]

It's also not always about short term money. It's about providing multiple options for a client. I've been bonusing my social media, to build a future business. Advertisers appreciate it.

And I would argue, given the economy anyway.. it is totally about the short term for many broadcasters.

The problem with bonusing anything, is it devalues the product for your business and mine. Bonusing is one reason radio and television can't get traction when it comes to monetizing web content. From the beginning sales departments have been giving away ad space for the buy. Now bonusing is expected by advertisers. For the broadcaster, it becomes a chicken-and-egg matter. Radio websites are weak because they're given away, which makes the value little more than a vehicle for coupons or the station promotions department, not a destination as financially successful sites are.

 

[TheBigA]

And I would argue, given the economy anyway.. it is totally about the short term for many broadcasters.

I don't see that anymore. As I said, it's easier to get funding for the future than to increase a budget for existing projects.

The problem with bonusing anything, is it devalues the product for your business and mine.

Not if you deliver great product that attracts great numbers. The only thing that devalues the product is focusing too much on making money, and not enough on delivering for the client.

Radio websites are weak because they're given away,

They wouldn't be any stronger if companies overcharged for them. They'd just have disappointed clients who wouldn't come back. Some radio websites are weak because the people running them don't understand web content. It has nothing to do with money.

 

[Shark]

It's also not always about short term money. It's about providing multiple options for a client. I've been bonusing my social media, to build a future business. Advertisers appreciate it.

And I would argue, given the economy anyway.. it is totally about the short term for many broadcasters.

The problem with bonusing anything, is it devalues the product for your business and mine. Bonusing is one reason radio and television can't get traction when it comes to monetizing web content. From the beginning sales departments have been giving away ad space for the buy. Now bonusing is expected by advertisers. For the broadcaster, it becomes a chicken-and-egg matter. Radio websites are weak because they're given away, which makes the value little more than a vehicle for coupons or the station promotions department, not a destination as financially successful sites are.

Most Seattle radio groups have fortunately gotten away from bonusing their display and streaming advertising; the problem is they can't charge much for them because the metrics won't support rates that will really move the revenue needle. The result is that reps end up spending way too much time trying to make their "new media" budget and not making much money for themselves or the station in the process. Stations that really want to succeed in the internet arena should have separate staffs to sell these products but most would rather dump it on their existing reps with minmal training and education on how to sell it.

 

[TheBigA]

Stations that really want to succeed in the internet arena should have separate staffs to sell these products but most would rather dump it on their existing reps with minmal training and education on how to sell it.

The specialist may know the product better, but he/she won't have the contacts. And it confuses the client, who is dealing with multiple calls from the same company. I've seen this happen.

 

[Steenman]

Just today I had to again explain to another media what it was they were trying to sell me. Point is, many of us clients have far more experience buying the stuff than the reps have who are attempting to sell it. But I agree I'd rather buy it from my 'home' rep for ease of purchase, so we work it out (usually have to talk to the 'digital expert' at the station note that person changes about every few many months so you rarely talk to same person twice).

Personally, I think radio stations are crazy not to better 'package' their on line products as a value added or bonus. They are using the wrong paradigm in my view. Every client wants value added or a promotion and here is a resource (streaming, podcasting, banner ads) where they have inventory and can offer INSTEAD of more actual airtime. As the economy rebounds and avails get tighter, what is better, having to cram more low charges and promos on air, or giving away some of the digital? Duh. Also, it gets the clients 'into the tent' so they can experience it and get used to the idea of it being 'part of the plan'. But it apparently doesn't fit the 'internal structure' of many organizations and therefore it doesn't happen. Shame.