Radio Is Dead? Really? What are we really saying?

[TheBigA]

I'm willing to bet that my "story" (which does not apply to my house any longer) does apply to many, many houses.

As I've said my times, you are not typical. I know your profile pretty well at this point. In terms age, income, geography, education, and musical taste. So since you're not typical, it doesn't matter how many other houses share your story.

 

[davideduardo]

The very few times I receive a phone survey the first question has always been something like "are you a radio listener?" Sometimes they are more specific as in "do you listen to Country music on the radio?" So, I would think the first requirement for a PPM holder would be "do you listen to the radio?"

Does PPM actually care about non-listeners?

That kind of phone recruit is generally for some other kind of research. Perhaps even for a specific station.

PPM data accounts for non-users of radio. Thus the "93% of all persons use radio". That means 7% of metered individuals do not listen to radio in an average or given week.

The PPM measures the entire 6+ universe, listeners and non-listeners alike. And the PPM recruits households, not individuals. There may be people in ahousehold that listen a lot, and others that do not listen at all. All members of a household must participate, or the household is removed from the panel.

It's also the same for the diary survey. Listening is not a requirement.

 

[davideduardo]

I wasn't singling out all women but my example was more directed at the woman with children of school age than singles or seniors. And you already know what I think of listening at work (much more likely to be professionals that can work independently like software programmers).

Workplace listening is much more than office listening. It is in the stockroom, the loading dock, the delivery truck, the construction project, the landscaping job, the factory floor. Most is not white collar.

 

[davideduardo]

BTW your example of someone at work "listening" via ear buds doesn't mean much because my understanding of the PPM devices are that there has to be some sort of movement by the person "wearing" it, i.e. so if someone lays down his ear buds on his desk and then goes away, the device will not pick up any radio sound to monitor and record. If he leaves the PPM device near the ear buds or near a "radio" speaker, it will stop monitoring because of no movement.

Earbud listening to streams is a problem area, Nielsen provides an earbud adapter, but it is cumbersome. The next generation of measurement will look at streams from the personal connection, not audio detection.

In any case, a meter does not have to be in constant motion. Just enough to show it moved around somewhat during the day.

The PPM continues to "listen" at all times. It does not turn off if it does not detect encoding. It just does not record an encoding detection data.

 

[davideduardo]

If "anecdotal" = real life then yes, absolutely. No, no one I know admits to carrying or using a PPM - or even being contacted by a radio station to participate in a survey for that matter. I am a member of radio's "untouchables" so I wouldn't expect to be selected for my opinions or listening habits. But I'm willing to bet that my "story" (which does not apply to my house any longer) does apply to many, many houses.

First, everyone from 6 to death is equally "wanted" by Nielsen for radio or TV measurement. You are not excluded due to age or listening or viewing patterns.

And the PPP panel in Pheonix is sized so that about 1 out of every 1500 persons is participating. The chances of being invited to be on the panel are about once every 75 years. The chance of knowing someone who acknowledges being on the panel are similarly quite low.

 

[landtuna]

Workplace listening is much more than office listening. It is in the stockroom, the loading dock, the delivery truck, the construction project, the landscaping job, the factory floor. Most is not white collar.

And that further proves my earlier point about listening at work being a background noise situation. In all of the scenarios you listed it would be virtually impossible for any single person to maintain any sort of consistent listening given the activities on the floor. Think of Home Depot (who, in my town plays KOOL-FM over their loudspeakers) - interrupted every 10-12 seconds for paging notices. I don't know if PPM would record that as "listening" but the average individual doesn't pay attention because of all the interruptions.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't know if PPM would record that as "listening" but the average individual doesn't pay attention because of all the interruptions.

Are you an advertiser? No. Then why are you giving us a hard time about something we don't control? This is the system. Do we love it? No. Would we like something better? Yes. And we complain every time they give us a chance. We don't like this system. OK? But we play by the rules we're given. That's how things are.

Now can we move on and quit arguing about something none of you have anything to do with?

 

[BOZ Profit]

Now can we move on and quit arguing about something none of you have anything to do with?

Remember it takes two to tango... just sayin'. : )

 

[GregWilliamsLighthouse]

DMCA: Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
It stipulates that users of music must pay multiple royalties for the use of music to the artist, label, and musicians, as well as the songwriters.

The ASCAP website, http://www.ascap.com/licensing/types/web-mobile.aspx , has a page for Website and Mobile Apps. Depending upon number of visits and monthly revenue, if I'm reading things correctly, a blanket annual license would run from $246 to $288.

Wouldn't that cover copyright laws and DCMA regulations?

 

[TheBigA]

Wouldn't that cover copyright laws and DCMA regulations?

Nope. Doesn't even come close. There is ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and SoundExchange. The last one is the killer. Thousands of dollars.

 

[landtuna]

Are you an advertiser? No. Then why are you giving us a hard time about something we don't control? This is the system. Do we love it? No. Would we like something better? Yes. And we complain every time they give us a chance. We don't like this system. OK? But we play by the rules we're given. That's how things are.

Now can we move on and quit arguing about something none of you have anything to do with?

I'm not trying to give "radio people" a hard time by discussing the shortcomings of diaries or PPM. It was just an opinion of the various shortcomings (and I learned some things in the balance so it wasn't wasted time and space to me). I understand radio is at the mercy of things outside its control but as you said, you guys are here and the others aren't so we talk to you. Sorry if it raised your hackles. I wasn't trying to put the onus on you personally, David or radio in general.

It does seem to me though that "radio" could unite to oppose those things that are giving it serious heartburn. Things like the RIAA, DCMA and the labels. Radio, for as long as I have been alive, has given virtually free advertising to the music community. In return, they get slapped with demands for payment on product that have long outlived its lifetime. It seems as if musical property should have some sort of legal lifetime where artistic creativity is supported for a reasonable number of years but not forever. Is there a reason anyone should be paying Rick Nelson for "Garden Party" 34 years after it was recorded and 30 years after his death? He obviously was under contract to his label and was paid, and probably well, for his work in creating the song. His label got paid well for distributing it. That should have been the end of it.

 

[TheBigA]

It does seem to me though that "radio" could unite to oppose those things that are giving it serious heartburn.

Been there, done that. Radio may be big, but the recording industry is much bigger, and they have the law on their side. We've made the "free advertising"argument, and they invent their own studies that say we're wrong. They don't want free advertising. They want their money.

 

[BOZ Profit]

It should be a straight negotiation between the artist and the radio station. If the artist doesn't want the radio station to pay, then that should be the end of it. It should not be left up to a third party that is essentially negotiating for it's own fees/income. If the artist wants the radio station to pay, and the station see the value, then the amount is negotiated between the radio station and the artist. But my guess is most artists are willing to let radio play for free in exchange for the exposure.

Of course the flip side makes sense too.. artists pay to have their songs played. After all, people then go buy the music, and merchandise. If an artist doesn't have to pay why does the mom and pop shop or any company selling goods and services?

But I have probably oversimplified the issue.

 

[TheBigA]

It should be a straight negotiation between the artist and the radio station.

Too many artists. The artists sign lots of contracts when they make music, with publishers, labels, agents, managers, and they all have a stake in what happens to that music. The artist might be willing, but not everyone else.

It should between the labels and radio, but the RIAA won't allow its members to do that. The only label that has negotiated directly is Big Machine. The majors haven't.

This subject has been debated by all of the players for ten years. Nobody is budging. Nobody wants to blink.

Artists can't pay for play. That's payola. We have laws here against that.

 

[landtuna]

Been there, done that. Radio may be big, but the recording industry is much bigger, and they have the law on their side. We've made the "free advertising"argument, and they invent their own studies that say we're wrong. They don't want free advertising. They want their money.

The law is on the side with the most money but I will take your word on which side is larger. But consider this parallel:

I wrote computer software in my career. I was either paid by my employer or directly by a client. Once the software was accepted ownership passed to the end client (or my employer). I got no further payment unless I was engaged to alter it in some way. I could not take that software and sell it to anyone else (unless it was considered public property and was created with public money).

If a songwriter or artist has been paid under contract for a song why then are they entitled to continuing payments? I can understand a label demanding payment for the product but not the others.

 

[TheBigA]

If a songwriter or artist has been paid under contract for a song why then are they entitled to continuing payments? I can understand a label demanding payment for the product but not the others.

They weren't paid under contract for a song. They might get an advance, but it's an advance on future royalties. The songwriter doesn't get paid unless the song is a hit. The only ones who are paid under contract are the musicians. They get paid regardless.

 

[landtuna]

Artists can't pay for play. That's payola. We have laws here against that.

I thought payola was the UNDISCLOSED payment for pay. What's to prevent the artist to buy time directly from the station to promote his/her wares? What's to prevent that same artist from selling his music directly (over the Internet or elsewhere)?

 

[landtuna]

They weren't paid under contract for a song. They might get an advance, but it's an advance on future royalties. The songwriter doesn't get paid unless the song is a hit. The only ones who are paid under contract are the musicians. They get paid regardless.

Then why isn't the songwriter paid out of the label's earnings?

 

[TheBigA]

I thought payola was the UNDISCLOSED payment for pay. What's to prevent the artist to buy time directly from the station to promote his/her wares? What's to prevent that same artist from selling his music directly (over the Internet or elsewhere)?

Payola laws only apply to broadcast radio, not the internet. So sure, sell directly on the internet. It's not very efficient. For all of the criticism of OTA radio, it is the most efficient way to sell music, and the documentation is very good, regardless of what all you think.

 

[TheBigA]

Then why isn't the songwriter paid out of the label's earnings?

The songwriter doesn't have a contract with a label, but with a publisher and a PRO (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC). Unless you're talking about a singer/songwriter. But even then, he has a separate publisher and PRO. The labels that own publishing keep their businesses separate. This is all very complicated. I should be charging you for this.