Radio-TV and new technology

[raymond_shaw]

Network tv has survived cable and tv in general has survived VHS/DVD. TV, especially the networks, still offer original content - sitcoms, dramas, reality shows, news and sports. AM radio still provides original content - talk shows, news and sports(you can't get a local ballgame through your ipod).

BUT - FM's original content is mostly live morning shows. The rest of the time they are playing generic music. You can easily purchase(cheaply) or copy(for free) any kind of music you like. Ipods make it easy to program your own private station, customized to your own personal music tastes, even ifor your car. Yet FM radio is mostly generic music, regardless of format...often jockless or with limited jock input. As Ipods get cheaper, as more and more homes get PCs with CD burners, music lovers will have more and more freedom to decide their own music listening.

To be sure, there are some people who have more limited interest in music and limited interest in technology. For them, free generic music on FM, with commercial interuptions will suit them fine. How large an audience is this though?

Will a return to strong personalities on the radio be neccessary to bring at least some listeners back to FM radio for at least some of their listening time? With less young people going into radio as a profession - and so many older personalites burned out from this notoriously unstable field of endeavor, where will these personalities come from? Perhaps new networks of top national personalities 24/7?

I think generic FM radio is a sitting duck for the freedom of music choice new technology offers.

 

[TheREALJM1]

>
> BUT - FM's original content is mostly live morning shows.
> The rest of the time they are playing generic music. You
> can easily purchase(cheaply) or copy(for free) any kind of
> music you like. FM radio is mostly generic
> music, regardless of format...often jockless or with limited
> jock input. As Ipods get cheaper, as more and more homes
> get PCs with CD burners, music lovers will have more and
> more freedom to decide their own music listening.
>
> Will a return to strong personalities on the radio be
> neccessary to bring at least some listeners back to FM radio
> for at least some of their listening time? With less young
> people going into radio as a profession - and so many older
> personalites burned out from this notoriously unstable field
> of endeavor, where will these personalities come from?
> I think generic FM radio is a sitting duck for the freedom
> of music choice new technology offers.

>This subject has been discussed on this board several times in many ways. I think the consensus of the posters is that FM will have to offer something new (or old) to entertain and attract an audience. However, I don’t see much effort by the big companies to change their cost cutting ways. FM has become so blah I hardly listen to any station anymore and I don’t have satellite radio – yet. There is a lot of great radio talent still out there undiscovered or underused, waiting to come to the rescue. Time will tell.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The Matrix

The revolution in content delivery promises to be even more widespread than already discussed in this thread. The convergence between IP networks and the phone system is already in progress. You can already get rid of your phone line, and use several services for IP telephony that let you use your high-speed Internet connection for telephone service. High-speed wireless Internet is already under construction, and technologies allowing wireless high-speed over considerable distances are being standardized.

Ultimately, our current system of AM and FM broadcast are likely to go the way of analog TV - a deadline will be set, and broadcasters will be forced to go digital. Alternatively, bandwidth now used by other services (the lower VHF channels, for example), will be reallocated for digital broadcast, offering hundreds or thousands of channels for digital content.

Somehow, the FCC will have to sweeten the pot for existing broadcasters, because the number of channels available will expand dramatically. That means even more competition for broadcasters, and reduces the value of existing licenses. Not good news if you're Clear Channel, Infinity, or a large owner of broadcast properties.

Downloading content and programming your iPod are activities that young people make time for. The time spent in those activities shrinks when you go to work and start raising a family. On the other hand, programming your wireless device with 10 or 15 data streams of content (music, news, sports, etc.) is kind of like programming the buttons on your car radio - do it once, and keep pressing the selector button until you hear what you want. Or, you can simply tell your device to do a daily download of a particular podcast, so you can play it back at you convenience.

Talent will have a new way to deliver their content to the listener. Advertising will still be the primary way of generating money, mostly because listeners are used to that model, and don't want to sign up for a bunch of subscription services. The satellite broadcasters could conceivably use this method of delivery instead of satellite, which would be cheaper, and they could act as aggregators of program streams for delivery over wireless Internet. They would continue to use the subscription model, and possible expand it to provide content that we now receive from cable companies and the like.

The day is coming when you will have the equivalent of a personal IP address, and all your communication will route to that - telephone, video, audio, text messaging, etc. Devices will act as appliances to differentiate between types of streaming content. You'll be able to listen to audio streams on your cell phone, as well as text message and receive RSS streams. Your HD TV monitor will be capable of receiving over-the-air broadcasts, as well as channels provided by the high-speed IP network that connects your home or office via fiber for video, audio, phone, fax, etc. A lower-quality version may be available via wireless.

One thing will remain the same - providers will be starved for content. People who can provide something extra - local information, entertainment, and that elusive "companion" relationship with listeners will survive. Clear Channel will be able to stream a generic music format from one location instead of 200, saving money and bandwidth. The startup cost for a local "station" will be far less than the equipment required for a broadcast outlet, and licensing will be unneccessary. If you can get enough people to listen, and get advertisers to pay for avails, you'll be in business. Parents will be able to block your stream if they wish, so you'll be free to use whatever language you like - at the cost of alienating a portion of your audience. Arbitron will measure streams in tenths of a point, and a large audience will rack up a 2 share.

Welcome to the Brave New World.

 

[Yeziknoradio]

The other problem...

The other problem, dating back to the 90's was that Canada and Japan had an idea that America chose not to accept.

It was called Digital Audio Broadcasting. (D.A.B.)
The intent was to put AM and FM on par, and make it ALL sound like CD quality sound, so AM could then broadcast formats that were not previously good enough for the ever diminishing AM current music audience.

By the time the recievers were available in Canada, it was too late.
Stations like 680 CFTR(Toronto), for example, had already gone all news.

There were other complications too...such a shame. DAB sounded great.
(I was listening to a friend's DAB)

It would have been good to see more AM stations go back to music in places where the talk format wasn't working out for them, or, in cases where they wanted to test a certain music format, they then could, on the AM side.<P ID="signature">______________
"If you never say NO, How much is your YES worth?"
</P>

 

[mike704]

Having grown up in Hamburg not far from the WGR-WKBW transmitter site my opinions could be RF infuenced (too much exposure)!


> BUT - FM's original content is mostly live morning shows.
> The rest of the time they are playing generic music. You
> can easily purchase(cheaply) or copy(for free) any kind of
> music you like. Ipods make it easy to program your own
> private station, customized to your own personal music
> tastes, even ifor your car. Yet FM radio is mostly generic
> music, regardless of format...often jockless or with limited
> jock input. As Ipods get cheaper, as more and more homes
> get PCs with CD burners, music lovers will have more and
> more freedom to decide their own music listening.

Yep, and it's the same in every market. Radio stations have a lot of competition for the listeners time. The attention spans are much shorter too.
>
> To be sure, there are some people who have more limited
> interest in music and limited interest in technology. For
> them, free generic music on FM, with commercial interuptions
> will suit them fine. How large an audience is this though?

The trouble is will these people get excited about your station? Are the just passive listeners who just tune around till they find something they like? Do they know (or care) what station they are listening to?
>
> Will a return to strong personalities on the radio be
> neccessary to bring at least some listeners back to FM radio
> for at least some of their listening time? With less young
> people going into radio as a profession - and so many older
> personalites burned out from this notoriously unstable field
> of endeavor, where will these personalities come from?
> Perhaps new networks of top national personalities 24/7?

Many old jocks who are still in the business lament the current state of radio with it's computer playlists and mechnical liner card reading. I was shocked after talking with one guy from a small midwest market as he played an aircheck which was on line from one of his favorite DJ's. The guy on the aircheck did nothing more than intro records, no value added content of any kind. So I fear the question is: "Will people in the biz recognize good personality radio when they hear it?"
>
> I think generic FM radio is a sitting duck for the freedom
> of music choice new technology offers.
>

It seems like a cycle. In the 50's when network radio shows were losing to Television many owners didn't know what to do with their radio stations, oh what the heck we'll just let a guy play records, it won't cost us a lot.... Some of the jocks like Alan Freed and The Hound saw new music... Rock & Roll, they knew it was the next big thing.

Their success actually lead to their demise. Formats came in like Top 40 which took some of the freedom away but the jocks still had some freedom to play what they thought was good and what the listeners wanted the hear. They were also free to relate and TALK to the listeners. The common complaint in those days was the jock talks too much. Jock chatter was limited. As a result some of the jocks gave up and became time-temp announcers. Too few worked in the confines of the formats and pushed the envelope. To be sure they had big egos and sometimes an advasarial relationship with the P.D.

FM came along and once again owners didn't know what to do so they hired some kids to keep the thing on the air and this resulted in "Album Rock Radio". It was jocks plying the music talking about it, and relating to the listeners. Once again their success worked against them. You don't hear many free form album rock stations anymore.

The jocks freedom was taken away by the P.D., and the P.D. lost his freedom to the consultant or group P.D.

With so many millions of dollars invested in radio stations I don't think anyone will have the freedom needed to create something special.

Let's hope I'm wrong!

Mike