Is San Angelo a poor city or why aren't any of the area stations streaming online? I'd love to hear Kixy 94.7 and 106-1 MDX. Is this considered a major radio market?
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
San Angelo market
- Thread starter icycool7227
- Start date
No, San Angelo is not a major market. No market smaller than #20 is normally considered a major market.
As for why no one there streams, you'd have to ask them to know for certain, but I suspect a lot of it has to do with the broadcasters there being small operators for the most part and a general lack of national advertising there. Streaming is one of the most expensive services any broadcaster provides, and it's difficult to monetize. It's even tougher to monetize when you're a small stand alone operation because the majority of streaming ads are national ads. A market like San Angelo isn't going to get a large number of agency buys due to market size alone. Large companies can sell their streaming as a package to national advertisers, but small broadcasters aren't nearly as well equipped.
Something else to keep in mind is that bandwidth, in most cases, is even more expensive than performance royalties, even with bandwidth costs going steadily down. There probably aren't very many bandwidth providers in San Angelo, and that will further drive up the cost of streaming. From 2001 to 2004, I worked in a market only slightly larger than San Angelo, and my employer had 7 stations. The only bandwidth provider in our area said streaming all 7 stations would cost us $21,000 per month! Eventually, we found a streaming source that worked with this provider in other markets, and they were able to leverage our costs down significantly, but it took awhile and wasn't easy.
As for why no one there streams, you'd have to ask them to know for certain, but I suspect a lot of it has to do with the broadcasters there being small operators for the most part and a general lack of national advertising there. Streaming is one of the most expensive services any broadcaster provides, and it's difficult to monetize. It's even tougher to monetize when you're a small stand alone operation because the majority of streaming ads are national ads. A market like San Angelo isn't going to get a large number of agency buys due to market size alone. Large companies can sell their streaming as a package to national advertisers, but small broadcasters aren't nearly as well equipped.
Something else to keep in mind is that bandwidth, in most cases, is even more expensive than performance royalties, even with bandwidth costs going steadily down. There probably aren't very many bandwidth providers in San Angelo, and that will further drive up the cost of streaming. From 2001 to 2004, I worked in a market only slightly larger than San Angelo, and my employer had 7 stations. The only bandwidth provider in our area said streaming all 7 stations would cost us $21,000 per month! Eventually, we found a streaming source that worked with this provider in other markets, and they were able to leverage our costs down significantly, but it took awhile and wasn't easy.
I will agree that for most small broadcasters, streaming is an expense that shows no (or very little) ROI. I'm not even sure why I do it. It is a negative number generator. I guess I think of it as an investment in the future.
Even though it is hard to make money streaming your station, there are lots streaming server providers out there that make the bandwidth cost issue fairly negligible. Using one of these services, you only need an average Internet connection at the station. One stream goes to the hosting company, and they take over from there, distributing it to listeners all over the world. Usually they charge based on a combination of the maximum number of listeners and the bit rate you choose. It can be quite reasonable. SoundExchange is a much bigger issue.
Even though it is hard to make money streaming your station, there are lots streaming server providers out there that make the bandwidth cost issue fairly negligible. Using one of these services, you only need an average Internet connection at the station. One stream goes to the hosting company, and they take over from there, distributing it to listeners all over the world. Usually they charge based on a combination of the maximum number of listeners and the bit rate you choose. It can be quite reasonable. SoundExchange is a much bigger issue.
maybe they did at one point and quit.
Check out 95q in Abilene.
http://www.95q.fm/
click on listen live and see what happens...
Maybe San Angelo stations are having the same problem as 95.1 in Abilene
Check out 95q in Abilene.
http://www.95q.fm/
click on listen live and see what happens...
Maybe San Angelo stations are having the same problem as 95.1 in Abilene
Chuck said:...SoundExchange is a much bigger issue.
This ^^^
as someone who used to work in the san angelo market, there has been plenty of talk about streaming. you wouldn't believe how many listeners in that area want the stations to stream (which i believe would be a good thing too) i know the group of stations i worked for just simply didn't want to spend the money for streaming... they're cheap that way
D
dfaulkner
Guest
Pardon that this is a bit off topic. This discussion about streaming seems like good insight to an Oklahoma station as well. I used to listen to the stream of KOMA 92.5 but they stopped streaming.
dfaulkner said:Pardon that this is a bit off topic. This discussion about streaming seems like good insight to an Oklahoma station as well. I used to listen to the stream of KOMA 92.5 but they stopped streaming.
I believe Renda stopped streaming all of its stations a year or so ago. They said they couldn't monetize it.
I was listening to a stream of Mix 100 from Denver during my walk this evening. It was pretty obvious to me that most of the ads they aired over the local spots were Direct Response Ads, which pay on a PI (per inquiry). In other words, they ran the spots for free and only got paid if someone called the "800" number on the ad, visited the website or clicked the spot on the embedded player that runs on the spot. Each station or group airs a unique toll-free number and web address, and the clicked spot tells which station redirected the listener to that site. Running those spots, you're lucky to get a dime per inquiry, and I suspect inquiries are very few.
Kent said:...They said they couldn't monetize it...
This too ^^^^^
I think it's really simple. We are in the RADIO business, which modulates the aether using a transmitter and a whole lotta other very expensive gear. So you can throw together a fairly decent streaming setup for far less than it would take to do traditional radio, but modulating the aether, while less profitable of late, still brings in a far greater return than streaming online.
Streaming is an entertainment win for the listener, but it's a financial loss for the broadcaster.
Which of those will win?
Those "minimal costs" to stream really aren't so minimal, especially when you factor in the royalties you must pay and the added regulatory hoops you have to jump through for making such content available online.
I don't know of any stations making any "significant" revenue from streaming online.
I'd very much like to know of any who are, and if they do exist, I'd bet they were in major markets where web penetration is pretty high. But I suspect that is certainly not the case for the majority of broadcast stations outside of the big cities. San Angelo in particular.
The DCMA essentially killed broadcast streaming in the late 90s, just when it was starting to take off. Now, after a few major court battles that broadcasters have largely lost, things aren't much better. Yes, stations are streaming again, mainly as a gesture to secure whatever "ground" they can on the Web, but the RIAA is slowly killing those now.
And in the current poor economy, more and more stations are seeing it easy to pull the plug on something that doesn't even pay for itself, even under the best circumstances.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.