I do understand all of that. And that's why I'm saying it is obsolete. Unless you can find an entertainment that can draw a large core audience, you make no money. I can find a lot of streams of things that are somewhat entertaining to me if I sort through the nine million web streams available which are not entertaining to me. If radio with its expensive plants, big electric bills, staff, taxes and all that business stuff is to survive, (specifically the topic of this forum has been AM radio) it has to draw a large audience to generate revenue to survive. AM can not. FM can not, or soon won't. Do you know that many of the guys, sorry, persons, working in medium and smaller markets, are making about the same money we dinosaurs made back in the 80s? That's not adjusted for inflation. It's very similar money. With voice tracking, it's worse. You have one guy, person-oops, voice tracking several stations for that same money. Honestly I think at takes a special skill to make that sound exciting. I can't do it. I don't hear a lot who can. So my point is that if the stations are to make enough money to survive, they need to find something to create enough water cooler talk to make the local business want to advertise. National buyers don't want the local markets any longer. The radio has nothing to attract and hold the local audience. If it did perhaps there would be hope of survival for a while longer. Internet entertainment is not what the main topic was about. I'd rather punch up a radio station than search the internet to find something interesting, while sorting through hundreds of armature pod casts that sound like 13 year olds playing with their first tape recorder back in the dinosaur days. The advertising pie is smaller and radio is getting just a bit more than the local newspapers. There are still local newspapers right? No? Well I guess radio may be next if it doesn't come up with a reason for you to listen. It's not about maintaining radio for a tiny fractionalized audience, it's about building a business, making some money and providing a product you can be proud of. Or turn off the transmitters and compete on the national scale on the internet and make your millions without that huge AM electric bill. I wish you luck.
Concerning AM radio or radio, how does this social media ad to revenue to save the facility? The topic was saving AM radio, or radio in general. Most stations play music so I used that as an illustration. I don't listen to music on the radio because of the 22 minutes of commercials per hour. If there was an entertainment element along with the music, I might listen to a few stop sets. If music listeners all seek out other forums for music (as I do) there is no reason to burn electricity for those expensive transmitters. To generate revenue, you need a product that generates interest. Even if the commercials were entertaining, it might help, but there is literally nothing entertaining on most of today's juke box automated and voice tracked radio.
Unfortunately, those things that are timeless are unknown today to many. I'll betcha that a lot of people think that a "Hienlein" is really a "Hineline" and a new brand of Chinese EV.
Those of us who have been "on the web" for going on 30 years (my first KTNQ website went on in 1996) realize that the audience... the people we call "listeners"... don't care about the delivery method. AM, FM, a stream or whatever is irrelevant to many.
Or a brand of Dutch beer.
Depending on where you live, there might be stations that don't run that much ad time that play what you want to hear. They exist in Phoenix. Then there's SXM, which I grant you has to be paid for, but there's plenty of music for most peoples' tastes.
If everybody agreed with you, these stations would have gone out of business long ago. The mainstream music stations are still of interest to lots of people that the advertisers are trying to attract.
Well said.
I think they're doing that and that's why no one is making any money and the caliber of radio is what it is.
That's exactly what I was saying. You have to have a content that a bulk of people will pay attention too if you want to make money. We have a lot of narrowcasting that has smaller audiences that are difficult to monetize. That's why it is failing.
As an old person not used to those new fangled gadgets I don't understand exactly how people make millions of dollars out of EweTube (farm videos of sheep?) I do know that making money in that method is much like becoming a big screen star. Thousands will audition and two will make it. It is not as lucrative as the guys submitting videos in hopes of fame and fortune wish it were
I do on occasion. It sucks for the most part. I need more than nine songs in a row with a liner between every other tune. It isn't interesting. That's the issue.
While I do understand that, my comments are concerning the dwindling audience which makes the revenue drop with it. Music is available from a thousand other commercial free sources. I'm concerned that if radio doesn't find something other than music to draw an audience the audience numbers will completely leave for other sources over time. Why would they not? That doesn't mean music isn't a viable format, but to listen to it on radio with it's 22 minutes of commercials is asking a lot unless there is something else to hold the audience. In the dinosaur age, it was an engaging personality or contests. I know today it's different and I've aged out, but I don't see how radio will hold an audience without something new and entertaining to get them through a seven minute stop set.
The answer is the same as radio, ads. Most forms of media are supported by advertisers. Whether YouTube or WXYZ, if you can show a certain demographic watches your videos or listens to your station and advertisers want to reach that audience, then you stay in business.
Why would I want a free Spotify account. That has ads. Nobody wants ads.
I understand that too. I am suggesting that making content for social media only lends itself to a big payoff for a very minor number of contributors. Most do it for fun and most never make much at all. Radio has been losing audience for decades because it is not entertaining. Commercials ARE necessary but you had better give listers a reason to sit through them when you have to do such long sets. I get all that,but doing the same record, liner, record crap isn't holding the audience
Most of the stations I listen to have short frequent commercial breaks. They don't bother me and some of the commercials are even entertaining.
I am listening to an online only station right now that reminds it listeners that they are the ones that pay. The music is mostly good (some shows I don't care for) and the DJs are entertaining. Some tell us details about the music. One is an old grouch who complains a lot.
There is only a minimally "dwindling audience". Persons who use radio over age 18 are off by about 5% since 1996.
That's why Seacrest and Bobby Bones and Charlemagne are so popular as they add content between the songs. And many people like the ease of having a curated playlist.
Yes. Most attrition is instantaneous or in the first minute to 90". So one spot or eight have the same effect. But only a couple of interruptions causes less total tune-out than many shorter ones.
