Wasn't hating. Just making a note of a particular sound many bands had in the 1990s/early 2000s.
-
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
Seattle's "Rock" Station
- Thread starter Delete My Account
- Start date
The business model changed. They used to be in the hard goods business. Now they're in the licensing business. Much bigger profit margin, because they're not paying to manufacture, package, and ship the product. At one point that ate up 60% of revenue. Now that money stays in the pocket. So while the industry may be bringing in less revenue, they're making a bigger profit.
So, instead of making 40% of $25 billion (1999, the top year, revenue wise) they're making 60% of $15 Billion (according to a US Census music industry stat, 2018). It still looks like an overall loss (around $1 billion industry wide, from $10 billion to $9 billion), but considering the fact that the internet isn't going away, and streaming is here to stay, it's one they have to live with.
^^^^^ I wanted to add that I understand that statistics are quite generalized, and apparently the number of "record labels" is monstrous, with so many "independent" labels, which appear to be run by maybe a handful of people each, so the statistics I found probably don't accurately reflect the reality as it applies to the bigger labels you referred to.
So your point is well taken. It explains a lot about the financial state of the recording industry. Obviously, a lot has changed.
So your point is well taken. It explains a lot about the financial state of the recording industry. Obviously, a lot has changed.
Let's now look at the convergence between music and radio. At one time, the goal of music was to create a limited number of big stars who sold lots of records. The goal of radio is to attract big audiences, so there was a convergence of goals between radio and records. The Beatles or The Eagles sold millions of records, so if radio plays The Beatles or The Eagles, they will attract lots of listeners.
Now, the music industry isn't built on sales, but streams. They make the same amount of money if they have a few artists who stream millions of times, or millions of artists who stream hundreds of times. The number of artists aren't limited, as they were, by the hard costs of record pressing plants, distribution, and sales. All of that is gone. So labels have fewer limits on the number of artists they sign. And they'll continue to release music to streaming sites whether or not it gets airplay. So that convergence between radio and records is less important to the labels.
What does this mean for rock music? It means the music is becoming more diluted and the impact of particular songs or artists is having less of an effect on the population. So there are thousands of bands and thousands of songs being released to the public, each building its own fan base, but not creating a consensus among music fans in general. That makes it harder for radio stations to find songs they can play that will attract ratings. Thus, the situation with KISW, where they find out they can attract a bigger audience by not playing music in drive time.
I think that is a good summation. The days of people buying DVD’s are coming to an end. I don’t know about diluting the product. There will always be artists that are top tier and will be compensated appropriately.
Sure, but that compensation probably won't be what it was for someone like Tom Petty.
You mean came to an end easily ten years ago?
As BigA said; artists discovered via social media get compensated differently through touring. Some have avoided record companies entirely. How does radio get that music?
I wanted to comment on this - what exactly is unique about Central FL and Tampa Bay that hot talk does well but next to no where else? I believe there is a station in Rochester, NY (I’m not sure how it does) that iHeart owns.
XM used to carry a hot talk show from Tampa back in the day, called "Monsters of the Midday." A recurring character on the show was Drunky the Bear, and the humor was centered on drinking, girls, sports and partying. Very frat boy, not my thing at all. This was back in the early '00s. Are the Monsters still on the air there?
I think you're talking about WTKS in Orlando. They have the Monsters in the Morning
Monsters in the Morning - Real Radio 104.1
You wanted the best. You got the best! The Monsters in the Morning on REAL Radio 104.1!
Yes, WAIO I believe are the calls of the Rochester station. I guess I don't understand why nobody tried to put Rivers, BJ Shay, Men's Room, and even Bonaduce on one station. From what I understand, they were all doing pretty well when Rivers ended his show, so that station at least in theory should have done very well.
I love Walmart for necessities but don’t buy high end stuff there as you are likely getting low quality brands and stuff that doesn’t sell elsewhere IMO. Again just in my opinion.
That's funny: 'high end stuff' used in the same sentence as Walmart.
I've heard the argument before that KISW should sound more like 94.5 in Spokane, which airs an active rock format with a VERY diverse library. I usually am a big fan of a wider playlist, but from a programming perspective, I think this strategy would have a detrimental impact. KISW is in a good spot now with talk heavy programming in morning and afternoon drive, and a well executed playlist in other dayparts. You get some classic rock, some modern rock, but nothing that is completely out of left field.
You're right, mainly because KISW operates in a large market. Spokane, by comparison, is a small/medium market. That's like someone arguing that the playlist on their phone is broader than a radio station. Whereas that may be a factual statement, it doesn't mean the music tastes of a population count served by a Class C radio station, is the same as yours.
WalMart spends nothing to support a local community. Other than the fact that WalMart killed off most local small town businesses (before Amazon finished the job), and left us with nowhere else to go, why would anyone spend money on WalMart?
If you are wealthy I understand your point. But most today are struggling and depend on walmart for low prices. I am not sure why you don’t find this obvious.
- Status