Streaming question

[Yeziknoradio]

For the radio stations that do stream online, why aren't more stations offering instant access to their stream?
(stream already running on the site with volume down to zero until you bring the volume up)

Example: Up FM Edmonton Alberta, Canada: U stream live is in the top right corner. No need to download a player or whatever, just simply click on the volume and bring it..."up".

Link: http://www.up993.com/

 

[JakeBoynton]

because they have no clue ... spend a few moments looking at a random sampling of radio websites and ... well, it's not good

 

[spunker88]

I think in the US, stations have to pay royalties on top of what they already pay to play music online. Thats why some play those annoying syndicated ads over top of the commericals, while some others stopped streaming altogether. I noticed many more Canadian stations stream than do US ones.

I used to enjoy those simple Windows Media Player streams, but nowadays it seems stations like to use those bloated flash based players. I think this has to do with who they are getting the syndicated commercial service from.

 

[davideduardo]

For the radio stations that do stream online, why aren't more stations offering instant access to their stream?
(stream already running on the site with volume down to zero until you bring the volume up)

I think one of the reasons why streaming is not automatic is the fact that a significant percentage of people who visit station sites are not there for the stream. Since bandwidth comes at a price, the added streams that are running but not being listened to would not make economic sense unless a station had relatively few simultaneous visitors to their site.

While some stations have very little of interest on their websites, those that have rich content are not going to pay for the added bandwidth demands.

 

[davideduardo]

I think in the US, stations have to pay royalties on top of what they already pay to play music online. Thats why some play those annoying syndicated ads over top of the commericals, while some others stopped streaming altogether. I noticed many more Canadian stations stream than do US ones.

That's not quite the explanation.

In the US, the talent union, AFTRA, did a contract some years back with the ad agencies and other folks who record commercials. In it, an additional fee is required if commercials on a terrestrial radio station are streamed. Since streams offer fairly low listenership, almost all agency time buys come with a no-streaming mandate. in other words, "if you stream the ad, we will cancel and we probably won't buy you again, ever."

So stations are obligated to remove agency commercials from the streams. Often what is done is the entire commercial break is filled with other content. Sometimes the station fills it, other times they broker out the stream breaks and another company sells the time on the stream, with some kind of revenue coming back to the station.

Digital music royalties don't affect commercial breaks, but the AFTRA deal does.

 

[local oscillator]

Many U.S. stations are reluctant to just turn off their streams (as I have) in order to avoid onerous RIAA royalties. They don't want to appear too "old media," so they limit their exposure to the royalties by making access to their streams difficult. Caps on simultaneous streams, difficult players and software, lengthy ads, and required registration are some of the methods used to frustrate potential stream listeners. I believe that turning the streaming off is far less offensive to listeners than forcing them to jump through annoying hoops to get to a stream. And remember, any radio station's in-market listeners can listen over-the-air on FM/AM anyway. Out-of-market listeners are of no value to stations; they don't want to pay royalties for listeners who can't add to their bottom line. So, in these days of digital Kool-Aid, many stations are trying to strike a balance between appearing "new media/digital/cutting-edge" and being profitable.

 

[1updaMan]

So?

It's an additional revenue stream.

By not embracing & investing in new technology, you are merely burying your head in the sand ... because guess what ... the new competition is global ... and IT is going to compete with you whether you like it or not.

 

[1updaMan]

Out-of-market listeners are of no value to stations

That is the very way of thinking that will end your business because your market listeners ARE of value to your global competitor.

 

[local oscillator]

It's an additional revenue stream.

No, it's an additional cost stream.

By not embracing & investing in new technology, you are merely burying your head in the sand ... because guess what ... the new competition is global ... and IT is going to compete with you whether you like it or not.

My market is local, not global; I'll compete with all comers in my market.

Out-of-market listeners are of no value to stations

That is the very way of thinking that will end your business because your market listeners ARE of value to your global competitor.

I agree that my market's listeners are of value to global competitors, but out-of-market listeners are of no value to me.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Streaming would be a new revenue stream if there was ... well, revenue coming from them. If there were ad buys directed at people in Seattle that were sent to the stream of WCBS-FM, that's great. Or if people in Seattle were willing to pay a couple $$ a month to listen to CBS-FM. Both scenarios might bring in a little revenue, but it is likely that neither would cover the SoundExchange costs.

 

[local oscillator]

BoardOp, exactly! There are far too many out there who think that just because something can be done, it should be done. That's why most of them are "consultants" and not owners; they would be out of business in short order. They're a lot like the folks in government, quite good at spending others' money on their wild schemes.

 

[1updaMan]

Every day, there are reports posted on industry websites that would indicate you are wrong.

From today on Radio Ink ... "The new "Media Vision 2010: Media, Advertising, and Marketing Economic Health Report 2010-2010 from Jack Myers' Media Business Reports projects that traditional radio, print, media, and out-of-home advertising investment will grow 3.6 percent in 2010, with most of that driven by an estimated 28 percent gain in digital spending in those media."

It's going to take some time. You can't just build some half-hearted product and expect it to pay off over night.
One thing is clear ... more and more people are checking in online. If you have no presence or even a weak presence, you will be left behind.

 

[TVradioguru]

I agree that it's important that broadcasters use the Internet or social media, but one needs to focus on how it works for them locally. In another thread there was chatter about former Clear Channel and now recently Tribune departed Randy Michaels comments about "hyper-local" content on traditional media broadcasters sites. If done correctly, the station website can become your two-way connection to your listeners/viewers with much of the content being provided by the consumers themselves.

The problem with streaming on say, a radio station site, is the station sees absolutely no benefit. Most local advertisers can care less about reaching out of market and someone out of market is listening to their what used to be local station after they have relocated to another market. Nobody in Ireland can care less about station WXYZ in DesMoines.

A growing number of businesses are, or will so be blocking live streaming of audio and video content. From what I've heard the reasons for blocking streams span from the costs of Internet bandwidth to reduced worker productivity. Microsoft is a prime example of a large business that blocks non-Microsoft partners that stream.

For those traditional stations who do stream, I've not heard of one single instance nationwide, where there has been a measurable increase in ratings or revenue. Stream ad inserts are usually comps to existing local advertisers, but don't cost any more.

 

[1updaMan]

Most local advertisers can care less about reaching out of market

For those traditional stations who do stream, I've not heard of one single instance nationwide, where there has been a measurable increase in ratings or revenue. Stream ad inserts are usually comps to existing local advertisers, but don't cost any more.

I think that is a generalization. There are many local advertisers that could benefit from reaching out of market. Research that and you will find that small businesses are spending money for more online presence (SEO etc) and they are looking for more solutions to sell whatever it is they are selling ... online.

The bigger problem is that now new competitors can easily penetrate your market and pitch your local advertisers. Pandora use to be a crappy run-down office in Oakland. Now they have a new, bigger office ... and they also have one in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago ... and might be coming to a city near you soon. They have talented people offering rich interactive media that is attractive.

So perhaps if nothing else, jumping in the game now is mitigating risk.

I don't know about ratings, but I can guarantee you that radio stations putting an effort into it are making some profit because I've seen it. These are big groups ... and maybe you are a small single station owner ... that only means you have to think outside the box a little. Creativity is free.

Just my opinion and you have yours. Time will tell I guess.

 

[Yeziknoradio]

Yeah, it is a bit odd how it seems the stream is running in the zero volume position rather than having a proper off position where people can choose to turn "up" on by simply turning the volume up.
That way there's no charge for a stream running with no volume. (or rather, a stream that is in fact off)

 

[TVradioguru]

I think that is a generalization. There are many local advertisers that could benefit from reaching out of market. Research that and you will find that small businesses are spending money for more online presence (SEO etc) and they are looking for more solutions to sell whatever it is they are selling ... online.

Nope, not a generalization. Business spending money via advertising on-line is specifically with on-line businesses, not traditional local radio or TV websites on-line.

The bigger problem is that now new competitors can easily penetrate your market and pitch your local advertisers. Pandora use to be a crappy run-down office in Oakland. Now they have a new, bigger office ... and they also have one in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago ... and might be coming to a city near you soon. They have talented people offering rich interactive media that is attractive.

Pandora is a Internet-specific business model, not a broadcast model. As I mentioned, nobody on-line outside a local market cares about a local radio station, no matter how large the market. Also, the Pandora business model is subscription based, and not profitable at that. In fact, even with several years under their belt, Pandora remains a money loser with a total listener base less than a popular mid-market radio station. Remember Broadcast.com? It didn't do well either, and it sold advertising.

quote author=1updaMan link=topic=179638.msg1570031#msg1570031 date=1290636131]
So perhaps if nothing else, jumping in the game now is mitigating risk.

I don't know about ratings, but I can guarantee you that radio stations putting an effort into it are making some profit because I've seen it. These are big groups ... and maybe you are a small single station owner ... that only means you have to think outside the box a little. Creativity is free.

Just my opinion and you have yours. Time will tell I guess.
[/quote]

But I argue that traditional media putting together a website and streaming their radio station is totally cliche', not forward-thinking at all. Why do something that anyone else can do? I totally agree that creativity is needed, but streaming is so 1990's. In these days stations can't afford to do cliche' moves that cost money with no results just because a handful of hobbyists want to listen in. Would you be willing to write a check to cover streaming on a traditional local radio station? No, I didn't think so. Neither do advertisers. I challenge you to name stations in any market who make revenue or an increase in ratings directly off streaming. I know a lot of major market station groups and consult for many of them too. I can easily confirm or refute your claims. Okay, refute because I know the answer already.

 

[davideduardo]

From today on Radio Ink ... "The new "Media Vision 2010: Media, Advertising, and Marketing Economic Health Report 2010-2010 from Jack Myers' Media Business Reports projects that traditional radio, print, media, and out-of-home advertising investment will grow 3.6 percent in 2010, with most of that driven by an estimated 28 percent gain in digital spending in those media."

But nearly none of that 28% comes from streaming.

For radio stations, digital revenues come from various types of advertising and promotion on a station's website. A client-based promotion may be mentioned on-air, but activated online. E-coupons, click throughs to discounts, music purchases, etc., are just examples of what stations can do with a site that has something more than just a few pix of the jocks.

Few US stations have a good streaming model... they just simulcast the radio station and strip out the AFTRA / Agency spots.

The European model is more successful; in essence it's a variety of pure play streams based on aspects of the heritage FM operation, with limited (2 minutes typical) of spots. Of course, much European radio is national and networked, so the on-air and web models duplicate coverage but segregate listeners into separtate salable niches.

Chérie FM is a good example, starting with a wonderful content rich website... the interactive traffic maps make me actually want to drive in Paris (not really....)

 

[GeneSavage]

These criticisms of streaming may make sense for 100 kw FMs, less for 50 kw AMs, but they make little to no sense for those with low power or rimshot signals.

I work at a 2.5 Kw AM playing classic hits, and we get many listeners on the web who say "I have a hard time picking you up" or "I lose your signal at night." In each case, they use the web to listen... and they are IN our Arbitron survey area.

An additional benefit for our web listeners (many who work in office buildings with lots and lots of steel and florescent lights) is not only improved fidelity over a traditional AM radio, but stereo without having to find a C-Quam radio at a flea market. (We don't broadcast in stereo, anyway.) Many have commented on how great our stereo stream sounds.

Same thing when storms come up; the lightning crackle could make it difficult in fringe areas to listen. Listeners jump online (I've seen the numbers jump) and get us static-free.

It's not as good as getting a 100 kw FM to simulcast... but it ain't nothin' to sneeze at, either!

I suspect rimshot 3 KW FMs would benefit similarly. If a listener has a favorite station and tells a friend but the friend can't get it clearly, they may be able to listen clearly over the internet.

Also, the idea that only local audiences care about local stations is ludicrous. Transplants are forever calling and saying how good it is to "hear a piece of home." At least one and maybe more soldier said when he was overseas it was very comforting to tune into our station from so far away. There may or may not be money in these audience members, but certainly it serves the public interest!

It's like saying nobody listened to WLS except in Chicago, or WNBC outside of New York, or XERF outside of Tijuana, or WBAP outside of Dallas. In some cases, these "out of market" audiences have proved VERY profitable.

I just think you're painting this issue with too broad a brush. With a station that has a strong in-town signal, it may be useless. If you're a cookie cutter station that sounds like every other Bob, Jack or Kiss in every other town, then it's unlikely streaming will benefit you, either.

Just don't throw out the baby with the bathwater; there ARE times it is a benefit.

 

[brettbutlerisok]

These criticisms of streaming may make sense for 100 kw FMs, less for 50 kw AMs, but they make little to no sense for those with low power or rimshot signals.

One 50kw AM that likely does benefit from streaming is KNBR San Francisco, it covers local sports teams that have a farther reach than the signal, plenty of Giants and 9er fans in Eureka and Fresno but the signal isn't quite that big. They have local stream only spots for local restaurants and the like. The type of things out of towners remember.

 

[davideduardo]

I work at a 2.5 Kw AM playing classic hits, and we get many listeners on the web who say "I have a hard time picking you up" or "I lose your signal at night." In each case, they use the web to listen... and they are IN our Arbitron survey area.

If you have any agency spots that have "no stream" dictates, then the streaming listening will not be added to the AM signal, and the listenership would be credited to a separate streaming station. Generally, that does not benefit the station.

It's like saying nobody listened to WLS except in Chicago, or WNBC outside of New York, or XERF outside of Tijuana, or WBAP outside of Dallas. In some cases, these "out of market" audiences have proved VERY profitable.

Any out-of-market profitability is long gone. XERF's model ceased to work in the late 70's, and the station eventually was siezed by the Mexican government because it could not even pay taxes. Oh, and it's nowhere near Tijuana. WBAP may have made some small amount of revenue from the trucker show, but that is similarly long gone. WLS and WNBC likely made no revenues outside their markets... particularly if you consider the fact that there is very little revenue for 7PM to 6 AM save sports and such, even locally.

If you're a cookie cutter station that sounds like every other Bob, Jack or Kiss in every other town, then it's unlikely streaming will benefit you, either.

There is that "cookie cutter" term again... a term that illustrates a lack of understanding of radio altogether.

First, the tastes of Americans vary only slightly from city to city across the country. The country hits are the same most everywhere. Or AC. Or urban. So it is natural that there be very similar stations in every city, because the music preferred in any given format will be far more similar than different across all cities. That's why the same TV shows are high rated and the same ones low rated, city by city, across the US.

Second, the Internet to a great extent is the reason why stations have the same names across multiple markets. You see, a station that streams in Caribou, ME, can register their name... for illustration, let's say it is called "Cold 105.1"... and no other station in the US can call itself "Cold" because the web stream gives the Caribou station a presence in every corner of the US. So companies find names they can use, and then use them in many markets (or licence them). Before the web, one could use a name outside the state or market of a similarly named station with vastly less difficulty... if any...

Third, the average listener has no concern about the fact that there is a Kiss FM in LA an another in Thief River Falls, MN, and 100 other cities because they don't listen to the others.

Your argument fails because it is based on a faulty premise or two, as well as a misunderstanding of listener perceptions.