Streaming question

[Yeziknoradio]

OK...let's put it this way.

THE BILLING PROCESS FOR STREAMING

Is it still "bill the company based on usage"?
The more people listening to a stream, the more expensive it gets?

Or has that changed? Can that change? If so, how?

 

[bossbill]

Interesting dialogue. Fact is, when broadcasters compete on the internet, they're competing with thousands of others, with no geographical reference. When we compete over-the-air, we know that our listeners are local, and our local advertisers understand that as well. My local furniture store will not benefit from listening across the country, even if that listener used to live here or knows somebody that did.

The only way streaming will benefit a local music broadcaster is if the streaming provider can limit the stream geographically.

And yes, broadcasters do pay for streaming per listener, as well as additional music licensing fees, plus as Eduardo says, we can't play the McDonald commercials, and the stream doesn't count as a simulcast. There are very few upsides here. We can provide a stream that is not the same as our over-the-air signal, and will have a separate product. But the challenge again is that we are up against those thousands of other streamers.

A local talk station can benefit from streaming, because it is not likely that a lot of out-of-area residents will listen to the content. But streaming a national talk show on a local station is worthless.

 

[GeneSavage]

You think by not streaming that you somehow AREN'T competing with those thousands of streamers?

Is there something magical about a radio that prevents you from turning it off and turning on an internet stream?

Regarding not counting the streaming: how many people do you suppose answer Arbitron by saying "I listen to the webstream at KXYZ.com" vs. saying "I listen to KXYZ?" I don't know the answer to this... but I have my suspicions! I know what Arbitron WANTS people to do... but how many really do it right? We're lucky to get diaries back at all! Thus the PPM... which I understand can pick up a station's "code" (or whatever is embedded in the signal for identification) off of a web stream as well.

Funny how you say national coverage is so useless now... obviously that's why Sirius / XM has been able to add more subscribers than DirecTV or Dish Network... obviously that's why national brands like Coke & Nabisco continue to advertise nation-wide.

7pm to 6am is unprofitable because we're all targeting 35 - 44 yr olds who are watching TV at night! We turn out the lights at 7, provide nothing compelling to listen to, and then surprise surprise, nobody listens.

"Cookie Cutter" IS the right term, and you're not understanding my meaning. I'm not saying the playlists should vary wildly from market to market (although there ARE market variances due to bands coming through town, local connections to artists, area preferences, etc, but those variances are minimal).

I'm not saying they should all have different names. In fact, if you own a chain of successful "Kiss"'s, for example, then kinda like McDonald's you know what to expect when you come to a strange town.

(However, that's why we have McDonald's, Burger King, & Wendy's... and oh, by the way, they DO vary their menu slightly from location to location, even in the same chain!)

What I'm saying is that when all that's between the records is "that was / this is" and "we play the most music," there's no compelling reason to listen... locally OR nationally.

Now, if your station is talking up local events, talking about local people, talking about the local area, then you have something of absolute interest to the local market and possibly a curiosity-type interest from a national (or at least regional) area.

Use to be, the big personalities were on the coasts. Your hope was to become interesting enough to take one of their shifts someday. Today, the only thing working in New York or LA means is that you've got a bigger paycheck to lose when the ratings shift a tenth of a point, and your rent is 10x higher than it is in middle America. It just doesn't mean as much anymore. I think that's a shame.

There was a time, that was my goal... but 15 years ago I realized what I was looking for was gone from the coast. When I stopped hearing extraordinary personalities on New York & LA radio, when I realized I was hearing talent equal to my under-50 market, I thought, "why bother?" I'm happier to stay here.

(To be fair: there may be AMAZING talent at stations in Dallas, Chicago, LA, New York, etc... but, just like here, they're not allowed to do much more than read liner cards. They sound like any jock, anywhere... I became apathetic about getting to the coasts to do the same darn thing I can do in my hometown.)

I'm trying to say that love or hate of a station doesn't kill it... APATHY does. If people don't care if they tune in or not, they WON'T bother to tune in. There are too many distractions. DVDs, Wiis, XBox 360s, the internet, Kindles, smart phones, on and on the list goes.

Streaming CAN fill in coverage holes. Streaming CAN be counted with your radio audience (if not by Arbitron, by a smart sales staff). Streaming DOES increase listener involvement with your brand whether Arbitron counts them or not. Out of market audiences CAN increase your sales numbers if marketed to the right companies (your local shoe store won't go for it, no, but SOMEBODY'S buying national spots!). Stations across the nation often ARE cookie cutter because apathy is safer in the minds of investors than risking hate... so the content between the records is trimmed to mindless generic liners which could come from anywhere USA... if the stations even HAVE jocks anymore (witness Bob, Jack, etc.).

As a station programmer or owner, you don't have to benefit from this information... but you certainly COULD.

 

[1updaMan]

Pandora is a Internet-specific business model, not a broadcast model.

It really doesn't matter what they are. What matters is ... they are taking your listeners and now your advertisers. What are you going to do about it?

 

[1updaMan]

Well written NightAire.

I think unfortunately, there are not enough people (like you) in our industry that are willing to look outside the traditional box. They aren't willing to notice that while they’re standing still, their competitors, even those they don’t yet know about, are improving. Some are completely redefining our entire industry. They don't care if you believe in digital media or not. Actually, they are probably hoping you don't ... because they are coming whether you like it or not.

This conversation thread has been a frustrating representation of the hard-headedness of our industry and it's unwillingness to evolve and change.

 

[davideduardo]

You think by not streaming that you somehow AREN'T competing with those thousands of streamers?

The issue is whether streaming the broadcast signal, complete with about 15 minutes an hour of stopset time, is going to contribute anything or make any money towards covering the costs. That's something every station has to decide.

Regarding not counting the streaming: how many people do you suppose answer Arbitron by saying "I listen to the webstream at KXYZ.com" vs. saying "I listen to KXYZ?"

Since responeses to Arbitron are not verbal, but either written in a diary or recorded by a meter, your statement is disingenuous. In the diary, for each entry of specific listening, there is a set of columns to check location (home, work, car, other) and whether the listening is AM or FM or stream. Pretty near all diarykeepers fill this in.

Since web streams are separately encoded, in the PPM the usage is obvious.

Thus the PPM... which I understand can pick up a station's "code" (or whatever is embedded in the signal for identification) off of a web stream as well.

The web stream is separately encoded. Only if it is a 100% simulcast will Arbitron combine it with the broadcast signal(s).

Funny how you say national coverage is so useless now... obviously that's why Sirius / XM has been able to add more subscribers than DirecTV or Dish Network...

Satellite TV has nearly 35 million subscribers, at an average of about $86 a month. Satellite radio has 20 million, at around $10 (after discounts, free trials, etc. are accounted for). Satellite installs typically cover several rooms an multiple users, while satellite is in one location, the car, where less than a third of radio listening takes / took place. In other words, a comparison with satellite TV, or radio, is not appropriate.

obviously that's why national brands like Coke & Nabisco continue to advertise nation-wide.

National campaigns include portions that are on national media like TV nets and magazines, and portions that are local... right down to brand support at the retail level such as end aisle displays, self talkers, in-store cuponing, etc.

7pm to 6am is unprofitable because we're all targeting 35 - 44 yr olds who are watching TV at night!

Radio targets 18-54 because that is what adversers want. Radio listening goes down at night, and it has since the 50's, so we make most of our money 6 AM to 7 PM because that is where the money is. We could go after other demos, but why? There are few dollars out there for those fringe demos, and such programming has limited advertiser appeal.

"Cookie Cutter" IS the right term, and you're not understanding my meaning. I'm not saying the playlists should vary wildly from market to market (although there ARE market variances due to bands coming through town, local connections to artists, area preferences, etc, but those variances are minimal).

I get the meaning entirely. But the fact is, tastes and taste subsets are national in the US, and network programming is one way to reach similar groups, but local media can pick the important groups and try to attract them too.

I'm not saying they should all have different names. In fact, if you own a chain of successful "Kiss"'s, for example, then kinda like McDonald's you know what to expect when you come to a strange town.

Actually, using Kiss as an example, the Clear Channel servicee marked brand is licensed to others as well... and the stations range from Urban to Vanilla CHR to CHurban to Hot AC, depending on the market and the research. But the brand is replicated, because Clear managed to get a service mark on the name and they can freely use it... while other names are owned by other companies and they can't use them.


[/quote]Now, if your station is talking up local events, talking about local people, talking about the local area, then you have something of absolute interest to the local market and possibly a curiosity-type interest from a national (or at least regional) area.[/quote]

"Local" does not refer to geography any longer. If I fly model aircraft, my community may range from Zagreb to Zion, UT. How local is Facebook, anyway?

When I stopped hearing extraordinary personalities on New York & LA radio, when I realized I was hearing talent equal to my under-50 market, I thought, "why bother?" I'm happier to stay here.

You stopped hearing what your idea of good talent is. That does not mean that there is no good talent. I can listen to Big Boy or Seacrest or Piolín or Keven & Bean or any of several dozen local talents in LA and feel that they are every bit as good for today as the folks from the past. Or I can listen to a station with no jocks, KCBS FM, and feel that it has as much personality as any station I've ever heard. Standards change.

[/quote] Out of market audiences CAN increase your sales numbers if marketed to the right companies (your local shoe store won't go for it, no, but SOMEBODY'S buying national spots!).[/quote]

And they demand a metric. National buys are audited, and unless certain metrics are met, the buyer is into some rather complex explanations. Where do we see enough broadcast station streaming out of market to justify a national buy?

Some stations feel the added branding of streaming is worth the cost, but when competitors have zero to two minutes of commercials and you have 15 minutes, a rethinking of the strategy is needed. As I said, the European broadcasters... where "local" and "national" are synonymous, have got a model that works for them... where is the innovative thinking for the US, where we have no real national model for radio... which may be the problem! There is a real disconect since listening could all be national, but sales is essentially all local (even national spot buys are placed market by market).

 

[TheBigA]

Pandora is a Internet-specific business model, not a broadcast model.

It really doesn't matter what they are. What matters is ... they are taking your listeners and now your advertisers. What are you going to do about it?

I haven't seen any data that says they're taking "my listeners." They are a very different service. I've seen a list of their advertisers, and they're not "my advertisers," either.

 

[TheBigA]

7pm to 6am is unprofitable because we're all targeting 35 - 44 yr olds who are watching TV at night! We turn out the lights at 7, provide nothing compelling to listen to, and then surprise surprise, nobody listens.

Who do you mean by "we all?" Most of the stations I track target teens and 20s in that day part. The music mix is more currents based. It's where stations try out new songs and get reaction. It's where stations build cume. It's usually far more phone intensive than any other day part. Maybe you need to listen to more radio.

(To be fair: there may be AMAZING talent at stations in Dallas, Chicago, LA, New York, etc... but, just like here, they're not allowed to do much more than read liner cards. They sound like any jock, anywhere... I became apathetic about getting to the coasts to do the same darn thing I can do in my hometown.)

Could you be more specific about what format you're talking about? Outside of AC, I don't hear a lot of liner card readers, even in markets lower than #50. You give a liner card to a jock in the urban format, you do so at your own peril. Same with country.

 

[bossbill]

Out of market audiences CAN increase your sales numbers if marketed to the right companies (your local shoe store won't go for it, no, but SOMEBODY'S buying national spots!).

Rural markets seldom get national accounts; when they do, they're not allowed to stream them. What is left are the brick and mortar hardware stores, shoe stores, drug stores, furniture, home furnishings, etc. These stores don't give a whit whether we have a listener in Spokane, Chicago, or wherever.

My comment regarding the uselessness of streaming a local talk station with national programming - the talk shows already stream. In a particular case with us, we carry Michael Savage. When the Seattle station cancelled Savage, the Seattle listeners found us and hogged our stream. Didn't benefit us one bit.

 

[davideduardo]

I'm not saying they should all have different names. In fact, if you own a chain of successful "Kiss"'s, for example, then kinda like McDonald's you know what to expect when you come to a strange town.

Here's a bit more on why the same names are used market after market from a well thought of communications practice:

"Many station owners think they can adopt any name, positioning statement or slogan for their station so long as no one else in the market is using the exact same name or slogan. That thinking is often incorrect, and can be very costly if a name is adopted and has to be changed later because it infringes on someone else's intellectual property rights."

The whole article is at

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/201...consult-a-trademark-attorney-first/index.html

And, also remember that stations with the same name may be widely different in format in different markets. In any case, listeners from out of market do not benefit local stations with the possible exception of places like Traverse City, MI, where the summer population exceeds the resident population by a factor of two or three and advertisers see a benefit in reaching them. Other than these smaller vacation markets, the percentage of vacationers (and vacationers with radios) is so small and so divided among many local stations as to be irrelevant.

 

[TVradioguru]

With the recent news today regarding proposed new, much higher streaming music license fees, this whole discussion may be moot. Stations may not be able to afford to stream for the tiny, if any return.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9163084

 

[TheBigA]

The irony is that artists feel internet radio is a lot fairer to them than OTA radio. Internet radio is more likely to play smaller niche music that is often ignored by regular broadcasters. Yet the internet folks are the ones being killed by royalties. They seem to be killing the golden goose.

In addition, a number of artists have started their own internet streaming radio stations. Christina Aguilera and Kenny Chesney run their own branded stations, and they aren't exempt from paying music royalties. They pay at the same rates as everyone else, because half of the royalty money goes to the artist's labels, plus 1% goes to musicians. It will soon come to a point where artists can't afford to play their own music on their own branded radio stations.

 

[TVradioguru]

The irony is that artists feel internet radio is a lot fairer to them than OTA radio. Internet radio is more likely to play smaller niche music that is often ignored by regular broadcasters. Yet the internet folks are the ones being killed by royalties. They seem to be killing the golden goose.

In addition, a number of artists have started their own internet streaming radio stations. Christina Aguilera and Kenny Chesney run their own branded stations, and they aren't exempt from paying music royalties. They pay at the same rates as everyone else, because half of the royalty money goes to the artist's labels, plus 1% goes to musicians. It will soon come to a point where artists can't afford to play their own music on their own branded radio stations.

Even though traditional media, whether radio or TV still appeal to the documented masses, Internet-whatever is usually considered sexier and held out as being more popular than it actually is. Of course we know otherwise, but the fact is regular radio still reaches more people every day than the combined listenership of all the streams-streaming in a year.

The problem is for those who don't know, or don't pay attention; is social networking sites have a completely different following than from streaming, those who use the Internet for business purposes, hobbies, discussion boards, etc. In fact, few of the 500 million in the world who regularly use Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, what have you, regularly visit other types of sites yet some here continue to make the incorrect assumption that Internet use is ubiqitous to including things like streaming in similar numbers. Actual measurement of who goes where is completely the opposite. Those attracted to social networking mainly go to a handfull of social networking sites, where a very tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of music or broadcast-like radio listeners, regularly visit streaming of any kind.

 

[GeneSavage]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9163084

Is it just me, or is this article over three years old?

March 27, 2007

While streaming today is a tiny portion of the media audience, there is one thing which gives it an advantage to advertisers: it can target active listeners.

When you run an ad on broadcast radio, you don't know if you'll be heard at full-blast on a car stereo or at whisper-level in an active office which has had the radio on all day and most employees have "tuned-out" the buzz above their heads.

With internet radio, you may only reach a tiny portion of the market, but that portion can be engaged, active, & closely listening to what is being said.

Many advertisers only pay when people click through the banner on a media player, for example. If people don't hear or see the ad, they don't click, the advertiser doesn't have to pay.

If you're selling dulcimers, is it better to spend a whole bunch of money to reach a general audience on the local broadcast AC, or a small amount on a small streaming station called "Acoustic Folk Alpine Adventures?"

 

[TVradioguru]

With internet radio, you may only reach a tiny portion of the market, but that portion can be engaged, active, & closely listening to what is being said.

Many advertisers only pay when people click through the banner on a media player, for example. If people don't hear or see the ad, they don't click, the advertiser doesn't have to pay.

If you're selling dulcimers, is it better to spend a whole bunch of money to reach a general audience on the local broadcast AC, or a small amount on a small streaming station called "Acoustic Folk Alpine Adventures?"

You make yet miss the point at the same time... I think we agree that national advertisers who target customers on-line, go to specific social networking or high-volume sites with ad banners and video sites which offer pre-roll. Because radio streaming is just like..well radio, the combination of the sheer volume of streams, combined with a small audience world wide, doesn't even show up on a on-line advertiser's radar. Conversely, a local or regional advertiser with a smaller budget which would make little if any revenue from outside a market, would buy traditional radio since there is a much larger local audience. Two different models serving a completely different client base.

 

[TheBigA]

With internet radio, you may only reach a tiny portion of the market, but that portion can be engaged, active, & closely listening to what is being said.

Many advertisers only pay when people click through the banner on a media player, for example. If people don't hear or see the ad, they don't click, the advertiser doesn't have to pay.

If you're selling dulcimers, is it better to spend a whole bunch of money to reach a general audience on the local broadcast AC, or a small amount on a small streaming station called "Acoustic Folk Alpine Adventures?"

The people selling dulcimers don't buy general advertising. I know that for a fact. I think the number of advertisers aiming for wide reach is getting smaller. That includes car companies and clothing companies. But the goal of all advertisers is the same: Reaching the largest number of potential customers. I doubt there will be much money in programming to narrow musical niches.

I think you overgeneralize about internet listeners. The excitement factor is starting to wear down, and internet radio listeners are starting to behave like OTA listeners.