The Demise of Radio...or is it?

[Surfer]

OK, so I've been hearing, reading and talking with a number of industry insiders who seem to have made up their minds radio is going to die...PERIOD! It will never make the money it once did, new technology is going to take over...whatever you can think of to encourage gloom and doom seems to be gong on. What I want to know is if anybody is willing to do something about it?

Now I mean really do something. Not just change the format at B98.5 or quit calling 97.1 the "New" station. I mean really make a lasting impact. Sure, all the corporate folks tend to own anything that may be worth it but remember, they all got started in smaller markets with less than perfect staions. Can the medium be fixed? I would say "yes" for one simple reason. Radio people are extremely talented and some of the most creative folks I've ever known. In fact, as is usually the case, tell somebody who works in radio that something can't be done and they'll go prove you wrong (usually for a beer).

As 2009 comes to a close I'd like to make a formal resolution to see how I can improve a business and career that I truly love. I've been at this since 1980 and I am NOT a typical radio person. My voice is very high (I can almost sound like Mickey Mouse without much effort), I tend to be on the shy side and I don't always speak out as I could. I have, however, done very well in broadcasting for 1 simple reason. I never quit. I've never let anyone tell me how poorly I'm doing because I can always do better. That's always been the motto of all the GM's, PD's and Sales Managers I've ever worked with. Never give up. But to listen to everyone on this board and around the industry talk about how it's all hopeless makes me think. If you're all so ready to throw in the towel, maybe you don't deserve to work in radio anymore. I can't think of anything else I'd rather do.

So, how do we fix what we've got? Get the stations away from corporate ownership? Maybe that means returning to a more regulated industry. Maybe that means changing some ownership rules. Maybe that means going to smaller markets and learning how the big guys got there. I'm sure it does mean serving your community, being live and local and having FUN with the medium. C'mon people, isn't there somebody out there that has any good ideas? I'm willing to entertain just about anything if it makes our business better. Sure, technology is coming fast, but we need to be smarter, faster and better. If radio folks are as good as I believe they are, it CAN be done. If I'm wrong then it's time to do something I've avoided all my 50 years of life...GETTING A REAL JOB.

I currently work for one of those big "corporate" employers and I can tell you that what is coming down the pike will, in time, take away everything we've ever tried to do. Is that what you're willing to stand for? I'm not.

(...and by the way, if you want to make jokes about this, fine. But I'd rather see you use your talents in a fa more constructive wy. Let's get something done, before it's to late)

 

[RoddyFreeman]

The sky has been falling on radio since TV was invented.

Radio has a better delivery system than virtually anything else. Everybody has instant access to radio. There's no buffering and no streaming.

At some point, when radio really loses audience and not just has a little erosion, owners will wake up. Then they'll be forced to put quality back into the product. And the financial mess that several radio conglomerates will be going through soon should result in the sale of a lot of stations at some point.

I don't ever expect small-market radio to be really local again. It's just too easy to pull higher-quality, less-expensive programming off a satellite. But I think major-market and some medium-market radio will get better eventually.

 

[oaktree]

OK. I'll bite.

Those thinking that radio is merely in "hiding" during a bad recession and because of Wall St. are wrong. When a decision is made in upper management -- beyond the stations -- it's like watching the effect as it encompasses every McDonalds and Burger King. It isn't about to change -- and especially now that corporate lenders have been burned by the likes of Citadel, Clear Channel, Cumulus and others.

It's a money business -- as are most "businesses." Huge lessons have been learned from this. Cutbacks? Yes, there have been thousands -- and yet, through syndication, most of those stations still continue. Automation? More than ever today and you won't see equipment being tossed out the door to bring back heralded jocks or formats. Voice tracking? A trick widely used because of the economy and despite its lousy "delivery system" (and many of the people doing it) -- it's not going to go away, unless it's for cheaper "talent" -- and you don't get much cheaper than a 45 minute stab at doing 3 minutes worth of voice tracks in a four minute show.

Will "localization" of new owners help? No. Radio is not a "hobby business" or a shoe store that makes it or breaks it. It's a federally licensed trust that costs lots of money to maintain -- small market or not.

It take smart people who know both radio and business to survive, not format junkies, rich owners with money to burn (they end up not having such,) or those looking to be the next great idea in radio.

It is not about finding the newest, hottest music format. People outside of radio are not radio geeks. They are listeners and they are particular, at that. You can play Swahili Disco and find a few fans. The same is said of AAA. Progressive Talk. Classic Hits and so many others. Yes, they are out there. But are they making the demands of "business"? Many are not.

Talent is in the eyes of the beholder. Firing someone from a million dollar contract, only to have to pay them while they sit on the sidelines tends to irk banks who lend money in the first place. Broadcasters, who blame "poor economic conditions" have themselves to blame. It was about greed. And what did they depend on for those revenues to make the nut? Commercials -- which, as you know, are both the salvation and the bane of radio and always has been.

Do people care that your 26th rated radio station in whatever market broadcasts from the local Farmer's Market as a "community service?" The majority do not. Nor do they care about you reading news out of the local newspaper -- some word for word. Do they care that you don't have important weather information when needed, as compared with having "weather on the 8's"? Yes they do. Provide a real service or don't provide on at all. And today, so many aren't providing the service that radio as a companion medium did for it's first 70 years or so.

Today, it's about ignoring those above 50 -- they are too expensive to try to change "band loyalty". Everyone chases the 25-54, not realizing that the up and coming 18-34s don't care about radio, don't generally find stupidity and crassness their overall taste and "businesses" don't support some because you can only give away so much at lower rates than your competitors who are out to cut your throat.

And that doesn't include other "media" all doing the same to the same advertisers you are.

Radio has now understood that just because it is, thanks to PPM, about "hearing" radio and not "listening" -- it's all a moot point. You're either good and successful at what you do in the marketplace, or, if your below being fifth or sixth in the rankers -- forget it -- it's time to sell local direct. Not an easy task.

The cure, that politically, no one will ever do here, as they did in Canada -- we need fewer stations, a lot less AM, less crowded FM (including no LPFM "community radio" that is non-commercial - sorry) and dump the HD Radio joke. Broadcasters, let alone consumers, haven't paid attention to their HD-2, or HD-3 streams -- let alone HD-4 coming soon.

So how do you tell the owner of a station who sunk his life savings into a business of 5 employees that his station is set to die? You don't. That's not the American way. So, as long as there are those believing in the "free economic marketplace," we just have to let those that can't make it die or die trying.

Talent has a lot to do with it. There is plenty of good talent out there. But in the majority of markets, as we've found this year, how do you pay more than above minimum wage for someone who finds that frying a frozen turkey inside a van is both funny and a money maker for the "corporation"? And to what end? Heck, even news/talk stations seem to continually rely on "the cheapest way out" -- utilizing TV stations in market or rampant syndication from "the big city" to make a homogenized national effort try to sound local. It doesn't work -- except when there is nothing better on the dial.

We must realize that investors aren't in this just to burn cash. They have to borrow money, so as to not use their own money. Losing other people's money (like Citadel did to its stockholders) is the way out. Radio is a lousy investment opportunity to the unknowing -- they just don't know it, yet. Changing formats is not a guarantee or success when your market has grown to urban sprawl outside the metro "loop" and can't hear your little kilowatt graveyarder, no matter how good it might be. And it's not going to change. Putting hundreds and perhaps thousands of LPFM stations on the air may give more "diversity" -- but it won't make them money and will eventually cause advertisers to become even more cautious as the fickleness of the radio listening public is proven -- as they go from station to station to station to station.

"Choice" is not the answer. There are plenty of choices. "Experimentation" is not the answer -- how many have already tried and failed? Just keeping a carrier on with junk programming, especially now, is not the answer -- but someone, somewhere thinks, "someone will buy it."

The whole system and establishment from smallest town on up to the major markets needs to be fixed. Putting it in the hands of "more local operators" is not the answer. Many of those stations now owned by the conglomerates of "repeater radio" today came from past owners who saw the open checkbooks of the "big groups" and were tired of losing money -- so, they sold out.

This isn't about this year. And it's not about the hype from the NAB and RAB. Radio needs some mass overhauling -- and not just to sooth those who only listen to AM for "dxing." That doesn't count. Your hobby doesn't matter. Radio is to be listened too and not merely heard.

That's the problem. Too much to hear and not enough to really listen to.

 

[taylorengineer]

I've been a "the sky is falling" person on this board but I will say this: I sure wish I had bought a few thousand shares of Salem stock when it was $0.25 a share .....it was north of $5.50 last I heard.
As far as I can tell.....radio is pretty much giving most of the listeners what they want and expect. Same for network television. The only listeners/viewers who are disgruntled are members(me included) of the lunatic fringe.

 

[oaktree]

http://quote.morningstar.com/Stock/s.aspx?t=SALM

$4.91 a share.

A lot of people who bought Citadel cheap thought the same thing. Guess where they are today? They've lost every dime they invested in the company as it sank to penny stock range and below. The same with Westwood One and other broadcasters.

Broadcasting, especially radio, is not the safest investment bet to make. Ask investors of Clear Channel (an their lendors who think they have gone into a technical default by taking on more debt) and others. CBS wants to unload radio stations, not buy new ones. The "synergy" is now with radio and TV working together, in their thinking.

As romantic it may seem -- broadcasting is a leveraged medium that depended on stockholders to keep them safe. Ownership and management with wild dreams of expansion burned through investor money, especially in the past year, thanks to the economy -- and many investors got burned.

$4.91 is not a sure bet at this time, unless you buy a million shares of it -- then hope the stock price doubles before you have to sell it for a profit. Having watched Citadel in the last year, where it went from $.29 a share to $.02 a share just this year alone, I'd say hoping for short term gain wouldn't be such a good idea.

Good luck.

 

[JimmyJames]

Interesting, Oaktree.

You propose that it's somehow a problem to give people more choice, when if commercial radio was meeting those needs, there would be very little demand for an LPFM service?

There is a model for serving a niche audience and making a profit or succeeding as a noncomm. And I believe that's a valid role for radio to play in the new media era.

The fact you don't feel the same suggests that what you really want is the FCC to protect your failing station or business model.

 

[oaktree]

No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all.

First, the LPFM's will not be "commercially successful" with underwriting. So few of them are, and I am well aware of a few exceptions. But there are very few.

Secondly, to give more choice is a diversion to satisfy the fickle.  Where does it end? It has been proven time and time again that some "new" formats just don't attract the amount of listeners needed to be a bona-fide success.  Yes, playing records backwards, for instance, or playing other than "hits" may attract some fans, just not enough of them. Plus, volunteer efforts have, except in rare instances (and Chuck Conrad is an example of one who has certainly proven the exception to the status quo,) not worked well. It's another "sound" on the radio, with no or little reach and varying degrees of community service.

As to government, the last thing I want is government to "run" or bailout broadcasting -- especially bad broadcasting -- and there is a good deal of it. However, that being said, to arbitrarily tie up the FM band with largely unlistenable signals that preclude movement in these times of established AM stations, as has been the source of same in Canada, is stupid, considering the way things are today and the deteroriation of the AM broadcast band. (Ancient Modulation.)  With 80 % of the listenership to FM just 40 years after the great influx of commercial FM, is it, now, any wonder why AM, especially interference prone low power signals, have been left behind and economic burdens to its owners?

I don't think AM stations will be able to boot an LPFM off the air just to get a frequency on FM. Nor should they. I do think that the FCC and government, in its wisdom (or lack of it) has not only dropped the ball, but completely missed the point by not keeping up with technology that consumers relate to, if not rely on as they once did, by offering the best possibility for acceptance, let alone success.  HD Radio has certainly proven that idea doesn't work -- nor does "diversification" with multi-channel operations.  Internet radio has more gains, thus far, and it has plenty of diversification that HD-2, 3 & soon, 4, has even come close to.  And, yet, there is no financial success noted for either Internet broadcasting or HD. And HD has helped the death of AM, even though it has no multi-channel capacity at this time.

No, I think that a move should have been made to diversify the technology and mandate the clearance of the AM band, then, let the market decide. As a station fails, they get removed.

I know tha DXers hate this, but radio is not build on DXing, with signals getting out of a particular market area not meaning anything in this day and age -- not with cookie cutter formats, syndication of George Noory on hundreds of stations and more weaknesses.

The medium is overcrowded and there is too much diversity.  Just because you don't like a particular station, doesn't mean that one that fits your criteria is right around the corner because you maybe, as so many are, sadly disappointed in what you wish for.

It's amazing how when people knew there options on television would be limited and the simplicity of analogue reception taken away, they ran, not walked, to get an HDTV at any cost. But for radio, they said, "Huh?" 

Radio needs to rethink itself, not merely reinvent itself, in my opinion.

And if government regulation doesn't change it, who will? The money grubbing major lending banks? Owners who have made a name for themselves and don't want another investment opportunity? I don't think so. Make the playing fireld more level, cut deregulation and set a new path. Then, see what happens.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The fact you don't feel the same suggests that what you really want is the FCC to protect your failing station or business model.

Okay, guys. Everybody take a deep breath and repeat after me: "We ARE going to have a great exchange of ideas, and we ARE going to play nice."

We all get so emotional about this industry that we love, this industry that fascinates us, and we really let logic and clear thinking get trampled like the guy opening the gate at Walmart for Black Friday!

JimmyJames: I had forgotten the details, but Oaktree and I had a very neat "offline" discussion several months back. I just rummaged through my e-mail archives to refresh my memory of where he is and what he does. I'm covered up for the next two days with tasks that relate to Christmas and the ending of the year but I am going to retrack my steps to see how Oaktree's enterprise is looking these days.

I don't know what he wishes to share with you about his situation but I will simply tell you that his business model is basically outside the protection or danger of the FCC.

Thus, we are back to the question that gets a lot of discussion these days. Is radio viable? I was in the office of a businessman last Tuesday who is putting a lot of energy and some investment into an Internet streaming and podcasting venture. He has all the confidence in the world that "radio as we know it, as we have known it, will be dead in five years. He didn't convince me of that, but I will gladly sit on the sidelines as a student and watch his new venture very carefully. He in essence can pay the tuition. I, in essence, will go to school for free.

There are two Internet threads that have my attention tonight. This one which I combine with the discussion about the station in Cartersville, and the second discussion is not broadcast people. It is a group of church related sound technicians. Both discussion deal with changes in the American lifestyle. This one deals with the economics of broadcasting and can we control and guide the destiny of broadcasting, or does the larger national and world economic picture simply wash the industry downstream like house floating down the river in a flood. The other discussion group is focused on crime, and personal safety in the neighborhood where one lives.

Both groups have a lot of tension around the idea that "a proper life" functions much like it did 30, 50, 70 years ago. That is the norm, and everything is going to be hunky-dory when we all return to the "Leave it to Beaver" era in our mentality and our behavior.

Generals study the wars of the last 3,000 years in search of concepts of how battles are fought. A good general is someone who can study a war from a thousand years ago and see how to plan strategy for Afghanistan in 2010. And he won't be returning to spears and swords. And he won't using the Sherman tanks of bygone years, or Stearman bi-planes to train the pilots.

Radio in 2010 will fall or succeed on how it faces "conditions on the ground" in 2010.

Now, a shameless plug for a new way to tie up my time and keep me off the streets. What is there to read so far is pretty slim. It appears congress is going to pass a bill that will significantly open up the possibilities for new LPFM stations. I have a blog going on the subject and over the next two or three months there should be enough essays and post to keep the whole world arguing radio. www.yourlpfm.com> Jump in and add your own seasoning to taste. ]Take a look. <www.yourlpfm.com> Jump in and add your own seasoning to taste. [/url]

 

[joshzz]

Just would like to throw this in>>>

The vast majority of LPFMs have not been successful & many have already tanked.

I know groups like Prometheus have great intentions in helping LPFMs get on the air but what happens after the station is on the air?

Many LPFM owners just don't invest the time necessary to grow their operations - they depend on volunteers that come and go like the wind - They do little or nothing to connect with successful broadcasters - the audio quality is oftentimes terrible ------->

- the result: No one Listens and the stations just die on the vine.

We run a somewhat successful LPFM but it's a lot of work & you need to sound professional - that is, as good the other stations in the market.

We can expect more LPFMs but that won't help radio- most unfortunately will fail -realistically speaking..

 

[oaktree]

Josh is correct. And so is Goat Rodeo Cowboy. I believe what I said and I'm sorry for the negativity, if perceived that way -- and I don't mean to include everyone in that mix, but look around and see for yourself.

See Goat's blog site at www.yourLPFM.com He writes positively but with frank candor about the potential of LPFM in your community. If you think it's about "music" or formatics -- think again. Those are the very last things to worry about and the least of your stress.

If you think any different, go Internet. Larger "coverage" area, and a great potential to really build a business that isn't taken up with government regulation (yet.) And pay your monthly license fee / music rights. Then, see what you can do. You'll be surprised but only IF you do it right, do it for your community and do what's NOT available in your community.

Either that or, like LPFM, you will fail -- and to me, failure is not an option. You have to work very hard at it.

 

[Surfer]

"Since I see the writing on the wall, I will sell everything I own and get out." (author unknown but he did work in broadcasting)

Not much to hope for out there. Frankly, if I owned any corporation, based on what has been discussed so far, I'd sell, spend the money and then drive off a cliff. However, that would be the intelligent thing to do... ;D

 

[One Who Knows]

Just would like to throw this in>>>

The vast majority of LPFMs have not been successful & many have already tanked.

I know groups like Prometheus have great intentions in helping LPFMs get on the air but what happens after the station is on the air?

Many LPFM owners just don't invest the time necessary to grow their operations - they depend on volunteers that come and go like the wind - They do little or nothing to connect with successful broadcasters - the audio quality is oftentimes terrible ------->

- the result: No one Listens and the stations just die on the vine.

We run a somewhat successful LPFM but it's a lot of work & you need to sound professional - that is, as good the other stations in the market.

We can expect more LPFMs but that won't help radio- most unfortunately will fail -realistically speaking..

Josh:

Thank you for saying something I've said all along...that to even have a chance to be successful, LPFM's must sound professional and be operating professionally.

And yes...that's a tough thing. If you don't have "staff", per se...sometimes you just have to use some smoke, mirrors and flash with Mr. On-Air Computer, but...it can be done.

The problem is - a lot of LP's go to religious groups who want to use them as satellite repeaters, broadcasting to what they hope will be a wide audience, but in many cases are just broadcasting to the small "faithful" in a community who will listen to that type of radio. (Sorry - I'm not dissing religious broadcasters...but it's a fact few, if any, dominate radio market ratings.)

Or else you get the stations whose owners want to treat the station as their own personal i-Pod's and that usually always goes down in flames.

LP's...if they want to be successful, need to find a format in their area (and there are a number which can be done) that will most likely attract a wide audience within the range of their signal and program to it. It could be an ethnic format, it could be a classic country or bluegrass, it could be oldies, heck...if you have a small community with a lot of retired people, try an updated version of "beautiful music"...all formats mostly unheard of on commercial radio. But, keep it professional sounding...

While I disagreed with some of Oaktree's assertions, he and I do agree on one thing...and, yes, it's not politically popular: the number of AM stations on the band MUST be pruned if that band even has a chance to survive.

FM will survive a lot longer than AM. Nobody under 45 is listening, for the most part, to AM anymore.

 

[jabba17]

The problem is - a lot of LP's go to religious groups who want to use them as satellite repeaters, broadcasting to what they hope will be a wide audience, but in many cases are just broadcasting to the small "faithful" in a community who will listen to that type of radio. (Sorry - I'm not dissing religious broadcasters...but it's a fact few, if any, dominate radio market ratings.)

While I disagreed with some of Oaktree's assertions, he and I do agree on one thing...and, yes, it's not politically popular: the number of AM stations on the band MUST be pruned if that band even has a chance to survive.

FM will survive a lot longer than AM. Nobody under 45 is listening, for the most part, to AM anymore.

A lot of these religious broadcasters (cough!ToccoaFallscough!) need to realize that people aren't interested in a network of religious broadcast stations. I could see a church being very successful with a single LPFM in its own community. But very, very few will be interested in the teachin' and preachin' of an out-of-town church, especially a very doctrinaire one, and especially if the broadcast isn't cleaned up for big time. That's what the Internet is for.

Salem does a top-notch job with the WNIV/WLTA simul. But, as the ratings bear out, that's really a niche. Frankly, I'm amazed that they do as well as they do considering how they aren't especially ecumenical and target an evangelical audience (although mainliners probably don't listen to religious broadcasts as much as evangelicals and Catholics do).

AM can be made successful again if the number of stations is pruned and some if not most of the local and regional channels are converted to clears. AM has the skywave advantage that FM doesn't.

If many of these smaller local and regional AM stations could be converted to FM or LPFM, that would help everyone.

And, we need to seriously look at converting TV channels 5 and 6 to FM. That would increase the size of the FM band 50%.

 

[littlejohn]

Some decades ago, several of us at a gathering which included a High Level FCC Personage who was a longterm friend of some of us there got reasonably loaded and developed the Plan To Fix AM. It was simple, and it would of worked. First step, all daytime only licenses are cancelled. Next any license for less than 5KW is cancelled. Next any license requiring more than three towers in the array is cancelled. This should be enough to clean up the band, but if it weren't, we would then list the remaining licenses alphabetically, generate a random number for a starting point, and proceed with decimation Roman style - every tenth license cancelled. About the time someone wanted to worry abour the political ramifications of the new policy we got to the bottom opf the bottle and called it a night. It would of worked though.

 

[oaktree]

There would be no advantage to making local or low-power regionals below 5kw "clears." They don't generate skywave, only groundwave. The higher power stations generate the skywave. I do like the comments, here. In Canada, 60% of the AMs have been converted to in-band FM. The Mexican government is now looking to do the same with their AMs as well.

 

[taylorengineer]

There would be no advantage to making local or low-power regionals below 5kw "clears." They don't generate skywave, only groundwave. The higher power stations generate the skywave. I do like the comments, here. In Canada, 60% of the AMs have been converted to in-band FM. The Mexican government is now looking to do the same with their AMs as well.

Sorry Oaktree -all AM stations generate at least some radiation at angles which will reflect off the ionosphere. Much effort has been put into developing an "anti-skywave" antenna but one has yet to be built. The signal intensity will vary with power but a 5 KW signal, especially at the high end of the dial, can be very effective over great distances. (Back in the days of the annual proof many of us remember getting cards and letters from people DXing our 5 KW station operating after 12 midnight at full power.) Ham operators routinely dot-dash for thousands of miles with less than 1 watt of power.
I think your point is that only clear channels have "effective" skywave. When everyone and their Cuban brother are occupying the same channel at night it all comes out as unintelligible gluck. Clear channels used to have only one or two stations on the same channel - now they are only protected to 750 miles. Most clears have several night operations using directional antenna and pea whistle power on the same channel - most clears now have monkey chatter in the background too.
Littlejohn's idea is to make the groundwave more effective at night by reducing the cochannel interference. His suggestions(all of them) would work miracles in the AM band.

 

[jabba17]

There would be no advantage to making local or low-power regionals below 5kw "clears." They don't generate skywave, only groundwave. The higher power stations generate the skywave. I do like the comments, here. In Canada, 60% of the AMs have been converted to in-band FM. The Mexican government is now looking to do the same with their AMs as well.

I was talking about making most of the local and regional frequencies clear channels, and limiting those frequencies to a handful of unlimited time, high power broadcasters--i.e., getting rid of the low-power stations on those frequencies. Stations that break the lightbulb rule (tower light lightbulb draws more power than transmitter) need to go off the air. Tpday. you can't even listen to them at night unless you live next to the tower.

My daughter wanted to mention that listening to Radio Disney on 590 after dark is terrible...590 being a regional channel and the result being everyone walking all over everyone else.

 

[Uriah]

Demise can apply to these attributes of radio in the future: That a terrestrial signal will...

Be the dominant communication tool for advertisers.
Be the source for new music discovery, news, traffic, weather, etc.
Be top of mind for entertainment.
Dominate in-car communications.
Bill what it did in 2005.

What a terrestrial signal is and can be is the most powerful megaphone in town to promote your digital channels for engaging community and advertisers.And I don't mean regurgitating the terrestrial signal/brand on line.

Cutting up the band for more signals, changing rotations and running syndication is not the fix. Expanding our vision beyond the dial is vital to the industry's survival.

 

[taylorengineer]

Demise can apply to these attributes of radio in the future: That a terrestrial signal will...

Be the dominant communication tool for advertisers.
Be the source for new music discovery, news, traffic, weather, etc.
Be top of mind for entertainment.
Dominate in-car communications.
Bill what it did in 2005.

What a terrestrial signal is and can be is the most powerful megaphone in town to promote your digital channels for engaging community and advertisers.And I don't mean regurgitating the terrestrial signal/brand on line.

Cutting up the band for more signals, changing rotations and running syndication is not the fix. Expanding our vision beyond the dial is vital to the industry's survival.

You get it, sir! I especially like the last line about expanding our vision BEYOND the dial. The natural course of technological evolution will take us beyond terrestrial radio....and Sirius/XM.....and ethernet. The digital genie has escaped - the possibilities are limited only by the imagination of man.(Well....there's also physics.)
The only undecided question is will the negative forces of technology overwhelm the positive forces. Will we survive to see all that the future has to offer?

 

[swmaphox]

So much stuff I read and hear suggests that theres an opinion shared by lots of people (from Larry Wachs to Wall St.) that radio is becoming a domain of luddites and romantics. I disagree.....cars=radio plain and simple. I think terrestrial radio will become more niched. Look at the communities represented in atl radio: korean, indian, ethiopian and somalian, multiple spanish nationalities. Imagine format potential of an all thrash metal channel, and why? because of supply + demand, the airwaves and the licensing required will be cheaper to operate on if no one is there to play on them, allowing other underrepresented populations a shot at the air. If its as gloomy as people say...then I cant wait for 5 years into the future so i can replay i produced in 1996 as a teenager over the former home of that abomination known as 95.5 the beat

See this post apocalyptic wasteland happening? yeah...niether do I.

Just remember, there is nothing else ending that isnt something else begining and far to often people seem to equate changing with ending. It's not dead, just different...lets watch, if nothing else it will be interesting.