People are probably smart enough to know "free sex" would come with a catch. Adults are cautious about "things that seem too good to be true". You'll understand that someday too. As far as people liking what the like, true. But fewer and fewer people are liking the liners and music that radio is offering. It's a fact and it is time for something new. Again., thank you so much for your wisdom
-
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
Using Artificial Intelligence in Developing Broadcast Programming
- Thread starter davideduardo
- Start date
Once again, it depends. They like free and easy, and radio is free & easy. If a radio station plays the music they like for free, then they listen. Once again, screaming generalizations don't work. People don't listen to "radio," they listen to their favorite music. If it's on the radio, they're fine with it. Thank you so much for your useless generalizations.
No one forces you to listen. If you don't like it, don't listen. That shouldn't be hard to understand. You have no constitutional right to free radio that you like.
Last edited:
Again you have proven yourself a freaking genius. Fewer and fewer people listen to radio year after year and it was you who figured out that people don't have to listen if the don't like it. God bless you for your wisdom
I'm just giving you advice, since you appear to feel you're somehow entitled to have the radio you want for free. Or that we have to change what we do to suit you. As much as you appear to dislike it, you claim you continue to listen. You said you listen "at home, at work, and in the car." Either you're a masochist or you don't know any better. If it hurts when you do that, then don't do that. In the meantime, you don't speak for other people.
Actually, not entirely true. More people listen to radio less hours than 20 years ago, but the number of people who use radio (or the streams of radio stations) has actually not declined as significantly as you think. Among adults, the average percentage of people using radio weekly has gone from around 94% 25 years ago to the higher 80% level today.
Your cheap sarcasm is getting very tiresome. Do you have to present every post as an antagonist?
But all the relevant numbers are trending negative. More people listening for fewer hours is not a positive increase because the advertisers have less opportunity for their ads to be heard by any one listener, and any increase in total number of radio users is more a function of the population increase of the past 25 years than anything actually related to radio users. You've had a brilliant career in broadcasting. Why do you feel a need to spin statistics to indicate that radio is healthy today when it is not? Your job isn't riding on it, and judging from your descriptions of your lifestyle, you could never work another day of your life and still be wealthy and comfortable, barring a total global economic collapse.
I didn't see his post as overtly rosey. 94% to 80%, that's a 14% loss in 20 years. And he said that the listeners today listen for shorter lengths of time.
Population growth has been a given in the US since colonization. If new immigrants become radio listeners, and new listeners emerge from the younger demos, that's a positive. Any new listeners, or new replacement listeners is a plus. The fact they may be due to population growth is immaterial, don't you think?
The long term look at radio -- specifically over-the-air radio -- isn't spectacular, but it's not dying as quickly as many of us seem to think (with stations being sold, shut down, companies in bankruptcy, etc.).
Because radio is still cheap & easy, while the options aren't particularly compelling unless you are a big music fan. That's a small percentage.
Of course they are. As I often say: The entire business went through a revolution over 20 years ago. It affected the entire music business and the entire home entertainment business. Look at the decline in sales of recorded music. That decline is far worse than the decline of broadcast radio usage. Look at the revolution in home electronics. Have you been to a Consumer Electronics Show lately? These are all inter-related. You have to put the radio decline in context, and that requires more than what's available in Nielsen.
i have used A.I. for several jingles... they really add to the sound of my station which i wouldnt have otherwise
But ad rates are based on the number of people who are estimated by Nielsen to be listening, so whatever the size of the audience advertisers pay based on delivery.
I am citing the percentage of adults who use radio weekly. There are always 100 percentage points of listening, now or then, in NYC or Bemidji, Minnesota.
I am not spinning. Just saying that still nearly 90% of people 18 and over use radio now, and that ad rates are based on delivery..
I work about 12 hours a day on WorldRadioHistory and the radio clients I have in Latin America. One is a project to combine online radio "stations" on smartphones with working-class level services that are the equivalent of banking... for purchases, funds transfers, pay "checks" and even the movies.
- Status