• 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

What Will Buffalo Radio Look Like In 2 Years?

We Are Devo

Element9 said:
Now two questions for Paul and the board at large: Can niche programming evolve and enlarge its base (in which case, it wouldn't be niche programming) and will radio stations "smarten up," evolve and provide a product that attracts more listeners regardless of format? Or will radio devolve to become niche narrowcasters with increasingly narrow and decreasing listenership and eventually fade away?

Looking from an historical standpoint, hasn't radio already devolved into much narrower niche programming, and decreasing listenership - as measured by the decline in AQH persons?

Anybody see that trend reversing?
 
There's one problem with the podcasting model. Bandwidth. The gorilla in the room is the cost of serving data to a wider audience. Broadcasting is a "one to many" model. The transmission costs are the same whether there is one receiver or a million. Podcasting is a series of "one to one" transmissions, each of which carries a bandwidth cost that must be paid for, usually by the server (outgoing data metering) AND the receiver (via at least a monthly fee for their connection, sometimes with a limit on monthly bandwidth).

I worked at an ISP for seven years. Our clients were constantly victims of their own success. The better our services worked for them, the more we'd have to charge them. As businesses used more data (coming and going) they had to upgrade to more expensive packages. And when they successfully marketed the websites we built and increased their traffic, we had to charge them for going over their bandwidth limits. We were constantly fighting with clients who wanted their sites to succeed but didn't want to pay when they did.

I don't know enough about Wi-Fi to know if every byte of data will be metered coming and going. But since I assume it has to be a bidirectional medium (so that you can choose what channels you want to access from your car), that means that the service can be metered the same way that wired bandwidth is, and someone will have to pay. I don't think consumers will widely adopt Wi-Fi unless it's ubiquitous and free. That means those who serve the data will have to pay for the bandwidth. And that will limit their growth, and mean that monetizing the content will be even more chalenging and crucial than it is now.

There are many on this board who know more about this stuff than I do. I'm interested in opposing viewpoints. It's my future, after all. But right now, and as far as I can see, I'd rather have the stick in the ground.
 
"Tom Joyner kills in morning drive, top 5 Persons 25-54, often top 3. Local would be nice, of course, but why mess with success. Isn't Joyner an ABC syndicated property? And he makes life difficult for 97 Rock... owned by Citadel-ABC. Such irony."

But wasn't WBLK still stronger, consistently top 3 25-54 and 12+, when they were live and local in the morning? IIRC, they're not the ratings powerhouse they used to be.

Their closest formatic counterpart in the region, WDKX in Rochester, is consistently in the top 3 both 12+ and 25-54, and #1 12-34, in a comparably sized market despite a less-than-full-market-coverage signal. God only knows how much bigger they'd be in the numbers if they had a full class B signal, possibly big enough to beat WHAM and WBEE and come in #1 12+ in the key dayparts and overall 6AM-midnight. The fact that they're live and local from morning drive through late night may well have a lot to do with their strength.
 
I believe that Joyner is getting better numbers than their last live and local morning show. He's finished anywhere from 1st to 6th over the last year, with diary placement likely to have significant effect.

'BLK is no slouch. They're #4 12+ behind 'BEN, 'YRK, and 97-Rock. They're in a tight top 3 18-34 that sees a new leader in almost every book. They're in the top 4 25-54, so you can see that 'BLK does very well.
 
A friend in the corporate radio hierarchy says he's disgusted by the mass firings. Many of the firings that have occurred over the last 90 days are what he calls sympathetic firings. "If Clear Channel is doing it, we may just as well do the same. And look what we can get away with. Nobody's as Darth Vader as Clear Channel. They'll cut 1850, we'll cut 500 and look compassionate by comparison." He also offers that many of the firings are no more than a desperate attempt to protect local cluster managers' bonuses... as well as their jobs. It may have begun with Clear Channel, but clearly Wilks, Citadel, Cumulus and Entercom have climbed on board the termination train which is barreling down the tracks.
 
Element9 said:
It certainly gives the programmer, manager and sales person pause to think... and worry.

Now two questions for Paul and the board at large: Can niche programming evolve and enlarge its base (in which case, it wouldn't be niche programming) and will radio stations "smarten up," evolve and provide a product that attracts more listeners regardless of format? Or will radio devolve to become niche narrowcasters with increasingly narrow and decreasing listenership and eventually fade away?

Programmers, managers and sales people need only worry if they consider themselves trapped in the traditional radio model. The opportunities already out there on the web are incredible. My daily listenership is more than the 12+ AQH of the top-ranked station in the Buffalo ARB, and much better defined. I have about 5 minutes of avails, plus billboards, per day in my podcasts. That, times 20,000 well-targeted listeners, gives me at least as much daily earning power as a single stopset on a big-time radio station, with near-zero overhead. Could you live on that?

I grew up listening to KB, and never wanted to do anything else. I've hoped for years that I could find my way back into the business I loved, maybe even in Buffalo. I now realize what I'm doing instead is both more profitable and more secure. (I know, I know, nothing new - George Hamberger figured the same thing out in real estate 25 years ago.)

As for niche programming on broadcast radio, you can't increase the commercial value of a niche audience by making your content broader. That might get you more cume, but TSL and loyalty get killed, the audience less defined, and there's less of the exclusivity you need to support good rates. What you need to do is define the niche even more narrowly, serve it even more exclusively, and push it out past the geographical limitations of a single radio transmitter to increase audience size without watering down what you do. A radio network could provide the necessary scaling, but individual affiliates won't clear your content, because they can only sell ads in the portion that airs on their individual signals, and the audience in an individual city will be tiny.

The appropriate venue for niches is podcasting.

There are currently something like 59,000 audio podcasts in regular production. If 99% of them are unlistenably amateurish, in a language you don't speak, or don't show up reliably, that still leaves a whole new "band" with 590 channels of audio content that's created by people passionate about their topics. If the podcast industry ever teaches people en masse how to use it, radio stations which create commodities and call them "brands" are in deep doo-doo.

OK - The premise of this thread was Buffalo, in two years. I think you'll see the beginning of a wave of small AM operators turning in their licenses, especially as the march of technology makes the band even noisier. Station values on both bands will drop sharply as the big guys have to liquidate some of their properties to pay debts, or wind up with their entire portfolios on the courthouse steps. The stations which have truly developed both distinct brands and decent cumes (WBEN, WYRK, WJYE, WGRF, WBLK, maybe WTSS) will dig in and do OK for a while, if their owners survive. The rest will be running off desktop computers, with Google as their sales departments, just waiting to die.

And radio in general needs them to! If 75% of current stations went dark, the rest were consolidated to one end of the FM dial, and the AM band and half of FM was spectrally repurposed through FCC auctions, we radio geeks might gasp, but it would be better for both the survivors and the listening public.

If the Bills leave town, so will a ton of radio's local ad revenue market share. If Congress stops radio's exemption from performance royalties, voicetracking and ten-in-a-row will no longer look so attractive, and more talk will wind up on FM, compounding AM's problems.

And at least a couple of displaced Buffalo radio veterans will figure out that they can create daily podcasts that people will buy for $3.99/month, produce them out of their home studios, build an audience of 1500 people, and make more than a typical Buffalo midday salary for working an hour or two a day. Perhaps they'll even attract enough listeners that they can sell entire quarter-hours to ElectraGas and Schmitt's Garage!
 
weck1230 said:
There's one problem with the podcasting model. Bandwidth. The gorilla in the room is the cost of serving data to a wider audience...

Weck, that only becomes an issue if you get so wildly successful the additional cost is not an issue. One hosting provider I've used and found reliable in the past offers 15 terabytes of transfer per month as part of its $8/month package, which includes free domain registration and a bunch of bells & whistles. (Which is on special right now at $4.95/month for the first year.)

That's enough bandwidth to serve 21,000+ listeners 30 minutes of 128K MP3 audio every weekday. For $15 a month, they'll bump that up to unlimited transfer.

At the user's end, 30 minutes of 128K MP3 audio is about 30 MB, under 700 MB per month. Any residential broadband service allows far more under their cap, and a YouTube addict or shopaholic already uses lots more.
 
This has been an incredibly informative thread for me. Largely out of curiousity, I began to seek out the villains mentioned here, Seacrest, Delilah and Tesh. They're not my cup of tea but I wanted to give them a fair shake. All i can say is, it isn't NPR. On the other hand, it isn't Howard Stern. I went to their websites and found as much self-promotion as any Hollywood B movie star. Shameless and laughable. The real eye-opener was checking the stations that air these shows. I found they're on stations in little towns to the largest cities like NY and LA. What really buzzed me was finding that John Tesh, "music and intelligence for your life" is on mornings in Bismark, ND and he's reportedly #1. Bismark is a city of about 55 thousand. Morning radio there must really be drab.
 
AndrewLawson said:
Bismark is a city of about 55 thousand. Morning radio there must really be drab.

You should visit there. It's 22 below zero! You have to really love the cold to live there. It makes Buffalo feel like Palm Beach. Even with the lake effect.
 
The proper pronunciation is "Nore Dakoota."

When I lived in Minneapolis-St. Paul, there was a popular t-shirt depicting "The State Tree Of Nore Dakoota."

It was a telephone pole.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom