Why do the webpages of many radio stations absolutely stink?

[bigtalkradiofan]

Why is it when I go to the webpages of many radio stations - their websites absolutely stink?

I can see the music stations not having much of a website (what's the point?) - but for the N/T crowd - the website is an extension of the product.

There are definitey exceptions, but it just stuns me how little time and effort go into some of these radio station webpages.

Many have few features beyond a simple program listing (which many times is outdated or inaccurate), station mailing address, and advertiser listings.

God forbid we start preparing for things like "live streaming" or "podcasting" or "archives on demand."

 

[DrBear]

Except for big-city stations, stations that do mostly talk are mostly doing syndicated talk. This is radio on the cheap. If you feel you have to have a Web site, it's easier to hire somebody's kid to slap one together with links to your syndicated shows. Then forget you ever had a site. It's typical of too much radio - all off the bird, nothing local, and nothing that would cost money. Radio's always been a cheap medium; it's gotten ridiculous.

 

[954]

web sites of many radio stations suck

> Why is it when I go to the webpages of many radio stations -
> their websites absolutely stink?

I wish I knew.

James Crystal's news/talk WFTL in south Florida
has ONLY pictures of Katrina victims in Texas.
One page, no program info. Duplicated in two
different domains! And their WJNA is worse.

Which gives me a good excuse to mention
the 2nd Annual Radio Station Web Page Awards,
featured in December Radio News, per sig.

Your comments are welcomed.
<P ID="signature">______________
Just posted: <A href='http://www.univox.com/radio/2005december.html#2'>
December Edition, South Florida Radio News</A> ... from 954</P>