taylorengineer said:
First. If you build it they will come. This is where innovation is needed.....I do agree we do not need another band of "more music" stations like on analog. That's been almost the only implementation of IBOC to date.......more of the same.
That's not been NPR's experience. They've invested a lot in original content for HD and it simply hasn't resulted in a lot of new radio purchases. Don't restrict your view of radio to large commercial corporations. The fact is the public has decided it doesn't want to buy new radio-only devices. They can get the content for free elsewhere, and there's really nothing unique, compelling, or exclsuive for radio to put on HD that isn't available elsewhere. The folks at Sirius-XM have the same problem. People aren't buying satellite-only receivers to the degree they used to.
By the same token, it benefits radio to keep the few formats radio has that attracts large numbers on the main channels. Sub-genres and fringe formats are being put on HD, and they simply won't drive a lot of radio purchases. If a station takes a popular format and moves it to HD, it will backfire as that format will get picked up by a competitor on another free station.
taylorengineer said:
Second - I subscribe to Napster. $60/year with 60 downloads - I use it every single day. But I also want a human connection
And as I said, that human connection doesn’t exist in any large degree on the most popular internet platforms. While you want the human connection, it seems that has become a negative for a lot of younger users. So that’s why stations are trying to control the amount of on-air host content, and perhaps moving it to more interactive platforms. On-air talent is seen as a positive in certain formats, like country, oldies, and urban, so it won’t change there. But in AC and other music intensive formats, it’s simply viewed as an interruption.
taylorengineer said:
Third. Deregulation is what killed the variety.
Popular myth, but not true. There are more formats now than before 1996. There are more options for listeners now than before 1996. Still, the most popular can be counted on one hand, and they tend to be the ones with narrow formats. No one forces anyone to use OTA radio, but most still do. The reason is that the vast majority of people don’t seek variety. They want what they like. The big radio companies are in the business of attracting large groups. If large groups of people wanted fringe formats, you’d have more of that on the air. Instead, it goes to HD, satellite, and the internet.
taylorengineer said:
Radio MUST evolve beyond music and liner jocks. Content delivery is quickly becoming a non factor......CONTENT is now KING!
Content may be king, but it’s a very poor kingdom. People want what they want, and they want it for free, without commercials, and at the cheapest cost. You pay $60 a year, but a lot of people won’t. Creating content costs money, and if the public won’t pay, and they hate advertising, that doesn’t do much to encourage creators. The OTA station is becoming the brick & mortar music store, which is to say it’s dying. Until people throw away their computers and cell phone, there’s nothing radio can do to change that. Radio companies have only one choice, and that’s go where the people are. And most of the big companies are doing that with great success.
taylorengineer said:
Clear Channel needs a creative, color outside the lines programmer to lead and all other management needs to get out of the way!
They had one with Scott Lindy, and he came as close as anyone to winning. But competition is tough, and the brands in Atlanta are well established. People like what they like. There…I’ve said it again. As I said earlier, creative content costs money. You need bean counters to watch the money. If content creators were better accountants, they'd do the same thing. I advocate using on-air people in sales calls. When they see how hard it is to get money, they become a lot more co-operative.
