WHAT IS THE REASON FOR RADIO?

[NightAire]

That's like saying the use of automobiles was a revolt against the horse.  It really wasn't.  They're not the same thing.

Actually, I think an awful lot of blacksmiths would take issue with your statement...

It is true that internet radio listeners still listen to about the same broadcast radio as they did before internet radio.  The needle isn't moving much on listening...  but decades of tradition take a long time to break, and these changes are beginning to happen.

Relate it to television killing radio shows (comedy, drama, etc.), and websites killing newspapers.  No, they are not 1:1 identical, but they are changing where people get their services from.

I'm not saying radio can't survive; I'm saying radio can't survive unless it figures out how to fight internet radio for time spent listening.  The erosion is minimal right now, but once it picks up steam, the avalanche is going to be hard to stop.

[TheBigA]

I'm not saying radio can't survive; I'm saying radio can't survive unless it figures out how to fight internet radio for time spent listening.  The erosion is minimal right now, but once it picks up steam, the avalanche is going to be hard to stop.

But my comment was in response to another comment that people are revolting against OTA radio. Just because they're shifting to a different technology doesn't mean they don't like the programming.  They do, and the proof is that online streams of OTA stations are about as popular, as a group, as Pandora.  That's saying a lot, because Pandora is customized content, while OTA programming isn't.  So what we're seeing is people seem to be shifting to a different transmission system, from FM to online/mobile.  Similar to the shift of AM to FM.  The technology isn't killing the content, but it is forcing a change in the cost. 

[SirRoxalot]

As I often say, this is what happens when the "me" generation has kids.  It's all about "me," not about "us," so a medium that is built around one-to-many can't relate.

This is really the crux of the matter, isn't it? I don't agree that everything has to be one-to-one, and not one-to-many. We are individuals, but we're also members of different groups. We have shared experiences. If social networking has taught us anything, it's that many people in disparate places with widely varied backgrounds share so many experiences and points of view.

Most humans seek interaction with others like them. Radio certainly can - and has - served groups of people with common interests. In some cases, good radio has helped to create those groups and guide those interests.

One thing is true about the "Me" generation and those who follow. They KNOW when they're being marketed. There's a real movement to find "real" these days, and they've gone in search of "real" because American media has become a sales machine with little regard for their consumers. In fact, they see advertisers as the consumers. Well, if there's no audience, there are no advertisers.

Broadcasting - the "one-to-many" model - simply has to decide one thing: HOW many. Yes, there are shows that can relate to listeners despite the fact that they're listening at different times and in different places. That's not generally what people expect from radio. Study after study cites local content, and timely, value-added information and entertainment elements as being important to radio listeners.

With individually-programmed on-line music becoming increasingly available and affordable, radio can't simply be a jukebox anymore. That "value-added" component is more important than ever. Part of that is "curated content". Go to Pandora, and plug in almost any criteria, and you'll find an overwhelming number of songs in the mix - some good, many not so good. Many busy people don't mind having someone else sort them out. That's what music programming is all about. And people are better at selecting what music that goes into the mix than any computer program. Sometimes, you have to break the "rules" simply because the "rules" change over time.

Radio has an established place in media. It has withstood challenges from individualized programming devices in the past. The bottom line is that it's still the most convenient and easiest way to hear audio content. Keep that content relevant to your audience, and you'll do fine. Program canned generic pap that's available from other sources, and you'll find yourself outflanked by systems that can deliver that content on demand - which you can't do. Radio simply needs to offer unique content that an audience wants to hear. 

[TheBigA]

Broadcasting - the "one-to-many" model - simply has to decide one thing: HOW many. 

That's what format radio is all about.  Format radio identifies that audience, and if the format has an easily defined group, then that group is the audience.  That's why the country format is so popular on radio.  Country music attracts an easily defined life-group. They have easily defined interests, taste in music, and lifestyle.  Same with conservative talk.  The trick with format radio is to play to that audience, and hire talent that is part of the audience.  Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen.  The station hires someone local who's convenient, rather than someone who has credibility with the format.  But what we see is that most format audiences are pretty much the same from city to city, and are defined mainly by that format and life-group, rather than their location.  The audience communicates with other similar people around the country, and there are centralized events that attract members of that format life-group. 

With individually-programmed on-line music becoming increasingly available and affordable, radio can't simply be a jukebox anymore.

Sure you can.  There is a very large life-group whose format is un-hosted music.  Like the beautiful music stations of the 60s and 70s.  They simply want music in the background, and don’t want to be talked to.  Jukebox radio is a format, and, when included in a cluster with other stations, can provide an alternative to all the other formats in the market.  It may not be a #1 format, but every station can’t be #1.  You’re programming to an audience, and clearly there’s an audience for un-hosted music.  The music mix itself is the “curated content.”  The songs have been carefully selected to fit a particular audience.  It doesn’t need a host or talent, and the audience is satisfied with just the music mix.  That’s why it works.

Radio has an established place in media. It has withstood challenges from individualized programming devices in the past. The bottom line is that it's still the most convenient and easiest way to hear audio content.

But it is increasingly becoming less convenient.  The phone is becoming more convenient.  In the 60s, the device people took with them when they left the house was the transistor radio.  Now it’s the phone.  OTA’s place in the dashboard is being challenged by other transmission systems.  They are also calling themselves “radio,” and the public sees them that way.  It’s the job of OTA owners and programmers to recognize other platforms and transmission services, and make their content available in those other places.  If radio is in the content business, rather than the towers and transmitters business, then make that content available everywhere. 

[landtuna]

That's like saying the use of automobiles was a revolt against the horse.  It really wasn't.  They're not the same thing.

Actually, I think an awful lot of blacksmiths would take issue with your statement...

Having had a grandfather who was a lifelong blacksmith I would say no.  Horseshoeing was only part of a blacksmith's business and when the automobile replaced horses most smithys went on to do wrought iron work or work on machinery of various kinds.  The ones who still wanted a living shoeing became farriers and there are enough horses left in the world to keep plenty of them busy.  I have several horse-owning friends who can attest to the good living they earn.   

[NightAire]

Having had a grandfather who was a lifelong blacksmith I would say no.

I'm certainly not going to argue with your Grandfather.   

I'll agree that "radio" has the potential to survive by making the leap to the internet; I should have said "broadcasters on the AM & FM bands" need to adapt to "the infinite dial" (was it Arbitron who first called it that, or someone else? Whoever...  it's a good description) or AM & FM broadcasters will not find themselves getting any piece of the pie.

It's a daunting task: instead of competing with 30, or 50, or even 100 stations in your area, you're competing with more than 600,000 programing choices.

I had the horrifying, eye-opening experience not too long ago of switching between my internet stream and several other competitors.  What I found was that we're all playing basically the same songs.  They may pull one out I don't play, I may play one they don't, but for 99% of the songs, you couldn't tell which station was which.

It showed me I have a LOT to do in order to separate myself from the thousands of other 80s stations...  and the difference has to be what goes between the records.

The questions broadcasters have to ask is, "if I'm programming a popular music format (with thousands of competitive streams playing approximately the same library online), what can I say or do that will make my station sought out by listeners?

The pie is being cut into MUCH smaller slices these days.  For some stations, the solution will be to abandon "traditional" programming entirely.  For others, it will mean making their content "hyper-local."  Others will be determined to be the most-listened to station out of thousands by dropping millions of promotional dollars into various advertising outlets.

My concern is whether AM & FM broadcasters will figure out which of these things to do (and how), or simply watch their audience be siphoned off by other audio sources until they get to the point it's cheaper to shut the transmitter down, lock the door, and send everybody home.

Broadcast needs another innovation, like rock n roll was in the 50s when TV tried to "kill" radio.  Some people are trying; Jelli is one attempt, but I don't think it's a real solution.  Hyper-local content can be unique, but is also expensive... the reason we got away from it in the first place.  Advertising is expensive, too.  Promotional budgets are slashed to the bone.

What's a broadcaster to do, long term?

[SirRoxalot]

The answer if simple. If you're not doing local content between those songs, you're in trouble. If you're doing syndicated content, you're promoting the competition that will eventually KILL you because the day is coming when people won't need to listen to you to get the same content. That means you're in BIG trouble.

NPR stations may well be the first to feel this pressure. More and more, NPR stations are dropping local content and filling with syndication. More and more, NPR is making that content available as a podcast. So, NPR affiliates are creating demand for programming that's more conveniently available from other sources. How long before the local guys see their donations decline?

[TheBigA]

The answer if simple. If you're not doing local content between those songs, you're in trouble.

Local content, like what?  Local ads?  No problem.  That's local content.  Even stations with live & local DJ s don't talk much.  Definitely don't bring up local political issues.  They may do interviews with national stars.  Big deal.  The only local information is provided by outsourced traffic reports. 

the day is coming when people won't need to listen to you to get the same content.

That day is here.  There's nothing of value a local DJ can tell me that I can't get elsewhere.  Except maybe his personal stories of what he & his wife did on the weekend.  But as I said, that's of no value.

[TheBigA]

The questions broadcasters have to ask is, "if I'm programming a popular music format (with thousands of competitive streams playing approximately the same library online), what can I say or do that will make my station sought out by listeners?

The simple answer is nothing.  The two great motivators in the world are sex and religion.  So if you can either get your listeners a hook-up, or salvation, you have a chance.  Otherwise, there are lots of better alternatives. 

The worst part is when these DJs think people tune in to hear THEM.  That's what is killing radio.  These egomaniacs use the public airwaves to tell stories of how they lost their virginity while listening to Sexual Healing.  I'm not kidding.  Who cares?  Why do I need to pay a local guy to tell that story on the air? 

[DavidEduardo]

The answer if simple. If you're not doing local content between those songs, you're in trouble.

Let's see... the local content on music stations ever since radio learned, maybe 40 or so years ago, that excess yacking and yucking and puking and pot whipping was lethal... consisted mostly of "fifth caller gets a prize a client had to force us to give away" or time and temp. Nearly everything else was (or should have been) generic.

Then there is the issue that "local" in the Internet world is not a distance-related term in many instances. My community, as I have mentioned previously, consists of people I have ongoing contact with, mostly by eMail, FB and LinkedIn, nearly none of whom live within 50 miles of me.

Lest it be forgotten in discussing irrelevant qualities, listeners go to radio, to TV, to web streams or satellite or to their MP3 player for entertainment, not for localism or a sense of belonging.