CC Version of Radio's Future

[musiconradio.com]

Before I answer, let's define terms.  What do you mean by "radio?"  Do you simply mean towers and transmitters?

An old fashioned station with an assigned frequency of 96.3 MHZ with an effective radiated power of 3400 watts as authorized by the Federal Communications Commission, Washington D.C. 

[KeithE4]

Before I answer, let's define terms.  What do you mean by "radio?"  Do you simply mean towers and transmitters?  Or do you mean aural transmission of content?  Because if you mean the former, a lot of it is in the hands of the FCC and Congress. If it's the latter, I'd suggest what you're seeing is the natural progression of radio.  The public loves radio.  They prove it every day. 

The latter. Just like a thin piece of paper that is removed from a box and used to blow ones nose is called a "Kleenex," regardless if the brand name is Kleenex, Puffs, Scotties, or Wal-Mart. 

The name "radio" has become generic for "aural broadcasting" of all kinds, IMHO.  It may be prefixed with "AM," "FM," "Shortwave," "Satellite," or "Internet," but the transmission of audio content to the listener is still "radio."

[DavidEduardo]

Before I answer, let's define terms.  What do you mean by "radio?"  Do you simply mean towers and transmitters?

An old fashioned station with an assigned frequency of 96.3 MHZ with an effective radiated power of 3400 watts as authorized by the Federal Communications Commission, Washington D.C. 

But that is not the way consumers, in their majority, think. As KeithE very precisely wrote, listeners consider radio to be most forms of aural broadcasting, irrespective of the delivery system.

Or, as I would say in this post-McLuhan era, the medium is not the message. When the media consisted of print (newspapers and magazines) and broadcast (radio and TV), the idea that the medium itself influenced the message had great validity due to the limited number of media and the paucity of voices in the local market. Today, the message is in the content, and the medium is a utility.

Radio has to decide if it wants to be a utility or a content provider... the medium or the message.

[TheBigA]

Before I answer, let's define terms.  What do you mean by "radio?"  Do you simply mean towers and transmitters?

An old fashioned station with an assigned frequency of 96.3 MHZ with an effective radiated power of 3400 watts as authorized by the Federal Communications Commission, Washington D.C. 

The major radio companies are merely licensees of those assigned frequencies.  They don't own them.  It's up to the owners to be concerned about the fact that the public is looking to other devices for content.  And I've long complained that the FCC doesn't care about radio.  They're too busy selling spectrum to the telecom companies and fining stations for indecency.  Broadcasting companies are tired of the fines, tired of being told what they can air and not air, tired of the government threatending license renewals, and tired of the ownership regulations.  Between the government and the consumer electronics industry, the deck is stacked against companies that want to reach the public.  So as I said earlier, the future of radio is putting your content on every manner of transmission, on every device, and on every platform.  Get started now because it appears that the owners of the spectrum are content with status quo.

[TomT]

If you can't make money providing the content--what is the point?

That's the trap Pandora is in.  That's the problem now trying to stream conventional radio--and even making enough to cover the costs.

Now, if you are a means of distribution--like the cell phone providers, or Charlie Ergen ( dish network) and can find a way to get content for free or next to nothing--you don't care so long as the consumer pays you for these distribution channels.

Of course, Charlie is now about to kill the goose to see where those golden eggs come from by eliminating commercials from the network shows he distributes.

BTW--the "owners" of the spectrum are, well, is, the government. For those folks who see black helicopters everywhere, consider what happens when everything comes through broadband--internet--connections. Provided by just a few big companies. The internet can be controlled, at least for the masses--look at China, look at Iran.

[musiconradio.com]

I've thought about this performance agreement from a different perspective (all speculation... or course):

#1: If you are trying to work out a resolution to the performance argument, why not negotiate with a single entity in the pie. It will be difficult for any government mandate to be put into place if you are making the effort to solve this issue, and your competition will continue to pay 50% (estimated) of their revenue.

#2: You can keep your stream (product) commercial free for awhile, take market share from your competition, and at the same time work out details with others (labels). Since you have a handful of majors now, you might be able to get your rate down to a low % of revenue.


#3 Will broadcast (FM/AM) rates (rules) be the same as pure play rates? What will Sound Exchange say about this. Will they be willing to do away with per performance rates and go with a rate based on revenue.

Just sayin'

[TheBigA]

#1: If you are trying to work out a resolution to the performance argument, why not negotiate with a single entity in the pie.

That's what they've been trying to do for ten years, using the RIAA and the NAB.  The NAB offered a plan to the RIAA a year or so ago, and a bunch of small stations within the NAB objected.  So radio isn't 100% united on how to deal with this issue.  The RIAA wants to do a blanket deal, but it's using the same metrics as digital, which is unacceptable. So there is no single entity that is acceptable to everyone.

#3 Will broadcast (FM/AM) rates (rules) be the same as pure play rates? What will Sound Exchange say about this. Will they be willing to do away with per performance rates and go with a rate based on revenue.

What SoundExchange has said is the rates are set by the Copyright Royalty Board, not them.  The last time the rates were set, it took an act of Congress to allow music users to negotiate directly with SoundExchange.  Those who negotiated got a discount, but it was still as much as 50% of revenue.  That won't work for OTA radio.

There were hearings in Congress on this subject this past week.  You can do your own search and read what they concluded.  But everyone knows the digital rates are too high. That needs to be fixed. But nothing is happening because of the logjam.  So companies are taking matters into their own hands.

[musiconradio.com]

The question is how long will Pandora wait before they demand action and or relief?

[TheBigA]

The question is how long will Pandora wait before they demand action and or relief?

As I said, do a search on the Congressional hearings.  The demanded relief this past week.

[SirRoxalot]

There is a fundamental difference between on-line and OTA radio. Most on-line music services are on-demand. You ask for a song, and they've got it, you get it. It's like walking into an old-fashioned record store and being able to take a platter into the audition booth for your own consumption. The difference is that in this case you can also take your recorder into the audition booth and make a copy if you want to dump it to your personal collection.

OTA radio is not on-demand. It's curated content. If a station plays the song you want to hear, they'll get to it at some point. Well programmed stations will also deliver other songs you like, and other content of value to you. It provides companionship to people who are otherwise occupied, or not in the mood to interact. If you want to record a particular song, you may have to record for a long period of time, and that music is likely to butt directly up against other content. You're likely to discover music you like that you haven't heard before, or heard in a long time. On well-programmed stations, that music will be set up and delivered in a manner that makes unfamiliar music more palatable.

OTA radio does a much better job of introducing new content than Internet music services. Yes, Internet music services have EVERYTHING. That's the blessing and the curse. There's a lot of flotsam bobbing out there, and having someone sort out the really worthy from the mere curiosities is a service that many people appreciate. Critics aren't going out of business. People value the input of experts. BigA will argue with this, but good radio people ARE experts at selecting and presenting programming content. That's why radio still reaches 93% of the population.

Whether you want to call on-line music services "radio" can be parsed in a lot of different ways. Is content delivered wirelessly? Then technically it's radio - like satellite radio. Cellular? Technically radio. But, when we discuss "radio", are we talking about the technical means of delivery, or the difference between broadcast delivery and interactive programming selection?

Artists and publishers have recognized that on-line music services have replaced the music store in the delivery of content. Radio hasn't changed, the way that listeners obtain private use of music has. Should there be a difference in rates between on-demand and broadcast services? I believe that there should. On-line interactive services are like the music store that lets you audition that record - and hands you a bunch more records "that you might like". You can easily record them and dump them into other portable devices that don't require a constant connection - like an MP3 player. It's a very different service than OTA radio or other broadcast services.