Telephone industry offers valuable lesson for radio.

[vsa]

Kurt Hanson writes about a story told by Clayton Christensen (author of “The Innovator’s Dilemna”) in his book "Seeing What’s Next" about how the telegraph company Western Union is for all intents and purposes dead today because...it decided to “pass” on the telephone to focus on its highly profitable core business.

In the historical case as described by Christensen, Western Union did see value in the telephone, and even had chances to affordably acquire the technology, but at the time the telephone was practical for local service only, and Westerm Union’s profitable core business was for national (long-distance) communications. So they passed. Kurt writes on to talk about how traditional broadcasters are making their own short-sighted opposite kind of mistake.

http://textpattern.kurthanson.com/kurtsblog/158/today-in-history-telephone-industry-offers-valuable-lesson-for-rado

When CBS purchased Last.fm in May, 2007, they signalled that they do not plan to make a Western Union style mistake.

[Radioman100]

When CBS purchased Last.fm in May, 2007, they signalled that they do not plan to make a Western Union style mistake.

Well, you're right about that.  They signalled they're making a dot com boom/bust style mistake instead.

[vsa]

When CBS purchased Last.fm in May, 2007, they signalled that they do not plan to make a Western Union style mistake.

Well, you're right about that.  They signalled they're making a dot com boom/bust style mistake instead.

The radio people who were calling the Internet a "fad" were proven wrong a long time ago.

[clouseau]

The radio people who were calling the Internet a "fad" were proven wrong a long time ago.

I suppose it would be way out of line to ask,  but do you have an example of this?

Clouseau

[Radioman100]

Of course the Internet isn't a fad.  Plowing ridiculous money into companies developing it was a fad.

People did it because they were ignorant.  They fell for the buzz and hype.  For a small handful of investors it worked out, but others lost big.

Putting blind faith in web radio just because it's on the Internet would be similarly foolish.

Web radio is actually in a much worse position than most dot coms were before the bust.  CRB royalty rates are the biggest obstacle to profitability, but there are other issues like long term bandwidth backlash.

Should radio have web involvement?  Of course.  Should it be the only focus?  Only if you want to relive the dot com bust.

[radiopilot]

The radio people who were calling the Internet a "fad" were proven wrong a long time ago.

I suppose it would be way out of line to ask,  but do you have an example of this?

Clouseau

Gee how the black kettle in all of you HD pro types don't even have a clue, it was YOU, RFburns, Mike Walker, EasyPeezy, Radioman, Lino, David Eduardo, etc., etc. all indicating how internet radio was doomed because of royalty fees, not enough listeners, advertisement sales, etc.

NOW these so called experts that were calling satelite radio a dying industry are the ones touting the Ibiquity nonsense to get HD radio on satelite radios as a condition of the XM/Sirius merger... talk about calling the kettle black... WOW you guys are flip floppers, at LEAST we still have the audacity to continue to rant how bad HD radio is and haven't budged from our position!

IF I were the FCC and SEC I would NEVER have allowed terrestrial radio to ever touch the internet/satelite radio with their web radio or now their insitance that HD be allowed on satelite radios as a condition web radio/satelite radio would not try to get into terrestrial radio!

Now THAT would have been the best approach and then we would see how all you guys would be out of work scratching at XM/Sirius or the thousands of internet radio sites looking for work... a sorry sour bunch you guys are!

Seriously look back at your prior posts before getting into the position where you ask the stupid question above!

Radiopilot

[vsa]

The radio people who were calling the Internet a "fad" were proven wrong a long time ago.

I suppose it would be way out of line to ask,  but do you have an example of this?

Clouseau

Back in 2000 and 2001, in terms of the public (some radio people included) in general believing the Internet was a fad:

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2000/12/18/focus7.html


In terms of radio people in particular thinking that Internet radio was over several years ago:

http://www.kurthanson.com/archive/news/033103/index.shtml

I must admit that I have not been collecting evidence gleaned from numerous personal conversations over the years with fellow radio people. It never occurred to me to keep such evidence handy to PROVE what was common knowledge and experience. There were plenty of people who had doubts about the longevity of the Internet. Ten years from now, we'll all be hard-pressed to find anyone admitting to having had any doubts about the future of Internet radio.



 

[clouseau]

Gee how the black kettle in all of you HD pro types don't even have a clue, it was YOU, RFburns, Mike Walker, EasyPeezy, Radioman, Lino, David Eduardo, etc., etc. all indicating how internet radio was doomed because of royalty fees, not enough listeners, advertisement sales, etc.

All these issues are faced by net radio today.  They threaten it's very existance.

NOW these so called experts that were calling satelite radio a dying industry are the ones touting the Ibiquity nonsense to get HD radio on satelite radios as a condition of the XM/Sirius merger... talk about calling the kettle black...

Not at all.  HD radio is merely asking for a "Concurrent" changing of the playing field.  From an HD standpoint, Radio agreed to the consequences of HD and it's effect on radio as a whole.

However for ONE satellite company to be formed, it requires a change in the "competition" arena.  A change in a law that affects radio that RADIO DOES NOT REALLY WANT. because of that,  it is reasonable to look for some type of mitigation.  Do I lke the mitigation chosen?  Not particularly,  but it is creative.  remember the "NEW "Siriurs/XM will have no national compteitors.

  WOW you guys are flip floppers, at LEAST we still have the audacity to continue to rant how bad HD radio is and haven't budged from our position!

I fail to see the change in position.  Nothing has changed.

IF I were the FCC and SEC I would NEVER have allowed terrestrial radio to ever touch the internet/satelite radio with their web radio or now their insitance that HD be allowed on satelite radios as a condition web radio/satelite radio would not try to get into terrestrial radio!

 

While trying to be civil i'll point out this is the reason people with your view don't HAVE that responsibility.

Now THAT would have been the best approach and then we would see how all you guys would be out of work scratching at XM/Sirius or the thousands of internet radio sites looking for work... a sorry sour bunch you guys are!

My God man, why are you so filled with such hate towards radio?  Cripes, if ever a post showed true colors....
 

Seriously look back at your prior posts before getting into the position where you ask the stupid question above!

You do realize this semi incoherant rant by you is in response to a question I asked about "The radio people who were calling the Internet a "fad"".  Somehow I'm not sure how you got off on the mother of all rants about everything based on "The stupid question I asked above".

Clearly if you have so little interest in radio, perhaps you should devote a little more time to something a little more  meaningful to YOU.  But that is you decision.

Either way, dude,  honestly.  Lighten up.

It's only radio.   

Clouseau

[clouseau]

The radio people who were calling the Internet a "fad" were proven wrong a long time ago.

I suppose it would be way out of line to ask,  but do you have an example of this?

Clouseau

Back in 2000 and 2001, in terms of the public (some radio people included) in general believing the Internet was a fad:

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2000/12/18/focus7.html


In terms of radio people in particular thinking that Internet radio was over several years ago:

http://www.kurthanson.com/archive/news/033103/index.shtml

I must admit that I have not been collecting evidence gleaned from numerous personal conversations over the years with fellow radio people. It never occurred to me to keep such evidence handy to PROVE what was common knowledge and experience. There were plenty of people who had doubts about the longevity of the Internet. Ten years from now, we'll all be hard-pressed to find anyone admitting to having had any doubts about the future of Internet radio.
 

Fair enough.  I think we were looking for different things.  If a more accurate staement of

"The radio people who were calling the Internet a "fad""

is

"The  people who were calling the Internet a "fad", including some in radio" then I misinterpreted what you said.  My apologies. 

I believe radio was quicker to adopt the Internet than SOME other businesses   And they could have been faster.  I would say it isn't fair to say they totally didin't believe.  The rant a couple of posts up from a "Mob Member Radiopilot" should substantiate that.

You also said...

I must admit that I have not been collecting evidence gleaned from numerous personal conversations over the years with fellow radio people.

I can see that.  I may have actually heard..."We're 12% bekiw budget and you want to screw with the Internet? ? ?"

Hell hath no fury like a GSM who is 2% below budget... 

I'm not sure that's really a philosophy...


Clouseau

[Mike Walker]

Reality check: internet radio is still threatened by what comes next in royalty fees. EVERY MAJOR NETCASTER CONFIRMS THIS! Most internet stations still operate in the red (it takes advertising to make money...either that, or subscriptions...the only two sources of money for mass-media!) And internet radio (video too) still has the unfortunate propensity to be killed by it's own success. With terrestrial radio, production and distribution cossts are fixed. It costs the same to produce a show heard by 10 people as 10 million. But as audience size increases, cost-per-listener goes WAY down. On the 'net, however, the more people listen, THE MORE IT COSTS! A station breaking even, or making money with 10,000 listeners, could literally cease to exist if suddenly that number grew to hundreds of thousands, or millions of listeners. Odds are bandwidth wouldn't be available for the surprising increase, and if available, it would cost so much the station would likely have to shut down.

THOSE are the sad realities of internet radio (there are, of course, some happy realities as well!) But you can't gloss over these problems. They need to be solved before internet radio becomes what it needs to be to prosper...A PROFIT CENTER! Before one profits, one must first build an infrastructure which actually can support success!