Music streaming paywalls for Los Angeles?

Is there going to come a time when you have to pay to listen to radio apps on your phone?
Here in LA or anywhere else?
I know online newspapers now do it,
Will it be same for radio?

Any thoughts from Consultants, Radio owners on here?

34james said:

Is there going to come a time when you have to pay to listen to radio apps on your phone?
Here in LA or anywhere else?
I know online newspapers now do it,
Will it be same for radio?

Any thoughts from Consultants, Radio owners on here?

Click to expand...

They kinda already have that in SiriusXM, Pandora One, and TuneIn Radio Premium.

A couple of terrestrial stations have done it (the legendary KPIG in Monterey/SLO is one) and the BBC mulled over paywalls for their domestic stations, before deciding to just block all streaming of sporting events instead (usually for rights reasons).

Problem is, radio station owners would need to make compelling content before putting a paywall up. And they'd by and large have to do it en masse. SXM, Pandora One, KPIG, and TuneIn Premium all have things that set them apart from the pack. A good chunk of terrestrial radio has been McDonalds-ized under the guise of budget cuts recently...just like I can go to a McDonalds and get basically the same Big Mac in South Carolina that I would in Southern California. Why pay to listen to KLOS if they were to charge a fee to do so when I could listen to a very similar station for free?

What you may see is iHeart, TuneIn, Rdio, etc charge a fee in the app store to download the program, with those proceeds being divided based on streaming listenership to "member" stations. Until there is something that makes streaming terrestrial radio "membership" worth the money, I don't think you'll see many people jump on the bandwagon.

Radio-X

Radio-X said:

Problem is, radio station owners would need to make compelling content before putting a paywall up.

Click to expand...

The examples you give (except KPIG) aren't necessarily making "compelling content." They're just offering it without advertising by paying for it.

There's no reason why OTA stations can't create different types of stations online than they have on-air, but put them behind a paywall. The reason they don't is there isn't much money in it. The cost of streaming is so high that it takes almost all the profit out of it.

TheBigA said:

The examples you give (except KPIG) aren't necessarily making "compelling content." They're just offering it without advertising by paying for it.

There's no reason why OTA stations can't create different types of stations online than they have on-air, but put them behind a paywall. The reason they don't is there isn't much money in it. The cost of streaming is so high that it takes almost all the profit out of it.

Click to expand...

I dunno about that...

SXM offers Stern, lots of play-by-play, and very niche channels...that have commercials, I may add! (Doctors Radio, 24/7 trucking, etc)
Pandora One allows you customized stations
TuneIn Premium lets you listen to thousands of audiobooks and baseball.

While all of these things are available on free sites, there is something (easy to use interface, legal access to sports, no commercials etc) that makes these things stand out. Some of these things are things a commercial station streaming could potentially implement without losing ad revenue...and possibly increasing it!

Radio-X

Radio-X said:

While all of these things are available on free sites, there is something (easy to use interface, legal access to sports, no commercials etc) that makes these things stand out. Some of these things are things a commercial station streaming could potentially implement without losing ad revenue...and possibly increasing it!

Click to expand...

None of those things are really compelling content. And the sports programming is usually dictated by the various leagues that own their own streaming sites.

If -- and as a consultant, I know it's a great big huge "IF" -- someone did create content which was compelling enough to potentially attract a nationwide audience, it would only be a matter of time before said content started appearing on terrestrial radio as the main channel format. So even if that content did create a market for "pay-to-play" apps it would be short-lived.

As for the OP's original question: Most geofencing is in place for the reason our friend David E. has stated in many other threads here on RD. Streaming is an expense for the originating station which does not bring in sufficient (if any at all) additional revenue to pay for itself. And there is no benefit to any local advertisers who may be included in the stream by being exposed to listeners hundreds of miles away. National advertising? Virtually non-existent.

So stations geofence primarily to avoid the cost of providing programming outside of their local coverage area. Some are a bit more liberal in the fence boundaries -- Saul Levine's KKGO comes to mind, as its stream is available within California, not just within the L.A. market -- but if a station doesn't want to pay for an out-of-market listener, this is the easiest option short of not streaming at all.

Los Angeles is going to be less prone to this, but it is possible that geofencing will gradually be implemented. mainly by the smaller stations at first, since they have a smaller income-to-expense ratio in the first place.