News stations should watch for competition from low-power upstarts - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: News stations should watch for competition from low-power upstarts

  1. #11
    I thought this related to NPR because "Weekend Edition" did a story on this right before the Sunday "Best of Car Talk".

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by vchimpanzee View Post
    I thought this related to NPR because "Weekend Edition" did a story on this right before the Sunday "Best of Car Talk".
    No, the Current article and the Times article appeared before Sunday morning. Apparently Weekend Edition got the story from them, just as OP did. Problem is OP apparently just reads headlines and doesn't bother to evaluate the quality of the information before rushing here to post.

    The articles also make clear that the LPFM's target niche audiences, not general audiences like Public Radio news and information stations or commercial major market all news stations. In that sense, there is no competition. And, yes, if competition is defined as picking up shows from Pacifica, PRX or Free Speech Radio, then public radio stations already run that stuff on their HD sub-channels - and those shows are widely available online.

    Besides niche broadcasters and hobby stations have long been around on weak stick and high-end of the band AM stations, as well as on brokered stations. Opening up more LPFMs adds nothing new. Again, as the FCC adds stations the audience continues to shrink.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar Madison View Post
    Besides niche broadcasters and hobby stations have long been around on weak stick and high-end of the band AM stations, as well as on brokered stations. Opening up more LPFMs adds nothing new. Again, as the FCC adds stations the audience continues to shrink.
    Maybe in the future the audience will shrink? Because I keep reading here on RD that radio's audience hasn't shrunk. But then you have this:

    "The trend lines aren’t in FM radio’s favor. A recent analysis from Edison Research and Triton Digital showed that 53 percent of all Americans listened to online audio last year, while 21 percent of American households no longer even own an FM radio — and that number jumps to 32 percent among 18-to-34-year-olds."

    That was from the NY Times article.

    I knew some younger folks had trouble knowing what a "radio" is, but one fifth of US households not even having one was new to me.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by boombox4 View Post
    Maybe in the future the audience will shrink? Because I keep reading here on RD that radio's audience hasn't shrunk.
    There are two measures of radio audience. The first is time spent listening, and the other is cumulative audience. All ratings numbers are derived from these two, which are the only things ratings companies measure.

    Cumulative listening is only off a couple of percent from the 90's to today, and over 90% of Americans use radio. But the amount of time spent with radio has declined, both due to more alternatives and changes in ratings measurement technology.

    "The trend lines aren’t in FM radio’s favor. A recent analysis from Edison Research and Triton Digital showed that 53 percent of all Americans listened to online audio last year, while 21 percent of American households no longer even own an FM radio — and that number jumps to 32 percent among 18-to-34-year-olds."
    That's an inaccurate quote. The real item is that those percentages of people don't have a stand-alone radio in their home. This often skips multi-function devices and totally excludes radio at work and in the car.

    That was from the NY Times article.
    A newspaper that is losing money and has cut back on its fact-checking considerably, as evidenced here.

    I knew some younger folks had trouble knowing what a "radio" is, but one fifth of US households not even having one was new to me.
    A major error in the report is thinking that "radio" is just AM and FM. Most of us consider any form of new media delivery of our content to be "radio" too.
    www.americanradiohistory.com
    Broadcasting Magazine and Yearbooks, RCA Broadcast News, Television Magazine, Radio Annual, Radio News, Sponsor, Television/Radio Age, R&R, Duncan's American Radio, M Street Directory, Broadcast Engineering, db, and more.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    1,014
    I have to agree: over the air radio listening is available via 1) radio; 2) mobile device and 3) online.

    Streaming only stations generally do very, very poorly. The online listening is to over the air radio, iHeart and Pandora primarily. The poor stand alone streamer is severely challenged at capturing listeners.

    TSL or Time Spent Listening is poor with streaming stations. From my research an average listener tunes in 3 times a month, spending less that 2 hours a calendar month with a preferred station. A typical over the air station has a listener for around 2.5 hours a week. It gets worse. Many streaming only stations have low maximum numbers where listeners cannot exceed a certain amount at any given time. Over the air radio doesn't have that. Then, Sound Exchange's pricing model eats up, for most, more revenue than the listener base can allow the operator to monetize.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEduardo View Post

    A major error in the report is thinking that "radio" is just AM and FM. Most of us consider any form of new media delivery of our content to be "radio" too.
    A major about-face for DE to include "any form of new media delivery" as "radio" but this allows him to continue to claim the audience is not disappearing.

    It does seem, however, that this definition excludes "new media delivery of content" from anyone not currently engaged in terrestrial or rusty tower delivery of content. Non-broadcasters took over the new media audience while broadcasters were still in denial of new media. Now broadcasters are trying to play catch-up.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar Madison View Post
    A major about-face for DE to include "any form of new media delivery" as "radio" but this allows him to continue to claim the audience is not disappearing.
    Hardly... in fact, just the opposite. I have been saying that any channel of distribution which delivers audio content without pictures to the consumer is "radio". I was first quoted in a trade magazine with this perspective around 2001 when I was programming 5 of the channels for XM Satellite Radio (Note the use of the term "radio").

    As streaming became prevalent, we noticed that listeners referred to it as "radio" and so it is.

    It does seem, however, that this definition excludes "new media delivery of content" from anyone not currently engaged in terrestrial or rusty tower delivery of content. Non-broadcasters took over the new media audience while broadcasters were still in denial of new media. Now broadcasters are trying to play catch-up.
    Pandora is a radio service. Their local sellers in about 40 markets call it "radio" too. Slacker is not radio, as it is an on demand service... it is an iPod in the cloud and the equivalent, 60 years later, of a collection of 45 rpm vinyl records.
    www.americanradiohistory.com
    Broadcasting Magazine and Yearbooks, RCA Broadcast News, Television Magazine, Radio Annual, Radio News, Sponsor, Television/Radio Age, R&R, Duncan's American Radio, M Street Directory, Broadcast Engineering, db, and more.

  8. #18
    So, David, on-demand is NOT "radio?" The distinction is radio is programmed, we decide and you listen. Radio has "gatekeepers." Radio does not include time-shifting (which is the essential and distinctive feature of podcasting).

    As I've long suspected, broadcasters are addicted to control. They described their own mind-set in 1963:

    There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We can reduce the focus to a soft blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to... The Outer Limits.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar Madison View Post
    So, David, on-demand is NOT "radio?" The distinction is radio is programmed, we decide and you listen. Radio has "gatekeepers." Radio does not include time-shifting (which is the essential and distinctive feature of podcasting).

    As I've long suspected, broadcasters are addicted to control. They described their own mind-set in 1963:
    "On demand" is not radio because listeners do not consider it to be "radio".

    Users of on-demand who have migrated from the realm of the iPod and MP3 downloads consider it to be a better way to hold their "own" music collection. Those who can remember back think of it as a replacement for CDs or cassettes or even vinyl. It's a music storage system.

    Radio is a curated music and entertainment source. Whether it is your custom stations on Pandora or a local AM, FM or station stream, the user does not select specific content and its sequence.

    In every perceptual project I have participated in, listeners clearly differentiate between music collections such as Spotify and their own smartphone music collection and "radio" which is, no matter how customizable, a "push" medium.

    Podcasting can be a subsidiary of radio... such as streams of terrestrial radio stations that feature ongoing, all-day repeats of the morning show or the best mixes of one of the staff mixers. NPR is the industry leader in making radio content (not just songs) available on demand.
    www.americanradiohistory.com
    Broadcasting Magazine and Yearbooks, RCA Broadcast News, Television Magazine, Radio Annual, Radio News, Sponsor, Television/Radio Age, R&R, Duncan's American Radio, M Street Directory, Broadcast Engineering, db, and more.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    1,014
    Nielsen Ratings have included over the air radio's online stream as a separate entry for a long time now. Oscar, you're obviously trying to pick a fight. A radio station, perhaps better described as an FCC licensed entity is what we call over the air radio and the device used to receive that broadcast can be any mode the listener chooses: radio or stream. The distinction has always been a radio station that is broadcast over the AM or FM dial PLUS online versus an online only product.

    The device used to receive an over the air broadcast is changing and has been for many years. Even so, the availability of radio and the lack of cost involved has kept the device termed a radio a very popular device.

    In my research, this is proven. A streaming only college station at a school of almost 12,000 has 153.7 listening hours a week. They do a fine job in programming and promotion. In fact, I'm shocked by the low number. A school with under 3,000 and an over the air and streaming option gets around 851.78 listening hours a week online. These figures indicate the over the air signal builds awareness for the online stream. In this respect, the over the air signal that promotes the online presence, increases online listening hugely. Why? The over air signal has the listeners to effect this. Likewise, a college of nearly 45,000 commissioned a study: 78.1% of listeners opted for the audio via cable TV versus the 21.9% that chose to listen online. Why? It frees up the mobile device for other things and, the big thing, it doesn't cost them anything (data) to listen.

    The biggest things I have uncovered: over the air does better (even over closed circuit or cable TV audio) because they are free, don't use data the user pays for and listening online is interrupted by other uses for the phone/mobile device (try taking a call while streaming, something you can do with a device called a radio). For listening, it is not the first option on the list of things to do with a mobile device but a device called radio is the first and only option for listening to radio.

    I guess the best terminology is to clarify over the air signals that may or may not stream: such listening is not falling off as the doomsayers claim. The device is changing but the product being listened to by all but a very tiny group is a the over the air signal or it's streaming version. In other words if it was 25% listening via a radio and 75% via the stream, the broadcast radio station is not losing audience, it's mode of delivery would have changed.

    Now, consider this: in many cities there are over the air broadcast TV stations. How many people receive that programming in a manner other than directly over the air? Do they have no viewers because people watch them via Dish, cable or streaming?

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




     
Our Conferences
Useful Contacts
Community


Contact Us