HYPOTHETICAL SPECULATION: What if the major Networks left OTA and went to cable?

[Avid Listener]

If the Big Four broadcast networks were to leave OTA behind, it would be game over for OTA.

You realize that's the exact same thing that conventional wisdom said would happen to OTA radio when the major networks stopped producing program content, right? The radio industry came up with a whole new paradigm and survived an additional six decades, though now even newer developments are again making OTA radio increasingly irrelevant.

 

[FredLeonard]

You realize that's the exact same thing that conventional wisdom said would happen to OTA radio when the major networks stopped producing program content, right? The radio industry came up with a whole new paradigm and survived an additional six decades, though now even newer developments are again making OTA radio increasingly irrelevant.

Oh, not this tired old chestnut again. Funny, how in the face of seriously declining revenue and audience, radio has steadfastly failed to come up with "anything new" this time.

And we are not talking about a new medium here. We are talking about a different means of distributing video content. The more valid analogy would be if the FCC had adopted CBS' (superior in many ways) system for color broadcasting on UHF. Would all thise black and white VHF stations have found something new?

 

[newsmark]

Oh, not this tired old chestnut again. Funny, how in the face of seriously declining revenue and audience, radio has steadfastly failed to come up with "anything new" this time.

I think radio might have brought the troubles on itself this time. The commercial loads are so high that you can go a long time flipping through the dial without hearing any music or other content other than commercials. (I've made my entire 20 minute drive to work without being able to find a song.)

Of course they're thinking that more commercials means more money. But as more and more listeners switch to satellite or Pandora or some other online service, over-the-air radio becomes irrelevant. In so many markets there's not even someone in the building to read live weather information.

 

[TheBigA]

The commercial loads are so high that you can go a long time flipping through the dial without hearing any music or other content other than commercials.

Actually the commercial loads are about the same as they've always been. The difference is that, with PPM, some stations have chosen to change the number of breaks from 3 or 4 to just one per hour. But believe me, anyone who works in radio knows the tradeoff between spotload lengths and losing listeners, and no one wants to take that risk even for a few more dollars.

Online services are going to be cramming more advertising, as their costs increase. Pandora is now a public company, and its stockholders are demanding a profit, even if it means users will be inconvenienced. And the monthly price of satellite will be increasing as royalty rates rise. There are no live voices at Pandora or Sirius either.

 

[newsmark]

There are no live voices at Pandora or Sirius either.

No, there are not. But my point was that local radio has largely given up what could be considered an advantage over satellite radio and Pandora.

As far as the breaks, I think there may be fewer-but-longer breaks on some stations. But on most of the ones I hear, compared to the 1970s and early 1980s, the overall commercial load is considerably higher. I often hear 4-5 minutes of spots in one pod. "Back in the day," there'd often be only 4-5 minutes of spots in an entire hour, particularly on FM. (I'll admit AM generally had more spots than FM during that time.)

 

[TheBigA]

No, there are not. But my point was that local radio has largely given up what could be considered an advantage over satellite radio and Pandora.

It's only an advantage if it's in demand. In some formats, live voices are viewed in the same way as commercials. As interruptions. But the fact is that most of the bigger radio stations in this country currently have live voices. I've seen stations in markets as small as #145 with full staffs of live and local hosts. It depends on the market and the format.

"Back in the day," there'd often be only 4-5 minutes of spots in an entire hour, particularly on FM. (I'll admit AM generally had more spots than FM during that time.)

Not on any of the popular stations. The top rated AM music stations in the 60s ran spots in between every song for at least 12 minutes per hour. Early FM stations didn't have the audience yet, but once they did, they had as many spots as AM. Just not as often. In fact, it was FM that broke from spots between every song to grouping of spot clusters between every third song. But the number of minutes averaged between 12 and 15.

 

[Avid Listener]

No, there are not. But my point was that local radio has largely given up what could be considered an advantage over satellite radio and Pandora.

Whether it's radio or TV, it's not so much a question of what the content is, it's whether or not it's entertaining. A voice talking on the radio can be entertaining, or it can be boring. Any blanket statement that one radio band needs voices but the other band doesn't is probably wrong. The problem isn't that local radio doesn't have voices, it's that the voices are merely annoying little snippets of liner card readings with no entertainment value at all.

 

[joebtsflk1]

I tried to diagram the logic of your post and see it everything fits together.

If they are going to eliminate "the limitations or costs that may be imposed by a connected network".... what mechanism are they going to use to get the conent to the stations.

Isn't having "enough common, popular content" a problem faced by all distribution methods? Why would that be a larger problem for OTA than it is for a cable network delivery, or delivery by a non-network OTA.. or distribution by Amazon for that matter.

If the current transmitters serving "network stations" are not needed to get stuff to peoples DVRs, why would keep all the toll towers that are a menace to airplane navigation and the life-safety of birds, towers that create such zoning hassles, and must be rather costly to maintain over an extended period of time.

I know your theory seems so logical to you.... but I can't seem to get the pieces of the puzzle to fit together when I try to create the picture.

My original reply post was self-censored. I've changed my response to the following sentence.

I have reviewed all of your arguments against my initial post, and I reject them all! (OK, Sheldon on Big Bang doesn't always make sense...)

The cost to distribute content in a one-to-many context, such as OTA, will always be cheaper than than one-to-one distribution with our current wired networks.

Perhaps a 100% fiber network all the way to the home will have enough capacity to efficiently distribute one-to-one content at a price that approaches broadcast data delivery. Somehow, the model of automobile transportation comes to mind: as roads are expanded, the new capacity is quickly swallowed up by increased traffic.

OTA data distribution will have a place in delivering product to the home in the future, but I don't think there will be enough high demand common content to distribute to keep three stations in business in most markets.