-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Terrestrial Radio......Future?
- Thread starter Roddybob
- Start date
Not really a new study. If you read it carefully, it's paid for by the RIAA, who are trying to get a new royalty on broadcast radio. If they think broadcast is dead, why do they want to impose a new royalty on it? The report ignores the fact that broadcast radio has been investing in digital platforms, where the RIAA gets its royalty, and that digital platforms like Pandora are losing money by the boatloads because of increased expenses. So they claim broadcast is dead, meanwhile their royalty is killing digital.
A
AQH
Guest
The funny thing about the article, and indirectly a point in your post, is how Pandora is cited as a source where teenagers go. Whereas Piper-Jaffray's annual survey of teen trends show that Pandora usage by teens is off big time, and bleeding subscribers of all ages. Pandora's stock dropped 25% in one day last week.
Spotify's situation is marginally better, but they have their own issues.
As does radio, but those wounds are self-inflicted. The rule changes the FCC have recently made will only hurt radio more.
Of all the articles I see, radio is dead or healthy. Both can be accurate but the separation must be made. That separation is the device used to hear the over the air radio product and the product (programming) itself. When you compare product instead of listening device, over the air radio is doing well. If you remove all the devices one may receive an over the air radio station and only pay attention to one device called the radio, radio is not in excellent health.
Let's compare: Is it accurate to say nobody watches over the air TV? If you limit viewing to only over the air broadcasts received by a device called a television set, then yes. That percentage is minimal. Do people watch over the air television stations? Yes. They watch via cable and online. My point is the over the air broadcast TV signal is not being watched via the unconnected television. It is watched through other devices. Radio, therefore, is taking the route of television. In each instance, it is the product that counts, not the listening or viewing platform.
When we look only at the programming and not the device used to receive the programming, then programming the Undertaker's number in your cell phone is very premature.
Let's compare: Is it accurate to say nobody watches over the air TV? If you limit viewing to only over the air broadcasts received by a device called a television set, then yes. That percentage is minimal. Do people watch over the air television stations? Yes. They watch via cable and online. My point is the over the air broadcast TV signal is not being watched via the unconnected television. It is watched through other devices. Radio, therefore, is taking the route of television. In each instance, it is the product that counts, not the listening or viewing platform.
When we look only at the programming and not the device used to receive the programming, then programming the Undertaker's number in your cell phone is very premature.
Not just the device. A lot of the people who say its dead are talking about themselves. The programming no longer appeals to them, so for them, it's dead. That applies to lots of things in pop culture, from movies to TV shows. But really doesn't say anything about the health of the thing being discussed. In this case, the study is looking at certain narrow facts that help prove their conclusion. If you only look at them, you obviously have to agree with their conclusion. But what about all the other facts that the study ignored? That's why a truly scientific study won't begin with the conclusion.
A
AQH
Guest
It has everything to do with programming and costs; if you think it's just about access to public files, then you're spending too much time on this website and not paying attention to the big picture.
I agree with your points on content, not the platform, being the driver for usage.
However, depending on who you listen to, there are about 17% of US homes that depend on OTA TV...
http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0002/17-percent-of-us-households-are-otaonly/278987
... and the figure is growing. The increasing costs of cable and paid content providers is driving lower income families to cut the cord and use OTA. The figure is even higher in minority communities, which means that at some point it will attract political attention.
When I look at my cable bill and realize that nearly $7 each month is going for ESPN, which I never, ever, ever, watch, it makes me feel like making a change, too.
But the Public File access issue was the last barrier to removing the main studio rule. Once the files went online, there was no other reason to require a studio in the COL.
The fact that the rules have for many decades allowed for the main studio to be at the transmitter site... often located in a remote or rural area... shows that access to the studios was never a huge issue to begin with.
I pay attention to the big picture every day. Read the rule and tell me where it mandates local programming or staffing.
Keep in mind the #1 station in Seattle may have a local studio, but most of what's on the air is NEMO: Not emanating from main office.
Read the study in the OP. It says that young people prefer online radio to OTA. How much regulation do the online services have? How much local staff and programming do the online services have? What the study in the OP is saying that OTA radio has to adapt and change to be more like online radio. Is that really what you want?
Last edited:
A
AQH
Guest
The elimination of the studio rule is going to lead to even more homogenized programming, turning local stations into national translators and repeaters.
I certainly disagree with the above. Stations must be competitive locally. If they try to go 'national' the various nuances that are important to each market destroy the ability to focus on the highest ratings as possible and, thus, the buy sheet at the ad agencies. Even formats that are syndicated have the ability to adapt to a specific market (Jack is an example). The person shouting the main studio rule changes things has no real understanding of radio. For decades stations have maintained a local studio that was never used. Example I know: KNOK FM, Fort Worth, Texas in the 1980s. Real offices in Dallas. A person bored to tears in Fort Worth 9 to 5 weekdays.
iHeart, Cumulus, et al could have closed all of their offices and studios last year, 2 years ago or 10 years ago if they wanted to, as long as the public file was accesssible during regular business hours. There was never a rule that said radio stations had to lease expensive studios downtown where the ad agencies are located, yet they do. As long as they have some local staff and are doing local sales, they're going to be there (though the "main studio" of the distant rimshot that never originated any programming will go away). Pandora lost 66 million this quarter alone. Where's there studio and sales office in your town.
The medium is changing, but not radio.
Radio is a very fluid term in the modern world. To most young people, it's Pandora or Spotify. And stations are hosting their own apps. But it's no longer strictly AM/FM anymore. As I've said before, it's getting hard to find a NEWLY manufactured AM/FM portable or home radio. There's some new old stock being liquidated on eBay and Amazon, but very few actual NEW radios. Electronics manufacturers are focused on WiFi enabled things, not traditional radios. That's just where the market is heading. And radio has to roll with it like everything else.
There will come a time when the WiFi saturation is such that the terrestrial towers and signals will no longer be relevant. We're not there yet, but the curve is in sight. But as long as there is a need for an audio-only platform, radio will survive. Maybe not on AM or FM bands, but it will exist.
And radio and the PROs are in for a confrontation. Because as the medium moves from terrestrial broadcasting to full mobile streaming, a lot of changes are going to have to be made because the current PRO rules regarding streaming are already obsolete. And the music industry is still going to need radio (not every new song is broke virally on YouTube). But radio itself has to transition to full streaming for its survival into the future. There's no avoiding it.
Radio is a very fluid term in the modern world. To most young people, it's Pandora or Spotify. And stations are hosting their own apps. But it's no longer strictly AM/FM anymore. As I've said before, it's getting hard to find a NEWLY manufactured AM/FM portable or home radio. There's some new old stock being liquidated on eBay and Amazon, but very few actual NEW radios. Electronics manufacturers are focused on WiFi enabled things, not traditional radios. That's just where the market is heading. And radio has to roll with it like everything else.
There will come a time when the WiFi saturation is such that the terrestrial towers and signals will no longer be relevant. We're not there yet, but the curve is in sight. But as long as there is a need for an audio-only platform, radio will survive. Maybe not on AM or FM bands, but it will exist.
And radio and the PROs are in for a confrontation. Because as the medium moves from terrestrial broadcasting to full mobile streaming, a lot of changes are going to have to be made because the current PRO rules regarding streaming are already obsolete. And the music industry is still going to need radio (not every new song is broke virally on YouTube). But radio itself has to transition to full streaming for its survival into the future. There's no avoiding it.
There are plenty of new radios out there, but it's become a sideline, just like portable stereo systems, and -- amazingly enough -- desktop computers. All slowly disappearing, becoming more the venue for specialists and hobbyists as opposed to the general public.
Obviously radio will travel more online, but that will cause more fragmentation in the industry. Look at what the internet has done to newspapers and cable TV. The days of massive media are starting to disappear. In 30 years I see a brave new world of pay-to-play for everything, with a few free offerings here and there. And the FM band will be dying, and the AM band will be the low frequency version of the weather band -- SHTF scenario broadcasting only.
Obviously radio will travel more online, but that will cause more fragmentation in the industry. Look at what the internet has done to newspapers and cable TV. The days of massive media are starting to disappear. In 30 years I see a brave new world of pay-to-play for everything, with a few free offerings here and there. And the FM band will be dying, and the AM band will be the low frequency version of the weather band -- SHTF scenario broadcasting only.
If they think broadcast is dead, why do they want to impose a new royalty on it
If the horse is dying the bat wants to suck as much blood out of it as possible, as quickly as possible.
If the horse is dying the bat wants to suck as much blood out of it as possible, as quickly as possible.
I feel like something will happen in the coming years that will allow streaming to actually be profitable business model. We have an emerging medium where advertisers will allocate more funds as we move along and other 'yet to be seen' changes will occur. Providers will hone their skills and refine their presentation. As other posters have noted, radio listening is heading that way.
By the way, I am enjoying the well thought out responses that have appeared in this thread.
By the way, I am enjoying the well thought out responses that have appeared in this thread.
What happens when Pandora and Spotify go the way of Napster and other dead sites. We're starting to see the long slow death of Pandora right now. Spotify is currently benefiting, but there will come a time when Spotify has to pay back all the millions its borrowed. The income is not keeping up with expenses. I read a lot of stories about OTA radio debt, but it's nothing compared to the debt these digital streaming companies are building. It's obvious that OTA radio will outlast whatever the latest trend is. When Pandora shuts down, you can still listen to KEXP or whatever choice you want.
- Status