On the talk front, few potential hosts would see radio as an upgrade from podcasting or YouTube.Music, news, and variations on talk
I'd think Audacy would need to pay a significant premium over Spotify or YouTube to acquire talent.
On the talk front, few potential hosts would see radio as an upgrade from podcasting or YouTube.Music, news, and variations on talk
I think the one thing radio has other platforms do not have is that it has the ability to be live AND local. The combined audience of all news and NPR is pretty large, showing there’s an appitite for news and informational programming. Left wing talk might not be successful but local moderate talk used to be successful as was advice (financial, real estate, relationships) talk. This type of programming could also be simulcast on other platforms. One or two local sports radio talk shows are simulcast on Comcast sports, why not simulcast other non-music programming on YouTube, FB or IG?But those are primarily music distribution services, and they all offer commercial-free versions. Traditional radio needs to think beyond music formats. The audience already can get music. What does radio have that the other platforms don't? Can they monetize it in multiple ways? They way to make money is to take one thing and sell it many different ways.
I think the one thing radio has other platforms do not have is that it has the ability to be live AND local. The combined audience of all news and NPR is pretty large, showing there’s an appitite for news and informational programming.
And all foreign language formats are news, talk, music or religion, just not in English.Music, news, and variations on talk
Am I missing something?
Oh ya religion and foreign language ....
Let's look at television: over the last 60 years or so, the only "live and local" content has been news and, sometimes, sports. Some TV stations and cable channels have neither. We can say that there may be a few things that need to be live and local, but for the most part that is a mythical concept.I think the one thing radio has other platforms do not have is that it has the ability to be live AND local.
Because watching people talking into microphones in a studio -- or worse, watching people in a studio twiddling their thumbs or sipping coffee while a long-winded caller is trying to make a point -- is deadly dull television. The sports shows are on cable networks because they cost nothing additional to produce and will attract more eyeballs than a rerun of a game that most of the audience either watched the previous night or already knows the result of.I think the one thing radio has other platforms do not have is that it has the ability to be live AND local. The combined audience of all news and NPR is pretty large, showing there’s an appitite for news and informational programming. Left wing talk might not be successful but local moderate talk used to be successful as was advice (financial, real estate, relationships) talk. This type of programming could also be simulcast on other platforms. One or two local sports radio talk shows are simulcast on Comcast sports, why not simulcast other non-music programming on YouTube, FB or IG?
One or two local sports radio talk shows are simulcast on Comcast sports, why not simulcast other non-music programming on YouTube, FB or IG?
Agreed except I was responding to what can broadcast radio provide in programming that streaming platforms, podcasts and satellite radio do not or cannot.Words like "live" and "local" are truly unimportant. "Entertaining", "Fun", "interesting", "informative" are better terms for the valuation of a show.
And, now that you bring it up, "live" is not a positive quality today to most people. Newer media options, going back to a VHS recorder with a timer, have made "live" a detriment, not a positive quality. Listeners and viewers want to hear their desired content on their schedule, not someone else's.If you insist on it being "live & local," the audience will be limited by the market size and interest in the topic.
Agreed except I was responding to what can broadcast radio provide in programming that streaming platforms, podcasts and satellite radio do not or cannot.
Somewhat related, but I think it helps make the point here - I used to be a fan of Saturday Night Live, but I haven't watched an actual broadcast of that show in years. First, I'm rarely home at that time on a Saturday evening to see it, but also, I no longer have to sit through 1 1/2 hours of mostly dud sketch comedy to see 1 or 2 really good ones, or that 1 sketch on occasion that may go viral and be comedy "gold". Instead, I use that 1 1/2 hours of my life to do other things, and the day after it airs I read reviews of the show and then go to YouTube to see only the best ones. If I happen to want to see full episodes, I can watch them at other times, via "on-demand" services, usually commercial free - at a time and day that best suits me.And, now that you bring it up, "live" is not a positive quality today to most people. Newer media options, going back to a VHS recorder with a timer, have made "live" a detriment, not a positive quality. Listeners and viewers want to hear their desired content on their schedule, not someone else's.
I started thinking about my own use of audio and video. I have not watched anything "live" in recent years except for breaking news (a hurricane or a riot or an important news conference are examples). Everything else, from award shows to regular newscasts to drama, comedy, documentaries and such are recorded and viewed when I want to see them.
In audio, I don't have as many options since the rights issues prevent podcasts of music-based shows. But now I can select spoken content at will, pause it to do something else with my time, and, often, binge listen if I get "into the groove" of a podcast and want a little bit more of the same.
My dream radio is to mix my playlist with the best bits of a good morning-show-like host with an occasional drops of news stories or service elements. In other words, my own mix of the ingredients of radio stations in the sequence and amount that I feel like having in any moment.
Let's see... I want the best Elvis Duran bits from the last week, music from the "best" country songs of the 1990's, and news features from NPR. And I'd pay for that or accept ads from the different providers. Technology can do this, and, to me it's vastly better than old-fashioned "live and local".
Issue radio might face is the same issue newspapers faced (and are still dealing with). When you’ve made all your content available online for free, such as podcasts, how do you start charging for that content? Newspapers have had to start charging for content online to survive, will radio do the same?The question radio companies are asking is how long do they stay in the real time business, when the audience has already moved to on-demand?
Newspapers have had to start charging for content online to survive, will radio do the same?
Personally I look at newspapers' (most especially local rags) online content the same as I do their print editions. If I want to read their print news, I pay for it. Therefore if I want to read the online version and it's behind a paywall, I don't mind paying for that as well. In general, most of the time their online subscriptions are a fraction of what buying their print editions each day would cost, as it saves them money (and a lot of trees) to not have to print and distribute "newspapers".Issue radio might face is the same issue newspapers faced (and are still dealing with). When you’ve made all your content available online for free, such as podcasts, how do you start charging for that content? Newspapers have had to start charging for content online to survive, will radio do the same?
and you are subject to YT's TOS agreement, look at Howie Carr, after Newsmax booted him after one of his guests said something actionable, he hended up on YT, and he was booted for violating YT's COVID truth squad's rules..... now he is on Rumble... WTF is Rumble?It's really difficult to monetize content on someone else's platforms. Of the three, only YouTube shares revenue, and it's a very small percentage. If you insist on it being "live & local," the audience will be limited by the market size and interest in the topic.
and you are subject to YT's TOS agreement,
BigA’s second favorite radio host, behind Sean Yannity, is that damned Dave Ramsey.
Thought for a minute Tibbs had some interesting insight.Huh?