Please save pulse 87 again

You done with your sour grapes?

The CRB did not "allow" the agreement to expire. It had an expiration date all along, and you (the indie webcasters) did damned little to lobby for it to be renewed.

Pureplay revenue is not decided by the FM broadcasters. It is decided by the music industry, who decides where they want to buy the plays.

You can cite all the studies you want, but the fact is that it would take the majority of all the streamers with a limited number of connections each, to equal that of one medium-market's #1 FM station. You were outgunned before you even reached for your holster.

David's response made me think I misunderstood the original question, so I just did some more research.

"Pureplay" is a term which applies only to standalone webcasting, not to radio (even stations streaming their broadcast signal), so the statement "make the FM guys pony up some of that Pureplay dough" is an uninformed one and is meaningless.

DavidEduardo said:

Over the air stations pay for their digital streams just like Pandora or other streamers.

Analog stations that do not broadcast digital copies are not subject to the DCMA regulations and payments.



The average car in the US is 11 years old. That means that less than 5% of all cars on the road have wifi capability, as not all cars sold in the last years have the capability you speak.

Click to expand...

On the last statement, may I bring up this memory jogger about cars in 1970 that were equipped with FM radio. The truth always lies somewhere in the middle. Pureplay webcasting has been a rotten business model for the companies that have cash in bushel baskets to burn. Hobby webcasters...well, that sums it up right there.

All the traditional models we've known for decades are getting upended. I missed this quote the first time around...

"'Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity,'' he added. ''So it's like, just take advantage of these last few years because none of this is ever going to happen again. You'd better be prepared for doing a lot of touring because that's really the only unique situation that's going to be left. It's terribly exciting. But on the other hand it doesn't matter if you think it's exciting or not; it's what's going to happen.'' - David Bowie http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/09/arts/david-bowie-21st-century-entrepreneur.html

This is the current-day struggle between the radio, no matter the method of delivery, and the artist.

That's a great quote, and it's very true. Everyone expected to make millions from the switch to digital, and it really hasn't happened yet. The key problem is that the fans of the music don't want to pay. They can complain about radio all they want, but their customers have to pay before anyone gets paid. If the music fans want to listen for free, the creators will never make any money.

K.M. Richards said:

You done with your sour grapes?

The CRB did not "allow" the agreement to expire. It had an expiration date all along, and you (the indie webcasters) did damned little to lobby for it to be renewed.

Pureplay revenue is not decided by the FM broadcasters. It is decided by the music industry, who decides where they want to buy the plays.

You can cite all the studies you want, but the fact is that it would take the majority of all the streamers with a limited number of connections each, to equal that of one medium-market's #1 FM station. You were outgunned before you even reached for your holster.

Click to expand...

you do realize that it was the webcasters, many of whom are former cumulus and clear channel vets , that threatened terrestrial radio and forced them to begin streaming online?

JD36108 said:

you do realize that it was the webcasters, many of whom are former cumulus and clear channel vets , that threatened terrestrial radio and forced them to begin streaming online?

Click to expand...

How did they "threatened terrestrial radio" if they didn't have enough listeners to move the meters?

gr8oldies said:

TheBigA said:

JD36108 said:

you do realize that it was the webcasters, many of whom are former cumulus and clear channel vets , that threatened terrestrial radio and forced them to begin streaming online?

Click to expand...

How did they "threatened terrestrial radio" if they didn't have enough listeners to move the meters?

Click to expand...

Stations were streaming online since the beginning of the World Wide Web in the mid 90s. Way before the present day Cumulus and Clear Channel/iHeart.

Click to expand...

I have a feeling we will be getting a lot of "sour grapes" posts from webcasters who are being shut down by the expiration of that agreement which gave them lower royalty rates. Reality check: As much as they are now whining about the CRB "failing to renew", the CRB had no obligation to do so. And they themselves did so little lobbying for a replacement agreement it is not surprising that it appeared they no longer cared.

As for streaming being a threat to terrestrial radio: That's just wishful thinking, pure and simple. The independent webcasters never had enough listenership to make the minimum to show up in any ratings book; the only streams that I ever saw make the Arbitrons (previously) or the Nielsens (now) were those tied to broadcst stations. In fact, I bet if you combined all the listenership to the indie webcasters through last year you wouldn't have been able to equal the lowest-listenership broadcast stream.

The piper must be paid. Internet content is not free by some inalienable right. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

The truth is the webcasters agreement had an expiration date. Everyone knew it was coming. Why didn't ANYONE do anything before it expired? What did they expect?

JD36108 said:

the only person with sour grapes are failed PD's turned consultants like you.

Click to expand...

I have no sour grapes. You are reading more into my comments than intended and I will thank you not to make personal attacks like that ... against myself or anyone here.

The reasons I consult rather than hands-on program stations are numerous. First, because my knowledge of music is strongest in the 1970s and 1980s, I have specialized in the Classic Hits format and not taken on clients in other genres. Second, I have some medical issues which are best dealt with if I am at home where my meds and specialized treatment equipment is, and I try not to stray farther than about a half-hour away (grocery shopping, pharmacy, doctor appointments) when possible. Third, I presume you operate your stream business from a home office. Can you blame me for choosing a business model where I don't need a separate business location?

The above paragraph is why you should not make presumptions like the one you made about consultants being "failed PD's".

I hope that the new small webcasters' agreement you mentioned in a subsequent post does come about, on terms that make it financially viable for you to continue. As I said earlier (post #29), I do not consider webcasters to be any kind of threat because you can never attract enough listeners to do damage to terrestrial radio stations' ratings. And webcasting has proven that it is still a viable home for formats we can no longer support over-the-air.

Given the way all this has happened, I cannot be overly optimistic for the future of small webcasting, but I'm also not going to sit here and wish for its demise.

K.M. Richards said:

I have no sour grapes. You are reading more into my comments than intended and I will thank you not to make personal attacks like that ... against myself or anyone here.

The reasons I consult rather than hands-on program stations are numerous. First, because my knowledge of music is strongest in the 1970s and 1980s, I have specialized in the Classic Hits format and not taken on clients in other genres. Second, I have some medical issues which are best dealt with if I am at home where my meds and specialized treatment equipment is, and I try not to stray farther than about a half-hour away (grocery shopping, pharmacy, doctor appointments) when possible. Third, I presume you operate your stream business from a home office. Can you blame me for choosing a business model where I don't need a separate business location?

The above paragraph is why you should not make presumptions like the one you made about consultants being "failed PD's".

I hope that the new small webcasters' agreement you mentioned in a subsequent post does come about, on terms that make it financially viable for you to continue. As I said earlier (post #29), I do not consider webcasters to be any kind of threat because you can never attract enough listeners to do damage to terrestrial radio stations' ratings. And webcasting has proven that it is still a viable home for formats we can no longer support over-the-air.

Given the way all this has happened, I cannot be overly optimistic for the future of small webcasting, but I'm also not going to sit here and wish for its demise.

Click to expand...

Calling someone a Failed anything is not a personal attack, flagging my post removal for calling you a failed PD is like crying because you never got picked first for anything in school.
A personal attack on you would be know and go after you for medical condition, race, religion, ect.

too many people today are overly sensitive about every little thing in life.

but whatever dude, if you took it personal, i didn't mean it to be personal, so i'm sorry.

I'm sure you're great at what you do, but in my career, i've had to deal with some really crappy consultants who couldn't program their way out of a paper bag, yet a certain few hold high level jobs at Cume-less.

Sounds like a personal attack on the integrity of job description of a consultant to me and I'm not a consultant, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night. I would think such words would not be used if they were not intended to offend or at least take a jab at a person.

DavidEduardo said:

Calling someone "failed" when they are not is definitely a personal attack.

And calling consultants "failed PD's" is certainly a broad and inaccurate stroke. I certainly take offense at that statement.

Click to expand...

Sorry if you feel that way, again, it's not my intent to offend, just my own personal feelings towards consultants.
When i started out in this business in 1998 as an intern, consultants were a good thing for small stations that needed a guiding hand.

corporate radio has destroyed that over the years and has , again in my opinion, pushed the consultant down to a point just barely above a used car salesman.
I was once a Program Director for clear channel, until a consultant decided that it would be best if my station carried 24/7 programming off the satellite.

Oh yes, you can't have a radio rant without bashing consultants or research.

I used to do that.

Heck, I worked for an owner who after buying the station, cancelled the Arbitron subscription and put in a format best labeled as his personal jukebox. We played 2000+ titles at one point and power rotation was once a day. But even he hired consultants and did research projects to try and climb out of the ratings basement... and he would always surreptitiously get the numbers, too.

Consultants don't tell station owners to do things that shoot themselves in the foot. The consultant's job is to minimize the bleeding from previous errant shots and to keep the proverbial gun locked in the safe. It's in a consultant's best interest to help the station win because that's how he/she gets paid.

I have been working for a station that has gone from basement ratings to top 5 25-54 over the course of many years. You bet they listened to a lot of advice from a lot of different people and did a lot of studies to get from point a to point b. It was never a steady line between those points, and it's no one person responsible for the successes and failures along the way. But I will say this: we started building our audience a lot faster when the GM found a way to test the music more often than when the previous GM tried to cut expenses by testing it less often. Properly done, research works, and you never turn down expert advice.

JD36108 said:

I was once a Program Director for clear channel, until a consultant decided that it would be best if my station carried 24/7 programming off the satellite.

Click to expand...

Consultants don't make that decision. The GM or owner does.

TheBigA said:

JD36108 said:

I was once a Program Director for clear channel, until a consultant decided that it would be best if my station carried 24/7 programming off the satellite.

Click to expand...

Consultants don't make that decision. The GM or owner does.

Click to expand...

And in the case of Clear Channel, the decision probably came down from Corporate, the GM had no choice, and the consultant stopped getting checks.

johndavis said:

Oh yes, you can't have a radio rant without bashing consultants or research.

Click to expand...

I think there are a lot of current and former radio people who have, at some point in their careers, been blown out of their gig at a station in close proximity, timewise, to a consultant being hired. The consultant may or may not have been involved in the decision, but if he or she was it was only being asked to review airchecks from the talent and make recommendations as to "fit".

Most consultants, placed in that situation, will go the constructive criticism route and suggest ways for air talent to fit better into the format. Some PDs will work with their on-air staff using that input from the consultant ... the smart PDs will act as if the criticism comes from them directly, the less-than-smart ones will tell the jocks "the consultant says ..."

Any air talent, once they know "the consultant" has listened to their airchecks will inevitably presume that their dismissal anytime from then until the twelfth of never was a result of the consultant. This will be their opinion even if they outlasted the consultant.

Most air talent in smaller markets think they can program the music better than the PD, the MD, the consultant, and they don't need no damned auditorium testing to do it. Some of them, if they are lucky, get the chance to program the music. The smart ones figure out that they should neither reject available research nor use said research blindly and that their skill lies in the interpretation of testing results to determine which of the "audience favorites" from the test are right for the station's sound.

Again, too many have either been passed over for PD/MD too many times in their careers. Far too many have gotten the chance, only to fail due to a dependence on old Billboard chart data. All will blame consultants, research, or the position of the stars that year for their failure.

And with all that said ... if a consultant makes recommendations and the station rejects them, the airstaff was likely doomed from the start. (See John's narrative in post #37.)