On the talk front, few potential hosts would see radio as an upgrade from podcasting or YouTube.
I'd think Audacy would need to pay a significant premium over Spotify or YouTube to acquire talent.
-
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
Audacy Stock.... a new low!
- Thread starter Deleted User
- Start date
I'd think Audacy would need to pay a significant premium over Spotify or YouTube to acquire talent.
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?
NPR isn't local. It's a national service that local stations run and customize based on their markets and budgets.
And all foreign language formats are news, talk, music or religion, just not in English.
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.
Words like "live" and "local" are truly unimportant. "Entertaining", "Fun", "interesting", "informative" are better terms for the valuation of a show.
Over the decades, do people watch "Saturday Night Live" because it is "live" or because it is funny, entertaining, poignant, topical, unpredictable, exciting and the like?
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.
As for live and local, what advantage is it for a financial advice or relationship talk show to be live and local, other than for the callers, who make up a microscopic portion of the total potential audience? Caller says his girlfriend is seeing another guy but he doesn't want to break up. Host gives him advice. What does it matter if the host is in New York, Los Angeles, or North Platte?
You also say moderate and advice talk used to be successful. Right, they used to. Today's radio listener wants only political and sports talk, and only the sports talk audience can be monetized.
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.
Agreed except I was responding to what can broadcast radio provide in programming that streaming platforms, podcasts and satellite radio do not or cannot.
"Live & Local" is only relevant IF the content is compelling. It often isn't. Jocks on music stations have to strictly follow the programming edicts. Banal contests like "Be the 9th Caller" don't excite anyone.
Live & Local Radio had more significance before the internet. Social Media sites have replaced Radio for "connection" (Even if it is a false and superficial connection)...
Live & Local Radio had more significance before the internet. Social Media sites have replaced Radio for "connection" (Even if it is a false and superficial connection)...
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".
Radio offers real time content. The problem is we live in an on-demand world. The other platforms are built to provide on-demand content, and the public is willing to pay a subscription fee for it. Meanwhile, radio companies are seeing revenue for real-time content decline. 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?
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.
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?
If that's the only way to survive, then yes. Rush Limbaugh put his podcast behind a paywall.
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".
When it comes to stuff like podcasts, I've never paid for any. Primarily because, between OTA terrestrial radio and what I've got on my smartphone, I've never "needed" to subscribe to a particular podcast or felt part of my life was missing because I wasn't able to listen to a particular one.
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?
If you come in my house, you play by my rules.
BigA’s second favorite radio host, behind Sean Yannity, is that damned Dave Ramsey. He has over 22 million people catching his shows each week. A little under 15 million listen to him on radio. Things aren’t great in a lot of areas of radio, but they are far from over. Here’s one example.
Huh?
Thought for a minute Tibbs had some interesting insight.
- Status