Forgot your password?
New user?
Document Actions
Online Radio
All Categories
19
August
2004
Document Actions
A Closer Look at Webcasting
Webcasting is the non-interactive streaming of digital audio on the internet, sometimes called "internet radio". The technology can be used to transmit all kinds of content including live talk, musical performances, sporting events, and pre-recorded music.
Webcasting offers the possibility of almost unlimited choice, while broadcast radio is profoundly constricted by the limited broadcast spectrum. The number of channels available on standard AM/FM radio is generally limited to a couple of dozen choices. Those choices are further limited by the current domination of commercial radio by a handful of corporate conglomerates including Infinity Radio and Clear Channel. A great deal of mainstream commercial radio sounds like one long commercial “interrupted” by shouting shock jocks and right wing commentators.
Webcasting makes it possible for a potentially unlimited number of independent voices transmitting a virtually unlimited amount of programming, including music. In addition, one webcaster can provide an incredibly broad range of different music “streams”. And because it is delivered through the internet, it can reach a worldwide audience.
According to recent studies by Arbitron and the General Accounting Offices, the number of listens to webcasts is growing and has at least doubled over recent years. In regard to music based webcasting, many experts agree that as more people elect high-speed broadband Internet access, and as consumers upgrade their home entertainment systems, the potential for internet radio and webcasting is unlimited.
Yet the recording business has been criticized for insisting on higher royalty rates and minimum fees for webcasting recorded music. Those rates are higher than those charged by the music publishers (through ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) for songs. Dozens of small webcasters have signed up for new rates negotiated by Sound Exchange, the not-for-profit designated to negotiate rates for webcasting music.
Among a certain group there is continuing unhappiness. The Webcaster Alliance, an association of approximately 400 small webcasters, filed a complaint in 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging anticompetitive conduct by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The crux of the complaint is that the new rates eliminate the commercial viability of most small commercial webcasters by imposing unreasonably high minimum fees. In April 2004, the district court granted the RIAA's motion to dismiss. Webcaster Alliance Inc. v. Recording Industry Association of America Inc., C 03-3948 WHA. The plaintiffs are appealing the ruling.
Webcasters contrast the minimum fees charged by SoundExchange for recorded masters to the rates charged by the U.S. performing rights societies, i.e., ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for the use of songs. The ASCAP BMI and SESAC minimum fee total less than a $1,000 per year for musical compositions. But the deal negotiated by Sound Exchange is $2,000 for recordings. And that rate is set to escalate to $2,500. Also, the three PRO's royalty rates add up to approximatley 5% of gross income, while the SoundExchange rate for recordings is 10%.
Do you listen to any webcasts?
Do you think that webcasting has the potential that I think it does?
Do you have a point of view on whether the record labels are overcharging for recorded music on webcasts?
Webcasting offers the possibility of almost unlimited choice, while broadcast radio is profoundly constricted by the limited broadcast spectrum. The number of channels available on standard AM/FM radio is generally limited to a couple of dozen choices. Those choices are further limited by the current domination of commercial radio by a handful of corporate conglomerates including Infinity Radio and Clear Channel. A great deal of mainstream commercial radio sounds like one long commercial “interrupted” by shouting shock jocks and right wing commentators.
Webcasting makes it possible for a potentially unlimited number of independent voices transmitting a virtually unlimited amount of programming, including music. In addition, one webcaster can provide an incredibly broad range of different music “streams”. And because it is delivered through the internet, it can reach a worldwide audience.
According to recent studies by Arbitron and the General Accounting Offices, the number of listens to webcasts is growing and has at least doubled over recent years. In regard to music based webcasting, many experts agree that as more people elect high-speed broadband Internet access, and as consumers upgrade their home entertainment systems, the potential for internet radio and webcasting is unlimited.
Yet the recording business has been criticized for insisting on higher royalty rates and minimum fees for webcasting recorded music. Those rates are higher than those charged by the music publishers (through ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) for songs. Dozens of small webcasters have signed up for new rates negotiated by Sound Exchange, the not-for-profit designated to negotiate rates for webcasting music.
Among a certain group there is continuing unhappiness. The Webcaster Alliance, an association of approximately 400 small webcasters, filed a complaint in 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging anticompetitive conduct by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The crux of the complaint is that the new rates eliminate the commercial viability of most small commercial webcasters by imposing unreasonably high minimum fees. In April 2004, the district court granted the RIAA's motion to dismiss. Webcaster Alliance Inc. v. Recording Industry Association of America Inc., C 03-3948 WHA. The plaintiffs are appealing the ruling.
Webcasters contrast the minimum fees charged by SoundExchange for recorded masters to the rates charged by the U.S. performing rights societies, i.e., ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for the use of songs. The ASCAP BMI and SESAC minimum fee total less than a $1,000 per year for musical compositions. But the deal negotiated by Sound Exchange is $2,000 for recordings. And that rate is set to escalate to $2,500. Also, the three PRO's royalty rates add up to approximatley 5% of gross income, while the SoundExchange rate for recordings is 10%.
Do you listen to any webcasts?
Do you think that webcasting has the potential that I think it does?
Do you have a point of view on whether the record labels are overcharging for recorded music on webcasts?
- Posted by Steve Gordon posted at August 19, 2004
- Permalink
- ¦
- Comment (1)
Comments
30
September
2004
Diversity and Concentration
Has radio consolidation led to reduce diversity of music in local markets? I have seen no competent study that proves this.
This may shock you. Don’t formats overlap? Aren’t station playlists shrinking?
Take a breath. Is consolidation the cause of any of the problem?
Radio is largely financed by the sale of local advertising. Within each local market, a multistation operator would have the apparent incentive to attract the most listeners in its potential audience. This would suggest that the operator should position its format offerings across the listener spectrum – country, Top 40, adult contemporary, urban, etc. – to widen its overall demographic appeal. Indeed, local stations that operate in the same format only cannibalize common audiences.
What about song overlap in different formats? Yes, it exists. But this may be result from the inherent ambiguity in classifying things into humanly conceived categories. Snakes and turtles are different enough, but have enough common attributes to be called reptiles. Overlap exists.
Moreover, song overlap can be as much a consequence
of competition as not. For example, Sears, J. C. Penney's, and Bradley's are heads-up competitors. Yet they offer a great number of common clothing labels. Why? Some brands are particularly popular to the buying public. If any store were to decline a popular designer, some customers would migrate to the competition. Don't need consolidation to explain this.
What about playlists? Radio playlists on commercial radio are designed to sell advertising. Playlists may indeed shrink – each station has an incentive to specialize its particular brand to better reach its particular audience. These target audiences may be happy enough with more focus. If not, they can change the channel. Or buy a car CD device.
Radio listeners have instant choices at their disposal. Want to measure exposure of music? Don’t count songs on playlists or the overlap between formats. Count the total number of plays in local markets.
With wider format selection, the total amount of music played in local market may have actually increased or decreased. Critics have not begun to ask the right question.
This may shock you. Don’t formats overlap? Aren’t station playlists shrinking?
Take a breath. Is consolidation the cause of any of the problem?
Radio is largely financed by the sale of local advertising. Within each local market, a multistation operator would have the apparent incentive to attract the most listeners in its potential audience. This would suggest that the operator should position its format offerings across the listener spectrum – country, Top 40, adult contemporary, urban, etc. – to widen its overall demographic appeal. Indeed, local stations that operate in the same format only cannibalize common audiences.
What about song overlap in different formats? Yes, it exists. But this may be result from the inherent ambiguity in classifying things into humanly conceived categories. Snakes and turtles are different enough, but have enough common attributes to be called reptiles. Overlap exists.
Moreover, song overlap can be as much a consequence
of competition as not. For example, Sears, J. C. Penney's, and Bradley's are heads-up competitors. Yet they offer a great number of common clothing labels. Why? Some brands are particularly popular to the buying public. If any store were to decline a popular designer, some customers would migrate to the competition. Don't need consolidation to explain this.
What about playlists? Radio playlists on commercial radio are designed to sell advertising. Playlists may indeed shrink – each station has an incentive to specialize its particular brand to better reach its particular audience. These target audiences may be happy enough with more focus. If not, they can change the channel. Or buy a car CD device.
Radio listeners have instant choices at their disposal. Want to measure exposure of music? Don’t count songs on playlists or the overlap between formats. Count the total number of plays in local markets.
With wider format selection, the total amount of music played in local market may have actually increased or decreased. Critics have not begun to ask the right question.
- Posted by Michael Einhorn posted at September 30, 2004
- Permalink
- ¦
- Comment (2)
Comments
Re: Diversity and Concentration
Posted by
Donald Allen
at
October 04, 2004
*FCC deregulation of radio station ownership rules has resulted in a concentration of ownership of radio stations and a corresponding reduction in local ownership. The top 10 radio owning groups account for almost 50 percent of all radio station industry revenues, while owning 17.6 percent of all commercial radio stations.
*Segments of the radio, concert, and concert promotion industries have become vertically integrated. In some cases, radio station owners, and concert promoters have common ownership, as well as exclusive agreements to manage concert venues. As a result, these radio station owners have the incentive and ability to favor the musical artists and groups they promote. This could make it more difficult for nonaffiliated concert promoters to secure air time, for nonaffiliated musical artists or groups to secure air
time, and for nonaffiliated radio stations to secure access to musical artists or groups.
*According to a number of recent studies, in the rapid consolidation of the radio, concert promotion, and concert venue industries in the 5-year period following the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, concert ticket prices have increased by more than 50 percent more than such prices had increased in any previous 5 year-period. From 1996 to 2001, the average concert ticket price increased by more than 61 percent, while the Consumer Price Index increased by 13 percent.
*The concerns mentioned in the Feingold legislative proposal track concerns that motivated litigation against Clear Channel, a company that is the nation’s largest player both in concert promotion (particularly rock concerts) and local radio. In NIPP, Inc, et al. v. Clear Channel, et al., 311 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (D. Co., 2004) the court ruled that an independent Denver concert producer known as Nobody In Particular Presents had enough
evidence to withstand a motion for summary judgment on many of its antitrust allegations. The court allowed NIPP to pursue its charges that Clear Channel denied airplay time on its Denver radio stations for acts that hire NIPP, and won't let NIPP publicize its concerts on the air. NIPP’s evidence included internal company e-mails in which Clear Channel radio managers banned advertising and promotion of rival and "uncooperative" concert
promoters. The court did reject several claims against Clear Channel, including NIPP's allegation that the Texas-based conglomerate's stronghold in Denver's radio and rock concert market constitutes an illegal monopoly, but it did not reject all.
*Newspaper reports indicate that the parties recently settled the litigation on terms that were not made public.
- Donald Allen
Re: Diversity and Concentration
Posted by
Michael Einhorn
at
October 05, 2004
I've read your list.
No point presents any factual evidence or the results of any careful investigation that could disprove my previous suggestion that there is yet no credible evidence that airplay diversity has really diminished.
It doesn't surprise me that a great number of lawmakers may say different things. They all have their reasons. But they tend to be airy.
Unfortunately, much of the debate has passed in this fashion.
12
December
2004
Podvertising
Podcasting is getting a lot of ink lately. This Article provides tips for marketers on how to utilize this potential new medium. He didn't really address the medium of streaming internet radio, which provides a better advertising vehicle to marketers -- harder to skip audio spots, potential to serve up a visual along w/ audio, ability to do 'live' events -- but he should have. Also, the size of the overall internet radio market, of which Podcasting is currently a tiny sliver --Arbitron/comScore recently reported the combined weekly audience of the radio properties of AOL, MSN & Yahoo to be 4.1 Million.
Podcasting has garnered attention because it is affiliated with the iPod, and because it enables internet radio to be portable although it's kind of a hack in that wireless broadband will cause internet radio consumption to skyrocket, but who wants to wait or that. Elegant hacks, however, have a knack for sticking around, and I wouldn't be surprised if this kept going.
Finally, I wonder what kind of response, if any, the performance rights agencies (Ascap, Bmi, Sesac, SoundExchange) will have with respect to Podcasting. Will they view it as requiring additional licensing or falling within the statutory webcasting license? Will they go after unlicensed Podcasters with music playlists as the 'show' that they Podcast every day? It's probably not big enough to warrant their attention...yet.
- Posted by Rags Gupta, Live365 posted at December 12, 2004
- Permalink
- ¦
- Comment (0)
Comments
03
February
2005
Why Webcasting Is Important
In April 2005 Backbeat will publish my book, THE FUTURE OF THE MUSIC BUSINESS: How To Succeed with the New Technologies, A Guide for Artists and Entrepreneurs. The excerpt below is from the chapter on webcasting, and focuses on why webcasting is becoming more popular and more important. The balance of the chapter details the rules that apply to clearing masters, i.e., the statutory license under the DMCA that allows eligible webcasters to play any record without negotiating with the labels, and the blanket licenses that apply to songs available from ASCAP, BMI and SESAC.
WHAT IS WEBCASTING?
Webcasting, sometimes referred to as “Internet radio,” generally refers to the non-interactive streaming of audio on the Internet. The content can originate from various sources including live or pre-recorded talk, live musical performance and sporting events, and pre-recorded music. There are basically two types of webcasts: stand-alone Internet streams, and radio stations that simultaneously broadcast and stream their programming online.
…
WHY IS WEBCASTING IMPORTANT?
One of the most exciting things that webcasting offers in terms of music is the enormous variety of programming it can provide. Broadcast radio is profoundly constricted, compared with the Internet, by the limited broadcast spectrum. The number of channels available on standard AM/FM radio is limited in most locations to a couple of dozen choices. Those choices are further limited by the domination of commercial radio by a handful of corporations such as Infinity Radio and Clear Channel. A great deal of mainstream commercial radio sounds like one long commercial “interrupted” by shouting shock jocks and conservative talk show hosts. Webcasting makes it possible for a potentially unlimited number of independent voices to be heard. The Internet can also provide each webcaster a virtually unlimited number of channels.
Internet radio, as opposed traditional broadcast radio, offers listeners an unlimited number of musical choices. Tens of thousands of Internet radio stations are available on the Web. For a sample of the variety, check 365Live (www.365Live.com) or Launch Music (www.launch.yahoo.com). The music is diverse as the not-for-profit and commercial operators running the stations. Live 365, for instance has thousands of independent operators each programming their favorite form of music whether it be classical, rock, hip-hop, jazz, dance, Latin, folk, world, etc. Launch, on the other hand, has one programming department whose job it is to see that every music taste is represented.
The day before I delivered this manuscript to the publisher, The Sunday Magazine of the NY Times ran an article titled “Easy Listening: A California Radio Station Leverages Its Tastemaker Status Nationally by Going Online” by Rob Walker. The article pointed out that KCRW.com is trying to make “new media and old media” allies rather than enemies by building an online listener base throughout the country. KCRW, member-supported, non-commercial station based in Santa Monica, has long been known for the diversity of music that it plays and for giving time to artists that cut across a wide swath of genres from singer songwriters to club favorites and indie rock. The station claims that it was the first to play Norah Jones, and the first in the U.S. to play Dido and Coldplay. The article reports that as commercial radio has become increasingly “timid, canned and predictable,” there is an opportunity for a station like KCRW to leverage its tastemaker status by going online. The article further points out that “while satellite radio is providing one alternative, it’s built on the idea of restricting your tastes one genre at a time. So stations like KCRW (along with Philadelphia’s WXPN and its syndicated “World Café” show and a few others, like WFUV in the Bronx) are now crucial to idiosyncratic bands like Brazilian Girls and the small record labels that promote them and the music consumers who want to be surprised.
As the story about KCRW illustrates, another important thing about Internet Radio is that it is not limited by geography the way standard radio is. Generally, the strongest radio signal can only travel a few hundred miles. Webcasters, on the other hand, can reach the entire world. A listener can hear the same webcast in Texas or Tunisia, or anywhere else in the world with an Internet or satellite connection. Many experts agree that as high speed Internet access continues to permeate society, the potential growth for Internet radio and webcasting is practically unlimited. According to a June 2004 study by the General Accounting Office (GAO), the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress: “The popularity of webcasting is growing, with the number of listeners tripling over the past three years.”
WHAT IS WEBCASTING?
Webcasting, sometimes referred to as “Internet radio,” generally refers to the non-interactive streaming of audio on the Internet. The content can originate from various sources including live or pre-recorded talk, live musical performance and sporting events, and pre-recorded music. There are basically two types of webcasts: stand-alone Internet streams, and radio stations that simultaneously broadcast and stream their programming online.
…
WHY IS WEBCASTING IMPORTANT?
One of the most exciting things that webcasting offers in terms of music is the enormous variety of programming it can provide. Broadcast radio is profoundly constricted, compared with the Internet, by the limited broadcast spectrum. The number of channels available on standard AM/FM radio is limited in most locations to a couple of dozen choices. Those choices are further limited by the domination of commercial radio by a handful of corporations such as Infinity Radio and Clear Channel. A great deal of mainstream commercial radio sounds like one long commercial “interrupted” by shouting shock jocks and conservative talk show hosts. Webcasting makes it possible for a potentially unlimited number of independent voices to be heard. The Internet can also provide each webcaster a virtually unlimited number of channels.
Internet radio, as opposed traditional broadcast radio, offers listeners an unlimited number of musical choices. Tens of thousands of Internet radio stations are available on the Web. For a sample of the variety, check 365Live (www.365Live.com) or Launch Music (www.launch.yahoo.com). The music is diverse as the not-for-profit and commercial operators running the stations. Live 365, for instance has thousands of independent operators each programming their favorite form of music whether it be classical, rock, hip-hop, jazz, dance, Latin, folk, world, etc. Launch, on the other hand, has one programming department whose job it is to see that every music taste is represented.
The day before I delivered this manuscript to the publisher, The Sunday Magazine of the NY Times ran an article titled “Easy Listening: A California Radio Station Leverages Its Tastemaker Status Nationally by Going Online” by Rob Walker. The article pointed out that KCRW.com is trying to make “new media and old media” allies rather than enemies by building an online listener base throughout the country. KCRW, member-supported, non-commercial station based in Santa Monica, has long been known for the diversity of music that it plays and for giving time to artists that cut across a wide swath of genres from singer songwriters to club favorites and indie rock. The station claims that it was the first to play Norah Jones, and the first in the U.S. to play Dido and Coldplay. The article reports that as commercial radio has become increasingly “timid, canned and predictable,” there is an opportunity for a station like KCRW to leverage its tastemaker status by going online. The article further points out that “while satellite radio is providing one alternative, it’s built on the idea of restricting your tastes one genre at a time. So stations like KCRW (along with Philadelphia’s WXPN and its syndicated “World Café” show and a few others, like WFUV in the Bronx) are now crucial to idiosyncratic bands like Brazilian Girls and the small record labels that promote them and the music consumers who want to be surprised.
As the story about KCRW illustrates, another important thing about Internet Radio is that it is not limited by geography the way standard radio is. Generally, the strongest radio signal can only travel a few hundred miles. Webcasters, on the other hand, can reach the entire world. A listener can hear the same webcast in Texas or Tunisia, or anywhere else in the world with an Internet or satellite connection. Many experts agree that as high speed Internet access continues to permeate society, the potential growth for Internet radio and webcasting is practically unlimited. According to a June 2004 study by the General Accounting Office (GAO), the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress: “The popularity of webcasting is growing, with the number of listeners tripling over the past three years.”
- Posted by Steve Gordon, Attorney posted at February 03, 2005
- Permalink
- ¦
- Comment (0)
Comments
22
February
2005
The End of Radio (as we know it)
The End of Radio (as we know it)
This month's Wired magazine's cover is titled "The End of Radio (as we know it)", and has articles about satellite radio, podcasting, "indie radio" and Howard Stern. Amazingly, there is scarcely a mention of internet radio or webcasting. (I'd link to it but it's not up on their site yet...supposed to be up later this week).
Now I'm a subscriber and a fan of Wired and applaud their covering the 'radio is changing story'. But I have to admit, I was flabbergasted as to how they could have glossed over such an important part of the story -- to wit, internet radio is a medium that has tens of millions of listeners each week/month according to Arbitron; has thousands if not tens of thousands of channels/stations that people can tune into provided by large corporate players to indie mom&pops out of their basement; and has offered the ability for consumers to create their own broadcast for years.
One of the articles was about the rise of mult-channel, microniche broadcasting. This is something that internet radio supports much more readily than Podcasting, satellite or HD-Radio (and let's face it, all of these are simply a technological means of distributing content from producers to consumers). Why? Because including copyrighted music in Podcasts is ILLEGAL. Sure, the RIAA have bigger fish to fry and probably won't go after most of the small players out there doing so. But if anyone starts making real money from it, you can bet they or Harry Fox will come a-knocking. Most Podcasts are talk/spoken word, though, and so don't have this problem. However, internet radio webcasters can use copyrighted music in addition to talk. The downside? It's not as easy to make it portable though there are some companies that are working on this.
The other lesson? Marketing counts. In the case of Podcasting, I'll point you to a previous post of mine on how the right combination of technology, marketing & ease-of-use (I'd also add timing to this) can lead to escape velocity. OTOH satellite radio used the brute force method, which is to say their awareness and marketing stems from the billions they raised from Wall St. that they went on to spend on goodies like satellites, studios & Stern. Of course they had a worthy product to sell that is also easy-to-use.
[cross-posted from my blog]
This month's Wired magazine's cover is titled "The End of Radio (as we know it)", and has articles about satellite radio, podcasting, "indie radio" and Howard Stern. Amazingly, there is scarcely a mention of internet radio or webcasting. (I'd link to it but it's not up on their site yet...supposed to be up later this week).
Now I'm a subscriber and a fan of Wired and applaud their covering the 'radio is changing story'. But I have to admit, I was flabbergasted as to how they could have glossed over such an important part of the story -- to wit, internet radio is a medium that has tens of millions of listeners each week/month according to Arbitron; has thousands if not tens of thousands of channels/stations that people can tune into provided by large corporate players to indie mom&pops out of their basement; and has offered the ability for consumers to create their own broadcast for years.
One of the articles was about the rise of mult-channel, microniche broadcasting. This is something that internet radio supports much more readily than Podcasting, satellite or HD-Radio (and let's face it, all of these are simply a technological means of distributing content from producers to consumers). Why? Because including copyrighted music in Podcasts is ILLEGAL. Sure, the RIAA have bigger fish to fry and probably won't go after most of the small players out there doing so. But if anyone starts making real money from it, you can bet they or Harry Fox will come a-knocking. Most Podcasts are talk/spoken word, though, and so don't have this problem. However, internet radio webcasters can use copyrighted music in addition to talk. The downside? It's not as easy to make it portable though there are some companies that are working on this.
The other lesson? Marketing counts. In the case of Podcasting, I'll point you to a previous post of mine on how the right combination of technology, marketing & ease-of-use (I'd also add timing to this) can lead to escape velocity. OTOH satellite radio used the brute force method, which is to say their awareness and marketing stems from the billions they raised from Wall St. that they went on to spend on goodies like satellites, studios & Stern. Of course they had a worthy product to sell that is also easy-to-use.
[cross-posted from my blog]
- Posted by Rags Gupta, Live365 posted at February 22, 2005
- Permalink
- ¦
- Comment (12)
Comments
Re: The End of Radio (as we know it)
Posted by
Steve Meyer
at
February 23, 2005
Rags -
My guess is that WIRED started putting this issue together awhile back and before someone caught wind of the recent news about Internet radio. Then again, maybe they just overlooked it because of all the fuss about Howard and satellite in the media.
Whatever the case may be, podcasting (now getting the same media attention that satellite received when Howard did sign with Sirius) is not the future of radio. It's simply not going to be the media of choice for those who want to listen to the music of their choice, and as you've pointed out already, most podcasts are talk radio oriented and with niche appeal.
Internet radio has great potential and once they start installing receivers in cars that can pick up Internet audio...well, that would REALLY change things wouldn't it?
Steve Meyer
President - Smart Marketing
Publisher - DISC&DAT - A New Media Newsletter
Las Vegas, NV
My guess is that WIRED started putting this issue together awhile back and before someone caught wind of the recent news about Internet radio. Then again, maybe they just overlooked it because of all the fuss about Howard and satellite in the media.
Whatever the case may be, podcasting (now getting the same media attention that satellite received when Howard did sign with Sirius) is not the future of radio. It's simply not going to be the media of choice for those who want to listen to the music of their choice, and as you've pointed out already, most podcasts are talk radio oriented and with niche appeal.
Internet radio has great potential and once they start installing receivers in cars that can pick up Internet audio...well, that would REALLY change things wouldn't it?
Steve Meyer
President - Smart Marketing
Publisher - DISC&DAT - A New Media Newsletter
Las Vegas, NV
Re: The End of Radio (as we know it)
Posted by
Laurel Ornish
at
February 23, 2005
As someone who is hoping to soon launch an Internet radio business/site, this has been one of my biggest gripes!
Is there not a webcasters' association that has a decent media relations person who can identify story ideas and crank out press releases and talk to the media? Is there not a person or persons who can work full time for the webcasting/Internet radio industry as spokespeople and go around the country talking to organizations and to the news media and spread the word?
This is Marketing & P.R. 101!
I'm a reporter myself, and it shouldn't be that difficult to get our message out there, as this is a sexy, cutting-edge technological product for a broad range of consumers, which is the type of story the media love to cover.
We need an Internet Radio trade association that will not only work on legislative issues, but do this marketing! I, for one, would gladly pay dues to an organization that was serving this function.
I'm getting ready to approach potential investors who have read and heard tons in the media about the demise of terrestrial, tons about Satellite, and tons about iPods, but little-- if anything-- about Internet radio. I'm having to educate them in my Business Plan from Square One, which is ridiculous.
Even "webcasting" as a term is now more thought of as a b-to-b concept, meaning "putting your business's event on the Internet" or teleconferencing, rather than Internet broadcasting.
Something has to be done about this, if our industry is to have a future.
Laurel Ornish
Re: The End of Radio (as we know it)
Posted by
John Drefahl
at
February 23, 2005
Look at how successful BBC On-demand radio is becoming. There is a market for npr that isn't produced by NPR!!
Cheers
john drefahl
soundclash distribution / hi-fi Media
Re: The End of Radio (as we know it)
Posted by
Laurel Ornish
at
February 23, 2005
[Please add my e-mail address to my comment that you have already posted.
Thank you.
LaurelOrnish@aol.com]
Thank you.
LaurelOrnish@aol.com]
Re: The End of Radio (as we know it)
Posted by
Rusty Hodge
at
February 23, 2005
John is right on when he talks about the relationship between the listener and the programmer. Discounting this relationship is what has gotten the big media companies in trouble, their programmers aren't in touch with their audience.
People like surprises. A good programmer will surprise people with something they didn't expect. People making their own mixes will get bored quickly as they know exactly what is coming up.
An ideal music/radio service would be one that is produced by a professional programmer and the listener can then customize it. Maybe you hate one particular vocalist, well, you can eliminate them from your stream.
The iPod shuffle is capitalizing on this as well - surprising people with stuff they might not normally listen to from their library. Still not as good as a talented music programmer / DJ picking the surprises, but close.
--rusty / SomaFM
People like surprises. A good programmer will surprise people with something they didn't expect. People making their own mixes will get bored quickly as they know exactly what is coming up.
An ideal music/radio service would be one that is produced by a professional programmer and the listener can then customize it. Maybe you hate one particular vocalist, well, you can eliminate them from your stream.
The iPod shuffle is capitalizing on this as well - surprising people with stuff they might not normally listen to from their library. Still not as good as a talented music programmer / DJ picking the surprises, but close.
--rusty / SomaFM
Re: The End of Radio (as we know it)
Posted by
Robert Cerreta
at
February 23, 2005
I completely agree about the need for music programmers to be inserted somewhere in the mix of digital distribution.
People (consumers) simply may not have the time, the ears nor the musical knowledge to provide this technical art for themselves.
We listen to the radio and think "Hell, I can do that...", never giving a thought to the effort involved in making it all sound so easy (yes even the bland stuff coming out of corporate radio takes some effort and 'art', all be it very little...)
If someone has $ to invest, I would be glad to share my business plan to accomdate this need while bridging the gap between analog and digital radio...
If I owned or was affiliated with a potential dinasour such as
"A radio station network", I might take a chance and contact me...
I will be at the Digital Music Forum March 2, NYC.
People (consumers) simply may not have the time, the ears nor the musical knowledge to provide this technical art for themselves.
We listen to the radio and think "Hell, I can do that...", never giving a thought to the effort involved in making it all sound so easy (yes even the bland stuff coming out of corporate radio takes some effort and 'art', all be it very little...)
If someone has $ to invest, I would be glad to share my business plan to accomdate this need while bridging the gap between analog and digital radio...
If I owned or was affiliated with a potential dinasour such as
"A radio station network", I might take a chance and contact me...
I will be at the Digital Music Forum March 2, NYC.
Re: The End of Radio (as we know it)
Posted by
Mike James
at
February 23, 2005
In regards to the March 2005 issue of Wired magazine, I too am baffled by the omittance of Internet radio as a factor in the death of radio as we know it. However, I understand the reasons for it being excuded. As an Internet radio broadcaster myself, I am itching for the opportunity to expand my radio audience tenfold. The only problem that I see that holding me back to the accessibility of portable devices were anyone can be able to listen to Internet radio without the use of computer. The accessibility of podcasting and portable satellite radio is available for a nominal cost. As for Internet radio, the technology is there. Live365.com has recommended a number of recievers that can be used to access my radio station as well as others on the network. It just hasn't been perfected to the point where we can access it to a device similar to a transitor FM radio. It's just a matter of time before that technology in regards to internet radio comes our way. Just give it time (about a year) and we'll be on the next cover of Wired!
Re: The End of Radio (as we know it)
Posted by
Stephen Hill
at
February 24, 2005
Wired? Retired.
For the last five years I've been baffled that radio industry people don't get how the net will change their business forever. The fact that the tech cheerleaders at Wired don't get it is surprising, but understandable considering the premise of the article.
Why? It's not "Internet radio" that will succeed but personalized interactive media services that deliver much more than 'radio' could ever dream of -- even with multi-channel digital band-aids applied.
Yes, it will have to wait for the next level of portability. But whether that happens by wireless networking to cell-pods or some kind of DRM-enabled download scheme like AudioFeast is trying, I'm convinced....WE WILL HAVE THE LAST LAUGH.
For the last five years I've been baffled that radio industry people don't get how the net will change their business forever. The fact that the tech cheerleaders at Wired don't get it is surprising, but understandable considering the premise of the article.
Why? It's not "Internet radio" that will succeed but personalized interactive media services that deliver much more than 'radio' could ever dream of -- even with multi-channel digital band-aids applied.
Yes, it will have to wait for the next level of portability. But whether that happens by wireless networking to cell-pods or some kind of DRM-enabled download scheme like AudioFeast is trying, I'm convinced....WE WILL HAVE THE LAST LAUGH.
Re: The End of Radio (as we know it)
Posted by
Stephen Caines
at
February 25, 2005
Hi, I am doing my disseration on how technology has changed the music industry and I was just wondering if there were any figures on the past three years of the record industry that show some kind of clear change? Thanks for your help!
Re: The End of Radio (as we know it)
Posted by
anonymous
at
March 01, 2005
Stephen -
" According to the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), the number of legitimate online music sites rose to 230 last year, compared to 50 the year before. The catalog of music available online also doubled, to 1 million songs. The international trade organization also says that individuals in the U.S. and Europe legally downloaded over 200 million tracks last year, up from approximately 20 million in 2003. That amounts to online sales of about $330 million, or about six times 2003's take.
" According to the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), the number of legitimate online music sites rose to 230 last year, compared to 50 the year before. The catalog of music available online also doubled, to 1 million songs. The international trade organization also says that individuals in the U.S. and Europe legally downloaded over 200 million tracks last year, up from approximately 20 million in 2003. That amounts to online sales of about $330 million, or about six times 2003's take.
Re: The End of Radio (as we know it)
Posted by
Steve Meyer
at
March 01, 2005
Terrestrial radio is O-V-E-R.
You see the news about Viacom's earnings and how much they wrote down their radio properties?
It's just the beginning of more bad news that will come as Internet radio and atellite take hold.
Steve Meyer
President - Smart Marketing
Publisher - DISC&DAT - A New Media Newsletter
Las Vegas, NV
You see the news about Viacom's earnings and how much they wrote down their radio properties?
It's just the beginning of more bad news that will come as Internet radio and atellite take hold.
Steve Meyer
President - Smart Marketing
Publisher - DISC&DAT - A New Media Newsletter
Las Vegas, NV
Re: The End of Radio (as we know it)
Posted by
John Hammond
at
March 03, 2005
I actually didn't find their lack of coverage of online radio that surprising. Yes, it was lame, but not surprising, given the tendency of media to want to cover flavors of the month, rather than what's actually in the market and getting takeup.
25
March
2005
A Sleeping Giant Wakens
Reuters announces ClearChannel's new Net strategy. In short: catch up. Let's parse what they're doing:
-Simulcast stations...this was announced a little while back I think, and was to be expected
-Create concert programming (a la Sessions@AOL) & monetize via sponsorships & video ads....what's nice here is that they don't pay for the talent save for production costs. I think they can have more success given the number of artists going through their radio stations and their concert/promotion business.
-"It may begin offering subscription online radio services, the ability to buy songs digitally or in CD format, or even ringtones directly from their Web sites."...Note that CC already has a very nice subscription online radio business via their Premier Radio property that sells subs to their top talk radio personalities' shows/sites.
In terms of the latter two, they're kind of a yawner as others have been doing this for a while. I wonder who they'll use to provide the back-end. A key question is the branding. Is CC simply going to be a conduit to existing retail stores like iTunes or MSN, or are they going to try to private label their own digital music/ringtone store?
The latter could imply vertical integration that may make some label folks nervous (i.e. if ClearChannel is getting into the business of selling/distributing recorded music, what's to stop them from moving upstream to take a piece of the action by signing artists?).
-"Perhaps most surprising of all, Clear Channel also plans to make some of its live morning shows available for downloading, commonly known as "Podcasting."...This makes sense as it will appeal to the types of folks that have been tuning radio out, but I wonder if they'll include copyright music as part of the Podcasts (since this is currently not licensed under the DMCA, or license the music from the labels), or if they'll stick to talk only.
There is a good deal of distance between ClearChannel and the two front-runner digital music properties, Yahoo & AOL. But ClearChannel can take long strides by virtue of the tens of millions of consumers they reach every week, and they have a very capable leader in Evan Harrison. Game on.
[cross-posted from www.ragsgupta.com]
-Simulcast stations...this was announced a little while back I think, and was to be expected
-Create concert programming (a la Sessions@AOL) & monetize via sponsorships & video ads....what's nice here is that they don't pay for the talent save for production costs. I think they can have more success given the number of artists going through their radio stations and their concert/promotion business.
-"It may begin offering subscription online radio services, the ability to buy songs digitally or in CD format, or even ringtones directly from their Web sites."...Note that CC already has a very nice subscription online radio business via their Premier Radio property that sells subs to their top talk radio personalities' shows/sites.
In terms of the latter two, they're kind of a yawner as others have been doing this for a while. I wonder who they'll use to provide the back-end. A key question is the branding. Is CC simply going to be a conduit to existing retail stores like iTunes or MSN, or are they going to try to private label their own digital music/ringtone store?
The latter could imply vertical integration that may make some label folks nervous (i.e. if ClearChannel is getting into the business of selling/distributing recorded music, what's to stop them from moving upstream to take a piece of the action by signing artists?).
-"Perhaps most surprising of all, Clear Channel also plans to make some of its live morning shows available for downloading, commonly known as "Podcasting."...This makes sense as it will appeal to the types of folks that have been tuning radio out, but I wonder if they'll include copyright music as part of the Podcasts (since this is currently not licensed under the DMCA, or license the music from the labels), or if they'll stick to talk only.
There is a good deal of distance between ClearChannel and the two front-runner digital music properties, Yahoo & AOL. But ClearChannel can take long strides by virtue of the tens of millions of consumers they reach every week, and they have a very capable leader in Evan Harrison. Game on.
[cross-posted from www.ragsgupta.com]
- Posted by Rags Gupta posted at March 25, 2005
- Permalink
- ¦
- Comment (7)
Comments
Re: A Sleeping Giant Wakens
Posted by
Steve Meyer
at
March 26, 2005
Rags -
The game is definitely on...but no matter what Clear Channel, Infinity, and all the other radio monoliths do at this point, the radio landscape is about to undergo drastic upheaval. With Clear Channel and Infinity already writing down the value of their radio stations in billions, the upheaval is just beginning.
The media options for the consumer are just going to be too broad and though vertical integration will make radio more ubiquitous, the dynamics used to measure audience will no doubt reflect that the audience is not going to be a "loyal listener" to any one "station" (in whatever form of delivery in the near future.
The radio industry will have to find new formats to be increasingly more ENTERTAINING in a world where the media options are increasing. The cloned station formats in almost every major and secondary market that play the same 30 records just isn't going to make it much longer as listeners search for more new music online and elsewhere. (e.g. swapping files on their iPods, etc.)
Radio will also have to find new ways to create added value to their station brands to convince madison Avenue agencies that radio is still a good buy for the money.
It's about time a "sleeping giant" woke up...but is it too late already?
Steve Meyer
President - Smart Marketing
Publisher - DISC&DAT - A New Media Newsletter
Las Vegas, NV
The game is definitely on...but no matter what Clear Channel, Infinity, and all the other radio monoliths do at this point, the radio landscape is about to undergo drastic upheaval. With Clear Channel and Infinity already writing down the value of their radio stations in billions, the upheaval is just beginning.
The media options for the consumer are just going to be too broad and though vertical integration will make radio more ubiquitous, the dynamics used to measure audience will no doubt reflect that the audience is not going to be a "loyal listener" to any one "station" (in whatever form of delivery in the near future.
The radio industry will have to find new formats to be increasingly more ENTERTAINING in a world where the media options are increasing. The cloned station formats in almost every major and secondary market that play the same 30 records just isn't going to make it much longer as listeners search for more new music online and elsewhere. (e.g. swapping files on their iPods, etc.)
Radio will also have to find new ways to create added value to their station brands to convince madison Avenue agencies that radio is still a good buy for the money.
It's about time a "sleeping giant" woke up...but is it too late already?
Steve Meyer
President - Smart Marketing
Publisher - DISC&DAT - A New Media Newsletter
Las Vegas, NV
Re: A Sleeping Giant Wakens
Posted by
Robert C.
at
March 27, 2005
For a good chuckle of a chess move, if I were a rising satellite radio network, I would offer a portion of my bandwidth 'free' of subscription fees and simply plug in a bit of advertising.
And just to add a little zip to the marketplace, I would consider giving away free 'ad-ready' (i,e, non-scrambled signal) WiFi's (both mobile AND auto).
Madison Avenue would no doubt be all ears... especially when you factor in global not just national ads.
And just to add a little zip to the marketplace, I would consider giving away free 'ad-ready' (i,e, non-scrambled signal) WiFi's (both mobile AND auto).
Madison Avenue would no doubt be all ears... especially when you factor in global not just national ads.
Re: A Sleeping Giant Wakens
Posted by
Steve Meyer
at
March 29, 2005
Robert -
Research shows us over and over again that commercials are the biggest "tune out" on radio and TV.
If satellite tries to initiate a free service for WIFI etc. like you propose, I for one don't think the ad agencies would jump on.
Again...it's all coming down to measuring audience...and it's going to get increasingly harder to do so with all the options for the consumer.
Steve Meyer
President - Smart Marketing
Publisher - DISC&DAT - A New Media Newsletter
Las Vegas, NV
Research shows us over and over again that commercials are the biggest "tune out" on radio and TV.
If satellite tries to initiate a free service for WIFI etc. like you propose, I for one don't think the ad agencies would jump on.
Again...it's all coming down to measuring audience...and it's going to get increasingly harder to do so with all the options for the consumer.
Steve Meyer
President - Smart Marketing
Publisher - DISC&DAT - A New Media Newsletter
Las Vegas, NV
Re: A Sleeping Giant Wakens
Posted by
Robert Cerreta
at
March 29, 2005
Hello Steven,
a) Billions are at stake here.
b) People by and large have reduced discretionary income.
c) Commercials are not viewed as commercials when they hit the intended target.
It does not take a genius to see that real money has been invested in the likes of Clear Channel, XM, Sirius, Infinity etc. Their business goal is ROI to their shareholders. Satellite firms say we will sign them up like cable and have a real nice ongoing revenue stream. (...although one does not have to had to gone to high school to realize as they pay their cable bill that "Hey, I pay them $50 bucks a month and I still see commercials!?" Imagine that.
In the boardroom, it is seen as brilliance. After all, look at the targeted audiences we offer Madison Avenue on each cable channel. Granted satellite radio does not do this currently... Nor does it need to as I explained in my previous post.
On the terrestrial side, the radio networks say, 'We are just like tv networks, except where you can't watch tv. (driving etc.) We give them free music and information they can listen to and they simply accept a tolerable level of ads per hour in exchange. Nothing is free and people are used to it. And look at the targeted audiences we offer Madison Avenue.'
So there are the models that pay for all the sticks and birds and wires. Oh and the tvs and radios and and cpus and fibers and artists and production people and ad folks etc...
People forget, or never understood, that initally tv and radio content existed to carry advertising. It was advertising that provided the fuel for the entire ecosystem. Cable said hey, people are tired of lousy content and dumb commercials and are willing to pay for quality with no ads. Later, they realized they could squeeze back ads simply because we were used to it... So I for one totally disagree that Madison Avenue would ignore any medium that delivers global ears to potential advertisers.
So then here comes the Web. It's free, sort of. IP everywhere? Sure, if you have internet access and a device. The first things done by businesses with the web - we added commercials and charged you a fee for getting on the highway - and oh yes pony up for the newest, fasted cpu to stay ahead of the curve. Premium content? Well, that means not All of it is free. Esh.
Until such time as we become that enlightened world and realize that music and information wants to be free and shared among all who enjoy it, and those who choose to create are seen as being as valuable as those who choose to control, until this time, man will be looking to build the toll bridge and billboard.
Yes I totally agree, all this does make one wish to 'tune out' but what choice does one really have? If you are young and free spirited you work around the system with file sharing, until you upset those with investments at stake who have friends who represent the law. Even the student who rips content knows that he is hurting artists as much as he is having fun getting around 'the system'.
The point here is that older thinking about the system is still very much with us despite advances in technology. The web took off initially as it expressed innate freedom. It bogged down in dot.com as a result of applying old thinking to new technology. Not to mention rising interest rates...
So ok Rob, what is some new thinking? Well, nothing revolutionary but here is an evolutionary idea that works to help the existing system (which if we are all honest has done a pretty nice job of bringing music our way despite inherent monetary hurdles by belive it or not normal people just like you and me doing the best they can give the model they have in their minds) and the needs of those who wish to see musical freedom reign while still paying the friggin poor artist who risks as much as any oft esteemed technology entrepreneuer to bring their truth to the world.
Steve - you are not going to belive this but I have an important phone call. I was laid off a month ago and well you get the idea!
I will finish when I can...
In the meantime - my short answer is infrastructure costs big dollars for us to get neat new ways to hear music. The people who risk need to see return - clear channel guys as well as lou panerio types.. If they don't we don't get cool new things to blog about...
So let the satellite guys do what cable did AND what Clear Channel did - offering the consumer free or fee... my choice. And give madison ave a global vehicle (free of fee) why not? And let the terrestial guys have a shot at the internet stations if they feel they can aggrigate them and not turn them into blandness with of all things - RESEARCH...
And Madison Avenue - start making ads that reflect precisely the needs of your target audience - an ad is not seen as an ad if I need the darn product or service - it is seen by me as valuable information! That is their creative challange.
a) Billions are at stake here.
b) People by and large have reduced discretionary income.
c) Commercials are not viewed as commercials when they hit the intended target.
It does not take a genius to see that real money has been invested in the likes of Clear Channel, XM, Sirius, Infinity etc. Their business goal is ROI to their shareholders. Satellite firms say we will sign them up like cable and have a real nice ongoing revenue stream. (...although one does not have to had to gone to high school to realize as they pay their cable bill that "Hey, I pay them $50 bucks a month and I still see commercials!?" Imagine that.
In the boardroom, it is seen as brilliance. After all, look at the targeted audiences we offer Madison Avenue on each cable channel. Granted satellite radio does not do this currently... Nor does it need to as I explained in my previous post.
On the terrestrial side, the radio networks say, 'We are just like tv networks, except where you can't watch tv. (driving etc.) We give them free music and information they can listen to and they simply accept a tolerable level of ads per hour in exchange. Nothing is free and people are used to it. And look at the targeted audiences we offer Madison Avenue.'
So there are the models that pay for all the sticks and birds and wires. Oh and the tvs and radios and and cpus and fibers and artists and production people and ad folks etc...
People forget, or never understood, that initally tv and radio content existed to carry advertising. It was advertising that provided the fuel for the entire ecosystem. Cable said hey, people are tired of lousy content and dumb commercials and are willing to pay for quality with no ads. Later, they realized they could squeeze back ads simply because we were used to it... So I for one totally disagree that Madison Avenue would ignore any medium that delivers global ears to potential advertisers.
So then here comes the Web. It's free, sort of. IP everywhere? Sure, if you have internet access and a device. The first things done by businesses with the web - we added commercials and charged you a fee for getting on the highway - and oh yes pony up for the newest, fasted cpu to stay ahead of the curve. Premium content? Well, that means not All of it is free. Esh.
Until such time as we become that enlightened world and realize that music and information wants to be free and shared among all who enjoy it, and those who choose to create are seen as being as valuable as those who choose to control, until this time, man will be looking to build the toll bridge and billboard.
Yes I totally agree, all this does make one wish to 'tune out' but what choice does one really have? If you are young and free spirited you work around the system with file sharing, until you upset those with investments at stake who have friends who represent the law. Even the student who rips content knows that he is hurting artists as much as he is having fun getting around 'the system'.
The point here is that older thinking about the system is still very much with us despite advances in technology. The web took off initially as it expressed innate freedom. It bogged down in dot.com as a result of applying old thinking to new technology. Not to mention rising interest rates...
So ok Rob, what is some new thinking? Well, nothing revolutionary but here is an evolutionary idea that works to help the existing system (which if we are all honest has done a pretty nice job of bringing music our way despite inherent monetary hurdles by belive it or not normal people just like you and me doing the best they can give the model they have in their minds) and the needs of those who wish to see musical freedom reign while still paying the friggin poor artist who risks as much as any oft esteemed technology entrepreneuer to bring their truth to the world.
Steve - you are not going to belive this but I have an important phone call. I was laid off a month ago and well you get the idea!
I will finish when I can...
In the meantime - my short answer is infrastructure costs big dollars for us to get neat new ways to hear music. The people who risk need to see return - clear channel guys as well as lou panerio types.. If they don't we don't get cool new things to blog about...
So let the satellite guys do what cable did AND what Clear Channel did - offering the consumer free or fee... my choice. And give madison ave a global vehicle (free of fee) why not? And let the terrestial guys have a shot at the internet stations if they feel they can aggrigate them and not turn them into blandness with of all things - RESEARCH...
And Madison Avenue - start making ads that reflect precisely the needs of your target audience - an ad is not seen as an ad if I need the darn product or service - it is seen by me as valuable information! That is their creative challange.
Re: A Sleeping Giant Wakens
Posted by
Robert Cerreta
at
March 29, 2005
ps - it is possible my use of wifi is creating confusion too..
what i meant to type was MyFi's (as a way of expressing new radios to replace AM/FM's) as in XM's cool portable devices..
but wifi radio sounds kind of neat too - talk about microcasting..
what i meant to type was MyFi's (as a way of expressing new radios to replace AM/FM's) as in XM's cool portable devices..
but wifi radio sounds kind of neat too - talk about microcasting..
Re: A Sleeping Giant Wakens
Posted by
Steve Meyer
at
March 30, 2005
Robert -
"Even the student who rips content knows that he is hurting artists as much as he is having fun getting around 'the system'. "
Well, actually no...they don't believe they are hurting artists. They watch MTV's CRIBS and see the cars, the mansions, and lifestyles, and they look at the prices of CDs that contain one or two good songs and say "Foregt it."
You have a hard time convincing the minions of downloaders that they're hurting artists when so many artists are pro file-sharing and indeed, Wilco's Jeff Tweedy has said repeatedly (in regard to downloaders) "These people are NOT the enemy." You'll remember of course that Wilco's album 'Yankee Hotel Foxtrot' was rejected by their label, Reprise, so they took it back, pit it up on the Internet for their fans, and it became one of the most downloaded albums ever online. Months later, Elektra/Nonesuch picked it up, released it, and it became Wilco's biggest success story at that time.
The same thing is happening now with Fiona Apple's unrelreased album from two years ago, 'Extraordinary Machines.' Epic turned it down, and it made it's way to the Internet and is now being downloaded like crazy. It's just a matter of time before it's released commercially now.
This generation is anti-commercial anything...and they will tune out ads and commercials at all costs. That's why they have no affinity for listening to radio and they find out about new music by file swapping, downloading, etc.
And it is going to get harder and harder for Madison Avenue to reach the new audience of Ipodders...and the traditional methods of buying advertising are changing the media landscape faster than the rains, floods, fires, and mudslides change the California coastline.
So I wish Clear Channel good luck in its new efforts to become more ubiquitous...it can't hurt...but as I said before, it might be too late already.
Steve Meyer
President - Smart Marketing
Publisher - DISC&DAT - A New Media Newsletter
Las Vegas, NV
"Even the student who rips content knows that he is hurting artists as much as he is having fun getting around 'the system'. "
Well, actually no...they don't believe they are hurting artists. They watch MTV's CRIBS and see the cars, the mansions, and lifestyles, and they look at the prices of CDs that contain one or two good songs and say "Foregt it."
You have a hard time convincing the minions of downloaders that they're hurting artists when so many artists are pro file-sharing and indeed, Wilco's Jeff Tweedy has said repeatedly (in regard to downloaders) "These people are NOT the enemy." You'll remember of course that Wilco's album 'Yankee Hotel Foxtrot' was rejected by their label, Reprise, so they took it back, pit it up on the Internet for their fans, and it became one of the most downloaded albums ever online. Months later, Elektra/Nonesuch picked it up, released it, and it became Wilco's biggest success story at that time.
The same thing is happening now with Fiona Apple's unrelreased album from two years ago, 'Extraordinary Machines.' Epic turned it down, and it made it's way to the Internet and is now being downloaded like crazy. It's just a matter of time before it's released commercially now.
This generation is anti-commercial anything...and they will tune out ads and commercials at all costs. That's why they have no affinity for listening to radio and they find out about new music by file swapping, downloading, etc.
And it is going to get harder and harder for Madison Avenue to reach the new audience of Ipodders...and the traditional methods of buying advertising are changing the media landscape faster than the rains, floods, fires, and mudslides change the California coastline.
So I wish Clear Channel good luck in its new efforts to become more ubiquitous...it can't hurt...but as I said before, it might be too late already.
Steve Meyer
President - Smart Marketing
Publisher - DISC&DAT - A New Media Newsletter
Las Vegas, NV
Re: A Sleeping Giant Wakens
Posted by
anonymous
at
March 30, 2005
Before I wade any deeper into the unknown of tomorrow's music models which are changing daily as you well point out - let me finalize my thinking around the sleeping giant.
a) Help the market remove am/fm's more quickly by giving away Myfi's thus cutting off the output ability of clear channel
b) Create a format that includes advertising thus siphoning off the financial input of clear channel
c) Target globally thus increasing their business model beyond the reach of clear channel
With enough creative economic thinking and modeling, Madision Avenue might even consider PAYING for the distribution of new receivers - once the TSL and CPM's are explored.
Regardless of the effects of file sharing and ripping off labels and thus artists, there is still a portion of the planet that listens to radio. Granted new technology will affect that percentage perhaps greatly but as an upstart jostling for position in the market, satellite radio has an opening to bring in more revenue sooner while weaking it's currently largest competitior - clear channel - thus allowing it to survive into the stages where it can then address the changes occuring that you well outlined above.
Mel and Lou, I would imagine, would rather have more listener marketshare and more radio-based revenue to report to shareholders than the same or less this time next year. One area were this would be possible is by carving out a large portion of the huge existing (although diminshing) ad-based radio's pie. This is where I was going with my original point.
No rocket science. It is not very high tech. I just wanted to clarify.
Will IP cell phone radios with Internet stations charging only a local call to access them be the future? Who knows. But for now there is enough revenue still in existing vehicles to create a lot of interesting moves by all players...
a) Help the market remove am/fm's more quickly by giving away Myfi's thus cutting off the output ability of clear channel
b) Create a format that includes advertising thus siphoning off the financial input of clear channel
c) Target globally thus increasing their business model beyond the reach of clear channel
With enough creative economic thinking and modeling, Madision Avenue might even consider PAYING for the distribution of new receivers - once the TSL and CPM's are explored.
Regardless of the effects of file sharing and ripping off labels and thus artists, there is still a portion of the planet that listens to radio. Granted new technology will affect that percentage perhaps greatly but as an upstart jostling for position in the market, satellite radio has an opening to bring in more revenue sooner while weaking it's currently largest competitior - clear channel - thus allowing it to survive into the stages where it can then address the changes occuring that you well outlined above.
Mel and Lou, I would imagine, would rather have more listener marketshare and more radio-based revenue to report to shareholders than the same or less this time next year. One area were this would be possible is by carving out a large portion of the huge existing (although diminshing) ad-based radio's pie. This is where I was going with my original point.
No rocket science. It is not very high tech. I just wanted to clarify.
Will IP cell phone radios with Internet stations charging only a local call to access them be the future? Who knows. But for now there is enough revenue still in existing vehicles to create a lot of interesting moves by all players...
11
April
2005
AOL-XM / Decline of Radio Listenership
Big news in the digital radio world with the announcement that XM & AOL are combining forces. XM will provide content to AOL for its portal with there being a free offering and a premium one. XM enables AOL's 10 million radio listeners to sample their product betting that they'll get hooked and, frustrated by being tethered to the desktop, subscribe. AOL gets 'premium' content that will make their portal more attractive as part of their strategy to open up their walled garden. The AOL stations will continue to carry ads (sold by Ronning Lipset Radio), while the XM stations won't have ads. I wonder how much XM is paying for this...I'm guessing cash is flowing from XM to AOL since the ad-free XM stations will, at a minimum, be accruing CARP-royalty rates. Also, AOL will be promoting XM to its user base and providing its Sessions@AOL content to XM. Yes, XM will also be providing good content to AOL, but I'm betting that they're paying to do this integration.
This begs two question:
1. If AOL is going for an open portal strategy, why not list all kinds of other stations?
2. What will Sirius do?
On a different note, Chris Anderson posted about the decline of mass media. His stat :
In 1993, American spent on the average 23 hours and 15 minutes a week
listening to radio. As of spring 2004, that figure had declined to 19
hours and 45 minutes per week. America's Top 40 just doesn't matter as much anymore.
That's about a 15% decline though it could have been worse given the dominance of analog terrestrial radio in the car. I'd bet that it's a steeper decline comparing the younger demograhpic from the two time periods.
[Cross-posted from www.ragsgupta.com]
- Posted by Rags Gupta posted at April 11, 2005
- Permalink
- ¦
- Comment (3)
Comments
Re: AOL-XM / Decline of Radio Listenership
Posted by
Steve Meyer
at
April 12, 2005
Having dealt with AOL in the past on a strategic alliance agreement (I worked for a leading sports website company that provided content for AOL), I'm sure that both XM and AOL are trading "dollars"...not hard cash, but dollars on paper to be used for their mutual benefit(s) t exploit this new venture.
Whatever the case may be in terms of how the agreemenmt came about, it's a very smart move for both parties. Now the question is, who will Sirius run to to create a similar alliance?
Steve Meyer
President - Smart Marketing
Publisher - DISC&DAT - A New Media Newsletter
Las Vegas, NV
Whatever the case may be in terms of how the agreemenmt came about, it's a very smart move for both parties. Now the question is, who will Sirius run to to create a similar alliance?
Steve Meyer
President - Smart Marketing
Publisher - DISC&DAT - A New Media Newsletter
Las Vegas, NV
Re: AOL-XM / Decline of Radio Listenership
Posted by
kirsten brusse
at
April 13, 2005
Unbelievable, it continues to amaze me how much hype XM and Sirius are getting. Was I the only one who learned a lesson through the dot bomb era? Take it from a veteran in the background music industry, these two companies are dreaming if they think the revenue will outgrow the debt.
Would you sell hamburger that cost you $2.50 for fifty cents. No? Would it make any more sense to sell ten million?
Would you sell hamburger that cost you $2.50 for fifty cents. No? Would it make any more sense to sell ten million?
Re: AOL-XM / Decline of Radio Listenership
Posted by
Steve Meyer
at
April 18, 2005
Kirsten -
These two companies WILL generate revenues to outgrow debt and if you doubt it, you have tunnel vision.
Satellite radio will be profotable in a few years and strategic alliances will fuel its growth beyond subscriptions.
Steve Meyer
President - Smart Marketing
Publisher - DISC&DAT - A New Media Newsletter
Las Vegas, NV
These two companies WILL generate revenues to outgrow debt and if you doubt it, you have tunnel vision.
Satellite radio will be profotable in a few years and strategic alliances will fuel its growth beyond subscriptions.
Steve Meyer
President - Smart Marketing
Publisher - DISC&DAT - A New Media Newsletter
Las Vegas, NV
19
April
2005
Visual Radio
Infinity announced their intention to roll out visual radio, with help from HP and Nokia, sometime next year. Basically it's a service that will send contextual metadata to your visual radio-enabled Nokia handset while you're tuning into a radio station through their FM tuner, such as artist/album and concert information.
This is a good move for Infinity. The most incisive part of the article is the quote by the person from HP:
"We're able to help them create a relationship with customers they've
never had before, and a revenue stream they've never had before."
She's right. Infinity, and other terrestrials, are realizing the need to cement the listener relationships they've spent tens of years and many millions of dollars in establishing. They can see that the government-created oligopoly of FCC licenses can't be counted on forever in terms of limiting choice in a given market. New technologies such as satellite radio, itself a government-created duopoly, are enabling some consumers to throw off the yoke of the analog radio dial for the greener pastures of the satellite radio dial in the car, and internet radio at work.
Enhancing relationships and relevance with their listeners, and using new technology to do so, becomes of paramount importance. For instance, a station could record an in-studio performance underwritten by an advertiser and offerred to registered listeners only (P1s in radiospeak) from its website. Advertisers would reach the P1s they crave; loyal listeners would be rewarded, and it would encourage new ones to register with the station and start the relationship dialogue.
One a side note, if you're listening to the radio today and don't know the name of the song that's playing, dial 866-411-SONG on your cell phone and hold it up to the speaker for 15 seconds. Soon thereafter, you'll get a text message with the name of the song and artist provided by Musikube (using Shazam's technology). There is currently a charge of $0.99 per Song ID for the 411-SONG service, which will show up on your cell phone bill.
[Full Disclosure: I am currently helping Musikube out on a project.]
[Cross-posted from www.ragsgupta.com]
- Posted by Rags Gupta posted at April 19, 2005
- Permalink
- ¦
- Comment (1)
Comments
Re: Visual Radio
Posted by
mo
at
April 19, 2005
visual radio should be visual -- like mtv -- not just text
this seems like of tecnologies that are obsolete before they're launched
this seems like of tecnologies that are obsolete before they're launched
I definitely see a potential in webcasting, especially with indie product.
I think that record labels allways want a big piece of the pie, but most importantly is that they complicate new technology and its future benefits. As a music publisher any new revenue is welcome.