Some of the topics we have been discussing on this blog are not merely areas of curiosity or mild interest to many folks out there in the real world. It directly affects how they make a living and where their nest-egg investment is going. And it also affects how billions or people get their entertainment and information. There is currently a big debate raging among commercial radio broadcasters about how their particular “mass” medium fits into the picture nowadays.
Stations have cut personnel and spending about as much as they can in order to continue to show the kind of cash flow Wall Street analysts demand. Unfortunately, a great deal of that cutting has been at the expense of the on-air product they offer their listeners. Cookie-cutter formats (my term), piped-in voice-tracked personalities who are doing their thing for scores of stations all over the country (my very big pet peeve), and watered-down music aimed more at not offending anyone than at actually entertaining or enlightening someone—these are all steps station owners have begun taking to try to maintain a positive EBITDA.
Of course, what those owners have done is abdicate their role as the most personal, immediate, and
intimate medium. Anyone can program his iPod with a better custom-selected musical playlist than a radio station, trying to cover all bases to get a “mass” audience, could ever manage. News, traffic, weather, and talk are available anywhere instantly, on demand, from the Internet. Satellite radio offers a huge selection of format variations to its subscribers. No one knows how many niche Internet radio stations there are out there. Any kid with a computer and an Internet hosting account can put a “station” “on the air,” broadcasting to the entire planet, and with no need to show a profit or even a measureable audience.
Radio’s ubiquity—there’s a receiver in every car sold and the average household in America owns five radios—has always been one of its big strengths. But with wi-fi spreading so fast and cell phone “radio” imminent, the time is rapidly approaching when there will be a computer in your dash instead and you can dial in “radio stations” from a staggering number of available options. Or watch movies or check your email or (hopefully from the passenger seat) work on the Power Point or Excel spreadsheet with your team back at the office, preparing for tomorrow's meeting.
Some argue that the only way to save radio broadcasting is for stations to stop emphasizing their tower on the hill and over-the-air signal. Instead, they should become “content providers,” developing compelling programming that audiences will continue to seek them out to hear. They will have to make that content available not only on the FCC-assigned frequency via RF, but also on the web, via podcasts, and by any other means that people now comfortably use to get their music, news, and companionship. They will have to use the term "broadcasting" in the context of its meaning TODAY, not in 1934.
If you would like to read more,
check out this article about a recent conference in Silicon Valley addressing this very topic.
Before radio completely loses its legacy of providing ad hoc, spur-of-the-moment programming, it needs to reinvest in the content it offers it listeners. It must find new ways of captivating an audience and pricing that sudience for advertisers. That is the only way stations will be able to attract a large enough group of listeners to be able to sell those ears to advertisers.
Since the medium is rapidly losing its ubiquity, it simply must concentrate on its other strengths—its ability to entertain, to inform, to take people to a different place, whether it be in reality or via “theater of the mind,” and to provide precious, personal companionship, a voice that whispers in the ear or shouts in the faces of its listeners.
Don N4KC