Radio Challenge Part 3 - The Conclusion

In part one of this series, I outlined the experiment. Compare an hour of commercial radio against an hour of Pandora. Part two goes into greater detail about how I conducted the research and the actual results. Which just leaves the question -- how do they compare?

Music Content
Over the course of the hour, the radio station played ten songs, and Pandora played fourteen. So if music was all I was interested in, Pandora was the winner. Plus, these weren't any old songs. Radio stations carefully craft their playlists to ensure that listeners know exactly what they'll hear when they tune in.

In this case, I was listening to a classic rock station, and I wasn't disappointed. All the artists and songs I heard fell under that definition. And I even heard a (relatively) new song by Joe Walsh!

To set up my Pandora station, I took the first three artists I heard on the radio and plugged them in. I could have carefully crafted my station's playlist by using the thumbs up/thumbs down feature. But for this experiment, I just let Pandora's algorithms do the selecting. And they did a pretty good job. All of the artists (well, maybe with the exception of the Hollies) fit comfortably into the classic rock format.

Local Information
Surprisingly, this was pretty much a draw. Of course I didn't expect to hear any local programming or information on Pandora. Sometimes on the website local ads would pop up, but going only by what I heard, my Pandora station was an anonymous music machine.

Unfortunately, the classic rock station wasn't much better. The DJ intro'ed a few tracks, and read the weather once, but that was all. I didn't hear about any local events, any local news, or any local traffic alerts. With the exception of that lone weather forecast, this station could have been broadcasting from anywhere.

Overall Listening Experience
So which would I prefer to listen to? Well, it depends. Had there been more local content on the radio station, it would have been closer. As it was, I really only had two factors to consider:

1) How much music did I want to listen to?
2) How many interruptions was I willing to put up with?

The radio station lost on the first point, and definitely lost on the second. There's a reason why I put spaces between each music/non-music element in the lists. Because each break represented an interruption. On Pandora, the interruptions were minimal -- one 15-second commercial after every four songs. That's not to say it wasn't irritating, but it was tolerable.

Not so much on the commercial radio side. I understand the concept of station promotion -- I really do. I practice quite a lot of it when I'm on the air. But they were all for the same thing, the morning show. Really? There's no other special programming I need to know about? Who's on in the afternoon? What's happening this weekend? Anything else going on I should stay tuned for? Now those spots were irritating.

But worst, I thought, were the marathon commercial breaks. Yes, by clumping all the ads together into two blocks you can boast about "long music sweeps." But four minutes of unrelenting pitches is strong encouragement to turn the dial (or move to another music source). And as I listened through the breaks, I wondered how much value the advertisers of spots #2 and #3 really received for their ad dollar.

When the music started again, I tried to recall the ads I heard. I could remember the last one, and with less certainty the first one, but the ads in the middle? No idea.

Conclusions
So is Pandora radio? Well, based on my listening, I think it is. The primary difference I heard was the commercial station played more ads and ran more promos telling me how great they were. When both sources were just playing one song after another, the experience was the same -- it just lasted longer on Pandora.

Let's go back to Gordon Smith's keynote at the National Association of Broadcasters convention I cited in part one.

"[Broadcasters] have what everyone else wants --airwaves, content and a local connection."

Airwaves? Yes
Content? Not as much
Local connection? Not that I heard

So if two of your three key differentiators are neutralized, where does that leave you?

The Radio Challenge
Part 1 - The Premise
Part 2 - The Details

Radio Challenge Part 1 - The Premise

There has been a lot of debate recently about the differences between online music services and broadcast radio. On one side, broadcasters claim that services like Pandora aren't really radio. After all, as Gordon Smith said in his keynote at the recent National Association of Broadcasters convention, "Think big: We have what everyone else wants --airwaves, content and a local connection."

On the other hand, Pandora calls itself "Internet Radio" and the streams the users create "stations." And according to a Jacobs Media Research report, 43% of its users think it should be consider "radio."

Do online services offer the same listening experiences as commercial broadcasters? Well, no. But as industry observers Mark Ramsey and Ken Dardis (among others) have continually pointed out, what really matters is not whatever distinction the industry makes, but how the listener perceives the experience.
 
So I decided to try an informal experiment. I listened to an hour of one of our local commercial radio stations (in this case a classic rock station), taking careful notes of what content I heard (and how much of it). I then went to Pandora and created a radio station using the first three artists aired by the commercial station.

Here's the content breakdown for my test hour:

Classic Rock Station:
10 songs
13 breaks (station IDs, promos, ads)
14 commercials

Pandora:
14 songs
4 breaks

This doesn't tell the whole story, of course. Tomorrow I'll publish a more detailed listing of all the content.

My perception was that I heard more music with fewer interruptions listening to Pandora. And the numbers confirm it. I deliberately chose a mid-day segment. (Morning shows tend to have a higher talk-to-music ratio, so I wanted  to get a more representational segment.)


The Radio Challenge
Part 2- The Details
Part 3 - The Conclusion

Fundraising -- the gentle touch

As I write this, I'm getting ready to head out to the radio station. Long-time readers know I volunteer for WTJU 91.1 fm, the community radio station run by the University of Virginia. And, being a non-commercial station, it's one that relies heavily on financial support from the community.

And now a commercial word
My colleagues in commercial radio don't think much of public radio. The general perception seems to be that non-commercial radio exists on the government dole (which they often translate into "unfair competition"), and that while they have to scramble for advertising dollars, we in the pubradio sit back and just collect the money squeezed out of hard-working citizens taxed beyond their means.

It's a nice picture -- but hardly true. In the case of WTJU, for example, over half of its funding has to come directly from the listeners. The University pays a small part (the bulk of their contribution is in providing the space and the salaries for the few paid employees). An even smaller sum comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).

The reality is that should the CPB funding go away, the station would be in a tough financial position, but it could still survive. Take away the University support, and it becomes more problematic. But even if those two revenue streams remain, without listener support the station is dead.

Follow the money
Commercial radio stations serve their clients -- the advertisers. There's nothing wrong with that model, but many people don't understand that for a commercial station the audience isn't the customer, it's the product. The product (a lot of ears) that's sold to the customer (the advertiser who wants a lot of ears to hear his message).

Public radio's a little different. The listener IS the customer. Don't believe me? Follow the money. Where does a commercial radio station get its money? From advertisers. Where does a public radio station get its money? Mostly from the listeners (and those other sources can be traced back to the public, too).

The gentle touch
So here's the challenge. During our fund drive, I need to make our listeners understand how important they are to the success of the station they listen to.

The station they listen to for free.

Because whether you've ever contributed to WTJU or not, you can tune in, or listen online and we're there.

We're there because others have contributed and supported the station. What I need to do is to persuade all those others who listen that they're contribution is not just helpful, but vital. Commercial radio sales teams every day have to sell businesses on the concept of radio -- and how it can help them. It's a tough job (I used to work at a commercial station and saw it first-hand).

Can you imagine the DJs having to canvas their listeners and make the case for paying for the music they here? That's what we have to do. And it's a tough job, too. Because if an advertiser doesn't pay, he doesn't get on the air (or doesn't stay on very long). But if a listener doesn't contribute, they still get to listen.

So in a few hours I'll go on the air and talk to that audience, explaining why their contribution is important. And if I can stimulate a little enlightened self-interest, the station may live to fight (or broadcast) another day.

I'll include a postscript later telling you how I did!

And if you're a listener, either to the broadcast or to our online stream, please consider contributing. It's the right thing to do.

WQXR - SOS

And no, I don't mean "Save Our Ship." New York City's all-classical commercial radio station, WQXR has been bought by WNYC. Initially, there was rejoicing. The venerable station, formerly owned by the New York Times, had become a cultural institution over its 70 years of existence.

So what do I mean by "SOS?" Same Old Sh*t, of course.

According to a New York Times article by Daniel Walkin, the new WQXR will have more classical music aired (because they won't be running commercial breaks), but the selection is about to get much less interesting.

In the article, Laura S. Walker, president and CEO of WNYC said new WQXR will combine "the longstanding tradition of being a 24/7 classical music station with WNYC’s curatorial point of view and passion and commitment to discovery,” she said.

Cool. So that means that WQXR -- broadcasting to the city that is the center of American classical music -- the city that gave Steve Reich, Philip Glass, John Corigliano and many, many others their start -- is going to continue interviewing composers and presenting the best in current classical music, right?

Not so fast.

According to the new mission statement: “There may indeed be times when the more radical and unfamiliar pieces work, but we will not favor them over the work that speaks directly to the needs of uplift, beauty, and contemplation.... Greatness matters. Bach trumps Telemann.”

OK, so that "passion for discovery" doesn't extend to the third best composer (behind Bach and Handel) of the late baroque. Surprising to hear that Telemann's music doesn't uplift, nor inspire beauty and contemplation. So what else doesn't make the cut?

Well, according to the article, the usual. No vocal music, no choral music, no contemporary music, nothing from the renaissance, or the middle ages. No chamber music (except for some solo piano, perhaps), no American composers (save Gershwin and Copland -- but no singing!).

None of this is surprising if you look at the circumstances and decipher the code words. WNYC spent some serious money to purchase the station, and with the frequency move, WQXR is going to broadcast to a smaller potential audience. So what WNYC really wants to do is get as many people listening as possible to justify the investment. The best way to do that? The tried and true radio method is to be as innocuous as you can.

"Greatness matters. Bach trumps Telemann." - Translation: We're not really talking about the relative merits of the pieces here because there is NFW we're going to air a Bach oratorio or the Art of the Fugue. Bach is a household name, Telemann is not. Familiar is comfortable, so we're going with that.

"work that speaks directly to the needs of uplift, beauty, and contemplation." - Translation: we want to get as close to Muzak as we possibly can. "Speaks directly" means familiar tunes. "Uplift" means light and pleasant music. "Beauty" means great for background listening. "Contemplation" means music that's not too loud (see: Beauty).

So explain to me this: where's the "passion and commitment to discovery" Ms. Walker was talking about? Based on what I've read so far, it seems to be more passionless familiarity.

- Ralph

Day 170 of the WJMA Podwatch.

The Radio Performance Tax - It's not just me

Recently I weighed in on the controversial "performance tax" that commercial (and some non-commercial) broadcasters have been nattering on about.

To recap, record labels want broadcasters to pay a fee for the music they use. Stations already pay such as fee to the writers (publishers) of the music, but now labels want money for the performers, also.

My position is this: this fight was lost a long time ago -- and broadcasters have no one to blame but themselves. And apparently, I'm not alone.

Media professional Ken Dardis recently shared his view of the matter in an Audio Graphics blog post, "Radio Performance: A Fee or A Tax?"

[in] 1998, I was calling for the radio industry to become involved in the Copyright Royalty Board's excessive rates against internet radio. That cry was a forewarning; my chant was that CRB was going to eventually catch up to the radio industry.

The radio industry, not having acted when those first and subsequent calls were made in 2002, 2005 and 2008, put itself in the bull's-eye. Only the blind could not see that the record labels were ultimately positioning this as a "parity" fight. Cable access, then satellite radio, with internet radio and downloading were set up by the record labels and conquered one by one. Radio industry leaders sat silent as the dominoes fell. Parity is the reason that the radio industry should now be made to pay.

Radio hoped that those other media outlets be crushed by crippling performance fees and either be put out of business or so overburdened financially that they could no longer compete with terrestrial broadcasting.

The outlets weren't completely crushed, and audiences have voted with their ears. And now the finger's pointing at the last -- and largest -- a target of the record labels' onslaught.

But let's be clear. It's not a tax. It won't be administered by the government.

It will be a royalty fee paid by commercial businesses (radio stations) for the use of other commercial business' property (labels' recordings) to attract customers (advertisers impressed with audience numbers).

I'm not rooting for either side in this, but I'm with Ken - I've got no sympathy for the companies ensnared in the trap they hoped would catch others.

- Ralph

Day 140 of the WJMA Podwatch. (And yes, WJMA's calling it a tax, too.)

WVTF and Famous Firsts

I don't want to take anything away from WVTF because they have done something remarkable. According to their press release,

The latest radio ratings released by Arbitron, Inc. show NPR member station WVTF Public Radio ranks #1 against all other commercial and non-commercial radio stations serving Charlottesville [Virginia]. WVTF is ranked #1 with a 9.9 share of the area’s radio listening. The #2 station has a 9.3 share (country WCYK-FM), and the #3 station (adult contemporary WQMZ) has an 8.1 share.

Charlottesville is an interesting radio market. It has the standard mix of commercial stations, with a few oddities. It has two AAA format stations, non-commercial WNRN and commercial WCNR. It also has four non-commercial stations serving the area, WVTF, the afore-mentioned WNRN, WMRA, and WTJU.

For WVTF to capture the majority of the public radio audience is no mean feat in itself -- there's lots of competition. But to capture the majority of the total audience, mixing in folks who prefer classical rock, top 40, country, etc. is news, indeed.

As I said, I don't want to take away from WVTF's accomplishment. According to Arbitron, they're the winner. But before we read too much into this, let's look at how that data was collected.

Arbitron stats aren't quite as cut and dried as those for, say, website traffic data.

While Arbitron collects data in some major markets with electronic devices known as Personal People Meters (PPMs), for smaller markets they still rely on people filling out listening diaries. Which is what was used in the 231st-ranked Charlottesville market.

So how reliable is the information from such a diary? Well, it depends on how much get filled in. Arbitron provides some info about their diaries. Mark Ramsey gives a little walk-through of the competing (but very similar) Nielsen radio diary.



One other piece of information: potential diarists are contacted initially by phone to ask if they would like to take part in the Arbitron survey. Which automatically eliminates homes without landlines (about 20% of households), skewing the potential survey pool to an older demographic.

For a public radio station to emerge on top is still a big deal, though. Because as flawed as the Arbitron system is, the numbers are still used by stations and their advertisers/underwriters to determine ad/underwriting rates and whether or not advertising/underwriting on a station makes good business sense.

So even if WVTF doesn't actually have the 15,503 listeners the numbers say they do, it doesn't matter. Because, like Wall Street investors, it's not what the numbers are, it's what you believe they mean.

- Ralph

Day 118 of the WJMA Podwatch.

Less Talk - Less Interest

I've mentioned my dislike of the single syllable male name radio format before. Whether it's called "Sam" or "Tom" or "Dave" or "Jack," the concept's the same. Take tracks that market-test the best across several near-related genres, mix them together in a "crazy" format, and add minimal voice tracks that do nothing but make short, snarky comments about... nothing.

Personally, if the DJ isn't going to say anything interesting or helpful, then I'd rather have no voice at all. And if I'm just listening to music with no DJ, well, I'd rather listen to my own crazy mix on my iPod than some else's generic blandness.

It turns out there's I'm not alone. Mark Ramsey, in his Hear 2.0 blog asks the question "Where's Radio's Humanity?" As he says, "people respond to people."

"voices" and the passions of those "voices" and the brands born of those "voices" will become more important to radio, not less. I don't care what lessons PPM gives us in that regard, because PPM is essentially mapping a path for music-intensive stations to be easily substituted by music-intensive alternatives. What makes one station different from another - one digital solution different from another - is its voice. Its humanity.

Now the sardonic wiseacre voice of Sam (et al) is certainly identifiable, so it qualifies as a brand. But is it a voice you can respond to? I can't, because there's nothing there to relate to. The voice is provided as part of the syndicated service that is Sam, and is generic enough to fit in any market, large or small.

And that's perhaps the problem. I'm sure it's cheaper to boradcast Sam then to staff a station. But it's also less engaging. Which means listener loyalty is low. Which means ads aren't very effective. Which means smart businesses go elsewhere to get their message out.

So how much money does that save in the long run?
People respond to people. Makes sense to me.

- Ralph

Day 114 of the WJMA Podwatch.

WJMA, VAB - Epic FAIL

Last July I posted "Radio in Virginia -- just how old is old media, anyway?". A friend had alerted me that WJMA FM had won some news awards from the Virginia Association of Broadcasters -- but there was no way to confirm that through the Internet; the VAB's website was several weeks out of date, and WJMA's website was still under construction.

Today I got another e-mail from the same friend -- with the same info. Through a second-hand source, they had heard that Phil Goodwin, news director for WJMA-FM had "won something."

Well, it's been a full year since the last awards. During that time people citing the Internet as their primary news source has grown from 40% to 50%. WJMA finally got their website up and running, and according to their blog,

Creative broadcasters, and we hope we’re in that class, are working to create targeted online promotions and features that leverage cause and event marketing, social networking, and other tools in order to provide real value to existing and potential customers.

Cool. So let's see how much things have changed.

I first visited the Virginia Association of Broadcaster's website, to check out the posting of the VAB Award winners of 2009. Nope, sorry. As you can see from the screenshot below, their most recent post is the banner for the conference that's already over.

Surely, though, WJMA -- rightfully proud of their award-winning news director -- as a "creative broadcaster," would let everyone know about this singular honor.

As you can see from this screenshot, there's nothing on the WJMA home page. According to my friend, Phil Goodwin mentioned the awards in one of his newscasts this morning. But it's not in the podcast for today, nor on the news page.

I checked the general manager's blog -- the last post was May 4, 2009. OK, what about the Piedmont Communications Weblog? Last post, June 17, 2009.

Cue the crickets.

So what's changed from last year? From audience makeup, quite a bit. From radio's apparent understanding of new media -- not much at all. Chances are they don't even understand the headline reference.

Epic FAIL, indeed.

- Ralph

Day 84 of the WJMA Podwatch.

Save Your Radio (in translation)

Visit most commercial radio websites, and you'll see a banner and link enjoining you to SAVE FREE RADIO!

Performance royalties, which radio stations have never paid, are about to be leveled at them. Now what you won't hear is that this is the end of a long campaign. When the SoundExchange (funded by and representing the major labels) went after the nascent satellite radio industry, commercial radio stood on the sidelines and cheered (anything to kill the competition). 

Having established the precedent, the SoundExchange then hit Internet radio stations. Again, commercial radio sat by, hoping that the royalty rates would be enough to kill off these upstarts. 

So now, the SoundExchange makes the case that every other music broadcaster is paying these fees, why not radio? So now we're finally seeing some action. Go to the SaveYourRadio.org website and read the manifesto. Here's my annotated version.

Tired of the negative press they’ve received from suing college kids and grandmothers, the major record companies have now turned their sights on your local radio stations.

[Actually, they aimed (and bagged) satellite radio and Internet radio first -- but the NAB wasn't interested in this fight then]

The foreign owned record companies
[Those damned foreign major record labels! There's Sony/BMG (Japan), EMI (the UK), Warner Music (the US, oops), and Universal Music (also US, oops again). Um, OK so half the majors are foreign. That's close enough.] 

are spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress
[Because, you know, no was else -- like the NAB -- ever spent millions of dollars lobbying Congress. It's just not fair.]

to pass a bill that would establish a “performance tax”
[That phrase is in quotes for a reason. It's not a tax, it's a royalty payment. By using the word "tax" they conjure up the image of money pouring into the the government that no one will ever seen again. Actually, it will pour into the record labels where the artists will never see it again.]

- forcing local radio to pay for the music that is currently provided to you, the listener, free of charge.
[Well, unless you count having to listen to eight commercials in a row as paying a price in pain and suffering.]

Like all businesses, radio stations across the country are struggling to stay afloat - over 250 stations have been forced off the air in the last year alone.
[You'd think commercial breaks with eight ads in a row would help keep the doors open. Hm!]

If passed, this bill would guarantee many more stations would fail, and those that survive would not be the stations you recognize today.
[That is, if you're one of the diminishing audience that hasn't already jumped ship for Internet radio, Slacker, Pandora, podcasts, or even satellite radio.]

It is you, the listener that will feel true impact of this tax
[This time without quotes, notice.]

most as it would ensure a decline in the diversity and quality of programming you expect and deserve from free radio.
[Wow. Where's that station with the diverse and quality programming? I'd listen to that! Playing the same short playlist of market-tested tunes over and over is neither diverse nor especially quality.]

Free radio needs your help in opposing the major record companies’ money grab!
[Those damned labels! Fortunately, sprawling media conglomerates like Clear Channel and Infinity are the antithesis of money-grubbing corporations. Um, well.]

You can help stop the major record companies, and keep government bureaucrats from deciding the price of the music you enjoy by signing onto our petition.
[I'm not sure how we got here. Who's getting the money, again? The greedy record labels or the government bureaucrats?]

This petition will be delivered to your representatives in Washington.

You can contact your Senators and Representatives directly by calling the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. To find out who your Senators and Representatives are, click here. Call your Members of Congress today, and tell them to oppose the performance tax,
[No quotes again.] 

by co-sponsoring the “Supporting Local Radio Freedom Act”.
[Nicely phrased. Especially from said big media companies that have turned most stations into echo chambers for their syndicated and automated programming. Now if the bill required that a local radio station have real live announcers that lived in the area, a news team that covered local news, and played music by local artists, I'd be actively campaigning for it myself.]

Together, we can ensure that free radio continues to serve your local market with the highest quality service and programming.
[ROFL. Especially as they wrote it with a straight face. So explain to me how Ryan Seacrest serves my local market. Or Rush Limbaugh, or Dr. Laura, or -- you get the idea.]

The time to put the genie back in the bottle was when the cork started to wiggle loose. It's a little late, now. And if the most compelling argument they can come up with is to misrepresent a royalty paid to publicly-held companies as a tax paid to the government -- well. That speaks volumes, doesn't it?

 - Ralph

Day 59 of the WJMA Podwatch

Cvillepedia & Charlottesville Tomorrow -Second Thoughts

Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks this is a good idea.

Last week I talked about the Cvillepedia the on-line open source free encyclopedia about the city of Charlottesville and surrounding Albermarle County. It was developed by Charlottesville Tomorrow as another informational asset concerned with the City of Charlottesville and Albermarle County, Virginia.

So what? Well, first off, it's a viable model for many localities. And secondly, I'm not the only one who thinks so. Jerry Del Colliano, in his recent Inside Music Media post "Life After Radio -- 8 New Ideas" said:

If you're a newsperson, writer, community affairs executive or interested in new ways to dispense information in a digital world ...

4. Pick a town or city and become the "news source" for it -- town meetings, crime, anything that goes on in that locale. Put it up on a website and, better yet, add an Apple app that people in that location can carry around on their phones to touch and connect with what's happening close to their homes in real-time. Monetize the app, the website and ancillary income streams that come from owning the franchise for Hoboken, New Jersey or Newport Beach, California or Ames, Iowa. Newspapers wouldn't do it -- they once did regional editions loaded with feature stories. Radio barely does any news. Own a town and get rich with your production, reporting, social networking and Internet skills.

Sound familiar? Charlottesville Tomorrow has the model; they're more than halfway towards creating a franchise that could easily be adopted by other locals (I don't know if that's their plan, but it's possible).

This could just as easily have been a website built by a radio station -- perhaps all-news WINA, which serves the Charlottesville market? It wasn't. Compare WINA's website to Charlottesville Tomorrow's. The difference is profound.

So how does your local radio or newspaper coverage measure up? And how would something like Del Colliano's online news source be received?

- Ralph

Day 43 of the WJMA Podwatch.<

Radio/Podcasting -- Not quite the same, Part 2

Shortly after I shared Mark Ramsey's comments about commercial radio and their mishandling of podcasting, Jerry Del Colliano offered up another viewpoint on his blog Inside Music Media. In his post, "7 Trends Radio Missed" he has this to say:

"Podcasting is personal radio -- the kind that the industry flirted with early in its history and has abandoned today... The difference between radio's version of podcasting and the one I think would provide numerous revenue streams to broadcast owners is the ability to make podcasting a franchise.

Radio missed the podcasting revolution because it doesn't know how to make each podcast a franchise -- funded by revenue derived in ancillary ways (not commercials) and grown by viral social networking tools."

And that's been my point with the WJMA News podcasts. They're not repurposed for the new format. There's no on-air promotion (at least that I've heard). There's no branding. Missed opportunities all around.

 - Ralph

Day 30 of the WJMA Podwatch.

FM + iPod, Part 2: It's not just me.

I've already expressed my opinion about the NAB's request to Apple that they start putting FM tuners into iPods. Mark Ramsey, in a recent Hear 2.0 post approached it from another direction by asking an important question:

Does society need radio?

The answer, quite clearly, is "no."

Society doesn't need radio, society needs what radio provides.

Can't argue with that. Ramsey then outlines what that means.

Society needs the comfort of our favorite songs. We need the real-time connection to our community (however we define "community"). We need to know what to wear today and whether or not school is canceled. We need to stay up to date or to revel in our past. We need to be outraged and informed and soothed and amused. We need to be told what to do in a crisis. We need to know what's on sale and where. And we need these things wherever we are - at home, at work, in the car, and on our hip.

OK, here's the problem. What can you do with an iPhone or an iPod touch with a Wi-Fi connection?

1) Listen to your favorite songs.
2) Have real-time connection with our community through Facebook, Myspace, Twitter (et al) widgets
3) Get weather updates.
4) Be outraged, informed, soothed and amused (through YouTube, news feeds, blog RSS feeds, etc.).

Not so sure about the crisis and sales, but you see the point. If these devices deliver these services already, what purpose is there in adding an FM tuner?

Ramsey concludes:

As an industry, radio needs to recognize that its social currency is in what it provides, not in the manner it provides it.

If radio moved into online media, then adding FM tuners to iPods and iPhones becomes irrelevant. Because then stations would have their content right where iPod and iPhone users expect to find it -- on the Internet. But I didn't hear the NAB talk much about that...

- Ralph

Day 11 of the WJMA Podwatch.

NAB: FM + iPod = ROFL

I understand why they asked. But I'm not sure they understand what they're asking.

For those who came in late, at the recent National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) conference, NAB President and CEO David K. Rehr shared a letter he sent to the COO of Apple, Timothy Cook.

"NAB would like to encourage Apple, as a recognized leader in both the mobile phone and portable music player arenas, to include FM radio as a feature in future iPhone and iPod products."

From the NAB's standpoint, this makes perfect sense. iPods currently enjoy about an 80% market share, and iPhones are currently the third most popular in the market -- which makes them as ubiquitous as transistor radios in the early 1960's. Of course, broadcasters would like to be included on these portable devices. As Rehr explains:

"Providing FM broadcast reception capability in mobile phones and portable music players creates multiple benefits for consumers as well as for the broadcasting, music and personal device manufacturing industries."

"I am certain [that FM radio stations] will eagerly support positive indications from Apple on the inclusion of built-in FM radio in future Apple products."

I'm sure they would. The NAB wants this feature added. But what about the consumer? The Zune has an FM receiver built in. So do most Sony MP3 players, and Creative MP3 players, Sandisk MP3 players, et al. (and notice how the FM tuner feature is all but buried in their presentations). And their combined market share is --? Well, combined, it would have to be about 20%.

The same folks that just know HD Radio will save the industry by winning back all of those satellite radio subscribers (sound quality trumps content, don'tcha know) believe that if they can but put an FM receiver in front of all those white ear budded masses, that their audience will return.

Except it won't. If FM radio was a feature in high demand, then the competitor's market shares would be higher. The MP3 player rose to prominence in part because it was a handy replacement for the radio. Why listen to a few songs you like, mixed in with songs you don't and long commercial spot sets when you can enjoy thousands of songs without commercial interruption hand-picked by you for you?

Now it's not to say that having a receiver wouldn't be handy. Some things you can't store on an iPod -- like a football game or a late-breaking news story. But then again, that's what RSS feeds are for, aren't they?

The iPod has moved beyond just music. It's a video player, a podcast aggregator, portable game console and photo album. And with wireless access, the iPod touch, and the iPhone also double as texting consoles , web browsers, and Internet radio receivers.

So where's the advantage of adding an FM receiver? It bulks up the electronics (at a time when iPods are becoming smaller and thinner), it adds to the cost, and it's another way to drains the battery. Stations point out that these devices could use iTunes tagging, but so what? With the iPhone, you can do the same thing with fewer clicks (and Apple doesn't have to share as much of the revenue).

I know why they had to ask, but I suspect only the NAB doesn't know what the answer has to be.

- Ralph

Day 10 of the WJMA Podwatch.

WJMA, DCD Records, and the transparent podcast

I've spent a lot of time talking about WJMA's podcasts, pointing out areas where I think they might more effectively do their job. So what makes me such an expert? Fair question.

Well, since February 2006 I've been writing, producing, and hosting the podcast for DCD Records (where I serve as president and chief bottle-washer). Like WJMA, we're distributing "The DCD Classical 'Cast" podcast for a reason.

I want to reach classical music listeners (and more importantly, classical music buyers) in a way that's both economical and efficient. The goal of our podcast is to showcase the classical releases from the independent labels we carry on our website, raise awareness of our brand, and spur sales. Has it worked? I think so.

Let me take you behind the scenes a little and you can judge for yourself.

Format: The podcast is approximately 30-40 minutes in length. We play complete movements, but almost never a complete work. The idea is to whet the appetite, not satiate it. (Listen to our current episode, and you'll see what I mean).

There's always an "ad" in the middle of the podcast. I simply reminds listeners that everything they hear is available from www.dcdrecords.com, and if they type a certain code into the coupon field, they'll receive a ten percent discount off their order -- even if other special offers or discounts have been applied (sorry, I'm not going to provide the code here -- you'll just have to listen).

I also ID the podcast after every piece of music. Why? Because repetition is the key to memory. Over the course of a podcast, the listener will hear our brand name mentioned at least four times. After a while, it will stick.

Metadata: I want each episode to be as effective as possible, so I pay attention to the metadata. I make sure the following are filled in:

Name: DCD [three digit show number] - [show title]
Artist: info@DCDRecords.com
Album: DCD Classical 'Cast
Year: [year of release]
Composer: [Me], host
Comments: This program we play: [composer - work]; [composer - work], etc.
Genre: Podcast

And yes, there's artwork attached.

Note the name. Even though we're only up to show #64, by using a three-digit number we ensure that the programs all line up properly in numerical order on media players and software. Without it, shows nos. 1,5, 10, 11, and 20 would line up as 1, 10, 11, 20, and 5.

And the choice of placing our e-mail address in the artist field was deliberate. If nothing else gets displayed, Name and Artist do. So I want the most important info front and center.

Distribution: We continue to seek out podcast directories to place our program with. You can find us on iTunes, InstantEncore, Feedburner, Mefeedia, Podcastblaster, Podcast Pickle, ZenCast, and many others. We also just recently set up a Twitter feed and a Facebook fan page to help generate interest in the podcast and our brand.

So what's been the result? Well, we started off with a monthly podcast and now produce an episode every two weeks because of a corresponding growth in audience. We've seen a definite link between product sold and product featured on the podcast. No, not everyone returns to our site to buy, but that's OK. Because we also have a store on Amazon, and we're the exclusive supplier of many of our labels to Arkivmusic.com -- so chances are, if you're purchasing something we carry, we'll see some money from the transaction regardless of the site you buy it on.

Subscription rates (it's free, by the way) continue to grow at a steady rate, especially over the past year. We've had over 34,000 downloads, and currently average a little over 500 an episode (although our more popular episodes run into the thousands). Now granted, this is small potatoes compared to say, "This Week in Tech" or a more general interest podcast.

But classical customers only make up about 7% of the music-buying market. And this market's small in other ways, too. Many classical titles -- even from the major labels -- only sell a few thousand copies. Add to that the fact that public radio stations airing classical music have an extremely slow rotation -- it's not uncommon to have six months pass before a track is played again. And most classical record review magazines seem to average a circulation of only around 10,000 readers.

So given all that, I'm very happy to have placed our audio calling card/sales catalog directly into the virtual hands of 34,000+ potential customers (even if they only listen to the podcast once, it's still better than the odds for radio). And outside of the recording gear, there's been almost no expense, save time.

I don't have to eat the cost of promo copies and the postage to ship them to 100+ radio stations where they'll sit and gather dust. I don't have to pay for ads in magazines where at a good response rate of 3% I'm looking at an outside total of 30 sales -- doesn't even cover the cost of the ad. I don't have to bother with the expense of trying to place the product in the shrinking racks of record retail stores (nor worry what happens to my inventory when they file Chapter 11).

We're talking directly to our potential customers, and they're responding either through purchases on our site or through one of the sites we supply.

So that's where I'm coming from when I say that WJMA's podcasts aren't living up to their full potential. Even at this stage of the game, their subscription and download numbers should leave us in the dust. If they're not, then something is seriously wrong. Which is kind of my point.

- Ralph


Day 3 of the WJMA Podwatch.

WJMA and the Online Opportunity

Stephen Baker's post "The Online Opportunity for Radio Stations" provides a lot of good information -- and not just for radio stations. Consider this:

Usability. Eliminate the clutter and focus on getting customers to relevant content quickly. I’m still amazed at the complexity and quantity of clicks required to get to target content.

It's making me take a hard look at our website. Can people quickly get to our content within a click or two? And ditto for our favorite subject case, WJMA. A lot of content is front and center on their homepage. And even their red-headed stepchildren (their podcasts) are only two clicks away. But wait -- there's more.

Aggregation. Success in the local market requires that publishers look beyond their own content for relevant stories and information in order to become a local online media hub.

Again, WJMA's site has a lot of potentials. The home page has a local news feed, community calendar, weather, etc. But let's look a little closer. Here's the "Local News" when I checked the site. "Obama in Baghdad" Huh? Is there a Baghdad, Virginia? That feed needs a little tighter focus.

Also, consider this:

Compelling content. Most news/talk radio stations produce extremely relevant content to our daily information needs - traffic, weather, sports scores, etc. - that drive our initial entry to the site and lead us to engage with additional content of interest.

OK, WJMA is technically a music station, but they do produce their own local news, so a lot of this still applies. There's enough of the above-mentioned content to get us to the WJMA site. But where's the additional content of interest? Take, for example, the community calendar. Click on the date, and the day's events pop up. Cool.

But there's no addition content and not a lot of information. For April 7, the event is simply:

"Spring Into Safety Health Fair"
Presented by Culpeper Regional Health System.

Two problems here. First, the link isn't in a different color. I discovered it lead to another page purely by accident. Second, there's no real information here. OK, there's something happening today somewhere in Culpeper. What's the location? What time? What's the theme? Details?

And the most important question, why do have I have to click through another page to get the information? (Remember Baker's recommendation for usability?).

So how does your site stack up? Compelling content, usability, aggregation. I don't have a radio station website, but Baker's post will make me take another look at our own site.

- Ralph

Day 2 of the WJMA Podwatch.

HD Radio Keeps Pushing the Rope Uphill

The HD Radio Alliance is at it again. They’re launching a new ad campaign to help education consumers. According to their press release,

“Research tells us that consumers think they are listening to HD Radio because the promos on the station say `broadcasting in HD Radio,’” a spokesperson said. The new ads “will continue educating consumers that they need a new receiver to enjoy the HD experience.” All ads therefore will incorporate the tag, “If you don’t have an HD, you’re not hearing HD. It’s time to upgrade.”

HD Radio technology was approved for use back in 2002. Let’s think on that a moment. Seven years later, people still don’t seem to know (or care) whether they're actually using this technology or not.

Bravely pressing on, the Alliance hopes to let radio listeners know that:

1. If they don't have an HD Radio tuner, they're not getting HD Radio.
2. They should get an HD Radio receiver because they're missing out on loads of fantabulous programming.
3. They should get an HD Radio receiver because, unlike certain other kinds of media (read: satellite radio), it's free -- there's no subscription.
4. They should get an HD Radio receiver because of the pure, digital sound.

So why is HD Radio still stuck at the starting gate after seven years? Well, primarily because of the stations. The networks weren't willing to invest in new programs until the receivers had reached market saturation. But why would you buy a special radio that only tunes in dead air?

For the past three and a half years the HD Radio Alliance has been beating the drum, hawking the charms of this exciting new technology. Live Text Updates! Audiophile digital sound! Fantastic new programming!

The reality has been far different. Few stations did any text at all. The digital signal is better than analog, but still highly compressed (and far from “audiophile”). And as for programming, most stations simply simulcast the same old sh*t they were spewing out of their FM channel.

Here’s the way it’s supposed to work. Identify a consumer need. Create a product that addresses that need. Make consumers aware that you have answer for their need (and it’s better than anyone else’s).

With HD Radio, the product came first, then the “need” was crafted to fit what it could do, and then the struggle began to educate the consumer that they really did have this need they weren’t aware of.

And radio’s been trying to push that rope uphill for the past seven years.

According to their press release,

“In this economic environment, being able to receive all these extra stations around the country for free is immensely appealing.”

Fair enough. If you’re strapped for cash, HD Radio’s better than satellite radio, because there are no subscription fees. But I can just stick with my beat-up old AM/FM radio that still works just fine and not buy anything at all -- and if you're talking saving money, that's even more appealing. Am I missing out on amazing programs? Perhaps. But it’s tough to miss programming you’ve never heard.

Rather than a campaign to educate the public about HD Radio, I think someone should launch a campaign to educate radio broadcasters about the increasingly apparent DOA nature of HD Radio. I’m not sure which would be more difficult, or less successful.

- Ralph

WJMA Podcasts -- It's a start

Just starting a podcast? Read on.

Friday I outlined a few things that WJMA could do to improve their nascent news podcasts. And it looks like they took some of that advice, so I want to give credit for the changes they made. The basics were pretty simple:

Here is the information this podcast should have to make it useful to anyone downloading it. All of these fields should be filled in.

• Name: WJMA Central Virginia News for 3/24/09
• Artist: Phil Goodwin
• Year: 2009
• Composer: Piedmont Communications, Inc.
• Genre: Podcast
• Artwork - an image of the station's logo with some additional element that says "news."

Looks like someone was busy over the weekend. When I opened up the podcast feed this morning, there was information in place! Specifically:

• Name: WJMA News 3-30-09 (different name than I suggested, but no quibbles - it works)
• Year: 2009
• Album: WJMA News (Yes, we know -- it's in the name field. But what's the dial position?)
• Genre: Podcast

It's a good start, but I'm puzzled as to why they stopped there. We still have no context. Where's the station? Who's talking? Who's putting out this podcast, anyway?

IMHO, you should think of a podcast episode like a business card. It should have all the information about the product to be useful, to strengthen the brand, as well as the relevant metadata to help the listener sort the episode in their library.

If I'm searching through my MP3 library by cover art -- there's none. I don't know what this is. Ditto if I try to sort by artist. These are pretty basic things -- and the absence of them has me convinced that the powers that be still don't "get" podcasting. And most likely don't listen to them at all.

It's a simple fix, fellas. Album art, artist name, something to give a location. You could even get ambitious and add an email address in there. Every blank field represents a missed opportunity. It doesn't cost anything to fill in the other metadata fields. Really.

Let's see where WJMA stands next Monday. That should be more than enough time to create and attach artwork, and fill in the missing fields. Are these podcasts half-baked, or just half-done? I'm still optimistic.

- Ralph

WJMA, Hear 2.0, and the Interwebtubes

The other day in my post "Podcast Review -- WJMA News" I offered some solid suggestions on how our local radio station WJMA could effectively repurpose their news reports as podcasts. It's not that they haven't been. News and sports podcasts are part of the new website.

But as I pointed out, audio clips from a broadcast can't just be thrown onto the web. A podcast is a different medium with a different audience and different conventions. Follow them, and your audience grows. Ignore them, and you'll be classed as an out-of-touch amateur.

Yesterday Mark Ramsey did a relevant post, "More Than Digital Duct Tape," on his blog, Hear 2.0. He cites a recent IBM study that shows an anticipated 63% growth in online advertising (and a corresponding drop in traditional media buys) -- and how media companies simply aren't moving to where the advertisers and customers want to go -- that is, online. He wrote:

... the digital elements in your portfolio are not "non-traditional revenue," they are "new traditional revenue."

Any broadcaster - and there are many out there (although not likely to be reading this) - who thinks our solution is to return "to the basics" and stick our communal heads deep into the sand is a fool.

Every broadcaster should be restructuring from the ground up around digital opportunities, not simply tacking on digital strategies like so many strips of duct tape.

This is a time of amazing opportunity if you have the vision and the will to have at it.

You can't think of a podcast as a recycled radio bit (even if that's the source). It has to be reworked for the new media.

Will WJMA make the necessary changes? I don't know, but I'll keep you posted.

We'll make Monday the official start of the WJMA pod watch. It'll end when the WJMA news podcasts have metadata that include appropriate IDs and graphics and a proper intro. The station had a static placeholder on their site for 344 days before the website relaunched. I'm hoping we don't set a new record here.

- Ralph

The WJMA Website – 344 Days Later

Longtime blog readers know that we’ve been keeping watch for the return of the WJMA radio website. The earlier version of the site was something of a textbook case of how one can miss the mark moving from one medium to another. And now, after a significant redesign, the site has been relaunched.

So how is it? On the whole, a major improvement.

The Home Page
The home page should make a good first impression -- and it does. All the important information is there – weather, cancellations, music news and an engaging poll question. All pluses. And there’s a calendar with regional events tied to it. Nice!

Across the top, there’s a scrolling picture display, interspersing country artist headshots with photos from the WJMA coverage area. It’s an effective way to tie the station into the locality. My only complaint is the scrolling, which very quickly started to annoy me. And that header is there on every single page. After a while, I had to fight the urge to bail on the site just to make the *#($&@ scrolling stop. I ended up pulling the window down so the header wasn’t visible. Not sure if that’s the solution the station hoped for.

WJMA Country Club
There’s now something for the listeners. WJMA now has a County Club which, in exchange for registration (read: valuable marketing info for the station) you can become eligible for exclusive offers, contests, etc. Very smart.

Disc Jockey Pages
The air-talent page has a little bit of misstep – the main page has the schedule, but no links to the individual bios. That’s about a five-minute fix. The jocks’ bio pages look good. There’s a way on JD’s page to submit birthday notices (gathering more marketing data, very smart). Unfortunately, the “E-Mail J.D. here” text is just that. There’s no link (that’s another five-minute fix).

WJMA News
The news tab has some good features. In addition to the bio of newscaster Phil Goodwin, there’s also a place to submit story ideas. Good interactivity.

The sports page is just a collection of links to the sports team websites of the various schools (the Orange County High School link is currently broken – another five-minute fix). It would be nice if there was a scoreboard with all the local scores aggregated, but this is a good start.

And it looks like they’ll be podcasting their news. I’ll definitely check that out and report on them in another post.

Local Photos

There’s a photo section – another great opportunity for local content. It’s not clear where the images are coming from, though. And there doesn’t appear to be a way for listeners to submit images (which I would recommend reviewing before publication). Another suggestion – how about some picture captions and tagging? Get some SEO going here!

The Community Section
The community pages look good. There’s info on local events, ways for organizations to submit announcements, and a list (with links) of area charities, schools and organizations.

There’s also additional content for country music fans, such as artist links and music news.

And the new website makes it easy to contact account representatives for advertising (they even have e-mail addresses now).

At the bottom of the page, there are logos for Piedmont Communication’s other radio stations, SAM 105.5 and AM1340 WCVA. Don’t bother clicking on them, though – they just go to the WJMA homepage.

All in all, a very nice, professional-looking website. I’m not sure if it was worth a year’s wait, especially as it appears to be somewhat an off-the-shelf solution. But for new listeners and potential advertisers, it presents WJMA in a very good light – and that’s really what counts.

The only thing I find surprising is the lack of ads. Hopefully, they won’t eventually clutter it up like a NASCAR driver’s jumpsuit, but a few well-placed ads should generate a decent amount of traffic. I’ll check in from time to time and see how it develops.

And that’s the end of the WJMA web watch.

- Ralph

You know, I outlined a lot of this back in 2007 "Creating Compelling Content," "Ted Mack's Original Website," "Radio Websites -- Odds and Ends" et al. Wonder if I should submit a bill for consulting?

Radio stations reap the wind

Robert Conrad of WCLV is leading the charge to get the government to not enact the “Performance Rights Act” H.R 848, which would require terrestrial broadcasters to pay additional money for the music they air. Here’s his plea:

WCLV needs your help. And we need it now.
I’m Robert Conrad, president of WCLV. The House Judiciary Committee recently held hearings on the newly reintroduced “Performance Rights Act” (H.R. 848), otherwise known as the “Performance Tax”. If enacted, the bill would require WCLV and other broadcasters to pay a royalty for all the recorded music we play on the radio. This money would go the record companies, most of whom are foreign owned. This would be in addition to the royalty payments we already pay to composers and publishers and to record companies for the right to broadcast our music on the Internet. The financial impact of this performance tax could be financially devastating at a time when the advertising that supports WCLV and its classical music programming is at an all time low due to the recession.
We ask you to write your representative in support of an opposing resolution, the “Local Radio Freedom Act” (HCR 49), was introduced recently. You’ll find a sample letter on our website. Click on the banner on the home page or on the links on every page at wclv.com. Help WCLV and other broadcasters. Express your support of the Local Radio Freedom Act. And please - do it today. Thank you.

I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Conrad. He’s accurately called many trends in the broadcasting and has made WCLV the strong station it is today. In this case, though, he’s having to pay for the incompetence of others, and I’m not sure it’s a battle he can win.

A little background. When the idea of charging radio stations for the music they used first came about, there was (naturally) resistance from the broadcasters. Most stations had their own house orchestras, or featured a lot of live music (this was the 1920's), and so the primary rights issues were with the composers. ASCAP (the American Society of Composers and Publishers) was formed to collectively negotiate fees and collect royalties from various performing venues. They determined that radio stations constituted a public performance and demanded their fees.

When ASCAP double their fees in the 1940's broadcasters responded by allowing their orchestras to only play public domain works (that’s why we have Glen Miller’s big band arrangement of “Little Brown Jug”). They then created their own composer’s organization, BMI (Broadcast Music, Incorporated) to offer much more favorable rates to the stations.

In time, everyone came to terms, and things were fine. When broadcasters started using recordings rather than live musicians in the 1950's, though, the question of paying the record labels for the use of the material came up. Eventually, it was agreed that the publicity radio play – and resulting record sales – far outweighed any fee the labels might collect, and so artist fees never got off the ground.

In the 21^st Century, things got ugly. When satellite radio started negotiating fees, in 2004, the record labels weighed in again. It was a new media and the old rules didn’t apply, they argued. They wanted XM and SIRIUS to pay artist fees along with the ASCAP/BMI royalties. And terrestrial radio stations sat on the sidelines and egged the labels on.

Broadcasters were terrified of satellite radio and were hoping that these additional fees would help kill the fledgling industry. There were some NAB members – like NPR – that tried to get their colleagues to see that this was a dangerous precedent to set, but no dice.

In 2007 when Internet radio stations had to negotiate their fees with the SoundExchange (founded by the RIAA), they too had to pay artist as well as publishing royalties. Again, NPR and a few others tried to get the NAB to weigh in, but to no avail. Terrestrial radio stations, for the most part, didn’t stream and wanted these upstart Internet radio stations to be driven out of business by these fees that they didn’t have to pay.

In the end, artist royalties were levied with very little effort. And the primary reason was because satellite radio was already paying these fees. The precedent had been set.

And now the spotlight’s turned to terrestrial broadcasters. If every other broadcaster has to pay artist fees, why not them? And it’s now being argued that over-the-air radio is no longer the place where new music’s discovered – the Internet’s taken that role over. So if the publicity value isn’t there anymore, why should terrestrial radio be the exception?

Why, indeed? This isn’t something that’s come out of the blue. Digital broadcasters have been fighting this battle for the past five years, with terrestrial radio rooting for the other side. And now it's their turn. It's unfortunate that stations like WCLV are getting caught in the crossfire, but I think we’re just seeing an industry reaping what it’s sown.

- Ralph