Showing posts with label radio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label radio. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

It's not traditional media anymore

I've been struggling with the term "Traditional Media" recently.
I'm not sure why... maybe it doesn't sound right, perhaps the term just doesn't cut it in a fragmented communications world or possibly I've lost a lot of my nostalgic view of newspapers, radio and even television.

Some traditions are great and are quite rightly upheld. Traditions not only show us where we came from, but also serve as a reference point to remind us what was good at a given point in time. 

But now we live in a new world.  An always-connected one where media is streamed, stored, consumed on demand and mashed together across multiple channels and devices.  The consumer of media is now in control and there's really no going back. My 4 year old daughter thinks it 'silly' that the TV doesn't show all the programs YouTube does (perhaps only because I've not bought an Apple TV box yet) and she laughed when I tried to explain that we once only had a TV with 4 buttons for our television... and one of those was for the power supply.

But we now live with those old paradigms, albeit updated for a 21st Century life. YouTube still has 'channels' and streamed digital radio is still referred to as 'stations'. 

So maybe we should change to term from 'traditional media' to something more fitting for a hangover from a bygone age? Perhaps we need a new way of referring to the old ways of media consumption?

Perhaps we should now call them 'legacy' media instead?

Thursday, November 26, 2009

News Corp vs Google is merely a battle...

... the war is between old and new.

To quote Mark Sigal from O'Reilly
Analog (old) media is all about managing scarcity by controlling distribution
whereas
Digital (new) media. ... content, in tandem with un-tethered distribution and pretty good search/retrieval functions, operates in complete disregard for the old media-based pricing models that preceded it

And as we know, when they meet.... the results are very disruptive!

Its therefore an analog vs. digital fight we are in the midst of. Up until now, digital has won over the protectionist activities of 20th Century analog-based business models.

The hard-fought battlegrounds have been:
  • music
    A clear win to digital, where iTunes and the MP3 format were the tank and gunpowder
  • small ads
    Another clear win to digital, with a soldier called Craig and the mighty eBay the victors
  • radio
    A draw, where radio has been allowed to live (but limp in its damaged vehicle with a license that could expire at any time in the future)

But.... the war is getting closer and closer to the centre-piece of the analog media's territory.... television. So the analogs have drawn their line of battle , along the far-reaching fields of newspaper control.

It is here they have decided to stand and attack back, to preserve what they have and fight one last and (possibly) long battle... or risk losing everything (AKA: mainly the value of their shareholdings in their companies).

Monday, February 9, 2009

Did the BBC and not Video kill the Radio Star?

Hayden's note:
I'm extremely please to have a guest posting this Monday morning, from Marc Ames, who is my friend and colleague at Ideal Interface.
------------

I am sure that many of you in the UK were like me and the first thing you did every morning last week was check what the weather was like, and then put the television on and switched on the computer to check for weather forecasts and websites to see whether you would be able to make it into work or whether the kids’ schools were closed.

However, if you go back twenty five years ago then when the snow arrived everyone would be switching on to their local radio station – when the web was but a twinkle in Tim Berner-Lee’s eye and breakfast TV was still in its infancy.

As well as the wintry weather, last week saw the National Audit Office release a report commissioned by the BBC Trust into the efficiency of BBC Radio’s output. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7872923.stm

Now in the style of the BBC television’s daytime output, how much do you think that the BBC spent on radio in 2007-08? Who will start me with £100m? £150m, £200m, £300m, £400m, £450m – and the final offer is £462m – 14% of the licence fee!

This covers the costs of the 10 network stations that broadcast UK wide (Radio 1, 2, 3, 4 et al) and the six national stations, two each for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It does not include the costs for running the 40 English regional stations.

So faced with that backing who would want to be a commercial radio operator? With the advent of the internet, the iPod, multi-channel TV, mobile phones, which sees advertising revenues fragmented further and companies demanding better evaluation for their £s – and yet radio has the most antiquated and archaic audience measurement tool – the RAJAR diary http://www.rajar.co.uk/docs/about/RAJAR_diary_example_page.pdf – which relies on people selected to fill in diaries about the times and stations they listen to.

When one diary can be the equivalent to thousands in audience, just to put into context about the research, I have been approached many times to take part in market research in towns or by phone, I have done jury service four times and yet I have never been approached to fill in a diary for RAJAR and I have never ever met anyone who has!

The industry has tried to grapple with this issue, especially as people now listen to radio stations online or on their mobile phone but have yet to resolve it.

Factor in the need for the radio industry to invest and pay for digital radio and yet one of the main areas for radio listening is in the car and the automobile industry have yet to commit building all new cars with digital radios and in the current climate this is not going to be high on their priorities then the future does not look bright. By the way, the BBC does not need to pay for carriage on any of the digital transmitters unlike their commercial rivals.

The relationship between OFCOM and commercial radio seems to be erratic, and that rather than moving with the times and creating a radio industry that is vibrant and strong, we have a media and a regulator that is struggling to cope with its place in a multi-channel market.

The irony is that if you listen to any commercial station these days, then two of the biggest advertisers are the Government’s COI and the local and regional councils.

Consolidation has been the word for many years in the industry and it now seems that within the next 12 – 18 months we will see the end game, with Global taking over GCap, Bauer taking over EMAP and some of the smaller radio groups are struggling or putting themselves up for sale, the heritage radio stations are or soon will become part of pseudo-national networks such as Smooth, Kiss and Magic.

So did the BBC indeed kill the radio star? As with all answers, there is not a simple yes or no. The problem lies in several areas, some of the commercial sector is poorly managed, and the regulator OFCOM has certainly not helped the industry move into the 21st century, for example, who else would think that a city the size of Bristol could sustain three commercial stations as well as BBC Bristol?

But the BBC has expanded and invested its output at a proliferate rate, unchecked by anyone and in filling in the vacuum created by the issues discussed above, may end up destroying most of its competition and indeed the media itself.

----------

Marc Ames is an Online Marketing Consultant who is particularly interested in helping companies achieve maximum value from their online channels. His skills include: online marketing strategy, web site development, e-commerce, usability, search engine marketing, online advertising and media selection, e-mail marketing and affiliate marketing.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcames

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Adoption rates for technology




The evolution of media on the Internet is following the path of traditional media, only at a much faster pace. In fact it is possible to chart the progress of most technology over the recent decades . This graph is available from:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/10/opinion/10chart.large.gif

It shows:
Radio @ 50% adoption by 1930
Colour TV @ 50% adoption by 1970

However I feel the uptake rates of these technologies is more important:
Radio - 50% in 10 years
Colour TV - 50% in 10 years

What's even more impressive is the the uptake of the Internet to 50% in just 6 or 7 years (and the VCR in even less). I now can't help wondering what's likely to have a faster uptake rate in the future. Will it be a new device (less likely) or will it just be a device-agnostic service (more likely)?

Note:
It also reminds me that I need to re-read the 'Waves of Power' book written by David Moschella back in 1997, where he predicted the growth of the network economy and gave future growth rates for information-based sevices.