"Mike Terry" wrote in message
...
November 24, 2004

...the Alt Rock station in Albany plays the same songs by the same artists
as the Alt Rock station in Wichita. Just like a burger at McDonalds, radio
has become packaged and predictable.

What is unusual in the idea that all Americans would like the same songs
within a particular genre? You are saying taht ER or West Wing or CSI should
only be run in one city, because running them on a network is predictable?
Gimme' a break.

Go back to the mid-50's. One of the popular TV shows was a top 10 countdown,
with a group of 4 singers who sang "covers" of the weeks's most popular
songs. So, going back 50 years, there was nationbal consensus in the hits in
different types of music.

An no one listens to an FM in Albany and then switches to one in Wichita.
Your comparison is without validity.

The reason for this is well known, the radio stations are essentially
bought
and paid for by the record companies through what is known as Payola.

Payola is a crime. There has only been one indictment for it in the last 10
years, since it is so serious. And one station, in upstate NY, fired their
PD last week for suspicion of impropriety with a record company. All group
broadcasters have a severe policy against payola and will fire instantly
anyone involved in it.

So,
they aren't in the business of helping you and I enjoy music, they are in
the business of making money... at the end of the day, organizations have
to
make money to stay in business, but if that is all that they care about,
they will need to figure out a way to do without relying on people
listening
to the radio, because I don't think that the scheme will be available in
10
or 20 years.

You also have the term "payola" totally wrong. Payola only exists if a staff
member of a station takes money for play of music without the knowledge or
consent of management. Since DJs don't select music at 99% of music stations
anymore, this is a moot point anyway... only the PD does, and staions have
safeguards to supervise their PDs.

If a station takes money, it is advertising revenue, but paying a record for
play must be disclosed ounder another part of FCC rules.

Anyway, the record companies are in such bad shape due to piracy and
dowloading they certainly do not have the ability to influence the $23
billion dollar radio business.

Today, I have several options for hooking up an MP3 player to my car; from
cassette adapters to units that allow me to integrate my iPod into the
car -
the iPod becomes my personal library of music that I have an interest in.
Over time, more and more cars will offer other built-in functionality
beyond
commercial radio and CD players. Today, plenty of cars come with satellite
radios, hard drives, and integration kits for MP3 players, etc. This
adoption curve will continue and the technology will improve that is
required to enable people to share their music collection among devices
(car, home stereo, portable device, etc) and the tools for getting music
will improve as well. Imagine the next iteration of public, high speed,
wi-fi and and a car stereo with an internet connection: want the new
Alicia
Keys CD? Download it to your car. When you get home, you can transfer it
to
your home computer, stereo, etc. Is that realistic? Yeah, all the
technology
exists to do that today, it will probably be a couple of years before
anyone
puts it all together and several more years before it is enjoys wide
spread
adoption, but it is totally possible. Will this be available in 3, 5 or 10
years? Who knows, but it will be available. One example of this is that I
can easily stream music to my stereo from my PC today. So, now that I can
stream it, why can't I save a copy there if I want?

You know, they said the same thing about the 45 RPM record and the cassette.
The problem with everything you indicate is that it either takes a lot of
time (and thus for only hardcore music fans) or costs money. Radio will be
around for many decades.

There might even be something comes before this - and who knows, this
might
be available to today - imagine a TiVo like music service. Recording a
stream of radio and then jumping through it, saving and deleting songs as
you go. So what you end up with is an archive of songs you've recorded
from
radio, building a library as you go. This might help radio extends its
lifetime, but this seems like a klunky solution. Now, some people will say
that satellite radio is the future and with the narrowly focused channels
and the absence of payola,

Arguments based on payola are, by definition, faulty. There is no such
practice. In fact, stations spend lots of money to research what listeners
want to hear locally. I know of some stations that spend as much as $250,000
a year for this... so that tey will play the songs their listeners want to
hear.

Can radio overcome this uncertain future? Can they build audience loyalty?
In short, NO. I think they have something major working against them: You
can't be all things to all people, which is what they are relying on with
a
push model.

This is true. Radi can satisfy well over 90% of the people most of the time.
This has been true "forever" since for many decades radio has not been the
only music delivery system. Yet in the long run, most people find the free
and convenient aspects of radio to be useful in most instances.

Now, I think that radio needs to better understand what people want. Some
radio stations will exist longer than others, there will always be demand
for Top 40 or news, those stations will last the longest - regardless of
the
underlying technology infrastructure delivering the music (satellite,
etc).

Actually, Top 40, which has been called CHR since the 70's, is a tough
format. And all news is a shrinking format with very few stations left.

But the radio stations that want to be in business 10 years from now will
need to better understand how consumers choose music. Let me give you an
example, we just got a new radio station in my area - Smooth Jazz 92.7,
they
play (shockingly) smooth jazz (FULL DISCLOSU I know one of the DJs). It
isn't that I like or even know half the artists on the station, but the
music is essentially all the same and I know how I will feel when I listen
to it, actually, they've transcended "genre" and they're offering "mood".

That is the whole idea... to create a mood. Otherwise, you are a jukebox or
an MP3 player in random mode.

I presume you are talking abot WSJW in Starview (York MSA) which has had
excellent ratings increases (more than double) since switching from Oldies
in late 2003. This format is highly researched, and the whole appeal is in
the blend, just as the same was true for the enormous success of Beautiful
Music in the 70's... mood creation, relaxation, stress relief, etc.

The radio station that can do that, does have a future, albeit a short
one.

The first smooth jazz station debuted in around '86 or '87 in Los Angeles,
and is still top 5 in 25-54, the demo that matters for sales. This is a
healthy format wherever it is done, and has true staying power.

Genre can be all over the map, mood is a much better programming method.
If
a radio station decides that they will go this route, they'll have to
understand that they will give up listeners because not everyone will be
in
that mood all the time (yikes, did I just write that?). For instance, I
listen to the Jazz station mostly in the evening, when I'm reading, etc.
When I'm driving to work, for instance, I don't want to listen to Stairway
to Heaven - I want Master of Puppets. On the drive home however, I want to
know about traffic and Master of Puppets isn't quite right... perhaps some
Jeff Buckley or Alicia Keys.

This is why your radio has buttons and knobs. Eveyone in the US averages 3
to 4 radio stations they make frequent use of, and several more for
occaisonal usage. Listeners know where to go at any time for the particulary
programming they are in the mood for.

Radio does not set a mood, it complements a listener mood. If I am in the
mood for rock (heaven forbid), I know where to go. It is not the station job
to change my mood.

Think about it, radio stations program their music by genre, but most
peoples CD collection is all over the map. Right? Our CD collection,
currently around 400, is so diverse and eclectic that it defies
categorization. Sure, there are some CDs of mine that my wife will never
listen to... and some of hers that I will never, ever listen to, but it is
all over the map - from ABBA to Zebra - and there is probably no radio
station in the world that has played songs from both of those artists.
Wow, I sort of went all over the place on this one...

So? This is why recorded music has one purpose and radio stations another.
And I have well over 3,000 CDs, but spend the better part of my leisure time
listening to radio, not CDs.