In article ,
Mark Roberts wrote:
Data point: KCBS in San Francisco is touting its (new) stream as
giving listeners the ability to listen at the office. The audio
stream at the web site is being heavily promoted on-air.

Now that Mel is gone, all of the Infinity N/T outlets are doing it.
They did a trial in New York on WCBS and reportedly got very good
response.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
| generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those | search for greater freedom.
of MIT or CSAIL. | - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003)

Most AM stations cannot be received well in any large office or retail
facility. That is why streaming will be increasingly important.

Also, if you look at the power that some stations have in some metro
areas, and the other technical factors, both AM and FM, then it will
make even more sense.

KFWB is 5kw-U, KNX is 50kw-U, but there are some that are only 1kw-U
there in such a large locality as LA.

The FM side is no different. I once was on the 405 in Orange County
and started to lose KMZT before the John Wayne airport. KUSC wasn't
much better.

Also, there are translators and other things that attract listeners.
Translators usually cover a much smaller area, some only run on a few
watts, most outside the Northeast and Southern California can have up
to 250 watts or more, and cover large areas, almost as much sometimes
as a Class A FM. LPFMs also have taken to streaming.

Religious stations like K-Love thrive on streaming. In fact, K-Love is
usually in the top-5 of streaming stations as far as total time spent
listening.

Also, non-broadcast outlets like BYURadio at http://www.byuradio.org/
(although they have a satellite feed on DISH Network, and are on one
LPFM), and KZION at http://www.kzion.com/ have streams and pick up
quite a few listeners. I don't think either of these have hit the
top-50 in terms of TTSL yet but well could. There are others that have
made the top-50 that are not broadcast either.

We have heard and read the paranoia, even in this group.

One friend of mine who worked in radio told me his management was paranoid
over "dead air" or even breaking format in the evening, because a listener
might change the station and never put it back on theirs during morning
drive.
Would this argument make sense?

- they want you to listen in the car -- AND THE OFFICE -- and they don't
want you listening to something else in the office. There are a
considerable number of stations that DON'T have the union-written commercial
situation, and they've been streaming. You might find one of those
stations, put it on in your car, and never go back to the station that is
the internet fraidy-cat.

- if they don't go after the internet crowd, someone else will.

Finally - since streaming stations "drop in" non-AFTRA PSAs, could it be
possible that they would "drop in" non-AFTRA commercial spots? And those
bring in money.....

In article ,
H Glazer wrote:
People who listen to WBZ in the office, most likely, already listen
to WBZ in their cars. Brand loyalty has already been built.

You're looking at it wrong.

People who can't get WBZ in the office might start listening to WBUR
instead. When they get back into their cars, there's a chance they
might not leave them set on 1030 (particularly if they heard a tease
for something they want to listen to on the way home), and that's
potentially a P1 lost.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
| generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those | search for greater freedom.
of MIT or CSAIL. | - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003)

Merlin" wrote in message
...

Yes - and as they use automation more and more, it gets easier. The
"stream" will have an announcement (don't worry, we're not playing you
the commercial", or, morel likely these days, a commercial produced
with non-AFTRA talent. This gives the streaming station another
potential revenue opportunity.


As a layman who browses in here from time to time, I am amazed at the
negative reactions over new ideas -- "if it doesn't fit the proven model,
it can't possibly work."

Such an attitude is reminiscent of a recent support call - my internet DSL
line went down and I called to report it. An offshore call center person
said "It is not possible. No problem has been reported." When I said "I
am reporting the problem" - circular reasoning began.

What little I know of radio -- I **do** know that when broadcasting began,
it was experimental. People tried things that worked and others that
didn't. The same happened with televison. Brooks and Marsh were very
quick to point out old 1940s TV shows with concepts that fell flat. The
same with FM radio - some formulas worked and others flopped. The internet
is no different.

I think it came to a point - where radio seems to be locked in a
conservative framework -- several months back -- when someone said LPFM will
fail, because it doesn't track in "the book". My response is - while LPFM
does not have the scientific studies that the mainstream broadcast world
has, its commercial underwriters don't care about "the book". If Louie's
Sub Shop underwrites the high school football game at a cost of $150 and the
spots yield him $400 in extra business that night, it works, regardless
of what Arbitron says or doesn't say.

I guess I'm amazed, because the Internet is a "wild west" medium, and I
would think that broadcasting - with its long, rich history of not being
afraid to try new things - would have been pioneering there, rather than
running scared and away from it for the first several years of its
existence.

"Mark Roberts" wrote in message
...
H Glazer had written:
|
| OK, how does Internet streaming benefit WBZ in tangible dollars and
cents?
| If people in the Boston market choose to listen via the 'Net at the
office,
| maybe they're hearing 'BZ where they normally would not be able to, but
| they're not hearing the advertising that drives the station's earnings.

Data point: KCBS in San Francisco is touting its (new) stream as
giving listeners the ability to listen at the office. The audio
stream at the web site is being heavily promoted on-air.


WBZ is doing the same thing.

On 26 Mar 2005 18:42:00 GMT, (Garrett Wollman)
wrote:

Now that Mel is gone, all of the Infinity N/T outlets are doing it.
They did a trial in New York on WCBS and reportedly got very good
response.

One reason they're doing it on the all-news stations and the big
market news/talkers: There are very little rights and blackout
issues. WCBS, for example, has to black out the Yankees, and WBZ in
your hometown would have to do the same with the Bruins (if there was
a hockey season, natch). KFWB in L.A., the same with the Dodgers.
KDKA in Pittsburgh will have to black out Bill O'Reilly, unless
Infinity corporate sibling Westwood One has less problems with
streaming nowadays.

But that's about it, really. Most of the big market Infinity
all-newsers produce their own programming almost all the time.

The other reason: It extends the brand. All-news stations,
especially, want to appear ubitquous. By showing up in your office
computer (especially with those AM in-building signal problems), and
all over the world, they assure P1s that they're connected to the
station no matter where they are.

They'll make some change off of selling the stream insert ads... my
old home of KFBK/Sacramento is selling them with some success. But
it's almost a secondary thing.

dead air and breaking format at night is NOT PARANOIA...IT'S STUPID.
roger carroll retired radio station owner.