"H Glazer" wrote in message
So how does streaming make bottom-line sense now when it didn't three and
a
half years ago, when hundreds of stations pulled their signals to avoid
having to pay additional fees to stream ads that used unionized talent?
Are
CC and Infinity scrubbing their webcasts of such ads?


Apparently so. If you listen to WBZ radio on the 'net, you hear Mayor
Menino, ads for the Red Cross, PSAs, etc.

Also, the broadcast industry ran away from the 'net, possibly fearing it,
not understanding it, or a combination of both.

Kinda like the motion picture industry - they feared television, they
feared pay TV, they feared cable TV (as did a lot of the broadcast industry
for awhile), they feared the VCR, of all things. Some of these "fads"
turned out to be their best friends, and their best hope for survival!
They were just too stupid to realize it at the time!

Greg and Joan wrote in message
...

"H Glazer" wrote in message
So how does streaming make bottom-line sense now when it didn't three
and
a
half years ago, when hundreds of stations pulled their signals to avoid
having to pay additional fees to stream ads that used unionized talent?
Are
CC and Infinity scrubbing their webcasts of such ads?


Apparently so. If you listen to WBZ radio on the 'net, you hear Mayor
Menino, ads for the Red Cross, PSAs, etc.

Also, the broadcast industry ran away from the 'net, possibly fearing
it,
not understanding it, or a combination of both.


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.
People in other cities, states, countries ... how does their listening to
the Web stream matter? Yeah, I suppose Bobby in Birmingham and Rajiv in
Bombay would be more likely to listen to WBZ in their cars should they ever
move to or visit Boston, but that can't be the justification. I like
Internet radio just as much as the next guy, and I'm glad to see more
stations returning to cyberspace, but I'm still wondering how broadcasters
hope to recover the costs of streaming.

Howard

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.

Either the marketing department isn't communicating clearly with
the sales department, or they're laying the groundwork for what
they hope to be a new revenue stream.

--
Mark Roberts | "Never do math on television."
Oakland, Cal.| -- KTVU meteorologist Bill Martin, January 3, 2005
NO HTML MAIL |
Permission to archive this article in any form is hereby explicitly denied.

On 25 Mar 2005 20:38:26 GMT, (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.

Likewise with KFWB. One reason for the corporate change of heart on
streaming, I've been told, is problems with building penetration by AM
signals.


Either the marketing department isn't communicating clearly with
the sales department, or they're laying the groundwork for what
they hope to be a new revenue stream.

If KFWB's promotions are any indication, they indeed have such hopes.
KFWB promos also pitch advertising avails.

Mark Howell

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)

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.....

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.

"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.

In article ,
H Glazer wrote:
I link Internet radio just as much as the next guy, and I'm glad to
see more stations returning to cyberspace, but I'm still wondering
how broadcasters hope to recover the costs of streaming.

I think the logic goes something like this:

- If few people listen, then it doesn't cost very much, and we make a
few of our P1s happer because they can get the station in their
offices, which helps to build brand loyalty.

- If lots of people listen, we can sell that.

-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)

Garrett Wollman wrote in message
...
In article ,
H Glazer wrote:
I link Internet radio just as much as the next guy, and I'm glad to
see more stations returning to cyberspace, but I'm still wondering
how broadcasters hope to recover the costs of streaming.

I think the logic goes something like this:

- If few people listen, then it doesn't cost very much, and we make a
few of our P1s happer because they can get the station in their
offices, which helps to build brand loyalty.

- If lots of people listen, we can sell that.


Yeah, but they'll be trying to sell that to the advertising agencies they
deal with, who know full well (I would think) that their AFTRA-talent-voiced
ads aren't being heard by any of that burgeoning number of Internet
listeners. People who listen to WBZ in the office, most likely, already
listen to WBZ in their cars. Brand loyalty has already been built. The only
really new listeners WBZ stands to gain are the out-of-market ones that
Boston-based advertisers don't care if they reach, even if the stream wasn't
scrubbed. Are Sullivan Tire, Giant Glass, or whoever, really going to pay
more because 'BZ is now being heard online by people who can't hear their
ads?

Howard