The Inquisitr » radio

The day that radio was killed

Steven Hodson — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:22:59 +0000

Technology didn’t kill radio.

Satellite radio didn’t kill terrestrial radio.

But as of today radio stands a very good chance of becoming an ever increasing wasteland to the point that we will see a massive shift away from radio stations playing music. If you think that talk radio is big now you ain’t seen nothing yet.

This is going to happen all because the very basis of how music radio works has shifted. Instead of record companies using radio stations as a way to promote new artists and new releases from established musicians the passing (with a heap of lobbying entertainment backed groups like the RIAA and musicFirst Coalition) of the Performance Rights Act radio stations will now have to pay to play that same music.

The argument put forth by the lobbyists is that this is a revenue stream that the artists are not seeing and therefor not getting paid for their work. Radio has been getting a free ride forever – getting rich off of the backs of musicians by not having to pay royalties for the music they play.

It’s a nice argument and would make sense if the musicians were actually going to see any of that royalty money. As it is they already don’t see a large chunk of what is suppose to be their money that is collected supposedly on their behalf by SoundExchange. The excuse used of course by the organization is that they can’t find the artists in order to give them the money.

So what happens with all that money?

Well the SoundEchange gets to keep it which ends up making this suppose to be non-profit very wealthy - to the tune of over $100 million as of 2007.

Now this is the group that is going to be able to collect some pretty hefty royalty money from radio stations all on the basis that it is for the musicians. The problem is that by changing the economic landscape by which radio works they are removing the incentive for any stations, other than the big conglomerates, to play new music from anyone other than the really big established musicians or bands.

Radio play has always been considered to be the biggest promotional play a musician could hope for. Even though the power of the hit lists may have lessened in our Internet world they still hold considerable power. It was advertising at it best (or worst during the payola years). That power is now gone.

As Michael Masnick at Techdirt notes

Besides, all this will do is harm up-and-coming musicians. Because radio stations will now need to pay more for playing music, they’ll play less music, and if they’re playing less music, they’ll focus just on the big name acts. Smaller up-and-coming artists should be furious with the RIAA for giving radio stations less incentive to play their works. Remember, this is the opposite of payola. While payola got new records on the air, this will make sure fewer get on the air. But it will sure put a bunch more money in the pockets of the major record labels.

This new tax revenue stream for the entertainment industry through its watchdog groups might not truly kill off radio but is sure is going to lengthen its time on life-support.

Could radio and newspapers save each other?

Steven Hodson — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:36:28 +0000

There is no denying the fact that both terrestrial radio (and probably satellite as well) and the newspaper industry are facing some dire times as they try to find their way in this new media world. A lot of talk has been floating around lately about the online versions of newspapers moving to a paywall subscription type of thing. As well you have the Associated Press seriously thinking of committing hari kari by killing off links and quoting unless you pay for it.

Radio on the other hand is facing a growing pressure from the entertainment industry to change the rules of the game and as a result make playing music on the radio prohibitively expensive. Satellite radio may not survive just out of plain economics and the rapidly changing technology of the web.

With this as the backdrop it was rather interesting to read Doc Searls this morning where he was talking about the conversation that had developed around his earlier post that talked about the sale of WQXR radio station to WNTC, a public radio station in New York. One of the points Doc made was that for much of history of both industries newspapers owned radio stations. This all changed however when the FCC changed the regulations and prohibited that kind of ownership.

That however was back in a time when both industries were more the most part in their golden era as businesses. The idea was that it was wrong to let one buy out the other and as a result consolidate all the news distribution. It was felt that if such a consolidation of news providers did happen it would be detrimental to the public as there would be less choice of where we got our news, and to a certain extent – entertainment in general as well.

But a lot has changed since those FCC regulations were created. The Internet didn’t even exist let alone the growing number of ways that we can get our news. In this new media world those old regulations could actually turn out to be one of the nails in the coffin of old media.

Competition for news delivery to the public is like it has never been before. It is that very competition that is the biggest threat to traditional news distribution like newspapers and radio. It is also the same competition that if they were allowed to merge could see radio and newspapers turn into a smaller better combination of previously separate dinosaurs.

It’s not like it hasn’t happened in the past as Sean Reiser commented on one of Doc’s posts

One of the unique things about the QXR was it’s relationship with the Times. The Times owned QXR before the FCC regulations prohibiting newspapers ownership of a radio station were enacted. Because of this relationship, QXR’s newsroom was located in the NY Times building and news gathering resources were shared. In a precursor to newspaper reporters doing podcasts, Times columnists and arts reporters would often appear on the air doing segments.

There is no reason why something like this couldn’t happen again and who knows maybe it would be the best thing to happen to both of those dying industries.

New Internet Radio fees will kill innovation

Duncan Riley — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 04:31:03 +0000

A new internet radio licensing agreement that is being hailed as a victory of sorts for providers such as Pandora will kill innovation and smaller providers.

While the compromise on fees is welcomed, the devil is always in the detail, and the detail comes at a hefty price for small sites. To be precise, the new scheme dictates a minimum annual fee of $25,000 for “pureplay webcasters.” The $25,000 is counted towards the revenue split (itself a staggering 25%) or the per play count, but it’s the mandated minimum fee that’s the killer.

$25,000 may not sound a lot for bigger online radio stations, or similar services such as Pandora, but for the small indie online radio market, it will be a killer because many would be fortunate enough to make $25,000 a year to begin with, but even if they did make more, $25,000 out of a profit of $30,000 or even $50,000 (profit before the royalty payment) is a massive burden.

Existing players aside, the imposition is even greater on new internet radio stations. Innovation often comes from below, and new stations (not unlike blogs) take time to establish an audience, and even longer to earn money. The innovation we’ve seen in content through blogging started from the ground up, but in online radio that’s now no longer affordable unless the station takes funding, but even there the fees impose an artificial constraint of funding upfront to innovate.

The continuing hypocrisy in the debate around internet radio fees continues to be the double standard between the treatment of radio and internet radio. Traditional radio in the US doesn’t pay anything to play music, and yet internet radio is expected to pay 25% of turnover. I’m not suggesting that either internet radio or traditional radio shouldn’t pay something, but both should be treated equally, with royalties charged at a reasonable rate based on profit without a minimum annual payment.

New Clear Channel layoffs: 590 workers cut

Duncan Riley — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:34:15 +0000

US radio giant Clear Channel Communications has announced a new round of layoffs, with 590 workers in its radio division to be cut.

The new layoffs, which follow a round of 1,850 in January, will include employees in programming, engineering and customer service. The January layoffs were primarily in sales. Shows canceled due to the layoffs will be replaced by nationally syndicated shows.

Clear Channel also said that it has suspended matching contributions to employees retirement accounts, but would resume making contributions if the company is successful in reaching 90% of its internal cost saving targets.

Tom Joyner Morning Show Cancelled, But Not Gone

JR — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:33:02 +0000

The syndicated “Tom Joyner Morning Show” is being taken off the air at V103, Chicago’s WVAZ-FM 102.7, the station has announced. It will be replaced with “The Steve Harvey Morning Show” starting next week.

Tom Joyner Fired

Tom Joyner’s 13-year run with V103 ends next Tuesday. “The Steve Harvey Morning Show,” currently aired on WGCI-FM 107.5, will be simulcast on both stations through the end of March, Clear Channel tells Chicago-area media outlets. After that point, a replacement program is expected to be named for the timeslot in WGCI.

The V103 program director described Tom Joyner as “great partner” with the station, “making it difficult to part ways.” He did not provide a reason for the decision.

“The Steve Harvey Morning Show” has been on WGCI since 2007. Harvey, interestingly, has replaced Joyner before, too: He took over for him at WGCI as on on-air personality in 1996, the Chicago Tribune reports.

What’s Next for Tom Joyner

Tom Joyner isn’t giving up his gig altogether. The host writes on his blog that his radio program will still be produced and available online. The following is Joyner’s statement in response to the cancellation:

“We always say that when we come back from vacation something big has either happened or is about to happen. Well, this one topped them all. After 16 years, the Tom Joyner Morning Show won’t be broadcast on a local Chicago radio station at this time.

For Sybil and me, our relationship with the Chicago radio listeners goes back more than 20 years and believe me it has not ended by any stretch of the imagination. Friends and family in the Chicago market will continue to listen to the Party with a Purpose every morning on www.BlackAmericaWeb.com. So this isn’t the end, it’s just a change, so please pass this e-mail along to them.

Even though we’re heard in more than 100 markets around the country, Chicago is home, it’s the Mother Ship, the Flagship, all those words that mean it is the place that launched the TJMS. It’s where we came from and where we always could go back to. And we’re still there, just in a different way-for now!

We’ve had great times in Chicago and we’ll be there soon to officially thank the thousands and thousands of you who made us what we are, and will be here with us as we take this to another level. We got where we are by knowing who you are, what you want and by Super Serving our audience, just like my mentor John H. Johnson taught me to do.

This world is changing, but doing the right thing never does, and we will continue to do what we’ve always done for the African American Community.

Tom

Related posts:
Adam Carolla Show Cancelled? Here’s the Scoop
Radio legend Paul Harvey dies aged 90
Good Morning America: Jon and Kate Gosselin Affairs a Ratings Boosting Stunt?

If you’re going to argue in a radio station, best turn off the microphones

Duncan Riley — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:45:17 +0000

Listeners of Des Moines sports radio station KXNO Friday heard an argument between broadcasters Marty Tirrell and Larry Cotlar that included the use of the word f*ck 12 times.

According to The Huffington Post, the argument took place just moments before the beginning of an NCAA basketball preview show, and while ads were playing. Neither hosts realized that their mics were still live, so the argument was heard in the background behind ads.

Here’s the audio of the two arguing. Language NSFW, and obviously this involves people who aren’t happy campers

Radio legend Paul Harvey dies aged 90

Duncan Riley — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 02:13:27 +0000

Radio legend Paul Harvey has died at the age of 90.

Paul Harvey was a long standing American radio broadcaster for the ABC Radio Network. He broadcasted News and Comment on weekday mornings and mid-days, and at noon on Saturdays, as well as his The Rest of the Story segments. As of September 2008, Harvey the oldest syndicated radio personality in America, having been heard nationally since 1951.

His list of awards is nearly as long as his career. Harvey won Salesman of the Year, Commentator of the Year, Person of the Year, Father of the Year, and American of the Year. He has been elected to the National Association of Broadcasters Radio Hall of Fame and Oklahoma Hall of Fame and appeared on the Gallup poll list of America’s most admired men. He received 11 Freedom Foundation Awards as well as the Horatio Alger Award. In 2005 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the United States’ most prestigious civilian award.

Although not a strict partisan, Harvey was considered a conservative, and over the years supported the McCarthy witch-hunt, professed his love for Richard Nixon (while disagreeing with him), and attacked people on welfare. He was also a high ranking Mason.

Harvey died Saturday at his winter home in Phoenix, surrounded by family. The cause of death was not available.

Sirius XM may declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy

Duncan Riley — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:42:17 +0000

Satellite radio operator Sirius XM is considering filling for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The company, the result of a merger between previously rival operators Sirius and XM in July 2008, has $300 million in debt due next week.

The New York Times reports that Sirius XM has been working with Alvarez & Marsal and bankruptcy lawyer Mark Thompson of Simpson, Thatcher & Bartlett to help prepare a Chapter 11 filing.

The move will put pressure on Charles Ergen, who controls a satellite-television empire including the Dish Network Corporation and EchoStar to bid for the company as he holds a majority of the $300 million debt.

Clear Channel Cuts 1,850 Jobs

Duncan Riley — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:03:22 +0000

After days of speculation, America’s largest radio station owner Clear Channel has announced 1,850 jobs will go, or 9% of its total workforce.

The cuts will be made company wide, including radio, outdoor advertising and corporate offices.

Chief Executive Mark Mays told employees that the company is facing an “unprecedented time of distress” reports the Huffington Post.

Clear Channel lost $86.1 million before discontinued operations in the third quarter compared to a profit of $253.4 million for the same period a year earlier. Revenue fell by 4 percent to $1.7 billion, with radio advertising down 7% to 844 million.

Clear Channel was acquired by a consortium of investment funds in July 2008 for $17.9 billion.

If you thought the loss of local content was bad before, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

NPR job cuts: 85 positions to go

Duncan Riley — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 03:56:51 +0000

National Public Radio (NPR) has announced that it will lay off 7% of its workforce and cut expenses due to broader economic climate.

A total of 64 filled positions have been eliminated and 21 open positions not filled for a total cut of 85 positions. The cuts come across the board including editorial and production areas, station services, digital media, research, communications and administrative support. NPR currently employs 889 people.

Included in the cuts are two programs, Day to Day and News & Notes, although both programs will remain on the air through March 20, 2009.

Despite record numbers listening to its programs, including 26.4 million people listening to NPR each week and 8 million people visiting NPR.org each month, NPR has been in a tight position, not helped by its unique set up. In July, NPR projected a $2 million deficit for fiscal year 2009 but is now projected to run a deficit to $23 million due to a sharp fall in corporate sponsorships.

In a polarized society, will moderate viewpoints die?

Duncan Riley — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:41:10 +0000

The term red states, blue states introduced America and the world to the notion of a polarized society, one that rallies around what makes us different over the common ground. Polarization in politics isn’t new, but today the middle ground appears weak, a notion of the greater good replaced by one of a blind ideological viewpoint of us and them.

Sadly the new media and technology sector are moving in the same direction. Extremism on both sides is creating an us and them divide where moderate thought is drowned out by the fanaticism on either side.

Copyright

I’d consider myself a moderate on copyright. The notion of allowing inventors and creators to profit from their work is enshrined in the US Constitution, and copyright law itself dates back to England before that. I believe that copyright as it was originally intended is a noble cause that encourages development and creativity. And yet today that original notion of copyright has been poisoned by the greed of big media and music, geared not to offering some just reward for creators, but in lining their own pockets for the rest of time. Copyright laws that once lasted 20 years have been replaced by the life of a creator + 70 years, a move that only benefits big business at the loss of the public domain. Worse still is the use of DRM and other artificial restraints, that seek to take copyright to new levels of stupidity, where those who buy the rights to use copyright protected items are limited in how they privately use them. It’s the ultimate greed tax imposed by law makers beholden to the next campaign contribution from those with an interest in profiting from those laws.

But lets take the other side, one that calls for the complete abolition of copyright law with a notion that intellectual property is imaginary property. If find it very easy to sympathize with their call, and there is no argument that Creative Commons and the Public Domain give to the greater good. But in a world without copyright, where we would be free to take and use as we please without the need for some compensation, what incentives would there be for creators to create if they are unable to profit from their creations?

I’m not talking music, which is an interesting adjunct, as the music itself can be used as a promotion tool for things like concerts. I’m talking real inventions, world changing inventions. It is not unreasonable to state that those who create should have some path to reward. That I believe was the intention of the founding fathers of the United States Constitution.

Every time I mention my anti-DRM stance or mention the latest BitTorrent tracker, I’m howled down by some as being an extremist against copyright. Likewise for even arguing here briefly in favor of some copyright and patent protection, I’ll be labeled an extremist in the other direction. In a polarized world, there is scant room for moderation.

I’d note also that I understand why those calling for the abolition of copyright take their position: the corporate greed of copyright holders has driven an extreme reaction in itself (and not unjustly), but the harder path is to take a moderate line and not simply become a reactionary.

Mainstream Media

I don’t believe that mainstream media will completely die out. I believe that broadcast television as a distribution medium is dead because the television companies are the least prepared for the changes the internet is quickly delivering, and that secondly the notion of a one size fits all broadcast medium is an antique concept that logically will be replaced when an alternative of custom choice on demand or custom mixed content when the technology is cheaply and widely available. I believe that newspapers are in deep trouble, and that within 10-20 years 5-10% will be left in the Western world, but I don’t believe they’ll die out completely, even if the notion of media on print itself will cease to be in a digital age. There will always be a place for quality journalism, and the smart print publications are switching online now in a big way, looking at ways of keeping their business going well into the future when print newspapers themselves are dead. The New York Times will be available in 2030, but it will be a website only.

The old media is still today struggling to come to terms with this change, and love nothing more than to lash out at the new media creators that are offering their first serious competition. I attend conferences to be told by media hacks that bloggers are nothing but conflicted amateurs, incapable of creating quality media, and that the only way to define premium content is by how much is charged for it. It would be unfair of me to say that it is all in the space, and there are many fine and smart people in media who understand the changing face of journalism and their need to adopt to the times, but the extreme hates the bloggers, hates the YouTubers and Facebookers, and anyone else who dares share their opinion in a space that until 10 years ago was the elitist domain of the mainstream media.

The flip side are those who say that mainstream media is dead, that they will all cease to exist, and the quicker the better. That their number will thin is a given, but to suggest that they will die out is another matter. I touched on newspapers, but the companies behind television and radio aren’t completely stupid either. Hulu may be georetarded and DRM infested, but it is the first considerable step away from the broadcast television model into a new age of media on demand. The Disney’s of this word may have vested interests in television, but they are production companies first and foremost and they will follow the crowd where ever it goes. Comcast offers shows on demand today via the cable box.

Again I sympathize with the mainstream media is dead meme, and when I’m attacked by the fanatics on the other side it is far easier to switch towards the us and them model than try to argue some common ground and a moderate view, and quite honestly I wouldn’t be greatly displeased if a lot of those walls came tumbling down tomorrow, after all this false idea that journalism isn’t biased compared to a biased blogosphere does need to die, because it is a grand delusion by those in the media who believe they are beyond contempt. However, the moderate view sees a major restructure in the media landscape, but not a complete wipeout, based on trends and numbers we are already seeing.

Likewise, there is really not a lot of difference between the top of blogging and old media. Many blogs I’ve dealt with would have stricter editorial standards than large chunks of print. Newspapers themselves are embracing blogging in a big way, further blurring the lines. I’d argue that “blog” as a term in itself is probably growing towards redundancy; there are news sites and those which indulge in editorial and opinion. That they are owned by News Corp or a blog network should not be the first criteria upon which to judge either of them.

Conclusion

I feel that I’m probably barking up the wrong tree, because many reading this simply won’t understand that there is a common ground, a middle ground in many of these debates, like they are unable to see it in politics. I saw someone on FriendFeed the other day (apologies but I don’t recall who it was) say that he was unfollowing and possibly blocking McCain supporters because they were McCain supporters. There was some suggestion that some had been annoying him, but he’d decided none the less to block them all because he believed them to be stupid, and not worthy of a place in his feed. This extreme need to block others with differing opinions, to look to the negatives over the positives, to ignore the common ground and instead focus of the extremities would appear to be more and more the norm. Moderates are the dying breed, and we will be all worse off for the polarity we are left with.

Television will be the first traditional media medium to fall

Duncan Riley — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:06:44 +0000

The move away from traditional, or mainstream media is currently accelerating as more and more people switch to the internet for their information and entertainment. Sales of newspapers are declining, radio advertising is down, and television viewers are switching off in record numbers.

It’s popular in the blogopshere to argue that newspapers will eventually fall, and radio is hardly popular. However, given the current marketplace, television will be the first traditional media medium to completely fail, where as radio has some life left in it yet. Newspapers will survive, but the newspaper of tomorrow will be markedly different.

The great Television switch off

The television switch off is real. In the United States, 2.5 million viewers switched off in the spring on 2008 compared to the same time in 2006. Statistically this is only a small percentage of the overall viewing audience, but among those still watching television, the amount of television they watch each day is declining.

The decline in television viewing is stronger among younger statistical groups. In Europe, a 2005 study from the European Interactive Advertising Association found almost half of 15- to 24-year-olds are watching less TV in favor of browsing the web. A study reported in The Guardian in 2007 headlined with “Young networkers turn off TV and log on to the web.” The television switch off in the United States among younger people has seen the average age of a TV viewer increase to 50.

Tip of the iceberg

The remarkable thing in the decline of television is that we are yet to see broadscale adoption of a logical successor. Newspapers and magazines offer content driven websites, radio is being replaced by services such as Last.fm, but there is no clear alternative online to television. Previous television viewers seem happy to consume content from a large variety of online services, and although many are watching online video, few do so via the television screen. The experience of television isn’t being replaced online, where as print media and radio is being substituted in familiar formats.

Netflix and Apple are two companies offering set top boxes that bring digital content to the television screen, but neither has caught the public’s imagination. Consider that in the television switch off so far, the simplicity of television, as an entertainment and relaxation device has not truly been replaced.

We are however, at the tip of the iceberg. The convergence between online content and the television screen as an easy to use conduit for that content has begun.

Sony announced internet enabled television sets at CES in 2007, and is now offering the option across its Bravia product line. The startup ffwd is said to be in discussions with cable companies and other device makers to bring personalized online content delivery to the lounge room, and will soon be available on the Wii. TiVo now supports YouTube videos, as the Apple TV has for some time, along with Podcasts on demand.

When enough devices offer internet content, including television sets, the switch off from television will accelerate across more age groups. Ease of use and ease of access will change the viewing habits of billions globally in the next 10 years.

Why television will be the first to fall (and not newspapers or radio)

The television industry is already at the start of a slow, agonizing death spiral. As television viewers have switched off, networks spend less on creating content, switching to reality television and other cheap to make genres, causing even more people to switch off.

The New York Times, in an article on Harvard professor emeritus Richard E. Caves book “Switching Channels: Organization and Change in TV Broadcasting” explains it this way:

He points out that such incentives depend on the size of the potential market. The programming is a fixed cost — networks pay for the programs even if nobody watches. If paying an extra $1 million to get a star onto a show, for example, raises every customer’s love of the show by the equivalent of $1, the investment more than pays off if there are 10 million potential viewers. But the $1 million investment would be a terrible flop if there were 10,000 potential viewers….

So the increase in reality programming is not just a matter of broadcasters wanting to save money. It’s that a shrinking potential market gives the networks less incentive to spend money. They can’t recoup it with enough viewers.

The problem with this pattern is that it’s cyclical. Viewers decline, networks spend less, content quality is reduced, viewers decline…. It’s a slow death spiral that ultimately can only result, eventually, in no audience as well

Newspapers will survive

In stark contrast to the television industry, the newspaper industry is best suited to last well into the foreseeable future. That newspapers are in decline is a fact, but what is often ignored is another important statistic: readership to newspapers online is increasing, and according to one source has resulted in a net increase in newspaper readership. The Newspaper Association of America notes record numbers for newspaper sites in 2007.

The switch to online newspapers is not even across all newspaper sites, so we will still see the sector shrink greatly in size from where it is today, however at the end of this decline, significant numbers of newspapers will remain, perhaps in 10 or 20 years time as online services only, without a print edition.

There is a very strong reason for why some newspapers will go the distance: There will always be a market for quality journalism. Bloggers and citizen journalists do a fine job, in many sectors, but a hierarchy of value that places leading newspaper titles such as the New York Times as leading sources of quality news will always remain. Couple this with the fact that most smart newspapers have also embraced blogging as well, blurring the lines between tradition and blogging. We can already see at the top of blogging little difference between a blog and newspaper, and that line will become further blended from both directions with time. Put simply, newspapers are changing with the times.

Radio will die, but not quite yet

The death of radio has long been predicted, even way back when television first launched, but it still goes on. Radio has two distinct advantages in lasting longer than television: mass consolidation has already taken place resulting in a low cost base, and car radio.

Consolidation of radio in the United States, lead by ClearChannel is well know. Journalism.org described it in their State of the News Media in 2004 as “the level of consolidation in radio exceeds that of most media,” but failed to nominate the media it didn’t exceed consolidation in. This consolidation of ownership, and content delivers a positive: of all traditional forms of media, radio is best suited to lasting over the short to medium turn due to its economies of scale. Where as television is seeing a downward spiral, radio as already gone through much of the cost cutting other forms of traditional media are experiencing relative to their decline in audience.

Radio also has one advantage in consumption: the car. Depending on which figures you consider, consumption of radio is anywhere from 50-80% in a car. Like television, there is no immediate replacement to radio, as a switch on, not having to think about choice. Many do play CD’s or iPods, consumption is shifting, but people still listen to radio in their cars. The car advantage however is on borrowed time. More and more cars now come with iPod docking as standard, making it easier for people to play their own choice of content. Chrysler in introducing internet access to their cars, delivering all the possibilities access provides, but on the road. In 10-20 years time, the notion of tuning into a radio station, as many do today, will be considered old fashioned, and some where around this time, commercial radio will cease to be.

The content shift

Those arguing for the future of television regularly point out that somebody has to make content, and that television is best suited to create it. There’s also the argument that much of the video consumed online is pirated content, and without television online video would be an empty wasteland. But they’d be wrong.

The internet is altering the distribution methods of content and enabling content creators to go direct to market online without the need for television as a conduit and financier. Many shows produced now for television are made by production companies, not television networks, and the smart ones are already producing exclusive online content.

The television networks are desperately trying to cater for an online audience, but if Google, a company defined by its skill in online advertising struggles to turn a profit from YouTube, what chance do television networks have in trying to compensate for their declining audience by shifting online. With thin margins, the need for a middleman in distributing content declines as content creators seek to profit directly and not share profits with others. This shift is hurting television now, and it will only accelerate with time.

Conclusion

I have some sadness for the death of television. Anyone in Generation X or older would have grown up with the medium, and spent countless hours on the couch watching it, and yet today, people worldwide are switching off. As younger viewers happily switch to their computers, forgoing the experience of a television set altogether, newer, more consumer friendly devices will deliver internet content to the broader population, often via the television screen, and the switch off of television networks will accelerate. By the time my (now 5 year old) son has children of his own, broadcast television will be a thing of the past, replaced instead by an always on society with the internet as a nearly unlimited smorgasbord of choice.

Update: just to clarify one point in this post that some seem to be confusing, and perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. I am not suggesting that the experience of sitting around a large screen TV watching sport or other content is going to fall. It never will, but content delivery via broadcast television (ie television networks, or collectively the television media) will fall. There will always be a place for a television set in many lounge rooms, but that set in the future will be a conduit for digitally delivered, on-demand or custom mixed content, delivered over the internet, from many different providers.

Splendid: Record Industry Goes After Radio Stations For “Piracy”

Duncan Riley — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:34:19 +0000

The record industry has accused radio stations of indulging in piracy for playing music on the radio.

It’s the latest twist in the ongoing saga of the record industry vs sanity, and it needs some explanation. Radio stations don’t pay for the right to play music, despite online radio stations having to pay often outrageous amounts in the United States. The radio industry argues that playing music on air is promotion of that music, and given that they a providing a service to the record industry they shouldn’t have to pay for it. The record industry, lusting for every last cent, argues that radio stations make billions of dollars from playing music, therefore they should get a cut.

It’s extremely difficult to take sides on this. On the one hand the promoting music argument from radio makes sense, and lets face it, the enemy of my enemy should be my friend. The flip side: all radio, be it online or offline, should be treated the same so we have a level playing field, which we currently don’t have as big media controlled radio gets a free ride. I’m slightly siding with the record industry here, but only because an initial RIAA win will cause complete chaos in commercial radio and music promotion, most definitely leading to massive action against the RIAA from big media that will end up in court and cost the record companies millions. Secondly, the absurd double standard of copyright law in terms of music delivered online and off may end up being reviewed due to this case, and maybe, just maybe we might see better, more fairer laws at the end of the process.

(via Wired)