The radio industry is going through tumultuous times accompanied by a cascade of conflicting data and anecdotal evidence that suggest the medium stronger than ever or as challenged as it’s been since the advent of television.
On the one hand, Nielsen tells us that 93% of Americans listen every week, affirming radio’s amazing reach. A New York Times article yesterday about the debut of Apple Music’s Beats 1 reminded readers that 243 million still listen to broadcast radio in any given 7-day period. That makes radio king of all audio, as Pandora attracts 80 million every month, iHeart Radio has 70 million registered users, while Sirius/XM boasts a 28 million person subscriber base.
Any way you look it, that’s a lot of radio, signifying that people walking, driving, and working while audio is playing has probably never been higher. And as a content platform like podcasting continues to hold even more promise for the growth and potential ubiquity of on-demand radio, that’s represents a lot of listening hours every week.
But perhaps the most fascinating story that surrounds all this audio usage is the branding that digital challengers to terrestrial broadcasting use to market and describe their products to consumers.
They all call it “radio.”
That’s the reference point, it’s the vocabulary, and it’s the nomenclature used by consumers to describe the concept of channels, stations, and yes, formats that we consume aurally.
It’s how Apple is defining its new Beats 1 service, set to debut tomorrow, featuring DJs, special programs, and all the trappings. And as their concept has developed, the Apple team spent gobs of money and time trying to get the branding right.
In the Times’ interview with the face of Beats 1, former BBC Radio 1 icon Zane Lowe, he admitted as much:
“Part of the last three months has been desperately trying to come up with a new word that’s not radio. We couldn’t do it.”
Unlimited resources, the very best people, and plenty of time to get it right, and it comes back to calling it “radio.”
In many ways, that’s a microcosm of what’s been going on for more than a decade now. Upstarts from Pandora to Spotify to Rhapsody to Grooveshark to now Apple are all trying to build a better mousetrap called “radio.”
And during that time, the radio industry has been fighting its own demons of debt, disruption, and denial. In the process, broadcasters have struggled mightily to get in touch with the “why” of its business model – the reasons that consumers hire radio, especially during these rapidly changing times.
Apple – along with Pandora, Slacker, and others – have learned from radio. From the things that has made radio essential to people’s lives to that elegant one-button solution that radio boasts, the ubiquity and free nature of broadcast radio remains a challenge to every one of these wannabes.
Yet, broadcasters struggle to understand their own identity in the new paradigm, especially as its sales model is roiled by digital accountability and consumers are faced with seemingly infinite listening options. It’s never been more challenging inside radio stations as it is today.
At its core, Beats 1 is attempting to present a better version of what we know as broadcast radio – with an emphasis on surprise, discovery, and personality.
Broadcasters could easily be flattered by all this attention, especially the attempts to redefine a product that has been essential to consumers for nearly 100 years.
But they should also see this scramble as an indicator that while radio continues to dominate a very attractive piece of real estate – audio information and entertainment – they need to understand the changing needs of listeners and advertisers. They need to study both groups to better comprehend how needs and wants are changing. And they need to launch innovations that are as bold as these new upstarts are offering.
Each week on this blog, we’ve highlighted experimentation and daring ideas in our “Radio’s Most Innovative” initiative. You can peruse these weekly spotlights here. They represent people and ideas from radio’s past, as well as those who are boldly going where few broadcasters are daring to go today.
A global channel dedicated to new music discovery is, in fact, a very cool idea. It will be fascinating to see if a “skip-centric,” self-absorbed audience will hang in to hear the offerings of Lowe, Julie Adenuga, and Ebro Darden, the three main DJs who will attempt to keep the Beats 1 audience in the know about what’s new and what’s next.
Apple is learning from radio, but radio can learn from Apple.
Jacobs Media has consistently walked the walk in the digital space, providing insights and guidance through its well-read national Techsurveys.
In 2008, jacapps was launched - a mobile apps company that has designed and built more than 1,300 apps for both the Apple and Android platforms. In 2013, the DASH Conference was created - a mashup of radio and automotive, designed to foster better understanding of the "connected car" and its impact.
Along with providing the creative and intellectual direction for the company, Fred consults many of Jacobs Media's commercial and public radio clients, in addition to media brands looking to thrive in the rapidly changing tech environment.
Fred was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 2018.
- Baby, Please Don’t Go - November 22, 2024
- Why Radio Needs To Stop Chasing The Puck - November 21, 2024
- Great Radio – In The Niche Of Time? - November 20, 2024
“Radio”, in my opinion, is about the way it is used as opposed to method of delivery. Any audio delivered in a non-user controlled way (regardless of platform) is considered “radio” to people. That certainly is the perception to most. It is also hard to break the habit of how we refer to things. Recording something (digitally) by many is referred to as “taping”, putting your windows up/down even when no one has manual windows anymore is often referred to as “rolling up/down” the window. Almost a century of having these very familiar (but now different) things in the lexicon is certainly making it difficult to come up with something else to call it.
Let’s stay focused and remind people that “Radio” is a free, over the air broadcast service – and if the audio being served doesn’t meet that test – it’s digital audio – NOT Radio. I personally believe the RAB should sue Apple (and the rest) for infringing on our name!
Adapting to the consumer and living within their reality is a more efficient and effective solution than trying to get them to adapt to our old fashioned ideas, in my opinion. The radio industry has fallen behind because many refused to adapt and are holding on and trying to force our “reality”. We need to create compelling content and give our consumers a reason to stay with us more than it is just “free”.
Paul, thanks for your comment – coming from a very different place than what Charlie Ferguson was talking about. Radio has many, many advantages – it’s free, it’s simple, it’s everywhere, and it’s part of many people’s routines. That said, the post talked about those three D’s – debt, disruption, & denial – all of which are making it difficult for radio to maintain its dominance.
Charlie, you ARE grumpy today! Thanks for the comment and that strong radio spirit.
Many years ago in some dimly lit viewing room watching a focus group (remember when radio stations did real focus groups?) I came to the stunning realization that, for real people, anything that makes noise coming from an inanimate object is “radio”. That’s actual radios, your car radio, the overhead speakers at Walgreen’s, and now sound that comes out of your computer or phone or whatever device you have.
When you talk to real people who have no connection to the media, it’s all “radio” to them. So why shouldn’t the streaming services, podcast aggregators, audio channels on cable systems, and everyone else use the term “radio”? Part of smart branding is to speak the language of the consumer, and the consumer often doesn’t see a difference between over the air radio, streaming audio, or any of the other newfangled things that make noise when you press a button. “Radio” is a generic term now, just like “television” applies to broadcast, cable, DVR, and anything else people watch on a screen.
Will a 24 hour hip and cool Apple radio station work? I have my doubts that it will in the long run. But with a free trial, will it get sampled? You bet. Then the listeners can decide if they like that “radio station” and if they want to listen to it again or go back to their favorite genre, theme, or mood station online or on the air. Let’s face it, we’re coming to that point where all audio is somewhat interchangeable and mode of delivery will become less of a barrier to usage. Then it becomes up to the people creating the content that goes on those channels to make every second of it as compelling, interesting, and “sticky” as possible. Because no matter what some say, content IS king.
Ding ding ding…we have a winner! Very well put Mark.
If content is king, distribution is queen, and that’s where broadcast radio has the advantage. But Apple’s leveraging that, too. Thanks for the great insight, as always, Mark.
yes, your comment is very insightful, Mark. But now You Tube is all screens and a lot of content I watch is actual TV but You Tube is never called or considered TV, even with pre-roll ads. So therein may lie some sort of clue in the continuing name the medium game.
You could have done three months of focus groups and not come up with the word “television” at the time, either. But instead of calling it “picture radio”, they gave the new medium a new name. Fifteen years ago at RadioWave.com (long since defunct having funneled $49 million of venture capital into the pre-911 economy) I fought for a new term, instead of “Internet Radio”. The company was too busy putting “i” in front of every noun to think that long-term.
“Internet Radio” has bigger problems than just it’s name to worry about, though. Poorly programmed (just rip the whole CD and play everything off of it), ultra micro-niched channels (how do you promote those channels with only three listeners assuming visitors can even find them?), the lack of personality imaging and the ever-present dead-air between tunes are real hindrances towards success. Fifteen years ago young turks from outside the industry wanted to show “Real Radio” people how it should be done. They found out that Real Radio was quite aware of what worked and what didn’t. But today, Internet Radio, in many cases, is run by the drop-outs from Terrestrial Radio (present company excepted, Mark– you know how much respect I have for you) who only lasted long enough to learn “cut your playlist and you’ll increase TSL” (I think we all know what’s wrong with that over-generalization). So content, as Mark said, IS King. Build a good enough product and it doesn’t matter what you call it– or what medium it’s delivered on.
But I still think it needs a new name.
Ron, what’s in a name? 🙂 Seriously, thanks for the comment.
Thank you for the kind words, my friend. appreciate the thought, and I’m very fortunate to be working with some really smart broadcasters who didn’t drop out but have found a better way.
As your three D’s demonstrate radio certainly has it’s challenges but to me the main issue with the word “radio” is perception. The radio broadcast industry has been playing from a position of defense because the Sirius/XM’s, Pandora’s and Spotify’s of the world have made the medium out to be old fashioned and outdated. The conversation must be redirected to how innovative radio is, of course there must be some truth to that if the industry is going to brag about it. The digital newcomers are just doing radio in a slightly different way from what has been traditional and taken advantage of new ways to listen. To this point traditional radio has come off a little desperate trying to defend itself instead of acting like the bully in the playground that it is. Is Pandora growing? Yes it is but they get a third of the listeners in a month that radio pulls in during one week. There is no comparison. What radio is desperate for is a creative marketing campaign for the industry tied to huge numbers and a personal, creative product.
Sean, the radio industry needs a SWOT analysis, followed by an intense list of actions (and fixes), and then you market it. Your are right that “playing D” has only helped establish the validity of the digital competition. We’ve been repositioned in this war, and instead of building on our strengths, we’ve been reduced to saying “Same as it ever was.” Thanks for the comment.
Seriously?
Apple, Beats, etc. are overspending for posers, not caring, expert curators.
Image over imagination.
Conceited/commerce over committed.
I’ve spent half my life running record stores and half running radio stations.
Give me a couple days and I’ll round up a staff of real radio/record diehards who the majority of people will actually want to listen to.
You never know, Marty. Maybe curated radio with smart, knowledgeable DJs will make a comeback. Thanks for chiming in.
Hello, aweseome post,
Fred, I’d like to know if it is possible to talk a bit about the transition that took place between top 40 radio and free form radio. Basically to find out what free form was all about, when it disappeared and what we can learn from how formatted American radio has become vs new forms of music consumption and even talk radio consumption.
Thanks a mill and all the best from Colombia, South America.
Would love to chat, Alejandro. You can always reach me at fred@g5j.8ac.myftpupload.com
next, we need to address the world radio hugeness and belongingness that Beats 1 is creating :/