BLOG

Broadcasters don’t understand the Radio “Experience”

There are (at least) two ways you can view radio’s future.

Either that FM/AM “chips” need to be installed in every device that moves, whether it resembles a “radio” or not – or that radio as an industry needs to translate its content to everything that moves in original ways, and those are unlikely to be in the same form as that content currently lives on air.

I am squarely in the latter category.

Most broadcasters seem to be in the former one.

The idea of sticking radio into every mobile device is radio-centric, not audience-centric. And if there’s anything – ANYTHING – you should learn about the rapid pace of technological change, it’s this: It is being driven by newly empowered audiences, not by the mega-industries serving their own interests.

So while you may want a radio inside every mobile device, your audience says they don’t need this because they already have a radio – in fact, several – everywhere – thank you very much.

What they want is for you to transform your “radio” content into a new experience worthy of the gadgets that experience lives in.

For example, take a look at a map. Now take a look at a map experience on the iPhone. Do you get it yet?

Just as a book differs from the movie based on that book – so will a radio experience differ from what’s on the air now.

Listeners are begging for you to think of radio in more dimensions than the narrow “here’s what we play on the air, let’s move it to the phone” one.

Nevertheless, “FM on cellphones” will be a big topic at the upcoming NAB Radio Board meeting.

Not “multidimensional radio experiences,” but “FM.”

Because they just don’t get it.

UPDATE:

And now, a couple days later…comes this. Hoo boy.

View Comments
  • George
    Jeff Smulyan of Emmis responded to your article at RAIN (www.kurthanson.com)
    I don't know if Kurt is being polite, but he seems to agree with Jeff.
    I'd like to know what's wrong with doing both. Put FM on other devices (since the romance with the transistor is obviously not as great as the cell phone) and also adapt content in other ways, such as podcasts?
    I think when you're in a situation where different people want different things, and we're all looking for personalized media, the media needs to make itself available in multiple ways and in multiple formats.
  • I am, as you know Mark, also squarely in the latter category. The on-demand world is upon us, and today's mobile phone is not a portal to old ways of getting media.
    We think old and new as less relevant and put a premium on accessibility, interactivity and on-demand features. We also believe that radio has to focus on building strengths in these three areas rather than just reinforce the existing format and hope for the best.
  • I wouldn't blame the "30 Under 30", since they all want to be working in the business at 30. Edison asked them to create a new radio format - not solve the bigger problem. I'm sure that their bosses haven't asked either.
  • Basic truth: people don't "listen to the radio" or "watch TV." They seek information, entertainment and enlightenment. They look for conversation, reinforcement, assurance and companionship. There was a time when those needs were only met by the radio or, on a delayed basis, the newspaper. TV changed that in a massive media-switch. Radio answered by finding new ways of meeting the basic needs of potential users. Personalities, formats, "cool," sounding board, involvement in their lives, etc.
    Now myriad ways for people to find what they really want and need are present, and in a dizzying and rapidly-changing array. Little wonder so few understand it. It is truly a massive transformation in how people get what they want and need. But those wants and needs have NOT changed!
    Not all of these delivery mechanisms will survive, primarily because a successful one will still have to be supported by advertising in some form or sales of the delivery device itself. And with so many choices, some will not be able to accumulate enough potential customers of those advertisers or sell enough of the devices to be a viable business model. Some developers and investors will be so wrapped up in the device itself that they will lose sight of what the product is supposed to do, what it must provide its users, what its REAL product is.
    Will that be radio?
    People always have and always will be looking for the same basic things, for some source that meets the particular needs mentioned above. And whether those needs are met by what spills from a cell phone, a computer, a radio in the dash, or by Vulcan mind-meld, they will flock to the -- and I use the word cautiously because it almost certainly will be plural -- "medium" that meets those needs.
    Again, will that be "radio?"
    Quotes intentional, since radio at its most customer-focused has not existed in at least a dozen years. And I'm not sure anyone currently in radio understands what its product is and what its customers really want. Or if they do, they are not able to convince the keyholders of the size and the volatility of the opportunity that is being squandered.)
    Don
    www.donkeith.com
  • I'm starting even earlier than that, George. Broadcasters don't understand what radio is when the world changes around us. Unless and until we understand that, we can't possibly be staffed properly or have the proper tools to exploit our opportunities.
    Right now the audience is ours to lose. This is our window.
    One of radio's key strengths has always been our ability to morph. Now we need more morphing than ever.
    Rob - good points!
blog comments powered by Disqus

Sign Up For Blog Email Updates

About

MRM President Mark Ramsey has worked with innumerable television and radio broadcasters over his career, including all the biggest names, from Clear Channel, CBS, Bonneville, Sirius XM...

Mark Ramsey