Mark Ramsey Media LLC - sync radio and digital media

Sweet background, dude.

Thank you, thank you! I’ve been calling them “hoops” for years, ever since I had to install special software that put ads on my screen. Hoops prevent people from listening and create disinterest. It’s why places like Radio Shack eventually gave up trying to get your address before you bought something — it bugs people. And don’t make us register to listen, either. Even your nicest listeners will eventually resort to telling you their email is “no@getbent.com”

Justin, the “hoops” I’m talking about are anything that gets between the click and the listening.
But the idea of gathering a modicum of key demographic or contact information is not a mistake, in my view. After all, Pandora has 100% of their listener emails. What percentage does the average station have?
Pandora (for one) also gathers some key demo data – as does Facebook and many others.
We have to recognize the difference between info fans will trade in exchange for our valuable service – and “hoops”.

man… radioshack. i once had a guy refuse to sell me a 3 dollar item for cash money, after i told him i would not give him my name and phone number. almost came to fisticuffs. but that’s another story….
datamining… i almost always use guerrillamail, fuzzmail or some other disposable email for this sorta stuff. and registration, whenever bugsmenot bows out, i fill in completely wrong disinformation about ‘myself.’ i can’t tell you how many times i’ve registered for the nyt as a single, black, female in a wheelchair, 24, living in tucomcary. so… just because you’re getting the info, doesn’t mean it actually means anything. want real information? give me a reason. someone is gonna’ win an iphone this month. i must say that npr does a damn good job of giving me a reason to listen to their stream. I’ve heard npr use your very ‘argument’ to drive listeners to their stream.
as far as making the streams more accessible, i couldn’t agree with you more. listening to a stream is often an exercise in futility. just last week i wanted to listen in to stripper radio in denver. the streaming provider re-sized my window to the size of a postage stamp and then kept bugging me to ‘upgrade flash.’ I don’t think so. I’m running the latest version of flash (10.050.3083.5u030.a649 or some such nonsense). It undoubtedly didn’t like the idea that i was running firefox or a mac. dumb, dumb, dumb. Use some kind of standard, such as m3u (and have itunes handle it) or mp4… or have your flash streaming browser os neutral. as a mac/linux user, the streaming accessibility issue has always been a pain in the onion. i’m savy enough to install perian and flip4mac to deal with wmv streams, but is every potential mac(iphone)/linux(netbook) streamer? i doubt it. using windows media or other proprietary streaming clients is just a bad, bad idea.

I am sorry but this guy is a moron. It is obvious that this guy has no clue whatsoever about running an internet radio station.
Ummmm ok.. people don’t like to click through hoops but yet they are going to fill something out with their age and information?
Also, a station should not play whatever it is they play over the FM waves? That is the more moronic thing I have heard in years.
Sorry but this guy is an idiot.

Thoughtfully and classily stated. You’ve made a keen case with your effortlessly rational argument, Eddie.

Streaming is not radio. Radio is a specific method of transmitting data.
ra⋅di⋅o
  /ˈreɪdiˌoʊ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rey-dee-oh] Show IPA noun, plural -di⋅os, adjective, verb, -di⋅oed, -di⋅o⋅ing.
–noun
1. wireless telegraphy or telephony: speeches broadcast by radio.
2. an apparatus for receiving or transmitting radio broadcasts.
3. a message transmitted by radio.
–adjective
4. pertaining to, used in, or sent by radio.
5. pertaining to or employing radiations, as of electrical energy.
–verb (used with object)
6. to transmit (a message, music, etc.) by radio.
7. to send a message to (a person) by radio.
–verb (used without object)
8. to transmit a message, music, etc., by radio.
Origin:
1910–15; shortening of radiotelegraph or radiotelegraphy

I’m speaking about a broader definition of radio than the literalists at Websters had in mind when they added it to the dictionary in 1920.

Hi Mark. Harold here — 38, directed here by Kurt Hanson’s RAIN. Already you should be able to tell I wouldn’t be your typical ‘Net radio listener, since I’m offering some of my demographics without prompting. Which sets up my question: How can you gather demographics without that act itself being one of those “hoops” you spoke of in your rant? I’m not saying you’re contradicting yourself — that would be much a much too unthoughtful comment — but I have to admit, I’m not clear on how to keep online/’Net radio simple while still gathering the demographics. Are you simply talking about the demographics recorded by the streaming mechanism, such as the IP address/location?

One thing you forgot, which I have been trying to convey to fellow broadcasters for the past year: don’t forget PROCESSING and use a PROFESSIONAL sound card. Running audio from your console from a distribution amp into an old Soundblaster 16 isn’t going to cut it in 2009.
I have my audio running through an Orban Optimod 2200 into a AudioScience sound card installed in our stream encoder. I may be a little biased, but I think we have on of the best sounding stations on the ‘net.
Joe Cassara
Operations Manager
WDNA-FM

First off to begin with I can’t see why demographics are that important. Nielsen ratings are gathered from a few percent of the full audience and that’s been good enough for advertisers in television since it’s beginnings. Terrestrial radio is the same way. So if you poll your listeners on a voluntary basis and come up with at least 1 – 3 percent of the audience responding it’s just as accurate as any other existing methods. There is one difference however – internet radio can actually log real time listening hours, visitor numbers and unique listeners whereas FM and AM radio cannot.
But in the case of hoops I agree. With my station there are no commercials. When you click listen now you listen immediately. You can use your player or the embedded web system. Don’t have to register to listen or to make requests. It goes without saying there are web features like forums and such where a registration is required but not for any basic radio features.
And I will also second the above post – processing and proper equipment is one of the most important parts of the whole operation.

“Fly On The Wall said…
Streaming is not radio. Radio is a specific method of transmitting data.
1. wireless telegraphy or telephony: speeches broadcast by radio.
2. an apparatus for receiving or transmitting radio broadcasts.
3. a message transmitted by radio.”
Perhaps websters should update their definition. Internet radios have been in existence and on the market for years. They are being manufactured for cars and are an option that can be chosen for some new cars. Internet based stations have been on the airwaves for quite a while now and are a mobile media. The word iPhone comes to mind. Thus the radio analogy is indeed correct Mr. Ramsey.
My stream cost me money to operate. Is it worthy to listen to? It is worthy to me since it plays all the songs I want to hear. Is it worthy to others, apparently so, since they listen daily. Is it worthy as a commercially sound business, nope. As with many internet broadcasters, it was never meant to be a business, just something I enjoy doing and wanted to share with the world. In my opinion, that’s the essence of internet radio and what makes it appealing to a worldwide audience. Not terrestrial stations simulcasting.
Nuff Said

In the postscript above I note that “hoops” can be reconciled with things that add to the value of the proposition.
Extra clicks just because are clearly “hoops” – as is digging for the stream on a website, if that’s what I’m there to find.
So – in addition to the server-side metrics and IP location, etc., I think it’s perfectly valid to gather up-front details from folks on a limited basis. Just like Pandora and every other site online does. Sirius XM has 100% of the email addresses for their listeners….what about you?
And there are ways to weave in more info that I won’t get into here.

Demographics and other data are important because they are specific to each individual listener and traceable to that listener. They are not simply estimates applied to a population.

Mark,
A very good rant indeed and some major detail explored in a way that make a whole lot of sense. The demographic collecting I do have some trouble equating against the less hoops argument, but that is about all.
What you clarify perfectly is that, commercial radio, just like the rest of the media in general, still doesn’t get the Internet nor do they realise the future that radio has on it, as a medium.
One day, someone else might get it too. You are making it plain enough.

Streaming isn’t radio, technically or conceptually, your dig at Webster’s notwithstanding. For a guy who is regarded as a visionary, I’d think you’d know that.
Radio – FM, AM and satellite – is tainted by so much of what you often comment about; you of all people – why would you call new media by a name which new generations consider old, outdated and tainted?
Beyond this though, you’re correct about the old guard having no clue about the world beyond oh, about 1997.

Well, you push your point by restating it with no new evidence to support it. So my previous reply still stands.
“Old” names often evolve to mean new things, e.g., the term “stream” updated to represent a flow of data. Or “green” updated to be “ecologically sound” and not just another color.
I guess “streaming” isn’t television either (and vice versa), huh? – even if I stream a television show via the web.
So feel free to imagine differences that may exist to you. Because every year the dictionary changes whether you like it or not.

Mark, streaming is a different method of delivery than radio, thus a new word to describe the delivery. There’s your evolution of language!
Using “radio” to describe streaming content is the antithesis to your recommendation that incumbent broadcasters offer additional streaming content to the primary broadcast signal. If you advise radio broadcasters to haul ass into the 21st century, they shouldn’t use outdated references (e.g. above with younger generations abandoning radio for new tech).

great thoughts as always Mark…

Well, on the subject of defitions. What everyone in the media calls the “Internet” is not the Internet, but the worldwide web and the worldwide web is only one of the services the Internet provides. A good point is raised here though – the media simply doesn’t get the Internet. Even those who regulate the media and the Internet don’t get the Internet.
In the UK, the regulator, Ofcom said about a recent survey they conducted:
“In May this year UK consumers spent an average of 25 minutes a day online at home – up from 9 minutes in 2004.”
What they really mean is the average time spent looking at pages downloaded from the worldwide web using their browser software was 25 minutes a day.
By definition we live in a world where we have ‘always-on’ access to the Internet. With the standard broadband router we are always ‘on-line’ and always connected to the Internet, even when the computer it is connected to is switched off.
By definition our computers are always “on-line” when switched on and we are using them constantly from first thing in the morning until last thing at night.
We may spend some of that time looking at pages downloaded from the worldwide web in a browser, but we are “on-line” and connected to the Internet the whole time whether we are using our computers or not.
Now define the role of Radio, using the Internet as the delivery system, can play outside of viewing web-pages. Who just wants to part of those 25 minutes?

Is it radio? Internet radio as it is now called, began as a wired medium that required a computer. It has evolved from those beginnings to become much more. Terrestrial radio uses a transmitter to send their signal, internet radio streams theirs. Internet radio can currently be received through multiple methods including a wireless signal via internet based radios and cell phones.
If you read the Websters definition of radio, it does indeed apply. The very first line of the definition posted here should suffice.
1. wireless telegraphy or telephony: speeches broadcast by radio.
From Websters. Definition of wireless
Main Entry: wire·less
1 : having no wire or wires; specifically : operating by means of transmitted electromagnetic waves
2 a : of or relating to radiotelephony, radiotelegraphy, or radio b : of or relating to data communications using radio waves
Appliances such as internet radios or even cell phones that use a wireless signal to receive a broadcast are radio receivers.
Websters definition of receiver.
(1) : a device in a telephone for converting electric impulses or varying current into sound (2) : a radio receiver with a tuner and amplifier on one chassis.
Nuff Said

Wildun:
The delivery method downstream is wireless. The initial transmission is not.
Even if it was actually radio, what’s more important than the applicable technical aspect is that calling the new tech by an old, stigmatized name that represents all that is wrong with traditional broadcasting (e.g. short play lists, exclusionary play lists, high repetition, irritating air “talent”, high commercial load – and irritating spots, horrible sound quality, etc) ignores the fact that people under 30 are trending away from FM in huge numbers. Go ahead, call it “radio.” You’re not connecting with the next generation.

I simply can’t believe there’s an argument raging over what radio is and isn’t. Then again, maybe this kind of debate is exactly what we need.
One thing is certain: The radio you grew up with isn’t the one that’s coming.

I reiterate, the source of the transmission is irrelevant if the end result is a wireless transmission that can be broadcast and received, it’s radio. I understand Fly On The Wall’s analogy and his concern with the radio name stigma and the new generation, therefore the name “internet radio” as opposed to just radio.
Those from previous generations will understand what internet radio means. Would we exclude them from this new technology as they may not understand the terms streaming media, streaming music etc., but would instantly know the terms internet and radio?
Number one as a station I want to reach a diverse audience, not just the new generation. If I were going to make my station a commercial endeavor, I would not be targeting the new generation but rather those in the best financial range. That would likely not be the new generation depending on what age group you consider that to be. Unlike terrestrial radio I would purposely limit the amount of commercials per hour so that my station would not be like terrestrial radio.
Lastly, for me personally as I may have stated, my station is non-commercial and will remain so. The above is what I would be considering if it were a commercial station.
Nuff Said

Actually, it seems to me the problem isn’t the use of the term “radio”. It’s the use of the term “streaming”. For someone who makes appears to make his money knowing the media, the big own-goal here is having a rant about “streamers” that doesn’t actually deal with the lion’s share of people streaming: i.e., non-commercial indies.
I’m sure all of these points in this rant were perfectly valid for the relatively small portion of streamers who are here being treated, de facto, as if they (and Pandora) were all there is. But, frankly, I don’t see how it’s going to help me. None of it applies. In fact, for me, the very fact that the rant consistently refers to “streaming” as if US-based commercial terrestrials are the only ones doing it (or even the most common ones doing it) makes me question the validity of the rest of the rant. (Trouble is: if you’re going to go on camera and rant, it pays to get your terms & parameters straight first.)
(Side note: a bit of devil’s advocacy for the record: FM stations that simulcast-stream are actually a godsend for some people. I live in Wales, and I listen to Texas Music & Red Dirt. Thank God there are FM stations streaming it from Ft. Worth and New Braunfels … cause they certainly don’t have it on BBC Radio Cymru. Commercial simulcasting has a far wider reach outside the local market … and that’s something that can be capitalised upon nicely, I’d have thought.)

Yes, my target audience is not non-commercial indies.