Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Radio Listening Declining w/ Digital On Its Way Up

Posted by Zonk on Sat May 14, 2005 05:36 AM
from the mp3s-on-the-radio dept.
Redlands CRC writes "According to C|Net and The NPD Group, the number of listeners to radio media has declined by 4% against the previous year, and the number of people listening to music on their computer has risen 22%. The study has also shown that online radio station listeners have increased to 53.5 million this March, up from 45.3 million a year ago. Music streaming also saw an greater uptake in listeners this year, with an increase of 37% compared to the previous year."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by MasJ (594702) on Saturday May 14 2005, @05:40AM (#12528275) Homepage
    Well, traditional over the air radio was bound to lose out with the digital revolution. Just take a look at shoutcast or any other popular online radio index and the number of choices is infinitely greater than over the air.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 14 2005, @05:54AM (#12528314)
      The real problem is lack of diversification. There are enough traditional radio stations around here, all playing the same shit all day long.
      • Even if every radio station had a different format, internet radio would still be able to out diversify broadcast radio. It's a bandwidth issue.

        I mean, look at Shoutcast. They have at least two or three stations for every genre and sub-genre of every music format ever invented. Radio simply can't match that kind of bandwidth.
      • And maybe when the cyborg oligarchs like Cirrus and Clearchannel finally fade away, we'll get back the character and spontenaity of local radio. Stuff like DJs who fuck up and then laugh at themselves. Or DJs who take requests that aren't on their song sheets.

        Stations like that have appeal because they are recognizably staffed by human beings instead of computers programmed by marketers.

  • by badfish99 (826052) on Saturday May 14 2005, @05:40AM (#12528276)
    Perhaps the radio stations should start to sue people who listen to songs without buying them.

    Oh, wait ...

  • by weave (48069) * on Saturday May 14 2005, @05:45AM (#12528292) Journal
    I don't buy too much new music basically because of limited options I have in playing it. I listen to streaming stations more often (like this article says) but have to sit there and manually type in the songs into itunes to find them to buy them.

    I don't understand why RIAA wants streaming stations to pay them for what amounts to advertising for their members. Do radio stations pay to play music? I'm thinking not.

    What I'd like to see is an itunes enhancement that either apple or other stations streams music and while a song is playing, there's a "buy" button so I can just download it if I like it. That would drive my purchases up through the roof. I get to hear if I like a song (more than 30 seconds worth) and the impulse factor is right there. (I've sent that suggestion in already). The streaming stations could get revenue that way too. A referal fee for following a link from a station to buy should help offset the stupid ASCAP/BMI fees to online stations.

    The few times I listen to traditional radio, it annoys the piss out of me to hear something good and then not have the artist or song announced after it and have no clue how to find out to buy it. Screw em, let them all play conservative talk radio hosts 24 hours a day.

    • by Seumas (6865) on Saturday May 14 2005, @06:09AM (#12528351)
      Do radio stations pay to play music? I'm thinking not.

      Yes, they do.

      Also, any time you hear music being played in a restaurant, taxi cab, elevator, clothing store or anywhere else that is "public", someone is (or is supposed to be) paying the RIAA.

      The only time I ever hear FM radio is when I'm in a cab or someone has it on in an office as I'm walking by. Strangely, the last six times in a row that I've heard an FM radio on, the song blaring out of it was some stupid thing about "sugar" which, from what I gather, is basically a half-assed rap song about pussy juice (edited for broadcast, of course).

      If that's what's being played the most these days, ther eisn't any cause for wonder at why the industry is crapping out. So awful.
    • by muszek (882567) on Saturday May 14 2005, @06:14AM (#12528363) Homepage
      Do radio stations pay to play music? I'm thinking not.
      Actually yes, they do. At least in Poland. We have one big organization (ZAiKS) representing authors and music companies (I'm sorry, I forgot a proper English term... those companies that finance recordings and then market and sell CDs) plus several smaller ones that represent authors that don't like ZAiKS' monopoly. Radio stations pay. TV stations pay. Restaurants, pubs, etc. pay for having a tv, radio, cd player or anything else that's capable of playing music. Separately for each piece (which is kinda stupid - you can't play regular radio and music from CD at the same time, right?). My father owns several jukeboxes that are placed in pubs here. He has to pay them, too. But the funniest part is here: I have few friend who organize a lot of concerts. Very niche bands - not many people, inexpensive tickets and usually very cool music. Every time they do something, ZAiKS agent shows up demanding money. Artists get money for tickets and they have to pay ZAiKS to get some of it back (such monsters eat a lot). As you can see, at least here you have to pay for playing any kind of music, whatever media you use. In such case, I don't see a reason why it should be different for i-stations.
    • by crovira (10242) on Saturday May 14 2005, @08:11AM (#12528702) Homepage
      From their web site: "The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers is a performing rights organization which licenses and collects royalties for performance"

      Radio stations PAY.
      The Mall PAYS.
      The elevator company PAYS.

      That's why there are "studio session" musicians who play 'covers' of popular songs, give up all rights to their music so that the cheezy music playing every hour in that elevator makes money for the elevator company. The artist who recorded the original version is probably not getting a dime.

      ASCAP had to listen to every dreadful hour of the crap that was aired 24/7 until they got the idea of making the content consumers keep and submit play lists.

      The reason they don't announce they artist to you anymore is that they are doing it to those that count, ASCAP, on paper so they don't need to lose commercial airtime (which pays for the 'filler') to the names of the artists or the songs.

      That's also why they don't announce the 'songs' at the mall or in the elevators.
  • ...have anything todo with the fact that most radio stations are canned and pre-programmed from a master list of the "latest hits".

    {fineprint}

    Notice: Latest hit has been defined as the latest album or single that the master controlling agency (see RIAA) demands be played over and over and over and over.

    {/fineprint}

    Three things annoy me about radio stations

    1. Lame on-air "personalities" that are never critical of anything [specially sponsor related].

    2. Same music over and over

    3. Lame advertisements and endorsements that are for things you just don't need that much advertisement for. e.g. I don't care how often you mention it, I'm not buying a $200,000 yacht!

    And seriously an mp3 player with a shuffle mode can replace the "selection" of music played on air.

    Tom
  • Well duh! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by t_allardyce (48447) on Saturday May 14 2005, @05:55AM (#12528317) Journal
    Thats because most of the crap stations are out-sourced to a big company with a building full of generic DJs who just play the same record industry generated play lists and pretend to be in some town they've never heard of between songs. The whole thing is just one big advert. A few years ago, a radio station would have a massive library, now days people have an even bigger library stored in the palm of their hand and with full control over what they listen to - how can a radio compete? New music is more likely to be played online rather than a real radio station so you'll get every band, not just the ones that have been heard by a producer. All thats left is talk radio which is great and has a real future (theres never any shortage of things to talk about) ironically, radio stations seem scared to carry people like Howard Stern in the US because of the pussy FCC.
  • by tinrobot (314936) on Saturday May 14 2005, @05:55AM (#12528318)
    Broadcast Radio - a few dozen stations per city.

    Internet Radio - Tens of thousands of stations, if not more, plus you can listen to your favorite station in any city.

    The huge variety of internet radio menas there literally is something for everyone. With more choices, there's bound to be migration to the more robust medium.
  • by Seumas (6865) on Saturday May 14 2005, @06:05AM (#12528344)
    Gee, do you think maybe the reason nobody listens to radio anymore is that they fill everything with "CharlieFM" or "BobFM" or "AliceFM" or "JackFM" with pseudo-random crap and call it "variety"? Or that they replace great AM radio stations with hosts like Rick Emerson [rickemerson.com] and Clyde Lewis and replace them with failing "oldies" format programming? [clydelewis.com]

    It's so much cheaper to lose most of your audience and deliver pre-programmed drivel without a host (or just an automated "host") from another part of the country than it is to provide customized, interested, live, provocative, intelligent local content.

    I was never a fan of FM, but I did listen to AM talk radio since I was eight years old. After 20 years, I've stopped listening. The last great talk show I found was Rick Emerson's geek-oriented program and Clyde Lewis's bizarre (but better than Coast to Coast AM) program on the weekends. Now that they removed that from the Portland air-waves and I've moved to Colorado where the only talk radio states are sports, jesus and Air America, I don't even own a radio.

    Radio is eating itself and will hopefully implode soon.
    • And when it does, hopefully the FCC will toss the airwaves out to the public.

      Please. Maybe? (sad puppy face)
    • by Alioth (221270) <no@spam> on Saturday May 14 2005, @07:17AM (#12528519) Journal
      Try BBC Radio 4 if you want talk radio (you'll obviously need to get it over the Internet). Of course it will be rather British-centric for news reporting, but there's a lot more on Radio 4 than news.
      • There's also talkSPORT [talksport.net], a UK commercial talk station. They broadcast on the web as well, there's a fair amount of sport but mornings and late evenings (UK time) have some great non-sport presenters. James Whale, Mike Dickin, Ian Collins are all worth a listen, I even enjoy US Rebublican Charlie Wolf (if only because he makes me want to scream at the radio as I disagree with him so strongly and so often).

        BBC Five Live [bbc.co.uk]which has a similar mix but without the ads. Their morning (again UK time) shows are pa

      • Try BBC Radio 4 if you want talk radio (you'll obviously need to get it over the Internet).

        Who can afford in-car Internet access?

    • I think one of the very big problems with music radio stations nowadays is that the increasing corporate ownership of radio stations has pretty much killed off a lot of music formats we used to hear on radio. Remember things like classical music? Or easy listening? Or a lot of ethnic music formats? Is it small wonder why XM and Sirius are getting a lot of subscribers because they want to hear a large variety of music?

      As for talk radio, it works because it's cheap to syndicate and also talk radio doesn't ne
  • Listen to the specific music I not only like but am in the mood for at the moment, without interruptions, anywhere I want, with good quality, or...

    Listen to a prefab mix of so-called "Top 40," most of which consists of people screaming off-key as if they had been seriously injured, no matter what kind of music I feel like listening to; having to put up with constant advertisements as the price of listening to this crap; only while in range of a radio station, and with dubious quality.

    Hmm. No wonder I h
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 14 2005, @06:14AM (#12528365)
    CBC's Quirks and Quarks [www.cbc.ca]
    Science Friday [sciencefriday.com]
    Bi-Weekly Astronomy Radio program hosted by David Levy [letstalkstars.com]
    BBC Science Radio [bbc.co.uk]
    Well this one's not a radio show but is one of my favoritesJack Horkheimer Star Hustler [jackstargazer.com]
  • by Brass Cannon (882254) on Saturday May 14 2005, @06:18AM (#12528381)
    This just confirms my theory that, as radio declines and digital goes up, digital will become radio with all that that implies. FCC regulation, commercials etc...

    Don't believe it? Look at cable TV. When it started, you paid for cable because it had no commercials. That made sense. Commercials paid for television. If people pay for it directly, no need for commercials right? Wrong. Now we pay for cable and still have commercials.

    It's only a matter of time before this happens to radio.
  • by ggruschow (78300) on Saturday May 14 2005, @06:26AM (#12528396)
    I listen to a lot of streaming audio on the net, but unlike many posters' assertions, a lot of what I listen to is locally available via broadcast. Listening to it on the net means less static, and often more importantly, it's possible to listen in a high-rise office complex.

    That said, I do listen to some stuff that's not available via broadcast (at least locally) as well, but the point was I normally prefer to listen via the computer either way. In fact, I don't listen to a couple of shows just because they're not available via the net.

    Also interesting to me is that I'm increasingly listening to recordings of radio broadcasts (that weren't originally intended as "podcasts"). That's a big deal for me since I'm frequently interrupted in my listening, but I like to hear a complete program.

  • I'm a big NPR fan. My biggest problem is that I can't always listen at the scheduled times.

    Streaming has helped two ways -
    I can now listen at work, and I can record and listen later on my ipod.
    Wicked handy.
  • by lgftsa (617184) on Saturday May 14 2005, @06:53AM (#12528456)
    I stopped listening to the radio about five years ago, when I started to not hear music on the way to and from work.

    Instead, I got a series of advertisments, including the station self-promotional ones, periodically interrupted by a pair of ADD sufferers who seem to be under the mistaken impression that I might be interested in what happened to one of them last night at the grocery store, or, for that matter, find it amusing.

    The standard CD player in my car meets my needs quite nicely.
  • by cinnamon colbert (732724) on Saturday May 14 2005, @07:03AM (#12528478) Journal
    One reason for a decline in radio may be the monumental stupidty of hte radio industry in not making online radio easy to get (don't both, afficionados of program x, which u think does make it easy) It's like the movie industry opposing videos - total lack of intelligence
  • by g0hare (565322) on Saturday May 14 2005, @07:10AM (#12528498)
    I, for one, don't need long discussions about anal sex and so forth on my morning drive to work. Neither do I care to listen about how liberals are ruining the country, even though conservatives have been in control for like 12 years now. As for the music - well, thank god for the Morning Buzz, 100.5 - but their signal is weak and I can't get it a lot. Oh yeah, and screw Clear Channel.
  • I know most players have had this feature forever, but the radio list in iTunes is just great. It makes listening to internet radio a pleasure because its so seemless with the rest of the player and there are multiple bitsreams of many of the stations - a 128 stream is just as good if not better than FM!
  • by rtphokie (518490) on Saturday May 14 2005, @07:24AM (#12528544)
    Where does satellite radio fit into the picture? XM & Sirius could also be lumped into "digital listening" but they aren't mentioned in the article. Satellite radio, like online streaming, also offers a much greater variety of content than terrestrial radio with the benefit of greater portability.

    This article also makes the mistake that is almost always made when comparing traditional radio to newer mediums for delivering audio entertainment. This isn't the 1940's, a very low percentage of radio's listeners are in their homes or offices. Nearly all tranditional radio listeners are in their cars. Sure people bring their iPods with them in their cars and that does provide some competition to traditional radios but the 80's technology of casette tapes probably has a bigger impact and more people are listening to CDs in their cars than an mp3 player.

  • Radio is that thing that plays the music that gets mentioned on entertainment news shows, right?

    I think I know some old people who still listen to it.
  • I stopped listening to radio when I got my 8-track tape player installed in my brand new 1969 Chevy Impala.
  • Linkage (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Plenty of online radio links at shoutcast.com [shoutcast.com]. (I always follow the link from winamp.com because it's easier to remember).
  • Jobs (Score:3, Insightful)

    Where I work at, our bandwidth is dedicated to the servers, so we can't play stream download songs. So I bought myself a portable radio and tune my favorit e station.

    I think most jobs are like this. Anyway, didn't we think that "video killed the radio stars" about 20 years ago? IMO, Radio's still alive and kicking.
  • The only advantages I see of digital radio over broadcast are:

    1. No commercials.
    2. Clear signal (I haven't tried it but it should be a nice signal...someone with experience chime in)
    3. No commercials.
    4. More targeted programming.
    5. No commercials.
    6. Wider Selection.
    7. NO FREAKIN COMMERCIALS

    Disadvantages:
    1. You gotta pay
    2. No local news and info
    3. Pay to listen.
    4. Needs special equipment.
    5. You gots ta pay!

    TANSTAFL
  • Here in Canada... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by N1KO (13435) <nico.bonada@gmai ... m minus language> on Saturday May 14 2005, @08:19AM (#12528730)
    Something like 40% of the content played by radios has to be Canadian. So the music played is filtered once through the top 10/40/100 lists and a second time by the Canadian governments regulations.

    Since many car stereos play mp3s now, people can carry more variety in a cd than what is available through the radio. Hopefully in a couple of years high speed connections will be common in cars.
  • on the air except a digital squeal but then I thought "When's the last time I even turned on the radio?"

    I couldn't remember. The Buggle may have had something with "Video Killed the Radio Star" and the constant hammering with ads is doing the same for the Video star.

    Does MTV ever have music videos anymore? It seems that, every time the station flickers past, its always something airheaded or plain stupid (Bevis & Butt-head or some maschists traipsing around wearing diapers in the jungle looking for so
  • After the initial enthusiasm, there seemed to be a major international die-back about 1999. I got the impression the internet stream was seen as a money losing toy and I never understood that. Just the inability of marketing and advertisers to grasp the paradigm? You know you have a listener with a stream and even if I'm only understanding 1 in 4 words coming from that station in Paris, I can sure pick out "Coca Cola".

    Digitallyimported.com rules. 4 or 5 years of vocal trance and now I can't listen to a
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 14 2005, @08:48AM (#12528851)
    I myself, due to my job, drive upwards of 10-14 hours a day. So 99% of the time im sitting in my car. I live in the bay area california, So we have quite a few broadcast radio stations, covers almost every single Music style there is. (Short of Trance/techno, which only comes on once a week in the middle of saturday night.. sigh, i love you subsonic)
    What station do I listen to? The 24/7 news station with 10 minuite Traffic and weather. If not that, I have tapes (Err im too poor to afford a CD player) of Downloaded Trance tracks you cant get anywhere else.
    Do i really want to listen to howard stern talking about how hed like to fuck some dumb bimbo because she has big boobies? Or How funny it would be for two morning talkshow hosts, who laugh at themselfs cause their so damned funny, taser their lacky? No, I don't want to listen to that crap at all, it isnt funny, and if people belive it is in *FACT* entertaining, they need to be cleansed from the world, seriously. Fart jokes, big boobies, How bush is the greatest president in the world and how they (who hide behind) freespeech is the bane of the world, is NOT actual entertainment. Its drivel to be archived on 8tracks and remembered like Disco.
    Yes Broadcasting industry, yes RIAA, yes the Entire music industry, you /SUCK/. Get with the times. Play what your customers want, or you'll lose them.
    To the RIAA/Broadcast Industry: Either Shit, or get off the pot. Seriously.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 14 2005, @09:27AM (#12529066)
    A couple months ago, I got a call at work..

    "This is XXX radio 101 FM, and we're going to reward you if you listen to our station. If youre listening to our station right now you can win $1001 dollars!!!"

    I told them that it wasnt nearly enough money, and if they would please call back when their station wasnt a clearchannel whore, I might think about it.

    FM is so bad these days that you cant PAY me to listen to it. That should be a sign to them.
  • Locality (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mike Hicks (244) * <hick0088@tc.umn.edu> on Saturday May 14 2005, @11:00AM (#12529602) Homepage Journal
    I'm not sure if the trend is continuing, but one thing that has been noted in the past several years is that listenership to public radio has been booming. The decline in commercial radio listeners is probably more than 4%, though I couldn't say how much more. When you see that many commercial music stations only have 300 songs in their playlists but run more than 20 minutes of ads each hour (especially during drivetime), it's hard to be surprised that people are looking elsewhere.

    Some people have already mentioned "Jack FM" and other similar formats. "Like an iPod on shuffle" they say. Sure, they bump up the playlist to 1200 songs instead of 300, but you're still stuck in the '80s for the most part. They completely do away with DJs for many of these stations, so if there's a new song, you'll never know who sings it. It's not conducive to learning about new music.

    I like to hear new music. All the time. Not just one or two new songs dribbled in each week. Most radio companies seem to believe that very few people are interested in hearing new music nearly as much as I am. Maybe that's true, but I can't say for certain. Apparently at least 50 million people think that they aren't getting enough stuff over-the-air (though obviously some folks are listening to talk, or are using the cleaner online stream rather than a fuzzy AM/FM signal).

    Here in the Twin Cities, people had been getting fed up with radio. You might remember that the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis even did a "Radio Re-Volt [wired.com]" last year. Sure, there have been a handful of livable or even excellent options in the dozens of stations in the area. The top two cited were usually KFAI [kfai.org] and 770 Radio K [radiok.org]. Both had problems, though, primarily with weak signals. KFAI adds up to about 250 watts. Radio K is 5 kW, but on AM, and only during the daytime. They both stream online, which mitigates the problem a bit, but you can't trail an Ethernet cable along as you drive in your car.

    Minnesota Public Radio launched a new 'eclectic' music service called "The Current" on KCMP 89.3 FM [kcmp.org] back in January on a big 100 kW transmitter they'd bought a few months earlier for $10 million. Most of my friends listen to it (and even support it), so I think it has a good chance of surviving. No, I don't like all of the songs they play, quality varies from DJ to DJ, the DJs sometimes make mistakes, and CDs sometimes skip. But they actually have DJs, CDs, and even vinyl, and hope to eventually build a library of 50,000 albums. They have a hefty concert calendar [publicbroadcasting.net] and bring musicians in for very-nearly-live performances [publicradio.org] every day or so. Local music is in frequent rotation, and the DJs have the freedom to go talking about all sorts of random things. Yeah, there are some people who hate it (and The Morning Show [publicradio.org] is still an oddball ;-)

    Online streaming provides a bunch of great options, but it's nice to have something with a local flavor that you can talk to your friends about, and have them know about it and understand. While there are some big notable exceptions, terrestrial radio is meant to be a community affair (well, here in the U.S. where there aren't big national networks). XM can't have that, and it's fairly rare for streaming audio. Admittedly, MPR is a pretty big beast itself and has taken over a
    • Yea. It's MP3 in action. It's tossing out audio data that you can hear (I have the same issue) even at high bitrates. That's why I love OGG, it doesn't toss out that particular frequency notch in comparative high bitrate settings.

      Most people probably can't hear the difference between 44k and 48k audio (frequency range, not bitrate). I know I can.
      • ...for comparisons with 44.1 kHz?
      • Most people probably can't hear the difference between 44k and 48k audio (frequency range, not bitrate). I know I can.

        1: 44.1k and 48k are not frequency ranges, they are sampling rates.

        2: You are either comparing apples to oranges (CD to DVDA), or you are listening to music on your computer equipped with a known flawed soundcard. Many many many soundcards out there (including popular SoundBlasters) can not play 44.1k material and upsample it to 48k. This is not a problem. The problem is that the

      • Most people probably can't hear the difference between 44k and 48k audio (frequency range, not bitrate). I know I can.

        You're a bat?

      • by gvc (167165) on Saturday May 14 2005, @07:31AM (#12528575)
        I doubt very much that you can hear anything in the range 22kHz - 24 kHz, which is the only inherent improvement between 44kHz and 48kHz sampling (cf. Nyquist).

        As far as I'm aware, there is no scientific evidence that any human can. Members of the Audiophile cult claim they can, but their methods are as credible as astrologers'.

        Of course, mp3s (at the level of compression used in file shares) and radio broadcasts sound like crap. We're talking much more serious distortion and bandwidth limitation than this.

        It may be that to your ear, for what you listen to, for a particular level of compression, OGG sounds better than mp3. That's be hard to demonstrate in any scientific way. Both methods do substantial transforms on the signal, and if one "sounds better" than the other there's no trivial explanation.

        Psycho-acoustics is very complex.
        • Well, its not really like astrology, but here is my explanation. As long winded and postereor drawn as it sounds, it's true.

          When I was a little tyke, I had massive clustiotoma and mastoiditis in one ear. Destroyed all the bones, eardrum, and my mastoid. (almost cochlea) After all is said and done, I have an implant that serves as a transfer medium between my new eardrum (made from a vein I think) and my cochlea.

          Damaged ear, 37 decibel loss. good ear, 4 decibel loss (loud music and looong flights). But it