"FM Radio Will Never Die"

I say that just to remind people who think that about past history.

VHS....Why when DVD is such better quality do people still have only VHS? Because they don't have to switch. The rental stores have both flavors on the shelf and both players are still mass produced and inexspensive.

Free TV....Why when cable or SAT offers so many other choices and has such better clarity do people still only have free TV? Beside the obvious reason that cable or SAT costs money it is still that they do not have to switch...free TV is there.

Look how long it took to phase out Audio cassettes since the CD first went into mass production and some cassettes are still being produced for sale...although it is nearly gone. Car manufacturers are still putting am/fm cassette stereos in cars and most boom boxes still have cassette players in them because that type of media still exists.

I kind of think of HD radio as "BETA" and FM as "VHS". BETA was really cool and the hip thing to have in it's time but you needed a special player for it, tape rentals were very limited, and it just kind of went away. What target is HD radio gearing up for? The older 25+ market will probably be very stand-offish about it with most probably either happy with their FM radio choice or have gone the Satellite way. My GMC came stock with XM satellite but I have not yet gone that way. Why would I want to pay for limited programming in the form of an HD receiver instead of just activating the technology already available to me which has 100 times the programs available?

All I am saying is that those who beleive FM radio is doomed are way wrong....history tells us so. Unless corporate radio just flat pulls the plug nationwide it will be around for my grandkids and I truly hope the live DJ will be there as well. The two go together like Rum & Coke, Whiskey & Seven, Gin and Tonic, Vodka and Orange Juice, man that kind of sounds like a DJ's daily diet! Not any stress in that line of work!

My $2.00

It's a lovely thought -- but the numbers argue against you.

VHS? In 2006 80% of American homes had a DVD. True, many still have an old VHS player, and may even use it to record or time shift shows. As soon as the DVR gains as much traction as other new media have, VHS will disappear.

Cassettes? Only 7% of new cars now include a cassette player, and almost every music manufacturer has ceased producing cassettes. It's dead.

Free TV? 90% of the households in America have some form of pay TV (cable or Sat.) And the primary reasons households have no cable are economic or lifestyle (no TV at all).

Opinion:
I personally don't think HD will ever gain traction. It'll be a media footnote 10 years from now. Satellite and probably internet radio will capture the "audio quality" audience, while the majority of radio listeners will be content with the audio quality of over-the-air, just like they're happy with the coffee quality of their $30 drip machine.

But I think over-the-air radio will see more and more non-local offerings/national formats. The Clear Channel/B.A. Smooth Jazz network could be the model of things to come.

Live and local will, within 10 years I think, be reduced to either the newscasts only, or news plus one shift -- mornings on adult stations, evenings on youth stations.

I don't think anyone believes FM radio is doomed. Just FM as we knew it 10 years ago. It is evolving into a series of re-transmitters of national or regional programming.

I don't like it, but saying it's not going to happen won't change a thing.

I think it sad but true that the DJ is on the downhill slope and the lift back up appears to be broken. Once they hit bottom it may be over...unless the private sector can give it a run after corporate radio bails out on it.

By 2015, FM radio will be a thing of the past. And if it isn't, the profession of Disc Jockey will be. Why pay somone $30,000 a year to push some buttons and pretend people care about what said 'someone' has to say, when they can get a computer to do it for a fraction of that withOUT the annoying voice?

Its all about $$$, and when it comes right down to it, paying a DJ will be a waste of money. Eventually, Clear Channel, CBS, and the rest will figure that out, and when they do, I feel sorry for anyone trying to make a living in radio.

Will I be able to hear my favorite internet station in my car someday? Until that happens we will have FM. I think AM is whats on its way out.

The following are just speculations about the changes that we will see in the next 10-15 years; I don't have any research data to back this up.

1) There will be less current-based musical programming aimed at younger audiences (i.e. CHR) because this segment of the audience will increasingly turn to the Internet and digital audio players. I think that it will get harder and harder to lure these young people to FM and satellite radio in the same way that it became increasingly difficult to run successful CHR stations on AM in the early 1980s after FM stereo started appearing in affordable, portable platforms (namely Walkmans and Boom Boxes).

2) Musical formats on terrestrial radio will be almost entirely "gold" based because of the industry perception that people want to hear "familiar background noise."

3) Oldies formats aimed at the Gen-X crowd will be tried and tweaked again and again because this will be a major consumer group. Eventually, these formats will become successful like the Baby-Boomers' oldies format was in the past decade.

4) The big radio chains will focus more on building national "brand consciousness" for their format offerings. Ironically, the most recognizable radio brand name to the general public today is NPR.

5) The AM an FM broadcast bands will still be around. We might see AM heavily engulfed by religious broadcasters, and we might even see a heavy encroachment on FM by religious broadcasters, as well.

I bet in 10-15 years we'll have so damn many hot spots in urban areas that standardized internet tuners will simply pickup an internet radio feed from an ever-changing hot spot source. It could be as seamless as your cell phone switching from one tower to another while drivng on a highway; a seamless transition.

FM on it's way out? I doubt it. I think the problem with HD radio is that it's an expensive solution to a problem that listeners perceive to be non-existant. Almost everyone thinks FM sounds great! Even if HD does have 1/3 more frequency response, listeners would punch up the midrange and puch the "loud" button on their tuners anyway, making the sound punchy and resonant, the way most FM stations are already proccessed!

(sorry for any spelling errors -- no spell check on this work PC, and I'm a poor speller)

I think you've all hit the nail on the head, I still however believe both AM and FM will be around but there will be to many more choices with much better quality. Only the ones who cannot afford the technology will stick with ol AM/FM radio

In the interest of brevity, I didn't go into quality vs. choice issues in my previous post. I think that the factor that will drive listener migration in the next 10-15 years will overwhelmingly be about choice and how the listener uses the medium. Quality will not be a factor. This transition will be different than the AM-to-FM migration of the late 1970s/early 1980s, in which both quality and content were factors.

The young people will continue to embrace *non-broadcast* digital audio players because these devices let the user listen to what he wants at any time. The convenience of these devices wins hands down for these people because they don't have fond memories of DJs, jingles, locally-flavored stations from other cities on the nighttime AM band, etc. that us older folks have.

I think that in apsects other than signal-to-noise ratio, the digital media will actually be poorer than FM. The reason for this is that the lossy perceptual codecs that make these digital technologies viable (like mp3, AAC, WMA, etc) will continue to be leveraged to produce the highest number of choices (data streams) while keeping the quality at a level that most consumers will accept.

AM has been on its way out since 1961(Some may say 1936). Don't these codecs just keep getting better? At some point, technology will be such that running many streams may not negatively affect the audio performance.

Pop quiz: Which one of these is true?

A: IPOD's & Computer downloads killed FM radio.
B: Video killed the radio star.
C: FM radio killed AM radio.
D: Cable TV killed network TV.
E: TV killed radio and movies.
F: Movies killed theatrical productions

Answer: None of the above, although all have been introduced as reality at some point in our history.

OK, perhaps an oversimplification, but the point is things are not always as they seem. Trends occur, but I truely believe many of us are over-reacting to the changes (some real, some perceived), that are occuring to our current media. It doesn't mean we shouldn't react and try to find ways to make our products better, but the sky is not falling. Yes, formats and delivery systems change, but that has been a constant since the days of Marconi. Most traditional media are doing fine. (Newspapers may be the only media in trouble, but if they market their internet brands correctly, they too will survive.

I am really tiring about hearing about the "death" of radio. It isn't about voice-tracking, and it isn't about bringing back the good 'ole days. It is about connecting and relating to listeners. Within this forum of many nay-sayers, is there anyone who can see the big picture? And is there anyone who realizes this picture is not as bleak as many make it out to be?

Without coming up the ranks, how is anyone going to become good enough that anyone will want to listen to them?

movies (and later, radio) did kill vaudeville acts though.

personally, I've a hunch live dj radio may rise again down the road when somebody somewhere decides to try something "new".

You may be right there....But there is no way in heck I will ever put on a "POLYESTER LEISURE SUIT"! LOL

Paul: None of these technologies disappeared, but each was changed so dramatically by the succeeding technology, that they were crippled terribly, and changed almost beyond recognition.

F: Movies killed theatrical productions

Broadway has about 1/3 the number of houses they had 50 years ago, and local theatre attendance of anything but the biggest Broadway touring show (i.e. Phantom)has dropped significantly. Theatre used to be a mass media. Now it is a very small niche.

Movies allowed everyone to see the great plays with major stars (i.e. Streetcar Named Desire) and great stories (i.e. Gone With the Wind, The Ten Commandments) in ways that theatre never could.

E: TV killed radio and movies

Movies suffered a dramatic drop off as TV got better, cheaper, and with more choices. Hollywood had to totally redefine its focus toward teens, with big special effects, blood, violence and sequels. If you look at the movie section from the 40's/50's/60's - virtually every movie was aimed at adults. If you look today, most are aimed at the under 25s.


D: Cable TV killed network TV

Network television has lost such a huge share of its audience to cable, that producing 7 nights a week, 3 hours a night of TV dramas and comedies have been reduced to cheap reality shows, game shows and cheap pseudo-news. Drama/comedies are allowed only a few weeks to succeed or die. The networks are a shell of their former selves.

C: FM radio killed AM radio

FM killed AM music radio. And with news and talk migrating to the FM band, along with choices like iPod, Sirius/XM, internet radio. As recently as the late 70s, AM represented 70-80% of the total listening in a market. Today, it's rare that it exceeds 20% - despite a wealth of signals available.

B: Video killed the radio star

MTV changed the face of music, and thus the face of radio forever. It became a powerful force in the introduction and establishment of new music and new stars. It introduced national VJs, and set the stage for much greater acceptance of national DJs. And it replaced FM radio as the music-entertainment focal point for youth. Video moved the center of gravity from local radio to national TV.

A: IPOD's & Computer downloads killed FM radio.

Two words. Satchel Paige. FM radio is dying because of the absolute revolution in individually controlled media choices. This is the most dramatic revolution of all those listed above. The tipping point.

We now choose what we listen to and watch, and when. And we can eliminate any advertiser message that does not totally grab our interest. If there is to be any salvation for FM radio as we all knew it, it will have to come from our ability to create totally compelling advertising, far more than totally compelling programming. With so many entertainment choices from so many sources, live, local radio is probably a thing of the past.

I bought my first MP3 player 4 months ago, and the experience has been lifestyle altering. I doubt I will ever listen to music radio again. (And I still have dialup so I can't download tunes yet. Still working off CDs)

Bottom line, contrary to Alfredo's post, is that every successive new medium has dramatically changed the media that came before. And every "older" media has found employment shrinking, redefined, and not at all like it was in the "good old days." Each of the traditional media that Alfredo reports as "doing fine" had to completely re-invent itself, usually smaller, and at the cost of certain types of careers.

There seems to be a lot a resistance here (and elsewhere) to the reality that radio is, and has always been, a commercial-message delivery system. And for radio to survive into the future, it must find a way to deliver commercial content that is so compelling that the listener will not tune out, switch stations, or decide that paid but commercial free options are the better choice.

Broadcast companies are slashing programming payrolls because the advertisers are slashing what they're willing to pay. The advertisers know all too well how viewers/listeners/readers respond to ads, and they are finding newer and better ways of reaching them. Targeted, search-driven internet ads; product placement in TV and movies, P2P marketing, integrated events.

Radio programming needs to stop spending its time arguing live-vs-tracked, and spend more time asking the sales department how programming can provide the clients with the environment and results they need.

(Oh, and start saving 20% of every paycheck to help you through the hard rain that's gonna fall.)

Terry,

What a great post and summary of a future that's sure to come, like it or not. Radio is not, and will not ever be again, the industry we fell in love with "back when."

Some will survive the continuing changes. The rest of us will have to find new (and odds are, better paying) careers.

Coupla comments:

F: Broadway is doing very well now and is seeing some renewed interest beyond the usual suspects. Live shows are never gonna be the focus again, but they have more than proven their longer term value.

The only production teams remaining are those that know how to do it right. Attendees of their shows remember the experience in a way that few movies can cause to happen.

There is a lesson in this for radio, IMHO. I agree the focus will shift, I agree the industry as a whole will get smaller, etc... All true.

As time passes, we may find we don't need so many signals. As a media delivery system, radio mostly sucks. As a venue it's got a lot of punch left.

Fewer signals, of higher quality (and I don't mean overall sonic impact), will continue to be viable for a long time in the same way that Broadway productions that are of higher quality continue to be viable.

The one thing radio has in it's favor is the ubiquity of the radio itself! No matter what anyone says, there are a lotta radios. They are easy to use, cost only power to operate, and are dirt cheap.

A: I went through the whole downloadable music bit. Started way back, old school getting tracks from usenet, e-mailing them back and forth, napster, etc...

As a side note, not settling with Napster early on will go down as one of the biggest mistakes the recording industry ever made. We have a bazillion alternatives today because of that. --another day.

When I want to listen to some known good music, I don't turn to the radio. I grab some of the portable music I have and listen to it.

When I want to be entertained, I turn to the radio. The best the iPod can offer is to act like a buffer or queue of sorts for that entertainment, but it's not spontanious (however you spell it) or if it is, kind of troublesome.

This could be fixed, but it's not fixed today.

The Internet works the same way. If I want to consume some known good content, I'll get a book. If I want to be entertained, I go for the Internet. This is exactly why authors have no worries about e-book issues right now, BTW.

I tune KNRK because I want to know what Tara's new music pick is, or to hear who Gustav has in the studio, or to hear the latest Mix at 6 DJ spin from somebody here in town, or for that new group that's worthy of some notice.

These are all things that iPods don't do well. When comebined with the Internet, they can do these things and I've done them, but it's a lot of hassle to do right. By contrast, Radio is dead simple and can deliver a hell of a lot of value.

Everyone speaks as if the up and coming tech has already won. It hasn't! Everybody speaks as if nobody cares about the radio. My 14 year old daughter listens to the country station because she likes the funny people in the morning and they play music she does not hear other places.

That's a young person looking for the exact same things, I and many others here, continue to just hammer on month after month. Those of us, who are innies know from experience. Those of us outties know what we like and guess what?

There is signficant agreement on all sides, but for the mega owners looking to streamline and monitize the whole thing to the point where it's simply a dead cash tube...

Like any tube, this will turn out to be a pipe dream.

Why?

Entertainment --that which we call "cool" or "Hip", only comes from people. We can all appreciate the work of another mind trying to entertain us. Computers don't do this, strict controls don't do this. People do this, and only people do this.

In the end, I don't care what tech you line up to knock down people, it will never happen. Digital delivery, wireless whatever, it's all means to the same end and that end is connecting people to one another in ways that entertain them.

Period, done, end of story.

Tdanner respectfully, you are enamoured with your iPod as everyone else is at first. You will reach the point where you are looking for something more because everyone does.

When you begin to look, you will consult your peers. Might be MTV, might be a blog, could easily be a radio station not afraid to actually present entertainment instead of deliver content, might just be your better friends or somebody at work.

You will be looking to people for that something more in all but a small number of cases.

There is no technology today capable of bringing you people on the go that competes with radio on a cost, quality and choice basis.

The problem is not the tech, it's the ones managing the tech. They are getting in the way of the people trying to entertain.

What's still the number one use of the Internet with all it's power?

Communication. Hard core text. Despite it's blandness compared to games, video and sound, plain old text is what brings people to the net. Why? Because it's the most unfettered and inexpensive way to communicate and be entertained.

Look at video games. Why do you think so many gamers are online now? Because they can interact with one another --not just the machine.

People matter, tech doesn't.

When those that matter in radio get that, radio is gonna start doing really well again. If they don't it won't.


The brutal truth is this: Corporate infrastructure costs a lot to maintain. There is a reason why nearly all the stations have been watered down to their nubs. Too many mouths to feed. This is what consolidation has brought us --high overhead that is essentially theft from the public interest in that the public is quickly becoming not very interested in what's left.

Terry, everything you say is true. And that was one of the points of my post. CHANGE! We can continue to expect it, no question. My point was that none of the earlier media technologies have been "killed"...I guess it depends on your definition of "killed". They have changed, but they continue to live.

Network TV and movies continue to generate quite a bit of "watercooler talk", despite their shrinking piece of the pie. Perhaps it is just the pie is getting larger!

Semoochie, they could always just start producing programming. One new media venture, that's right in line with this, is TalkShoe.

Essentially, it's a venue for Internet talk programming. People can organize shows, have people call in, record the whole thing for downloading later, etc...

I've done a coupla these with a friend on the East coast. He's into peak oil issues and wanted to start doing some advocacy. Started with a blog, then began doing e-mails and talking to people. When TalkShoe hit the scene, he jumped in and started doing shows.

I've been a guest on a few of these and it's an interesting experience very comparable to an ordinary radio talk program. Having the Internet be involved makes for some new bells and whistles, like threaded chat, organized by comment, viewable by anyone participating running a browser and the host(s).

It ties the calls together in a way that's pretty cool.

Over the next year, his show will be bringing in some revenue to boot!

It won't be long before there are similar options for other kinds of programming --and new kinds of programming.

Hey Terry--
I agree with your analysis. However, I wasn't the one who used the phrase "doing fine" in relation to traditional media; it was PaulWalker.

Apologies, Alf. While proofreading, I caught my first reference and changed it to Paul. Missed the second one. Both posts had lists, and I just got confused. Happens at my age.

I'm saddened that my quotes are being denied by others!

This is a fascinating topic, probably because nobody can really predict what will happen in our media world 10-20 years out. It's all educated guesses, and I appreciate the intelligent thinking that has been presented here.

I just happen to feel that many of the traditional media will continue to survive (perhaps, not flourish), in the next generation.
Just an educated guess...I have no crystal ball. Tonight, I'm watching a game show on NBC, and tomorrow morning I will listen to my local news station to tell me about the weather. Am I alone?

Nope...I watch free TV more than Dish...Main reason I have basic Dish is for Sci-fi.....can't get enough of it.....Battlestar Galactica and Stargate are my favorite shows. Watch the News..CSI..Deal or no Deal..Bones..JAG..all on free TV. You may as well get a magic 8 ball and use it to tell the future with....would probably just as accurate....only time will tell and hopefully the strong and the good stations will survive with real DJ's going forward.

Oh magic eight ball......will I be able to retire early....

Outlook not Hopeful!

J4S, can I call you that? Thanks for introducing the topic...it's an important one and is certainly open for interpretation. Please ask your eight ball about my retirement.
However, now that I think about it, I think I would actually enjoy your answer better! (That's radio, and that's why a lot of us are in it!, and is the real "magic" of radio!)

This is an interesting topic and in my 53 years of life on this planet and knowing and remembering at least 45 years to current I have to say that there has been many changes. Yes Vaudville is gone, Broadway shows are fewer but better, FM replaced AM as "THE" music band, Color TV replaced B&W, The Beatles replaced Do Wop...yada yada yada...

Change is inevitable, however because of the human element behind any business it either changes or it dies. I don't have a magic crystal ball either, but I do believe that we will see radio continue, not as we know it today, because as some of us old enough to know, it's not the same today as it was when I started listening in the late 1950's.
Jocks and their delivery were different when you compare 1960 to 1980 to 1990, etc. Formats change and evolve. Yes there are fewer of them but I think that over time we may see that reversed. WHY? Because I believe in people and their abilities and I don't think that we'll see it go away, unless the government and the FCC allows it to. Radio I believe will always be a wonderful entertainment medium thanks to people who love it. I for one still love this business and even though I am on the sales side of things, I still get to produce commercials and do an occasional air shift which I absolutely love.

The automobile didn't cause the horse to become extinct...and I don't think that we'll see a complete removal of radio as we know it....changed yes, gone no!

Magic 8 seems to be on a roll tonight!!!



Oh magic eight ball...

What are the powerball numbers for this weekend?

Don't bet on It!


Ahhh hell....



JOAMON....acronym for Jack Of All Master Of None 4 SURE

Since MTV was brought up, I think that this was an important advent for pop music because it actually changed the nature of the pop music world. MTV helped to turn pop music into a visual experience, and thus more and more emphasis has been placed on the appearance of pop musicians and the visuals in the music videos since MTV became successful. I was in for a real shock when I saw a commercial on iTV for a 1970s hits compilation. Many of the performers (Rick James and Rupert Holmes come to mind) would probably never had made it anywhere if they had started their musical careers after 1985 or so.

Looking at the big picture, I think that the one thing that is certain is that as it becomes technically feasible to have more and more programming options due to better codects, fiber optics, etc., the big media conglomerates will do what they can to get into all of those new places. The downside to this is that the quality of the program offerings there is going to steadily decline as the number of choices increases. This will happen for two primary reasons:

1) Media companies will be spreading themselves thin trying to create all of the programming for these channels. These companies will therefore emphasize programming that is relatively quick and cheap to produce (reality shows, quiz shows, shows with security camera & accident footage) over programming that is cost and research intesive (documentaries, in-depth news reporting, made for TV movies). In other words, the pie won't get much bigger; the slices will just get much smaller.

2) Because of the large number of choices, the media companies will make the assumption that the audience is fickle and generally not likely to sit through more than a few minutes of any given program. The programming will therefore be "dumbed down" so that it can be experienced in bite-sized chunks (for instance, why do we now have sitcoms where the action routinely is stopped so tha the main character can do a monologue to the audience?)

Video killed the radio star...for about seven years. How many music videos are aired today?
Not many, atleast on mainstream TV. This seems to be one of those sea-change events that really didn't cause much of a ripple in the tide. Fortunately, in my humble opinion, it's back to being about the sound, not the look.

There's a reason for the lack of music videos. MTV bought the rights to the videos from all of the major record companies. At some point, anyone can play them but I think it's something like 2 years from the date of release. At least, that the way it used to be. I don't know if all of this has been renewed or not. Early on, it looked like there would be an underperforming UHF in every market programming music videos as its sole format but MTV had other ideas.

Back in the early 1990s, "The Juke Box Channel" was on LPTVs in many markets. This was an automated music video channel where viewers could call a 900 number to request videos. Between the videos, lists of the ordering codes for the different available videos would run. If somebody called up to order something, the codes would show up at the bottom of the screen as they were being punched in over the phone.

RE "C: FM radio killed AM radio. "

How about Radio Manufacturers killed AM receiver audio quality and performance.

-------------------

I was thinking of parallels between evolution of Radio compared with Movie Theatres. There used be big downtown first class movie theatres, and many neighborhood theatres under local ownership. They mostly attracted wide range of audience. Now there are almost none of those but instead clusters of bigbox type places that have 8 or 12 screens and are operated on the cheap, and mostly cater to 15-25s. Similar situation with local radio?

> How about Radio Manufacturers killed AM receiver
> audio quality and performance.

Yep. And the ghost of Edward R. Murrow might add that cheaply produced talk show programming, as opposed to serious news reporting, has either killed or seriously marginalized the reputation of AM radio.

Camels killed Edward R. Murrow. (sorry; I couldn't resist.)

You are right about the theater analogy. The few times that I've been to the Clinton Street Theater, it has felt really weird not to have to tell the ticket sales person what movie you are buying tickets for (because there is only one screen). It is a bit mind boggling to me to think that for a good part of the 20th century, most people watched their movies in single-screen theaters like that (having grown up with the big-box theater complex places).

Life changes, and it changes at a fast rate.
And its impossible to predicte changes for the future.

For Fm radio to survive, it will have to adapt, those that dont adapt, die.

One of my grandfathers (at 16) fought in the last year of the civil war (war of northern agression), my kids could use a computer, before they could read.

I can already listen to internet radio, in my car, or on max.

NOTE: there is at least one woman today, drawing a confederate spouses pension.

Joamon said: "Oh magic eight ball......will I be able to retire early.... Outlook not Hopeful!"

Good news: Radio people all get to retire. Bad news: 20 years sooner than you wanted, and with no warning.

AM radio was killed by the FCC, which decided that thousands of interfering signals would be a good idea.

Good writing and production for spots is FM radio's only hope. It's already happening on TV. Many NFL games now are not as compelling as the humor in their spots.

"NOTE: there is at least one woman today, drawing a confederate spouses pension"

Would that be Anna Nicole Smith?

Bravo, notalent, bravo!!!!

the glass is half full... but leaking.

...pretend people care about what said 'someone' has to say, when they can get a computer to do it for a fraction of that withOUT the annoying voice?

they do, but you have to remind them, radio isn't doing a good job reminding them....

And vaudeville moved to the Ed Sullivan Show... but as was said FREE TV cut their costs, offers junk and their audience looks elsewhere.....

That's what excess cost cutting does, cheapens the product...Free TV, Newspapers, Radio.... all going the same route..... a few more cuts and they will cut themselves right out of relevancy....



(One of my grandfathers (at 16) fought in the last year of the civil war (war of northern agression), there is at least one woman today, drawing a confederate spouses pension.

NOT LIKELY, but possible! Grandpa born in 1849
Married at 90 to a 20 year old making her born in 1919 of which "GRANNY" would be 87...... Sure you don't mean Great Grandpa? Cradle robber!

BTW THIS IS A DURN GOOD THREAD!

nope I mean my grandpa, he was born in 1850, served last year of civil war, married my grandma in 1910, when she was 20.

He was a fairly wealthy man, owned a lot of land in Ala and New York city, unfortunatly when he died, somehow my grandma, (who couldnt read or write, lost it all in the depression).

Had 3 kids, with her. he served in both the Civil war on the CSA side , and spanish american war weating a yankee uniform, never got past private though.

> That's what excess cost cutting does, cheapens
> the product...Free TV, Newspapers, Radio....
> all going the same route..... a few more cuts
> and they will cut themselves right out of
> relevancy....

A related question, which probably belongs on a separate thread, is: is it possible that the idea of advertiser-sponsored media becomes unviable when there are a very large number of media outlets? It seems that over the last 25 years, we have been transitioning to a media climate where people have come to accept the idea of paying for niche programmed television (and now radio) and where a growing number enthusiastically hand over money to support public broadcasting. Could a similar phenomenon happen next on the Internet (more web sites that require a paying subscription)? Who studies these trends?

On the Internet, the big issue is how to handle micropayments.

Subscription only doesn't really work, unless you've a strong niche audience. Specific trades do this, but there is a lot of pressure from free, or ad driven, alternatives keeping the growth way down.

Salon tried this and just got hammered. They modified their site policy as to keep the small percentage of readers willing to pay a subscription paying, but allow casual readers the chance to read too after looking at an ad.

The biggie about the net, that makes subscriptions difficult, is the inability for others to link your content and thus drive traffic your way.

The other rough element is that once a popular site closes to subscription, others evolve to fill the niche, thus checking the longer term growth of the site as a whole.

IMHO, this is a huge part of why the majors want to eliminate net neutrality. If we cannot act as peers on the net, subscription revenue will become quickly viable, while sharply cutting back on a lot of expression that would otherwise compete.

Lots of people think a micro payment system would be a nice middle ground, but it's currently too complex to catch hold. I'm in this camp because it would reward all publishers and help improve the signal to noise ratio without harming expression, linking and sharing of content that is vital to maintaining the lions share of the value inherent to the net as we know it today.

I too would be very interested in some of this information compiled more scientifically.

re: micropayments

I thought there was a system that was being developed to actually charge consumers only on every 10th request for info from partipicating websites -- the idea was to make it more practical to do a microtransaction -- the consumer would at that time be charged for the previous 9 requests as well . . .

Ever hear about this?

No I didn't, but it seems like a big old flop. Nobody wants to pay for the other guy --even if in concept it's just a delayed payment for yourself.

Another biggie holding the payment systems back is the all you can eat nature of the net. People like this. They pay their bill and use the net, period.

Payment systems of any kind also threaten the peer to peer element of the net as well. I'm not talking file sharing, but actually providing services and content from your point of connection.

I do this --many people I know do this. It's what a real internet connection is all about. I've a funny feeling that pay per view systems would end up competing with distributed services...

Would not take long for a few geeks to develop a distributed traffic load sharing system that cached content on home machines, willing to participate, thus providing enough to be on par with pay services.

Bloggers and other passion driven content providers would jump on this in a minute.

Getting back to Alfredo's question, ever notice how TV is really all you can eat, but in tiers, with the occasional subscription channel?

People do best with this because their choice is not inhibited. IMHO, this is why we probably won't see the Stern channel anytime soon.

Gramma is still alive at 106?!?!?!? My congrats to her on her longivity!

She got some interesting "I Remember When" stories....???

Grandma would not be 106 but rather 116! I can however see someone who was 80 marrying a 20 year old 20 years later. That would make her only 96 so it certainly is possible. At that time, there were still a fair amount of 12 year olds getting married so grandpa might only be 72.

there ARE still a fair amount of 12 year olds getting married .... In Utah/Arizona border area