CRA chairman Cathy O’Connor: Internet radio poses no threat

Cathy O’Connor: Futurist and technologist extraordinaire.

net radio will take over broadcast if they keep up their race to the bottom programming wise.

the technology is irrelevant. no point being able to simultaneously broadcast to millions of people if these millions of people have switched off.

Portable music players have already won.

I dont think internet radio is cathy occonors biggest problem. instead its that the best idea her company can come up with to be successful is to mirror 2day fm and clone their pop sound.

Let’s be clear the reason why the radio industry focuses on internet radio is because that’s the best way to try to get a good news story.

Intuitively, everyone feels that radio must be impacted by new technology, especially by the ubiquity of music.

And they are right. But internet radio is not the big issue.

New technology (in all its forms) has lead to a drop over the past 7 or so years in TSL (Time Spent Listening) to free to air radio in the younger demographics. In some cities it has fallen by by up to 5% a year which is also about the same as the USA and unsurprisingly, where broadband penetration is lowest, so too is the fall and vice versa.

Cumculatively, this decline in the amount of time young people spend listening to radio is having a big impact on the ability of radio station that are aimed at youth audiences to achieve radio ratings in the double digits (as they once did) and why talk stations are finding it easier to achieve higher ratings (the TSL in the older demographics has not been impacted in the same way and so the share of listening skewed older has risen).

It doesn’t take much to figure out why – iPods, internet radio & music streaming in all it’s forms, is reducing the amount of time young people spend listening to free to air radio.

People switching from free-to-air radio to internet radio is not the big worry for music stations, people don’t need to listen to a ‘radio station’ at all any more to get music that suits their tastes. Music is everywhere and increasingly it is in the palm of our hand via a mobile device that rarely has a radio receiver in it and for the most mobile of traditional media, radio, that’s a challenge.

The good news for free to air radio is that youth still listen to free to air radio (ie cum is good), and it remains part of their lives, so it’s matter of finding ways of making the content more compelling so they listen for longer, as they once did in the good old days before broadband & Steve Jobs.

Wow this statement is so delusional – Spotify and Pandora’s audience is so much larger than terrestrial audience it is not funny – http://i.bnet.com/video/itunes....._sd_DL.m4v

The broad demographic pitch of radio is in itself the problem – e.g. why would I listen to broadcast feed that tries to please everyone when I can listen to a pure genre feed which pleases me

This is a hide your head in the sand approach

Only a quantum leap will save radio

Cathy is deluded. The iPod killed off music radio listening years ago. People listen to what they want to hear, not what radio wants to shovel down their throats.

someone also said that the beatles wuld never catch on!

Suggest Cath looks into Sonos or other such products and maybe even dabbles in a bit of podcast downloading from the inexhaustable supply of good things around the globe! Even the ABC seem to understand that!

Would seem the debate is over before it starts. The ambulance is at the door.

And no one will ever buy a book on the web because bookshops are magic, newspapers are tactile and can’t be replaced by a computer, TV will never be impacted etc etc.

A lot of you guys are seriously missing the point, and show a big lack of knowledge for media people
People listen to radio for much more than music-even music radio- its companionship, information, news, interviews, humour, etc etc…music is the filler really…which is the main reason music jukeboxes/internet streaming of music formats etc doesnt impact
The bigger impact on radio listening is time spent doing a million other things (including technology- but not just it- busy lives in general)- not ipods or music choices

Only community radio and ABC offers anything of value. Commercial radio is like some massive succubus that despises originality, innovation, spontaneity and intelligent thought. Mmm, makes it about as relevant as commercial TV and newspapers then.

Captain of Titanic: ‘Icebergs pose no threat’.

Is she related to him, or is the similarity purely coincidental?

Groucho has it in a nutshell. Has this lady been asleep for the last 20 years? Or do they have an arrangement to ensure that bandwith speeds will (from NOW!) never again increase? She is trippin.

Commercial Radio with a legacy commercial model is sound… unless the internet gets faster or our economy shudders from unforeseen events? Looking at the data, those qualifiers both seem equally unlikely, so you’re probably fine. Right?

I am 66 and I listen almost exclusively to downloaded content when walking the dog every day. Old early adopter. That means others will adopt too. I am afraid the meter is on Cathy.

radio i think can survive if it appeals to certain groups

55+ is one – talkback/companion radio. this won’t change

MOR music stuff for people who just want background noise – WSFM/Mix etc – they will probably continue to service this audience reasonably well. Believe it or not, a lot of people don’t want infinite choice (like a Sirius XM) … they want a couple of reliable choices.

Radio may struggle to retain relevance for people under 35 … but this may be okay considering how the pop. is ageing. And most discretionary income in this country isn’t in the hands of people under 35 so radio could adapt here.

big change is the programming requirement has moved a lot. all channels are struggling to find on air talent that really connects, lots of formatting changes, very reactionary to the US radio market in terms of music played … so the whole thing seems a lot harder than it was 10 years ago.

“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers,”

Boss of IBM, 1943

“The fact is there is not, and is unlikely to be in our lifetimes, enough bandwidth for reliable, robust, good quality services that can do what broadcast can do.”

Boss of DMG, 2011

Only time I listen to the radio is in the car. As soon as that has internet access that will be tuned into Grooveshark as well.

Technically the internet cannot replace broadcast radio and unless there is a magical and quite unlikely increase in scarce spectrum it will not be able to – that is a widely acknowledged fact by those who understand technology. Radio is not anti-internet, in fact, as I think Cathy is also on record as saying, it is a great partner for radio and radio stations use it extensively and intelligently, as they do apps, as another way of getting content to listeners wherever they are. Just to restate the obvious – there is no way Internet can replace radio and it hasn’t in the last 20 years nor have any of the music services in any part of the world replaced radio. Young people are still listening to radio – and mainly commercial radio. In fact, where digital radio is available in Australia, an emerging trend is that young people are also listening to radio for longer. Disappointing for the cynics and naysayers but the facts actually don’t support the misperceptions and negative views of some comments.

@Joan – Spectrum isn’t relevant – you’re confusing digital radio with the internet. Improved compression algorithms, the NBN or equivalent, 3G and increased coverage, and unlimited broadband plans have already made the bandwidth issue all but redundant.

Also worth reading @Delusionals report statistics… if you want to review the “facts” don’t be selective. Be open minded. The dramatic increase in population hasn’t lead to a similar increase in commercial radio – so in real terms – the listening audience has fallen.

Nobody is suggesting that radio is anti-internet, they’re suggesting that the chairman of the CRA has her head in the sand. A statement like that suggests she’s not fit to lead CRA into the information age – either adapt or perish. Seems like we’re choosing “perish”.

@Anonymous (18) – hilarious.

Not surprising really, analogue radio reception is bloody awful in Australia

History is strewn with bold predictions of what will & won’t happen in our future. If we all had 20:20 foresight the world would be a very different place. A leader in any field has a number of choices to make 1) a bold, perhaps controversial statement that will polarize subsequent commentary but which leaves no doubt as to that leaders point of view & direction; 2) a neutral, sitting on that comfortable fence kind of statement that leaves people confused or thinking that the leader lacks conviction / is weak; or 3) surrenders.
Cathy O’Connor is a highly respected leader in her field who has achieved something that this industry laments doesn’t happen enough – a woman, a mother, a wife reaching the upper echelons of a male dominated industry.
She is a leader brave enough to have a point of view that she is willing to share & defend. Only history will tell whether she is right or wrong.

Putting aside the whole internet vs broadcasting debate….As paddy refers to her, this ‘highly respected’ leader has just presided over DMG receiving 2 metropolitan ACRA’s compared to Austereo’s 15 in metropolitan.

Not to mention the wonderfully forward thinking move of changing novas playlist to be the same as 2day fm.

She may have reached the upper echelons but she’s got a bit to learn yet.

The Peter’s have it.

So Rabs, losing 15-2 to Austereo (where incidentally Cathy enjoyed a long & successful tenure) at this year’s ACRAs means that someone should lose all respect?
Reaching the upper echelons also doesn’t mean you’re perfect. Most leaders would freely admit that they never stop learning, that they make mistakes sometimes, and that sometimes outcomes are down to simple good/bad luck on the day.
It would be good to know your real name too so we could have a respectful discussion on the subject.

Amused,
Bandwidth is relevant.

Firstly DAB+ is using AAC+ V2 which is the most efficient compression system for sound which includes music.

Secondly both digital radio and Wifi use the RF spectrum. They both use transmitters, however radio uses high powered large area coverage where as WiFi uses multiple low powered transmitters. Radio transmission is cheaper and is more even than using mobile phone towers. Infrastructure companies who install and maintain TV, radio and mobile phone transmitters say broadcast is much cheaper than using the phone system.

Thirdly internet is a one to one two way communcation, so a server in a major city has to be able to communicate with millions of simultaneous data streams. This will overload the fibre optics between the radio station servers to the ISPs and then either reticulated through the streets to the users or through the mobile phone network to the mobile users.

Why listen to live radio except for sports and participatory talkback?

Everything else can be recorded anywhere, canned, uploaded and played on demand.

It’s not about analogue vs digital vs online radio, it’s about live vs recorded.

Once cars integrate wifi properly live radio will drop precipitously.

DAB+ listening figures are survey results for listening “via a DAB+ digital radio device”. They are include all listening on DAB+ devices—including FM (and Internet)! The survey category “via Internet” is intended to be listening on computers. Both are listening to live only—not including on-demand, podcasts, or personal tracklists. Both preference subscribers, and under-record non-subscribers. Neither is intended to include mobile devices—mobile network, Wi-Fi, or FM.

Decreasing DAB+ device listening to only DAB+ listening, and increasing Internet listening for all devices, including receivers and mobile, and for on-demand, podcasts, and personal tracklists makes DAB+ and Internet much more equal. And, Internet—adding location and time shift to all broadcast—is growing more broadly and more rapidly with the proliferation of Internet access, devices, and use.

dpomic,
You cannot have it both ways “Via a Dab+ digital radio device includes FM and internet to be repeated in the survey category “viat the internet.”

A DAB+ device is sold with the DAB+ symbol, which is not true for mobile phones. There is currently very few mobile phones with DAB+ receivers. So these are not marked as DAB+ receivers, they may contain an FM receiver and the user will use the radio app because it uses their data allocation.

DAB+ radios do contain FM tuners but most people will not buy one of these radios to receive FM because of their cost.

Nokia already make a smartphone which contains a DAB+ receiver which does not require the user to use some of their data allocation to listen to the radio. In addition tagging of recorded sections of DAB+ radio programs can be sent via the phone’s internet to purchase the music. To my knowledge the following application is not being used in Australia yet.

Multimedia Object Transfer (MOT) Broadcast Website (BWS)
The BWS application allows for the transmission of a series of HTML files (along with corresponding graphic images) to receivers that have a built in web browser. This allows the user to search the downloaded files. If a receiver has a built in back-channel (for example, a GPRS enabled mobile phone with a DAB+ radio), it could access links that would take it to the outside world. If there are a lot of requests for files then delays will result due to the restricted download capacity.

In addition each user particularly in mobile reception is using around 64 kb/s. So fi a million listeners are using WiFi at the same time, the load is 64 Gb/s and this is without the load on the mobile phone system of phone calls and data traffic. Loads like this are so huge,that data transmission is very slow leaving silent gaps and very slow computer downloads. Telecom companies will not like this.

AlanH

AlanH,

It is misleading and deceptive not to always clarify that reported “DAB+ Listening” is industry survey response for all listening on DAB+ devices—including FM listening (and Internet listening) on those devices.

FM offers a much greater number of stations locally (and Internet allows location and time shifting for local, national, and global stations and shows). DAB+ device purchasers and gift receivers have FM favorites—many of which are not yet, and some will never be, DAB+—which they intend to continue. DAB+ reception difficulties and more limited programming choices increase FM (and Internet) listening for many (if not most) on those DAB+ devices.

It would be clearer to report listening by broadcast system network—FM, AM, DAB+, TV, Internet, Mobile—rather than by device type (particularly when “Internet” is increasingly not a device type)..

Time Spent Listening to DAB+ radio frequency live broadcasts is not really 2X Time Spent Listening to Internet streaming. And, Time Spent Listening to FM radio frequency broadcasts remains many times both.

FM does not provide more stations than DAB+ because all city wide FM stations are on DAB+ along with all AM stations + new programs.

“Time Spent Listening to DAB+ radio frequency live broadcasts is not really 2X Time Spent Listening to Internet streaming. And, Time Spent Listening to FM radio frequency broadcasts remains many times both.”

Where is your numerical proof of this. These surveys cover people at random and not a group of computer geeks or a single person’s opinion..

AlanH

All community stations are is not on DAB+. With Government funding, metropolitan-wide community stations are allowed to share allocated capacity—2/9 the commercial radio multiplex transmitters capacity. This is insufficient for all of their live broadcasts, leading to selected or alternative programming. The many non-metropolitan-wide community stations are not allowed. The many narrowcast stations are not allowed. A count in August was a total of 36 community stations on the 7 multiplexes in 5 metropolitan cities sharing 2/9 of the capacity, and 91 commercial stations using 7/9 of the capacity. This is much less than all of the community stations in the metropolitan regions (and none of the many narrowcast stations): http://www.ausradiostations.com/fmvic.html.

http://www.cbaa.org.au/Info_Fo.....-Digital-0
The Digital Radio Project (DRP) is responsible for the establishment and operation of digital radio transmission and content delivery infrastructure for Community Digital Broadcast Licensees utilising funds made available by the Federal Government. Funding for the project is provided through the Department for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and is administered by the Community Broadcasting Foundation. The current phase of the project is funded until mid 2012. The community-broadcasting sector will continue to lobby for further funding to support the ongoing development of digital radio services.
If your station is not a metropolitan-wide service based in Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth or Sydney it is currently not possible to broadcast a digital radio service.
A range of factors will need to be addressed by the Government (spectrum availability, legislation and funding) before non-metro stations are able to broadcast digital radio services.
Federal legislation allows community broadcasters to transmit digital radio services by accessing a portion of a multiplex transmitter. The multiplex transmitters used by community broadcasters are operated by commercial radio stations. In accordance with the legislation, eligible community licensees can access up to two-ninths of the multiplex’s capacity. As there are varying numbers of community licensees sharing this capacity in each city, the exact amount of capacity available to each station varies from city to city.
Community digital radio services will differ from station to station. During the first year or two stations can be expected to experiment with program schedules. Although some stations will introduce entirely new services, most stations will experiment with the introduction of new programs combined with time-shifted programs from their analogue services: they may also simply simulcast their analogue service.

Industry listener surveys indicate that all (live) listening on DAB+ devices—including DAB+ broadcast live listening and FM broadcast live listening and Internet broadcast live simulcast streaming (but not on-demand) on those devices—is just over double (live) listening on Internet-only/PC devices (weekly 11 hours, 28 minutes vs 5 hours, 20 minutes). Subtracting FM and Internet listening on DAB+ devices will clearly reduce that to less than double. It only requires 49 minutes of FM listening weekly. Some FM listening is accountable to DAB+ insufficient reception problems—black spots, bad edge areas, building interiors. Some is accountable to some station preferences not being available on DAB+. Adding Internet listening on DAB+ devices to the reported Internet-only/PC device live listening, and adding Internet listening on mobile and other devices, Internet listening to on-demand streaming, Internet listening to podcasts, and Internet listening to personal tracklist services will certainly bring total Internet listening up towards equal with DAB+ listening, if not already beyond.

That FM remains a multiple of DAB+(or DAB or HD), Internet, Podcasts, and Personal Tracklists is clearly known by those informed on the subject. Even if not recognized by those promoting alternatives or realized by others less informed.