«You type in an artist or song title, and the engine plays that song, or one similar, and then sets the bar for all upcoming tracks based on an analysis of your original pick’s “music genome.” As the songs play you have the option to give a yea or nay in order to perfect your personalized radio station» (se se pode escolher o que se ouve, já não é rádio...)

«estamos assistiendo a la configuración de un nuevo concepto de radio» (3)

«encrucijada tecnológica» (3)

«Es ’una radio que lee y se ve’, como han señalado repetidas veces otros autores. Aparecen otros servicios y sonidos que no son radio en el sentido tradicional del término» (4)»

«Internet no puede ser considerado como uma competencia directa de la radio tradicional ni de la radio digital en DAB. Internet es un nuevo soporte que facilita la integración digital de la radio y la oferta de nuevos servicios. Cuando se habla actualmente de radio en internet, por tanto, hay que entender que se trata de una nueva forma de comunicación y no exclusivamente de un nuevo soporte» (9)

«La radio deja de definirse por su suporte técnico, o por la tecnología que lo sustenta, e impone un concepto basado en sus contenidos y funciones: la radio no se define de ahora en más por lá técnica sino por las ofertas» (9) [DESDE QUE SUGIRAM CANAIS ALTERNATIVOS PARA DIFUNDIR NÃO HERTZIANAMENTE O MESMO CONTEUDO CONVENCIONAL, COMO A TV CABO - EUA - QUE O CONCEITO FICOU EM CRISE; É DUVIDOSO QUE «LAS OFERTAS» DEFINAM UM MEIO. OFERTAS SONORAS?]

«El modelo de programación de la radio actual está caduco desde antes del inicio del debate digital. Lo que ocurre es que, a pesar de ello y a corto plazo, sigue siendo rentable para las empresas. Pero no a medio plazo» (11)

Martinéz-Costa, 2004

A proposito destes textos, uma reflexão:

- a tecnologia digital veio mudar o conceito de rádio tal como a conhecemos; já se experimentaram as mais variadas definições e restam os elementos decisivos (que já nada têm a ver com a tecnologia): o som, a emissão única, a escuta passiva (que não se pode manipular). Isto é rádio. E a definição final

O que este texto nos diz é que chegámos ao momento da 'morte de definição'.

Substituída porquê? Ninguém se atraverá a uma nova definição (seja porque é uma incognita o que vai acontecer seja para não cair no erro de tantos).

« (...) we can define radio as being a programme or series of programmes intended to be received without images and broadcast live rather than accessed on demand» (Berry, 2006: 285)

«It is conceivable that some of the iconic deficiencies of radio [blindness, medium as 'secondary'] will be offset by the new digital technology. Internet radio can offer still pictures, video clips - even printed text to remedy the evanescence of the medium's spoken words. But the question then arises as to whether this would be 'enhanced radio' radio with added pictures; or 'reduced radio' - radio which has been relegated to the status of a soundtrack. Given the primacy of our faculty of sight the latter possibility may seem more likely. Would this mean the end of radio as we know it?» (Crisell a, 2006: 6)

(Preservar a sua identidade - manter-se como rádio, e apenas adaptar-se; evoluir até deixar de ser rádio - o dilema que vive a rádio nesta altura)

«The reader will quickly be struck by two things. The first is how how extraordinarily resilient radio is, notwithstanding its frequent designation as the 'Cinderella' medium. In the context of convergent tendencies in the mass media, some of the essays attribute its resilience to an ability to preserve its distinctiveness, others to the ease with which it can incorporate new features such as interactivity and visual text» (Crisell, 2006: vii-viii)

Over Half Of Monthly Online Radio Listeners Watched Online Video In Past Month (edison media research)

Watched Online Video in past month 53%

Did not watch Online Video in past month 47%

(slide 20)

http://arbitron.com/downloads/digital_radio_study_2008.pdf

FORNEÇA VIDEO DA MESMA FORMA QUE CONTEÚDOS AUDIO

«Broadband has fueled remarkable growth of online video in addition to online audio. Digital consumers can easily fill their video fix on YouTube and thousands of other sites. It is important to provide compelling video options in addition to audio to hold your audience longer.» (slide 57)

«Call it the YouTube effect if you will, but video is quickly becoming the core element of many radio station Web sites. Video also is at the heart of making your station’s Web site a revenue generator, some experts say.
“Video for a radio station’s Web site not only is a way to increase unique visitor page views but also as a revenue driver,” said Thom Callahan, general manager of the Radio Division of the Associated Press Broadcast News Center, whose company provides video content to member radio stations.
“Many of our members have been able to sell ads against video of all kinds, from local video that they shoot to news and entertainment that we provide.”
AP provides video services to radio stations as an ad-supported service, and many other suppliers of video content are doing the same, Callahan said, so the initial cost to offer video services is negligible.
(...)Video is becoming a core element of our Web sites. Growing bandwidth speeds and better codecs are making video a big part of any site,” said Halyburton.
(...) If your radio station is just beginning to dabble in video, be sure not to dominate your Web site with it, Callahan said. “It should be an enhancement and another reason to visit the Web site and ultimately listen to the radio station. Look at your online presence as just another channel to program,” Callahan [ Thom Callahan, AP] said. [PORQUÊ?]

fonte: Video Seen as Critical to Radio Industry’s Web Revenue RADIO WORLD by Randy J. Stine, April 4, 2008

«New media have not replaced older media, any more than broadcasting replaced print in the mid-twentieth century. Rather, people's information and communication environments have become ever more individualized and commodified, integrating print, audio, still and moving images, broadcasting, telecommunications, computing, and other modes and channels of communication and information sharing» (Lievrouw e Livingstone, 2006: 1) 

HIBRIDIZAÇÂO«(...)Recombination, the 'continuous hybridization of both existing technologies and innovations in interconnected technical and institutional networks' (...) Recombination has two main forms - convergence and divergence - both of which are readily observable in the development of new media technologies, message forms, social practices and cultural/economic institutions. (idem, 4-5)

«However, unlike mass media, which by the late twentieth century had stabilized into a few major channels or forms (due to spectrum scarcity and the establishment of technical and formal standards), the forms and genres of new media continue to branch, recombine and proliferate. Marshall McLuhan (1964) observed that older media often become the content of newer media. Today, this has become an ongoing process of 'remediation' in which older media are appropriated, refashioned or absorbed by the new, therefore simultaneously shaping the new and reshaping the familiar (Bolter and Grusin, 1999)» (idem, 5) 

A resposta a esta pergunta só se fará dentro de muitos anos, quando houver elementos estatisticos que suplantem a abordagem empírica e subjectiva.

Até agora os estudos feitos são muito recentes, mas mostram (como sugere Ferguson, 2007: 105) que à medida que a internet vai ganhando espaço na vida de cada um de nós, vai diminuindo o consumo de meios classicos; Os mesmo autor mostra como os primeiros estudos , feitos no final da decada de 90 e inciio de 2000, eram pouco 'prejudiciais' para os meios classicos

Nesta fase há ainda muita especulação e sobretudo elementos erroneos, não testados pelo passar do tempo

«Regarding online versus traditional media use, Lin (2001) suggested that media substitution is more likely to occur when one medium is perceived as offering certain benefits over existing media. This notion is especially evident in the inherent characteristics of MP3 devices. Owners can listen when they want, where they want, and to the content they want. In his study of iPods and radio, Berry (2006) concluded that this technology might not signal the demise of "the radio star" but that a "retuning" may be in order for broadcasters (p. 158). At the very least, new technologies are challenging radio (Albarran et aI., 2006)» (Ferguson, 2007: 117-118)

«(...) Internet television is unlikely to kill off traditional television in 2008 largely because Internet television, certainly in its current manifestation, is not traditional television. iTs another medium whose quality, content formats and audience differs largely from traditional television audiences» Delloite, Media Prediction 2008 (pag 8)

São estas as características imutáveis em quase cem anos de rádio – aquelas que permaneceram estruturais e que dão identidade à rádio, tal como conhecemos ainda hoje:

- um conteúdo sonoro (música mas sobretudo palavra)

Em resumo, depois de limpas as “gorduras” (as características que não são identificadoras), rádio pressupõe uma única e irrepetível emissão (para todos) sonora (de voz e provavelmente música) em contínuo (portanto não manipulável). Noutra formulação, um rígido “agenda setting” sonoro definido claramente por um “gatekeeper”. (Mas qualquer que seja a formulação, é claro que não é uma única característica que define o meio, antes a conjugação destes elementos)

«Outro uso corrente, que ajuda a aumentar a confusão, é a criação de sites de emissoras tradicionais de rádio, onde além da programação ao vivo e de arquivos sonoros gravados, são disponibilizados textos, fotos, vídeos, etc., o que leva alguns a imaginar que o rádio virou ou vai virar multimídia. Ora, se quando as emissoras de rádio, antigamente, publicavam revistas para divulgação de suas programações, ninguém chamava aquilo de rádio, e sim de revistas do rádio, porque agora não se chama isto de sites do rádio e se confunde tudo?»

Há novas funções?

«Hay necesidades a) cognitivas, de búsqueda de información, conocimientos y explicaciones de los hechos que suceden: la curiosidad por conocer el devenir de la ciudad, el país o el mundo en que vivimos, la historia, la tecnología, etc., (...); b) afectivas, donde el consumo de mensajes obedece a un deseo de vivir vicariamente emociones y sentimientos, así como el placer estético que producen las obras artísticas presentes en los medios; c) de integración personal, para conseguir mayor confianza en sí mismo y status personal; d) de integración social en cuanto el hecho de compartir los mensajes es un factor que facilita las relaciones sociales; y e) de entretenimiento y distracción que liberan tensiones creadas en el trabajo o en las relaciones sociales y familiares» (Noriega, 82) 

«Certainly, the development or propagation of a new technology, in the sense of a new machine does not evaluate to the emergence of a new medium. Something like 'Internet radio' may be a new medium, or it may be a new technology trying not to be a new medium, or it may be telephone technoJogy acting like a new medium so that it can act like an old medium or some other' permutation. » (Black, 2001: 398)

«The corporate prerogative of bringing media into existence by naming them can be played out in may forms and for many reasons. In the specific case of 'Internet Radio', motivation  for exercising the prerogative comes at least in large part from the fact that Internet makes it possible for non-corporate, non-wealthy people to provide audio content» (Black, 403)

«'Internet radio ' is still palpably in the naming stage» (405)

But why? Why should an audio signal ddivcrcd through the Internet be called 'radio' in the first place? Is it self-evident that making money from the delivery of such signals has anything to do with radio? Do listeners to Internet audio streams count as radio listeners? Or is 'Internet radio' a different medium from 'radio' - and, if so, why has it borrowed the name? Which comes first, the name or the medium? Indeed, whose idea was it to call it that?» (Black, 2001: 397) 

ATENÇÃO A ESTA IDEIA: the experience of AM/FM listening can be delivered perfectly and unchanged via the Internet.??? 

«New distribution channels expand radio's ability to meet consumer demand for our content where they want it, and when they want it," Haley said. "Radio is uniquely positioned to do this because radio is the only medium that does not change its form when you move from channel to channel. Print and video are different experiences when they move from digital -- radio is not. The Rolling Stones still sound like the Rolling Stones, no matter the channel."» (CEO of the Radio Advertising Bureau, Jeff Haley)

fonte: 'Audio Content Is Expanding Everywhere You Look', Radio Ink, 13/02/08

A afirmação já provocou polémica: para Mark Ramsey, «This is not just wrong, but shockingly so. Jeff, any time you move from one medium to another you change the message. This is Marshall McLuhan 101. The issue is not whether the Rolling Stones sound like the Rolling Stones across media (although it’s interesting that you picked a band best known for its output in the 60’s and 70’s), the issue is what it means to be “radio” when you exist across media and where each medium has different potentialities that extend well beyond audio alone.» Para Kurt Hansen, «What Jeff was saying was that the experience of AM/FM listening can be delivered perfectly and unchanged via the Internet. And that is absolutely correct. For sitting on your sofa listening to the local Smooth Jazz station, it doesn’t matter if the radio in the room is an FM radio or a PC playing the station’s stream. The listening experience is identical. Close your eyes, and you can’t tell the difference. This is not true for print. If one wants to curl up the sofa with one’s sweetie, drink coffee together, and read the Sunday New York Times, flipping through some sections quickly, savoring others, etc., you can’t replicate that experience using NYT.com.  Similarly, watching TV is a much different experience online. You’re not going to be watching an HD picture in surround sound on your 54” plasma TV — at least not in 2008.»

«I like what RAIN publisher Kurt Hanson wrote the other day when he said the answer to radio's problems is simple -- redefine "radio".

Kurt credits consultant Walter Sabo with pointing out that stand-alone FM radio stations were not allowed to join the NAB as recently as the 70's because they weren't considered "radio".

See, we don't just make stupid assumptions today. We've got a lot of experience in that department.

Kurt's point is worth thinking about: "In 2008, if you define 'radio' as AM, FM, satellite and streaming (both AM/FM stations and Internet-only radio properties like LAUNCHcast and Pandora and a panapoly of others), then, once again, radio is healthier and more vibrant than it has ever been".

I'd add mobile content and podcasting to the mix and call it all "radio", too.

Yes, throw satellite in there, as wel. Mel's a radio guy. Ask any XM or Sirius subscriber what they are listening to in the car and they'll say -- radio.

Call it all radio.»

fonte: Jerry del Colliano, Redefine Radio -- Don't Reinvent It 4/02/08 Inside Music Media

QUEM OFERECE E QUEM PROCURA:

«A televisão e, de forma genérica, a rádio e a imprensa remetem, como se viu, para uma lógica de oferta; os novos meios de comunicação social, para uma lógica de procura. Na realidade, as duas lógicas são complementares, algo que será mais evidente quando a actual relação de forças, um pouco ridícula, entre os antigos e os novos meios de comunicação social tiver perdido parte do seu vigor. Uma coisa é certa: não podemos falar de "progresso" ao descrever a transição entre as duas formas de comunicação; ambas são úteis e, com excepçao dos domínios para os quais cada uma está mais apta, rapidamente chegaremos à conclusão que a escolha entre elas depende da natureza dos serviços e das preferências dos indivíduos, sem que se instale qualquer hierarquia rígida nestas escolhas. Preferir o computador à televisão não dá prova de mais apurada "inteligência" ou de maior 'abertura de espírito". Ao invés, preferir a leitura do jornal ou ver televisão não constitui tão-pouco qualquer evidência de menor adaptação ou menor curiosidade por comparação com aquele que passa horas em frente do terminal de computador. Não há nenhuma hierarquia ao nível individual entre estas duas formas de comunicação, que, na realidade, dependem de suportes, de conteúdos e de preferências de uns e de outros, o que não quer dizer, obviamente, que sejam equivalentes do ponte ae vista da teoria da comunicação.» (2000, 74)

«O debate entre antigos e novos meios de comunicação social não está bem colocado. Apenas deslocando o seu centro de gravidade será possível escapar a essa autêntica guerra religiosa, nos termos da qual qualquer crítica dirigida às novas tecnologias e ao discurso fetichista que as acompanha implica que se seja conservador e adversário do progresso. (...) Há que sair do falso debate antigos vs. modernos; entre novos e velhos meios de comunicação social; entre progresso e conservadorismo... (...)» (2000: 109)

«É imperioso desalojar a ideologia técnica que reduz a comunicação à tecnologia e que constrói uma falsa hierarquia entre novos e antigos meios de comunicação social. Não é por, amanhã, os ecrãs virem a dominar em todo o lado, na escola como em casa, no comércio como nos lazeres, que a comunicação será mais fácil e desobstruída. Na verdade, quanto mais se eleva o desempenho das tecnologias, mais se deveria sublinhar aquilo que as separa da comunicação humana e social» (2000: 175)

«A escolta não e entre a rádio, a televisão e o multimédia; é antes entre a prioridade concedida à defesa de uma comunidade cultural e política por intermédio dos meios de comunicação clássicos e uma fuga para a frente m nome da modernidade, na direcção de meios de comunicação interactivos cuja lógica de funcionamento está bastante distante das tradições de informação e comunicação de muitas regiões do mundo» (2000:121) 

«the decline of the older medium may not occur immediately; under competitive pressure the traditional medium can squeeze more out of its arsenal – even actually increasing revenues for a period of time. Landes (1969: 260) noted three basic reasons for this: (1) creative technological response; (2) cutting costs and prices; and (3) widening markets and opportunities due to the increased demand brought about by the new technology’s efforts.» Lehman, 2004: 716

«What are the older medium’s possible reactions? First, attack – the best defence is a good offence. As a vehicle of communication, the threatened medium can propagandize against the newer competitor: the new medium’s content reliability and technical dependability might be questioned (Naughton, 2000). Also, fearmongering is not an uncommon ploy, where the print and electronic media play up the internet’s dark side: paedophilia, pornography, sales fraud, etc, that are actually but a very small part of the internet universe (see R¨ossler, 2001, for counter-evidence). Second, the older medium can try to cut off the new medium’s content sources. In the 1930s the newspaper industry tried to block news agencies from feeding news to the young radio medium (Emery and Emery, 1988).» (717

«However, the time-lag between invention and mass media application (Marvin, 1988) may be relatively long (e.g. ‘wireless’ took about 25 years to become ‘radio’;» Lehman, 2004: 712.

«‘Wireless radio’ started off as a minor role-player, mainlyfor land–sea communication. Only after some 20 years did its real mass nature emerge.» Lehman, 2004: 713.

«What are the reasons for the fast growth of a new medium? Culture (that is, openness to novelty), cost–benefit utility (‘bang for the buck’), userfriendliness (‘human–machine interface’), and a nation’s technological infrastructure (human and physical), are all critical factors. Also, the level of inter-medium interactivity (Mahler and Rogers, 1999), for if the medium can be utilized usefully only in conjunction with someone else’s appliance (say, a videophone), that will retard diffusion as each consumer waits for others to buy it first – until a critical mass is attained (Marwell and Oliver, 1993). However, the most important factor is social need and readiness. Without the proper communications and social conditions, new media can wait for decades to realise their potential. (715)

«How will older media adapt to the maturing internet? Most of the older media will survive in somewhat changed form in the internet age – with a few caveats. First, it is not contradictory to predict that most of the older media will continue to exist, albeit within the internet’s underlying metamedium infrastructure. While content and functions will remain recognizable, their modes of transmission/distribution will change drastically. Ultimately, newspapers will become exclusively electronic (Ries and Ries, 2000), delivered through the internet to new media appliances (PDA, ebook, tablet computers)» (724)

«Will any of the older media disappear completely (stage 5c)? To use a digital metaphor: yes, but mainly through morphing into something else. We have hinted already that the ‘newspaper’ will not exist in a few decades – in its present format. However, if it gravitates onto the web and does not disintegrate under the centrifugal force of do-it-yourself news and text/ photo weblogging, it might well survive but in quite a different form. Just as the typewriter became the computer keyboard, so too might older media ‘appliances’ become obsolete but continue to live through their functions.» 725

«Work that emerged early after the introduction of a new medium was often governed by the myths of a general cultural pessimism.»

Boehnke et al (2002: 193)

«(...)The Motley Fool investors publication says Last.fm could mean the end of radio.

Kurt Hanson, who I respect more on these issues, says wait one minute -- Last.fm isn't even radio.

It's an interesting prospect either way. To bring you up to date the four major record labels have cut a deal with Last.fm to get a penny or so for every time a young consumer goes to Last.fm and requests a song. Hanson points out, "Going to a website and saying “I would like to hear ‘You Know I’m No Good’ by Amy Winehouse right now and then being played that song is not “radio” by any stretch of the definition that I’ve ever heard."
The Motley Fool is enamored at the prospect of free online streaming of music from the major labels and a host of indies.

One problem.
Young people have voted again and again in this race that they want to own their music not rent it or listen through a glorified subscription or ad-supported service.
(...) 6. Radio (whether Last.fm or terrestrial) cannot compete with an iPod for playing favorite music. An iPod is a storage device that plays back music. Radio entertains -- or should. Subscription services or ad driven services like Last.fm will be more popular with record labels than with young consumers.

The Motley Fool says:

“Last.fm, bought by CBS… is providing on-demand delivery of its growing digital library for free...Naturally, this is also bad news for other companies selling digital tracks, like Apple, or music subscription services like Napster and RealNetworks".

I disagree. Terrestrial radio doesn't have to worry about what Last.fm is doing. It needs to worry about what radio isn't doing.(...)»

fonte: «lost.fm», Jerry Del Colliano, 25/01/08

KURT HANSEN: «This is not radio! Going to a website and saying “I would like to hear ‘You Know I’m No Good’ by Amy Winehouse right now” and then being played that song is not “radio” by any stretch of the definition that I’ve ever heard. Reasonable people can differ as to what is “radio.” The NAB and the RAB, for example, apparently don’t consider XM or Sirius to be “radio.” Some traditional broadcasters think it’s not “radio” if it doesn’t have disk jockeys (although then you have to reject Jack FM stations and 50 years of automated FM stations). Others might say it’s not “radio” unless it’s a one-to-many transmission, which would exclude personalizable Internet radio brands (even though most consumers wouldn’t). But in every case above, there’s some element of a continuous stream of music that’s selected by someone (or, in the case of a smart recommendation engine, something) else. Influenced by the consumer? Sure. A precise sequence of songs specifically selected by the consumer? I think not. That’s not radio — that’s an “on-demand music service.” Just like Rhapsody, except without a 25-songs-per-month limit (and with more advertising). And it has far less value to both the average adult consumer and to record labels» 24/01/08

fonte: «Now you can rock 'n' go with personalized Internet radio», USA Today, Jefferson Graham

«(...) But how smart would it be for a radio station to get extra exposure for its top personalities by providing a TV outlet a live video feed of its programs for the digital subchannels?
"You're definitely onto something," said John Gallagher, who's in charge of Citadel Broadcasting's WLS-AM 890 and WZZN-FM 94.7.
"I've had discussions with some of the TV stations around town about doing that because they are looking for content for those slots. They don't really have anything to fill it, and if they were to create something to fill it themselves, they wouldn't be able to recoup their costs [because of low viewership]. ... But put some quality programming on your side channels and maybe people will come looking for it. Television hasn't figured that out quite yet, and we're trying to tweak that."
(...) It's a given that more and more stations are going to start putting video of their programs on the Internet in addition to their audio. "We've talked about that, especially streaming the video," said Rod Zimmerman, who oversees Chicago's seven CBS radio stations. "There's a certain amount of expense that we just haven't gone to, but it's certainly something you're going to see in the not-too-distant future."
(...) "In the near future, every radio station will have the ability to become a TV station," CBS Radio chief Dan Mason said in an interview with Jack Myers' Media Business Report. "There's no reason we can't have our own Webcast shows with talent [like Don Imus' old MSNBC simulcast]. Radios will soon be developed with TV screens. The terrestrial radio medium will evolve and occupy more share of the digital space." (...) "It's kind of expensive, but it would be worth it on our end from a marketing and promotional aspect," he said, adding there was incentive for TV stations to develop their multichannel capabilities. "It's a lot less expensive than doing nothing."»

fonte: «Video may bring back the radio star», Chicago Tribune, Phil Rosenthal | Media November 7, 2007

«¿podemos hablar con precisión de radio en Internet? Una respuesta más inmediata sería afirmativa: sólo cabe teclear, por ejemplo, las direcciones de cualquiera de las cadenas radiofónicas españolas[1] y comprobar cómo efectivamente están presentes en la red. Pero si observamos con atención las páginas que nos ofrecen, probablemente cambiemos de opinión: estamos en Internet, sí, pero ¿esto es radio? Los datos y las imágenes que acompañan a los sonidos nos obligan a dudar. No, no es radio en sentido tradicional, es más que radio, es sonido contextualizado con imagen e información escrita, además de la emisión estricta de la programación convencional que oferta cada una de las cadenas radiofónicas en Onda Media o Frecuencia Modulada. Por eso, en Internet descubrimos dos tipos de prestaciones sonoras: la radio en sentido estricto, tal y como la conocemos, con una emisión continuada y una programación estructurada sujeta a una temporalidad y, por otro lado, una serie de informaciones escritas sobre diversos contenidos, apoyadas por imágenes y enriquecidas con material sonoro. Esto es fácil de comprobar en la práctica. Cualquier dirección que tecleemos puede ofrecer sonido y colgar de su página lo que hasta ahora concebimos como productos radiofónicos de la misma manera que ofrece imagen y de la misma forma que la acompaña de información escrita. (...) Concluimos entonces que el producto que ofrece la red no sólo es radio sino mucho más que eso y, por esta razón, no podemos reducir la concepción sonora radiofónica a las transmisiones de aquellas direcciones de Internet que estrictamente se denominan emisoras de radio. El sonido informativo se extiende por toda la red y no es dominio exclusivo de las cadenas radiofónicas, sean del tipo que sean. (...) debido a la juventud de esta nueva plataforma se ha extrapolado a Internet la clasificación convencional de medios de comunicación. Sin duda, para todos nosotros hablar del periódico, de la radio o de la televisión en Internet resulta no sólo más fácil sino más cómodo. Pero no podemos olvidar que nos situamos ante una realidad diferente. Internet cambia esta concepción tradicional puesto que en su seno se produce una convergencia mediática que impide referirnos estrictamente a los medios de comunicación tradicionales como canales independientes (...)»

fonte: RODERO ANTÓN, La radio en Internet», Tercero Congreso de Periodismo Digital, 2002

Diz Tim Westergren, fundador do Pandora: «Pandora is an Internet radio service that listeners enjoy on their personal computers, through home entertainment products and on mobile phones».
Curioso como o serviço que mais simboliza o corte com a rádio clássica se assume como um serviço de rádio...

fonte: «Testimony of Tim Westergren» U. S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Hearing on ’The Future of Radio’, 24/10/07

Perguntei depois a Mark Ramsey se concorda com a ideia; ele respondeu que sim, que aceita que o Pandora seja um internet radio service.

Neste texto, sobre a relação da industria publicitária com a expressão web3.0 encontrei uma explicação: «“Web 2.0 is a goal that we haven’t even come close to reaching yet,” says Richard Townsend, digital media strategist for Circus Street Communications in London. “For marketers to start to think about Web 3.0 would be misleading.”». Ou seja, a industria não quer evoluir para novos conceitos, que não sabe o que são, preferindo manter-se ligada a um anterior, que tem rendibilidade

«A pergunta torna-se inevitável para quem assiste ao processo de crescente adaptação da rádio ao espaço aberto pela internet: a partir do momento em que o texto e a imagem se imiscuem noseu universo, terminando com a exclusividade da expressão sonora que historicamente a caracteriza, e em que ocorre toda uma série de outras mudanças significativas, haverá motivos para encarar esta transformação como o fim da rádio e o nascimento de algo ainda inominável, mas que configura um eventual novo meio?

«Basic terrestrial radio might be the last of the truly “free” media available, requiring no costly equipment, content subscriptions or on-demand fees. But local ad revenues have been eroding and the industry is fighting to respond to satellite radio, Internet radio and downloads, MP3, a music industry in chaos, new radio HD technology, and competition from multiple new sources. Therefore terrestrial radio is struggling to define its core mission and place in the information/entertainment landscape. What to do?

Dan Mason, president of CBS Radio division has said: “For years we tried to figure out how to make the product compatible for the audience, but the issue was the platform, not the content. In the near future, every radio station will have the ability to become a TV station. We will see webcast and webisodes. There’s no reason we can’t have our own webcast shows with talent. Radios will evolve and occupy more share of the digital space.”» 

(fonte: «Every radio station can become a TV station» IBL News 9/10/07 

«Three-quarters of online video viewers watch more video than they did a year ago, and more than one-half expect to watch even more next year, according to a study conducted by Taylor Nelson Sofres and sponsored by AOL and Google»

fonte: «Web Video Viewers Logging More Hours», OCTOBER 1, 2007 eMarketeer

The final question may be - but will it still be radio? Predominately it will be an audio service, which will sound and be experienced much like all radio – in the mind because audio content remains the easiest content to absorb in a mobile environment – or in the midst of parallel activities, like driving. But it will be augmented by data and visuals and we will see hybrids emerge where the lines are completely fused. Arte, a TV channel in Europe now has a web-based radio service, several key newspapers now have a ‘radio’ like service online – re-positioning content back and forth in different forms – for different media. We probably have not yet found words for the hybrids that will come – television on mobile is already with us and being tagged mobTV - while podcasts on mobiles are being tagged mobcasting. The clay is still forming – the names are still being cast. Our difficulty now is to keep describing, and naming, the changes as the speed of convergence accelerates» (Shaw, 2005: 21)

A propósito de um estudo Pew:

«57 million Americans watch online video content every day. That's 19% of American adult Internet users. Americans between ages 18-29 are the most video-voracious; 31% of them watch online videos every day.  What are American adults watching? News, primarily, followed by comedy, movies or TV, music and surprisingly (to some, I imagine) commercials! 13% of American adults report they have downloaded or watched video ads. The upshot of Pew's report is that word of mouth figures prominently in the spread of online video: Two out of three viewers ages 18-29 send links to video files, compared with half of Americans age 30 and older. Forty-two percent of the 18-29 year-olds send video links a few times per month or more. »

fonte: «Why everyone wants a viral video», Church of Customer, 26/07/07

Mark Ramsey dá o exemplo de uma rádio com um canal de vídeo on line nos EUA

A propósito de um relatório da indústria publicitária norte-americana, Mark Ramsey lembra que ou a rádio convencional percebe que há uma mudança em curso ou outros farão isso por ela. Com óbvios custos. A rádio deixa de ser rádio e passa a ser a indústria do áudio.

(«In a new report being circulated to clients, MediaVest has adopted the position that terrestrial broadcast radio should no longer be looked at as a discrete medium in communications plans, but as part of a greater array of audio media--including satellite, online, mobile and a variety of personal media device technologies, such as iPods, other MP3 players, and even television, which increasingly is being used as an audio-only medium)

In my two-year-old book Fresh Air, I noted that radio was no longer "radio" but was now the "audio entertainment and information industry." It's critical for all broadcasters to get their heads around this notion because the definition of your industry determines everything about your strategy and everything about your fate.

Under a definition of radio as "audio entertainment and information" the channel by which content reaches the consumer is considerably less important than the nature of the content itself and how that content is leveraged and magnified across channels. It's the ownership and licensing of the content, not the ownership of the channel, that will make tomorrow's "audio" stars.»

fonte: «"Radio" is now "Audio" says the Ad Industry», Hear2.0, 13/08/07

Do relatório:

«(...) MediaVest's new approach to audio planning is part of a growing industry shift away from defining media based on their distribution platforms and toward understanding how consumers interact with the essential nature of their content and formats. That argument is at the heart of "StrADegy: Advertising In The Digital Age," authored by TNS Media Intelligence President-CEO Steven Fredericks. In it, he argues that in the future, "Content is defined not by its old media name, but by its core property: text, video and audio. All content, clarified and freed, can be distributed via any converged technology." In terms of audio, MediaVest seems to think we are already there. In fact, the "single source audio study" looks at how people are using audio devices like iPods to watch video, and how they are using television to listen to audio. The important thing, the agency concludes, is to understand why people are using new technologies and where they are using them. That opens new opportunities to connect people with audio content.» (fonte: «Audio Kills The Radio Noir, Agency Broadly Redefines Medium», Media Daily News, Joe Mandese, Monday, Aug 13, 2007) 

«Radio One this week named Barry Mayo president of its radio division. (...) In the announcement, Mayo stated: “We are no longer in the radio business, we are in the ‘audio entertainment business’ and we need to leverage our products well beyond the terrestrial signals we are licensed to operate.” (...) Liggins said then, “Our diversification into a broad-based media company consisting of radio, cable, Internet and print is beginning to coalesce, as we continue to identify new and myriad ways to satisfy our advertiser client base. This transition from a pure-play radio company to a media company is longer-term in nature, but I am confident that our team is up to the challenges and opportunities we have before us.” »

fonte: «Mayo: ‘We’re in Audio Entertainment, Not Radio’», Radioworld, 10/08/07

«Os vídeos online são um dos mais recentes fenómenos a nível mundial e têm vindo a revolucionar a forma de utilização dos media digitais.O visionamento de vídeos em sítios do tipo do YouTube sofreram um enorme crescimento no último ano, mostra um estudo da Magid Media Futures A popularidade dos vídeos online, colocados à disposição dos utilizadores da internet, tem vindo a sofrer um crescimento exponencial nos últimos anos. Se em 2006 eram 9% os norte-americanos entre os 12 e os 64 anos que afirmavam recorrer diariamente aos vídeos online, esse número subiu para perto de 15% em 2007. Este foi o resultado de um estudo levado a cabo pela Magid Media Futures nos Estados Unidos, ao qual o M&P teve acesso. Também a análise do uso semanal do vídeo online mostra uma subida acentuada durante o último ano. Actualmente, a maioria dos americanos entre os 12 e 64 anos (52%) afirma recorrer ao vídeo online pelo menos uma vez por semana, enquanto que em 2006 a percentagem era de 44%.»

fonte: «Boom de vídeos online nos EUA», Meios e Publicidade, 31 de Julho de 2007, por Maria João Morais

A função que o video pode desempenhar: «(...)comScore reports that in May of this year, three-fourths of Internet users watched an average of nearly three hours of online video that month.  This translates to 132 million Americans watching streaming video, with YouTube leading the way.  And of those consumers, they average two videos a day. So what does this tell us about our content and our business?  Video needs to be a component of everything we do.  It needs to be integrated into our personality shows, whether it's via webcams or listener-submitted videos.  Events need to be covered with video to capture the excitement of station events, contests, interviews, etc.  The video age online has signaled increased interest in going behind the scenes to see what happens at stations.  It involves the listener in the process, and provides her with a unique/on-demand perspective. The online video revolution also should signal the need to acquire employees (jocks, promotion people, etc.) who have basic video editing skills.  We need to be thinking video in our hires, and making sure that our stations are staffed with employees who "get" the visual side of what we do.  Every time I visit a web site that uses "photo galleries" to cover an event (often too many pictures posted that are not edited and poorly/not labeled), it screams how out-of-date stations often end up looking to listeners. In the same way that walking into a home that last had interior decoration done in the '80s simply looks tired and dated, radio needs to critically assess its websites and total approach to how it presents entertainment.  Consumers are moving at a rapid rate as the comScore data illustrates.  TV and newspapers have hopped on the video bus and are doing their best to move forward.  Radio needs to get moving, too.» (fonte: Fred Jacobs, «Theater Of The Mind», Jacoblog, 7/08/07)