«(...) Especially among 15- to 25-year-olds, people seem to need their peers to validate their musical tastes, making the Internet a perfect medium for the intersection of MP3s and mob psychology. (...) Imeem and Bebo are two Web sites trading on the idea that music is a social phenomenon, and that the Internet is the place to be to gather around it. Imeem asks, "What's on your playlist?," while Bebo calls itself a "social media network." Imeem draws 20 million visitors a month by specializing in free streaming music and music-video playlists that you can customize. The offerings are surrounded by information about the artists, rankings, related songs, polls, and profiles of other fans. (...)"We can target to hip-hop fans in L.A. who are also into indie films," said Steve Jang, Imeem's chief marketing officer. The most successful sites in any category, Jang maintains, are not the ones with the most money or the best technology, but the ones with the best "user experience," like the simple interface that Google started out with.The recent wave of social music sites that Imeem is a part of is showing the music industry that a free, open, ad-supported system is better than tying down digital songs with software that limits their playability, Jang said. Just look at radio and MTV, which have been sustained by advertising for years, he said. (...)Like Imeem, Bebo surrounds its offerings with extras: fan groups, artist information, concert dates and charts. Bebo, which has 40 million registered users and drew 11 million visitors last month from Britain alone, also lets its users bring in music and other media from Web sites like YouTube by using "widgets" that can be dropped on to personal pages. (...) Shields acknowledges that teenagers, the age group most attached to socializing around entertainment, do not have the kind of income that many advertisers would like to attract. But they make up for it with loyalty. As a testament to how attached Bebo users are, the average time spent on the site per session is 40 minutes - an eternity by Internet social-networking standards.»

fonte: «Could social networking sites save the music industry?», Victoria Shannon, IHT, 30/01/08

«What researchers in their efforts to scrutinise the modalities of adolescent media use and its effects have often failed to ask is why adolescents use the media, and why media can be assumed to have an effect. The starting point of most research was the fact that they certainly do, but not so much the reasons for it.» (Boehnke, 2002: 1) (não é objectivo saber porquê que usam, embora se deva ter isto em conta: «The picture changed somewhat with the emergence of the so-called ‘‘uses-and-gratifications’’ paradigm, Rosengren (e.g., 1981; cf. Swanson, 1979) probably being one of the founders of this approach. It shifted the focus of media studies from the angle of what the media did to or with the adolescent to what benefits adolescents gain from media use.» idem)

«From a developmental point of view adolescence can be  seen as a transition phase between childhood and adulthood (Jessor & Jessor, 1984), as a moratorium phase (Zinnecker, 1987), or as an independent phase of identity formation as in the work of Erikson (1968) or Marcia (1993). All these conceptualisations have in common that they do not see adolescence as a static life segment defined by chronological age, as we find it in juridical definitions, but as a dynamic process. Within the framework of social scientific youth research we find one specific concept especially suitable to capture the dynamics of youth as a life phase, namely, the concept of developmental tasks, first introduced by Havighurst (1953) (...) The variability of expectations does, however, have biological and social boundaries: Cultures and subcultures that do not expect youth to have mastered all age-typical developmental tasks between the ages of 10 and 30 presumably are rare.»

(Boehnke 2002: 194)

«Individual adolescents actively incorporate the media into their lives in order to reduce developmental pressure with regard to youth-specific developmental tasks. Adolescents use the media to accelerate the accomplishment of their developmental goals»

 (Boehnke, 2002: 195)

«(...) radio is indeed an agent of youth development. In detail, our analyses showed that youth who express a strong desire to gain more autonomy (most importantly), better peer-group integration, more ability to cope with their own physical maturation, and an improved understanding of politics, use radio as a quasi-social means of mood management more than those age-mates who exhibit lower developmental aspirations. How can this be interpreted? Listening to the radio seems to give adolescents good feelings in a life-phase of uneasiness and at the same time seemingly has to offer clues on how to cope with youth-specific tasks. Through its parasocial interaction options, together with its mood management capacity, radio seems to offer youngsters an ideal medium to cope with the stresses of being an adolescent.» (199-200)

«In 1995, about 95% of the 14-to 29-year-olds listened to the radio at least once every two weeks. Three-quarters of that population listened to the radio every day. The average daily listening time (between 5 a.m. and midnight) was 117 minutes. Over the years, radio listening time has been declining slightly, but radio still competes actively with television for the prime position in adolescent media preferences (Berg & Kiefer, 1996; Keller & Klingler,1995; Munch & Boehnke, 1996).»

 (Boehnke, 2002: 195)

« (...)why do adolescents listen to the radio—is usually, ‘‘they want to listen to music’’. And this is certainly the case. To use radio as a music medium begins in childhood (Christenson & De Benedittis, 1986) and continues at least through adolescence (Christenson & Roberts, 1998). Unpublished work from the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg2 showed that 91% of 14- to 29-year-olds were guided in their radio programme selection by music. Christenson and DeBenedittis (1986) report a proportion of 84% in their study of 11- to 12-year-olds. From a study by Roberts and Henrikson (1990) it can be inferred that some 91% of US seventh graders and some 96% of US ninth graders are guided by the music in their choice of radio stations. Even before unification, East German youth also selected the radio stations they wanted to listen to—often West German programmes—on the basis of the music that was played (Felber, 1991).»

 (Boehnke, 2002: 195)

«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

«Rogers (1962) identified five types of adopters, the first two being catalytic ‘Change Agents’: innovators (2.5% on average), early adopters (13.5%), members of the early majority (34%), members of the late majority (34%), and laggards (16%).» Lehman, 2004:709

«We should note that ‘50 percent’ follows from Rogers’ diffusion of innovations model: the first three categories together (innovators 2.5%, early adopters 13.5%, and members of the early majority 34%) equal precisely 50 percent. Certainly, when half the public uses a medium we can safely say that it is no longer marginal.? (Lehman, 2004:714)

O multimédia acaba com a ideia de rádio?

A rádio é acumulação, escuta secundária e portabilidade. E é óbvio que as ferramentas multimédia, associadas à Internet, matam esta ideia de rádio.

Mas poderá continuar a haver canais só de áudio para desempenhar essa função de acumulação ao nível da música.

Contudo esses canais terão menos ouvintes: porque a acumulação tem agora concorrência, porque as ferramentas multimédia oferecem um novo tipo de comportamnento ao utilizador que já não se compadece só com ouvir.

Daí que os telemóveis permitam visualizar

A rádio tal como a conhecemos ficará confinada à rádio de palavra, essa sim insubstituível, à palavra em directo, e a situações de acumulação passiva (correr) em que ou não haja outras opções (iPod, telemóvel) ou em que apeteça ser passivo. Mas essas situações configurarão menos ouvintes, menos dimensão.

Portanto: a rádio como a entendemos não está em causa se:

- for a rádio de palavra (os leitores de mp3 concorrem com a rádio musical):

- enquanto houver gente que não tenha alternativa ou queira ser passiva na escuta de música.

Se no primeiro caso, é de pensar que os ouvintes continuarão a ser os mesmos (ainda que haja mais hipóteses de obter informação ‘em cima da hora’, através da net, a ráido poderá de palavra em directo será insubstituível), já relativamente aos canais de musica, falta saber se o numero de utilizadores garante massa critica que os viabilizem comercialmente (apesar dos baixos custos)

«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

«If old consumers were predictable and stationary, then new consumers are migratory, showing a declining loyalty to networks or even media’ (Jenkins, 2004). This is the real challenge for radio when attempting to communicate with the ‘wirefree’ generation in the converged age. It is time to rethink not only established practices but also our notions of what audiences really want.»

(Berry, 2006: 144)

«The other big audience challenge is youth. Most of my generation grew up with radio. Memories of that first car, that first cigarette, that first pint of heavy, are for many of us inextricably bound up with particular pieces of music, particular radio programmes or DJs. Today, while television can still capture children up to their early teens and the challenge is simply getting them back in their twenties, for radio, is there a generation growing up who are simply not introduced to the habit and may thus not get the point as they mature. Two thirds of today’s young mobile users have their phones on and within easy reach for between 21 and 24 hours a day. I earnestly hope that radio- possibly using the mobile as delivery medium - can capture at least some of that time», Stephen A Carter (Chief Executive, Ofcom), The Radio Festival - Certainty or Security? The Path to Digital 04|07|05

«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)

«Among the things they liked about the player included the supported artworks, band biographies, ability to store Wi-Fi keys and the option to have access to a free, or paid, enhanced music services. The Slacker Portable also auto refreshed channels when it detected a trusted network, as well as automatically refreshing while recharging.»

«Taking personalised radio fully mobile, although it’s available only in the US for now, is Slacker.com’s Portable Radio Player (from $200/£100). Launched this week, it comes preloaded with up to 40 stations containing thousands of tracks. As you rate individual tracks, Slacker learns your tastes and refreshes the player’s built-in memory with other songs, using your wi-fi connection. A 4in screen lets you browse playlists and view album artwork – although it will also screen a couple of adverts each hour if you don’t upgrade to a $7.50 (£3.75) monthly fee. The subscription also allows you to skip tracks or save them to the player to listen to again. Slacker.com doesn’t yet know how soon its service will be on offer in Britain»

E os receptores satélite:

«No pequeno receptor acoplado ao rádio do carro, são mostradas informações sobre a música, autor e intérprete. A qualidade de som equivale à dos melhores CDs. Nenhuma interferência, tudo límpido, para satisfazer até o ouvinte mais exigente de música clássica»

Indeed, we're seeing this play out in Alternative and Active Rock and in the erosion of time spent listening among younger audiences already.

What a fabulous opportunity for non-music radio. What a fabulous opportunity for new non-music experiments (which may or may not be "Talk"). What a fabulous opportunity for radio to plant its flag in the future, given that so much of that future can be seen coming now.»

«Constant denial -- that's what's killing radio.

Last week we heard the same old song again at the Southern California Broadcasters Association gathering. I don't know about you but these guys are starting to scare me.

Radio-Info's Tom Taylor reported that Clear Channel's John Hogan said "performance and capability is not our problem. Our problem is one of perception". (...) They have driven off the next generation -- have no clue what they want -- and think the problem is about perception. No one cares about perception -- they care about content and -- I might add -- how it is delivered.»

fonte: Jerry Del Colliano, Redfine Radio -- Don't Reinvent It 4/02/08

«É muito importante que os meios de comunicação de massas sejam para aqui chamados, no momento em que a moda das novas tecnologias está no auge, fazendo crer que o lugar mais próprio para a televisão é o museu. Os perigos de uma desestabilização da televisão são tanto mais graves porque a sua legitimidade sempre foi contestada e a reflexão a seu respeito bastante limitada.(...)Afirmar uma ambição forte para a televisão pública no espaço da Europa. » (Wolton, 2000: 117)

«(...) ao contrário do discurso dominante segundo o qual a televisão generalista foi ultrapassada pelas novas tecnologias, é necessário afirmar que os meios de comunicação generalistas, centrados na oferta, têm o futuro pela frente. Quanto mais existirem meios de comunicação segmentados, temáticos, individualizados, mais visível será a diferença e o papel essencial desempenhado pelos meios de comunicação de massas, logo mais susceptíveis serão de ser valorizados» (Wolton, 2000: 120) 

«É imperativo recordar incessantemente a importância de uma oferta de qualidade por parte dos meios de comunicação generalistas.  O progresso não se situa em exclusivo do lado da lógica da procura em operação nas novas tecnologias. A lógica da oferta é um verdadeiro desafio, não de natureza técnica, mas cultural, por consistir - e reencontramos aqui o desígnio do conceito de grandei público - em oferecer ao maior número uma gama de produtos de comunicação o mais lata possível» (wolton, 178) 

« Sobretudo, o telefone e a rádio aproximam os indivíduos a partir do sinal que marca a nossa entrada no mundo: a voz humana. A força do telefone e da rádio provém da capacidade para transcender a dimensão técnica, sublinhando a importância do som e da voz em qualquer troca comunicacional. E se a música é desde há muito tempo a única comunicação realmente universal, ligando continentes apesar da diversidade de línguas, é porque através do casamento de palavras e de ritmos os homens partilham algo que lhes é comum. O telefone e a rádio, os dois meios de comunicação "mais velhos", mostram que o essencial do seu papel é a ajuda modesta, embora indispensável, que dão aos homens na tentativa de melhor se compreenderem. "Compreender-se", em vez de "ver-se". (wolton, 200: 187/188)

«"We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run." By Roy Amara, past president of The Institute for the Future.»

«In other words, although we expect tomorrow to arrive in a burst of science-fiction flashiness, it often takes longer to arrive. And when it finally does, the real impact of the change is likely to exceed our initial expectations. Consider where we stand in 2005: Much of what we see happening online today is the long-run, large-scale result of changes that many people dismissed only a few years ago. Amid the great tidal wave of innovation in the 1990s, the most interesting story was the birth of new business models like Amazon, eBay, and Google. But that's clear only in hindsight. The innovative fantasies of the dotcom era did bear fruit, but it took a lot longer--a decade, not five years. (See "Everything Old Is New Again," page 92.) So where will the business world be in, say, 2008? I look for small but telling hints. In my 15-year-old son Benjamin's room, for example, he's uploading a lightsaber duel video he made for a Star Wars fan competition. A digital videocamera and a Mac, and suddenly he becomes Schwartz Productions. Meanwhile, Al Gore's new cable-television venture, Current TV, aims to be almost entirely viewer-produced. Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce.com, plans to allow his company's users to develop and share new software applications using simple programming tools. The distinction between consumer and producer, server and served, is beginning to fade, and forward-looking companies understand that making money with your customers is even better than making money from them. (See "Companies Tap Into Consumer Passion," page 84.)»

It echoes a quote by Joseph Licklider that says: "A modern maxim says: People tend to overestimate what can be done in one year and to underestimate what can be done in five or ten years," which occurs in a footnote on p. 17 of Joseph Licklider, "Libraries of the Future," MIT Press, 1965 (

Amara, Roy "The Futures Field", Institute for the Future, Menlo Park, 1980.?

«Nos nossos dias, ao abordar o sucesso das novas tecnoJogias de comunicação, há que ser rigoroso e salientar que se trata de uma mistura de realidades e de fantasia e que o entusiasmo ingénuo que as envolve será daqui a 10 anos  bastante mais matizado, quando o acumular de uma experiência de utilização tiver relativizado os discursos espaventosos de hoje» (Wolton, 2000: 76) 

«(...) hoje em dia, vive-se o fascínio pela net e sonha-se que este sistema possa abrir um novo capítulo na história da comunicação, inaugundo uma era em que tudo será rápido, interactivo e individualizado» (110) 

«O que hoje se diz sobre a sociedade da informação foi já fortemente proclamado aquando da chegada do telefone há um século, da rádio no início do seculo xx, do computador nos anos 50 e da televisão por cabo há trinta anos. Mas quem se recorda disso? Um contemporâneo dirá ingenuamente que o que não chegou ser possivel com a televisão por cabo sê-Io-á com a Web. Mas quem lhe lembrará que a sua bela certeza de hoje se parece com a ilusória certeza de ontem e que muito em breve aquilo que para ele é inultrapassável- os prodígios do ecrã - será inevitavelmente ultrapassado? E que um outro, igualmente crédulo, com base em tecnologias ainda mais sofisticadas, predirá com a mesma ênfase que a revolução de depois-de-amanhã é anda mais promissora do que a de amanhã. E assim sucessivamente.» (Wolton, 2000: 133-134) 

«Mas porque será que as novas tecnologias de comunicação têm tanto I sucesso? Em Pensar a comunicação abordei já este problema, tendo sublinhado a importância para os mais jovens da ideia de abertura - mas não só. São igualmente factores de atracção a recusa da omnipresença dos meios de comunicação de massas, o desejo de responder à inegável angústia antropológica, a atracção pela modernidade, enfim, a procura de novas solidariedades com os países mais pobres.» (Wolton, 2000: 77)

«Existem três conceitos fundamentais para compreender o sucesso das novas tecnologias: autonomia, domínio e rapidez. Cada um pode agir, sem intermediário, quando quiser, sem filtro nem hierarquia e, o que é mais importante, em tempo real. Não se tem que esperar, age-se e o resuItado é imediato. Isto confere um sentimento de liberdade absoluta, e mesmo de poder, que se manifesta na expressão "surfar na Net". Este tempo real que desarruma as escalas habituais do tempo e da comunicação é provavelmente um factor de sedução essencial. » (Wolton, 2000: 77)

«De resto, esta [juventude] encontra nas novas tecnologias um veículo adicional de distinção em relação aos adultos, simbolizados no império da televisão. Mas a vontade de distinção é sem dúvida menos forte do que a sensação de participar por intermédio das novas tecnologias numa aventura nova. Não é só a história não estar terminada, é o multimédia abrir um novo capítulo na história da comunicação, do trabalho, das relações pessoais, dos serviços» (Wolton, 2000: 79/80)

«(...) nesta utopia da Net, o mais importante não é o fascínio pela técnica, pois a juventude dos países ricos vive desde os anos 70 num universo tecnológico; o mais importante está no facto da Net se ter tomado o suporte de sonhos eternos de uma nova solidariedade.» (Wolton, 81) 

«Existem três conceitos fundamentais para compreender o sucesso das novas tecnologias: autonomia, domínio e rapidez. Cada um pode agir, sem intermediário, quando quiser, sem filtro nem hierarquia e, o que é mais importante, em tempo real. Não se tem que esperar, age-se e o resuItado é imediato. Isto confere um sentimento de liberdade absoluta, e mesmo de poder, que se manifesta na expressão "surfar na Net". Este tempo real que desarruma as escalas habituais do tempo e da comunicação é provavelmente um factor de sedução essencial. » (Wolton, 2000: 77)

«Um outro aspecto positivo diz respeito ao facto de as novas tecnoIogias satisfazerem a necessidade de agir. É a filosofia "do it yourself', que se encontra um pouco por todas as esferas da vida prática. A necessidade de agir e a capacidade para a interacção que caracterizam os indivíduos da sociedade moderna encontram aquI terreno propício ao seu desenvolvimento. É bom de ver que o acesso a máquinas semelhantes não reduz por si só as desigualdades sociais, mas pelo menos confere a alguns um sentimento real de que é possível operar uma revolução. Ora, isso permite ao jogo social renovar-se, sendo indispensável a cada geração para compensar uma outra percepção, por vezes bem real, a de que "isto é que vai uma crise!" (...) Se, por um lado, é indispensável não confundir nova tecnologia com nova cultura, por outro lado, pode-se, no mínimo, sublinhar que este novo suporte facilita uma determinada expressão cultural e linguagens ainda em gestação, embora seja ainda demasiado cedo para saber se, a prazo, representarão uma ruptura cultural relevante» (Wolton, 2000: 79) 

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) 

«One of the questions posed to the students was whether they thought, here in Portland, they could identify radio stations that were true "brands." A few stood out (KINK, 94.7, KGON and Jammin' 95.5 for music, and KOPB and KXL for news and talk), but most, they felt, were just "stations" that didn't exactly connect with them. There were myriad reasons why this was the case. For the most part, they felt as though most music stations were "delivery systems" with some people telling them what the song was. Part of their reasoning was that there lacked, in most cases, a tangible emotional connection. Most of the people in our class are under the age of 25, pretty brand loyal and savvy and, despite the fact they are in what amounts to a radio creative class, struggled to find, with some exceptions, a reason that a radio "station" could be considered a radio "brand."»

«Brands are, by definition, things that evoke emotional connections. Their value is a function of the fact that you care about them, and you only care about the stuff you maintain an emotional connection to or, in the ideal case of Kevin Roberts, the stuff you "love." Zanger says his students viewed most radio stations as "delivery systems" rather than brands. And in a crowded mediasphere with sound-alike competitors "delivery systems" are commodities. Easily and readily substituted whenever and however the mood strikes. I think we really need to ask ourselves as broadcasters what, exactly, creates value in our brands. What turns a "delivery system," a soul-less music channel, into an emotion-filled "brand"?»

«What are three trends to watch for in 2008 in radio?
(...) A third trend is the unknown.
When people ask, “‘Where’s radio going?,” the thing you can count on is something you can’t even imagine. Something big will happen that we don't have a clue about yet. »

fonte: For radio, expect year of unknowns, Media Life Magazine, By Diego Vasquez, Jan 11, 2008

«Many people are dissatisfied with the state of commercial radio in the U.S. today. “It all sounds the same” and “there’s nothing there for me” are common complaints. Observers point to consolidation in the radio industry as the cause. Since 1996, when Congress deregulated the radio industry, a wave of mergers has placed the majority of radio stations into the hands of a few large corporations. During this time the number of independent radio stations shrank. Uniform corporate policies and market research-driven programming have reduced the variety of music on commercial radio. One critic summed up this approach as “play the fewest songs that appeal to the most people.” Also problematic is the requirement that record companies make big payments to promoters in order to get their songs on the radio. As a consequence it is harder than ever for new acts to be heard on commercial radio; only the biggest and best-financed acts get access to the commercial airwaves. Bill Wyman of the Rolling Stones recently said, “The Rolling Stones would never make it now.”»

BREEDING, Andy (2004), Internet Music Services, MA: Giant Path, pag 18

«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

«(...) Clear Channel's John Hogan said "performance and capability is not our problem. Our problem is one of perception".
No.
Consolidators like Clear Channel but not limited to Clear Channel either just don't get it or they don't want us to get it.
1. They try to grow a business by cutting back.
2. They embrace the wrong technology (HD instead of mobile/Internet).
3. They have driven off the next generation -- have no clue what they want -- and think the problem is about perception. No one cares about perception -- they care about content and -- I might add -- how it is delivered. (...) I am convinced that as much as radio groups say they understand the Internet, they don't. It is a delivery system -- plain and simple. It needs content. One would think they would want to be in that business.»

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

Da leitura de mais um relatorio da JPMorgan sobre audiencias na net, o que mais impressiona é, por um lado, a incompatibilidade entre aquilo ali é designado por terresterial radio operators online (ou seja, a industria de rádio que tambem tem streaming) e os internet radio providers (canais de streaming neste giria) e o desinteresse destes por aqueles.  Ou seja, a industria de rádio não se interessou em lançar canais autonomos de streaming e as empresas que os têm tambem não pensam em emissão hertziana. (a excepção é a Last.Fm e a CBS)

Por curiosidade: «Terrestrial radio operators online include Beasley Broadcasting, CCU, CBS Radio & Last.fm, CDL, CXR, Educational Media Foundation, ETM, EMMS, Greater Media, Maranatha Broadcasting, Midwest Communications, NPR , Radio Disney, Radio One, Regent Communications, and Spanish Broadcasting, as well as the individual website metrics for wbal (HTV), wgn (TRB), and wtmx (Bonneville). Internet radio providers include, AOL Radio, Yahoo! Music, MSN Radio, Pandora.com, social.com, windowsmedia.com music, LIVE365.com, Accuradio, accutunes, BigRRadio, 181.fm, Lucksysevenradio.com, orsradio.com, Sky.fm, 1club.fm, di.fm, rock.com, 1.fm, gotradio.com, broadcasturban.net, and 202online.com. Also, getnetradio.com, and myclubradio.com, were included in all months until June 2007 when comScore stopped reporting their metrics.»

Table 4: Unique Visitors to Pure Play Internet Radio's Websites, Dec. 2007 vs. Nov. 2007

Nov-07 Dec-07 Sequential Growth

Yahoo! Music 21,546 20,685 (4.0%)

Windowsmedia.com Music 3,721 4,086 9.8%

AOL Radio 3,353 3,680 9.7%

Pandora.com 3,774 3,957 4.9%

LIVE365.COM 905 1,069 18.2%

Social.fm 22 NM NM

Accuradio 154 NM NM

181.fm 231 351 51.5%

Luckysevenradio.com 280 173 (38.3%)

«notre societé est en train d'inventer un nouveau type d'agregat social mettant en jeu une étrange combinaison d'egoisme et de grégarité (...)» Vivre en troupeau en se pensant libres ,Dany-Robert Dufour, Le Monde Diplomatique Janeiro 2008, pág 20

« (...) within 10 years, no consumption of anything that we think about as media today -- print, TV, Internet -- everything that we think about today as media will, in fact, be delivered over IP Internet technology, and will all be digital. I don't care whether you're sitting there watching your big screen, whether you think you're reading what we would have called a magazine or a newspaper in the old days; everything will be delivered digitally, delivered digitally, which means, in fact, that the forms of the creative, the creative in the media, the creative in the advertising, the technologies which will be available for targeting, will all be fundamentally different, and be able to be improved by software. (...) as soon as you assume everything is delivered digitally, all media and all advertising will have to take that into account. The notion that you have things that are just text or just pictures or just video goes away, because everything is digital. »

BALLMER, steve, «ANA ANnual Conference», 12/10/07

«If you want to influence what gets played on traditional radio you have the option of calling in a song request to the disc jockey (DJ). Or, if the station is more technically savvy, you can send requests by fax, e-mail, or instant messenger. This, of course, presumes that the show is live and the DJ is available to review your request—which is often not the case. Most Internet radio stations are similar in this regard: your ability to influence the playlist is limited, and your main choice is whether to listen or not. The Internet is a two-way medium, however, and a number of services have emerged to exploit this fact. As a listener you get some control over the broadcast. At its most basic, this control includes the ability to skip or pause songs that you are listening to. At its most sophisticated, personalized radio allows you to fine tune a broadcast based on your musical preferences. This can range from genre preferences (I like Classical but I don’t like Rap) to artist and album preferences (I like David Bowie but not his latest album), and song preferences (I like the original version of The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down). While personalized radio does not allow you to control the exact composition or sequence of your playlist—for this you need a true on-demand music service— it does help you control the content of your station. In many situations this is all you need—especially if your intent is to discover new music. Personalized radio gives you the means to follow a musical trail—using favored songs or artists as “scent.”»

fonte: BREEDING, Andy (2004), Internet Music Services, MA: Giant Path, pag 33

Songerize promete muito; mas «Sorry, couldn't find song» é a expressão que mais vezes aparece...

« (...) Even as the future of Digital One, owned by GCap and the infrastructure provider Arqiva, is under scrutiny, plans are being drawn up for a second national “multiplex” for the commercial sector, headed by Channel 4 Radio. (...) All the uncertainty and a vortex of conflicting interests have simply amplified a debate on the future of digital radio – a technology that is being taken up much later in the day by consumers than digital television – and whether it is now at the brink of a “Freeview” moment of immense growth, or a “Betamax” moment of consumer abnegation. Some industry experts such as Richard Wheatley, chief executive of The Local Radio Company, see Digitial Audio Broadcasting (DAB) as radio’s equivalent of Betamax, a failed technology in the face of a mass of better alternatives»

Não, diz a BBC: «Following yesterday's news from GCap Media, the BBC and 4 Digital Group have joined forces to confirm their commitment to develop digital radio in the UK. Both parties will look at ways to encourage more rapid consumer take-up of the technology ahead of 4 Digital's launch in the next 12 months»

«Millions of people who have invested in new digital radios were yesterday wondering whether they would be left with little more than expensive ornaments after Britain's biggest commercial radio group all but abandoned the medium. The owner of Capital Radio, Classic FM and Xfm was an enthusiastic champion of digital audio broadcasting (DAB) under its previous management, spending an estimated £80m on new transmitters and stations.»

«Ms Hazlitt, the former Virgin Radio chief, said GCap had spent around £8m a year on digital radio, but had failed to recoup the investment. It is a marked change in strategy for GCap, which under its former chief executive Ralph Bernard, championed DAB. Ms Haz-litt said: "We believe the future for the new GCap is on FM and broadband. FM remains the backbone of the radio industry and on quality compares favourably to any other platform." The latest Rajar figures show that DAB accounts for 9 per cent of all listening, digital radio alone for 4 per cent and online – in which GCap is now placing its faith – for just 1.9 per cent, even though many more households have broadband than have DAB radio sets.»

This doesn’t mean that the radio industry doesn’t have a better product today and will for a long time to come. Every car comes with a radio that is simple to use. WiFi isn’t ubiquitous and free outside of the most dense major metropolitan areas. And it isn’t clear that WiFi or any other form of bandwidth will ever really be free and ubiquitous the way the radio spectrum is. But the trendline is going in a clear direction. High bandwidth IP is going to be everywhere someday pretty soon. In that world, the radio industry’s spectrum is not the proprietary advantage that it is today.» ,fonte: «Radio in 2010 July 12, 2004 in Venture Capital and Technology

1. Listeners will increasingly prefer to pay for programs, not stations. Just as music buyers want individual songs, not entire albums. It doesn't make sense for me to subsidize a station for a podcast I can hear without that station. Nor does it make sense to pay for a station that mixes in lots of stuff you don't like with exactly what you love.

2. The definition of a "public radio listener" will have to be reconsidered when such a listener may - in some cases - listen to public radio podcasts but never to a radio station that airs them. If I never listen to a station but do hear numerous public radio podcasts, how can I support my favorite shows without supporting a station I ignore?

3. Public radio will have to significantly enhance their ability to solicit and encourage donations from podcast listeners for podcasts. A passive "please pledge" will not do the trick. At the very least there should be a "walled garden" that listeners elect to pay for, behind which are all kinds of goodies for premium podcast subscribers only. This is no different from the premium items stations use in their solicitation efforts now - except it's program based and online. It's not about blocking free distribution, rather it's about offering premium access to a deeper experience of the program. But we're a long way from that now: If you go to the page for NPR's Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me, it's not even possible to support the program directly from this web page!

4. Stations will have to recognize that their value is related to the manner in which they mix public radio programs and add original local content that is a magnet in and of itself. To expect support for the station simply because it airs Car Talk will no longer be reason enough to expect support.

5. Revenue models will have to change. Revenue can and should shift to web-based models for program sponsorship, with the station affiliates sharing in those proceeds. In the long run, the stations will be supported by the programs, not vice versa.

6. More funding for public radio programs will have to come from corporate or other non-listener sponsorship.

Imeem and Last.fm are positioned as music communities, where friends tell each other about what songs and artists they like. Since the sites have licensing agreements with the four major labels, fans can share songs and playlists with each other. Last.fm restricts users to listening to a song just three times, while Imeem has no restrictions. Both services are online radio stations, but they are different from competitors Pandora or Slacker, which create personalized stations based on your musical tastes. Here, you pick the songs and the artists, or choose music based on recommendations from peers. "Friends pay a lot more attention to what their peers say than music reviewers," says Mike McGuire, an analyst with Gartner.  The sites also differ from social networks like MySpace and Facebook in that "our audience isn't looking for dates," says Steve Jang, Imeem's chief marketing officer.» (fonte: «Music websites are fighting to be free, 5/02/08, USA Today)

«There’s now a bevy of free, ad-supported music services emerging, including CBS' Last.fm, Spiralfrog, imeem and Qtrax. The message to consumers is clear: Music is an add-on; it has no retail value of its own. With each new service, the $0 price point is reinforced and music becomes swag – like logo embossed ballpoint pens or branded refrigerator magnets.   

Maybe this evolution is natural – after all, it’s often been pointed out that recorded music has a zero marginal cost to produce (meaning that every additional MP3 produced by a record label costs no more than the original recorded track.)  Proof of exactly how cheap it is to produce music is the billion MP3 files each month that are created via P2P sites, mostly illegal.  How can consumers really be expected to pay $1 for a product they know costs nothing to produce?» (The Brooding Savage, 7/02/08)  

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.»

«(...) MP3 players' future depend on radio.

"The Zune has an FM receiver because a Microsoft product study found that 46 percent of Zune owners listen to the radio receiver function at least once a week," he [CEO of the Radio Advertising Bureau, Jeff Haley ]said. "And the radio feature has higher-than-average importance to Zune owners, scoring 8 out of 9 points." Haley also noted that in a product feasibility study, Microsoft found that 74 percent of respondents listed radio as their primary source for new music, leading online (31 percent) and in-store (8 percent). "The long-term success of an MP3 player requires users to continue to source and use new music," he said. "Without new music, the player becomes stale and irrelevant, relegating the MP3 to just one more fad. FM radio will definitely drive the success of the MP3 player."

He noted, however, that radio's future is also linked to MP3 players, over 100 million of which are in U.S. consumers' hands. "What would it mean for our business if all of those players featured access to radio content?"»

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

MAIS: «Also the FM adapter for Apple’s iPod ("it’s the #1-selling accessory").»

«"Are you getting the new audience? The iPod generation?" Wired magazine author Chris Anderson and "Long Tail" author Chris Anderson starts an effective keynote speech explaining radio’s creation of "the notion of a common culture" that was "suddenly synchronized around this top-down delivery" of content, starting in the 1920s. That template of a mass medium – a homogeneous culture created by relatively few sources of content – ended in the late 1990s. That’s because "the Internet allows you to reach everybody with an infinite amount of content for free." (Anderson’s forthcoming book is titled "Free", about how content creators need to create ways to get paid for their free content.) Anderson answers a question about who’s responding best to the new imperative to narrowcast or even "slivercast", and he says it’s "advertising." Though not his own business of magazines, or books, or broadcasting. As for radio, "this is the only medium that’s translated to online virtually unchanged. The core product – free music and spoken word – is undiminished in popularity, and vastly increased in reach." But radio’s no longer got anything like a monopoly on supplying either music or talk. Anderson concludes "the business model must change."

fonte: "Are you getting the new audience? The iPod generation?", Taylor On Radio-Info, 13/02/08

«(...) The marriage of automobile and radio seems so logical, one can only wonder why it took the intervention of entrepreneurs to make it happen. Happen it did; and nearly 80 years later, radio and the auto remain joined at the hip.
The seminal year was 1929. After failing twice in the storage battery business, Paul Galvin was encouraged to try to put a workable car radio into volume production, an idea that had pretty much been ignored by auto manufacturers.
(...) Choices on the listening side are changing as well, thanks to satellite radio and HD2 channels, which can deliver traffic reports and information focused on commuters and provide more options and useful data to drivers than ever imagined possible.
But no matter how high tech, the simple joy of a pleasant audio companion in the car, a pleasure that stimulated radio sales at their introduction 80 years ago, is still there.»

(fonte: «Radio Has a Special Place in the Car, RWOnline, Charles S. Fitch, 2.01.2008)

«The NPR Podcast Directory, which features hundreds of free podcasts produced by NPR, NPR Member stations and other public radio producers, has now reached the 617-title count with the addition of the new NPR News "In Character" series, seven podcasts from public radio station WYEP/Pittsburgh, and nine more from other station contributors. Furthermore, since launching in August 2005 with 33 titles, NPR reports that its podcasts have generated more than 200 million downloads, and they currently average 12 million downloads per month. In the fourth quarter of 2007, there were 36.5 million downloads of NPR Podcasts, which marks an increase of 19 percent over the previous quarter.»

fonte: FMQB, 11/02/08, NPR Bolsters Podcasts, Tops 200 Million Downloads

«We are in the middle of an exciting expansion of radio's horizon and capability with the digital revolution.  And, despite all the naysayers, radio's doing quite well. With all the new choices available to consumers, radio has lost less than 5% of its total listening.  Radio components  within new devices are expanding our reach.  Did you know that one of the most popular and well received accessories for iPods is the FM tuner?  Did you notice that Microsoft included a radio tuner in its Zune device?  Technology companies have embraced radio; it is high time for radio to embrace the technological tidal wave, rather than swimming against it.   Regardless of the delivery system, radio will always have the unique advantage of being the local content provider.  We've got the facility and the talent; all we lack is the vision to move aggressively into custom, tailored content for these new delivery systems.» ( Peter Smyth, CEO Greater Media, Sending Bold Signals at RAB2008, Fev 08)

«At RAB2008, we will explore how to position Radio’s assets across the increasing number of distribution channels in ways that are attractive to advertisers. New distribution channels extend Radio’s ability to meet consumer demand for our content where they want it and when they want it. Radio is uniquely positioned to do this because it is the only medium that does not change its form from channel to channel» RAB State of the Radio Industry – February 12, 2008 at RAB2008 in Atlanta Jeff Haley, 2008.

«1 - I can hear RABRadio on my laptop. I’m getting the audio content over the Internet as opposed to a broadcast signal;

2- With this IP Radio from Assus, I don’t need my laptop to listen to a local Atlanta Radio station. And once again, it is delivered via the Internet. (...) Many IP Radios are wireless, so you don’t even need to have an Internet connection in the room. It certainly makes it a lot easier for the listener to get the content they want, when they want it, and where they want it.

3 - (...) Today, it’s the MP3 Player. For Apple’s iPods, this Radio Remote accessory allows FM listening, and the most popular accessory that Apple sells.

4 - (...) The long term success of an MP3 player requires that users continue to source and use new music. Without new music the player becomes stale and irrelevant – relegating the MP3 to just one more fad. FM Radio will definitely drive the success of the MP3 player.

5 Revenue opportunities also exist with Radio to display text-messaging. This feature is quickly moving beyond artist and title information and is poised to deliver advertiser content, including location-based messages and GPS services. This DUAL Radio features MSN® Direct HD, providing personalized and localized text content on the display screen.

6 (...) HD Radio is expanding its in-vehicle presence and is available as a factory-installed unit in BMW, MINI Cooper, Hyundai, and by 2009 in all Ford vehicles. iTunes Tagging has made the buy button a reality. Listeners tag the songs they want and when they connect their iPods to their computers, there is a seamless transition to the purchase process. So, hearing music over the air I hit the tag button and I have the option to buy.

8 - (...) There are over 200 million mobile phones in the U.S., representing nearly 80 percent of the population. This Nokia mobile phone comes with a built-in FM Radio receiver. Again, if Radio were available on every mobile phone, what would that do to drive our business forward?»

RAB State of the Radio Industry – February 12, 2008 at RAB2008 in Atlanta Jeff Haley, 2008.