If the pros can do it....(discussion - in reverse chronological order)
> As you can see in my post today about CNETNetworks, CNET has learned some expensive lessons about technology shows and over the air broadcast Radio shows circa 2003. They have totally abandoned their terrestrial and satellite Radio broadcasts and focussed on the Internet as the platform to deliver CNET Networks' audio content .
They have focused their content offerings to technology professionals and enthusiasts, dropping some shows that don't fit that bill. This and dropping over the air radio will save them a lot of money. In the late 1990's when money was plentiful, it probably made sense to expand CNET Radio's vertical markets and distribution methods. But with the present market conditions they have returned to their core audience for CNET Radio survival.
The problem is Radio people treat technology Radio shows like all other broadcast markets, play to the masses. This makes the technology show's content shallow and mainly hype which makes it boring and inefficient to the tech listener. Unless you have deep pockets to develop an over the air Radio audience over a long period (some audiences just will never be there) any content served over the air is doomed to this faith.
So why did CNET Radio drop over the air radio? The number of technology professionals and enthusiasts listening to over the air radio is shrinking every day. With the focus of content toward technology professionals and enthusiasts audience it doesn't make sense to put their money where that audience is shrinking. Better to go to the Internet platform where the technology audience goes for news and is growing.
CNET was smart enough to drink their own Kool-Aid and see that their core audience is way ahead on the technology curve. They own multiple digital devices like media players, notebooks and PDA's and Internet connectivity (sometimes not easily and productively) throughout the day is the norm. They get their information in many ways and they want it when they want it versus relying on a radio schedule. They want to find the same information in the future when they need it. They work in buildings that most over the air radio waves can't penetrate..
I for one had weaned myself off commercial Radio except for local news when necessary (such as storms, traffic reports, etc.) . I don't always have time to listen to a whole show to get the 2 minute sound byte I'm interested in. It's probably hype and shallow content anyway. I have found enough interesting Internet content to make myself happy.
I actually applauded the technology decisions that CNet Radio recently made. It makes my life easier. I never listened to any of their shows over the air. I use to digitally record a show every morning from an on demand audio stream for the ride to work. Not no more. They deliver a MP3 file to my desktop over the Internet, twice a day. I just have to move it to the player.
My only compliant is I wish the file was more bloglike. They need to break the stories/segments into separate files or use some kind of technology that would point to start and end points of the stories in the whole file (maybe defined by an outline of the whole show).
A technology professional and enthusiast Radio show in 2003 has to distribute and deliver over the Internet. Over time the technology has to change as fast as the products of the companies it reports about.
Comment from Mitch of RatcliffeBlog: Business, Technology & Investing -> Harold -- A couple things: first, a radio program on the air or streamed on a regular basis is a very different thing than personalized radio content. We still have to play in the realm of the known for the radio people. That said, a radio program could be a profound way to kick open the door to personalized listening. A show is the first step to saying "there is a lot more out here, why are you listening to boring shit on commercial radio?"
So, a radio program needs segements, people talking based on blog posting (arguments on tape) and doing interviews based on selecting folks who clearly know how to string a sentence together. It's not elitist, but just a first step.
Second, I was on the Web Talk Guys audioblogging segment and think they did a great job with it. As I think I said that evening, all of us who are interested in audioblogging have to think about how to speak to whomever we want to reach. That's as old as the art of public speaking, and not in the least diminished in this environment, where so many voices already and more will contend for the attention of the "audience."
But, yes, I'm putting together a mailing list for people on this topic and welcome you, Harold, and anyone else, to join. We're going to get a show on the air and give the foundations of media a good shake.
My response to Mitch's post "If the pros can do it...." -> Mitch what if BlogRadio presented all of it's content like this. Instead of a contiguous flow of all stories in one file, individual segments (files) representing each story or thought. I listen to alot of news MP3s as I drive to and from work and find it very frustrating that I can't fast forward to the next news story or even move five seconds ahead. A distinct separation of the show stories makes it more blog like and convient for other bloggers to add "BlogRadio show stories" not whole shows to their blog posts.
I also see a distinct separation of what an Audioblog is and what a BlogRadio show could be. A Radio show ties stories, thoughts, discussions, etc. together. An AudioBlog is made up of distinct/individual/short/raw "focused topical (story, thoughts, discussion, etc.) audio clips". AudioBlog clips could be aggregated into a larger presentation that (aggregation to presentation could be automated) combines audio thoughts on the same topic, discussion or other kinds of grouping which could be repesented as a BlogRadio show. Not to say an AudioBlog itself couldn't contain a Radio show.
Imagine if some analysts had the tools to just record and post their thoughts on a given subject to an AudioBlog. Some listeners may find the raw posts to be boring. But now imagine a good RadioBlogJockey using an AudioBlog News reader and gathering that same post and adding that same post to a BlogRadio show story. This is similiar to the methods the Web Talk Guys used when adding AudioBlog posts to the Web Talk Guys AudioBlogging segment. If someone would have read those post I don't think it would have had the same emotional impact that hearing the words from the author's voice did. Even more is lost when reading a discussion.
As I have been thinking about Audioblogging over the months, I have convinced myself that this line of thinking is what approaches the "sweet spot" of what the incentive to keep an AudioBlog could be and starts to clarify the "fine line" that separates it from what a Radio Show is today.
Mitch's original post "If the pros can do it...." -> "For a while, I've been suggesting that studios and broadcasters should make their content available for remixing/riffing/modification by end users. Now, Mike Myers has signed a deal that lets him do "film sampling" to take existing scenes from films to make new stories. If Dreamworks, the company Myers is working with wants to have some fun, they should let people sign up for $20 a month to access and modify any part of its library, then share or sell those new stories with a cut going to Dreamworks. "
3:01:37 PM 
|
