Radio's New Music Fantasy

The recent headline "Google and MySpace will challenge radio’s music-discovery position," got me asking the question "What music-discovery position?"

In the years I have been analyzing consumer use of media, including broadcast radio, Internet and more recently smart phone behavior, radio has had the potential to capture the new music discovery crown.

Unfortunately, it never has lived up to this potential.






In 2007, Bridge Ratings conducted a series of deep studies of music consumers of all ages and, as you might suspect, found that 18-30 year olds were most interested in discovering new music though any means possible. In the category of where most of this discovery was occurring, broadcast radio followed peers and the Internet as the place to go to find great new music.

However, in focus groups to dig deeper, radio had the greatest potential of all three for new music discovery due to its primary benefits: ease of use, accessibility and the fact that radio is free.

Yet radio never took the initiative.

In the last two years I have discussed this notion of new music discovery with at least 100 radio programmers in the formats of Contemporary Hit Radio (CHR), Adult Alternative and Alternative.

Would it surprise you to know that none of them saw the wisdom of claiming the "new music" position in their markets by proactively promoting and playing new music by either established performers or undiscovered talent.

Radio's belief that it is the new music discovery destination is pure fantasy.

There's a fabulous on-line worldwide talent competition called "Fame Games" which boasts two million worldwide listeners; 70% listen in the U.S. alone. I have had an interest in this five-shows-a-week talent competition and thought it would suit American radio just fine.

"Fame Games" features unsigned artists of any cross-over genre competing for best track of the week and ultimately a major record contract.

This is a well-produced, fun feature that pits two songs against each other vying for the votes of listeners and the program's judges. So, I took it to U.S. radio.

American programmers won't go there.

Aggressively marketing one's radio station as the "place for new music discovery" would greatly bulk up a station's image if done properly and perhaps even draw young listeners back to a medium that is having its problems holding on to this important demographic.

So, when I read that Google or MySpace will challenge radio's music discovery position, or when I read the RAB's Jeff Haley's concern about how radio has to protect this turf, I have to shrug my shoulders.

As far as radio's listeners are concerned, there is no new music turf to protect.

Radio had the opportunity to claim this territory for itself at least two years ago when audiences told us that radio's convenience would make it the most likely place to go to discover new music.

It never took the opportunity and very well may find itself pushed out by new media which seems to take every opportunity to infringe on radio's weaknesses.

This all points to radio's biggest challenge: getting back to creating and presenting engrossing and compelling programming....for all ages.

The radio industry must build upon its rich history of being listener-focused.

In its confusion in recent years, radio has simply forgotten how to compete.

The Radio Airplay Debate

Since Bridge Ratings was one of the first to expose the truth about how radio airplay affects music sales, I think it only appropriate that I weigh in on this latest controversy that is brewing.

Seems the music industry has forgotten the "partnership years" when radio and records virtually changed the way music was consumed. Performers and labels alike believe radio has a one-side relationship with the music industry.

Programming radio stations was one of the favorite aspects of my career and a large part of those years was spent in the company of some of the record industry's best, most creative people. Most of the time those people where record company promotion people, whom I loved working with.

Many of the relationships I had with these people turned out to be much more than the typical program director/record label promo people relationship where they would come by the radio station on Tuesday's and wait outside my office until it was their turn to "pitch" their latest and greatest artists or albums.

Many of these people became good friends and I had the chance to learn just how hard they worked and how difficult their jobs were.

But in the seventies and eighties, radio and records worked as a team of sorts. The record promotion people would provide data or insight as to the record's benefits. Remember, this was before the Internet so airplay data was difficult to come by - part of record promo people's gigs was to enlighten, and the program directors and music directors of the industry would assimilate that information and determine whether songs and albums were worthy of airplay.

One music was added to radio playlists the relationship didn't end there. There were concert promotions, music store promotions and artist interviews, the two industries were connected at the hip in an effort to give momentum to careers of worthy performers. Sure it helped sell records, but the radio industry benefited just as well.

The world seems to have changed since then and now it's coming back to bite the radio industry in the butt. Those that represent the music industry - both corporate and performers alike - feel it is time that radio's "free ride" is over. They want their money.

See, radio pays licensing fees to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC based on the station's revenues. The better a radio station's revenue, the more fees that station pays. It has always been a common belief that radio stations that rely on music for their ratings should pay music publishing houses for the right to use the music that drove revenues for the stations. Fair enough.

Now, the performers - who have not been receiving any special licensing or royalty from radio - want to pluck from the "money tree" they think radio is. It is, they claim, time for the performers of songs to benefit from the years of airplay.

Radio's argument is that the two industries have worked in tandem to benefit the music industry. Radio has - and continues to be - a wonderful promotional vehicle for artists who write and perform music no matter the genre.

In 2005 Bridge Ratings conducted a study to determine the influence radio airplay, Internet airplay and MP3 plays have on the consumer. Due to this current controversy, we just completed an update on this study.

Here are a few facts:

*88% of radio's total audience listens to music radio at least once a week

*50% of these listeners consider music radio to be their primary radio experience.

*Nearly 90% of these "music primaries" agree with the phrase: "I have purchased music I have heard on the radio."

*32% of these radio consumers have purchased music through brick and mortar stores or on-line in the last 30 days.

Does this sound like the radio's relationship with the music industry's artists and performers is one-sided? No.

Perhaps the more appropriate step is for the music labels to offer all performers new or updated agreements in order to include them in the cash flow from music sales.

Radio influences music purchase. There is no doubt in my mind.

Radio Moves Consumers to Buy

Once again, radio gets a bad rap.

This one comes from the University of Texas professor Stan Leibowitz who claims in a paper first published in January of this year that radio airplay can actually hurt music sales. I'm not sure what, if any sample, he used to come to this conclusion, but study after study we've done at Bridge Ratings is more than enough to convince me that radio moves music product. A variety of other industry research confirms this notion.

Both physical CD's and digital downloads are positively impacted by radio airplay; that's what our consumer samples have told us. We've been doing these types of studies since 2002.

In fact, let me reiterate a quote from the summary section of a study Bridge Ratings conducted in 2005 and confirmed again in '06: "Radio airplay - especially of new music - directly and positively affects consumers interest in listening to and subsequently buying new music. Digital downloads are the primary media of the young and early adopter young adults, and CD sales are still the media of choice for adults, especially those with younger children."

Our studies have gone on to establish that a radio format leaning heavily on new music and structured in such a way as to allow listener input on the songs being played, would be highly successful with the 13-21 year old age group with bleed-over into the upper 20's. This is because (we discovered) that no matter what the age group, consumers use traditional radio stations to satisfy their need for "surprises" in the form of either unexpected programming or new music.

And it is specifically the stations currently airing a predominance of current music that garner an audience whose number 1 reason for tuning in is music discovery. Consumers of this type of radio use those radio stations as a filter, screening out the poor and playing the best of the rest.

Yes, radio does sell music - and it sells tons of other consumer products. Music just happens to be easier to sell on the radio because the product is the commercial.

Here's a calculation the record labels might want to consider:

A Los Angeles radio station with average ratings playing 8 current songs an hour is, in essence, playing 8 commercials for those artists and the record labels. We've proven music moves product.

Over the course of a typical week, if that radio station received compensation as it would for its typical commercials, it should receive $2,150,400 for the value of the airtime that week alone!

Now, of course, these radio stations benefit greatly from accessibility to that music product given so generously by music labels. It is, after all, the station's programming content. And, truthfully, those stations garner ratings that generate revenue that generates profit. True. It's a symbiotic relationship this thing that radio and the labels have, but it works - has worked - and will continue to work.

To say that radio airplay hurts music sales is a misguided statement which either needs to be recanted or at least better explained.

Survivor: Internet Radio

Last month's "Day of Silence" was an eye-opener on two fronts. First, it is clear that through the significant support of thousands of Internet radio stations - small and large - a message came through loud and clear to Congress, to the Copyright Royalty Board, music performers and the American public that the numbers don't lie, i.e. there is a huge passionate audience out there for Internet radio. That's the good news.

Those I've communicated with at political levels were impressed by the thousands of calls but they don't think the noise created by unhappy Internet Radio fans will change congressional opinion. Congress is already convinced that something must be done to save the industry that could be wiped off the face of the earth with the Copyright Royalty Board's rate increases. It just needs to come up with a suitable compromise.

The second eye-opener has to do with the data we collected at Bridge Ratings over the three days surrounding the "Day of Silence".

1. We learned that 21% of the American public listens to Internet Radio on a weekly basis. That's up from 19% earlier this year.

2. We learned that of this 21% that listen weekly, more than half (55%) did NOT listen to Internet Radio on Tuesday, the "Day of Silence".

3. More interestingly, we found that 45% of that 21% DID listen.

4. 62% of the sample found their preferred Internet Radio station silent on Tuesday.

5. What did this 62% do when they found out their preferred Internet Radio station was silent? 72% of them found another Internet Radio station to listen to.

6. By Wednesday, the day after, audience levels returned to normal. 89% of the 21% had listened.

What's clear by this study is that even if the majority of Internet Radio stations go 'dark' should the royalty rates force them 'off the air', the consumer will find replacements in other surviving Internet Radio stations.

Perhaps this is what some of the big boys who did NOT support the "Day of Silence" have been thinking. Elimination of the majority of the Internet Radio competition will generate larger audiences for those still standing.

And even if the royalty rates skyrocket, perhaps it is feasible that these larger audiences will allow the remaining Internet broadcasters to monetize sufficiently to make the business work.

This may be what SoundExchange and the performers are hoping for, but in all likelihood the consumer will once again get the short end of the stick.

Nostalgia: Everybody's Sgt. Peppering

Hard to believe that June 4 is the 40th anniversary of the monumental "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band" album by the Beatles. And, rightly so, in this world of 'everyone-gets-to-voice-their-opinion-blogs', everyone is writing about it.

"Sgt. Pepper's" changed so much for so many, but in particular it had the power to change the thinking of a generation of young people. It influenced worldwide culture. 1967 was a watershed year and the release of such a creative musical endeavor represented a lifestyle shift to a higher gear.

Some of the people who were in their formative years (between 16 and 20 years of age) at the time eventually would find themselves in the radio business and "Sgt. Pepper's" systematically and ethereally had an impact on the early direction of rock radio.

When the album first was released on June 4, 1967 radio was all about the single; pop hits penetrating listeners' ears on powerhouse stations like WABC-AM in New York, WLS in Chicago and KHJ in Los Angeles. Suddenly, fans of the Beatles noticed something changed with their favorite band. The group had created an entire statement with their album; all of the songs seemed to tie in with the theme of the album and suddenly we all started listening to music differently - seeking subtle tie-ins between song and concept and realizing that "With a Little Help From My Friends" really sounded like crap on AM, but sounded like technicolor on FM.

And like many like me at the time, "Sgt. Pepper" opened a door in my mind about how cool radio could be.

What is amazing about this entire "Sgt. Pepper" experience is that while the Beatles stretched themselves to be creative with the recording of this album, they didn't really appreciate at the time of the recordings what affect these songs would have on the world. The only thing they cared about each day going into the studios was that they recreate on tape what they heard in their heads, consistently pushing George Martin to produce what they heard and seeking guidance from engineer-extrordinaire Geoff Emerick to make it sound unlike anything anyone had heard before.

The album took six months to record - a huge detour in music recording in those days. Prior to "Sgt. Pepper", the Beatles - and most other artists - would more often record an album's worth of songs in a week and get it pressed and out to the public within the month. "Pepper" was different because the 'boys' had decided just prior to recording the album that they would stop touring and devote their time to quality recordings. They were focused and on a mission.

On this 40th anniversary of such a superb creative effort which influenced active and passive music lovers alike, it's with melancholy that I think of the general lack of creativity that is presented in the music and radio business these days.

Generally, the music released by record labels seems uninspired. And while there are some very interesting things happening on the Internet with Indie bands, in general the malaise that has stricken the radio industry has infected the music industry - or vice versa.

There are a small number of creative radio stations popping up around the country, but there is also a tiredness that is pervasive in the radio industry - including satellite radio - that also overcomes people in their 60's when they realize they just don't feel the same when they get out of bed in the morning.

When "Sgt. Pepper" was released, rock radio and the music industry were bound together in an adolescent growth period for both industries. The two businesses seemed to work more closely together to make "it" work. As a program director for rock radio stations in the early 70's, I can attest to a different relationship program directors had with their music company reps. At least I felt we were on the same team with the goal of getting the best music (on vinyl) out to the masses.

"Sgt. Pepper" opened the door and a flood of interesting new albums followed:

• "Bookends" by Simon & Garfunkle, "Wheels of Fire" by Cream, "Waiting for the Sun" by the Doors and "Cheap Thrills" by Big Brother & The Holding Company (Janis Joplin) - all in 1968.
• "Blood, Sweat & Tears", "Blind Faith", "Zeppelin II" and "Abbey Road" in 1969.

What will it take to revitalize the music and radio industries' in 2007? It's anyone's guess. Inspiration can come from anywhere.

But we need another "Sgt. Pepper" event.

I, for one, don't think we'll ever experience such a cultural phenom again, which is a shame because it literally changed the world.

Has the Music Industry Reached the Tipping Point?

In a dramatic acceleration of the seven-year sales decline that has battered the music industry, compact-disc sales for the first three months of this plunged 20% from last year, the latest sign of the seismic shift in the way consumers acquire music.

The music industry is smack-dab in the middle of a tipping point.

Sales of CD's, which still account for more than 85% of music sold, has far eclipsed the growth in sales of digital downloads. Some say that the music industry finds itself almost powerless in the face of this massive consumer shift to digital music consumption. In recent weeks the music industry has posted some of the weakest sales it has ever recorded. One week "American Idol" runner-up Chris Daughtry's new CD sold just 65,000 copies - and it was the number one album that week. In prior years, it wasn't uncommon for a number one record to sell 500,000 copies a week!

Digital sales have countered this CD slide somewhat rising 54% from last year at this time to 174 million according to Nielsen SoundScan. Yet it's not enough to offset the 20% decline in CD sales.

In sociology, a tipping point is the event of a previously rare phenomenon becoming rapidly and dramatically more common. Much like in physics when a small amount of weight is added to a balanced object it can cause it to suddenly and completely topple. This is what is occurring today in the the music industry.

So, what's the music industry to do? They have been resentful of digital downloads - perhaps rightfully so when it comes to illegal or free downloading and sharing. And the digital protection (DRM) on files the industry does allow to be legally downloaded prohibits mass consumption because that protection is not always capable of playing on all types of digital music players.

Now is the time for the music industry to seriously consider Gerd Leonhard's "Music Like Water" manifesto.

This concept essentially calls for the music industry to realize that the more people who are exposed to music the more will buy. Lower prices, make the music ubiquitous, expand distribution.

• Drop digital protection and release music files that can be enjoyed on any MP3 player
  
• There are 75,000 different devices that play MP3 files and approximately 75 that play protected files.
• "Music Like Water" = everybody uses and everybody pays (but not at each and every point of use). Tap water is ubiquitous and "feels free" as consumers pay a flat rate or a rate subject to actual use.
• Ubiquity increases value. Sell access first.
• Business models that empower the end user will be successful.

The music industry has been ignoring the inevitable as sales of its prime medium (CD's) continue to slide. Will the industry wait until it is literally forced to adopt this model? Or will they begin to move the paradigm toward this solution now to create a smoother transition and ultimately a significant increase in music sales.

Music remains important to the average consumer and we want to be in control. We want to program our own media - we don't want it to program us. The music industry has not accepted this transition of power to the consumer which has not occurred overnight. It's like plugging holes in an expanding dam - eventually the pressure will be too significant.

To the music industry I say: you're losing the war. It's time to face the facts. Your battle with consumers is reminiscent of the movie '300' - you're doing your best to hold back the Persians. Accept the change in the marketplace, develop a model for ubiquitous music access, charge me for use and watch distribution flourish.

This may be the music industry's last chance.