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.