Poor Babies...
So apparently Ashlee Simpson was booed at the Orange Bowl. Oh the tragedy. Now for something more important (actually almost anything is more important than Ashlee Simpson).
It seems everyones favorite trustbuster since Teddy Roosevelt, Eliot Spitzer, is now after Payola, and it has quite a few people (like Clear Channel and Infinity) heading for higher ground. This should be amusing. What bothers me is that part of the complaint is from those that were largely marginalized, the independents, because they feel that radio programmers will now tighten up even further, "...tight radio playlists are unlikely to improve anytime soon. While indie promoters are often seen as dubious, they did have a knack for getting new acts their break on FM radio. That's why some industry insiders worry that station programmers may soon become even less adventurous in choosing which songs get tapped for rotation on FM stations' heavily guarded playlists."
Why would they do that? I would think they would be (should be?) smart enough to understand their own markets and adjust accordingly. Maybe it is the fixation to find the mega-jumbo-uber star that they skip on the possible benefits of building a regional market that is incredibly strong and vibrant. If you look at the history of radio markets that grew their own very distinct personas, they were related to hotbeds of musical activity, and radio stations that were open to them made great connections with future superstars (i.e. KOME in the Bay Area, which for a time had one of the most visible brands imagineable; so much so that I found KOME stickers in surrounding states). Homogeneity only works for the CLear Channels because their bureaucracy wants to streamline to cater to their bottom line, but I really do not see that as the most beneficial at the local level for stations that do not want to start losing their business to things like satellite radio.
For those that do not take satellite radio seriously, just remember the big 3 broadcatsers on TV didn't take cable seriously in the beginning either, and now that observation has been shown to be a little short sighted. People are will to pay for good content tailored (or open) to their interests, rather than some master playlist generated from the heart of blandness. I've heard early indiciations that satellite radio shows some of the early inventiveness that made FM radio in the 70s become so titanic -- openness, variety, and a strong feedback llop with its subscribers.
We'll see I suppose.
It seems everyones favorite trustbuster since Teddy Roosevelt, Eliot Spitzer, is now after Payola, and it has quite a few people (like Clear Channel and Infinity) heading for higher ground. This should be amusing. What bothers me is that part of the complaint is from those that were largely marginalized, the independents, because they feel that radio programmers will now tighten up even further, "...tight radio playlists are unlikely to improve anytime soon. While indie promoters are often seen as dubious, they did have a knack for getting new acts their break on FM radio. That's why some industry insiders worry that station programmers may soon become even less adventurous in choosing which songs get tapped for rotation on FM stations' heavily guarded playlists."
Why would they do that? I would think they would be (should be?) smart enough to understand their own markets and adjust accordingly. Maybe it is the fixation to find the mega-jumbo-uber star that they skip on the possible benefits of building a regional market that is incredibly strong and vibrant. If you look at the history of radio markets that grew their own very distinct personas, they were related to hotbeds of musical activity, and radio stations that were open to them made great connections with future superstars (i.e. KOME in the Bay Area, which for a time had one of the most visible brands imagineable; so much so that I found KOME stickers in surrounding states). Homogeneity only works for the CLear Channels because their bureaucracy wants to streamline to cater to their bottom line, but I really do not see that as the most beneficial at the local level for stations that do not want to start losing their business to things like satellite radio.
For those that do not take satellite radio seriously, just remember the big 3 broadcatsers on TV didn't take cable seriously in the beginning either, and now that observation has been shown to be a little short sighted. People are will to pay for good content tailored (or open) to their interests, rather than some master playlist generated from the heart of blandness. I've heard early indiciations that satellite radio shows some of the early inventiveness that made FM radio in the 70s become so titanic -- openness, variety, and a strong feedback llop with its subscribers.
We'll see I suppose.
posted by theloniusfunk at 4:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home