Category Archives: Media & Culture

Dont’ write Jack off

Posted on by

Russ Schell says don’t dismiss the JACK radio format just because I haven’t heard it:

“I launched the 3rd JACK station in the U.S. and found it, among the very few I’ve programmed, one I actually enjoyed listening to for extended periods. (It was also a ratings smash before I quit.) Most people don’t realize that every incarnation of JACK is different from another. There’s a very loose guideline, of course, in terms of presentation and production values but you won’t find all of the same songs on JACK stations in different parts of the country. There IS localization. There are collaborations with local values and local tastes when it’s done well. There are “air talents” on some JACK stations and none on others. It’s not satellite, it’s not syndication… it’s a concept, and one left open to wide interpretation. That’s the part that the naysayers don’t get.”

“Your Nano is good. Fine. Excellent for a road trip through Kansas… but Nano is a cocoon. Your own music, your way, without any outside intervention or appeal. It’s limiting in that sense and has nothing more “local” than your own brain and own “mix.” I can talk to myself all day… but that doesn’t make me interesting, challenging, compelling, or unique. Hopefully, somehow, that’s what radio can be.”

Russ tried to post this as a comment to an earlier post that linked to a post by Chris Anderson. (I can’t seem to get comments working properly here at Typepad) As far as I know, the Jack format is great radio. I just have not heard it. So I’m certainly not ready to dismiss it. There must be a place where I can stream it and take a listen.

As for the iPod nano: “nothing more local than your own brain and own mix” sounds pretty good to me, Russ. The good news (or bad, depending on your perspective) is, listeners will decide the fate of radio. If it’s good and entertaining and informative…we will listen. The new factor in the equation is all the choices we now have that didn’t exist a few years ago (Internet, iPods, satellite). Radio had a captive audience… and now it doesn’t.

I forgot about the Mothboard on this topic. The perfect place for Russ to have shared his comments. I’ll have to provide a more prominent link.

Is Jack FM the long tail of radio?

Posted on by

The main problem with radio is not the relatively small size of the playlists (although that doesn’t help); it’s that music is polarizing–people may like one song but hate the next, so they’re prone to switch stations or switch off entirely. As MTV found out a decade ago, there simply is no single playlist that can keep enough people listening long enough to please the advertisers. MTV switched to reality shows because they’re sticky. Radio is switching to talk for the same reason.

It is the curse of broadcast: with just a few dozen stations in each city, most must aggregate audiences in the tens of thousands. In an era of infinite choice and narrowcasting, such mass-market broadcast distribution–the ultimate one-size-fits-all model–just can’t compete.

— Chris Anderson on the future of music on radio

I have not heard the Jack format and think it unlikely I will. The little nano is getting more and more of my limited listening time (mostly podcasts, some music). I’m even listening to XM less since getting the little iPod.

Who will own the podcasting rights?

Posted on by

From an article by Dan Migala in the Sports Business Journal (subscription required):

“The NHL’s Blackhawks have launched Hawk-Cast, which is the first podcast created by an NHL team. A new edition of Hawk- Cast, which is a 10- or 15-minute show, is available two to three times a week. The show is hosted and produced by Blackhawks Web producer Adam Kempenaar using only a computer with audio recording capability and Internet access. The HawkCast features updates from practices and interviews with players, coaches and team management. Postgame news conferences and player interviews are also available as podcasts at www.chicagoblackhawks.com.”

As an employee of a company that pays millions of dollars every year for the media rights to some of the top college teams in the country, this next little item caught my attention:

“Another plus for the Blackhawks is that, because the content is original and produced in-house, there are no conflicts with radio rights holders. The team is free to sell advertising and sponsorships for each podcast or program segment. Kempenaar said the club has not sold advertising yet, but plans to do so.”

I remember the first time we saw a reference to streaming rights in a college bid spec. You can bet we’ll be seeing references to podcasting rights in future rights deals.

George Carlin: Why American education sucks

Posted on by

George Carlin’s latest comedy special on HBO (Life Is Worth Losing) had some really strong moments and others where I thought he was reaching. The open was Carlin at his best. A pissed-off poet for the 21st century. The all-suicide cable channel didn’t work for me, but he was at his rage-fueled best explaining why our education system will never get any better (3 min video). Recorded live at the Beacon Theater in New York City, this is why you want to have HBO.

Jeff Jarvis: “Trapped by history”

Posted on by

“When you think about it, satellite radio and iTunes are the best positioned in the new world for pay content … Print content is pretty much all free by now. Networks and cable and program producers and all bound up in their mutually destructive deals. But iTunes enables the sale of content and Sirius is producing content worth paying for and neither is trapped by their histories. — Jeff Jarvis

Our company has the multimedia rights for 19 of the biggest and bestest colleges in the country. Would those legions of fans pay $.99 for some video highlights from Saturday’s big game, if they could do it quickly and easily and have them download automatically to their video iPod? Ch-ching!

Living Healthy Podcast #2

Posted on by

Just uploaded the second Living Healthy podcast and we record #3 (What over-the-counter pills will make you healthy?) this Thursday. My doc is doing this because he sees it as the perfect vehicle to help people (his patients and others). I’m doing it because it’s fun. And it’s so easy and inexpensive to do, we just did it. We don’ need no stinking sponsors! But if you did want to make this pay, it might work like this:

Let’s say a year from now, there are 1,000 people downloading the show every week. With patients, friends, colleagues… I don’t think that would be an impossible number. Would a local hospital or medical group be willing to pay $100 per show (nice mention at beginning and end and maybe a drop-in somewhere in the middle)? Maybe.

Now, can you think of, say, nine more show ideas out there? I can. (SFX: calculator) Hello! We’re at $50,000 annually. The only thing missing are the 30’s and 60’s.

Update: Looks like I might have been off by a factor of four. Maybe. Good article by Heather Green at BusinessWeek online:

KCRW, the public radio station in Santa Monica, cut a deal with Southern California Lexus Dealers for a sponsorship this summer, when the station was getting 20,000 downloads a week. Since then the number spiked to 100,000. When the Lexus deal ends, KCRW plans to charge $25 per thousand listeners.

Why the premium for some podcasts? They help advertisers reach specific groups, even as media fragments. That’s one reason Sequoia Capital’s Mark Kvamme thinks podcasting could siphon $1 billion to $2 billion away from the $30 billion radio advertising market in three to five years.

thirtiesandsixties.com

Posted on by
Reply

I own a few domains that I’m not using. Squatting, if you will. I keep renewing BasementDiaries.com in hopes that I’ll eventually get around to moving that site to it’s own space. I just registered thirtiesandsixties.com. An idea that occurred to me while swilling beer with Scott earlier this evening. We were talking about radio and advertising and the big-chested blond at the bar and I went off on a riff about how someday the notion of little 30 and 60 second chuncks of advertising would seem quaint. More to the point, how our business (radio networks) is dependent on the concept of “thirties and sixties.” We’ll sell you “x” 30’s (or 60’s) between 6a and 7pm for “x” dollars. We sell “units.”

A blog about advertising or radio or networks could do worse than thirtiesandsixties.com. We’ll have more on that, right after this from our sponsor.

Why broadcasters are not cashing in online

Posted on by

Gordon Borrell on why broadcasters are not taking advantage of online advertising opportunities (from TVSpy):

“The big problem however, is the web is not a broadcast medium. In most cases we are not talking about a $1 million or even a $100,000 contract for advertising. We are only looking at several thousand dollars per contract. Broadcast sales people don’t have the time or interest to focus on those types of deals. The current compensation structure and incentives also don’t motivate broadcasters to focus on web advertising.”