Tuesday, 27 April 2021

TikTok turns to radio

News from Australia - TikTok’s local operation has partnered with the Australian Radio Network’s iHeartRadio to launch a new digital radio station, initially for three months. It’ll stream online via the platform and broadcast on DAB+ in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth.

TikTok Trending on iHeartRadio, described as "your one-stop-shop for staying up to date with what's happening on TikTok", will play "all the tracks that blow up on (the app’s) 'For You' page", combining the biggest hits, emerging talent and classic tracks being rediscovered on the platform.

Four influencers are signed up as presenters and will "shine a spotlight on the stories behind the TikTok-trending music they're playing, as they interview artists and chat about their favourite songs and acts on the platform".

There’ll also be guest hosts ("popular creators, local artists and international stars") - Rita Ora is the first name to be announced.

Despite the fact its eclectic music mix is a programmer’s worst nightmare, it seems like a great way to engage younger audiences which some say radio can’t do because, apparently, it’s "dead".

If that were the case, brands wouldn’t be so eager for a slice of the cake. It’s certainly interesting - and TikTok won’t be the last brand to utilise the unique benefits of audio.

Sean Ross has been listening to it, along with SoundCloud Radio - a station from rival group Southern Cross Austereo (SCA) which is dedicated to music discovery.

Monday, 26 April 2021

Audiences set today's standards

Interesting point from Graham Norton - traditionally, this was undoubtedly the case... but is it still this simple in a multi-media age?

Firstly, although it’s not perfect (is any large organisation?), I’ve always passionately defended the BBC’s existence and funding model. Its high quality journalism, education resources and broadcast output make it one of this country’s proudest institutions.

In the days before the internet, when a handful of TV/radio stations reigned supreme, the BBC was the commercial sector’s only competitor - and it didn’t have adverts then either.

Nowadays, you also have the likes of Netflix, Spotify and an ever-growing range of digital media including podcasts which are raising the bar for all traditional broadcasters, including the BBC.

Of course, two ad-free pop stations with huge budgets behind them (including the UK’s most listened-to, Radio 2) are still huge competition for commercial radio - but traditional radio/TV isn’t just competing with its own anymore.

To put it simply, audiences are setting the standards more than ever.

Wednesday, 14 April 2021

*initiating Obit mode*

If you work in media, you probably had a busier than expected day on Friday (9th April).

Buckingham Palace announced the Duke of Edinburgh’s death at midday.

For radio, it was time to activate the practiced "Obit" procedure.

This was once a strictly defined protocol for the death of a "category one" royal (which Prince Philip isn't), but there’s no longer any regulatory obligation for stations to follow this.

Here’s Radio Authority guidance published in 2002:

While not required to, stations will adjust the tone of their output so as not to be seen as disrespectful or perhaps, depending on the event/circumstances, to genuinely reflect the mood of their audience.

In previous generations (it could be argued a more royalist era) and no digital media, analogue radio/TV could more effectively influence the national psyche because consumers would have nowhere else to go.

These days, as the weekend’s viewing figures have shown, a sizable chunk of audiences will desert their preferred media, hijacked by blanket coverage, in pursuit of things that actually interests them.

Another, honest and valid, point to make is that Prince Philip is not The Queen whose death will spark a more widespread emotional response.

Radio's Operation Forth Bridge

Unlike its infamous mishap in 2002 after The Queen Mother’s death was announced, IRN triggered the 'Major Story Alarm' (literally) just after midday on Friday.

Traditionally, in the days before text/email alerts, this was the most efficient way to alert ILR stations to a significant breaking news story such as a royal death or attack/disaster involving large loss of life.

Upon seeing the light flash in studios and newsrooms, jocks or journalists on duty would pre-fade the primary satellite feed awaiting details of additional and extended bulletins.

These days, clients just receive a text and email from the news provider with this information including the time to opt in for a clockstart announcement.

IRN/Sky broke the news of Prince Philip's death in a special 12:30 bulletin carried by many community and hospital stations that rely on the service.

Most commercial operators had their own news teams on duty at the time, although Bauer’s Hits Radio and Greatest Hits Radio networks took the live IRN announcement before simulcasting output and producing national bulletins in-house throughout the afternoon.

The two networks split after 4pm with Simon Mayo continuing on Greatest Hits Radio.

Global was quick off the mark with James O’Brien interrupting a caller, not because of his political view for once, but to break the news to LBC listeners shortly after midday.

The seven music networks all threw to a special pre-recorded bulletin (allowing greater flexibility for a smooth segue) anchored by Tim John with a pre-prepared package from Simon Conway before launching into their beautifully programmed Obit playlists and half-hourly news updates, dropping ads and jingles for much of the day but with bespoke "marking the death of Prince Philip" sweepers. All brand spin-offs simulcast the flagship station.

All BBC stations, some abruptly, interrupted normal programming for a breaking news announcement superbly delivered by Tom Sandars.

They continued with a Radio 4 special, presented by Evan Davis and Mishal Husain, for much of the afternoon before splitting off but remained sombre for some time.

Radio 1 initially played instrumentals before continuing with a softer sound for much of the weekend but allowing for regular programmes.

Over the weekend, Radio 2 made a few schedule changes and continued in Obit mode throughout - 6 Music and Asian Network adopted a similar approach and even joined Local Radio in simulcasting 5 Live overnight.

While commercial radio had largely resumed format by Saturday lunchtime, being a public broadcaster, the BBC has to tread particularly carefully.

On a personal level, with no morning engagements, I didn’t have an alarm set and woke up at midday expecting a quiet Friday.

As part of my first thing scroll through the headlines, I remember seeing a BBC News article which had been live 50 seconds ago at the time, hurriedly dialled into our playout system (which, of all the songs it could've been, was playing "Happy" at the time) and flipped to Obit mode.

Shortly afterwards, Radio News Hub broke the news to Shine Radio listeners and bulletins aired every quarter hour before dropping to half-hourly later in the day.

Props to the national team for providing an efficient service throughout the day, and to fellow Shine Radio volunteers who speedily got us a local angle.

Entering Obit is one thing, but transitioning out is quite the task - gradually increasing the tempo and reintroducing much loved features while exercising caution over potentially distasteful ads or songs.

The degree to which regular programming should be interrupted is determined by the individual - their level of seniority, a particular fondness they enjoyed etc - and the circumstances that led to their death.

For example, the hugely popular Princess Diana was a horrible shock - and, taking into account both factors, any feeling of sorrow will take longer to shift after The Queen has died (particularly for older audiences) than it did on Friday for Prince Philip.

I think it’s important to weigh up any sadness with the frustration or mental health effects among listeners of losing the familiar feel of their chosen listen.

Similarly, as COVID has shown, presenters have an important role to play in providing companionship and reassurance. In fact, for those who aren't too keen on the solemn music, they are the primary reason for leaving the radio on.

Stations also adjust the tone of their output following any major national or international tragedy.

At HHR, after the horrific Manchester Arena attack, we thoroughly checked and made changes to the following day's logs and suspended features as a mark of respect and to reflect the mood of listeners.

Audio of Radio 1 Dance abruptly joining the network announcement mid-national anthem has gone viral.

As a relatively new online-only service, it seems to have been missed by the override of all BBC stations.

Tuesday, 6 April 2021

"Does radio have a branding problem or a content problem?"

Another interesting article from Fred Jacobs: Is Radio Losing The Battle For The Ear?

He makes reference to companies who’ve quietly (or loudly in some cases) phased out the R-word in favour of more generic terms like "audio" or "media".

Does radio have a branding problem? Or does it have a content problem? Does the word ‘radio' symbolize an antiquated entertainment form?

I don’t believe it does - it’s a term everyone understands and describes an art form as much as it does a medium. Successful podcasting requires the same skillset as successful broadcasting.

A podcast is essentially an on-demand radio programme. For example, suggesting a show first broadcast ceases to be "radio" when it’s available as a listen again would be ridiculous.

The word has lived on in our multi-platform digital world. Online-only stations are still "radio", so this shift away from the term isn’t due to a device switch. It’s merely to distinguish between linear broadcasting/narrowcasting and on-demand.

In that case, a radio show can be broadcast/narrowcast or podcast. Oh, and there’s no such thing as a "live podcast" as that would make it a broadcast, narrowcast or "livestream" - glad we’ve cleared that one up!

Can radio still win with a live & local strategy or has that ship sailed?

I’d question whether that was ever the right strategy. I’ve written about this many times, including standing up for voice-tracking a couple of weeks ago. Much of the best TV is polished and pre-produced and the same goes for radio.

Being multi-platform with content that’s relevant to your audience is far more important than "live and local", both of which aren’t necessarily essential ingredients for the best radio (they could be of course - but that’s definitely not the primary way to achieve it).

As the radio futurologist James Cridland says:

Where proper, real, radio scores is when it’s relevant to the audience - entertaining or informing them, talking about what’s going on in their lives, their interests, their points of reference. The human connection and shared experience that proper radio offers is the unique selling point of the medium. Live and local might help get there. But that’s not the most important thing.

Also - go where your audience is, be visible and make it easy for listeners. Utilise social media and repurpose your best audio content for on-demand (or vice versa).

Tuesday, 30 March 2021

A new Audacy (or odyssey) for Entercom

After more than 50 years, Entercom has today rebranded as Audacy.

The second largest US radio group, owner of more than 230 stations across 48 markets, has changed both its corporate name and that of its aggregator RADIO.COM (now audacy.com). CEO David Field said:

The name Entercom no longer fit. We’ve outgrown it.
We have transformed into a fundamentally different and dramatically enhanced organization and so it is time to embrace a new name and brand identity which better reflects who we have become and our vision for the future, 'Audacy' captures our dynamic creativity, outstanding content and innovative spirit as we aspire to build the country’s best audio content and entertainment platform.

To put it simply, like iHeartMedia, they’re more than just traditional broadcast radio and want their user-facing name to reflect its podcast offerings.

Radio companies recognizing the fact their competition is more than just other stations (it’s also global players such as Spotify and Apple who are also starting to do more exclusive deals) is no bad thing - but has this rebrand been properly thought through?

Is there anything wrong with calling a platform that includes on-demand audio "radio"? It might not be beamed from a transmitter but it’s a term everybody understands - oh, and they still have radio stations too!

Perhaps ".com" is a strange name for a mobile app - and if the app was just called “Radio”, it’s unlikely to be at the top of search results.

Another thing - I’m not sure the name "Audacy" is too... well, radio-friendly. Is it "odyssey" (with a Scottish accent)? Or someone mispronouncing "Audacity"?

I'm not sure the the average listener will draw the link with “audio”, but even if they did that doesn’t help with the spelling.

GWR’s koko.com springs to mind here (for the avoidance of doubt, "that’s kay, oh, kay oh, dot com").




Saturday, 20 March 2021

Tensions break out after Global owner seeks to buy up to 49.99% of iHeart

Following the Bahamas-based investment arm of Global Media & Entertainment seeking FCC approval to be able to acquire as much as 49.99% of iHeartMedia, the US firm has filed a counter-petition seeking to limit their possible stake to 9.99%, citing the short-term Shareholders Rights Plan that restricts one investor to 10% of the business unless approved by the board (until 5th May 2021).

A "frustrated" and "surprised" Global responded to say that winning permission under foreign ownership rules is a separate matter and able to be considered by the regulator.

Does this dispute leave an open goal for Liberty Media, the Colorado-based conglomerate behind SiriusXM and Formula 1, which recently received the green light from the Department of Justice to increase its stake?

In my view, the US radio industry could really do with some progressive UK influence right now. It needs to recognise that doing radio "the way we've always done it" is not sustainable.

Wednesday, 17 March 2021

Good radio is good radio - that's all

Let’s be clear: good radio is good radio.

It doesn’t matter if it was made today, yesterday, a week ago or a year ago - as long as it’s relevant to me on the day it comes through my speakers, I’m satisfied. This is how the overwhelming majority of listeners feel.

Live can be, and often is, very special when utilized - there’s nothing like the ability to be in-the-moment, reacting to things in real time such as listener engagement or a good old-fashioned phone-in or comp.

But when this doesn’t happen, does it *really* need to be live?

Why hire someone to sit twiddling their thumbs waiting for the end of “another 5 in a row” when they could be more flexible, preparing and presenting quality content in their own time?

Flexibility also means you’re more likely to attract the best talent.

Liveness and reactiveness are often moulded into a single concept. The former isn’t necessary to achieve the latter which is a key radio strength that mustn’t be lost if our great medium is to remain relevant.

Dare I suggest an up-to-the-minute VT link allows for better preparation and quality control. Not to mention the ability to record and drop it in from virtually anywhere at any time.

Just as good radio is good radio, lazy radio is lazy radio (and more lazy radio happens to be live).

The need to be live might just be for the presenter’s own enjoyment when the listening experience is what really matters.

So before rushing to attack "lazy" voice-tracking, remember, it’s not the tech that is responsible for what you hear!

A Swift boost for radio

If you were anywhere near a radio this morning, you’ll know it was Taylor Swift’s world and we were all just living in it. The billionaire s...