This is Mark Ramsey's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Mark Ramsey's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Mark Ramsey
Recent Activity
Mark Ramsey is now following Rick Mathieson
Feb 2, 2011
This is a bit beyond Don, I think. He was having a highball and wearing a cardigan at the time.
1 reply
To say that this kind of post is influenced by Tom Asacker is an understatement.
1 reply
Interesting comments. Especially coming from an industry famous for... ...repeats. :-)
1 reply
I agree with that. But that's a big "if" you mention. I'd rather have enthusiastic air talents than non. And if I'm stuck with non I'd rather have somebody else. Take a lesson, air talents everywhere.
1 reply
Yes - and that's putting it mildly. Thanks Dan!
1 reply
Yep. And what is Facebook but performance art?
1 reply
Yes, it's that too. I guess it depends on how you define "your doorstep" - which I don't mean to necessarily imply usage of the "station by listening."
Toggle Commented Jun 29, 2010 on How to become a Social Media Magnet at Hear 2.0
1 reply
As Kawasaki said flat out, he's about "business," not altruism. That said, Guy's project's success requires tons of traffic - and repeat traffic - to his site. The measure of success for radio is not site traffic per se, otherwise we would be creating Alltop.com instead of station digital assets.
1 reply
I'm not saying this is radio's "replacement." I'm saying it illustrates potential for radio - or a factor that will crowd radio out - depending on the response of industry players. And yes, radio, TV, and film have always been driven by audiences - but the marketing messages of our advertisers have NEVER been driven by audiences or loved by them, as all the research and every bit of ratings analysis proves. Ford is putting consumers in the messaging driver's seat, and that is clearly a threat (and opportunity) to radio.
1 reply
Mitch: "You now want me to use multiple devices to follow a 'stream' of 'data' that is proprietary and that I have to pay to use. And if I change locations or change equipment I have to buy it all over again. I have to sign up and configure stuff. I have little or no support when it doesn't work. Never had this problem with a radio." I didn't say that at all. "You have cell phone companies now crimping down usage of bandwidth. They don't want you sucking up bandwidth with streams It costs a lot of money for internet bandwidth, much more than terrestrial bandwidth." Video sucks up a lot more. And that doesn't seem to be slowing it down in the least. Bandwidth will follow the appetite for bandwidth. "The over the air signal and the internet signal are merely containers for content. That is all. They can each generate content to their unique audiences. They don't have to fight. They can and will live together. It is the content that will dictate what you listen to. Music is a commodity. You need talent again." No, you don't have to fight - but you do have to make room. New things don't necessarily replace older things but they do crowd them, thus reducing their usage, relevance, and potential. Just ask the people who have replaced their landlines with mobile phones. It is NOT just the content that will dictate what you listen to. It is also the accessibility of that content and its overall value proposition. You don't necessarily need "talent" - you need "value," however that's defined. "The gatekeepers of the internet will want to continue asserting more control over content, advertising and access. Why should I let them, when I have free radio now? The listener does not need that today either because they can buy tunes for 99 cents or copy the cds they already have for free and not have to contend with bandwidth or control issues at all." Apple and Google are betting against what you perceive the listener needs. And by the way, there is no such thing as a "listener" - there is only a "consumer." "Radio bandwidth is still owned by the people and listened to daily by millions. It is still free to hear. What has been missing lately is something compelling to listen to. That is not the responsibility of the transport mechanism, but the company providing the content. 50, 500 or 5000 channels of junk does not make a compelling argument to earn a listener long term. One channel (like Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh) will earn money and build loyalty as it does in radio now, because it stands for something on a consistent basis. Love them or hate them, their base is loyal. That is what advertisers expect. That is what radio needs more." Radio bandwidth is perceived to be owned by the broadcasters, quite frankly. As for free, the vast majority of what's online and virtually everything Google touches for consumers is free. I agree with you that there's a significant lack of compelling things to listen to (although I wouldn't limit it to listening). And yes, the industry needs a lot more of it. Ponder that next time we cut loose a morning show and wonder why kids would rather launch websites than tack up banners. "The truck doesn't define the cargo. The medium does not define the content. The average listener does not care a whit about the technology. The want a relationship again." In fact, that's wrong. And don't take it up with me, take it up with Marshall Mcluhan. A movie is not a book is not a play. And if the average listener doesn't care about technology, who is standing in those long lines outside the Apple store? Yes, they surely do want relationships. There you are right.
1 reply
Ah yes, a situation I know from firsthand experience :-)
1 reply
As I said in the post, I'm not pitching the idea of developing for Apple. Nor am I pitching their platforms. I'm illustrating that these platforms are playgrounds for creation, and consumers respond to creations. I agree with your point that we are in the content business and need to create content. I disagree that we are in the "radio" business per se. We can create content across platforms - we simply have more eggs in the audio basket than our competitors do. Naturally, that's the best place to start creating content magic. But as NPR proves it doesn't end there, it only begins there.
Toggle Commented Jun 25, 2010 on Paint your Masterpiece, Radio at Hear 2.0
1 reply
Time and scale and strategy can solve almost any financing problem - if your name is Apple or Google.
1 reply
This is one of your regular themes, George, that while we may be one industry we are really a zillion mom and pop markets in the mom and pop market industry with little to unite us and plenty that pits us against each other. A sure recipe for disaster, that. My answer is that radio is no longer one industry at all. It is a collection of people with ideas and gumption. Or not. And ways to excel through the use of streaming live in every market if the idea is strong enough. But it surely starts with the notion that repurposing the radio station alone won't cut it.
1 reply
True enough. But if receiver sales matter to them you'd never know it by their strategies.
1 reply
Sure they do. Wherever there is an encoded signal the device can pick it up in most cases. That's the beauty of an "exposure" metric.
Toggle Commented Jun 16, 2010 on PPM Ratings Horror Stories at Hear 2.0
1 reply
Exactly the right question.
1 reply
Isn't he Eminem? :-) As ever, you are my hero, Tom. PS Pick up Clay Shirky's new book.
1 reply
Don, I ABSOLUTELY agree that Arbitron wants radio to have the best ratings product they're willing to pay for. Of course, do you think this was what radio thought they were paying for? I'm not sure who was fooling whom - or themselves.
Toggle Commented Jun 14, 2010 on Are Diaries better than PPM for Radio? at Hear 2.0
1 reply
That's funny, Jeff! The first line, I mean!
1 reply
When your audience tanks because panelists roll out - for good - it's hard to take solace in the idea that it's just bounce. I think the victims would classify these as horrors. But that's in the eye of the beholder.
Toggle Commented Jun 14, 2010 on PPM Ratings Horror Stories at Hear 2.0
1 reply
Hi Dennis! So if one listener is worth a 2.0 share - and many stations in a ranker are separated by far less than a single share - what does that say about the veracity of our numbers? That riddle is rhetorical, BTW.
Toggle Commented Jun 12, 2010 on PPM Ratings Horror Stories at Hear 2.0
1 reply
I could legitimately argue that diary is better than meters, actually. That's because listening you recall is listening that is meaningful to you. And listening that is meaningful to you puts you in the presence of messages that are more likely to make an impression on you. I'll have to write a post on this! Arb is not using larger panels because the industry can't afford the precision it seeks. Both ARB and the industry have lived in denial from the beginning.
Toggle Commented Jun 12, 2010 on PPM Ratings Horror Stories at Hear 2.0
1 reply
I think you're assuming that there's a ton of long-time streaming usage - and generally this is not the case. Just as the average user of radio listens for a couple hours a day (I'm estimating), so does the average user of streams. Only those on the far side of the bell curve will be punished. I say again, it's video and a breadth of always-on applications that will drive demand for these services, not streaming. But streaming will follow in its wake.
Toggle Commented Jun 11, 2010 on Scaling Up Online Radio at Hear 2.0
1 reply