 |
 |
Today's
issue consists of the following Guest Essay, reprinted
from yesterday's late-afternoon issue, plus a selection of
the Reader Feedback that the essay has already generated.
(More news tomorrow! And click the blue arrow to the
left of the issue date above to read past issues.)
|
BY BOB BELLIN
Streaming media has heated up as a media topic. Several articles
on it have been featured here lately
that discussed technology as it relates to what one CEO dubbed "the
user experience" and I think the subject is worth a look.
It's clear to me that streaming media, particularly audio,
is the underachieving "ne'r do well" of the Net music sector. I'm
sure that many employees of major Netcasters have already begun typing
their exceptions to that statement, but consider this before you hit
the "send" button: The latest InfoStream ratings estimate that there
are more people living
in my small subdivision than listening worldwide, at
the average moment, to the # 1 rated webcast.
Edison Research, in their most recent study on the subject,
said that only 4% (flat from the previous survey, six months prior)
of those online listened to streaming audio in the past week. Arguing
that webcasting is a real factor in web entertainment is like arguing
that UPN is a real factor in network TV.
There are a lot of reasons that consumers are just saying "no"
to web based audio and I've discussed many of them here in the past.
One that hasn't been talked about much is the proliferation of customized
"players" and endless numbers of registrations. Why are they such
a problem?
(1) Usage barrier
Does anyone really believe that the words "register now" or
"download now" do anything but send people
away? Let's examine the "user experience:" The truth is
that none of the custom players or updates on the RealPlayer since
the inception of the G2 format (roughly 2 years ago) have done anything
to enhance the "user experience" when it comes to streaming media,
as the codec is exactly the same for audio and video as it was then.
The current Windows Media's codec is newer than Real G2, but it's
been over a year since any Windows Media update that impacted sound
or video.
I can't be the only one who races for the box with the big
X when I see those words -- and the InfoStream numbers lend support
to my supposition. It's easy to blame Napster for Streaming Media's
slow adoption, but free music on demand doesn't seem to have hampered
radio listening much. Of course you don't need to download new software
and provide your e-mail address, zip code, age, income, blood type
and inseam measurements every time you tune in a new radio station,
and that may explain the disparity.
(2) Resource draining
Want to make a Pentium lll run like a 486? Install a bunch
of media players!
We're in the process of testing all of the major players and
have found not all programs use equal amounts of system resources
in proportion to their size -- and most media players are on the upper
end of the utilization spectrum. Not only will they slow you down
while they're running, they'll slow your system down when they're
not running.
Just uninstalling the players won't help either. Many of them
make permanent registry and DLL additions that don't
go away after you remove them and those are changes that
will bog you down. One additional player and a plug in or two probably
won't be all that noticeable, but download five or more and your system
will slow considerably.
Who's looking at the banners anyway?
Here's a question for all you "user experience"-focused media
streamers. What makes you think that anyone is looking at those banners
you've embedded in your custom players? People rarely stare at their
clock or car radios -- so they probably won't focus on your faceplate
either. I'll bet most folks are using some other application on their
PC when they access streaming media and just minimize the player,
as leaving it up doesn't enhance that "user experience."
Streaming providers might want to take a cue from the radio
industry. They've made quite a business out of selling sixty-second
audio ads and my guess is that webcasters would do much
better marketing audio than visuals.
Larry Fine of the Three Stooges, having burned a hole in a
table with a powerful, smoke emitting substance while looking to hatch
some sort of escape, once exclaimed in a burst of vision, "If
it'll burn a hole through the table, it'll burn a hole through the
floor." Larry's sage insight applies here:
If selling audio ads works for radio, it'll probably work for webcasting.
I don't know what Moe's opinion would have been, but if asked he probably
would have included the words "...you knuckleheads!"
|
Have
an opinion on this essay? Share it! Simply click
the headline at left to bring up a convenient pop-up form. |
 |
"I
am baffled by the proliferation of so-called 'enhancements'..."
|
I agree completely. I have been one of the early adopters of
streaming audio. I may have even used the beta of Real Audio way back
when. I am baffled by the proliferation of so called "enhancements"
(skins, visualizations, etc.). If anything, they just make finding
the right control impossible or drain resources. I have yet to hear
(we are talking about an audio medium here, aren't we?) any improvement
in sound quality.
My other peeve is "net congestion" on many of the "really popular
sites" -- those that perhaps have more listeners than your subdivision
or 4% whichever is greater. The other issue is a universal
player, one that is capable of streaming audio from any
site so we do not need 5 different players sitting around idle yet
drawing resources.
Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
| |
Bob
Goodman
bullitt@home.com |
|
"Protect
this breed of surfer. Don't give him 30 different players..."
|
Every single point in Bob Bellin's essay hit the point right
on the nose.
What I find most important is the issue of players.
I keep searching for the right set of multimedia tools for our three
stations' Web sites. Now, that I've downloaded every player & every
 custom
on-demand player...my computer moves like
mud. I understand it and can only be mad at myself ...whereas
our customers will be mad at us.
The standards have been Windows Media and Real Player. I'm fine
with just those and I think all 'casters' need to just pick one. It's
almost a team effort that needs to be established, so that when the
consumer, "flips the dial", they don't end up flipping us off (take
that as turning off streaming or as 'the bird').
I do believe streaming is a niche thing on the Internet and
it definitely ranks in the UPN comparison ... although (nothing against
UPN) the user of streaming is indeed a certain breed of surfer. They
are more than likely educated, high salary, young and web savvy...which
paves the way for premium-rated ad insertion.
Protect this breed of surfer. Don't give him 30 different players
as he explores streaming on the Internet. We need to keep him and
all others interested and motivated.
| |
Noah
Lamson
New Media Manager
92KQRS.com / 93X.com / Zone105.com |
|
"When
you require a person to download a player to listen to you,
you've already made an enemy..."
|
The ability to deal in reality: That's the biggest problem
facing those of us who are in the Internet broadcasting business.
The reality is I can't tell you how many people listen to
us with some Godforsaken player they downloaded somewhere  else.
The biggest problem most of us who have players (that pop up embedded
in a page in a window with many features designed to create a unique
experience for the user) is that a download is needed -- not for
a player window but because those using the formerly-great Netscape
("the Netscape-impaired") get an error out (on the audio)
if they don't have a plug-in, due to Netscape's inability to work
properly with Visual Basic (VB) script.
Now, there is code you can insert to enable those
poor Netscape users to download
something that will enable the channel to play without "error-ing"
out. But there's that word that scares the heck out of people. "DOWNLOAD!
UGHHHH!" Will someone please take Netscape away from AOL before
AOL takes all of our choices away?
I also believe that comments made by Global Media's (former
Real Networks') Mandelbaum are an example of how far from reality
many of these people are. We continually
see more confusion on users' part because they're using some player
they downloaded that offers them nothing other than to be a statistic
of some company trying to toot their own horn.
 I'd
cite MusicMatch as another one about which many of our listeners
have complained. While there are many other sites that require you
to download a player (Hiwire, for one and BTW...for what?), some
people wind up using that as their default player without
even knowing it. The problem is that player doesn't work
correctly with many things, nor does it take advantage of all the
things sites may offer.
When you require a person to download a player to listen
to you, you've already made an enemy.
Especially if what you've caused them to download takes over their
system and causes other things (in their system) to no longer work
in the manner in which it used to.
If you're a company that is wrecking users' experiences and
tainting the minds of the users whose perceptions are "Internet
radio doesn't work," we can't wait for you to go belly-up. The only
thing many of you have been successful at is creating a user's perception
that none of this stuff works right.
As far as audio ads... Audio ads
are and will be the way to go. When someone like us can
deliver 6,000,000 spots per month, guarantee an ad buyer who heard
what, and guarantee the ads wound up where the ad buyer wanted them,
radio can't hold a torch to that hard data. We've been begging agencies
for them since 1997. A sixty second spot isn't needed. On the net,
you can do more with 15 seconds than a mind-numbing 60. That's
reality.
| |
Salvatore
Lepore
CyberRadio2000.com |
More feedback follows immediately after the sign-up form below.
|
 We'll
send you RAIN's e-mail news updates on a regular basis,
plus bulletins when important news breaks. (In addition, we'll
appreciate knowing that you're reading our efforts.)
You should be receiving
a confirmation e-mail from us shortly.
Thanks!
|
|
"It's
the content...not the delivery system..."
|
The tone of Bob Bellin's guest essay sounds like what execs
at AM stations were saying in the late 60's.  The
bottom line is that both AM and FM radio stations for the most part
are just clones of each other. A classic rock station in Miami sounds
the same as one in Des Moines and Seattle and Chicago and every
large, medium and small market in the country. It's the same with
all formats. Radio stations that put their signals on the Internet
fall into the same category -- but Internet-only stations with live
DJs and a non-format approach are breaking new ground. They are
creative and exciting and providing programming that cannot be heard
on terrestrial radio.
Streaming audio will succeed because people want to hear
something different than the
stale, bland, boring programming available on terrestrial stations,
and when traditional radios begin to have a third band, Internet,
along with AM and FM, we will see Internet-only stations steal the
thunder from AM and FM just like FM did to AM 30 years ago.
To paraphrase our beloved president, "It's
the content, stupid" not the delivery system. Terrestrial
FM stations are dinosaurs in the making and will need to adapt to
survive as AM did in the early 70s. The future direction of audio
lies with the content and attitude that Internet-only channels are
producing now. How it is delivered doesn't matter.
| |
Richard
Fusco
www.radiowoodstock.com |
|
"With
Web radio, the opportunity is huge..."
|
Bob Bellin has been highly articulate in sharing his view
of the "user experience," especially when you consider the context
of banner placements today and how  they
relate to player usage. When you consider the amount of time a player
spends minimized in the tool bar one can't help but ask, "Why
the banner?" Yet your on-line agencies are tracking their clear
pixel ping against "impressions" delivered from a minimized player.
A dilemma at the very heart of impression delivered v- action taken
with lagging banner efforts today.
Web radio is positioned to deliver where terra radio has always
struggled. During my days as a National Sales Rep I can't tell you
how many times I sat with station management in a buyers office
to convey all the reasons why their radio facility could not be
evaluated on a Cost Per Point. Their discourse would roll out with
claims like: "...but my station delivers RESULTS...we put butts
in the seats...we open up shelf-space we get distribution we build
brand etc. etc..." However, at the end of the day it was hyperbole
in a buyers ear...PROVE IT! The empirical data behind the nonpre-emptible
value statement was missing...
With web radio, the opportunity is huge to take a consumer
from OFFER to FULFILLMENT in one immediate, quantifiable step. The
immediacy behind the buying proposition delivers with instant gratification
potential. The direct response exercise then leaps to a new level.
 |
| September
12-14 |
Digital
Coast 2000, Los Angeles, featuring a panel on Internet
radio moderated by RAIN's Kurt Hanson |
| September
20-22 |
Gavin.com:
Music on the Net, San Francisco |
| September
20-23 |
NAB
Radio Show, San Francisco |
| Sept.
29-Oct. 1 |
MOBE/Internet
& Technology, Chicago |
| October
5-7 |
Billboard/Airplay
Monitor Seminar, New York |
| October
9-12 |
QuickTime
Live! Conference,
Beverly Hills |
| October 10-12 |
Streaming
Media Europe 2000, London (NEW!) |
| November
5-7 |
NAB
European Radio Conference, Berlin
|
| Nov.
28-Dec. 1 |
Radio
Ink Internet Conference, Santa Clara, CA, featuring
a brand-new national study on Internet radio usage presented
by Eric Rhoads & Kurt Hanson |
| xxx |
 |
|
Try it
out! Explore
the wide world of Internet audio by clicking the screenshot above.
Miss an issue?
Visit the RAIN News Archives here.
|
|
