Mobile Radio Simplified. Accessible. Relevant.

It is no secret that our emphasis here at CelleCast has been in wedding ourselves to the talk radio industry at a partnership level to help them edge in to the digital future in a way they could own. We dumbed down the process immensely. We focussed on accessibility. We made the promotion process drop dead simple. We explained in all our meetings that the return would start small, but grow over time as the future was ours to prospect together.

We also made a strong case that radio had a great opportunity to lead in the social media space. Maybe that was where we lost em. When broadcasters were asking questions about how to use Twitter, we were already explaining that although tweeting is fine, that radio should use our tools to make an audio version of Twitter that flows from radio’s strengths. Audio community. Imagine what kind of buzz could be created when every member of a vibrant talk radio audience was given a microphone!

What I kept forgetting, even though I kept telling myself not to, was that radio has been traditionally foot dragging. These are the people that stuck to ‘what works’ back in the 50’s when TV was the new media invention. I bet my hopes that the lesson was learned, when in fact it is in radio’s DNA to ignore any opportunity that does not bring an immediate return.

I have been talking with my advisors, both formal and informal about this for over a year now. They are either slightly more or slightly less optimistic than I have been about a change. What we are doing now is going around the whole beast. Opportunities presented and ignored can simply mean a new audience for the opportunity must be sought.

We are going to talk to the publishing industry. We are going to talk with corporate communications departments. We are going to talk to universities and other institutions that are not entrenched to the point that they confuse their distribution tool with their business model. Stay tuned.

In closing, I want to share with you a great bullet list I heard from Bob Garfield in his Hear 2.0 interview, where he explains what he would do today if he were forced into the role of having to own and/or manage a radio station. He would:

1. Invest alot in great talent
2. Leverage localism to the max
3. Invest in making the most robust website possible.. ready for mobile, wireless, IP radio
4. Establish a culture that understands that new technology trumps terrestrial radio and create a full service, platform independent, media company.
5. Reduce ad slots, as the current level of clutter is more intrusive and value diminishing in audio than it is in print.

To really appreciate where Bob is coming from, you need to hear the whole interview conducted by Mark Ramsey last May.

When we started CelleCast in 2007 we knew right from the beginning that there were two essentials to making mobile phone radio work for the industry. Not that these two stood alone, but we felt, and have been thoroughly vindicated, that without these there isn’t a rats chance in a beauty contest of success in bringing a significant radio audience over to new mobile devices. Once I cover these two self-evident points for reference sake, I’ll get into how the train got derailed for all of us by those who ignored them.

Behold:

1. Universal Simplicity

Radio works because it is easy, and will remain ubiquitous until it gets complicated (hence, the unintended consequences with satellite and HD). You turn it on, you scan through stations, you find what you want to listen to, and make presets of your favorites so you can avoid commercials, etc. Not only is it second nature for you, you also expect it to be easy for everyone else around you. The universality of people who are comfortable with it makes the simplicity means something. Even complex things are made simple on an individual basis with acclimation and repetition, but the list of things in media life that everyone ‘gets’ is still limited to the things that have been around a while. Without this, the media is not sharable. There is no community without sharing. Hearing radio over a mobile phone is sharable only to a very small niche community when an iPhone app is required. Hearing it only when an sms text message is received also creates limitations that violates the Universal Simplicity standard. This is something radio people get that cloistered new media geeks tend to dismiss.

2. On Demand, Personalized Delivery

This is an essential because frankly there is no reason for anyone (producers and listeners alike) to break from the status quo unless, in addition to the simplicity standard above, other compelling benefits cannot be ignored. What new media brings to the table for radio going mobile is portability and personalization. These are the same qualities mobile breakthroughs also bring to apps and the mobile web, BTW. When listeners can truly just push a button and hear a personalized playlist of programs auto-queued to play only the most recent unheard episodes, then the listener is in control in a similar manner that they are also getting accustomed to with DVR’s for TV.

Falling Short

Now, hopefully you are aware of the essential value of each of the above as pre-requisites toward a wonderful revolution in mobile radio. So why are we not much closer to seeing this transformation toward personalized radio come to pass? If you think it is the technology, you would be incorrect. I submit to you that it is actually the misstep of technology misapplied. Other ‘features’ (aka shiny objects) were regarded more highly than the core essentials of simplicity and personalization. Because too few have sought to hold to these as standards, what has suffered unfairly is the perceived viability of mobile radio personalization itself. Now, I am tired of that. Not just as a believer/innovator seeking to equip the industry for positive change, but also personally after seeing inferior tools dressed up with confusing rhetoric misguide people. Because of this, the promise of radio personalization has been broken, and the reality of it, postponed.

Cases in point: Foneshow.com and lexy.com. I am not in the habit of calling out competitors like this, and I have been able to resist the temptation up to this point. What breaks my silence now is the dread that the ideas behind what all three of us and others have been promising would be passed by due to poor representation. To see these venture funded companies, who have clearly undermined both the simplicity and on-demand standards they falsely claimed to champion, fade in listenership while claiming to represent mobile radio on-demand, is a tragedy to me. To be funded and not to have transformed the industry is an abject failure. I’ll give them credit for getting funded while we have yet to be in that club, but from my perspective today, I’m glad the failed examples are clearing out to make space. As long as the credibility of personalized radio can avoid too much damage now, we’ll be able to make our case while waiting for the right investor to emerge.

How have they violated the core essentials? To put it simply, they claim too much control over the experience, destroying simplicity. (I’ll give lexy more credit for putting their call-in number back on their pages, but for a while it was gone.) The approach they and others have taken is that the user would be enamored with text messaging to the point of accepting it as a gateway to access the audio. When we saw that as the core of Foneshow’s model in 2007, we didn’t even want to list them as a competitor on a product level. If you are making demands of the listener where they don’t get the audio without waiting for a text, then how is that on-demand? Who is making the demands? Imagine if your AM radio was similarly anal. You turn on the power and before any sound comes out, you have to enter your mobile phone number and wait for a screen to come up where you have to tap on a blue 10 digit number. Would you consider that consumer friendly or even good engineering?

One deal-breaking major fallout from this approach is that the content they are aggregating and delivering comes from radio shows that have no decent way to easily promote their content via the call-in based medium. We give each program partner a unique direct dial access number and program page. They can link to us from their site and get more SEO value. They can promote their cellecast number on the air and get direct call ins to THEIR show with ZERO barriers. Now, this is not a competitive pitch here although it sounds like it. To me, it is just bottom line common sense to make it easy for your partners to promote themselves in the context of universal simplicity in personalized mobile radio.

The bottom line problem here is that the biggest barrier for mobile phone radio is already the mainstream perception that it is too complicated to bother with. It doesn’t help that many of the companies trying to solve the perception problem are actually contributing to it. They just make it harder for those of us trying to help.

In the next installment, I will deal with some of the many promising possibilities for on-demand, personalized mobile radio. The standards above are not constraining, but in the long run, the key to radio liberalization and audio-based social media.

Personalization of media programming lies at the heart of the new media revolution. If it was only about the explosion of variety in content and format choices, the net result of all this change would just be about how overwhelmed we are with all the new choices in content and formats. Ok, so we are largely overwhelmed, so what does that mean? It means we are still in the beginning of the revolution. We are just beginning to consider how much control we as individuals need over our media consumption, versus how much we are happy to continue to hand over to media producers.

I am finally starting a new series of posts about media personalization as it relates to Talk radio. It’s about time. What finally got me started on this after I have threatened to start on the topic for a while now, was the kind invitation from Al Peterson to publish my thoughts first for his newsletter. So my first installment here on the Fourth Speaker is a reprint of Al’s weekly Newsletter, which you should subscribe to.
 
 

Radio Personalization - Possible with Mobile, but in demand?

With the incredibly fast pace of change occurring in the world of technology and media today, it is necessary to take a look not only at cumulative data on where today’s radio audience is and is going, but also to reflect on some of the ‘what ifs’, and ‘why nots’ and ’why not yets’ surrounding the changes. The level of intrigue surrounding new media is equaled only by the claims many on my side of the table have made. As far as those claims go, and speaking for the sane faction on “my side of the table” (although the fact that a ‘table’ even exists is a hindrance for the radio industry), I want to apologize for those who have predicted the demise of radio by 2010. They don’t speak for even a quarter of us who have been approaching the industry with ideas and products we believe will help radio’s staying power through the personal media revolution.

Today I want to speak specifically about the one item of change I have been pushing for and am willing to admit I have been partially wrong about. That is, the listeners personal quest for programming personalization. In short, my conclusion is that it is not as big a deal to them (yet) as I had hoped. It is easy for technology innovators to make the leap from possibility to market demand, and we should be encouraged to continue making these leaps in that that is our strength — to see a possible future and place bets on it coming to pass. The pay-off is worth the risk. One key facet of my calculated bet with CelleCast is that some listeners, if given the chance, would prefer to be able to queue up their favorite talk radio programs into a playlist and always have the freshest episodes from each ready to auto-play when convenient. I never meant for this bet on an emerging demand for convenience to call into question the value of program directors, stations and streams, but in this age of media disruption, new technologies are often seen more as a challenge to the way things have always been done, versus by the merits they bring to the marketplace. I submit to you that we can only win by looking at both sides of the equation, or to put it in political strategic terms: Contribute to both campaigns, just in case the other guy wins. Therefore, with all that said so you know my heart is for the industry is in the right place, allow me to share my observations to date in my quest to promote my own vision for disruption.

One of the ways I have explained the idea of cellecasting to both customers and producers is that the listener becomes their own program director, deciding for themselves exactly what mix of programming they want to consume, even whether they want to tolerate commercial interruption or not. The idea that they would want to do this has a solid basis. DVR’s (TiVO) have become mainstream practice for television consumption, giving people near total control of how they consume TV. We all know what MP3 players, file sharing and Pandora are doing to music side of radio, allowing listeners to personalize consumption, eliminate commercials and tap into the new inventory called the long tail. I have believed and still believe that talk radio listeners will at some point do the same, whether we like it or not. However, radio in its broadcast form, now having to exist among alternatives not previously available, is finding resiliency and learning to articulate its staying power in a changing environment. Paraphrasing Dave Van Dyke, who watches listener trends like no other: “Listenership in some segments of younger demographics is still strong, as more people are using radio as a way to discover new artists, ideas, etc.”. What I am seeing here is a welcome sign. Radio is declaring its particular strengths and demonstrating its staying power against a host of unproven radio alternatives/derivatives declaring themselves the new reality. The broader observation I have come away with at this juncture is that although self-service, personalized media alternatives still deserve ongoing attention, investment and market testing, there is a growing awareness that consumers are happy to let others (PD’s) program their media consumption for them, even with an alternatives in the palm of their hand.

The other important observation I have made in this tumultuous year, is where radio sits on the personalization landscape versus other forms of media. What we are finding is that radio, possibly through no fault of its own, is likely to be near or at the bottom of the list in demand for personalization. In terms of talk, one of my key advisors always reminds me that the Rush Limbaugh you turn on at midday is not all that different in content from the Hannity that follows immediately. No need to personalize if roughly the same content is ubiquitous. But the bigger reason for radio falling behind video and print is that radio is most naturally today’s background media. Personalization requires attention. Radio is perfect for when you are driving or otherwise multi-tasking. Video and print on the other hand, demand visual focus and thus foster a thirst for personalization. Plus, they are more conducive to hyperlinks.

Conclusion: When the demand for personalization in radio comes, let’s be ready.

Life is full of surprises.

There are times when we think the business relationships we have set up years ago will remain intact and that everyone is comfortable in their role. Then the phone rings. “Although we have been glad to have you provide that service for us, in light of the recession and all, we decided to handle that in house from this point forward.” No matter how wrong headed these kinds of decisions might be, they are made anyway, and more and more specialists are forced to diversify. What should surprise us is that anyone is surprised anymore when things normally regarded as necessities are re-evaluated at every level.

For a minute, let us consider the vital services provided by the radio program director. First of all, rest assured that I love PD’s and my appreciation for what they contribute to radio has increased over the last 2 years. Nonetheless, the core of what they do for listeners is gradually being replaced by an increasing consumer awareness of a whole new set of media choice. Not just content choice, but delivery method choice and personalization.

The convenience of pre-packaged media with a carefully balanced mix of news, info and music is certainly here to stay, but the obvious fact that this is no longer the only option means the radio industry must decide whether to participate in a widening demographic, or a shrinking one. Sound familiar? This is what we have been saying since 2006, and others have been saying as well.

I am slated to write an industry article specifically on the radio personalization topic next week, so you will have to stay tuned for the helpful details. I still think we can all progress better together as an industry if we test new radio ideas out in an intelligent way. That should seem like an obvious point, but you might be surprised how many still need this hammered home.

I am watching a video from http://bb2009.uscannenberg.org/ that cuts off early and has no scrubber, so take my frustration into account as you read this.

Mobile Voices Part 1
A case study in new media beyond broadcast, the Mobile Voices project empowers first generation immigrants in Los Angeles to publish multimedia stories about their lives and communities directly from mobile phones. This panel will explore questions of media production through demonstrations of the Mobile Voices project by some of its participants.

Nothing wrong with the projects goals, but the net affect of these kinds of schemes is to ride on the wave of mobile technology seeming to create a new practical application for it, but in reality, they are simply using the public interest in mobile technology to draw attention to their cause. The way they are doing this simply does not scale. If they wanted it to scale, they would contact us and use our Field reporter toolset and create an audio community on the spot that could be pointed to, listened to, added to, etc.

Looks like there was some grant money that simply needed to be spent. Go USC!

In all seriousness, there is a real need to bridge the gap between capability and acceptance of mobile storytelling, and I can certainly report on how it has gone for us in enabling event-based cell phone citizen journalism. Currently, the lifecycle of these kinds of deals is very short. When we quickly put ours together for the Obama inauguration and the April 15th Tea Parties, there was tremendous interest but little follow-through. The practical tools for enabling citizen journalists to contribute is all there on our website, but without practical application of the technology from social organizers, the whole situation feels like an awkward junior high dance where we really want to dance and don’t mind saying so, but those who can use the service already have a well funded entourage in tow that has keeping appearances at the top of their priorities. Show me the platform! Where are the stories?

Now, I would still love to dance with USC and other organizations, but at this point of seeing way too much posturing in the various industries we have tried to work with, simply calling them out like this appears to be the next best approach. I could be wrong and we were simply not findable amidst a sea of choices or the desire for video and pictures nullifies our otherwise highly elegant, easy to use, audio only solution. But it certainly seems to me that dialoging with a young, hungry and community minded startup like CelleCast is a highly effective way to move forward in mainstreaming audio social media. everyone has a story, and we want to continue to empower people to tell it right over thier phones, have it publish immediately on a branded project program page, as well as spread via Twitter. All the parts are there.

Always open to feedback,

Andrew Deal

Despite an ongoing unprecedented time crunch of late, I need to write about my stubbornly persistent visions of radio personalization — specifically as it relates to talk radio. It is funny that stubborn persistence is required in larger doses in the journey, as people in radio should already be aware that every other form of media is already going that direction. So stay tuned.

As a quick update on what we are doing around here in lately, I have been dividing my blogging time more widely by adding some new posts about our iPhone web apps and the new advent of the local web on our CGI Productions Development blog.

Stay tuned, and look for our iPhone web app for CelleCast in 2010, with all the mad skills we are building up here in the shop.

Andrew