They've stolen our brand: will we close down Apple iRadio?

We all know radio has already changed, a growing chunk is run by computer, if anything Apple are being more honest with us. If they have pre-recorded links between tracks would we be happier and let them use the “radio” brand?

Too many radio stations won’t allow for any artistry in the selection of content, particularly music, they are just MP3 players of “safe” music on shuffle with priority being the adverts to pay for the kit.

But everyone reading this knows this, hats are pulled firmly down, pennies being counted.

What is encouraging is the continued strength of the BBC – Evans & Co refreshing styles of radio not heard for a generation – and community radio – working hard against all odds to provide something local and quality.

Commercial radio is now approaching middle age at 40 yrs old, a little overweight, playing with new technology because it can afford to, assuming its pushing the right buttons, and not sure about the new neighbour, Apple, thats just moved into the street?

How much of major commercial radio today is more than a jukebox of curated playlists? I think I understand your point but major non profit radio’s networks (NPR, APM, PRI, BBC, etc) seem to be ahead of the game on both the tech and content side. They seem poised to survive this move.

And perhaps niche or hyper local community radio stations provide a service that these recommendation engine driven apps can’t replicate. So what’s the problem?

Aha, but ketchup stole its name from Indonesian/Malay soya sauce called ketjap. It’s still called that and is the common name for it in e.g. Holland.

I agree. I don’t believe streamed music without any editorial content is ‘real’ radio (mind you, I would question whether some of the rubbish produced has ever had a sniff of an editor). But just to add something to the discussion, it also depends on how you define radio; as the product, i.e. the programme, or the device on which it is listened to?

I don’t believe streamed music is ‘real’ radio, but if

How much of major commercial radio today is more than a jukebox of curated playlists?

As I say repeatedly, if the only thing you’re doing as a radio station is playing Today’s Best Music Mix and doing little else, you will be beaten to a pulp by these new jukebox services, who are playing, literally, a better music mix with a skip button. If our primary source of competitive advantage is that we have access to an FM stick and they don’t, that is unlikely to be enough.

Many stations offer more than that, of course. But while we sit and allow others to blur the differences, we’re ruining our industry’s good name.

So there is an issue about where the line’s drawn..

Is an automated, presenterless station which appears on DAB a radio station? Maybe if it has jingles?

Is it still a radio station if it loses its DAB slot?

Does it depend on whether the music is chosen according to knowledge of a target demographic and broadcast to more than one person.. rather than created for a specific individual?

Would an Absolute service with Christian O’Connell’s links between my favourite tracks and personalised ads be a radio service?

Sure.. I’m being obtuse for the sake of it (and I’m not assuming a particular answer for any of those). We all understand the difference between Chris Evans and Spotify. But there’s some middle ground where the definition might come down against some of the products the radio industry wants to call radio.

So who will front the protest? The BBC? I don’t think so – their teeth have been drawn I’m afraid, and Radio 1 is a fairly mind-numbing experience these days (mind, you, apart from John Peel and one or two others in the good old days, it has always been). As with everything these days, it’s all dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. The punters want a continual stream of music that they by and large don’t even listen to or take any critical standpoint to, e.g. turn it off!

So maybe the reaction is for radio stations not to play ‘Today’s best music mix’ and produce some genuine content. It’s a retrograde step, perhaps but – well, I don’t know…I’m just a cynical old fart – it may signal a shift in how we define and listen to radio. However, it’s hard to fight or change the system. As someone said to me as I prepared to leave teaching many years ago – “It’s all very well to want change, but what you’re proposing is to change the entire system.” “Yes,” I replied and left the profession!

“Radio” has nothing to do with content. “Radio” is the name of the medium through which the content is delivered: tiny oscillating waves of electromagnetic radiation, transmitted through the air, picked up by a receiver, and converted into sounds. Anything else isn’t radio. Whether the content is all talk, or non-stop music is irrelevant.
We don’t call a streamed video clip on YouTube “Television”, so why should streamed audio be any different?

To be honest anything transmitted wirelessly is radio in purest of terms hence the term RF Radio Frequency and the Radio Spectrum so technically you could still say any service that uses WiFi or the mobile phone network is radio. The term radio is very broad and it is not as simple as Ketchup.
Seems we are defining things here Radio itself isn’t a brand. The people who make Radio are and the people make the equipment are brands.

Which is kind of my point: the “radio” industry has already broadened the scope of the word’s meaning so much, that it’s hardly in a position to complain when others try the same thing.