A
2009
UK
Research
Initiative


By
Arun
Narang

University
of
Westminster,
London

Submitted
in
partial
fulfilment
of
the
requirement
for
the
award
of
M.A.
Media
Management
Degree




 Page| 2




With lots of love,

For Mom, Dad & Tina

Special thanks to
Dr. Dwyer & Indubala Gulliani



 Page| 3




Acknowledgements



I
would
like
to
take
this
opportunity
to
thank
the
various
people
who
have
contributed


immensely
 to
 my
 academic
 growth
 in
 the
 past
 one‐year.
 My
 sincerest
 thanks
 to
 my


Course
leader
and
tutor
Charles
Brown
for
all
his
help
and
support;
Dr.
Dwyer
for
being


such
 a
 lovely
 mentor
 and
 managing
 to
 chip
 in
 some
 humor
 to
 lift
 my
 spirit
 each
 time


when
times
were
hard;
and
the
staff
at
the
university
who
ever
always
happy
to
help.
I


appreciate
it
all.


I
 would
 also
 like
 to
 express
 my
 gratitude
 to
 Tim
 Davie,
 Director,
 Audio
 &
 Music,
 BBC;


Andrew
Harrison,
CEO,
RadioCentre;
David
Mansfield,
Chairman,
RAJAR;
Will
Harding,


Head
of
Strategy,
Global
Radio;
Miles
Lewis,
Senior
Vice
President,
Last.fm;
for
lending


their
invaluable
thoughts,
time
and
expertise
for
my
research.
I
couldn’t
have
imagined


putting
this
academic
piece
together
without
their
expert
industry
inputs.



I
credit
all
you
wonderful
people
for
changing
and
enlightening
my
life.
Thank
you.


Arun Narang








 Page| 4




Table
of
Contents



Contents
 Page


 

Chapter
1:
Why
Reimagine
Radio?
 6


 

Chapter
2:
Literature
Review
&
Design
Methodology
 11


 

Chapter
3:
Understanding
radio
 17


 

Chapter
4:
Survey
of
Technologies
&
Forms
 29


 

Chapter
5:
Case
Study
|
Last.fm
 51


 

Chapter
6:
Last.fm
Vs.
Traditional
Broadcast
Model
 69


 

Chapter
7:
Radiotrack
&
Conclusion
 84


 


 


 

Bibliography
 92


 


 


 


 








A
Note
on
Terminology

I
 refer
 to
 both
 ‘Radio’
 and
 ‘radio’.
 Where
 capitalized:
 a
 reference
 to
 the
 Industry/

Organization.
Otherwise:
a
reference
to
the
medium
of
radio
more
generally.






 Page| 5























‘Nobody studies radio, kid. They don’t teach it in school

because it’s too much fun. People go to school to be a

teacher or a dentist. Radio is just a bunch of

guys having a ball.’

(Garrison
Keillor,
Radio
Romance)













 Page| 6




Chapter
1:
Why
Reimagine
Radio?




Consumption
 of
 audio
 material
 online
 has
 become
 a
 significant
 force
 in
 the
 media


landscape.
 The
 delivery
 form
 of
 Radio
 is
 mutating.
 The
 current
 proliferation
 of
 audio


media
on
different
platforms
and
the
multiplicity
of
available
options
for
Radio
delivery


are,
 from
 the
 perspective
 of
 traditional
 Radio,
 confusing
 and
 disruptive.
 The
 arrival
 of


digital
 audio
 has
 occasioned
 a
 moment
 of
 particularly
 vigorous
 reflection
 within
 the


industry
 and
 among
 scholars
 writing
 about
 Radio.
 Overviews
 of
 Radio
 underscore
 the


fact
that
content
and
uses
of
the
medium
are
not
fixed
and
have
been
subject
to
changes


as
a
result
of
economic,
technology
and
other
imperatives.



Andrew
 Harrison,
 CEO
 RadioCentre,
 explains
 the
 reason
 why
 digital
 radio
 is
 not


delivering
the
punch,
‘A
lot
of
the
confusion
and
problem
comes
from
the
word
‘radio’.


We
 have
 one
 word,
 which
 describes
 the
 distribution
 platform
 and
 also
 the
 content.


Other
mediums
have
established
different
terminologies
to
describe
different
contexts.


For
 example,
 we
 know
 the
 difference
 between
 Film
 and
 Cinema.’
 Adding
 to
 his


argument,
rightly
so,
when
a
talent
presents
a
great
show,
it
is
claimed
as
great
‘Radio’


and
then,
the
receiving
set
is
also
called
‘Radio’.
This
ambiguity
and
confusion
arises
and


lies
in
the
heart
of
the
‘terminology’,
which
weakens
strategic
profiling,
positioning,
and


assertion
 of
 the
 medium.
 A
 meteoric
 rise
 in
 the
 number
 of
 audio
 platforms
 has


exponentially
increased
listening
hours.
On
the
other
hand,
the
average
radio
listening


hours,
revenue
and
market
share
has
been
on
a
decline.





 Page| 7




%
Ad

Radio
 Year‐on‐year
 Total
display
 Wear‐on‐


YEAR
 Radio

Revenue
(M's)

 growth

 revenue
(M's)

 year
growth


share



2006

 480

 ‐7.9%

 9,611

 ‐1.0%

 5.0



2007

 497

 3.40%

 9,928

 3.30%

 5



2008

 454

 ‐8.7%

 9,450

 ‐4.8%

 4.8



2009

 396
 ‐12.8%

 8,319

 ‐11.9%

 4.8



Projected
2010

 400
 ‐1.0%

 8,409
 1.1%

 4.8



Source:
RAJAR


Growth
 of
 new
 media
 has
 also
 dented
 the
 prospects
 of
 Radio
 to
 a
 significant
 extent.


Younger
age
groups
are
spending
increasing
amount
of
time
in
front
of
their
computer


screens
 engaging
 with
 online
 content.
 Media
 planning
 agencies
 are
 happy
 with
 the


performance
of
online
media
advertising
because
it
gives
them
an
accurate
feedback
on


their
investment.
Andrew
Harrison
adds
here,
‘It
is
a
double
jeopardy,
one,
it
is
not
easy


for
 traditional
 linear
 media
 to
 demonstrate
 a
 direct
 link
 to
 purchase
 ROI,
 second,
 the


online
people
have
been
very
poor
in
acknowledging
campaign
success
to
offline
media.’


Though
Radio
has
caught
up
with
the
Internet
phenomenon,
clearly
the
industry
and


networks
are
paying
a
price
for
lack
of
clarity
in
the
scope
of
the
medium.


While
 some
 new
 platforms
 have
 similarities
 with
 analog
 radio
 broadcasting
 systems;


others
 challenge
 the
 idea
 of
 Radio
 as
 solely
 an
 aural
 medium
 or
 even
 the
 concept
 of


broadcasting
 with
 its
 tradition
 of
 linear
 production
 and
 reception,
 all
 of
 which
 are


embedded
 into
 the
 traditional
 definition
 of
 radio.
 ‘Podcasting’
 is
 a
 classic
 example
 of


radio
 being
 presented
 as
 ‘non‐linear’
 and
 ‘time‐shifted’
 in
 nature.
 Digital
 technologies




 Page| 8




have
bought
mechanized
substitutions
in
the
traditional
value
chain.
It
may
not
be
good


news,
but
sounds
promising
for
sure.
There
seems
to
be
a
logical
extension
&
widening


of
the
concept
radio
which
reveals
newer
perspectives
on
the
nature
and
potentialities


of
our
original
broadcast
medium.



It
 would
 be
 interesting
 to
 examine
 the
 concept
 of
 radio
 pitched
 against
 the
 emergent


forms
of
adoption,
moreover
investigate
the
strategic
uses
of
the
claim
‘Radio’.
So


we
can
testify
that
rather
than
understanding
Radio
to
mean
an
existing
industry.
Radio


can
 be
 viewed
 as
 a
 concept
 that
 is
 constructed
 in
 any
 media
 form.
 This
 is
 a
 kind
 of


remediation
of
one
media
into
another,
which
can
be
traced
in
media
academics.
What


needs
 to
 be
 examined
 is
 whether
 a
 new
 medium
 draws
 upon
 and
 then
 reinforces,
 a


‘working
idea’
of
the
older
medium,
in
addition
to
the
medium
itself.
The
use
of
the
term


‘radio’
 to
 describe
 streaming
 of
 Audio
 on
 the
 Web
 has
 significance
 beyond
 mere


semantics.



Eryl
Price‐Davies,
in
an
email
to
the
UK
radio
studies
list
challenged,
‘For
the
most
part


Internet
 radio
 is
 NOT
 radio
 ‐
 it's
 more
 like
 an
 audio‐on‐demand
 service.’
 The
 remark


that
'Internet
radio
is
NOT
radio'
sparked
off
a
lively
email
debate
on
the
UK
academics'


radio‐studies
list
about
radio's
future
and
the
radio
curriculum.

‘Is
the
Internet
both
a


form
of
radio
and
a
rival
to
radio?’
Internet
streaming
radio
was
just
part
of
the
topic.





 Page| 9




Question
such
as
these
can
even
be
traced
in
Film
studies.
Scholars
have
talked
of
the


'death'
of
film.
The
'field
of
film
studies
is
in
a
state
of
flux,
or
even
crisis
or
impasse'
and


'in
 the
 opinion
 of
 many,
 will
 ultimately
 be
 swallowed
 by
 the
 emergent
 and
 broader


fields
 of
 media
 and
 cultural
 studies'
 (Allen
 and
 Smith,
 1997,
 1).
 Freeland
 and


Wartenberg
summarise
the
topic,
‘Is
film
a
language,
and
if
so,
how
is
it
constructed,
and


how
 does
 it
 communicate?
 If
 film
 is
 an
 art
 form,
 what
 constitutes
 its
 uniqueness,
 and


what
makes
works
in
this
medium
excellent?
How
do
people
construct,
study,
interpret,


and
criticize
works
of
art
generally,
and
films
in
particular?
What
is
the
nature
of
filmic


representation?’



However
 diverting
 the
 wordplay
 maybe,
 there
 is
 more
 to
 these
 questions
 than


wordplay.
Radio
can
be
carried
equally
on
such
communication
pipelines
as
wireless,


fibre‐optic
 cables
 and
 satellite.
 There
 is
 empirical
 evidence
 that
 radio
 prompts


behaviour,
 but
 it
 is
 very
 difficult
 to
 match,
 trace
 or
 capture
 that
 contribution.
 Andrew


Harrison
states,
‘There
is
a
very
strange
problem;
people
discount
their
radio
listening


habits.
 We
 have
 to
 remind
 them
 that
 what
 they
 are
 listening
 to
 is
 radio.’
 Traditional


radio
possessed
utility,
now
it
is
empowered
by
mobility
–
there
is
an
urgent
need
for


the
industry
to
take
ownership
of
its
polymorphic
forms.
Understanding
of
medium
is


key
for
seeing
radio
through
these
tough
times,
if
not,
it
may
spell
doom.
It
is
not
only


important
to
investigate
‘what
is
radio’
but
also
‘what
radio
stands
for?’
in
the
present


media
ecology.




 Page| 10




This
 endeavour
 for
 understanding
 the
 medium
 at
 a
 conceptual
 level
 will
 help
 in


developing
 more
 informed
 strategic
 choices
 in
 the
 future.
 A
 clear
 distinction
 of
 the


medium
 is
 necessary
 to
 maximise
 the
 revenue
 and
 value
 creating
 potential
 of
 the


medium.
 My
 aims
 are
 more
 direct
 ‐
 some
 clearing
 ground,
 some
 developing
 an


understanding
and
I
hope
this
will
be
achieved.
The
questions
that
intrigue
me
may
not


be
taken
as
‘problematic’
and
‘interesting’
by
others
and
it
may
seem
counter‐intuitive


to
 ask
 such
 a
 basic
 question
 as
 'What
 is
 radio?'
 but
 with
 the
 advent
 of
 the
 digital
 age,


declining
fundamental
figures
and
growing
unpopularity
among
Media
planners,
we
are


propelled
into
the
radio
search
because
radio
is
now
in
need
of
theoretical
articulation


and
soul
searching.
Radio
needs
re‐imagination.


Key
Research
Questions:


What
 is
 radio?
 What
 is
 the
 current
 methodological
 and
 disciplinary
 understanding
 of


the
term
radio?
(Chapter
2
&
3)


What
 has
 digital
 technology
 bought
 to
 radio?
 To
 what
 extent
 has
 digital
 technology


mutated
radio?
What
are
the
learning’s?
(Chapter
4)


Can
we
establish
a
periphery
around
Radio
to
safeguard
and
protect
the
strategic
profile


of
the
medium?
Can
we
define
radio?
(Chapter
5,
6
&
7)




 Page| 11




Chapter
2:
Literature
Review
&
Design
Methodology



An
 insightful
 article
 authored
 by
 Jo
 Tacchi
 augments
 this
 research,
 she
 writes,
 ‘Radio


can
be
said
to
have
certain
characteristics,
but
the
evidence
suggests
that
radio
is
what


history
 says
 it
 is:
 it
 has
 no
 essence
 since
 it
 has
 already
 taken,
 and
 continues
 to
 take,


different
 forms’
 (Tacchi,
 2000).
 Today
 the
 Internet
 mode
 of
 transmission
 appears
 to


make
 this
 description
 of
 radio
 more
 real,
 more
 actual
 than
 rhetorical,
 though
 from
 a


business
 lens
 this
 description
 may
 come
 across
 as
 vague.
 Marko
 Ala‐Fossi
 et.
 al.,


describe
in
their
article
that
on
the
one
hand,
it
seems
that
Radio
as
a
distinct
medium
in


its
own
right
is
in
danger
of
fragmenting
into
additional
services
for
other
digital
media


forms
and
in
this
way
will
face
gradual
extinction;
on
the
other
hand,
the
infiltration
of


Radio‐like
 services
 into
 practically
 every
 new
 delivery
 platform
 can
 be
 seen
 as
 an


evidence
 of
 a
 ‘‘virus‐like’’
 capability
 of
 transformation
 and
 proof
 of
 the
 vitality
 of


polymorphic
Radio
media.
In
the
age
of
convergence
and
‘simulcasting’,
their
thoughts


sound
coherent,
but
only
fuel
further
confusion.



Another
 influential
 author
 contributing
 to
 my
 work
 is
 A.
 Black
 who,
 in
 his
 article,


describes
 ‘Internet
 Radio’
 as
 a
 potential
 new
 medium
 distinct
 from
 its
 predecessor.


Black
 argues
 that
 despite
 apparent
 common
 sense
 of
 the
 term
 Internet
 Radio,
 the


‘Radioness’
 of
 audio
 streaming
 is
 a
 not
 a
 given.
 He
 questions,
 “Why
 should
 an
 audio


signal
delivered
through
the
Internet
be
called
Radio
in
the
first
place?
Is
it
self
evident


that
making
money
from
the
delivery
of
such
signals
has
anything
to
do
with
Radio?
Do


listeners
 to
 Internet
 Radio
 stream
 count
 as
 Radio
 listeners?
 Or
 is
 Internet
 Radio
 a




 Page| 12




different
 medium
 from
 Radio
 and
 if
 so
 why
 has
 it
 borrowed
 the
 name?
 In
 short,
 who


gets
to
decide
when
a
new
medium
has
arrived,
where
it
begins
and
the
old
media
end


and
what
it
will
be
called?”
Black
warns,
the
association
of
a
potential
new
medium
with


an
older
one
can
close
off
possibilities
with
respect
to
the
nascent
form,
because
of
the


semantics
and
that
the
new
form
might
lack
key
attributes
of
the
medium
with
which
it


is
being
aligned
and
yet
be
strategically
positioned
such
that
this
loss
is
explained
away


or
 its
 importance
 minimized.
 His
 arguments
 raise
 some
 rather
 interesting
 points
 and


valid
questions.


Christ
 Priestman
 explains
 that
 newer
 technologies
 are
 wrenching
 out
 a
 recognizable,


neatly
definable
shaped
concept
from
time‐honored
medium
of
‘Radio’.

His
book
‘Web


Audio’
 is
 an
 excellent
 text
 detailing
 the
 ‘Internet
 Radio’
 phenomenon.
 
 He
 states,


‘Inconveniently
for
radio
studies
they
make
answers
to
the
obvious
baseline
question,


‘What
 is
 Radio?’
 increasingly
 multi‐factorial
 and
 elusive’.
 Providing
 a
 part
 solution
 to


our
research
question,
he
writes,
‘The
business
of
constructing
meaning
for
a
particular


set
 of
 listeners,
 without
 drawing
 attention
 to
 the
 artifice
 employed
 in
 doing
 so,
 is


virtually
the
sole
focus
of
the
programme
maker:
his
or
her
training
is
to
speak
on
mic


or
 select
 content
 with
 a
 particular
 individual
 listener
 in
 mind.
 At
 the
 other
 end
 of
 the


chain
the
individual
listener
is
most
likely
to
become
conscious
of
the
meaningfulness
of


radio
only
at
the
points
where
meaning
is
lost
for
them,
when
what
they
hear
does
not


make
 sense
 to
 them
 or
 does
 not
 ring
 true.’
 He
 draws
 our
 attention
 to
 a
 presence
 of
 a


certain
‘value
Chain’
in
the
communication
of
the
medium.




 Page| 13




Alan
 Beck
 is
 the
 author
 of
 a
 brilliant
 online
 monograph,
 ‘Death
 of
 Radio?’
 It
 is
 yet


another
 interesting
 literature
 that
 I
 draw
 my
 knowledge
 and
 interest
 from.
 He


categorically
 states,
 ‘Radio
 is
 being
 transformed
 in
 this
 digital
 age
 and
 it
 may
 lose
 its


very
name.
Pre‐digital
understanding
of
radio
is
challenged,
as
is
the
very
field
of
radio


studies.
 A
 'reinvention'
 and
 're‐configuration'
 of
 radio‐audio
 studies
 is
 needed,
 and
 a


new
 radio
 studies.’
 'Death
 of
 Radio?'
 has
 been
 chosen
 as
 a
 title
 for
 the
 monograph


because
Alan
Beck
believed,
in
this
digital
age,
radio
may
lose
itself,
(in
certain
areas
of


broadcasting)
 and
 become
 digital
 audio
 or
 similar.
 
 This
 monograph
 of
 his
 provides
 a


portmanteau
 term,
 'Radioworld'
 at
 its
 conclusion.
 'Radioworld'
 seeks,
 in
 homage
 to


Arthur
 Danto's
 'Artworld'
 in
 visual
 arts
 theory,
 to
 identify
 the
 'radio‐like'
 as


'enfranchised
 by
 theory'
 (Danto,
 Arthur,
 1987).
 The
 creation
 of
 this
 term
 provides
 a


robust
platform
to
my
theory.
I
will
return
to
similar
concept
called
‘RADIOTRACK’
at
a


later
stage
in
the
research.



 


Alan
Beck
further
elucidates
on
the
word
‘meaning’
in
context
to
Radio
by
referring
to


David
Hendy’s
work,
‘He
(David
Hendy)
talks
of
a
'general
meaningfulness'
in
the
radio


'text',
and
his
exploration
is
of
'these
meanings
and
their
collective
meaningfulness',
and


'our
sense
of
what
radio
is
for'.
Here
I
am
collecting
more
thoughts
in
for
understanding


the
‘meaningfulness’
of
radio.
This
can
be
regarded
as
an
important
object
to
the
study,


but
 not
 a
 stand
 alone
 one.
 I
 am
 introducing
 this
 concept
 of
 ‘meaningfulness’
 in
 an


academic
environment
and
I
wish
to
derive
more
insights
by
using
it
as
a
tool.


At
 this
 juncture,
 I
 am
 attracted
 to
 borrow
 the
 core
 research
 method
 from
 Michael


Porter’s
 ‘Value
 chain’.
 In
 academic
 and
 business
 practices,
 value
 chains
 have
 been




 Page| 14




restricted
to
usage
in
production
process,
profit
maximization,
cutting
cost,
and
creating


revenues.

A
value
chain
is
a
banal
concept.
At
one
end
of
the
process
of
shifting
goods


are
 origination
 and
 the
 producer;
 in
 the
 middle
 is
 found
 the
 commodity
 and
 its


distribution;
 at
 the
 other
 end
 is
 the
 consumer
 or
 end
 user.
 The
 value
 chain


disaggregates
a
firm
into
strategically
relevant
activities,
which
allows
us
to
understand


existing
and
potential
sources
of
differentiation
(Michael
Porter,
2004).
I
am
aiming
to


analyze
 the
 value
 chain
 of
 the
 traditional
 radio
 broadcast
 model
 &
 of
 new
 radio‐like


services.
This
analysis
will
help
us
bifurcate,
visualize
and
understand
how
each
process


performs
 the
 individual
 activities.
 Processes
 of
 a
 value
 chain
 are
 a
 reflection
 of
 its


history,
 its
 strategy,
 its
 approach
 to
 implementing
 its
 strategy,
 and
 the
 underlying


economics
 of
 the
 activities
 themselves
 (ib.).
 Strategically
 distinct
 business
 units
 are


isolated
 by
 weighing
 the
 benefits
 of
 integration
 and
 de‐integration
 and
 by
 comparing


the
strength
of
interrelationships
in
serving
related
segments
(ib.).



Going
beyond
the
‘Value
chain’
theory,
I
park
my
interest
in
yet
another
academic
piece


of
work,
the
‘Value
chain
of
Meaning’.
John
Hartley
has
authored
an
article
in
his
study


of
cultural
practices
(though
the
core
idea
is
borrowed
from
Michael
Porters
work).
He


explains,
‘the
source
of
value
is
no
longer
to
be
found
only
in
the
scale
and
organization


of
manufacturing
industry
alone;
it
is
also
to
be
found
among
the
uses
and
creativity
of


consumers
themselves.
Garnering
value
is
no
longer
merely
a
matter
of
the
bottom
line,


which
 itself
 has
 tripled
 in
 order
 to
 accommodate
 contextual
 values’
 (John
 Hartley,


2004).





 Page| 15




The
‘Value
Chain
of
Meaning’
is
a
simple
yet
a
dynamic
thought.
I
will
be
drafting
two


value
chains
for
our
study
now,
one
the
basic
value
process
chain
(Michael
Porters)
and


the
 other,
 its
 mirror
 image,
 the
 value
 chain
 of
 meaning
 (John
 Hartley’s
 thought).
 This


added
exercise
will
allow
us
to
look
into
the
meaning
of
each
process
that
creates
Radio.



We
can
bifurcate
and
understand
the
trajectory
of
the
medium,
which
is
rather
elusive


and
 confusing.
 Comparing
 the
 value
 chains
 of
 competitors
 or
 likewise
 services
 will


expose
differences
that
determine
competitive
advantage
for
each
firm.
The
competitive


advantage
can
then
be
reviewed
as
‘disruptive’
or
‘an
added
potential’
to
the
medium.



Source:
Illustration


Above
 is
 a
 skeleton
 model
 of
 our
 methodology,
 I
 would
 be
 able
 to
 sketch
 out
 the
 he


meaning
of
each
process
in
Radio
production,
from
the
source
of
audio,
to
the
producer,


to
the
listener,
encapsulating
‘value
creating’
process
like
Selection,
Music
Editorization,


Scheduling,
Regulations,
Talent,
&
Delivery
platforms.
We
can
closely
examine
the
value


creation
process
in
the
disputing
forms
of
Radio,
their
significance
to
the
original
value




 Page| 16




chain,
 i.e.
 the
 classic
 vintage
 model
 and
 perhaps
 by
 this
 the
 mutated
 model
 can
 be


traced
 or
 captured.
 The
 ‘working
 idea’,
 the
 periphery
 and
 the
 configurations
 of
 the


medium
 can
 be
 clearly
 investigated
 by
 this
 methodology.
 I
 firmly
 believe
 in
 the
 given


time
 frame
 and
 resources,
 this
 bespoke
 mechanical
 methodology
 will
 provide
 an


excellent
academic
umbrella
for
an
error
free,
pragmatic
and
coherent
finding.




 Page| 17




Chapter
3:
Understanding
radio




The
‘low
profile’
description
of
radio
has
become
a
characteristic
of
radio.
It
is
seen
as
a


secondary
medium,
not
just
by
the
academic
world
but
also
by
many
producers
of
radio


and
by
consumers.
Media
planners
call
it
‘the
complimentary
medium’.
Yet
at
the
same


time
 radio
 is
 absolutely
 entwined
 in
 everyday
 living.
 A
 person
 can
 be
 considered


monstrous
 if
 he
 does
 not
 know
 radio,
 not
 the
 same
 for
 movies
 or
 Internet.
 Radio
 is


ubiquitous,
 but
 quietly
 so;
 it
 is
 invisible
 (Lewis
 and
 Booth,
 1989).
 Radio
 is
 cheap
 to


produce
and
has
been
around
for
a
long
time
–
it
is
the
oldest
of
the
time‐based
media
in


the
home.
Radio
has
become
naturalized
–
so
much
so
that
it
is
difficult
to
establish
its


significance.
 In
 each
 location
 the
 medium
 is
 used
 differently,
 demonstrating
 not
 only


that
a
global
definition
of
the
meanings
and
uses
of
radio
cannot
be
assigned,
but
also


that
 new
 evolutions
 of
 ‘radiogenic’
 technologies
 should
 not
 be
 dismissed
 as
 being


different
 from
 radio
 and
 therefore
 not
 a
 part
 of
 the
 remit
 of
 radio
 studies.
 (Jo
 Tacchi,


2001).
 As
 part
 of
 her
 posting,
 Jay
 Hamilton
 simplistically
 asked,
 ‘I
 wonder
 how
 far
 an


investigation
of
the
etymology
of
the
word
'radio'
would
begin
to
suggest
the
variety
of


its
uses’
(Jay
Hamilton,
2001).



Medium
 specificities
 resist
 essentialism
 as
 such.
 Jay
 Hamilton
 takes
 up
 Jo
 Tacchi


constructionist
point,
‘…
this
non‐essentialist
direction
is
(it
seems
to
me,
anyway)
the


only
 really
 defensible
 direction
 in
 which
 to
 work.
 Otherwise,
 endless
 debates
 about


what
is
'true'
radio
or
not
evades
the
really
important
questions
about
the
definitions,




 Page| 18




practices,
and
contexts
that
together
define
radio
in
any
particular
time
and
place’
(Jay


Hamilton,
2001).


Radio
&
Retro


Echoes
 of
 the
 debates
 about
 the
 threat
 (or
 promise)
 of
 a
 feminized
 public
 sphere


resonate
 through
 the
 early
 period
 of
 radio’s
 definition
 as
 a
 public
 medium
 (Lacey,


1996).
For
conservatives,
women
and
children
needed
‘protection’
from
the
intrusion
of


politics
 from
 the
 ‘masculine’
 public
 sphere
 into
 the
 ‘feminine’
 private
 sphere
 of
 the


home.
 Carefully
 monitored,
 depoliticized
 radio
 with
 diverting
 and
 entertaining


programming
 could
 make
 the
 home
 a
 more
 pleasant
 and
 less
 isolated
 place
 for
 the


housewife,
and
therefore
make
her
less
likely
to
want
to
abandon
her
domestic
duties.


For
progressives,
the
radio
was
to
enable
political
education
for
the
newly
enfranchised


female
 population,
 especially
 those
 not
 reached
 by
 conventional
 political
 channels.
 It


would
also
enhance
a
sense
of
shared
experience
among
women
listening
alone
in
the


home.
 Underlying
 both
 perspectives
 was
 an
 understanding
 of
 radio
 as
 a
 secondary


medium,
 a
 medium
 that
 does
 not
 demand
 absorbed
 contemplation,
 but
 can
 be


consumed
distractedly
while
engaged
in
some
other
occupation.


The
radio
offered
access
to
a
public
world,
compressing
the
distance
in
space
between


the
 listener
 and
 the
 event,
 and
 at
 the
 same
 time
 making
 the
 perception
 of
 that
 event


accessible
to
a
numberless
audience
of
listeners,
and
celebrating
the
distance
overcome


in
 transmitting
 those
 events
 into
 the
 home.
 The
 microphone,
 like
 the
 camera,
 had


traversed
 the
 aural
 landscape,
 giving
 the
 broadcast
 a
 sense
 of
 ‘second
 nature’.
 The


loudspeaker,
 often
 designed
 to
 blend
 with
 the
 fabric
 and
 furnishings
 of
 the
 home,




 Page| 19




offered
the
illusion
of
an
equipment‐free
reproduction
of
reality.
(Indeed,
although
the


distance
 between
 spectator
 and
 object
 is
 always
 apparent
 in
 visual
 media,
 sounds,


especially
music,
seem
to
enter
the
body
and
prompt
a
visceral
response.)
Moreover,
the


radio
 wrenched
 the
 sounds
 of
 concerts,
 speeches,
 plays
 and
 public
 events
 from
 the


‘domain
 of
 tradition’
 and
 reproduced
 them
 in
 the
 listener’s
 ‘own
 particular
 situation’


(Benjamin,
1992).
Reality
was
adjusted
to
the
masses,
and
the
masses
to
reality.


Radio
&
Interactivity


In
1924
a
young
John
Reith,
later
to
be
the
first
Director‐General
of
the
BBC,
wrote
and


published
 ‘Broadcasting
 Over
 Britain’,
 an
 invigorating
 eulogy
 to
 the
 new
 radio


technology
 as
 a
 force
 of
 good,
 ‘One
 day,
 ...
 a
 means
 may
 be
 found
 to
 ally
 thought
 with


ether
direct
and
to
broadcast
and
communicate
thought
without
the
intervention
of
any


mechanical
 device,
 in
 the
 same
 manner
 as
 a
 receiving
 set
 is
 today
 tuned
 to
 the
 wave‐

length
of
a
transmitter
so
that
there
may
be
free
passage
in
between’.
(Reith,
1924).


That
 same
 concept
 is
 articulated
 more
 definitively
 by
 the
 German
 playwright
 Bertolt


Brecht
in
his
famous
talk
on
‘The
Radio
as
an
Apparatus
of
Communication’
in
1932:
the


most
wonderful
public
communication
system
imaginable,
a
gigantic
system
of
channels


‐
could
be,
that
is,
if
it
were
capable
not
only
of
transmitting
but
of
receiving,
of
making


listeners
hear
but
also
speak,
not
of
isolating
them
but
connecting
them’.

Susan
Douglas


encapsulates
 this
 unique
 connection
 in
 her
 powerful
 discussion
 of
 the
 era
 when
 radio


still
 seemed
 magical:
 ‘Listening
 to
 the
 radio
 ...
 forged
 powerful
 connections
 between


people’s
 inner,
 thinking
 selves
 and
 other
 selves,
 other
 voices,
 from
 quite
 far
 away


places’
(Douglas,
1999).





 Page| 20




The
 democratic
 credentials
 of
 digital
 radio
 are
 also
 implicit
 in
 the
 claim
 it
 presents
 ‐


namely
 its
 potential
 for
 expanded
 interactivity.
 Analogue
 radio
 can
 of
 course
 claim
 to


have
 already
 created
 something
 close
 to
 Brecht's
 concept
 of
 a
 two‐way
 form
 of


communication
 through
 its
 widespread
 adoption
 of
 the
 phone‐in.
 The
 radio
 phone‐in


has
 faced
 rigorous
 critiques
 of
 its
 democratic
 claims
 (see
 Higgins
 &
 Moss,
 1982,1984;


Hutchby,
 1991).
 Whatever
 its
 precise
 communicative
 qualities
 are
 to
 be
 seen
 today,


digital
technology
marks
a
quantum
leap
in
the
two‐way
potential
of
the
medium.

Here


I
 believe,
 that
 digital
 techniques
 do
 add
 to
 radio,
 but
 this
 understanding
 needs
 to
 be


substantiated
&
documented.


Radio
&
Boundaries


Carin
Aberg
perceptively
summarised
the
'ancient
question
on
what
a
medium
is'
as,


a)
programming
and
content


b)
regulation
and
legislation


c)
perceptions
(by
listeners
and/or
producers)
and
use
at
a
certain
point
in
time


d)
the
same
content
delivered
by
other
(technical)
means


e)
programmes/content
which
can
only
be
achieved
by
means
of
sound
without
images


(Carin
Aberg,
2001).


Aberg
also
added
on
the
latter
issue,
‘however,
radio
is
NOT
equal
to
sound,
in
that
case


the
wind
and
rain
and
traffic
noise
and
telefax
signals
on
AM
would
be
radio’
(ib)




 Page| 21




A
 striking
 prose
 that
 signifies
 the
 importance
 of
 radio
 in
 early
 era
 is
 written
 by


Kracauer,
 ‘who
 could
 resist
 the
 invitation
 of
 those
 dainty
 headphones?
 They
 gleam
 in


living
 rooms
 and
 entwine
 themselves
 around
 heads
 all
 by
 themselves;
 and
 instead
 of


fostering
 cultivated
 conversation,
 one
 becomes
 a
 playground
 for
 Eiffel
 noises
 that,


regardless
of
their
potentially
active
boredom,
do
not
even
grant
ones
modest
right
to


personal
 boredom.
 Silent
 and
 lifeless,
 people
 sit
 side
 by
 side
 as
 if
 their
 souls
 were


wandering
 about
 far
 away.
 But
 these
 souls
 are
 not
 wandering
 according
 to
 their
 own


preferences;
 they
 are
 badgered
 by
 the
 news
 hounds,
 and
 soon
 no
 one
 can
 tell
 who
 is


the
hunter
and
who
is
the
hunted.’
(Kracauer,
1995)


Following
 Aberg's
 contribution,
 Ken
 Garner
 suggested
 defining
 radio
 firstly
 by:
 ‘…
 the


broadcast
 from
 one
 sender
 to
 many
 receivers
 of
 audio
 content
 via
 electromagnetic


radiation
using
amplitude
modulation
or
frequency
modulation
…
a
text,
one‐way
one
to


many
 …’(Ken
 Garner,
 2001).
 This
 is
 straight‐down‐the‐line
 communications
 theory
 ‐


though
Garner
quips
'dull
for
our
purposes,
ain't
it?'
‐
and
continues,


‐
audio‐only
texts


‐
involving
any
or
more
than
one
of
music,
narrative,
dialogue


‐
which
are
produced
for
broadcast
purposes
(ib)


So
here
is
a
mix
of
semiotics
text,
formats,
genres
and
intentionality
(by
broadcasters).


Garner
 then
 intriguingly
 says
 that
 his
 definition
 'includes
 99%
 of
 what
 passes
 for


webcasting’.
He
stresses
that
his
second
point
is
key
and
that
it
is
tricky
to
find
words
to


'embrace
all
kinds
of
radio
content'.
It
is
challenging
on
Garner's
part
to
describe
most




 Page| 22




Internet
 radio
 as
 similar
 to
 radio
 in
 other
 analogue‐digital
 formats.
 So
 the
 debate


widens
interestingly.


Andrew
Crisell
argued
in
his
book
‘Understanding
Radio’,
again
before
the
digitalization


of
 the
 industry
 had
 really
 gathered
 pace,
 that
 radio’s
 primary
 code
 is
 verbal
 because,


whatever
 else
 is
 entailed
 ‐
 music
 presentation
 or
 pure
 talk
 ‐
 spoken
 words
 always


provide
the
context
in
which
we
listen
(Crisell
1994).


Radio
&
The
digital
2000’s


Writing
 on
 the
 transfer
 of
 content
 from
 print
 to
 the
 Internet
 in
 the
 1990s,
 Microsoft


founder
Bill
Gates
said:
‘Whenever
a
new
medium
comes
on
the
scene
its
early
content


comes
over
from
other
media.
But
to
take
best
advantage
of
the
new
electronic
medium,


content
 needs
 to
 be
 specially
 authored
 with
 the
 new
 medium
 in
 mind.’
 (Gates,
 1996).


Ofcom
 had
 an
 interesting
 report
 published
 in
 2005,
 it
 said,
 radio
 as
 a
 medium
 is


increasing
 everywhere,
 ubiquitous
 in
 its
 reach
 and
 its
 power
 to
 inform
 and
 entertain


locally,
nationally
and
immediately.
Listeners
love
their
local
station;
they
participate
in


their
community
station;
and
they
regularly
tune
into
their
favorite
stations.
They
move


seamlessly
 from
 commercial
 to
 BBC
 radio,
 and
 through
 the
 ease
 with
 which
 radio
 has


been
distributed
on
multiple
platforms,
listeners
have
taken
radio
into
the
digital
world


in
many
ways
ahead
of
its
sister‐broadcasting
medium,
television.
(Ofcom,
2005).
Radio


had
met
‘the
digital’
itself.




 Page| 23




Richard
 Berry
 writes,
 providing
 a
 theoretical
 backing
 to
 the
 Ofcom
 statements,
 ‘this


demonstrates
the
virus‐like
nature
of
radio
as
a
medium.
Radio
has
found
its
way
into


all
parts
of
homes
and
outdoors,
into
transport
systems,
into
the
Internet
and
now
into


our
MP3
players,
an
environment
which
is
entirely
suitable
for
radiogenic
content.
Like


a
virus,
radio
is
also
very
resilient,
fighting
off
attacks
from
television,
compact
disc
and


the
 increasingly
 visual
 world
 we
 live
 in.
 So
 for
 radiogenic
 content
 to
 find
 its
 way


through
the
web
to
portable
audio
devices
should
not
come
as
much
of
a
surprise.
After


all,
many
people
have
taped
radio
programmes
at
home
to
listen
to
at
a
later
point
even


if
it
was
just
the
weekly
Top
40
countdown.’


Chris
Priestman
penned
a
basic
and
banal
description
to
the
definition
of
radio,
‘Radio


needed
no
more
definition
than
the
transmission
system
by
which
we
picked
it
up.
All


sound
 programming
 carried
 from
 a
 transmitter
 to
 our
 tuner
 using
 the
 properties
 of


electromagnetic
 waves
 we
 called
 radio.
 What's
 more
 the
 precise
 nature
 of
 the
 radio


medium
 is
 determined
 by
 the
 available
 technology
 we
 use
 to
 hear
 it
 and
 that
 has


changed
over
time’
(Priestman,
2001).


Eryl
 Price‐Davies
 followed
 with
 this
 measured
 view,
 ‘One
 recurring
 theme
 is
 that


whatever
 radio
 was...it
 is
 no
 longer
 possible
 for
 us
 to
 conceive
 of
 it
 in
 these
 ways


anymore.
That,
however,
is
not
the
same
as
saying
that
there
is
no
such
thing
as
radio


anymore.
So
‐
I'm
quite
happy
with
the
notion
that
radio
is
changeable,
fluid,
defined
by


its
users,
and
so
on...but
I
still
think
it
is
important
to
inquire
into
its
ontological
status.




 Page| 24




Otherwise
 …
 there
 is
 an
 absent
 centre
 to
 our
 endeavours’.
 Tim
 Davie,
 Direcor
 of
 BBC,


Audio
 &
 Music,
 says,
 ‘the
 working
 idea
 of
 radio
 will
 not
 change
 for
 a
 long
 time.


Fundamentals
 of
 radio
 have
 not
 changed.
 Yes,
 the
 vast
 development
 in
 delivery


mechanisms
 has
 lead
 to
 an
 evolution.
 But
 it
 has
 only
 got
 radio
 closer
 to
 the
 audience.


The
 worry
 about
 the
 word
 radio
 disappearing
 is
 a
 secondary
 and
 long
 term


consideration.’


Relationship
Passive
Localized
Mobile

Source:
4
pillars
of
radio
as
illustrated
by
Tim
Davie


He
 further
 explains,
 ‘Radio
 is
 delivery
 of
 editorialized
 Audio.
 Editorialised
 means


someone
has
crafted
it,
someone
has
shaped
it,
someone
is
delivering
it
in
a
way
which


is
 there
 to
 entertain,
 increase
 learning,
 hence
 the
 primary
 strategy
 at
 the
 BBC
 is
 to


create
memorable
and
distinctive
content.
Creative
vision
of
the
editorial
team
is
key
to


our
growth
at
the
BBC.’






Max
 Easterman
 pointed
 to
 intentionality
 on
 the
 part
 of
 broadcasters,
 ‘It
 seems
 to
 me


that
'what
is
radio'
really
depends
on
how
the
product
is
intended
to
be
distributed.
If
a


programme,
 or
 programme
 stream,
 is
 intended
 initially
 or
 mainly
 for
 distribution




 Page| 25




directly
 via
 wireless
 means,
 or
 is
 originated
 by
 an
 organisation
 that
 so
 intended,
 then


it's
 radio
 ‐
 however
 you
 may
 finally
 receive
 the
 product.
 But
 if
 it's
 produced
 only
 for


distribution
by
a
wired
means,
then
it
has
to
be
something
else.
But,
in
the
end,
it's
the


quality
 of
 the
 programmes
 that
 matters
 ‐
 which
 is
 an
 entirely
 different
 discussion’


(Easterman,
2001)


Andrew
 Harrison
 explains,
 ‘Yes,
 the
 way
 people
 interact
 with
 radio,
 how
 and
 when
 is


changing.
People
instinctively
want
to
include
Radio
into
the
schedule
and
we
need
to


give
 them
 compelling
 reason
 to
 continue
 doing
 that.
 Radio
 remains
 as
 the
 fabric
 of


people’s
daily
life.
People
love
Radio.
They
have
a
relationship
with
their
Radio.
You
are


never
 going
 to
 have
 a
 relation
 with
 your
 MP3
 player,
 of
 course,
 you
 can
 have
 your


favourite
songs,
but
the
connect
will
be
missing.
The
engagement
with
the
audience
is


just
as
powerful,
and
that’s
what
makes
it
radio.’



Radio
&
The
digital
2000’s
cont…


Black
(2001)
contributes
to
this
discussion
of
radio
streaming
on
the
Internet
and
the


debate
over
what
it
should
be
called,
asserting
that,
‘Listeners
have
a
lot
to
do
with
it.
A


medium’s
 identity
 stems
 in
 part
 from
 how
 it
 is
 received
 and
 treated
 by
 its
 users.


Listeners
 may
 of
 course
be
 nudged
 in
this
 or
 that
 direction
by
 the
 industry.
 But
if,
for


whatever
reason,
Internet
audio
is
treated
as
if
it
were
radio,
then
to
some
irreducible


extent
it
is
radio.’
(Black,
2001:
398)




 Page| 26




Richard
Berry
summarised
the
'What
is
radio?'
debate
in
the
following
style,
‘...
radio
is


something
that
is
live
by
its
nature
with
I'd
suppose
an
element
of
human
intervention


as
a
producer
or
a
live
presenter
and
is
recognisable
as
such.
I
suppose
what
I
am
trying


to
 do
 is
 to
 separate
 ‘radio’
 from
 jukebox
 music
 streams
 like
 ‘Yahoo!
 Radio’
 and
 the


likes...
 As
 we
 all
 know
 it's
 a
 thorny
 issue
 but
 I
 was
 wondering
 if
 anyone
 has
 read


anything
where
someone
has
tried
to
define
what
‘Radio’?
Is
it
a
technical
distinction
or


an
artistic
one?
I
think
Eryl
is
right
to
separate
‘radio’
from
‘sound’
after
all
when
visuals


are
placed
it's
called
‘Video
on
demand’
rather
than
‘TV
on
demand’
so
should
we
not
be


thinking
of
radio
like
that?
Is
it
‘sound’
‘web‐audio’?
‘webio’?
We
could,
of
course
take


the
fact
that
the
radio
term
is
used
no
matter
what
the
method
of
delivery
as
a
positive


message
 about
 the
 versatility
 and
 durability
 of
 the
 medium.’
 (Richard
 Berry,
 2001).


Richard
 Berry
 has
 put
 some
 leading
 questions
 here.
 He
 has
 bridged
 'live'
 radio
 with


automated
 in
 an
 interesting
 way,
 and
 he
 also
 pointed
 to
 ‘radio’
 terminology
 and
 its


limits,
or
the
lack
of
it.


Alan
Beck
attempts
to
chalk
out
a
summary
definition
of
radio
in
his
monograph,
‘Death


of
Radio’,
‘Radio
is
a
representational,
single‐modality,
broadcast
medium
and
the
one


thing
distinguishing
its
representations
is
that
they
are
aural.
They
range
across
a
wide


spectrum
or
soundscape,
sound
events
from
music
to
speech
and
to
silences.
Radio
is
a


one‐to‐many,
one‐way
communication
path,
while
radio
on
the
Internet
allows
users
to


send
and
receive
messages,
and
so
is
interactive
in
that
sense.
A
definition
of
radio
must


also
depend
on
the
strategy
of
profiling’.
(Alan
Beck
2002)




 Page| 27




Summary


Above
we’ve
witnessed
the
successful
and
pioneering
theory
and
thoughts
about
radio.


We
 are
 travelling
 from
 a
 closed‐concept
 or
 ‘all
 in
 one’
 definition
 of
 radio
 to
 an
 open


‘working
 idea’
 future.
 Today
 in
 the
 thick
 of
 digital
 proliferation
 we
 need
 to
 examine


radio
 as
 a
 ‘hybrid’
 concept
 (term
 borrowed
 from
 Alan
 Becks
 monograph).
 Being


‘hybrid’,
describes
radio
by
its
ability
to
be
flexible,
change
and
adapt.
Some
services
are


duplicates
 or
 clones,
 some
 are
 drawn
 from
 the
 basic
 broadcasting
 idea,
 and
 some
 are


sharing
some
common
threads,
may
be
sharing
audiences.
The
‘hybrid’
radio
model
can


now
be
seen
as
‘Radiogenic’,
it
is
radiating
the
core
idea
of
‘radio’
to
nearby
&
parallel


media
types.
The
space
or
area
of
radiation
needs
to
be
investigated.
Radio
broadcasting


is
overstepping
its
boundaries
more
and
more,
and
challenging
the
known
identities
of


radio.
I
return
now
to
Jo
Tacchi's
useful
coinage
'radiobility'.
‘By
radiobility
I
mean
the


technical
ability
to
be
radio,
or
to
be
radio‐like
or
'radiogenic'
(Tacchi,
2000).



What
does
radio
stand
for?


Radio
is
no
longer
only
about
broadcasting;
radio
is
meant
to
be
heard.
Radio
is
cheap,


perceived
 free,
 taken
 for
 granted,
 consumed
 in
 vast
 quantities.
 Current
 digital


proliferation
allows
radio
to
challenge
the
traditional
barriers
of
space
and
time.
Radio


is
 passive,
 undemanding,
 not
 necessarily
 regulated,
 and
 convenient,
 it
 is
 best
 for


disconnected
use.
Radio
is
intended
broadcast,
it’s
a
point‐to‐point
communication
(not


necessarily
one‐to‐many),
it
consist
of
a
flow,
a
kind
of
a
‘radio
flow’.
Radio
flow
could


constitute
 sound,
 music
 and
 speech.
 What
 can
 be
 noted
 here
 is
 that
 radio
 signifies




 Page| 28




distinct
universal
properties
of
the
organised
patterns
of
sounds
that
constitute
radio.


Our
 further
 research
 journey
 will
 be
 underpinned
 by
 the
 lessons,
 ideas
 and
 insights


drawn
from
the
works
of
the
various
scholars
mentioned
in
this
chapter.





 Page| 29




Chapter
4:
Survey
of
technologies
and
forms




What
is
digital?


Pre‐digitalization,
radio
raw
ingredients
had
to
be
recorded,
edited,
mixed,
stored,
and


played
 back
 on
 analogue
 equipment.
 It
 used
 magnetic
 tape,
 which
 needed
 to
 be


physically
cut
in
the
process
of
editing
and
laboriously
copied
onto
further
tapes
to
be


assembled
and
mixed
in
studios
into
finished
items
for
broadcast.
Those
were
the
‘vinyl’


days.



Radio
has
always
been
transmitted
over
great
distances
and
separated
audiences
from


producers.
 This
 was
 the
 primitive
 use
 of
 Radio.
 In
 this
 respect,
 today
 it
 resembles
 the


electronic
 text.
 But
 the
 detail
 and
 quality
 of
 digital
 sound
 in
 some
 ways
 brings
 the


listener
closer
(Alan
Beck,
2002).
This
is
an
obvious
discovery
for
first‐time
listeners
to


the
digital.


Fast‐forward
 to
 the
 MP3
 age,
 digital
 technology
 replaces
 this
 process
 with
 computer


files,
 to
 be
 manipulated
 via
 a
 series
 of
 commands
 followed
 on‐screen.
 Significantly,


sound
 files
 can
 also
 be
 copied
 and
 manipulated
 into
 a
 number
 of
 different
 versions


within
very
short
time
spans.
And
because
all
systems
share
the
same
underlying
digital


binary
 code,
 with
 sound,
 pictures,
 and
 text
 all
 ultimately
 composed
 of
 'bits'
 of




 Page| 30




information
 encoded
 into
 files.
 Digitalization
 produces
 a
 vastly
 increased
 inherent


potential
for
the
technical
convergence
of
media
production
platforms.


Digitalization
in
radio


There
 are
 two
 main
 aspects
 to
 the
 process:
 first,
 digitalization
 of
 production,
 and


second,
digitalization
of
distribution
‐
the
latter
involving
both
the
broadcasting
of
radio


programs
in
the
more
traditional
sense
(DAB)
and
the
newer
domain
of
so‐called
‘web


casting’
 ‐
 audio
 over
 the
 Internet
 or
 ‘podcasting’
 ‐
 audio
 on‐demand.
 (David
 Hendy,


2000)


Digital
radio
technology
brings
the
following
and
more:
much
more
control,
speed
and


efficiency
 in
 production
 and
 post‐production,
 accurate
 storage
 and
 retrieval
 up
 to
 the


limit
 of
 the
 hard
 disk(s),
 choice,
 unblemished
 dubbing,
 ability
 through
 sampling
 and


treatment
 to
 create
 sounds
 unheard
 and
 unblended
 before,
 multi‐layering
 of
 sound,


accuracy
in
'placing'
a
sound
event
in
the
overall
plan,
a
new
'vision'
of
the
sound
plan
in


onscreen
editing,
speed
in
inserting
segments,
'scoring'
music,
and
the
ability
to
extend


or
 to
 shorten
 (through
 sampling
 and
 treatment)
 to
 fit
 the
 required
 space
 without


distortion.
(Alan
Beck)


Binary
data
can
of
course
be
delivered
across
computer
networks
as
well
as
through
the


ether,
and
that
is
the
technical
basis
for
radio
on
the
Internet.
At
its
heart
the
Internet




 Page| 31




offers
 a
 new
 distribution
 network
 for
 sound.
 On
 its
 own
 the
 technology
 establishes
 a


very
 different
 set
 of
 relationships
 between
 broadcasters
 and
 listeners,
 but
 even
 more


dramatic
 are
 the
 transformations
 of
 sound
 broadcasting
 which
 are
 enabled
 by
 its


institutionalization
on
the
World
Wide
Web.
We
need
to
understand
the
implications
of


radio
distributed
on
a
global
computer
network
and
the
particular
technologies
which


have
 been
 developed
 to
 enable
 access
 to
 sound.
 This
 involves
 the
 technology
 of


"streaming,"
 which,
 in
 simple
 technical
 terms,
 allows
 station
 output
 to
 be
 distributed


over
 the
 Internet
 for
 people
 to
 listen
 to
 in
 real
 time
 on
 their
 desktop
 computers.
 The


relatively
low
entry
cost
for
such
‘webcasting’
in
practice
a
single
computer
acting
as
a


server
 and
 some
 relatively
 cheap
 software
 is
 all
 that
 is
 needed‐means
 that
 there
 are


already
 many
 Internet‐only
 radio
 stations
 that
 simply
 do
 not
 bother
 with
 any
 form
 of


traditional
broadcasting
at
all.
(David
Hendy,
2000)


On
 the
 face
 of
 it,
 satellite,
 cable,
 and
 Internet
 radio
 each
 compete
 in
 about
 a
 third
 of


today's
broadcast
market:
satellite
radio
for
affluent
motorists
(not
in
UK),
cable
radio


for
 home
 listeners,
 and
 Internet
 radio
 for
 office
 listeners,
 students,
 and
 teenagers
 at


home.

At
present,
radio
reaches
more
than
80%
of
European
households
and
matches


TV
 in
 the
 average
 listening
 time
 it
 commands,
 and
 radio
 is
 still
 more
 effective
 for


advertising
 than
 the
 Internet,
 though,
 in
 the
 view
 of
 this
 report,
 too
 over‐regulated


(Bughin,
Djelic,
Bozidar
and
Schröder,
2000,
49).





 Page| 32




Impact
of
Digitalization


The
 impact
 of
 digitalization
 is
 an
 important
 factor
 in
 the
 decision
 making
 process
 of


Radio
 strategists.
 Digitalization
 has
affected
 radio
internally
 and
externally.
 Internally,


as
 an
 industry,
 it
 has
 affected
 its
 traditional
 production
 and
 distribution
 practices.


Externally,
audience
expectations
have
changed.
People
increasingly
expect
more
choice


and
more
control.
There
is
now
a
tremendous
demand
for
niche
radio
programming
but


the
numbers
do
not
make
business
sense
for
traditional
broadcasters
to
offer
that
kind


of
programming.
This
restrictive
nature
of
broadcast
radio
has
given
birth
to
1000’s
of


Internet
 only
 radio
 station.
 MP3
 devices
 have
 occasioned
 a
 moment
 where
 audience


have
got
habitual
to
absolute
control
over
their
devices.
They
want
to
skip,
pause
and


rewind
their
audio.



Tim
Davie
explains,
‘There
is
radical
change
in
the
expectation
of
choice
and
control.
I


can
say
that
these
changes
have
occurred
closer
than
two
years
ago.
More
so,
audience


expect
choice
and
control
in
‘anytime,
anywhere’
environment.
Though
the
expectations


exist
we
can
provide
only
cost
effective
solutions’.
Let
us
go
further
to
understand
the


different
 forms
 of
 Radio.
 The
 survey
 will
 guide
 you
 through
 the
 current
 prevalent


technologies,
their
attributes
and
downsides.




 Page| 33




AM/
FM


What
is
Analogue
Radio?


Analogue
radio
is
on
the
dial.
It
means
you
can
receive
two
frequencies
FM
and
AM
on


the
Radio
receiver:


•
FM
(frequency
modulation),
also
known
as
VHF
(very
high
frequency)


•
AM
(amplitude
modulation),
broadcast
on
short
wave
(SW),
medium
wave
(MW)
and


long
wave
(LW)


Frequencies
used
Coverage


FM
very
high
only
near
the
transmitter


SW
high
worldwide


MW
medium
up
to
approx
150
km


LW
low
up
to
approx
400
km


Analogue
radio
is
a
cheap,
widely
used,


mobile
and
time‐tested
technology.
In
the














Source:
Computer
Desktop
Encyclopedia


UK,
 most
 analogue
 radio
 stations
 (including
 the
 BBC’s)
 broadcast
 on
 FM
 and/or
 MW,


with
BBC
Radio
4
also
on
LW.
FM
gives
the
best
sound
quality.
FM
gives
excellent
sound


quality
 and
 is
 mostly
 in
 stereo.
 Signals
 can
 usually
 be
 picked
 up
 with
 the
 small


telescopic
 aerial
 on
 a
 portable
 radio,
 or
 the
 wire
 or
 ribbon
 cable
 supplied
 with
 a
 hi‐fi


system.





 Page| 34




Downside


Most
reception
problems
with
FM
like
Hissing,
Whistling,



Distorted
S
and
Z
sounds
are
caused
either
by
a
weak
signal


Limited
scope
of
interactivity


DAB


What
is
DAB?


DAB
is
a
digital
technology
offering
considerable
advantages
over
today's
FM
radio.
The


most
obvious
benefit
to
listeners
is
DAB's
ability
to
deliver
CD‐quality
stereo
sound
in


moving
vehicles
in
particular,
unlike
DAB,
FM
reception
is
often
distorted
or
interrupted


by
 multipath
 interference.
 Listeners
 will
 be
 able
 to
 switch
 between
 the
 eight
 or
 more


stations
carried
by
every
single
multiplex
without
retuning
their
sets.
And
since
a
single


DAB
 frequency
 can
 carry
 the
 same
 signal
 across
 an
 entire
 network,
 there
 will
 be
 no


need
for
drivers
to
retune
as
they
cross
a
country.


Source:
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk




 Page| 35




DAB's
flexibility
provides
a
wider
choice
of
programmes,
including
many
not
available


on
FM.
DAB
can
carry
text
and
images
as
well
as
sound,
and
receivers
are
equipped
to


handle
non‐audio
data.
Allowing
programme
selection
by
name
or
programme
type,
and


enabling
 broadcasters
 to
 transmit
 programme‐associated
 data
 (PAD)
 such
 as
 album


title,
song
lyrics,
or
contact
details.
Additional
services,
such
as
traffic
information
and


sports,
 weather
 or
 stock
 market
 news
 feeds,
 are
 already
 on
 their
 way.
 Some
 even


include
full
colour
images.


Main
attributes


Superiror
transmission
quality
to
AM/FM


Digital
Quality
Sound


Scrolling
Text


Station
known
by
names


Pause,
stop
and
rewind
facility


Record
Programmes



Plan
 your
 listening
 ‐
 An
 Electronic
 Programme
 Guide
 (EPG)
 on
 some
 models
 lets
 you


plan
 your
 listening.
 Daily
 listings
 let
 you
 schedule
 your
 choice
 of
 programmes
 for


listening
to
now
or
later,
up
to
seven
days
in
advance.




 Page| 36




Downside


Music
lovers
are
calling
on
broadcasters
to
improve
sound
quality
on
digital
radio
after


complaints
that
it
is
worse
than
traditional
FM
(Telegraph).



Expensive
Radio
sets


Reluctance
by
the
Auto
industry
to
take
up
DAB
as
the
new
standard


Internet
Radio


There
appear
to
be
three
main
types
of
radio‐style
functions


and
 outcomes
 on
 the
 Internet.
 The
 first
 comprises
 of
 /an


existing
 radio
 service
 ’broadcasting’
 via
 the
 Internet.
 This


means
 that
 a
 visitor
 to
 the
 web
 site
 provided
 by
 a
 public,
 community
 or
 commercial


radio
 station
 can
 hear
 the
 stations’
 real‐time
 radio
 broadcasts
 as
 they
 view
 other


information
about
the
relevant
service
in
the
form
of
written
text
and
graphics.


Source:
www.www.capitalradio.co.uk




 Page| 37




Large
commercial
stations
in
the
UK,
like
Capital
Radio
or
Virgin,
encourage
listeners
to


use
 their
 station's
 websites
 to
 hear
 exclusive
 interviews,
 commentary,
 or
 live
 events


that
are
not
being
broadcast
on
the
main
output;
once
there
listeners
are
encouraged
to


chat
online,
join
discussion
groups‐to
become
interactive;
they
might
order
records
and


other
 goods
 they
 are
 told
 about,
 or
 take
 advantage
 of
 so‐called
 audio
 on
 demand


services
where
they
can
access
a
CD‐database
to
construct
their
own
schedule
of
music.


Source:
www.www.capitalradio.co.uk


Radio
 stations
 are
 also
 using
 Internet
 services
 as
 a
 new
 programming
 tool,
 with
 user


surveys
helping
to
build
databases
on
listeners'
tastes
and
interests,
to
be
used
by
the


station
or
sold
to
third
parties.
The
BBC
also
uses
the
technology
to
alert
office
users
by


e‐mail
 to
 what
 is
 available
 of
 interest
 to
 them
 or
 provide
 continuous
 news
 headlines


onscreen,
 on
 a
 personalized
 self‐selection
 basis
 .
 Such
 an
 interactive
 approach
 to


presenting
information
could,
some
suggest
see
a
change
feeding
back
into
the
nature
of


conventional
radio
broad‐casting.




 Page| 38




The
second
form
of
Internet
radio
consists


of
what
might
be
called
’on‐demand’
radio.


The
 audio
 is
 a
 chunk
 of
 pre‐recorded


material
 that
 can
 be
 heard,
 for
 example,


the
Guardian
Podcast.
The
material
can
be


changed
and
updated
but
interactivity
on
the
part
of
the
listener/consumer
is
limited,


apart
from
being
able
to
fast
forward
or
rewind,
or
start
and
stop,
at
designated
places.


The
 material
 is
 not
 ongoing
 but
 has
 a
 fixed
 duration
 opening
 and
 closing.


(RebeccaCoyle).

Image
Source:
www.guardian.co.uk/podcasts


Source:
www.spotify.com


The
 third
 form
 of
 Internet
 radio
 is
 more
 often
 created
 specifically
 for
 the
 Net
 and
 it


utilizes
 the
 advantages
 that
 the
 Internet
 has
 over
 most
 broadcast
 radio,
 that
 is,
 its


various
 forms
 of
 interactivity.
 The
 ‘only
 net’
 services
 are
 increasingly
 being
 used
 for


music
 distribution
 i.e.
 pure
 continuous
 music
 stream.
 Users
 can
 engage
 in
 all
 sorts
 of


information
apart
from
listening
to
music.

Social
media
tools
like
tagging,
networking
&


metatext
 is
 also
 used
 by
 such
 sites.
 Digital
 production
 tools
 like
 collaborative
 filtering


and
 music
 genetics
 are
 substituting
 traditional
 radio
 processes
 like
 scheduling
 and


talent.




 Page| 39




Christopher
 Priestman
 regards
 the


fully
automated
music
channels
as
the


most
 significant
 advancement
 in


music
 on
 the
 Internet,
 and
 the
 most


successful
split
from
terrestrial
radio.


He
saysthe
radio
industry
has
almost
perfected
















Source:
www.last.fm


these
 automated
 stations
 as,
 ‘…
 the
 most
 efficient
 means
 of
 playing
 music
 to
 an


international
 public,
 24
 hours
 a
 day,
 365
 days
 a
 year.
 The
 economics
 of
 this
 are


compelling.
 …
 a
 single
 station
 can
 serve
 any
 definable
 musical
 taste,
 based
 on


instantaneous,
 invisible
 and
 100%
 accurate
 audience
 research
 (e.g.
 which
 tracks
 or


combinations
 of
 tracks
 make
 more
 listeners
 tune
 out,
 which
 rotations
 result
 in
 better


sales)
using
server
logs.
Technical
staff
costs
are
minimal
and
'on
air'
staff
costs
can
be


confined
 to
 a
 single
 playlist
 programmer.
 Voiceovers
 and
 on
 air
 ads
 are
 optional.
 The


main
ongoing
costs
are
in
marketing
the
station.’

(Priestman,
2001)


The
 final
 category
 I
 examine
 is
 what
 I
 term
 'hear‐view'.
 Some
 radio
 stations
 use
 their


radio
 studio
 web
 cam
 to
 transmit
 pictures
 of
 live
 production
 ‐
 often
 a
 DJ
 but
 also,
 for


example,
 B.B.C.
 Radios
 4
 and
 5
 ‐
 onto
 their
 web
 sites.
 But
 on
 television
 also,
 and


therefore
in
television‐quality,
a
channel
such
as
German
WDR
or
Flemish
RTL2
can
be


given
 over
 at
 times
 to
 a
 'radio'
 programme,
 broadcasting
 live.
 There
 is
 a
 television


camera
 operating
 in
 the
 radio
 studio,
 trained
 on
 the
 presenter,
 who
 can
 be
 a
 DJ
 or
 in


another
case
a
phone‐in
presenter
talking
straight
to
camera.
We
both
see
and
listen
to




 Page| 40




a
live
'radio'
programme
being
broadcast.
Is
this
television
or
radio
or
both?


Source:
www.absoluteradio.co.uk


However,
 differences
 between
 Internet
 radio
 services
 and
 others
 are
 evident
 in
 the


amount
 of
 information
 available
 at
 any
 one
 time
 and
 the
 forms
 of
 the
 information,


particularly
in
relation
to
the
amount
of
visual
material
over
sound.
This
situation
has


led
 to
 digital
 audio
 broadcasting
 and
 Internet
 radio
 being
 derogatively
 labelled


’television
on
the
radio’
by
several
industry
pundits.


Main
Attributes


Niche
services
available




 Page| 41




Pull
media


Low
barriers
to
Entry


Lack
of
Regulation


Excellent
quality
of
stream
(in
broadband)


Breaks
barrier
of
space
and
time


Downside


Metered
access
to
the
user
–
NOT
free
(Internet
usage)


Sometimes
services
restricted
to
computers
and
lack
portability


Subscription
based
models
–
NOT
all
are
free
over
the
air


Lack
of
personal
touch,
intimacy


DTV


All
of
the
BBC's
national
radio
stations
including
the


World
Service
and
the
digital‐only
stations;
1Xtra,
6


Music,
 Asian
 Network,
 Radio
 7,
 5
 live
 and
 private


commercial
 Radio
 brands
 like
 Absolute
 Radio/


Smooth,
 Heart
 FM
 are
 available
 on
 the
 digital


terrestrial
 (Freeview),
 digital
 satellite
 (Sky
 and


Freesat),
 digital
 cable
 (Virgin
 Media)
 and
 other


broadband‐based
television
platforms.













Source:
http://www.freeview.co.uk/freeview/Channels/Radio



















 Page| 42




Digital
 terrestrial
 television
 in
 the
 United
 Kingdom
 is
 made
 up
 of
 over
 forty
 primarily


free‐to‐air
 television
 channels
 (including
 all
 national
 analogue
 stations)
 and
 over


twenty
radio
channels.



MOBILE
PHONE


There
 is
 a
 strong
 belief
 among
 many
 in
 the
 radio


industry
 that
 FM
 radio
 receivers
 should
 be
 incorporated
 into
 virtually
 all
 mobile


devices.
 Such
 a
 move
 will
 help
 to
 perpetuate
 the
 ubiquitous
 nature
 of
 radio
 and
 to


provide
a
communication
lifeline
during
times
of
crisis
or
natural
disaster.
The
entry
of


3G
 technology
 mobile
 phones
 makes
 it
 the
 best
 place
 to
 get
 music
 or
 even
 if
 you
 just


want
to
hear
a
bit
of
chat.


Source:
http://bit.ly/zu7If


Radio
 applications
 on
 smartphones
 have
 been
 one
 of
 the
 most
 famous
 picks,
 they
 are


portable
and
most
of
them
are
free.
A
few
UK
FM
radio
stations
have
been
pretty
quick


in
getting
their
radio
streams
to
the
iPhone
via
a
dedicated
application.




 Page| 43




There
are
two
types
of
Internet
radio
apps,
first
are
the
feedback
oriented,
like
Pandora


and
 Last.fm;
 and
 second,
 are
 programmed
 radio
 stations,
 aggregated
 with
 AOL
 Radio


and
Tuner
Internet
Radio.


Pandora
Radio
is
a
free
application.
It
has
a
simple
interface,
effortless
navigation,
and


thumbs
 up
 or
 thumbs
 down
 button
 that
 helps
 determine
 how
 a
 listener’s
 station
 will


evolve.
 There
 is
 also
 a
 button
 which,
 when
 clicked,
 explains
 why
 Pandora
 picked
 a


particular
song.
Users
can
bookmark
any
song
or
artist,
as
well
as
purchase
songs
from


the
iTunes
Music
Store.
You
select
a
band
or
a
song
and
the
algorithm
does
the
rest.


Source:
http://bit.ly/zu7If


Last.fm’s
is
also
a
free
application.
It
is
the
only
one
that
can
currently
be
used
in
UK


and
USA
simultaneously
which
instantly
increases
its
international
appeal.
The
premise


of
Last.fm
is
similar
to
Pandora:
you
need
to
set
up
and
log
into
a
Last.fm
account,
then


can
 create
 your
 own
 radio
 “stations”
 based
 on
 artists’
 names,
 tags,
 or
 other
 Last.fm


users.
You
can
also
see
what
other
users
are
listening
to,
generally,
by
entering
a
user


name.




 Page| 44




Source:
http://bit.ly/zu7If


AOL
Radio
and
Tuner
have
similar
interfaces,
listing
stations
by
genre
and
displaying
a


station
with
a
sound
meter.
AOL
features
more
than
200
CBS
radio
stations,
including


several
 big
 city
 stations
 such
 as
 WFAM‐AM
 in
 New
 York,
 WXRT
 in
 Chicago,
 and
 KLSX


and
KROQ
in
L.A.


Main
Attributes


Cheap


Functions
for
skip/
pause/
stop


Portable


Highly
interactive


More
Choice


Flexible


Good
quality




 Page| 45




Local
stations
available


Downsides


Bandwidth
problems


Capacity
issues


Geographically
restricted
(due
to
royalties)


Monthly
limits


Not
necessarily
free


Bad
quality
on
high
volumes


Batteries
get
drained
out
quickly
(2hr
on
an
average)


PODCASTING


The
 term
 ‘Podcasting’
 implies
 the
 use
 of
 an
 iPod
 or,


indeed,
 any
 MP3
 player.
 Whilst
 the
 term
 may
 become


redundant,
 the
 concept
 will
 not.
 A
 demand
 has
 been


proved
for
audio
content
delivered
to
users
for
time‐shifted
playback
on
portable
media


devices.



The
 term
 ‘Podcast’
 is
 used
 term
 for
 any
 audio‐content
 downloaded
 from
 the
 internet


either
manually
from
a
website
or
automatically
via
software
applications.
Podcast
can


either
be
subscribed
through
itunes,
or
a
newsletter,
or
by
going
back
d
to
the
source
of




 Page| 46




the
Podcast.
Podacast
can
be
branched
in
two
broad
categories,
one
is
radio
like
audio


made
only
for
download
and
circulation,
second
is
radio
like
audio
which
is
broadcast


and
latter
available
for
‘time‐shifted’
listening.


The
 method
 of
 distribution
 is
 the
 most
 potentially
 revolutionary,
 the
 most
 disruptive


and
represents
a
new
medium
worthy
of
a
new
terminology
(Richard
Berry).
However,


listeners
will
inevitably
not
see
the
boundaries
and
will
treat
all
content
the
same,
given


that
no
matter
how
they
receive
it
their
consumption
of
that
content
will
be
the
same.


Podcasting
can
be
described
as
‘media
content
delivered
automatically
to
a
subscriber


via
the
Internet’.


Source:
www.google.co.uk/imagesearch


In
 the
 case
 of
 Podcasting
 the
 origins
 can
 be
 traced
 back
 to
 early
 2004
 when
 the


Guardian
 journalist
 Ben
 Hammersley
 observed,
 ‘With
 the
 benefit
 of
 hindsight,
 it
 all


seems
quite
obvious.
MP3
players,
like
Apple’s
iPod
in
many
pockets,
audio
production


software
 cheap
 or
 free,
 and
 web
 logging
 an
 established
 part
 of
 the
 internet;
 all
 the


ingredients
 are
 there
 for
 a
 new
 boom
 in
 amateur
 radio.
 But
 what
 to
 call
 it?


Audioblogging?
Podcasting?
Guerilla
Media?
(Hammersley,
2004).




 Page| 47




Large
corporate
broadcasters
have
found
Podcasting
to
be
a
new
way
to
access
listeners


and
in
new
ways,
often
with
new
experiences.
It
provides
economies
of
scale,
and
also
a


possible
revenue
stream.
The
niche
nature
of
Podcasting
offers
a
very
focused
delivery


mechanism,
 targeting
 smaller
 groups
 of
 geographically
 disparate
 yet
 like‐minded


individuals.
If
the
entire
content
produced
by
a
radio
‘station’
is
available
to
hear
at
any


point,
then
listeners
are
always
available
to
listen
and
so
theoretically
overall
listening


can
increase.


I
would
like
to
discuss
an
interesting
Podcasting
application
–
Stitcher
Radio (Free).
It


draws
upon
podcast
content
by
‘stitching
together’
different
podcasts
into
genre‐styled


channels
 that
 an
 audience
 can
 turn
 on
 and
 enjoy.
 Supported
 by
 on‐screen
 banner


advertising
that
is
more
conspicuous
than
any
we’ve
yet
seen
in
an
iPhone
application.


Stitcher
acts
as
a
podcast
aggregator.




Source: www.stitcher.com




 Page| 48




Main
Attributes


Pull
Medium


Time
shifted
Listening


Added
Flexibility


Additional
revenue
stream


Downside


Not
broadcasted


Not
necessarily
free


To
be
downloaded/
and
need
an
MP3
device


CONCLUSION


As
 Radio
 strategist
 and
 managers,
 there
 are
 three
 main
 areas
 in
 which
 this
 ‘multi‐

platform’
 potential
 can
 be
 further
 studied
 and
 exploited.
 The
 first
 relates
 to
 the


development
 of
 bespoke
 services
 where
 radio
 programming
 could
 be
 tailored
 to
 the


specifications
 of
 a
 small
 number
 of
 listeners
 or
 even
 a
 single
 individual.
 The
 second


relates
 to
 the
 ability
 to
 discover
 significant,
 and
 commercially
 exploitable
 information


about
an
Internet
user.
The
third
is
what
I
will
call
‘metatext’
radio
where
the
Internet


station
 is
 part
 of
 an
 integrated
 web
 presence
 which
 draws
 upon
 other
 aspects
 of


popular
music
culture
including
written
texts,
images
and
hyperlinks
to
other
sites.





 Page| 49




There
 is
 a
 lot
 of
 on‐going
 debate
 about
 the
 introduction
 of
 DAB
 technology.
 I
 am


thoroughly
 convinced
 that
 DAB
 is
 the
 way
 forward.
 The
 marginal
 cost
 economics


involving
Internet
radio
broadcast
at
times
could
either
prove
beneficial
or
reducing
in


nature.
 Emergency
 services
 can
 be
 copped
 with
 digital
 broadcast,
 the
 same
 cannot
 be


assured
 with
 Internet
 streaming.
 Digital
 broadcast
 radio
 is
 here
 to
 stay,
 it
 mat
 not


be
 a
 whole
 solution,
 but
 yes
 a
 part
 solution.
 The
 radio
 industry
 cannot
 be
 caught


continuing
 with
 analogue
 transmission
 5
 years
 down
 the
 line.
 This
 survey
 is


highlighting
 the
 strategic
 advantage
 of
 radio
 to
 be
 polymorphic.
 The
 biggest
 strength


lies
in
its
ability
to
adapt
to
any
new
medium/
platform
and
continue
doing
what
it
does


best,
entertain
audiences
with
crafted
audio.


As
Radio
strategist
|
we
can
look
at



1. Multiply
existing
models


2. Diversify
and
invest
in
content
development


3. Be
open
to
optional
services
(computerised
music
services
like
Last.fm)


4. Constantly
engage
with
singular
listener


5. Increase
democratization
and
individualism
(new
tiers
of
radio
stations),



6. Promote
distinctive
content
novelties


7. Self
promote
radio


8. Avoid
programming
practices
like
consensus
cut


9. Promote
digital
investments


10. Include
newer
forms
of
radio
in
strategy
planning




 Page| 50




I
 am
 revisiting
 our
 central
 concern
 ‐
 has
 the
 concept
 of
 radio
 collapsed?
 Should
 audio


digital
communication
be
termed
'radio'
or
'audio'
now?
What
is
evidently
clear
is
that


hardly
 anyone
 listens
 to
 one
 single
 radio
 apparatus
 any
 more
 or
 listens
 in
 one
 single


way,
 may
 be
 we
 are
 heading
 towards
 the
 disruption
 of
 a
 consensus,
 or
 at
 least
 its


temporary
 suspension,
 or
 at
 least
 at
 the
 end
 of
 one
 established
 way
 of
 talking
 about


radio
 (Alan
 Beck).
 The
 realm
 of
 understanding
 definitely
 needs
 to
 be
 widened.
 Radio


lobbying
bodies
like
RAB
should
accept
the
newer
forms
of
disruptive
Radio.
This
will


encourage
 other
 players
 to
 enter
 the
 marketplace.
 In
 the
 end,
 it
 would
 mean
 more


choice
and
more
control
for
the
audience.
The
take
up
of
Radio
will
increase
and
we
can


definitely
 avoid
 being
 in
 red.
 In
 the
 next
 chapter
 we
 would
 be
 discussing
 Last.fm
 in


detail,
which
is
very
briefly
described
here.




 Page| 51




Chapter
5:
Case
Study
|
Last.fm



Last.fm
 is
 a
 UK‐based
 music
 community
 website,
 founded
 in
 2002.
 It
 claims
 over
 30


million
active
users
based
in
more
than
200
countries.
On
30
May
2007,
CBS
Interactive


acquired
 Last.fm
 for
 £140m.
 Using
 a
 music
 recommender
 technology
 called


‘Audioscrobbler,
 Last.fm
 builds
 a
 detailed
 profile
 of
 each
 user's
 musical
 taste
 by


recording
 details
 of
 all
 the
 songs
 the
 user
 listens
 to,
 either
 on
 the
 streamed
 radio


stations,
 the
 user's
 computer
 or
 many
 portable
 music
 devices,
 this
 process
 is
 called,


‘Scrobbling’.
 This
 information
 is
 transferred
 to
 Last.fm's
 servers
 via
 variety
 of
 plugins


installed
into
different
user
platforms.
The
profile
data
is
then
displayed
on
the
user's


profile
page.
The
site
offers
numerous
social
networking
features
and
can
recommend


and
play
artists
similar
to
the
user's
favourites.
Famous
tools
include,
a
communication


system
called
‘Shoutbox’.
Users
can
create
custom
playlists
from
any
of
the
audio
tracks


in
Last.fm's
music
library,
and
are
able
to
listen
to
some
individual
tracks
on
demand,
or


download
tracks
if
the
rights
holder
has
previously
authorised
it.



History
of
Last.fm


The
 IPOD
 had
 just
 arrived.
 Richard
 Jones
 a
 computer
 science
 student
 witnessed
 this


phenomenon
 on
 the
 High
 streets
 of
 Southampton,
 a
 town
 where
 he
 belonged
 from,


people
 plugged
 in
 using
 these
 newly
 acquired
 MP3
 devices.
 
 He
 was
 curious
 to
 know


what
were
people
listening
to,
he
knew
a
‘direct’
approach
was
not
be
the
best
idea.
He


was
 not
 the
 typical
 bloke,
 when
 friends
 asked
 him
 who
 his
 favorite
 groups
 were;
 he




 Page| 52




wanted
 to
 give
 numerical
 answers.
 “I
 was
 always
 curious
 to
 know
 exactly
 how
 many


times
I
played
everything.”
So
Jones
invented
“Audioscrobbler”
–
a
software
that
could


collect
data
on
what
everybody
were
listening
to.
Fast‐forward
and,
Richard
Jones
was


spending
the
long,
hot
summer
of
2003
living
in
a
tent
on
a
rooftop
in
White
chapel,
east


London.
 He
 was
 building
 an
 answer
 to
 his
 query.
 He
 was
 going
 to
 change
 the
 way
 we


listen
to
music.
The
‘AudioScrobbler’
technology
was
in
the
making.


Back
 in
 2000,
 Stiksel,
 a
 DJ,
 and
 Miller
 were
 running
 an
 online
 label
 in
 Germany
 for


unsigned
bands.
All
their
friends
were
making
music
but
had
no
way
of
getting
it
heard.


So
 they
 built
 a
 website,
 uploaded
 their
 friends’
 work,
 and
 soon
 found
 themselves


inundated
with
new
music.
Jones,
meanwhile,
was
creating
his
own
musical
universe
at


University
in
Southampton.
He
gave
it
to
his
friends,
who
installed
it,
and
they
told
their


friends,
 and
 “before
 long
 I
 was
 seeing
 people
 sign
 up
 from
 all
 over
 the
 world
 who
 I


didn’t
 know,
 and
 I
 couldn’t
 trace
 how
 they
 found
 out
 about
 it”.
 Jones
 wasn’t
 just


interested
in
the
numbers.
He
wanted
to
make
the
act
of
listening
‘sociable’,
to
form
a


community.
‘Audioscrobbler’
was
designed
on
collaborative
filtering,
a
system
that
uses


the
data
of
someone’s
listening
habits
to
predict
what
other
artists
they
might
like,
and


then
make
recommendations.



Martin
Stiksel,
34,
and
Jones,
26,
two
of
the
web‐
site’s
three
founders,
remember
their


first
meeting.
There
was,
they
say,
an
immediate
connection,
a
shared
desire
to
liberate


music.
 They
 were
 talking
 the
 same
 language,
 as
 if
 they’d
 known
 each
 other
 for
 years.


Stiksel
and
his
friend
Felix
Miller,
32,
had
happened
to
read
a
newspaper
article
about


Jones
 and
 the
 work
 he
 was
 doing
 for
 his
 computer
 science
 degree.
 They
 sent
 him
 an




 Page| 53




email,
 went
 to
 Southampton
 where
 he
 was
 studying,
 and
 talked.
 Soon
 after,
 Jones


moved
 to
 London,
 set
 up
 the
 tent,
 and
 started
 work.
 Within
 four
 years,
 Last.fm
 had


turned
 the
 three
 novelist
 into
 multimillionaires
 thanks
 to
 its
 sale
 in
 2007
 to
 the


American
 media
 giant
 CBS.
 The
 founders
 became
 the
 poster
 boys
 of
 the
 London
 tech


scene,
 leading
 the
 ‘streaming’
 revolution.
 On
 10
 June,
 two
 years
 on
 from
 that
 defining


moment,
they
announced
their
imminent
departure
from
Last.fm
on
their
blog.



Their
first
investor,
Stefan
Glänzer,
was
a
former
DJ,
music
obsessive
and
entrepreneur.


Glänzer
 formalized
 his
 investment
 in
 October
 2005
 and
 quickly
 got
 hooked,
 spending


five
days
a
week
in
the
office.
Soon
they
were
attracting
interest
from
elsewhere.
Index


Ventures,
 a
 venture
capital
firm,
invested
$5m
in
 March
 2006.
With
 Index’s
 cash,
they


were
able
to
invest
in
technical
infrastructure,
product
development,
and
staff.
By
2007,


Last.fm
 had
 15
 million
 users.
 CBS
 the
 US
 media
 giant
 approached
 Last.fm.
 They
 didn’t


want
 to
 integrate
 Last.fm,
 or
 take
 over
 the
 management,
 in
 fact,
 they
 wanted
 the


founders
 to
 carry
 on
 exactly
 as
 before,
 and
 were
 attracted
 simply
 by
 Last.fm’s
 largely


youthful
 following.
 Miles
 Lewis,
 Senior
 Vice
 President,
 Last.fm
 says,
 it
 was
 the
 18‐25


audiences
 that
 they
 wanted,
 and
 Last.fm
 had
 them
 hooked
 to
 the
 service.
 Last.fm


business
 motto
 always
 remained
 simple,
 ‘this
 is
 the
 last
 place
 for
 music,
 the
 ultimate


place
for
music’.




On
30
May
2007,
CBS
bought
Last.fm
for
$280m.
Stiksel,
Miller
and
Jones
received
£19m


windfalls;
 Glänzer
 and
 Index
 reaped
 financial
 rewards,
 too.
 The
 British
 press
 reaction


was
histrionic,
describing
the
three
founders
as
being
“among
the
most
successful
–
and


potentially
wealthy
–
Web
2.0
pioneers
in
the
world”
and
ambassadors
for
a
“resurgent




 Page| 54




London
tech
scene”.
Then,
in
March
2009,
Jones
announced
that
users
in
all
countries,


apart
 from
 Germany,
 the
 US
 and
 UK,
 would
 be
 charged
 €3
 a
 month
 to
 use
 the
 radio


service.
Users
were
outraged,
not
by
the
amount,
but
out
of
principle.
Even
to
this
date,


thousand
of
unsolicited
mails
pour
each
day
(Miles
Lewis).
The
‘free
culture’
sentiment


is
 echoed
 loud
 in
 most
 emails.
 As
 one
 replied:
 ‘IT’S
 NOT
 ABOUT
 THE
 MONEY
 .
 .
 .
 it’s


bloody
heartbreaking
to
watch
such
a
beautiful,
fresh,
modern
and
clearly
revolutionary


concept
 like
 Last.fm
 go
 down
 the
 drain
 in
 such
 an
 ugly,
 distasteful
 way
 .
 .
 .
 You’re
 not


freeing
the
music
any
more,
you’re
burying
it.’



One
of
the
majors,
Warner,
withdrew
its
music
from
Last.fm
in
June
2008
because,
says


a
 spokesperson,
 ‘the
 rates
 they
 were
 offering
 were
 below
 industry
 standards’.
 Stiksel


says
 that
 Warner
 is
 ‘generally
 not
 active
 any
 more
 in
 the
 online
 space’,
 although
 it


seemed
happy
to
strike
a
deal
with
Spotify.



Last.fm
also
started
to
see
the
competition
swell.
Spotify,
a
Swedish
streaming
service


launched
 in
 October
 last
 year,
 provoked
 an
 immediate
 flurry
 of
 excitement
 in
 the


industry.
 There
 are
 others,
 too
 ‐
 We7
 in
 the
 UK,
 and
 Pandora
 and
 Imeem
 in
 the
 US.


None,
 so
 far,
 offers
 quite
 the
 same
 service
 –
 the
 recommendations
 and
 the
 social


network
–
but
they
all
face
a
similar
financial
challenge.
The
game
is
on,
the
players
are


young
–
the
future
beholds
the
answer.
Wait
and
watch.




 Page| 55




Business
Process
Flow




Music
Ripper Normalization ON SCROBBLER
Content


OTHER CONTENT



Advertising EVENTS INFO/ WIKI


 SERVERS



Web
Hosting AUDIO
SCROBBLER





Subscriptions



PLAYER




 Business Process Flow

Source:
Illustration


Miles
Lewis
explains
that
Last.fm
does
three
things,
one,
it
makes
sense
of
your
music,


second,
 it
 is
 a
 music
 wikipedia,
 and
 third,
 it
 helps
 you
 connect
 to
 other
 listeners
 and


build
 a
 community.
 He
 does
 not
 use
 the
 word
 ‘Radio’
 in
 his
 description
 of
 the
 core


services
of
his
offering.
Analyzing
the
business
process
flow
of
Last.fm
is
an
important


step
for
understanding
the
parallels
to
broadcast
Radio
and
drafting
the
‘value
chain’
for


this
service.
This
exercise
will
help
us
simplify
the
corporate
equation
and
material
flow


in
the
system.
The
yellow
arrows
signify
the
flow
of
Music
&
other
related
content
into




 Page| 56




the
system.
The
red
arrows
signify
the
flow
of
revenue
in
the
system,
either
by
online


advertising
or
subscriptions.



Operations
at
Last.fm
are
quite
iterative,
thus
the
material
(music)
to
be
transformed
is


traveling
in
the
process
whereas
the
resources
are
stationary.
The
skeleton
operations


model
 does
 draw
 parallels
 to
 traditional
 radio
 broadcast,
 as
 the
 diagram
 shows,
 the


basic
 job
 is
 to
 get
 music
 out
 of
 the
 system.
 This
 operation
 becomes
 a
 two‐way


operation
 after
 the
 server
 stage
 (the
 feedback
 system
 kicks
 in)
 where
 the
 content
 is


juggled
between
the
user
and
the
recommender.
Clearly
a
distinct
business
process
can


be
observed
here.
The
anterior
process
is
designed
to
be
agile
and
flexible
depending
on


the
 user
 interaction
 or
 intent.
 The
 benefits
 of
 digital
 technologies
 in
 mass
 music


mechanization
(enhancing
metadata)
and
distribution
can
be
underlined
here.


While
in
broadcast
radio,
sponsorship
deals
and
commercial
features,
at
times,
do
alter


the
programming
element
of
a
Radio
station;
the
advertiser
here
has
no
control
over
the


recommendation
system
or
the
content.
He
is
only
bought
into
the
system
for
revenue


generation
 by
 making
 his
 presence
 in
 the
 interface
 display.
 The
 subscription
 flow
 is


applicable
 for
 user
 from
 countries
 other
 than
 UK,
 USA,
 Germany,
 where
 Last.fm
 has


decided
to
withdraw
its
free
services.
Subscription
is
unique
and
quite
important
to
this


kind
 of
 service
 model
 due
 to
 the
 heavy
 royalty
 payments
 involved
 in
 distributing


licensed
music.



Here
 the
 content
 gets
 delivered
 to
 the
 user
 and
 comes
 back
 into
 the
 system
 richer
 in


data.
 Metadata
 consist
 of
 valuable
 user
 experience
 and
 information
 like
 preferences,


listening
cycles,
repetition
and
popularity.
This
iteration
constantly
creates
value
for
the




 Page| 57




business.
The
service
promise
of
‘recommendation
and
making
sense
of
your
music’
is


based
on
this
self‐enriching
system.
Such
libraries
of
meta‐data
hold
possibility
of
being


used
as
a
commodity
in
the
future.



Understanding
|
Recommender:
Collaborative
Filtering
System



Step
1:
User
types
in
artist
name,
the
HTML
feed
is
now
collaborated
with
the
Metadata


available.



 Recommender

Server
(Distributed

User
types
in
Artist
 Repository
of
User


 Name
 Profiles)







Step
 2:
 A
 complex
 algorithm
 generates
 queries
 to
 the
 meta‐data,
 the
 recommender


server
detects
&
computes
a
list
of
artist
&
band
based
on
user’s
profile,
collaborative


recommendation
 &
 in‐
 house
 developed
 music
 ontology
 (SPARQL
 query
 to
 the


database)




 Page| 58




2





 User
Profile
is
 3

analyzed
 .






1
.




Step
3:
User
gets
streamed
recommended
music,
here
the
user
can
love,
ban
or
skip
the


song.
 This
 activity
 once
 again
 gets
 recorded
 in
 the
 user’s
 profile,
 hereby
 making
 an


impact
on
further
recommendations.



Recommender


 Server
(Distributed

User
gets
streamed
 Repository
of
User

recommended
 Profiles)


 music








 Page| 59




Step
4:
User
can
love/
ban/
skip/
continue
listening
to
the
song,
very
implicitly,
all
users


activities
are
being
graphed
to
affect
his
future
playlist.
As
the
user
profile
is
developing


his
music
history
&
preferences,
the
complex
algorithms
also
change,
taking
full
notice


of
these
actions,
thus
churning
out
more
refined
play
lists.



 PRESS:
Love
 This
song
will
be
added
more
frequently
to
the
play

list
&
will
be
recommended
to
more
similar
user

profiles


 This
song
will
never
be
added
to
the
play
list
&
shall

PRESS:
Ban

be
recommended
to
fewer
similar
user
profiles.



PRESS:
Skip
 This
song
will
be
added
less
frequently
to
the
play

list
but
shall
be
recommended
to
similar
user


 profiles.

PRESS:
Listen
 This
song
will
be
added
to
the
play
list
but
without


any
special
preference.








Recommender

Server













































Profile Insert an Scrobble/ Enriched

Homepage Streaming Streaming
Creation artist name Feedback

Find
Neighbors/
Network/
WIKI/ Events
Profile Scrobble/ Enriched

Source:
Illustration

Homepage Scrobble Streaming
Creation Feedback Streaming

Creations of
Hyper-charts

Listeners digital journey

Page| 60

 Page| 61




Listeners
Digital
Experience



For
 a
 listener
 Last.fm
 is
 a
 free
 global
 music
 website
 that
 offers
 music
 fans
 millions
 of


tracks
in
every
genre
for
free
on‐
demand
and
radio
streaming.
Last.fm
doesn’t
have
any


disc
jockeys,
weather,
or
news,
but
it
does
have
a
unique
way
of
organizing
the
music
it


offers
 through
 its
 streaming
 service.
 It
 offers
 listeners
 a
 never‐ending
 box
 of
 musical


delights,
but
with
the
caveat
‘’there
is
no
going
back.’
As
soon
as
a
track
has
streamed


and
 the
 next
 begins,
 listeners
 can’t
 return
 to
 the
 previous
 musical
 selection;
 they
 can


only
move
forward
to
the
next
track.
And
as
is
the
case
for
a
traditional
radio
station,


listeners
 can’t
 choose
 what’s
 next.
 Last.fm
 is
 focused
 on
 finding
 and
 recommending


music
 in
 a
 serendipitous
 fashion,
 but
 the
 choice
 is
 not
 random.
 Last.fm
 bases
 ‘what’s


next’
on
its
own
unique
system
of
‘indicators’
listed
for
each
track.
Last.fm’s
offering
is


almost
 like
 ‘if
 you
like
this,
you’ll
also
like
this’
 way
 of
 preparing
the
next
track
 in
 the


line.
Listeners
can
also
give
each
succeeding
track
a
‘Love
it’
or
‘Ban
it’—doing
so
will


steer
the
patterns
toward
a
particular
set
of
indicators.


Last.fm
 helps
 make
 sense
 of
 your
 music
 (Miles
 Lewis).
 It
 does
 so
 by
 ‘folksonomy’
 i.e.


user
 participation.
 Last.fm
 keeps
 track
 of
 what
 a
 given
 user
 listens
 to
 (the
 tracks
 are


‘scrobbled’,
a
reference
to
the
original
website’s
name,
Audioscrobbler.com),
building
a


user
profile
of
how
many
times
and
when
the
user
listened
to
what.
That
profile
is
then


compared
with
everyone
else’s
profile
to
generate
basic
associations
like
users
who
like


The
 Ditty
 Bops
 also
 prefer
 Nellie
 McKay
 and
 The
 Weepies.
 This
 says
 nothing
 about


stylistic
 similarity—only
 that
 if
 you’re
 the
 type
 of
 listener
 who
 likes
 one
 artist,
 the


probability
 is
 high
 that
 you’ll
 like
 another.
 For
 example,
 if
 you
 like
 Samuel
 Barber,




 Page| 62




Last.fm
 apparently
 thinks
 it
 is
 quite
 likely
 you’ll
 also
 be
 fond
 of
 Faure,
 Massenet,
 and


Prokofiev.
 In
 addition,
 listeners
 using
 Last.fm
 can
 easily
 tag
 (using
 text)
 any
 piece
 of


music
or
artist
and
thus
help
to
build
a
collected
set
of
music
that
is
played
when
using


that
tag.



A
 Last.fm
 user’s
 profile
 is
 built
 in
 two
 ways.
 First,
 you
 can
 listen
 to
 Last.fm
 ‘Radio’


directly
from
the
website
or
by
using
a
stand‐alone
radio
application
free
for
download.


This
method
builds
your
profile
simultaneously
while
you
use
service.
Second,
a
profile


can
be
built
indirectly,
by
exporting
listening
data
from
the
users
listening
device.
This


imported
 information
 is
 then
 used
 to
 personalize
 services.
 The
 system
 generates


individualized
 charts,
 music
 recommendations,
 radio
 streams
 and
 pointers
 to
 other


users
 with
 shared
 taste
 (called
 ‘neighbors’).
 Users
 have
 profiles
 which
 display
 their


most
recent
listens
and
individualized
top
artist
and
song
charts.
Users
can
select
their


user
picture,
write
brief
self‐descriptions,
create
play‐
lists,
and
create
radio
streams
by


tagging
music.
Many
users
seek
permission
from
others
users
to
be
‘friends’.
Once
both


partners
 approve
 this
 connection,
 each
 appears
 in
 the
 other’s
 publicly
 visible
 friends


list.
The
enriching
nature
of
the
system
makes
users
loyal
to
the
service.
Each
time
the


user
streams
music,
it
is
a
better
recommendation,
because
the
system
understands
the


user.
 Last.fm
 provides
 several
 communication
 platforms,
 including
 writing
 publicly


visible
 messages
 on
 one
 another’s
 profiles
 in
 the
 ‘shoutbox’,
 sending
 private
 personal


messages,
and
participating
in
site‐wide
forums.
The
system
also
provides
information


on
music
events
and
gigs
in
context
to
your
IP
location
and
listening
habit.





 Page| 63




In
my
interaction
with
Miles
Lewis,
he
did
not
use
the
term
‘Radio’
as
a
description
of


his
service.
I
found
it
contradictory
to
my
visit
to
the
home
site.
The
central
part
of
the


home
page
displays
an
embedded
player.
You
need
to
type
in
the
name
of
the
artist
and


it
directs
you
to
a
page
which
has
artist
info
and
a
button
for
starting
the
station.
Simple.


What
I
don’t
understand
is
why
does
the
Last.fm
management
detest
from
calling
itself
a


‘Radio’
 or
 ‘Radio‐like’
 service.
 We
 will
 investigate.
 Further
 we
 will
 create
 the
 ‘value


chain’
of
Last.fm
and
study
it.


























Source:
www.last.fm











































223 COUNTRIES
Eve
nt
Ne s & S
two oci
rkin al
g Subscription

Music Music Editorized Music

7TB ARCHIVE Feedback Recommendation
Content Stream
Platforms

Info
ist
Art

Source:
Illustration

Value Chain
Last.fm
TECHNOLOGY

MARKETING AND PROMOTION | HUMAN RESOURCES

RELATIONSHIP WITH SUPPLIERS

Page| 64

 Page| 65




Last.fm
Value
chain


The
 Value
 chain
 is
 designed
 borrowing
 information
 and
 insights
 from
 my
 interview


with
 Miles
 Lewis,
 academic
 and
 trade
 pieces
 on
 Last.fm.
 Last.fm
 does
 not
 publish
 any


figures
or
analytic
data.
My
attempt
to
elucidate
the
value
chain
is
the
most
critical
part


of
this
chapter.

This
section
will
lead
us
to
the
next
chapter
where
I
will
be
designing


another
value
chain
of
meaning
for
Last.fm
and
comparing
to
value
chain
of
traditional


radio
broadcast.
I
believe
such
extensive
cross
examinations
will
give
us
the
answer
to


the
central
question
of
this
academic
effort.


1.
Music
Content
&
Archive


We
need
music
(Miles
Lewis).
Music
is
not
only
the
central
proposition
of
this
service


but
 also
 makes
 Last.fm
 dependable
 on
 Music
 labels.
 Music
 is
 the
 backbone
 of
 this


service,
whatever
it
may
call
itself,
an
internet
radio
station,
a
music
community,
music


is
 key.
 It
 is
 evidently
 clear
 that
 the
 other
 offerings
 ‐
 the
 artist
 info,
 the
 recommender


services,
the
social
networking
extension,
are
weaved
around
Music.
Can
we
imagine
a


Last.fm
without
music
streaming
or
music
content?


2.
Feedback



This
component
of
the
value
chain
is
the
‘heart’
of
the
service.
It
collects
valuable
data


from
 the
 listener
 and
 evolves
 after
 every
 click.
 It
 is
 home
 to
 the
 ‘AudioScrobbler’
 –
 a


complex
 algorithm
 designed
 to
 make
 sense
 of
 your
 music.
 The
 ‘Audioscrobbler’
 has


acquired
a
‘first
mover’
advantage
due
to
the
self‐enriching
nature
of
the
system.
This
is


the
most
dynamic
driver
in
the
value
chain.
It
enables
bypassing
a
couple
of
processes
if


compared
 to
 the
 traditional
 value
 chain.
 Moreover,
 it
 acts
 as
 a
 mechanized
 scheduler




 Page| 66




and
 editor
 to
 the
 service.
 This
 process
 adds
 novelty,
 mechanized
 coherence
 and


uniqueness
to
an
otherwise
simple
idea
of
online
music
streaming.


3.
Music
Recommendation


Music
 recommendation
 works
 very
 closely
 with
 the
 feedback
 loop.
 Here,
 post
 the


feedback,
 the
 music
 recommender
 starts
 lining
 up
 songs
 for
 the
 user.
 This
 process
 is


unique
for
every
user.
This
component
is
live
and
‘pull’
driven.


4.
Artist
Info


As
the
music
recommender
triggers
off
a
song,
the
artist
info
is
picked
up
and
it
travels


to
 the
 music
 player.
 This
 component
 is
 important
 in
 adding
 value
 to
 the
 listening


experience.
 It
 is
 a
 visual
 engagement
 for
 active
 listeners.
 Last.fm
 aims
 to
 be
 the


wikipedia
 of
 music
 information
 and
 tracks,
 making
 this
 component
 critical
 and


important.


5.
Events
and
Social
Networking


This
 is
 the
 disruptive
 component
 in
 the
 value
 chain.
 The
 Web
 3.0
 culture
 can
 be


observed
here.
Last.fm
believes
that
listeners
would
be
interested
to
connect
with
other


like‐minded
 listeners
 based
 on
 their
 identical
 music
 tastes.
 After
 receiving
 analyses
 of


the
 feedback,
 this
 component,
 connect
 the
 listeners
 to
 similar
 profiles.
 Community


building
 is
 what
 described
 this
 process
 best.
 In
 today’s
 time
 bands
 and
 music
 have
 a


global
appeal
and
following.
Such
a
service
encourages
listeners
to
be
loyal
to
Last.fm
–


it
is
exploratory,
live
and
exciting.




 Page| 67




6.
Editorialized
Music
Stream


The
editorialized
music
stream
is
a
combination
of
the
recommended
music,
artist
info,


the
social
connections
and
if
any,
events
information.
This
is
the
confluence
point
of
all


processes.
Though
different
platforms
might
have
different
interfaces,
the
result
of
the


service
 will
 be
 the
 same.
 I
 am
 tempted
 to
 draw
 comparisons
 between
 this
 component


and
 the
 ‘Final
 logs’
 prepared
 in
 a
 traditional
 broadcast
 model.
 A
 user
 reacts
 to
 this


process
,
triggering
iteration.


7.
Platforms
&
Technology


Receiving
platforms
are
critical
to
this
service
as
it
is
essentially
a
push
medium
and
an


on‐demand
streaming
service.
Special
plug‐ins
are
developed
by
Last.fm
to
import
data


from
listeners
MP3
devices.
This
is
explains
the
feedback
route
from
the
platform
to
the


value
chain.
Real‐time
feedback
like
skip,
love,
ban
also
travels
through
these
platforms,


is
essential
to
ensure
a
great
listening
experience.
It
is
an
ongoing
initiative
at
Last.fm
to


extend
the
services
to
as
many
platforms
as
possible
to
increase
availability,
flexibility


and
choice.


Further


At
 this
 juncture
 I
 cannot
 conclude
 whether
 Last.fm
 is
 a
 radio
 or
 radio‐like
 feature.
 I


cannot
 help
 but
 see
 the
 missing
 ‘warmth,
 ‘emotional
 connect’
 and
 apparent


‘intentionality’
in
the
processes.
On
the
other
hand,
the
visual
experience,
the
artist
info,




 Page| 68




the
 social
 community
 building
 features
 come
 across
 as
 add‐ons
 to
 traditional
 radio


experience.



The
 history,
 product,
 the
 business
 flow,
 users
 digital
 journey,
 and
 the
 value
 chain
 of


Last.fm
 have
 been
 covered
 in
 this
 chapter.
 In
 the
 next
 chapter
 I
 will
 pitch
 this


understanding
 and
 learning’s
 to
 the
 traditional
 model
 of
 radio
 broadcasting
 using
 the


‘value
 chain
 of
 meaning’.
 We
 will
 extract
 a
 clearer
 explanation
 of
 the
 role
 of
 digitized


music
streaming
in
the
future
of
the
Radio
landscape.









 Page| 69




Chapter
6:
Last.fm
Vs.
Tradtional
Broadcast
Model





In
the
1940‐50’s
radio
had
to
brace
the
advent
of
Television,
then
it
had
face
the
‘virus‐

like’
 take
 up
 of
 the
 Walkman,
 this
 time
 it
 is
 something
 more
 closer,
 its
 own
 mutated


digital
shadow.
The
new
kid
on
the
block,
who
has
come
explicitly
to
test
the
validity
of


that
 conception
 of
 radio:
 the
 automated
 music
 channel,
 in
 our
 case
 Last.fm.
 The


technology
 of
 the
 computer‐based
 music
 playout
 system
 makes
 it
 possible
 to
 create
 a


station,
or
more
usually
an
aggregation
of
stations,
which
narrowcast
music
with
either


no
 conversation
 or
 any
 recorded
 voice
 tracks
 to
 identify
 the
 song
 or
 name
 check
 the


channel.

I
seem
to
buy
into
the
argument
that
recent
technological
developments
have


been
designed
to
achieve
usability,
mobility,
accessibility
and
radiobility.
By
radiobility
I


mean
 the
 technical
 ability
 to
 be
 radio,
 or
 to
 be
 radio‐like
 or
 ‘radiogenic’
 (Tacchi).
 But


these
claim
needs
to
be
verified
in
our
context.



Christopher
Priestman
makes
a
very
specific
point,
‘…
for
the
first
time
[Internet]
radio


has
the
challenge
of
defining
itself
by
the
nature
of
its
content
rather
than
the
receiver


we
use
to
hear
it’
(Priestman,
2001).
Here
in
this
chapter,
I
will
be
re‐creating
the
value


chain
and
the
value
chain
of
meaning
of
a
traditional
radio
broadcast.
This
we
will
pitch


it
against
our
previous
chapters
analysis.
I
will
attempt
to
compare
each
component
of


both
the
value
chains
and
understand
the
similarities
and
differences,
more
so
the
DNA


of
each
service,
the
peculiarities,
the
characteristics.





















































NO BARRIER OF SPACE/TIME - UNREGULATED BROADCAST

Cre
a
Ne tion o User centered
two f
rks revenue model

Mechanized
Music Scheduler/
Content Listener Editorized Music
Content Selector/ Final Log
Archive Interaction/ Stream
Editorizer
Feedback
Pull
l Platforms
di t iona
Ad ntent
Co

Source:
Illustration

Value Chain
of meaning User
TECHNOLOGY

FIRM RESOURCES

RELATIONSHIP WITH SUPPLIERS

Page| 70


















































REGULATED SPECTRUM

Ad
Stat
ion ver erts Localization Liveness
t Ins

Talent/
Music & Sound Music & Sound Editorized
Scheduling Weather/ Traffic/
Content Archive Music
Speech
Platforms

ion
ect
Sel
sic
Mu Calls/
Messages

Source:
Illustration

Value Chain
of Analogue Radio
SPOT AND SPONSORSHIP SALES

CULTURAL POLICY

TECHNOLOGY

FIRM RESOURCES

RELATIONSHIP WITH SUPPLIERS

Page| 71


















































REGULATED SPECTRUM

Push & Pull

Re
l Localization Liveness
Imag
ing
ven
ue de Periphery Platforms
Mo Periphery

Content Editorization
Content Talent Final Log
Archive & Scheduling

sic
Mu zation
i
tor Listener
Edi
Value Chain Interaction

Source:
Illustration

of Meaning for
Analogue Radio
FREE SERVICE - AD SUPPORTED

BOUND BY CULTURAL POLICY

RADIO BROADCAST - TIME BARRIER- INTERNET STREAM - PODCAST

MARKETING AND PROMOTION | HUMAN RESOURCES

RELATIONSHIP WITH SUPPLIERS

Page| 72

 Page| 73




Similarities


1.
Profiling
as
a
Radio
Station


‘Profiling’
 in
 simpler
 words
 can
 be
 called
 labelling.
 Each
 service
 provider
 strategically


labels
 itself
 with
 a
 certain
 recognized
 concept
 for
 varied
 reasons
 –
 to
 increase


familiarity,
 to
 prove
 differentiation,
 for
 earning
 acceptance.
 Radio
 stations
 call


themselves
radio
because
of
their
nature,
no
questions
asked.
Last.fm
does
not
call
itself


radio,
 it
 is
 stated,
 that
 radio
 is
 a
 part
 of
 the
 service.
 On
 the
 other
 hand,
 Last.fm


intentionally
uses
the
suffix
‘FM’
to
attract
radio
listeners.
It
clearly
positions
itself
like
a


radio
station,
a
new
type
of
Radio
station.
The
idea
behind
the
name
Last.fm
is
double


fold
–
one,
the
middle
two
letters
of
the
word
last
denote
‘Audioscrobbler’
and
second,


they
want
to
position
the
service
as
the
‘Last
radio
stop
for
a
listener
to
get
his
music’.


Source:
www.last.fm


Part
of
my
argument
comes
from
the
home
page
visit,
where
it
clearly
states
the
word


‘Radio’.
 Here,
 to
 further
 emphasize
 my
 point,
 I
 am
 plugging
 Agre's
 comments
 on
 new


media,
 ‘These
 Internet
 stations
 will
 each
 need
 to
 gather
 the
 capital
 (financial
 and


intellectual)
 to
 create
 a
 coherent
 brand
 image
 across
 a
 coherent
 segment
 of
 the


population,
hence
the
profiling
under
a
recognized
banner’.





 Page| 74




2.
Automation
in
Service


Evidently
Last.fm
is
an
automated
music
delivery
system.
Traditional
radio
stations
too


switch
 from
 ‘Live‐assist’
 to
 ‘Automation’
 mode
 of
 delivery.
 Richard
 Berry
 and
 Paul


Carter
raised
the
issue
of
automated
radio
broadcasts,
usually
during
the
night
by
small


and
 medium
 commercial
 stations.
 The
 question
 posed
 of
 these
 stations
 was,
 'do
 they


cease
to
be
radio
at
these
times?’
Comparing
the
sound
patterns
of
produced
music
in


each
of
the
services,
automation
and
digital
involvement
is
key
to
create
a
meaningful


editorialized
music
service.
Traditional
radio
stations
use
software’s
like
RCS
selector
to


schedule
 music
 in
 a
 predetermined
 mathematical
 pattern.
 Automation
 is
 a
 must
 and


needed
 in
 both
 services.
 While
 it
 can
 be
 argued
 that
 Last.fm
 is
 more
 dependable
 on


automation
services,
I
cannot
think
of
Radio
stations
operating
without
schedulers
and


digital
processes
in
today’s
time.



3.
Music
Editorization


Music
editorization
is
the
systematic
process
of
selecting
a
song
meant
to
add
value
and


enhance
 user
 experience.
 Traditional
 broadcasters
 either
 have
 a
 music
 team
 or
 a


designated
manager
doing
that
job.
Last.fm
runs
on
complete
automation.
Both
services


have
a
system
in
place
which
delivers
music
in
a
coherent
pattern
and
ensures
that
the


delivery
 is
 not
 random
 in
 nature.
 Elaborating
 on
 the
 un‐radio‐like
 qualities
 of
 music


channels,
Alan
Beck
cites
the
‘absence
of
human
contact’
involved
and
the
lack
of
‘that


famous
friendliness
of
radio’
(Beck
2001:
sections
7.3–7.6).
Once
again,
yes
I
agree,
the


‘warmth’
is
missing,
but
the
value
creation
is
not
inferior
in
any
of
the
process,
which
is


central
to
our
finding.




 Page| 75




4.
Relationship
with
Music
companies


Recorded
 music
 has
 a
 central
 place
 in
 the
 broadcasts
 of
 the
 majority
 of
 radio
 stations


and
 in
 the
 political
 economy
 of
 the
 medium
 because
 it
 provides
 a
 source
 of
 cheap


broadcasting
on
the
one
hand
and
a
way
of
organizing
listeners
on
the
other.
This
dual


benefit
has
been
institutionalized
in
the
formats
and
ownership
patters
of
over‐the‐air


radio
 (Tim
 Wall).
 The
 relationship
 between
 record
 companies
 and
 radio
 stations
 has


traditionally
 been
 accompanied
 by
 complaints
 from
 some
 listeners
 that
 either
 the


presenters’
 voices
 or
 the
 presenters’
 choices
 spoil
 their
 enjoyment
 of
 the
 music.
 So,


given
the
option,
a
significant
number
of
listeners
prefer
turning
to
a
music
streaming


service
because
they
have
no
distracting
DJ
presence
in
evidence.



In
the
view
of
Music
labels,
Radio
broadcast
technology
does
not
offer
enough
capacity


to
 vast
 variety
 of
 music
 produced.
 On
 an
 average
 a
 Music
 radio
 station
 can
 play
 a


maximum
for
336
songs
in
a
day
(14
songs
x
24).
Music
labels
find
music
programming


restrictive.
 Services
 like
 Last.fm
 service
 the
 ‘long
 tail’
 model
 of
 music
 products.
 It


provides
a
fluid
model
for
track
promotion;
the
power
to
promote
a
track
lies
with
the


listeners
 and
 track
 popularity.
 This
 goes
 in
 tandem
 with
 marketing
 initiatives
 carried


out
by
Music
labels.
Having
said
this,
Music
labels
are
much
aware
that
traditional
radio


broadcast
 can
 offer
 more
 value
 to
 their
 tracks
 and
 bands
 owing
 to
 the
 nature
 of
 the


medium
and
its
relationship
with
listeners.
A
radio
promotion
by
a
popular
station
can


make
a
relatively
unknown
band
famous.
Last.fm
cannot
argue
on
that.
So
the
‘creation


of
value’
argument
weighs
equal
for
both
parties.
I
note
here
that,
both,
traditional
radio


broadcasters
and
Last.fm
are
heavily
depended
on
music
labels
but
the
former
provides


a
bigger
window
and
the
latter
provides
an
effective
one.




 Page| 76




5.
Visual
Content


The
visual
player
of
Last.fm
displays
current
songs,
artist
info,
related
events
etc.
Radio


broadcasters
are
also
opening
up
to
webcams
being
fitted
in
the
studios.
It
is
seen
as
an


effort
to
connect
the
listener
to
the
on
air
talent,
and
provide
him
with
a
peek
into
the


studio,
the
place
of
action.
Moreover,
traditional
broadcasters
are
adopting
Last.fm
like


visual
 players
 on
 their
 websites.
 Priestman
 comments,
 ‘…
 the
 very
 reason
 why
 many


radio
enthusiasts
are
suspicious
of
web
radio,
because
they
fear
that
the
requirement
to


interact
visually
weakens
radio's
unique
identity
and
heralds
its
take‐over
by
TV.
On
the


other
hand
studio
webcams
may
be
a
bit
of
a
curiosity
and
they
do
support
the
idea
that


radio
 is
 about
 presenters
 working
 live
 in
 real
 studios,
 though
 it
 is
 difficult
 to
 imagine


actively
 watching
 one
 for
 any
 length
 of
 time’
 (Priestman,
 2001).
 Clearly,
 both
 services


are
using
visual
aids
to
engage
and
generate
loyalty
among
their
audience.



6.
Suturing/
Multi­platform
availability



Suturing
 techniques
 are
 establishing
 'the
 reality
 of
 the
 radio
 station
 and
 the


broadcasters
 themselves'
 and
 denying
 'absence'
 (Crisell,
 1994,
 6).
 These
 techniques


work
in
combination.
They
help
to
construct
and
maintain
the
listener's
identity
among


an
audience
of
displaced
individuals.
Radio
suturing
devices
involve
listening
apparatus,


listener
 positioning,
 attentiveness
 and
 compensation
 for
 absence
 (Alan
 Beck).
 Overall,


suturing
on
radio
serves
to
bind
the
listener
in
and
mask
the
absence,
two
prime
needs


of
radio,
to
restore
belief
and
attention
in
the
broadcast
programme
and
the
wholeness


of
 the
 radio
 events.
 
 Both
 the
 services
 don’t
 share
 many
 common
 platforms,
 but
 they


both
 do
 share
 ‘similar’
 listening
 apparatus.
 Now
 wifi
 enabled
 radio
 sets
 are
 available




 Page| 77




which
can
stream
services
like
Last.fm.
The
visualization
of
the
audio
player
is
also
one


such
example.


7.
Revenue
Model


Radio
 broadcast
 is
 free
 for
 a
 listener.
 Radio
 sells
 airtime
 i.e.
 spots.
 Last.fm
 is
 free
 for


users
 in
 UK.
 It
 earns
 revenue
 from
 online
 advertising,
 event
 promotions,
 music


downloads,
 and
 subscription
 fees
 from
 countries
 apart
 from
 UK,
 Germany
 and
 USA.


Traditional
radio
broadcasters
too
are
scrambling
for
newer
revenue
models.
They
have


created
 websites
 as
 an
 addition
 to
 broadcast.
 Now
 major
 Radio
 players
 are
 also


generating
revenue
by
selling
online
advertising
space,
event
sponsorships,
music
and


podcast
downloads.



8.
Interactivity


Interactivity
is
an
inherent
quality
of
Radio
broadcast.
Music
and
speech
radio
thrive
on


listeners
 interactions.
 It
 would
 not
 be
 wrong
 to
 say
 listener
 interaction
 is
 by
 far
 the


most
innovation
for
radio
programming.
This
interaction
is
via
phone‐ins,
and
messages


via
cell
phones.
A
traditional
broadcast
creates
a
perception
that
every
single
listener
is


a
 part
 of
 large
 community.
 The
 Last.fm
 service
 model
 is
also
 reliant
 on
 user
 feedback,


preference
 participation,
 but
 it
 is
 fully
 automated.
 It
 profiles
 its
 user
 individually
 and


connects
 them
 to
 other
 users
 to
 create
 a
 direct
 virtual
 community.
 Both
 the
 services


have
channels
for
two‐way
communications.




 Page| 78




Summary


The
 similarities
 between
 both
 the
 services
 are
 discussed
 above.
 One
 more
 critical


similarity
is
‘Listeners’.
Last.fm
and
traditional
radio
broadcasters
share
audiences
to
an


extent.
 A
 study
 of
 their
 profile,
 behaviour,
 preferences
 and
 reasons
 is
 another


discussion
 altogether.
 We
 have
 seen
 both
 services
 intend
 to
 entertain
 listeners,
 a


common
 offering
 –
 music,
 fragile
 relation
 with
 music
 companies,
 revenue
 models,


interactivity,
availability
on
multi
platforms,
editorialized
music.
Now
let
us
look
at
the


difference
between
both
services.


Differences


1.
Standardization


One
 of
 the
 clearer
 distinctions
 between
 Last.fm
 and
 traditional
 radio
 broadcast
 is
 the


lack
 of
 standardization.
 Last.fm
 is
 a
 bespoke
 radio‐programming
 offering.


Standardization
is
process
of
aural
imaging
by
patterns
and
repetition
of
sound
over
a


said
frequency.
It
confirms
a
brand
presence
and
identifies
itself
to
its
listeners.
Given


that
 most
 radio
 stations
 operate
 24‐hour
 broadcasting.
 Each
 programme
 within
 the


ongoing
broadcasts
is
differentiated
with
signature
tunes,
introductions
etc.
while
also


merging
 into
 the
 general
 tone
 and
 style
 of
 the
 station
 ’sound’
 and
 abiding
 by
 the


station’s
 aims
 and
 general
 concept.
 Some
 may
 say
 that
 standardization
 increases


familiarity
 and
 hence
 forges
 a
 relationship
 with
 listeners.
 Last.fm
 clearly
 lacks
 all
 of


these
elements.




 Page| 79




2.
Scheduling


Scheduling
 is
 key
 to
 traditional
 radio
 programming.
 Researches
 over
 the
 years
 have


proved
that
Radio
caters
to
different
audiences
in
different
day
part
listening.


So,
for


example,
 ‘breakfast’
 and
 ‘drivetime’
 are
 prime
 broadcasting
 timeslots
 that
 attract
 the


greatest
 number
 of
 listeners.
 The
 station
 will
 employ
 the
 best
 resources
 and
 most


experienced
broadcasters,
as
they
are
known
(or
assumed)
to
have
the
greatest
number


of
 ’captive’
 listeners.
 In
 addition,
 certain
 material
 is
 considered
 suitable
 for
 particular


times
 of
 the
 day.
 Last.fm
 is
 a
 pull
 driven
 and
 on‐demand
 medium.
 Scheduling
 is
 not


necessary.


3.
Talent


Talent
can
be
captured
under
various
concepts
in
context
to
a
radio
station.
Establishing


an
announcer’s
or
DJ’s
‘personality’
or
profile
is
important
in
a
medium
whose
strength


(since
 the
 advent
 of
 television)
 is
 considered
 to
 be
 intimacy
 and
 a
 direct
 personal


address.
 Most
 popular
 announcers
 use
 vocal
 timbre,
 colloquial
 speech,
 microphone


proximity,
 a
 quirky
 or
 memorable
 style
 of
 address
 and
 familiar
 manner,
 and
 so
 on.



Last.fm
does
not
have
any
‘talent/
presenter’.
Once
again
the
distinction
is
based
on
the


‘warmth’
and
‘relationship’
issue.



4.
Regulation


Radio
broadcast
is
powered
by
FM
broadcast
which
is
a
scare
spectrum
and
hence
the


regulation
 element.
 Internet
 radio
 stations
 do
 not
 go
 through
 any
 of
 these
 hassles.



Christopher
 Priestman
 summarised
 the
 growth
 so
 far
 of
 Internet
 radio,
 ‘…
 [The




 Page| 80




Internet]
 makes
 getting
 a
 station
 'on
 air'
 very
 easy
 …
 it
 does
 not
 require
 a
 licence
 to


transmit
…
its
range
is
local
to
global
and
…
it
has
an
inherently
interactive,
horizontal


infrastructure.
 But
 the
 Internet
 is
 also
 very
 confusing
 in
 the
 wealth
 of
 media
 uses
 it


brings
together’
(Priestman,
2001).


5.
Context
of
content


Services
like
Last.fm
are
not
bound
by
barrier
of
land,
space,
countries
and
geographical


boundaries.
 
 The
 defence
 case
 for
 Internet
 Radio
 came
 from
 Peter
 Everett,
 ex‐B.B.C.


Producer,
‘Global
Internet
radio
will
segment
listeners
by
niche
interests
rather
than
by


geographic
location.
The
connection/identification
will
be
different
but
just
as
strong
as,


if
 not
 stronger
 than,
 that
 generated
 by
 locality‐based
 services’
 (Everett,
 3
 June
 1999).


Traditional
 broadcasters
 design
 their
 content
 in
 the
 context
 of
 their
 locality
 –
 their


culture,
 their
 issues,
 their
 understanding.
 They
 are
 blanketed
 by
 the
 context
 in
 which


they
 work
 which
 could
 vary
 in
 different
 cases.
 Last.fm
 works
 on
 the
 global
 appeal


ground
–
a
listener
from
across
the
continent
can
relate
to
its
output.


6.
Quantity
of
Output


There
are
around
600
tracks
hitting
the
servers
at
Last.fm
every
second
(Miles
Lewis).


This
 translates
 into
 a
 couple
 hundred
 thousand
 tracks
 being
 played
 every
 24
 hours,


dwarfing
the
output
of
a
traditional
radio
broadcaster
who
can
aim
at
maximum
of
336


tracks
 a
 day.
 The
 quantity
 of
 output
 directly
 relates
 to
 added
 cost
 but
 also
 empower


services
like
Last.fm
to
conduct
tough
negotiations
with
Music
companies.





 Page| 81




7.
Radio
Flow


Radio
 flow
 is
 an
 effort
 to
 maintain
 the
 sonic
 continuity
 of
 a
 service.
 ‘Dear
 air’
 is


considered
 as
 a
 death
 sentence
 in
 rulebooks
 of
 traditional
 radio
 broadcast.
 It
 is


absolutely
necessary
to
fill
the
sonic
space
of
broadcast.
Radio
flow
is
most
pertinently


achieved
 by
 a
 tight
 scheduling
 of
 a
 combination
 of
 sounds,
 music,
 and
 speech
 i.e.


ensuring
a
continuous
stream
of
aurally
stimulating
sound.

It
promotes
the
'nowness'


of
 radio,
 its
 orderly
 unfolding,
 duration
 and
 succession.
 On
 a
 switch
 of
 a
 button
 a


listener
 should
 be
 able
 to
 receive
 an
 audio
 signal.
 Last.fm
 is
 a
 pull
 driven
 &
 bespoke


medium.
 ‘Radio
 flow’
 is
 not
 compulsory.
 Only
 once
 the
 user
 starts
 engaging
 with
 the


service,
the
flow
is
initiated.


Summary


Last.fm
travels
a
point‐to‐point
route;
whereas
the
traditional
broadcasters
systems
use


the
 'one
 to
 many',
 routes.
 It
 does
 reproduce
 the
 broadcast
 characteristics
 of
 analogue


terrestrial
 transmission,
 more
 choice,
 more
 control
 plus
 some
 unique
 additions
 of
 its


own
 or
 if
 I
 may
 say,
 disruptive
 additions.
 It
 has
 following
 of
 loyal
 listeners
 who
 enjoy


the
service
‘making
sense
of
their
music’.
Scholars
and
industry
may
argue
that
Last.fm


is
not
even
close
to
the
definitions
and
understanding
of
radio,
but
then,
every
medium


has
its
moment
of
evolution,
and
I
am
pretty
sure
this
is
for
radio.
Much
of
the
material


discussed
so
far
in
this
article
comprises
largely
what
one
could
describe
as
radio
or
un‐

radio
like
or
at
least
features
strong
‘radiogenic’
elements
or
characteristics.
This
study




 Page| 82




of
 Last.fm
 and
 traditional
 radio
 broadcast
 reveals
 the
 variety
 of
 developments
 that


digital
technology
can
offer.


Learning’s


With
 the
 intervention
 that
 multimedia
 and
 networks
 are
 making,
 we
 are
 being
 driven


ever
 more
 to
 look
 at
 'audio
 content'.
 Obviously
 this
 does
 not
 have
 the
 ring
 that
 radio


retains.
 I
 can’t
 seem
 to
 justify
 the
 presence
 of
 ‘warmth’
 and
 ‘ability
 to
 form


relationships’
 in
 the
 service
 of
 Last.fm
 But
 there
 is
 most
 certainly
 an
 audio
 content


industry
 forming
 around
 key
 delivery
 mechanisms,
 such
 as
 the
 Internet.
 Perhaps
 we


will
 be
 forced
 to
 explore
 in
 greater
 detail
 the
 differences
 between
 formats
 and


programmes,
 and
 more
 particularly,
 between
 audience
 modes
 of
 consumption.
 If
 the


audience
is
prepared
to
listen
to
crafted
audio
content,
but
does
not
recognise
the


absence
of
presenters,
stations
identities,
news,
weather
and
so
on,
does
not
want


the
 content
 to
 be
 in
 a
 localised
 context,
 does
 not
 speak
 their
 language,
 does
 not


represent
their
culture,
then
who
are
we
to
tell
those
consumers
that
they
are
not


listening
to
radio?
I
am
going
to
revisit
this
argument
in
my
next
chapter
where
I
will


introduce
a
concept
that
attempts
to
encompass
both
these
services.
This
exercise
has


left
us
with
the
following
lessons:


1. Now
 it
 is
 technically
 possible
 to
 combine
 the
 technology
 of
 computer











programming
 and
 the
 interactivity
 of
 the
 Internet
 to
 create
 bespoke
 radio


programming.





 Page| 83




2. Rather
than
selecting
a
particular
station
based
on
your
music
type
or
taste,
it
is


now
possible
to
indicate
what
types
of
music
you
would
like
to
hear
and
an
Ala


Carte
playlist
is
offered
to
you.



3. All
sorts
of
combinations
–
a
proportion
of
‘known’
as
against
‘unknown’
tracks,


amount
of
DJ
chat,
spoken
features
–
can
now
be
offered
on
demand
in
a
stream.


4. Absence
of
regulation
makes
copyright
the
single
most
important
issue
for
these


services.


5. Niche
 radio
 programming
 is
 no
 longer
 a
 risk.
 Small‐scale
 niche
 operations
 can


cater
to
audience
expectations.


6. It
 is
 also
 possible
 for
 Internet
 providers
 to
 track
 where
 a
 particular
 Internet


audio
user
goes
on
the
Web,
and
use
this
information
to
build
up
a
profile
of
their


interests
or
activities.
This
information
can
then
be
used
to
sell
small
groups
of


Internet
users
to
advertisers
who
are
looking
for
individuals
with
those
sorts
of


profiles.


Of
 course
 it
 is
 marginally
 more
 expensive
 to
 produce
 an
 individualized
 service,
 but


audiences
are
prepared
to
pay
a
premium
subscription
for
this
degree
of
personalized


programming.
I
believe
the
technology
at
Last.fm
could
still
be
further
exploited
to
offer


different
 combinations
 and
 permutations
 of
 editorialized
 audio.
 Last.fm
 is
 significant


because
 its
 technology
 allows
 for,
 and
 even
 encourages,
 very
 different
 forms
 of


institutionalization,
broadcast
practice
and
listening
cultures.




 Page| 84




Chapter
7:
Radiotrack
&
Conclusion


We
 are
 back
 to
 the
 central
 issue
 of
 this
 research
 'what
 is
 radio?'
 In
 attempting
 to


redefine
the
boundaries
of
radio
in
this
digital
era
and
what
it
can
offer
the
listener?
Or


what
it
stands
for?
we
should
avoid
easy
assumptions
about
the
technologies
‐
whether


in
 distribution
 or
 production,
 clearly
 they
 add
 to
 the
 scope
 and
 communicative


possibilities
of
radio.
Paul
Carter
has
already
answered
the
puzzle
in
terms
of
reception


theory,
 that
 most
 listeners
 do
 not
 notice
 the
 difference.
 He
 says,
 ‘Radio
 is
 what
 radio


seems
to
the
ordinary
listener’.
Using
the
Internet
as
a
transmission
platform,
far
from


being
automatically
un‐radio‐like,
creates
much
new
space
for
the
kinds
of
programmes


that
 are
 generated
 by
 people’s
 enthusiasm,
 passion
 and
 need
 for
 the
 sociable,


conversation‐orientated
 character
 of
 making
 and
 listening
 to
 radio.
 Indeed
 it
 is
 the


Internet’s
 narrowcast
 characteristics
 that
 appear
 to
 bring
 us
 much
 closer
 to
 the


dreams
of
those
pioneers
who
heard
in
radio
the
possibility
of
increasing
the
sum


of
human
understanding.
We
are
denying
the
evolution
of
radio.


On
the
other
hand,
what
digitalization
is
doing
to
radio
is
loosening
its
fabric,
inviting
us


to
 pull
 away
 at
 strands
 at
 its
 fraying
 edges.
 I
 want
 to
 develop
 my
 conclusions
 on
 the


lines
 of
 Tacchi
 and
 Alen
 Becks
 work.
 I
 suggest
 that
 Radio
 is
 not
 a
 business
 ‐
 it
 is
 an


working
idea,
an
open
ended
concept.
Its
dynamism
does
no
allow
it
be
to
be
captured


in
 a
 caught
 in
 a
 closed
 theoretical
 definition.
 Yes,
 the
 idea
 and
 pillars
 of
 radio
 can
 be


explained,
 its
 horizon
 can
 be
 viewed
 but
 not
 captured.
 Broadcasters
 and
 service


providers
are
now
in
the
business
of
‘crafted
audio’.
Tim
Davie
remarked,
‘I
sincerely
do




 Page| 85




not
care
what
they
call
radio
in
the
long
run,
what
I
do
know
is
that
there
is
a
very
big


market
 for
 crafted
 audio
 and
 our
 job
 is
 to
 reach
 out
 to
 them’.
 However,
 such
 utopian


ideals
 for
 a
 new
 radio
 ecology
 need
 to
 be
 tempered
 by
 a
 recognition
 of
 a
 new
 set
 of


imperatives
 which
 will
 drive
 this
 new
 media
 form,
 just
 as
 an
 earlier
 set
 drove
 our


existing
radio
system.



Whitehead
has
made
a
vital
contribution
to
the
thinking
of
radio
as
essentially
spatial
–


a
 space
 of
 relations
 –
 rather
 than
 as
 sound,
 he
 says,
 ‘It’s
 misleading
 to
 think
 about


radiophonic
space
in
sculptural
terms,
as
a
space
to
be
‘filled’
with
sound
...
it
is
more
a


series
 of
 cultural,
 social
 and
 political
 relations
 to
 be
 engaged
 in
 some
 way
 ...
 Radio


happens
in
sound,
at
a
perceptual
level,
but
the
guts
of
radio
are
not
sounds,
but
rather


the
 gaps
 between
 sending
 and
 receiving,
 between
 transmission
 and
 audition,
 or


however
you
want
to
name
the
space.
Radio
is
essentially
a
gap
medium.
(Alvarado,
1)


There
are
industrial
answers
to
the
case
study
we
have
discussed,
in
regards
to
the
style


context
and
formatting
of
service,
its
intentionality
and
sociability,
its
output,
use,
reach


and
 their
 budgets.
 I
 provide
 some
 sort
 of
 an
 answer,
 under
 my
 definition
 of


'RADIOTRACK'
(a
term
for
all
the
instances
of
radio).





 Page| 86




Audience





Open Concept





1
2

!"#$%&!"'(

 3
4



5
Proximity



Reach


Audio

Source:
Illustration




 Page| 87




Above
 is
 the
 concept
 of
 RADIOTRACK
 ­
 I
 suggest
 that
 radio
 is
 a
 ‘Stretch’;
 it
 is
 a


‘Gap’,
between
an
Audio
and
an
Audience.
It
does
not
matter
what
is
the
mode
of


delivery,
context,
reach,
format
or
location
–
what
remains
central
to
this
concept


are
two
things,
crafted
audio
being
directed
towards
an
audience
or
an
audience


seeking
 to
 consume
 crafted
 audio.
 ‘Crafted
 Audio’
 is
 derived
 from
 my
 study
 of
 the


value
 chain
 of
 both
 services
 we
 discussed
 in
 the
 earlier
 chapter.
 ‘Crafted
 Audio’
 is
 an


audio,
 which
 goes
 through
 a
 value
 addition
 process
 via
 a
 broadcaster
 or
 a
 service


provider
–
namely
by
music
editorization,
or
music
genetics,
or
scheduling.


The
ambit
of
my
concept
‘RADIOTRACK’:


1.
It
is
essentially
audio
material
 –
Music,
Speech,
Sound.
No
problems
with
webcams,


webpage’s,
visual
players,
tags.


2.
 It
 is
 not
 necessarily
 point
 to
 multi
 point
 method
 of
 communication.
 (Technology
 is


making
large‐scale
bespoke
radio
programming
possible.)


3.
 It
 is
 transmitted
 in
 some
 way
 –
 involving
 sending
 and
 receiving
 apparatus.
 It
 is
 not


something
you
can
pick
up
and
carry
off
like
a
CD.


In
 the
 above
 diagram
 I
 have
 used
 two
 parameters,
 reach
 and
 proximity.
 ‘Reach’


represents
 the
 collective
 number
 of
 listener
 or
 audiences
 or
 listeners
 using
 a
 specific


service.
 ‘Proximity’
 represents
 a
 combination
 of
 factors
 like
 ‘Localization’,
 ‘Intimacy’


and
‘Liveness’
of
service.





 Page| 88




A
perforated
line
that
cuts
across
the
diagram,
it
is
the
‘open
concept’
line.
I
assume


that
 we
 have
 still
 not
 exploited
 the
 complete
 ‘proximity’
 or
 ‘reach’
 potential
 of
 the


medium.
 In
 the
 future,
 there
 may
 be
 a
 more
 intimate
 role
 for
 broadcast
 or
 live
 radio.


Radio
could
get
more
closer
to
the
audience.


I
have
circled
number
in
my
illustration,
each
of
them
represent
a
type
of
radio
service:


1. Traditional
 broadcasters,
 who
 are
 high
 on
 reach
 
 ‐
 maybe
 a
 mass
 radio
 station


and
have
all
the
ingredients
to
make
their
content
local,
intimate
and
live.
They


are
‘closest’
to
the
audiences.
Ex.
Capital
FM,
London.


2. DAB/
other
platforms
used
by
traditional
Radio
broadcasters
–
here
the
content


is
 the
 same,
 maybe
 a
 different
 platform.
 The
 reach
 may
 vary
 depending
 on
 the


technology
 take‐up
 by
 the
 audience.
 Ex.
 An
 iphone
 application
 for
 Capital
 FM,


London.


3. Podcast
from
a
traditional
broadcaster–
It
is
the
same
crafted
audio,
due
to
the


‘time‐shifted’
 or
 ‘on‐demand’
 nature
 of
 this
 delivery,
 ‘liveness’
 and
 ‘intimacy’


might
be
compromised,
hence
a
tad
lower
on
the
scale
of
Proximity.



4. Services
like
Last.fm
that
provide
service
of
music
delivery
+
additional
features.


The
 mechanized
 nature
 of
 the
 services
 recreates
 the
 ‘liveness’
 element,
 but


maybe
not
be
intimate,
hence
the
lowered
proximity.
Products
like
‘collaborative


filtering’
 attempts
 to
 substitute
 the
 human
 element
 and
 add
 a
 higher
 degree
 of


personalization
 to
 the
 user
 experience.
 
 Once
 again,
 the
 audience
 take
 up
 is


assumed
high.
Another
example
that
fits
here
is
Pandora
FM,
USA.




 Page| 89




5. Here
 I
 am
 place
 Internet
 radio
 only
 services
 like
 live365.com.
 
 The
 take
 up
 of


such
 services
 is
 narrow
 compared
 to
 other
 categories.
 Internet
 music
 station,


mostly
due
to
budget
constraints
work
with
software’s
that
stream
music
back
to


back.
It
lacks
personalization,
human
element
and
proximity.
Hence
lower
down


in
the
level
of
proximity.


Conclusion


I
 am
 not
 suggesting
 'anything
 audio
 is
 radio'.
 If
 everything
 is
 radio,
 the
 fact
 that
 any


particular
phenomenon
‐
e.g.
Internet
only
radio
‐
is
radio
could
not
be
very
interesting.


If
anything
can
be
radio,
the
interest
lies
in
the
conditions
in
which
the
radio
possibility


was
 realised
 which
 I
 have
 clearly
 mentioned
 in
 the
 ‘ambit’
 of
 the
 theory.
 We
 need
 to


move
beyond
the
understanding
that
‘radio
is
radio’
because
a
broadcaster
or
a
listener


says
so.
When
radio
researchers
and
practitioners
from
around
the
world
talk
to
each


other
 it
 becomes
 clear
 that
 ‘real’
 radio
 itself
 is
 different
 in
 different
 places
 and
 at


different
times
to
a
large
extent
it
is
context
specific.
(Tacchi)


We
can
draw
parallels
to
other
‘craft’
forms
and
their
effort
or
frustration
in
arresting


their
 medium.
 With
 the
 rise
 of
 conceptual
 art
 and
 when
 once
 Andy
 Warhol
 exhibited


Brillo
 box
 packages
 in
 1964
 ‐
 anything
 could
 be
 art.
 Danto
 famously
 summed
 this
 up,


and
 recently
 in
 his
 After
 The
 End
 of
 Art:
 ‘…
 you
 can't
 say
 something's
 art
 or
 not
 art


anymore.
 That's
 all
 finished’.
 (Danto,
 1998,
 2)
 
 Francis
 Sparshott
 in
 her
 case,
 of
 dance


and
 art,
 and
 she
 particularly
 warns
 against
 a
 context‐free
 formula,
 ‘No
 possible




 Page| 90




statement
that
purports
to
sum
up
in
a
definition
what
dance
is
(and
hence
what
is
not


dance)
could
possibly
sum
up
the
purport
of
all
such
generalizations
[made
by
people]:


being
 made
 on
 different
 context‐bound
 principles,
 they
 are
 inherently
 ‘unsummable’.


Any
theorist
who
simply
puts
forward
a
general
definition
of
dance
in
this
day
and
age


is
showing
crass
ignorance
and
insensitivity.’



Clearly
there
is
no
systematic
answer
matching
the
vast,
ongoing
radio
product.
Words


like
 'art'
 and
 'radio'
 point
 to
 areas
 of
 life
 and
 culture
 within
 which
 there
 are
 specific


difficulties
and
practices,
and
these
call
for
various
sorts
of
theoretical
engagement.
This


philosophical
 attempt
 to
 theorize
 radio
 is
 not
 about
 finding
 the
 truth,
 though
 we
 can


understand
and
come
to
grip
with
the
components
floating
around
the
concept
of
radio


from
the
past
and
present.



As
 Radio
 managers,
 planners
 and
 managers
 there
 is
 a
 need
 for
 reinventing,


reconsidering
 and
 reconfiguring
 our
 understanding
 of
 radio.
 I
 have
 not
 exercised
 any


degree
 of
 finality,
 conclusion
 or
 closure
 in
 my
 effort,
 due
 to
 the
 massive
 size
 of
 the


medium.
 Yes,
 part
 of
 the
 definition
 of
 radio
 is
 to
 do
 with
 the
 structure
 of
 the
 medium


and
its
technology,
the
vehicle,
within
its
historical
continuity.
But
this
is
not,
in
itself,


the
 one
 necessary‐and‐sufficient‐condition.
 My
 ‘RADIOTRACK’
 concept
 encapsulates
 a


family
 of
 meanings
 in
 radio,
 acknowledging
 that
 radio
 is
 not
 a
 precise
 concept
 or
 a


singular
activity,
but
richly
diverse

(as
Price‐Davies
and
Rob
Watson).




 Page| 91




I
 have
 considered
 a
 general
 and
 simplistic
 study
 of
 the
 universal
 components
 of
 the


organized
patterns
of
sound
that
constitute
radio.
The
‘Value
chain’
methodology
gave


us
 some
 interesting
 insights
 on
 the
 potentialities
 of
 radio
 and
 digital
 technology.
 The


enterprise
 of
 radio‐philosophy
 can
 be
 summed
 up
 as
 ‘radio
 is
 empowered
 to
 create


meaning’
 and
 as
 Radio
 strategist
 we
 need
 to
 maximise
 and
 explore
 this
 creative


potential.
 With
 such
 radical
 changes
 in
 broadcasting
 technology
 and
 with
 more


imminent
 ones
 coming
 up,
 it
 is
 best
 to
 keep
 to
 an
 open
 concept
 of
 radio.
 This
 can
 be


emended
 over
 time
 and
 extended
 to
 objects,
 texts,
 works
 and
 broadcasting
 that
 it
 did


not
apply
to
previously.



My
 conclusion
 on
 radio
 is
 that
 the
 medium
 is
 conceptually
 scattered,
 profoundly


problematic
and
that
is
a
direct
challenge
to
the
Industry.
The
synthesis
of
work
on
pre‐

digital
 radio
 may
 amount
 to
 a
 looser
 sort
 of
 theory
 of
 radio
 because
 the
 field
 of
 radio


has
changed;
further,
it
may
no
longer
be
clear
over
what
and
where
radio
studies
holds


jurisdiction.
However,
one
thing
can
be
noted,
there
are
possibilities
(in
wake
of
digital


advancement)
that
a
new
'radio
work'
or
'radio'
technology
or
future
use
of
'radio'
will


arrive
which
has
nothing
in
common
with
paradigm
radio
works
or
technologies
of
the


present.
 We
 can
 expect
 newer
 business
 models,
 institutions,
 formats,
 types,
 and


mutations
 of
 Radio.
 Today's
 radio
 experiment
 may
 become
 tomorrow's
 commonplace


mainstream
technique.
Last.fm
stands
testimony.

And,
yes,
nobody
has
killed
the
‘Radio


star’‐
it
just
needs
a
comeback!




 Page| 92




Biblography




Agre,
Philip.,
(2001).
'Welcome
to
the
Always­On
World',
IEEE
Spectrum
38(1),
10,
13,

electronic
publication,
Available

<http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/resource/speaka.html>




Ala‐Fossi,
M,
et.
al.
(2008)
‘The
Future
of
Radio
is
Still
Digital—
But
Which
One?
Expert

Perspectives
and
Future
Scenarios
for
Radio
Media
in
2015’,
Journal
of
Radio
&
Audio

Media,
May
08




Allen,
Richard
and
Smith,
Murray,
(1997).
‘Film
Theory
and
Philosophy’,
Oxford:
Oxford

University
Press.




Alvarado,
A.
(n.d.)
‘An
Interview
with
Gregory
Whitehead’,
URL
(accessed
27
September

2005)
Available
at
<http:

//www.free103point9.org/pdf/13.alvarado_whitehead.pdf>






Beck,
A.,
(2002).
‘The
Death
of
Radio?’
Sound
Journal.

Berry,
R.,
(2006)
‘Will
the
iPod
Kill
the
Radio
Star?
Profiling
Podcasting
as
Radio’,
The

International
Journal
of
Research
into
New
Convergence.
Issue
12;
143



Benjamin,
Walter,
(1983).
‘Paris
­
The
Capital
of
the
Nineteenth
Century’.
In
Charles

Baudelaire:
A
Lyric
Poet
in
the
Era
of
High
Capitalism,
translated
by
Quintin
Hoare,

London:
Verso.

Black,
D.A.
(2002).
‘Internet
Radio:
a
case
study
in
medium
specificity’,
Media
Culture
and

society,
23,
pp.
397‐408




Brecht,
B.
(1993).
‘The
Radio
as
an
Apparatus
of
Communication’,
in
Neil
Strauss
(ed.)

Radiotexte,
6(1):15.
New
York:
Semiotext(e)



Bughin,
Jacques,
Djelic,
Bozidar
and
Schröder,
Jürgen,
(2000).
'Is
anyone
out
there

listening?',
McKinsey
Quarterly,
2000
Number
2,
47‐55,
electronic
publication,
see

McKinsey
Quarterly
for
url.



C.
Ross
and
K.C.
Fuehrer
(eds.).
‘Mass
Media,
Culture
and
Society
in
Twentieth
Century




 Page| 93




Germany’,
Basingstoke:
Palgrave.




Coyle,
R.,
(2000).
‘Radio
Digitising
the
Wireless:
Observations
from
an
Experiment
in

'Internet’,
The
International
Journal
of
Research
into
New
Convergence.
Issue
6;
57.



Crisell,
A.
(1986).
‘Understanding
Radio’.
London:
Routledge.




Danto,
Arthur,
(1987).
'The
Artworld'
in
Margolis,
Joseph,
ed.,
Philosophy
Looks
at
the

Arts,
3rd
ed.,
Philadelphia:
Temple
University
Press.




Derbyshire,
D.
(2006)
‘Digital
radio
sound
'is
worse
than
old
FM'.
[online]
Available
from

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1507914/Digital‐radio‐sound‐is‐worse‐
than‐old‐FM.html>



Douglas,
S.J.
(1999).
‘Listening
In:
Radio
and
the
American
Imagination’,
from
Amos
'n'

Andy
and
Edward
R.
Murrow
to
Wolfman
Jack
and
Howard
Stern,
New
York
and

Toronto:
Random
House.



Garner,
K.
(2004).
‘The
Radio
Conference:
A
Transnational
Forum.
University
of

Wisconsin‐Madison,
Madison,
WI,
USA.
28–31
July
2003’,
The
Radio
Journal
–
International
Studies
in
Broadcast
and
Audio
Media2:
1,
pp.
49–57,

doi:

10.1386/rajo.2.1.49/0




Gates,
B.
(1996).
‘The
Road
Ahead’.
London:
Penguin.




Hammersley,
B.
(2004).
‘Audible
Revolution’,
Media
Guardian,
URL
(accessed
12

February
2004):
Available
at
<http:

//technology.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1145689,00.html>



Hartley.,
John
(2004)
‘The
‘Value
Chain
of
Meaning’
and
the
New
Economy’.
The

International
Journal
of
Cultural
Studies.
Issue
7;
129




Hendy,
D.
(2000).
‘Radio
in
the
Global
Age’,
Cambridge:
Polity.






 Page| 94




Hendy,
D.
(2000),
‘A
political
economy
of
radio
in
the
digital
age’.
Journal
of
Radio

Studies,
7,
213–233.



Higgins,
C.S.,
&Moss,
P.D.
(1982).
‘Sounds
real:
Radio
in
everyday
life.’
St
Lucia,

London,
&
Sydney:
University
of
Queensland
Press.



Higgins,
C.S.,
&
Moss,
P.D.
(1984).
"Radio
voices."
In
Media,
Culture
&
Society,

6(4),353‐375.
London:
Sage.





Hilmes,
M.
(2002),
‘Rethinking
Radio.
Radio
Reader:
Essays
in
the
Cultural
History
of

Radio’,
New
York:
Routledge.




Hutchby,
I.
(1991).
"The
Organization
of
Talk
on
Talk
Radio"
In
Scannell
(Ed.),

Broadcast
talk
(pp.
119‐137).
London:
Sage.



Kracauer,
S.,
(1995).
‘The
Mass
Ornament:
Weimar
Essays’,
Cambridge,
Mass.
Harvard

University
Press.



Lacey,
K.,
(2000)
‘Towards
a
periodization
of
listening:
Radio
and
modern
life’.

International
Journal
of
Cultural
Studies.
Issue
3;
279




Lacey,
K.
(2008),
‘Ten
years
of
radio
studies:
The
very
idea’,
The
Radio
Journal
–
International
Studies
in
Broadcast
and
Audio
Media
6:
1,
pp.
21–32,

doi:10.1386/rajo.6.1.21/4



Lacey,
K.
(2005),
‘The
Invention
of
a
Listening
Public:
Radio
and
Its
Audiences’,
in
Lewis,

P.,
ed.,
1981,
Radio
Drama,
London:
Longman.




Lewis,
P.
M.
&
Booth,
J.,
(1989).
The
Invisible
Medium.
Public,
Commercial
and

Community
Radio,
London:
MacMillan.




Lievrouw,
L.A.
(2006).
New
media
design
and
development:
Diffusion
of
innovations
v

social
shaping
of
technology.
In
L.A.
Lievrouw,
&
S.
Livingstone,
Handbook
of
new
media:

Social
shaping
and
social
consequences
of
ICTs.
Student
edition.
(pp.
246–265).
London:

Sage.




 Page| 95









Porter,
Michael
E.,
(2004).
‘Competitive
advantage’.
New
York;
London:
Free
Press.




Reith,
John
(1924).
‘Broadcasting
Over
Britain’,
London:
Hodder
&
Stoughton.




Ofcom
(2005)
‘Radio
–
Preparing
for
the
Future
–
Phase
2:
Implementing
the
Framework’.

London:
Ofcom.




Price‐Davies,
E
et
al
(2004),
‘Review
of
Radio
Studies
teaching’,
The
Radio
Journal
–

International
Studies
in
Broadcast
and
Audio
Media2:
2,
pp.
101–122,doi:

10.1386/rajo.2.2.101/4



Price‐Davies,
E.
(1999,
June
3).
‘Internet
Radio.’
electronic
publication.




Priestman,
Chris
(2002).
‘Web
Radio:
Radio
Production
for
Internet
Streaming’,
Oxford:

Focal
Press.



Priestman,
C.
(2004),
‘Narrowcasting
and
the
dream
of
radio’s
great
global
conversation’,

The
Radio
Journal
–
International
Studies
in
Broadcast
and
Audio
Media2:
2,
pp.
77–88,

doi:
10.1386/rajo.2.2.77/1




Tacchi,
J.,
(1997).
'Radio
Sound
as
Material
Culture
in
the
Home',
unpublished
PhD

Thesis,
University
College
London.




Tacchi,
J.,
(1998).
'Radio
Texture:
Between
Self
and
Others',
in
D.
Miller
(ed.)
Material

Cultures:
Why
Some
Things
Matter,
pp.
25‐45.
London:
UCL
Press/University
of
Chicago

Press.




Tacchi,
J.,
(2000),
‘The
need
for
radio
theory
in
the
digital
age’,
International
journal
of

cultural
studies,
2,
pp.
289‐298






 Page| 96




Tacchi,
J.,
(2000).
'Gender,
Fantasy
and
Radio:
An
Ethnographic
Case
Study',
in
C.Mitchell

(ed.)
Women
and
Radio.
London:
Routledge.



Scannell,
Paddy
(1996),
‘Radio,
Television
and
Modern
Life
–
A
Phenomenological

Approach’,
Oxford:
Blackwell.




Sparshott,
Francis,
(1988).
‘Off
the
Ground.
First
Steps
to
a
Philosophical
Consideration


of
the
Dance’,
Princeton:
Princeton
University
Press.