3 ms·
We're still stuck in that in-between zone where legacy businesses from the last century are in the fight for their lives while everyone with half a sense can se
by levemi 11y ago
We're still stuck in that in-between zone where legacy businesses from the last century are in the fight for their lives while everyone with half a sense can see the future is digital distribution.
This struggle is a generational one. Older people are used to their TVs, radios and newspapers and seem as a group unwilling to transition. Institutions on the wrong side of this fight like cable companies and cable TV stations, radio stations, movie theaters, local news TV networks and local newspapers haven't made it easy for them. Younger people on the other hand don't even bother.
And that's how you can see the writing on the wall for these obviously legacy businesses. By being unwilling to fully commit to the future, because they'll make less money, they'll upset existing relationships, they'll die. Blockbuster died a quick death. The transition from video rentals to online video was sudden and quick, because Blockbuster didn't control the content and couldn't lock in viewers. This kind of end will come for all these other places too though as younger generations have different expectations. They want their content on demand, and they want it on any of their devices and they want it without having to subscribe to expensive bundles of junk they'll never consume.
The problem for how to provide the same high quality local content that these legacy businesses can sometimes provide is a real problem that hasn't been addressed yet. AOL's patch was a very innovative and high quality way but it lacked adoption and was unsuccessful. I think we may have to see the old guards die and endure a short period without high quality local content before it can rise again.
- erikpukinskis 11y agoI don't disagree with your overall point, but I don't see how cross-marketing is a requirement for a media organization to be "with it" in your book. Honestly, radio is a shitty channel through which to market your podcast. A) you already have a captive listener, and b) they're probably driving, or are at work, in which case they're not really well positioned to subscribe to a podcast. Their hands are probably full. I don't see what's wrong with tailoring your marketing strategies. Market a podcast in the venue where people are looking for podcasts: on their phones, in social media.
- disc 11y ago> radio is a shitty channel through which to market your podcast Maybe I'm just not the average NPR listener, but any time I have terrestrial radio playing, I'm highly subject to interruptions (eg., the end of my drive, a meeting during my workday, etc.) I always almost find an opportunity to resume the broadcast (via podcast) helpful.
- snaily 11y agoRight, the benefits of podcast over radio are easy to explain. The parent post's point is not that it is hard to market over radio, but rather that it is hard to action on the advertisement, since the listener likely has their hands full.
- Houshalter 11y agoThey don't need to drop what they are doing and go online and find the podcast. But they might do it later when they are home. The point is to spread awareness of it. Especially NPR's app, the listeners of NPR are the primary market for it, and now they can't advertise it to them. The app will probably die without the ability to get listeners to use it. How many people just scroll for random apps in the app store and happen to stumble upon it? Instead of searching for it because they heard about it.
- te_chris 11y agoRadio, TV and newspapers are still good channels for entertainment. The internet is another, different one. We're still in a transition phase, but I think the respective strengths are beginning to show of each medium. In my own case, I'd mostly abandoned newspapers, but now I've gone back, as the information density is just so much greater, and I find myself reading more diverse stories than I otherwise would on the same publication's website.