Online radio streaming listening figures

The lovely JayBS mentioned that when he was a lad he had 15,000 listeners estimated by JICRAR, and he (correctly) considered that to be good. Yet, equally the lovely JayBS has a kind of downer on internet based radio.

Well, sir, I just looked at Shoutcast.com and spied that right now one of the stations has 10,961 actual listeners to one of its streams (I couldn't be bothered to find all its other streams and add them all up!) which is not far off the night-time audience of commercial radio in its hay day. Well, ok it's two-thirds. But, it's not a bad figure, surely?
.....................................

You are not completely correct about my opinions about internet radio, I think it is an ideal platform for listeners to tune into radio stations worldwide that they would never otherwise be able to listen to, what I don't agree with is those many many bedroom so called broadcasters – LOL! that is not Radio and never will be.

Regards your detailed search for a a station with "10,961 listeners" was it a purely internet only broadcaster or a radio station using it as another platform? I do feel that type of figure will be an exception if it is internet only, rather than the rule!

Unfortunately John Barry never did keep air checks, at one time I had a copy of the first on cassette, but in a house move I never kept hold of it. It was just a time of a dream achieved for me, when I had been told to stop dreaming! by careers masters.

Radio is whatever communicates between broadcaster and listener, no matter what medium is used for the conveyance.  When the BBC began in 1922, AM on medium wave was the latest thing, but it was in 1893 that wired broadcasting began, and until 1922 the only way to get programmes was through the telephone, in a crude way the same as net streaming. 

Why would you differentiate between a "radio station" that uses the internet + RF radiation and one which uses the internet only?  It makes no sense to do so, and in fact if you were to display such prejudices on a commercial basis, the Office of Fair Trading would be down on you like a ton of bricks.

Alas, you're simply an old Luddite who refuses to move on for no logical reason.

Well it was http://Technobeat.FM and all I did was go to http://shoutcast.com and click on the most listened to link which then lists everything on line using the Shoutcast protocol and how many listeners it has right now. It instantly told me it was this German TechnoBeat.FM thing, which appears to not have other platforms apart from t'internet, so (unless I'm wrong) it is an internet only station, and has built its audience purely because whatever it's doing is good, not because it's a through-air station in a far off land being listened to by people interested in stations in other countries. Now, it may well be coming from a bedroom of course, but whatever it's doing, it's doing something right and impressively commercially viable, imho.

Looking at Shoutcast right now, the next stations down the list currently have 9,440, 9,117, 7,815, etc. with 4,779 for the tenth of the stations with the highest number of current listeners. They all seem to be internet only, and of course these are all just the figures for one of the bandwidths they are using. They may have other streams at different bandwidths, so the total figures may be higher. It's impressive.

Radio is whatever communicates between broadcaster and listener, no matter what medium is used for the conveyance.

Why would you differentiate between a "radio station" that uses the internet + RF radiation and one which uses the internet only? It makes no sense to do so, and in fact if you were to display such prejudices on a commercial basis, the Office of Fair Trading would be down on you like a ton of bricks.

Alas, you're simply an old Luddite who refuses to move on for no logical reason.
.................................

Ouch! what bitterness Mr Currie, though not for the first time with any opinion I may express, one time you accused me of something even more serious and doubted my word, though you did apologise.

Would it not be that you have a vested interest in internet broadcasting, so you are going to believe in it? there would be something wrong with you if you didn't!

Can you tell me Tony, how many Luddite's there are then who do not listen to internet radio all the time? am I on my own. My beliefs are my personal opinion there is no rush to buy internet radio's except for those really really interested in broadcasting, and their interest as I pointed out may be more for oversea Radio Stations that they can't listen to.

I thought you as a Broadcaster would at least Respect other peoples opinions even if you do not agree?

Happy New Year!
John

A HAPPY NEW YEAR to you John.

I don't think anyone will resolve the argument(s) that rage on AN.
I was happy to support satellite stations, as that was a very deregulated area, in the early 90s. A well published editor said I was barking mad reporting the notion that reception of in-car satellite radio would one day be possible. Another suggested all things digital were a waste of time on satellite, strange notion. My point being things change.

So I'll suggest a status-quo resolution.
Those who wish to listen to content mainly available on the FM band can talk that up for a few more years.
Those who wish to listen to new ideas should, in the main, find sanctuary online.
Where there has to be a problem for broadcasters is making there content available for listeners. First they need to realise that there are new platforms, many don't.
Then they need to identify if there content is suited to those who walk around with an entertainment device that, in the same style of an iPhone, doesn't have an AM or FM receiver but can get online and if so how do they reach those listeners.
As I have said before, commercial radio needs to move with the times and if all the listeners decided to listen on a device, what ever platform or delivery method that may be, and the station boss hasn't made the station available to the listeners the demise of the station is guaranteed.
I agree there is no problem with bedroom stations, if that keeps someone off the streets no worries :-) However, there is a blur in todays world in terms of what is a bedroom station. Actually, we have had bedroom stations for decades. Some were unlicensed and some were actually presenters using, in the beginning, ISDN circuits to syndicate shows from converted bedrooms – so nothing new there.
Today, it is easy to send a 128K stream and as such digital tech has totally changed the way in which we receive content. Therefore, one mans bedroom service can in truth gain a massive audience.
Radio has been a major force in this area, but as bandwidth becomes more readily available it'll be TV that needs to change as well as radio.

I can see what you and Tony are referring to as I standing back from the messages a bit :-). Funny thing is I can see you both agreeing on stations not offering a wide choice.

Regards
Eric

I don't think anyone will resolve the argument(s) that rage on AN.
I was happy to support satellite stations, as that was a very deregulated area, in the early 90s. So I'll suggest a status-quo resolution.

Those who wish to listen to content mainly available on the FM band can talk that up for a few more years.Those who wish to listen to new ideas should, in the main, find sanctuary online.

I can see what you and Tony are referring to as I standing back from the messages a bit :-). Funny thing is I can see you both agreeing on stations not offering a wide choice.

Regards
Eric
.....................................................

Eric,

Happy New Year! I like to think we debate here at AN and don't argue and attempt to put others sadly down.

Everyone knows that I don't think the current Caroline is anything like the Radio Caroline so many of us richly remember from the 60's as youngsters, but it keeps some people Happy and no one has the right to stop them. That is how I feel with Stand Alone Internet Radio which lets admit on the main is a lot of bedroom DJ's playing and thinking they are Radio Stations, which is just a dream!

I admit and accept people like Tony have taken Internet Broadcasting serious, good on him and he seems to be doing well, but it still is not Radio! for me, most people have a Radio and can pick up radio stations throughout the UK! but it will take a long long time for people to purchase Internet Radio's, I wish I had one! but it is not a priority, okay people will say internet radio on the phone, but how many people use it? it is more like those who have internet radio's at this time Tech Geeks! I have listened to BBC Radio London on the internet for sport, but I don't like being tied down to my laptop! when I am using the internet which I do a lot of the day I would rather have a CD playing as it is the music I personally like and love!

John

Hang one though – do we really remember Caroline richly and warmly? The South version was, for it's first year or more no different to the then Light Programme – featuring classics from Jeff Love, Herb Alpert and Ray Conniff.

Our Rose Tinted memories are very, very selective and probably rooted in the last few months – April to August 1967 when, granted it had improved dramatically, but was no more or less as free, commercial and repetitive as modern day ILR

Hi John

I don't know how to answer this really tough issue for broadcasters as it is a tough issue.
I recently attended a meeting of students where I had a chance to chat to them. These are future accountants, suits, not techy folks at all.
Where there is an element of agreement; these guys and gals do listen to music but that comes, during the day, from MP3 players. However, they do listen to a breakfast show on a station called Express, bit of a fave of young Christopher. The show is called Ham 'n' Eggs – linking to a breakfast served in Slovakia :-)
The show is fast moving and very beat with celeb news and fun chat. Yes it is the tried and tested Zoo format, but they like it.
As this area can be a black hole for FM, the content is so strong that they will listen online some via laptops and others via multimedia phones (both available for 1€ (that's a Euro to you guys). Ask them about other breakfast shows in the commercial sector and the looks are questioning
:-)
Equally, if you ask this non-techy group about there world of entertainment it is focused around digital content. Now I should clarify we are talking about people in there mid-20s, not teenagers.

This audience, for me, is the future of radio. If stations don't move toward engaging this audience how will radio survive in the future?

Regards
Eric

Very much agree Jon, it was everything we hated about radio in the beginning. The ruddy LIGHT programme!!!! The pain of young people and it didn't even die in September 1967 – the called it Radio One in the daytime and it was still rubbish.
The real driving force in the 60s was BigL which serviced the needs of young people – now that's something missed from commerical radio today in many cases. Things don't change :-)

Eric

Hang one though – do we really remember Caroline richly and warmly? The South version was, for it's first year or more no different to the then Light Programme – featuring classics from Jeff Love, Herb Alpert and Ray Conniff.

Our Rose Tinted memories are very, very selective and probably rooted in the last few months – April to August 1967 when, granted it had improved dramatically, but was no more or less as free, commercial and repetitive as modern day ILR
....................................

Jon,

That is what Opinion is all about, it is not always selective, I can only vouch for Radio Caroline North and I was still young, but I always remember it for Stateside soul music which was not played on the light programme.

Also I can only vouch for the years on Radio for 1974 onwards, I joined a commercial radio station three years before opening, at the start we did have what some may see as strange programming, a lunch time show often live from factories, Sunday mornings a fictional figure known as "Scully" by the famous playwright Alan Bleasdale, which was repeated during the week one lunch time, but as far as Presenters we had The Best and I still feel once the station settled in 1975 we were way ahead of the time as far as radio was concerned, but that is Opinion!

I don't know how to answer this really tough issue for broadcasters as it is a tough issue. I recently attended a meeting of students where I had a chance to chat to them. These are future accountants, suits, not techy folks at all. Where there is an element of agreement; these guys and gals do listen to music but that comes, during the day, from MP3 players. However, they do listen to a breakfast show on a station called Express, bit of a fave of young Christopher. The show is called Ham 'n' Eggs.

Equally, if you ask this non-techy group about there world of entertainment it is focused around digital content. Now I should clarify we are talking about people in there mid-20s, not teenagers.

This audience, for me, is the future of radio. If stations don't move toward engaging this audience how will radio survive in the future?

Regards
Eric
..........................................................

Eric,

No one denies that radio has to move with young people, but there will also always be a future for alternatives not just what the mid-20's may want!

Though I never forget one management board meeting, when we discussing FM format and output and the FM programme controller was shocked! that I still listened and not Magic, he said You are not the audience we want!!!!!

I am as much in the link to mid 20's all of the young people that I am God Father to have either left Uni or nearly completing, they still express their opinions to me, as do the young artists I am still involved with in the USA as well as here in the UK. But further to your comments Radio in Merseyside and the North West has always been different than the rest of the UK and yes Slovakia! people are loyal and even though figures are dropping they still love Radio.

Radio will keep developing if allowed, it just concerns me still the way UK Radio had gone with the few major owners being in such control, that is not what I wanted for Radio!

John

Well thats not strictly correct is it?..not unless the Oxford definition of what constitutes 'radio' has been re-written and I've missed it. 'Internet radio' is a complete misnomer..what we have are 'Internet Broadcast Stations'. Radio,by definition, must travel through the air (ether) to the point of receipt from the point of transmission (origin). To my mind when, on a national scale, some major emergency unfolds, we will be asked to tune in our radio's ( analogue radio at that !...not ' log on on-line')-which if the sh*t has really hit the fan you probably won't be able to do anyway! My trusty wind up radio remains carefully stored; ready for use...one dark dismal day. eerrr..Happy New Year?
Jim

So in my case I have an antenna, aerial what ever.
The radio then picks up the audio from the station(s).

The wifi router is an antenna, cos it picks things up.
The wifi radio is in no way connected by wire, just wireless, so it fits your description :-)
Therefore, when I tune into Chris Moyles in the morning it comes to me via a RADIO – mind you it's easier now as I have a handset to select the station I want and I can also store the favourites even easier than the old push button presets in my Ford Cortina LOL.

By the way, most stations don't transmit from the studio location so the point of transmission can vary a lot – look at how international stations still use remote HF transmitters to prove my point, often more than one.

Regards
Eric

Anorak Nation seems to be dominated by daft pedants these days.  If it's not John telling me that my radio station - heard in 172 countries by the way - isn't "real", it's Jim dragging out a dictionary definition that was written at the beginning of the last century.

It's this kind of keech that makes me despair about AN.  And it reminds me of an old song....

"Peek a boo, I can't see you, everything must be grand.  Book a pee, you can't see me, when I've got me head in the sand."

This is the 21st Century, not the dawn of the 20th.  Ask the kids of today what radio is and they'll give you the true broad definition I gave earlier.  They listen to Podcasts, or to FM on their phones, or streaming audio while they're surfing.  They don't have an ancient relic with vales that light up and listen to a low bandwidth AM signal that suffers from fading, interference and poor mono audio.

Try your arguments on them, gentlemen, and they will look at you as if you entered the country in a Tardis!

John - yes, I respect other people;s opinions when they are sensible, but like any other educated person I try to enlighten those whose views are based on lack of knowledge or understanding.

We could probably argue about this for days but looking up the definition of the word 'Radio' on various dictionary sites , the explenation of sending signals over some distance 'wirelessly' and the use of 'electrical waves' come up repeatedly. The word 'broadcast' also comes up. All of these definitions imply that there are no wires envolved to connect the transmitter to the receiver so to call internet streams Radio seems to be a grey area. In my mind , saying that you have a Wi fi radio that connects to your router wirelessly which makes it wireless is like saying that if your home or office landline has a cordless DECT handset connected to it so you can walk around the house or office with it, without wires , makes it the same as a cell phone. Clearly it is not the same at all as the last few metres of distance does not make it truly portable. Having put those points up for discussion does not mean that i do not believe in internet radio myself however. It definately has a place i think ,primarily at opposite ends of the market place. International broadcasters can save a fortune on hopelessly outdated power hungry short wave and medium wave transmitters to cross continents, and likewise , micro stations run on a tiny bubget can reach their audience ,in both cases with high quality sound (potentially) provided the listener has internet access at their location.

The problem with dictionary sites is whilst they are in the purist sense correct, that doesn't mean the public still follows a definition.

As we all know 10 million people get telly from satellite in the UK. Not the brand used.
People use a vacuum cleaner, but many say I am going to hoover up.

Do we text or SMS?

We can do a Delia, Google, Facebook. People don't say I am going to listen online to a broadcaster via my multimedia phone – they just say I'm listening to the radio.

Some still say they are going to dial something, they mean call :-)

Tony is correct in that we are in 2010 now and the beauty is that language is a dynamic entity, well unless you speak Latin.
We can all use dictionary sites to our benefit. Wireless was once a term used to describe radio, today it means what to the vast majority?

Eric

Anorak Nation seems to be dominated by daft pedants these days. If it's not John telling me that my radio station – heard in 172 countries by the way – isn't "real t's this kind of keech that makes me despair about AN. >

This is the 21st Century, not the dawn of the 20th. Ask the kids of today what radio is and they'll give you the true broad definition I gave earlier. They listen to Podcasts, or to FM on their phones, or streaming audio while they're surfing. They don't have an ancient relic with vales that light up and listen to a low bandwidth AM signal that suffers from fading, interference and poor mono audio.

John – yes, I respect other people;s opinions when they are sensible, but like any other educated person I try to enlighten those whose views are based on lack of knowledge or understanding.
...................................................

Tony, good on you that your Internet broadcasts are reaching 172 countries, how many listeners at one time in each then? with this mass internet broadcasting media empire! the BBC must be getting really worried.

It is so easy to always put others down, such wild claims as "lack of knowledge and understanding", but that is when you are always right and of course never can be wrong!

Ask those kids of the 21st Century even with their ipods, they are always willing to be at least honest these daysm to admit even they sometimes can be wrong! unlike those perhaps brought up in the old BBC way of thinking!

Anyway I thought that with the young podcasts are now yesterday, that's what I am being told! be careful you don't get left behind Tony – LOL! – young people never like those that think they know everything!

To me Anorak nation is populated by some who remember that broadcasting is today (generally on a world-wide scale) tightly state controlled; the very reason that in the first place led to the birth of 'free' broadcasting as we have known it in the last century and the first decade of this current one.I've said it before here and I'll say it again: Your digital revolution is being allowed because the state is comfortable that it firmly controls what it is allowing you to say and it knows that if you were to gain any sort of mass popularity that would in any way challenge the states ultimate control, then the state will simply switch you off;no troops, navy forces, or officers of the law with an edict of 'reasonable force' would be needed.('Reasonable force' has been defined more accurately recently for within this nations borders; but many of us here know that the definition of 'reasonable force' outside of this Countries territorial borders/waters could well mean execution). We are holders of this illeagal ,unpalatable truth on behalf of the U.K. population and I for one am not happy with it, and believe it needs challenging and therefore the best means of free mass communication is to use a medium of maximum coverage with a widely available means of reception, that is not easy for the state to stop. Certainly the state could very easily sink a ship fitted with large AM tx's, but do you not realise that by the time that happens you will in no way be living in a free liberal democratic society anymore? Thats what the radio-ship would be doing there in the first place. Perhaps that point was actually passed in July 1985 when the French Government sank the Greenpeace ship 'Rainbow Warrior' in Auckland harbour, New Zealand; we as a nation completely missed what the implications of that act were.

It's this kind of keech that makes me despair about AN. And it reminds
me of an old song....

"Peek a boo, I can't see you, everything must be grand. Book a pee, you
can't see me, when I've got me head in the sand."

 With the above that I have just written; maybe it's now time for you to think long and hard as to whether it is yourself with your head in the sand, and that your digital revolution is not all that it is made out to be:It just represents ultimate state control,that this Anorak for one, does not get excited by.

They don't have an ancient relic
with vales that light up and listen to a low bandwidth AM signal that
suffers from fading, interference and poor mono audio.

..but one day they may well be seeking out one of the many hundreds of millions that are in circulation because they're sick of what the staate has been feeding them. and one thing is for sure..they won't need a Broadband subscription and/or a cellphone contract....just some double 'A' batteries... Jim.

If you recall me buying a new car radio, well a car actually, it did eventually come with an AM button but it doesn't work :-)
My significant other half looked at me is dismay when I took the antenna of and taped a piece of stiff copper wire to that antenna base. I explained I only wanted to see if the AM was dead or the antenna was FM only. She added a comment, AM is dead. Well it kind of is. I did hear
1440 and a couple of German stations and managed to get WS. That was followed by a comment along the lines of that's not good sound (rough translation from Slovak).
In most countries AM is used, or was, to feed the masses with messages from the state – actually the propaganda machine of choice was/is AM. Maybe that's why so few are interested, not withstanding there's a problem with the sound quality.
Now my better half is so NOT an anorak. Luckily her brother is a bit of an anorak so we play anorkay stuff.
But that doesn't detract from the fact that audiences are no longer interested in AM signals like they were in 1967. Which reminds me.
In 1963 there was a massive drive to sell portable devices that received the broadcasts of free radio stations. Funnily enough, as the cost of a free radio receiver, in relative terms, is cheaper today I'm wondering why you are not supportive of free radio receivers.
As a former radio colleague challenged me to prove, I drove from home to the office listening to a UK station is my car thanks to wifi. Yep the drive takes about 15 mins and not a problem as most of that time I was using free access internet – what I mean by that is I wasn't even paying for the net.
I guess there is always a possibility that where I live now is so PRO all things Internet as they know what it's like to be fed a diet of propaganda. They really understand the beauty of being free and have embraced that in a big way.

Eric

PS One caveat, the above applies to Europe, in Africa and other regions delivery methods, for now, need to be different.