Here's a thought: take the high paced social-centric approach of Digg, and combine it with the interactivity of requesting songs on the radio. What would you have? Digg for radio.
I've been thinking a lot about the interactivity of satellite radio. How feedback from listeners is received by both satcasters and how this experience can be better applied online. Right now the communication is mostly one-way: coming from either Sirius and XM, and "pushed" to the listener. The closest example of seamless interaction from the listener is found on XM's Top 20 on 20 channel (which I think is great idea, just poorly executed online). The idea of course could be easily adopted by Sirius (or regular radio for that matter, but... regular radio sucks).
Control
Part of the attraction of the iPod is the sense of control. You can customize, rank, and make the playlist "yours." But part of the attraction of satellite radio is it's ease-of-use. Those same control abilities that the iPod allows, are (quite honestly) a pain in the ass to many music listeners. Let's be realistic, it takes a lot of time to build an extensive music collection - and even more time to customize it all to your liking.
With control comes effort. And sometimes it's nice to just sit back and have the music flow to you. Some people prefer absolute control, others don't. I think it's fair to split these two types of listeners up into two defined groups.
"Passive" vs "Active"
Some people listen to music in the background. Some people listen in the foreground. These could be labeled as "passive" and "active" listeners. Passive listeners will just turn on a channel (or pick a playlist) and play it at a low volume while they're doing something else. Active listeners will crank up the volume and groove out to whatever is on, dancing and singing along with the songs.
But both listeners will inevitably get frustrated at some point with what they're hearing.
Passive listeners will get frustrated with repetition, or with a string of songs that are annoying. Even though they're passive, they're still hearing what's coming in - probably over a long period of time. So if they hear the same songs over and over again, guess what? They take action. This is the problem with the iPod. No matter what, you're almost guaranteed to have heard the songs on your iPod before. There's nothing new. These listeners will rather just listen to the radio, as long as it matches their music tastes.
Active listeners get frustrated when the song on "sucks" or doesn't match the current emotion they're feeling. This also applies to songs that they've heard TOO many times - it can move from a favorite to the Suck Category pretty quickly. Active listeners with huge MP3 collections will most likely suffer from "iPod A.D.D." (listen to the first five seconds of a song, acknowledge it, click "next" - wash, rinse, repeat). These hyperactive listeners want the most control, but that doesn't mean that they don't yearn for new music. In fact, the Active listener would want to ensure that they're on top of the latest music of their genre (and this doesn't necessarily mean "pop" btw).
Improving Interactivity
Phoning in a song request is just so 90s. Sure, it's nice - and necessary - when you're on the road or at the job site. But this 2007, and if you're not enabling the online user, you're being ignorant.
That's where this "Digg for Radio" concept comes in. You can engage both the Passive and Active listener, and automate the process while you're at it. Allow users to vote, and immediately see the result is satisfying. But for every voter, there's a hundred "watchers" who just want to see what's going on. You get to appeal to these people as well. The watchers are keeping in tune with the trends, and having a little fun while listening to the radio.
With this concept the channels could appeal to both types of listeners. It's actually not much of a change to the current "song request" system, just adding a higher level of interactivity.
And while you're at it, why not add a deeper sense of community to the votes? Why not allow listeners to comment on the song they just voted for? By soliciting feedback from their listeners, you learn a bit about your audience while you provide them with an outlet. Plus listeners get to connect with those who share similar music interest.
It's just a thought, and maybe just a pipe dream. Thoughts?
Dugg, digg it to the front page:
http://digg.com/tech_news/CONCEPT_Digg_Voting_System_for_Radio_and_Popular_Songs
I think you are missing the point of SatRad..
Get an iPod...
I don't get it. How is this "missing the point" of satellite radio?
Silly now that WiFi is becoming standard on sat radio they could do this type of "feedback" on the screen. I would really love the functionality of jumping from station to station when your preset comes on so i dont have to stop what i am doing to hear the song i have flagged as my favorite.
The best thing about SatRad is the discovery (and many times the re-discovery)of unknown (to the listener) artists. If Sirius and XM started planning playlists around what people want to hear, it would end up being another Clear Channel type radio with little from lesser or unknown artists.. (maybe thats why you like XM 20 on 20 so much, its a clear channel station). Open your mind and your ass will follow..
It would be amazing to have an new portable that allows the user to interact and press a touchscreen to vote for a song. I wonder if this is possible but it would be amazing.
You never would've guessed it Ryan but the guy I know that manages Digg says this idea has been passed around many times. I think it's a good idea... "Listeners are the DJs"
DudeManCentral: Pssst... Top 20 on 20 isn't a Clear Channel channel. But, hey, that's besides the point.
This is about improving the interactive experience on satellite radio. Not relinquishing control from the programmers. It's simply a concept for how we request songs, and form a sense of community along the way. Discovery (and re-discovery) of music is still there.
But please, continue with your personal attacks, they're proving your point perfectly.
So, every channel would turn into some Mob rule format? What makes you think that I want to listen to your favorites? Guys, get an iPod. Then you the "Listeners are the DJs"! and no one else has to hear the crap that you like.. (I'm sure its not crap, just wanted to prove a point here..)
Radio is simple, if you like it, listen to it, if not, change the channel....
Right, and that's part of the reason why people are opting for iPods over radio. Create an environment that combines the interactivity plus the easy-discovery, and you've got a winning combo.
I'm not saying that the ENTIRE channel gets programmed by the people. Just that there be an interactive VOTING system.
The channels you're listening to TODAY already have people calling in to make requests. This is no different. It just makes it easier (and more fun).
OK, OK.. I give up..
I don't agree..
Lesser and unknown artists will almost never be played and the most "popular" will be played too much...
Put me down for "Freebird" and "Stairway to Heaven"..
;)
Increasing the interaction is exactly what satrad should do to differentiate their product. I dont know if this is the way to do it, like they mentioned earlier it could take away from the dj and programming...But Im sure many other ideas are possible.
I Think the problem with a one way signal is cutting out any options of voting/shopping for songs/purchasing products/ and other interactive idea. This is where wifi comes in of course.
I raised the idea on another post about creating a separate channel for individuals who could pay to have their OWN music uploaded. Set up an american idol type module where I could upload tracks that people would vote for. This could be seperated by months such as Techno..Hip Hop/Freestyling/rock. This would be great for exposure (kind of how raw dog is for comedians.) Even if they werent interested in blowing up peopel could have fun just hearing themselves on the radio. I would recomend a pay per track upload.
I dont know how legal issues would play in but couldn;t sirius have rights to music that did get popular. Maybe even start a new music revolution where they could have control over these new artists...make music free again.
Anyone else have ideas for interaction???
getting in the trenches ryan? its good to see. i think all of these new ideas are great for brain storming and developing all of this stuff. the fact that the wheels are spinning and people are always thinking of new stuff is good for our industry. i like the idea. maybe not for the whole music scene on sat. radio; maybe change is scary.
Yeah totaly agree. I run an MP3 blog, and have been working on this. The site is basically ready, but there are a few bugs, so I am still waiting to go public. It is what you said, minus the satelite radio, but instead with music blogs. Users can submit songs, or their music blog rss feed. You can check it out at dillonmp3.com/vote/. But like I said, it still has bugs, and there isn't much music on it (just one thing right now I think.)
Hmm, the story seems to have gotten up on the frontpage of digg.com itself!
Front page of digg. hope you can handle the bandwidth ryan.
orbitcast is blowing up
What about payola? How would the radio channels make their secret profit (that's free from taxes)?
Have you seen yes.com? The chat rooms have feeds of the songs playing, and you can vote for/against any song as it plays, which impacts the charts for each station and nationally.
You don't get it.. 90% of Sat radio is voice tracked, just like your local clear channel stations..it is all
the same robotic radio
I thought about doing something like this, But yeh the bandwidth.
I kind of figure that sites like last.fm and Pandora already run with this kind of idea in a social networking context.
The concept of radio is flawed from the very beginning. Radio stations are paid to play singles from artists' catalogues. So that means you'll only get to choose from those tracks by an artist that have been paid for. Now whether you vote or not, your listening experience will still be tainted...
Isn't the past tense of "hit" also "hit"?
I don't think that "hitted" is a word.
Ever seen trig.com ?