In a partnership between the IWA and Mike Bickett, interested parties were invited to complete a survey on the future of Internet Radio. The respondents ranged from Internet Radio professionals to interested listeners. Some responses came through the related Internet Radio Investigation website which discusses many of the points mentioned below through video, audio and written reports. Others responded to invitations from the IWA and other publications.

How would you describe the state of Internet radio today?

Half of our respondents said they felt Internet Radio was something that is "happening now," rather than something for the future. However few of them agreed with the opinion that it was "the new pirate radio."

Of the current problems that were consistently mentioned portability and quality of delivery (both in terms of content and bandwidth) were the main issues many respondents felt held the medium back. One respondent commented "Portability is the issue. Mobile telephony will provide some access, but probably at a price and DAB will be an insurmountable threat."

There was some disagreement over computers being used to deliver radio - one respondent said "Not many PC users would listen to internet radio. I would not use my PC as a radio," whereas another (more typical) response was "I always listen to Internet Radio when I'm using my PC." - more than one respondent commented on the prevalance of at-work listeners and resultant opportunities for the media, particularly with regard to targeted advertising. Opinion was also divided over the usefulness of modem connections - one comment was: "I am keen to use this new technology, and have tried a few times but whenever I've tried even with a good bandwidth (DSL) I've encountered annoying breaks in streaming," although others respondents said 28k connections worked well.

One respondent remarked that Internet radio was "in development now, but emerging trends will shape the future". Another looked forward to the unlimited opportunities offered by the medium: "Internet radio is what radio once was in the early days of FM. It is what radio should be now, offering the listener anything he can imagine."

50% of respondents said Internet radio is happening now.

16% said it's something for the future

11% stated it's needed to boost the radio market.

5% billed Internet radio as the new pirate radio.

16% gave it no future.

34% tune in everyday; perhaps suggesting it is becoming a habit.

26% had listened that week.

23% Rarely

15% never

What are your favourite channels?

61% cited the great variety one respondent adding the comment that net radio could provide "culture specific output, not available on the radio dial in most areas."

This enthusiasm is tempered with the fact that 10% found the medium interesting rather than listenable, one respondent claiming: "All the technology available cannot substitute for quality presenters," and another fearing "I do hope the variety will not suffer when the big players come on board."

On the whole respondents suggested a willingness to tolerate a less professional approach to output as long as it offered something interesting : "There's obviously going to be a difference in sound quality between the more amateur enthusiast sites and those with money - due to the costs of streaming good high levels of audio. However, it's a bit like the off-shore radio of old, i.e. if the content is good - you'll quite happily put up with the lower quality stuff," commented one respondent. Another claimed: "In radio, the benefit of variety is not the desire to flick around so much as the ability to find something genuinely suited to your tastes."

It was also commented that "Low running costs are an advantage, so low listeners is not a huge problem."

Most were aware of broadband and agreed on its vital importance - this ties in with the general response that modem connections provided a frustrating low-quality listening experience. One comment was typical: "It doesn't really work without broadband as quality of service issues become important at peak times," although another argued "radio is good on narrowband. The importance is cheap connectivity." The latter point reflects what appears to be a common opinion - part of the importance of broadband is the lack of additional cost caused by being billed for staying connected to the Internet for a period of time.

Results for the importance of Peer-to-Peer, suggest it is not familiar technology to many people,.Although some 40% suggested it would be helpful other respondents commented they were unsure. One claimed: "Just the techie geeks will get involved in this one, the ones who are probably pirating music."

Another suggested "This technology helps keep the biggest cost - bandwidth - at reasonable levels for a successful business model to be developed," although this opinion was contradicted by a respondent who claimed "(P2P is) Not entirely necessary - the bandwidth internet radio requires is only as expensive as service providers want it to be."

The most even spread answer was for mobile phones, comments reflecting a degree of inflexibility towards altering perceptions as to what this item should be used for - respondents adding such comments as "why would you listen to radio through your phone?" and that "its one for the kids."

Cost was again cited: "I don't want to have to pay to listen to radio on my mobile phone. There's plenty of stuff available on my car radio for a start. Anyway, aren't phones for ...er making phone calls?" Issues of battery life and missing phonecalls were also pointed out.

The importance of in-car listening technologies was rated highly, one comment noting: "I think the car is the most important market for advertising revenue where you have a captive audience." These sentiments were expanded on by a respondent who noted: "This can be tailored to the individual, as the internet can take important information from the 'cell' that the car is in. It will be able to alert you to delays, and will be of alot of use to advertisers, who can target people in a particular cell."

Another noted: "This will be the big breakthrough. Analogue music radio in the car is largely a waste of time ... and DAB is very patchy in terms of coverage and content."

Among those less convinced in this respect one commented: "Again, this will help in the ubiquitous consumption of Internet radio, but it is not vital because Internet radio's best immediate niche, as well as what differentiates it from other media, is its ability to target people in the workplace."

Another respondent thought that in-car technology may actually be detrimental: "Such technology will either make the bland, banal, lack of personality, liner-card led monopolies to do decent radio to stop people finding alternative services, or they'll buy the other platforms either out completely or by station, so we'll probably end up with the same domination - I have no faith whatsoever in the ability for the industry to retain diversity in ownership."

60% agreed with the idea that Europe should allow small non-profit stations to pay a yearly flat fee for royalties, although over a quarter of respondents selected 'don't know'. One comment received from a major broadcaster disagreed, asking: "Why should small, one-man radio stations who are competing on an equal footing to larger companies have a payment advantage?" Others disagreed on other grounds: No royalties should be paid by webcasters because webcasts promote increased sales of recorded music -effectively webcasts are "free advertising" for artists and record companies." Some respondents claimed the agreement was "too exclusionary" and needed to encompass other small stations that were not non-profit.

Asked about the possibility of major labels following the AIM example of some independent labels and creating a blanket deal to allow their records to be played online, the response was split between the yes's (44%) and the don't knows (45%) with only 5% saying no. One respondent stated that the big five record companies are stalling until the technology is in place to check the content of your PC. Others commented on the "total nonsense" of existing arrangements and need for some sort of new payment system - although as to how else it could be done one respondent commented : "It must happen one day but don't know in what form. The type of form could be a make or break issue for internet radio."

Other respondents were convinced that "the majors won't get involved unless they have to," one adding "without political pressure, majors will probably not be forced to do anything that allows their content to be used in any way they don't want it to be.".

The most commonly cited argument for not regulating (32% of respondents) was that Internet radio does not use the public airways: "There's infinite space (on the net) so regulation can't be justified." Another respondent claimed: "You can't regulate it - that's the point of the Internet!"

However 45% of respondents were still in favour of regulation, most citing that regulation would make the medium more well respected and improve quality of output. One respondent noted: "It requires legislation in order to be free. By making it official, more money will go into develop the technology, marketing and user interactivity. Imagine pop ups in time with the Ads!"

Another point raised was the diffiiculty involved in regulating across borders - respondents noting that a UK body would be powerless against stations based elsewhere.

13% of respondents did not know whether regulation was necessary.

Respondents were not convinced that Interactivity is used very well on Internet radio sites - only 5% saying it was. Most thought it to be 'okay' (39%) and 35% said interactivity is under-used. 6% said interactivity was not used at all. The tremendous variation in the quality of websites is perhaps reflected in these replies.

The graph above shows that most respondents regard listener interactivity on websites as vital or important.

How can interactivity best be used by Internet Radio webcasters?

This was a well replied question. The most popular suggestions were for the listener to be involved with the show ("which digital TV hasn't utilised yet"), and empowering them - "So that the listener has an input to the content." Other ideas included providing real time artist/song information, surveys, marketing / promotion, feedback, competitions and fun (downloads or games).

Comments also generally agreed that it must be simple and be designed to breed loyalty.

Other respondents were not convinced: "Good radio doesn't need gimmicks," said one, with another adding: "The problem of Interactivity is that it takes Internet radio in a direction where it can be less and less called radio and should almost be called on-demand jukebox services. There should continue to be programming done by radio stations in order to put together a specific product for people and it should be done in ways that continue to help to promote the music or content being programmed. Therefore, the best interactivity a station can offer is the ability to learn more about what they are hearing and purchase what they like from it. This is the use of interactivity most compatible with developing a profitable business model around the medium."

Internet only stations were deemed viable now by 42% of respondents and in the future by 31%. 13% thought not and 13% didn't know.

Content (29%) was deemed the most important in attracting advertisers with localised targeting (21%), networking stations (19%) while "waiting, they will come anyway" scored 18%. This fairly even spread suggests the business model for Internet Radio is still uncertain.

Other suggestions included adoption of industry wide standard ("The industry needs to develop strong and widely accepted standards and practices for selling, measuring, reporting and confirming delivery and results of advertising campaigns on Internet radio"), monitoring why people change channels, accurate measurement of audiences, viral marketing, reliability of service and ease of use. Two respondents distinguished between those stations that need to make money ("large stations = ads, small stations = individually financed").

One respondent commented: "Local advertisers are unlikely to be attracted to a media that is not locally targeted."

Nearly 13% mentioned subscription, although it was noted this relied on a station "providing an additional service not normally possible with standard broadcasting." 5% of respondents mentioned stations that survive from listener donations: "This works for http://www.digitallyimported.com and they are the largest internet only radio station in the world."

Other ideas included forming "an internet chart based on sales of tracks available exclusively via the web, and tie in royalties to pay the stations," "serve the community - simply give the listener what they want", "join with other media, papers, magazines, retailers etc", "produce compilation CDs and other merchandise" and: "be a shop window for a particular record label - and so a promotional expense."

Others took an alternate stand-point: "A net radio stream is just the audio equivalent of a website - not all websites are "viable" but neither are they expected to be. Large websites with loads of visitors can make a profit through running ads - either their own, or syndicated. Small websites are funded by individuals. Net radio is just the same."

Some respondents did not think Internet radio could be viable, commenting on subscription services:: "Why would you want to pay for something you get free already- technology for technologies sake!"

Respondents were split as to whether the future of Internet radio was broadcasting or niche-casting; i.e. large of small audiences. However, several offered the alternative that both could live side-by-side: "Definitely a market for both! Broad-casting won't be limited by geography, and niche-casting will make specialised stations viable," being a typical comment.

Many of those who believed it could only be niche-casting cited the strength of existing broadcasters: "Mainstream / DAB are too big to compete with."

62 replies were received, 31 of whom worked in the radio industry.

All answers above are expressed as percentages (totals may not always add up to 100%; the remainder did not answer).