Will the radio of tomorrow be visual?
J ean-Lou Bertin, ex-SIS, Radio Contact and Mint, precursor of visual radio and current director of DH Radio.
The radio has to offer image as added value, at a time when the technology allows to receive on the same medium radio, TV, telephone, emails, games etc. There is of course no question for her to “make the TV”. The visual must constitute a “plus” at the disposal of the listener who wishes, without blurring the listening or is indispensable.
In your opinion, will the radio of tomorrow be able to do without images?
No. We are at the moment of a great (r) evolution, a bit like when the first free radios appeared. We know that in the future, the radio will be necessarily entirely digital (we will have only the supports of the tablet type, smartphone, PC and others). We also know that radio has always been able to adapt to its environment. As the smartphone is a multi-media phone, TV, newspaper, e-mail, games and more, it is essential to know as precisely as possible how people consume radio, In order to be able to offer the most appropriate added value given the latest technical developments. And, in my opinion, the image can precisely constitute this added value for radio.
How can radio remain a specific medium if all the media begin to make sound, image and text?
The limit not to be crossed is precisely to prevent the radio from making television. The image should not take precedence over the sound. If that is the case, it is no longer the case. No question, of course, that the image is essential to the understanding of what is happening, nor does it take up so much space that we no longer listen to what is being said. The image must be a “plus”. Because if one loses the sense of the radio itself, the radio medium is dead. So no, the radio should not be on TV. The new media allow us: the radio has to come up with the image for the one who wants it at a given moment. At this point, a person is listening. He hears something that challenges him and about what he would like to have visual content. He then becomes a spectator,
What is the specificity of radio?
It is the only media that allows you to do something else while listening to it. There is also a very important social dimension. Radio is talking about people. She talks to people. She gives them the floor. She makes them play. Give them gifts. That’s what the radio is all about. In addition, the image can bring additional information such as maps, videos, Photo Visual, dress-up or in parallel. Not “in place of”. The consumer must not make a choice. One must be the complement of the other.
Should the radio now make more than oral content?
The basis of the work actually continues to be to make content, but not just sound.
What will happen to the radios that will not?
It all depends on their content. Those that can claim to have an atypical and completely unique content will come out.
When did we see the image coming to the radio for the first time?
In 2008, I built a whole project for Mint: Mint Vision. I had designed it because Mint had not gotten a network. We had to find another means of dissemination: it was the web at the time. The models were made for a project of one hour a day. Unfortunately, the crisis went through there and we gave up. Then there was Contact Vision and then all the others. We are a lot in the clip, it’s nice, but there is still much to invent. At DH Radio, we are going to start a new project that goes in this direction next spring. I work with two companies on a radio system project that pilots dressing.
Is not there also an economic interest? I imagine that the image brings a “bonus” in terms of advertising revenue?
Not only that, but clicks give a lot of super-interesting information at the marketing level. We know who stayed for how long to watch or listen to what: a mine.
Yvan Hanon, master of practical training at the Son-Radio department of Ihecs
Radio is the medium of the imagination: a voice creates a story. Stick to him pictures and the charm is broken! The poor quality cameras installed in the studios upset the speaker as the receiver of the message. Without informative value, they nevertheless draw on them the concentration of a listener turned viewer against his will. And it is the message that is deforced.
What are the advantages of radio?
Its strong point is the imagination it creates around a presenter, an animator, a journalist. Seeing it removes the charm and identity of the radio.
How do the cameras installed in the studios change the way they do and listen to the radio?
A moderator or a journalist does not say the same thing when he is only in front of a microphone or when a camera is added. The reception of the message is also different: see how the person who expresses himself is dressed, what he looks like, if he is tired, has stage fright, influence how to listen to his voice and hear his words. Moreover, radio has this specificity to enable the listener not to have to concentrate solely on it. He has the leisure to do something else at the same time, which the image does not allow. This attracts and monopolizes all the attention even though it brings nothing from an informative point of view.
The mixture of genres hurts the media.
We are already sufficiently immersed in a culture of the image that to add to them where they have no surplus value. Nor do listeners need them to listen, even if the television set-top boxes via which they can access the radio make them believe. It should also be noted that equipping the studios is a significant additional cost.
Is this a way to increase the force of attraction and interaction?
I do not think the auditors are callers. They remember the name of the presenter, the timbre of his voice, his talk, his journalistic quality or animation, but not his face … I understand the effect of attraction that the image can have: a Shared mood on social networks, like the chroniclers of Matin Première, has a considerable impact. People prefer to click on an image than on a Soundcloud player … I would not go so far as to say that these cameras constitute a marketing or star-making argument for presenters. This choice is more a matter of fear.
That of the strength of the radio. We imagine that the media consumer will no longer listen to the radio if there is no picture.
At the birth of television, many predict the death of radio. We are here in the same situation: without the video, the radio will go out with a slow fire?
Effectively. Yet the radio is absolutely not at risk. This obviously does not exclude consideration of other numerical improvements, such as increased radio. There is progress to be made at this level and we will have to answer this question: what is added to a sound information? Not a camera, of poor quality, automated, in which we see (and still) the presenters in front of a microphone. In any event, I reject the assertion that the future of radio must necessarily be through video. I may be a resistant. But I am far from being the only one … This opinion is widely shared in the profession and among the journalists who practice in radio.