Another Sign of HD Radio's impending demise

[Mike Walker]

Warm bodies being "served" isn't an answer to the question "not very many people are listening to hd" Obviously the number of listeners is small. It's an answer to "only a small percentage of stations are HD". Then it becomes a question of how widely it's available, NOT how many yet have the radios. Most people are already listening to stations that broadcast in HD, though it's true that most of 'em have never heard their favorite stations(s) that way...yet.

This same comparison between people served, vs. actual audience was very much in effect a very few years ago with digital tv. It's why it's so critically important (to the success of a new format) to get those big stations serving large population centers converted first!

 

[R.F. Burns]

As I said before...there are statistics, and then there are statistics. The number of STATIONS is largely unimportant. It's the number of WARM BODIES being served by one or more HD. THAT NUMBER IS HUGE!

Or, let's look at it a slightly different way. Sure, there are plenty of warm bodies who have the potential to hear an HD signal. However, are any except the ones who acutally have an HD receiver actually being "served"? Can you really say somebody is being served by a signal when they can't hear it?

Also, out of the entire 15M-plus population of NYC, how many of them can even afford two hundred bucks for an HD Radio? Just my opinion, but I really think the whole key to HD Radio succeeding is getting radios in homes and cars. Unless the price drops dramatically (say, 85%) I do not ever personally envision a situation where every household with the potential to hear an HD signal will actually hear one.

Considering that an HD radio is less expensive than an I-Pod, I'd say that the expense of a HD radio is not a major issue and considering that a subscription to XM or Sirius is nearly $150 a year, that's about the same price as one of the cheaper HD radios and the prices will continue to fall. Portable units are around the corner so that shouldn't be an issue either. We're at the very infacny of this technology. Prices will fall and systems will improve. I'm reminded of my first VHS recorder which was a home unit (portables hadn't been produced yet) and for $700, it recorded video with an acceptable picture but nothing like my Super VHS provided or my under $300 DVD recorder can do. It did have a wired remote control. In NY there are many more HD stations on the air currently then there were AM stereo stations even at its peak.

 

[wgliradio]

My point: HD is being promoted and installed in virtually every single viable station in th etop 100 markets, where over two-thirds of the US population resides. This is all that is really needed at the very beginning for HD to be highly successful.

Actually, the top 100 markets represent nearly 70% of US radio revenue... just the top 10 markets represent 30% of it.

This is all you need to know. Folks, it's over. Let's not beat the dead horse. Look, we all know it's always been about the money. Even in the "good old days" it was about the money, but there were creative ways to go about presenting a radio broadcast so at least the listener was duped enough into thinking that maybe, just maybe, the radio station actually had something there for them... most of that was because the FCC ruled with an iron fist and would yank a license if you even glanced the wrong way.

But they've won... and now not only is it about money, but the sheer arrogance lets it show each and every day. Sure the American public is too stupid to realize they're paying $3.19 a gallon for gas, but they won't do anything about it, because they can't. This is no different. Radio will continue to present crap, push flawed technology, spin the reasons why, all in the name of squeezing every last dollar out of it. Soon, we'll all have stations catering to Males born from May 1980 to July 1984 because that is the only demo that will be attractive. After that, commando agents will raid your home and remove your radio, or it will just self destruct since you will no longer be good enough to listen.

If you have a brain, you might as well turn it off right now.

So let them. They've already removed the public trust thing as much as possible. Equal time means no bottom line. Is it worth it? Is it? Let them have their digital revolution. I see it every day... nobody cares. If it goes off, and we have had to turn it off in Market #1 for different reasons.... NOBODY CALLS. NOBODY OWNS THE GODDAMN RADIOS... the only people who care are people who either

1) WRITE ABOUT IT,

2) SELL OR BUILD THE EQUIPMENT,

3) OWN THE PATENTS

4) HAVE INVESTED IN IT.

5) STAND TO MAKE MONEY OFF IT IF IT FLIES. (see all of the above)

If radio would worry about the RIGHT things (programming other than to 25 year old drunk males, HR 2060)... cause when the stream stops... the phone DOES NOT stop ringing.

If not, the blood is on their own hands. It has become so micromanaged, and that is the correct term, that it is niched itself into such a small corner that programmers don't even know what to do with themselves except sit in fetal positions under their desks staring at their Blackberries waiting for instructions from someone else who doesn't have a clue.

And this is what we care about?

Someday the sun will supernova... radio has spent another week barking up the wrong tree. Sad.

 

[clouseau]

<in reference to HD radio>

...the only people who care are people who either

1) WRITE ABOUT IT,

2) SELL OR BUILD THE EQUIPMENT,

3) OWN THE PATENTS

4) HAVE INVESTED IN IT.

5) STAND TO MAKE MONEY OFF IT IF IT FLIES. (see all of the above)

OK I get it. You're not happy. But I would be remiss if I did not address this. Not to beat you down, but to put forth a different view.

Can we go through these one at a time?

1) WRITE ABOUT IT,

OK I write HERE. Does that count? I would suspect not, so this does not apply to me.

2) SELL OR BUILD THE EQUIPMENT,

I wish. I am in radio, not radio equipment.

3) OWN THE PATENTS

Heck, I'm luck to own my station's domain name. Not me.

4) HAVE INVESTED IN IT.

Not me again. I've worked too long in radio to invest in it.

5) STAND TO MAKE MONEY OFF IT IF IT FLIES.

You might have me there. If the AM where I work improves to FM quality, there could be some money for me in there. I'm not holding my breath on that, but it COULD happen. I also own a very small FM operation which is NOT HD. Maybe someday, but not now. Again I don't think I'm in what you would call #5. However...

I think all of those in radio fall into group #5. If this thing flies, we ALL have the ability to possibly increase the SIZE of the pie. That's the whole deal. And it's a BIG deal.

I know you don't agree, but I felt pointing out that your post mischaractarizes all HD supporters needed to be done.

Clouseau

 

[wgliradio]

OK I write HERE. Does that count? I would suspect not, so this does not apply to me.

No.. those who write in trade publications to further their own cause.

I think all of those in radio fall into group #5. If this thing flies, we ALL have the ability to

Radio is looking at the wrong way at getting to the pie, because radio refuses to think outside the box. Here the box is 88-108 and 540-1700. Think about where content needs to be distributed. A digital platform will cripple our analog broadcast infastructure, but because we cannot think outside the box in the future, or are so afraid to admit that someday that little piece of paper we hold so dear that says "yes, you can broadcast" may not mean a hill of beans as we chart a whole new frontier that is already expanding. Where do we go if we have no more bandwidth? Outside the box and work on developing REAL tech that will deliver our content broadband to our listeners.

But we are afraid. Those who hold licenses are in an elite club. In the new frontier, the club is not so elite and resistance and holding on to the past (analog broadcasting with digital information) that I find it's ironic when people in the industry cry about holding on to the analog past of broadcasting... the whole idea of digital radio is to secure the spectrum of the past so that the elite club can continue to try and profit off of it. What most of the viable stations have already done is progam so poorly as to start to move people away from radio. The Eduardos or Gleasons (whichever name he's using today) will spin it into subsections of subsections of research of pregnant moms from shopping malls who light scented candles while listening to Delilah at night to justify that in 3 years the opposite percentage of people will be listening to this station and this format which doesn't even exist yet. Hell, this is someone who can predict what a station would have made that no longer existed, research which does exist but has to be taken so tongue in cheek as to be totally discredited. It's this kind of micromanagement that will leave me cleaning up the mess long after Gleason/Eduardo LLC has headed for the retirement community of his choice... that's what pisses me off. And he is one who should know better having come from a time when people knew better.

Deregulation has taught programmers to be afraid and that has led to bad radio. I need a roadmap to get back where I started from, but I will let the Leonard Kahn in me have its say tonight.

 

[clouseau]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Your post has had me in front of the keyboard for several hours trying to get a handle on where reality is. And let me say I agree with most of what you say. I do think there is even more to the situation, though.

Radio is looking at the wrong way at getting to the pie, because radio refuses to think outside the box. Here the box is 88-108 and 540-1700. Think about where content needs to be distributed.

I think radio is being dragged, kicking and screaming to this reality. But remember, today, May 2007, much of radio is about "Distribution" and not about "Content creation". It's not right.... But I fear it is so...

A digital platform will cripple our analog broadcast infastructure, but because we cannot think outside the box in the future, or are so afraid to admit that someday that little piece of paper we hold so dear that says "yes, you can broadcast" may not mean a hill of beans as we chart a whole new frontier that is already expanding.

Two thoughts on this. One - I would substitute "Marginally degrade" for "Cripple". Still I think we have common ground here.We have "Degraded" the band to a degree to get better fidelity and more stations. TWO- Your thought about the license being worthless has crossed my mind a few dozen times at least. I BELIEVE IT! However "I" do not make up the entire broadcast community. Keep in mind that MANY owners are in the sales business. Programmers are now in the "Audience Delivery" business. IMHO radio programming has gotten a lot worse BECAUSE we know a lot more about how it works. I don't currently program a music station, but I know a tighter playlist will help me during the book. And if I let us wander outside of our core it actually helps when I tighten it up. (Now we all know why radio sounds better in February than in April in twice a year markets ).

Where do we go if we have no more bandwidth? Outside the box and work on developing REAL tech that will deliver our content broadband to our listeners.

My station does 5 hours of local talk every weekday. In market 150 that's aggressive. But we're working on it. I'm more of a "Content Creator" than I was 4years ago. But we are still basically a Distributor. I got a lot more bandwidth than I have original content.

But we are afraid.

Stark raving terrified might be more accurate.

Those who hold licenses are in an elite club. In the new frontier, the club is not so elite and resistance and holding on to the past (analog broadcasting with digital information) that I find it's ironic when people in the industry cry about holding on to the analog past of broadcasting... the whole idea of digital radio is to secure the spectrum of the past so that the elite club can continue to try and profit off of it.

Bingo.

What most of the viable stations have already done is progam so poorly as to start to move people away from radio.

You do know it's April all 12 months of the year in a continuously survey market, right?

The Eduardos or Gleasons (whichever name he's using today) will spin it into subsections of subsections of research of pregnant moms from shopping malls who light scented candles while listening to Delilah at night to justify that in 3 years the opposite percentage of people will be listening to this station and this format which doesn't even exist yet.

David does what he has to do. Just like me. And I would suspect you, too, to a certain degree. I don't know David's exact position, but I don't think it is station ownership anymore. Even if it is, there are times you gotta ring the bell. Here's a bad choice a lot of programmers make ever day. (I have actually gone though this at times BTW)

1) I program the station with a pile of "A's" in our Morning and afternoon drivetime drive. Station has that "You play the same old crap" sound in drive time, but most of the Non p1's always hear their favorite song on the way to and from work. Cume is reported higher. AQH & share go up and corresponding agency rates go up. Station makes more money. Clouseau is a hero. APD and Clouseau get a bonus. Most jocks do also.

2) I program the station with "The Best Variety" and our TSL or Time Spent Listening goes way up. People that like us (The p1's) - LOVE US. IMHO the station sounds like something "I" really would like to listen to. In fact, I actually LIKE the station and listen at home. However the non p1's hear a "B" instead of an "A" when they tune in in drivetime and think "push the button". TSL goes higher, but cume goes to hell. Callout research tells us that "Our music isn't that good". Consultants say "Why are we playing this?". AQH and share go down. My right hand guy does NOT get a raise. He tells me that he really needs traded daycare or maybe I'll have to take those calls o weekends...Jocks do not get a bonus and bitch. (Forget that. No matter what happens, the jocks bitch). You get the idea.

Hell, this is someone who can predict what a station would have made that no longer existed, research which does exist but has to be taken so tongue in cheek as to be totally discredited. It's this kind of micromanagement that will leave me cleaning up the mess long after Gleason/Eduardo LLC has headed for the retirement community of his choice... that's what pisses me off. And he is one who should know better having come from a time when people knew better.

A lot of us might think we KNOW BETTER. I "DO" need to point out that a PD's job typically is to get good numbers, not position the station for long term growth. (This might be falacy, too.)

Deregulation has taught programmers to be afraid and that has led to bad radio.

AMEN!!!

I need a roadmap to get back where I started from, but I will let the Leonard Kahn in me have its say tonight.

Not at all. (OK Maybe a little).

I have written 10 or 12 pages about your post. And started over 3 pages at a time. And as is often the case, it ended up being more about my experiences than what you addressed. (Sorry)

A lot of radio is having real problems become "Content Creators" instead of "Entertainment Providers". Even HBO is dealing with this now. Do you want "Spiderman 3" or "The Sopranos"?

And yet the more I research this, The more I think we just need to scream "NINE!!".

Anyone that doesn't get this, feel free to PM me. I'll point you to the story of "NINE".

I fear the Leonard Kahn has escaped from me as well.

Clouseau

Here's free advice for Radio info. That little banner up at the top of the page on the left....

Release your inner Leonard Kahn..... Radio-Info.com

 

[PocketRadio]

Considering that an HD radio is less expensive than an I-Pod, I'd say that the expense of a HD radio is not a major issue and considering that a subscription to XM or Sirius is nearly $150 a year, that's about the same price as one of the cheaper HD radios and the prices will continue to fall. Portable units are around the corner so that shouldn't be an issue either. We're at the very infacny of this technology. Prices will fall and systems will improve. I'm reminded of my first VHS recorder which was a home unit (portables hadn't been produced yet) and for $700, it recorded video with an acceptable picture but nothing like my Super VHS provided or my under $300 DVD recorder can do. It did have a wired remote control. In NY there are many more HD stations on the air currently then there were AM stereo stations even at its peak.

Wow, there is something called, "consumer need", which there is zero for HD Radio. HD Radio is in a no-win situation, with poor reception of the 1/100th power-level digital saddlebags.

 

[radiopilot]

Considering that an HD radio is less expensive than an I-Pod, I'd say that the expense of a HD radio is not a major issue and considering that a subscription to XM or Sirius is nearly $150 a year, that's about the same price as one of the cheaper HD radios and the prices will continue to fall. Portable units are around the corner so that shouldn't be an issue either. We're at the very infacny of this technology. Prices will fall and systems will improve. I'm reminded of my first VHS recorder which was a home unit (portables hadn't been produced yet) and for $700, it recorded video with an acceptable picture but nothing like my Super VHS provided or my under $300 DVD recorder can do. It did have a wired remote control. In NY there are many more HD stations on the air currently then there were AM stereo stations even at its peak.

Wow, there is something called, "consumer need", which there is zero for HD Radio. HD Radio is in a no-win situation, with poor reception of the 1/100th power-level digital saddlebags.

Let me get this straight, RADIO is free but people are willing to pay for satelite, Ipods, CD's, Internet, etc. to listen to those other forms instead of terrestrial radio?

TV reception is free, but people are willing to pay cable, DSS satelite, buy and rent DVD's, and other forms of pay TV, etc.?

I don't get it... could it be that the consumers decide what they are willing to pay to get the content they want?

So if the consumer is happy to pay whatever forms to get the content they want, who cares if it's free if that is not the form they want, namely free HD?

This is the reason HD is a hard sell, it isn't the price of the HD radios.. heck give them away and still people aren't going to tune in... it's the content, the constant commercials, and the general nonsense that make people tune radio out.

Radiopilot

 

[Mike Walker]

After six years, perhaps seven percent of the population pays for radio. And XM and Sirius both have noticed that subscriptions are slowing down. It could well be that almost everyone who's willing to pay for radio already does.

I know how you love to exaggerate Pocket...calling your part 15 stations "High Definition Digital", when it's neither high definition (even the webstream is mono!), NOR digital, but power level isn't the important number with digital that it is with analog. Analog is all about how many db the signal is above the background/ambient noise. With digital that number is almost irrelevent...the s/n ration needs to be only enough to detect the difference between a one and a zero. NOT enough to retrieve clean audio...for just as a cd doesn't record audio, digital radio doesn't broadcast it. They both conven a binary code which DESCRIBES the original audio waveform, which is then "redrawn" if you will by the d/a converter.

One of the great things about digital systems in general is their efficiency. Much less power is required for comparable coverage. Hell, digital at 1/10th the level of analog would undoubtedly go much farther than current analog. And actually cause the interference many claim!

I admire your Part 15. Job well done, and I mean that sincerely. But it's what you call your part 15 that bothers me. Just as what you say about HD (defective, a hoax, fraud, no-interest, failure, etc.) Perhaps you haven't learned Pocket, but saying something doesn't make it so!

 

[PocketRadio]

One of the great things about digital systems in general is their efficiency. Much less power is required for comparable coverage. Hell, digital at 1/10th the level of analog would undoubtedly go much farther than current analog. And actually cause the interference many claim!

"Wired LAN Review Questions"

"Question 12: Why do digital signals attenuate sooner than analog signals? Answer: As digital signals travel farther and farther down the line, the crispness of the wave is not as distinct as the initial signal. The wave shapes begin to become more rounded, and it becomes more difficult for the receiver to differentiate between high and low values when the edges are smoothed instead of being square."

"Why Digital is Better"

"Digital signals do weaken over a distance, but unlike analog signals the complete picture is impossible to put together unless all the information transmitted is received by a digital TV tuner."

http://www.kfor.com/Global/story.asp?S=744139

"Digital Versus Analog"

"What makes digital television so special? A digital image isn't inherently better than an analog image, and in some cases it can be worse. An HDTV picture doesn't have to be digital either; Japanese HDTV is broadcast over an analog signal."

http://www.pbs.org/opb/crashcourse/digital_v_analog/

 

[radiopilot]

After six years, perhaps seven percent of the population pays for radio. And XM and Sirius both have noticed that subscriptions are slowing down. It could well be that almost everyone who's willing to pay for radio already does.

I know how you love to exaggerate Pocket...calling your part 15 stations "High Definition Digital", when it's neither high definition (even the webstream is mono!), NOR digital, but power level isn't the important number with digital that it is with analog. Analog is all about how many db the signal is above the background/ambient noise. With digital that number is almost irrelevent...the s/n ration needs to be only enough to detect the difference between a one and a zero. NOT enough to retrieve clean audio...for just as a cd doesn't record audio, digital radio doesn't broadcast it. They both conven a binary code which DESCRIBES the original audio waveform, which is then "redrawn" if you will by the d/a converter.

One of the great things about digital systems in general is their efficiency. Much less power is required for comparable coverage. Hell, digital at 1/10th the level of analog would undoubtedly go much farther than current analog. And actually cause the interference many claim!

I admire your Part 15. Job well done, and I mean that sincerely. But it's what you call your part 15 that bothers me. Just as what you say about HD (defective, a hoax, fraud, no-interest, failure, etc.) Perhaps you haven't learned Pocket, but saying something doesn't make it so!

Mike,

While I would love my humble little station to be like Surfside (website wise) it's not , I'll repost the site, this is not me... it was used as an example of my station setup regarding the part15 setup and transmitters, they are in the North & South Carolina border, Mrtle Beach.. and Yes according to Surfside, their internet is HD digital quality but hey I didn't state that... it's on their website.

http://wzfb.com/surfside/station.htm

Sorry if there was confusion with my radio station (part 15) I'm in South Eastern Georgia, but I look at it from the standpoint of HOW my listeners perceive my broadcast... just like any broadcast they hear in this area.. the regular stations don't broadcast how much power they radiate i.e.: 10kw, 20kw, etc. so I don't either and the FCC doesn't require that either... in fact alot of the residents ACTUALLY think I'm one of the big boys (CC, Cumulus, etc.) because to them the programming and listening pleasure is all they perceive...

Radiopilot

 

[PocketRadio]

One of the great things about digital systems in general is their efficiency. Much less power is required for comparable coverage. Hell, digital at 1/10th the level of analog would undoubtedly go much farther than current analog. And actually cause the interference many claim!

"Analog, Digital - What's the Difference ?"

"However, digital has its detractors as well. Roaming may be more difficult using a digital based phone than an analog, some say. Since today there is no single accepted industry standard in digital technology and the technologies are incompatible, roaming--or using another wireless operator's network while traveling--may be difficult. Analog has better coverage than digital, and greater service availability. Plus, the initial cost for analog is usually cheaper than for digital, defenders say."

http://wirelessadvisor.com/analog-cellular.cfm

"Analog Verus Digital Coverage"

"In radio a digital signal always means a less robust signal than analog. Digital doesn't go as far, requiring many more multi-million dollar base stations to cover the same area as analog. It is cost efficient for a cellular carrier to switch to digital, since they can carry several calls on a single frequency, instead of just one for analog. But coverage and audio quality will suffer. H reports below from South Dakota."

http://www.privateline.com/mt_dailynotes/2002/10/analog_vs_digital_coverage.html

You were saying ?

 

[Mike Walker]

I was saying...say you're right that digital's current coverage is "only" 60 percent of "analog" (by "analog" I assume you mean mono analog). Sixty percent coverage at one one hundredth of the power. "I was saying" digital is enormously more efficient! Which is why all media is rushing to convert.