DO WE AGREE ABOUT HD?

[Steve Eberhart]

It definitely cleans up an AM signal and gives it an FM like sound but at the expense of too many other problems for my thinking.

On FM, I like the idea of having "subchannels" HD2...but so far I haven't heard anything compelling enough to make it worthwhile.

I'm of the opinion that this is one of those cool things that people ought to love, but from what I can tell, the public isn't interested....perhaps because there are 30+ signals on the radio right now and it's difficult to find 3 or 4 really worth listening to.

Do you think this has been worth all of the effort and expense?
I do not.

 

[Old Jack]

To tell the truth, I'm not even sure what is out on hd. None of my friends has an HD radio tuner. It wasn't even an option when I bought my last car. Heck, I've never even heard it being demos at Fry's or Best Buy. If not for reading this board, I bet I could go months at a stretch without even coming across a mention of HD radio- unlike satellite radio, which has adds in my face every time I turn around.

It's like your industry is trying to keep HD a secret.

So tell me, is there some decent Americana music? Or a station which focuses on indie or local acts? Or some old radios gems like Jack Benny or The Grand Ol' Opry reruns? What in the world am I missing?

For me, the bottom line is the bottom line. If radio wants me to go HD, they need to tell me why it is worth upgrading.

Otherwise, my iPod will remain my back-up plan on those days when I'm tired of the same five songs, the same tired Mavs talk, or the same right-wing blather.

 

[board monkey]

HD is as useful as it is on TV. You get a better signal and a couple extra wiz bang channels that no one has any idea of how to program them. I believe that satellite will be the ultimate end result of radio. With the analog channels remaining as an "end of the world" way to communicate.

 

[txchipk]

I'm of the opinion that this is one of those cool things that people ought to love, but from what I can tell, the public isn't interested....perhaps because there are 30+ signals on the radio right now and it's difficult to find 3 or 4 really worth listening to.

One problem with radio and TV, in general, is that the programming has become so niched with all the signals that very little of it appeals to a lot of people. No one seems interested in broadcasting anymore. On TV, we went from a few broadcast channels to having broadcast plus some cable channels (superstations and niche news, sports, etc. channels) in the early '80s. Now, even the niche channels (news and sports, for example) have fragmented out ... one news channel (CNN) now has left-wing news channels (MSNBC) and a right-wing news channel (Fox News), one sports outlet (ESPN) has brought us to multiple college sports channels (Big 10, Fox College Sports x 3, ESPN-U), classic sports, sports-specific channels (NFL Network, NHL Network, NBA TV, Gold Channel, Fox Soccer Channel, Tennis Network, Speed, etc.).

Same with radio...with so many move-ins in many markets, we've fragmented formats like adult contemporary into ACs, Christian ACs, hot ACs, rhythmic ACs, soft ACs, smooth jazz, etc. over the last 20 years. Now, we have HD sub-channels trying even more narrow formats. I don't have a HD radio, but HD channel listings indicate we have a 90s oldies channel on KDBN-HD2 and a channel on KDMX-HD2 aimed at a gay audience.

Much like TV, there are numerous channels...and often very little on. Unlike cable TV or satellite, which has 500 channels to make available, there aren't that many radio signals. So, a gay TV channel may not appeal to 99% of the population, but perhaps the individuals in the 99% can each find 4 or 5 other channels in the other 499 channels that appeal to them to make them want satellite or cable TV. In radio, with a much smaller number of HD2 channels, there may not be any channel that appeals to most people.

 

[Lancer]

Bring back AM Stereo.

I still am not convinced that when an AM signal fades on a distant station, you're not just going to hear total silence for 2 minutes until the buffer rebuilds. At least with analog you can crank up the volume a bit & keep listening for most of the fade. Digital - nothing but silence. HD will be useless for nighttime DX.

They should setup digital-only stations from 76 - 87.7 Mhz. Let them run full power & let the analogs continue on the current AM & FM bands. Then survival of the fittest. Nobody wants HD in it's current form because it is a weak signal, which negates the whole purpose of better audio.

 

[scrtr84]

Amazing how many times this topic keeps surfacing around here.

In short, HD Radio is a lackluster approach, primarily because of poor promotion and marketing. The average Joe doesn't know what HD Radio is, and most audio dealers assume when someone says HD, they mean sat radio. The few dealers who do have HD radios, usually put them in the back of the store, and have no actual working demo.

Compounding the problem is how Ibiquity continues to up the fees for the rights to use their equipment. Eventually that's a huge chunk of change for even profitable broadcasters.

HD is going the way of AM Stereo.

 

[little1]

I believe that satellite will be the ultimate end result of radio.

Would that be the satellite radio that has yet to turn a profit, that has to continually issue more stock (watering down shareholder value) as a way to retire debt, that recently had to merge with their competitor to remain a viable buisness, and whose deals with big name talent (like Howard) major sports franchises (MLB, NFL etc) and car manufacturers (who've been installing their product in their cars as part of that deal) all expire soon?

THAT satellite radio?

 

[greencougar7]

Steve: I agree with your opinion about HD,but other stations suffer because of its signal. Second these companies that have it are wasting it.Its like they have to use it ,but don't care. Kinda like the current state of radio.

Little1 we know you don't like Satellite Radio. Your objectivity about it vanished a while ago,and your loyalty to terrestrial radio is respected,but its still withering away. Spin the numbers all you want and argue your case with the, The overall result, broadcast radio is dwindling slowly now,but the pace is startign to quicken.

 

[board monkey]

I believe that satellite will be the ultimate end result of radio.

Would that be the satellite radio that has yet to turn a profit, that has to continually issue more stock (watering down shareholder value) as a way to retire debt, that recently had to merge with their competitor to remain a viable buisness, and whose deals with big name talent (like Howard) major sports franchises (MLB, NFL etc) and car manufacturers (who've been installing their product in their cars as part of that deal) all expire soon?

THAT satellite radio?

Yes sir! It WILL be the radio of the future. It may be struggling now, but just wait till the next generation of cars starts hitting the streets. What we have now as cars isn't even the tip of the ice burg. Just mark my words.

What radio is now is the equivalent of arranging the chairs on the Titanic.

 

[TheRover]

WRR 101.1 and KERA 90.9, could have HD-2 channels.

There could be place for beautiful movie soundtrack music, from Herrmann to Morricone, and, the show tunes, Oklahoma, The Sound of Music, The Music Man...Something besides the MASS market Star Wars/Star Trek/ET music that already gets it's airtime on WRR. , CH 1.

What we instead get on most HD 2 channels, is just more pre-programmed commerical music.

If radio, eben with HD 1-2-3, cannot do anything but the most commerical music.....

Then radio is the Toilet it deserves to be.

 

[little1]

Little1 we know you don't like Satellite Radio. Your objectivity about it vanished a while ago,and your loyalty to terrestrial radio is respected,but its still withering away. Spin the numbers all you want and argue your case with the, The overall result, broadcast radio is dwindling slowly now,but the pace is startign to quicken.

Don't like it? I have it and I love it. Well, I love it what little I listen to it. As Salemjedi pointed out a few days ago, it's entirely possible to have it AND listen to terrestial radio, and for both to coexist.

And what I wrote above wasn't 'spinning numbers'. Those are verifiable facts. If I remember correctly, neither XM or Sirius had ever made a quarterly profit. They just issued a ton of stock as a way to retire debt coming due, because they don't have the cash on hand to pay it off and they can't reissue it right now because of the credit crunch.

They've got deals with their big franchises coming due in the next couple of years, and if they're not making money, they're going to have a hard time coming up with the buckets of cash they'll need to redo those deals.

Same with Howard. He may be the single biggest draw on satellite, and he's talking about retiring. Maybe because he knows he's not going to get the same payday that he got a few years ago.

And what may be their worst problem, a number of their car deals are coming up for renewal. Will they be able to redo those deals? IIRC, they used stock as an incentive to the car companies last time around to get them on board. At this point, GM, Chrysler etc don't want stock in a non-core business company, they'll want CASH to put Sirius-XM radios in their new cars. Cash that Sat radio doesn't have.

If they lose those deals, they have serious problems. Because the have extremely high aquisition costs per subscriber, and an unbelievably high churn rate (i.e. the turnover rate of old subscribers leaving and new subscribers coming in)

I'm being completely objective. terrestial radio has serious problems. But at least they have a business model that knows how to make money. Satellite radio still hasn't proven that they can make a profit with their business model.

 

[little1]

But don't take my word for it...

http://seekingalpha.com/article/104765-earnings-preview-sirius-xm-radio

http://www.hoovers.com/sirius-satellite-radio/--ID__46486,ticker__SIRI--/free-co-fin-earnings.xhtml

http://www.nasdaq.com/earnings/analyst_summary.asp?selected=SIRI&symbol=siri

http://investor.sirius.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=346082

It just kills me how people claim that satellite radio and IPODS are going to kill terrestrial radio. Like there's no chance that terrestrial radio and ipods could kill satellite radio. You know, the radio that isn't free.

If they can make a profit, more power to them. But there forecast of this year, losing 'only' approx 300 million, was based on the car industry not cratering. Check some of those links, the analysts are already predicting that they won't be able to meet their numbers, because they're not getting as many new subscribers from new car sales...

 

[greencougar7]

LIke I said Your opinion is respected and yeah I have read a few of those articles as well and came away they were jaundiced a tad themselves. Yes satellite has some money issues but so have some big terrestrial companies ..CC. Satellite had a model then comes Mel K. and he has screwed it up with this merge. From a suit and tie perspective it was ideal, from a programming one it was a nightmare from a listener perspective the quality sounds like earth bound radio, another shortened play list,and over researched music. 60's on 6 for example was far superior on XM then it was on Sirius, The Chickenman features and music playlist was very good,and thats not just my opinion alone. Now its homogenized and Terry Young is subdued just like Bo and Jim are here. Mel K. loves to screw up good things.

 

[MikeShannon914]

Just a few comments...

I've followed XM and Sirius since both companies had different names (AMRC and CD Radio) and even bought stock the first day XM went public. From a stockholder's viewpoint, there was NEVER any guarantee or assurance that XM or Sirius would turn a profit for many, many years to come. The big expense that they knew would saddle them long-term was putting their satellites into orbit. There was never any secret about that.

Now, with the two providers merged into one non-competing service, they don't have to have bidding wars over the NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB, etc. THIS is the other thing that got both providers in trouble a few years back...Sirius gets the NFL games, then XM runs out and makes a bloated offer to lock in the MLB. One grabs the NHL, the other grabs NASCAR. Each provider made huge debt commitments just to beat each other to the major sports leagues, not even knowing if there would be an audio audience for hockey, baseball, etc. I knew even back then that this would kill both companies. It might just still do it. But back to the point, with no satellite competition now, Mel is free to start shedding off these expensive sports commitments and get back to the basics. (And we're already starting to see his patented sterilization of formats, much like he poisoned his CBS stations with, not so long ago.)

And you can bet that XM/Sirius's careful monitoring of ratings for each sport, talk show, news show, etc is being done now more than ever...music's on the cheap, and, like with CC and CBS before it, XM/Sirius would love to shed some exce$$ baggage on the formats that incur a big tab. And yeah, that could include Howard, when you weigh in his ratings vs expense. But Howard's talked about retirement since, oh, 1993 that I know of. It's a regular topic that he cries wolf about often.

I don't see satellite radio ever being the complete replacement for terrestrial radio, but, when you get the same schlock over the terrestrial airwaves (national formats, syndicated shows, voicetracking, no localism, etc--which we'll see more of very soon,) then what's the difference in that and satellite? Yeah, $12.95 or $9.99 etc a month, but to not have to hear spots about erectile disfunction or $7995 Corollas or having 800 #'s shouted in my ears FOUR TIMES in one breath...it's well worth the cost to me. Oh, and to get some friggin' musical VARIETY and CHOICES: Priceless.

 

[Ford]

On FM, I like the idea of having "subchannels" HD2...but so far I haven't heard anything compelling enough to make it worthwhile.

There's the problem with HD radio in a nutshell. Nothing compelling enough to make it worth buying a new radio.

This whole HD thing was done completely ass-backwards. They built the infrastructure, got everyone to broadcast in HD, then began advertising. But what were they trying to sell? Radios. Go down to your big-box electronics store and buy and HD radio.

What they utterly failed to realize is that the radio itself is not the product. The programming is the product. And the product was the last thing on their minds, if it was even on their minds in the first place.

These HD2 channels are usually programmed as an afterthought, with a music log thrown together by an already overworked MD or APD, imaging done on the cheap by an already overworked production guy. There's no jocks, no entertainment, and no real reason to tune in, let alone buy a whole new radio.

 

[copydesk2]

You can buy a stand-alone Internet radio now for $165.

 

[little1]

Now, with the two providers merged into one non-competing service, they don't have to have bidding wars over the NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB, etc. THIS is the other thing that got both providers in trouble a few years back...Sirius gets the NFL games, then XM runs out and makes a bloated offer to lock in the MLB. One grabs the NHL, the other grabs NASCAR. Each provider made huge debt commitments just to beat each other to the major sports leagues, not even knowing if there would be an audio audience for hockey, baseball, etc. I knew even back then that this would kill both companies. It might just still do it. But back to the point, with no satellite competition now, Mel is free to start shedding off these expensive sports commitments and get back to the basics. (And we're already starting to see his patented sterilization of formats, much like he poisoned his CBS stations with, not so long ago.)

Shedding those expensive commitments saves them money short term, but also loses them one of the key marekting pieces that they have- that they carry all these out-of-town sports, your favorite team, etc. If they drop it, and internet streaming can be made easy to use (easy streaming right to your phone) listeners will have a viable option.

And you can bet that XM/Sirius's careful monitoring of ratings for each sport, talk show, news show, etc is being done now more than ever...music's on the cheap, and, like with CC and CBS before it, XM/Sirius would love to shed some exce$$ baggage on the formats that incur a big tab. And yeah, that could include Howard, when you weigh in his ratings vs expense. But Howard's talked about retirement since, oh, 1993 that I know of. It's a regular topic that he cries wolf about often.

Howard's now 55(ish). The closer he gets to 'retirement' age, the more likely it becomes. don't you think?

I don't see satellite radio ever being the complete replacement for terrestrial radio, but, when you get the same schlock over the terrestrial airwaves (national formats, syndicated shows, voicetracking, no localism, etc--which we'll see more of very soon,) then what's the difference in that and satellite? Yeah, $12.95 or $9.99 etc a month, but to not have to hear spots about erectile disfunction or $7995 Corollas or having 800 #'s shouted in my ears FOUR TIMES in one breath...it's well worth the cost to me. Oh, and to get some friggin' musical VARIETY and CHOICES: Priceless.

2 things-
you do realize that many if not most focus groups say that commercials aren't the reason they tune out, right? The idea that commercials are what is driving people away from radio is a myth that is being further killed by PPM. Where you can see exactly when people tune out. And people are about as likely to tune out in the middle of a song as in the middle of a stopset.

And #2- as for variety and choices- again, break down the ratings and you see how few stations most listeners actually listen to. Sure there are some that register 5-7 even 10 stations in a week. But there are also a ton that listen to just 1 or 2. They're not looking for variety or choices, the evidence seems to show that they are happy with what they listen to.

(And this is where you have to be able to seperate your personal opinion from what the audience actually says through their listening habits. Because YOU are looking for more variety and choices doesn't mean that the vast majority of listeners out there feel the same way)

 

[davideduardo]

And #2- as for variety and choices- again, break down the ratings and you see how few stations most listeners actually listen to. Sure there are some that register 5-7 even 10 stations in a week. But there are also a ton that listen to just 1 or 2. They're not looking for variety or choices, the evidence seems to show that they are happy with what they listen to.

You are right about listeners having few different choices... by choice. But the PPM shows that the average listener uses 6 to 8 stations in any two week period, some of which they just hear, and don't pick. Few listen to just one station... usually Christian stations where use of secular media may be inappropriate.

There are lots of choices, but we only pick the stations that have real appeal to each of us, which is just a couple of 'em.

 

[JFPO]

They're not looking for variety or choices, the evidence seems to show that they are happy with what they listen to.

Who are "they?" Focus groups? This type of arrogance from commercial radio programmers is absolutely maddening and is what has ruined terrestrial radio. HD will never catch on because even the substations are being programmed from this arrogant state of mind. Long term, terrestrial radio will always have its place, but these stations will only be relevant if they're offering something unique. People can quibble about music formats and too much Foreigner or too little Boston all they want, but their are so many music options out there now that traditional FM music radio becomes more irrelevant every day.

I hope the satellite business model can make it, but since the merger I've already seen the same sins of commercial radio worm its way into XM/Sirius' programming.

Your "evidence" says your audience doesn't want variety, but commercial radio hasn't offered "variety" or "choices" (in your arrogant definition anyway) in as long as I can remember.

But the PPM shows that the average listener uses 6 to 8 stations in any two week period, some of which they just hear, and don't pick. Few listen to just one station.

If you put a PPM on me, you would find KRLD for my morning traffic reports, KTCK for local entertainment and then a whole lot of satellite and IPOD. What does that tell you? I don't want "choice" because the PPM doesn't recognize XM (or does it)? It certainly doesn't recognize IPOD, Internet radio or anything else. These things wouldn't exist if people were "happy with what they were listening to."

Music options are so plentiful now, with many choices outside of traditional radio. The idea of selling radios before programming was doomed from the start.

 

[scrtr84]

If you put a PPM on me, you would find KRLD for my morning traffic reports, KTCK for local entertainment and then a whole lot of satellite and IPOD. What does that tell you? I don't want "choice" because the PPM doesn't recognize XM (or does it)? It certainly doesn't recognize IPOD, Internet radio or anything else. These things wouldn't exist if people were "happy with what they were listening to."

Your statement above, needs a correction. Sat Radio & Internet radio "can" be encoded with the PPM signal. I-pods that have a recording captured from an encoded station, will also count in the PPM. You are correct that I-pods do not have PPM encoding, if the source material wasn't captured from an encoded signal.