FCC Audio Division Chief Doyle Unhappy With HD Conversion

[pocket-radio]

Yes when a tornado rips up everything my FM capable cell phone would come in handy.
FM on cell phones is a no growth area for radio. The NAB is out of touch.

 

[TheBigA]

Yes when a tornado rips up everything my FM capable cell phone would come in handy.
FM on cell phones is a no growth area for radio. The NAB is out of touch.

One question: Which device do most people carry with them every day: Cell phone or radio?

The NAB is NOT out of touch. The cell phone is the most important platform to be on today. The problem is the cell companies know this, and they want to charge for that opportunity. Not be forced to include something for free.

No one is buying portable transistors any more. Nobody buys radios unless they're included with something else. Like a car, clock, or home entertainment system. Radio/phones would do for radio what the Walkman did 25 years ago. Radio, in and of itself, is a no growth area. It's time to wake up and hitch the wagon to the next big horse.

 

[Casey]

I thought you said it's an afterthought. If so, then it won't get more listeners or make more money. But what's wrong with that as a motivation?

In the meantime, if the NAB wants a mandate based on emergency information, that opens the door for the FCC to mandate stations to devote staff and time to emergency information. One thing about Washington is you never get something for nothing. There would be a cost for this mandate, and broadcasters would have to deliver.

Why is everyone so negative about this? It's no big deal. So what that the NAB has other motives? That's not the end of the world.

It is an afterthought for the phone manufacturers. Whether or not consumers will consider it an afterthought has yet to be revealed, but judging by the fact that there is no evidence that consumers actually want FM enabled phones, I would say very few actually care.

The last thing stations want is the need to higher more staff members. Large companies like Clear Channel have proven that they want less staff members, which is why they are launching stations with entirely syndicated air-staff.

One question: Which device do most people carry with them every day: Cell phone or radio?

The NAB is NOT out of touch. The cell phone is the most important platform to be on today. The problem is the cell companies know this, and they want to charge for that opportunity. Not be forced to include something for free.

No one is buying portable transistors any more. Nobody buys radios unless they're included with something else. Like a car, clock, or home entertainment system. Radio/phones would do for radio what the Walkman did 25 years ago. Radio, in and of itself, is a no growth area. It's time to wake up and hitch the wagon to the next big horse.

Of course more people carry cell phones. The question you should be asking, is if FM is enabled in all phones, how many of them will actually be able to pickup a station should the need arise? Unless you have a fancy phone with a built-in antenna, you are going to need a cord which you probably are not going to have on you. Another question should be, how many of those stations you can receive will actually give you information?

Cell Phone companies have no desire to charge for an FM radio in your phone. All they care about is charging you for what goes between your phone and their network. Would an FM radio take away from data revenue? Possibly, but you can already listen to podcasts and your own music on your phone so this is not really an issue. Cell phone companies are not really affected by this at all, as FM radios already exist in some phones. It is an issue with the phone manufacturers themselves. Why should they be forced to put in something because an unrelated industry wants it?

The NAB is incredibly out of touch. The NAB is wasting money trying to push something that no one really wants but themselves. Companies tend to cater to whatever can make them the most money. If including FM radios in phones truly made consumers buy the phones, you can be certain that every phone on the planet would have FM radios included by now. If the NAB has to resort to pushing an unrelated industry to include radios so radio can survive, perhaps it is time for the radio in it's current non-innovative form to end?

A few years back we had a fairly significant emergency here in Eastern Iowa. Not a single FM station stepped up to the task of providing any significant amount of Emergency information. In fact if I recall, all 4 Cumulus FM's actually went off-line entirely because their studio flooded. Clear Channel FM's did not do much at all, and I know KZIA sure didn't. Well there goes every commercial FM station in the market. A lot of good an FM mandate would have done. I guess it would have allowed me to listen to some overplayed artist played by a DJ out of who-knows-where, but that is about it.

 

[TheBigA]

The question you should be asking, is if FM is enabled in all phones, how many of them will actually be able to pickup a station should the need arise?

That's not a question *I* should ask, because I'm in radio. That's a question the FCC *will* ask before they mandate such a service. And as I said, there will be a cost to radio if a mandate were to happen. And it would be that radio would have to provide the information if an emergency happens. The way to get radio companies to provide emergency information is to require them to do so, and give them something in return. That’s what such a mandate could do. Otherwise, it’s status quo.

Cell Phone companies have no desire to charge for an FM radio in your phone. All they care about is charging you for what goes between your phone and their network.

You misunderstand my point. It's not that cell companies want to charge consumers for FM. But that cell manufacturers want to charge the radio industry for beach front property.

Why should they be forced to put in something because an unrelated industry wants it?

For the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Broadcasting is NOT an unrelated industry. Both use the public airwaves and both are regulated by the FCC. So they clearly are related.

NAB is wasting money trying to push something that no one really wants but themselves.

The NAB isn’t wasting money. It’s doing what it’s membership wants. The NAB, in and of itself, will not benefit. But its members might. And the public might, if this was given a chance. But I guess public service is a waste of money. And yes the radio industry needs people to buy radios in order for their stations to be heard. Right now, people are spending their device dollars on phones, not radios, and there’s not a thing the radio folks can do about it.

 

[Casey]

That's not a question *I* should ask, because I'm in radio. That's a question the FCC *will* ask before they mandate such a service. And as I said, there will be a cost to radio if a mandate were to happen. And it would be that radio would have to provide the information if an emergency happens. The way to get radio companies to provide emergency information is to require them to do so, and give them something in return. That’s what such a mandate could do. Otherwise, it’s status quo.

You do realize how this kind of thing works right? Radio fights to get it passed, promises public emergency information, services, etc. and then they never follow through with their end of the deal. This kind of thing is extremely common, and possibly why this is being opposed by other parties. There is no one to make sure radio does crap to supply more service than they already are, and no one to punish them if they don't.

You misunderstand my point. It's not that cell companies want to charge consumers for FM. But that cell manufacturers want to charge the radio industry for beach front property.

That doesn't even make any sense. Cell phone manufacturers don't want to charge anything. If they are to be forced to put it in though, it makes sense to have someone else pay for it.

For the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Broadcasting is NOT an unrelated industry. Both use the public airwaves and both are regulated by the FCC. So they clearly are related.

Radio broadcasting and cellular telecommunications have virtually nothing in common. They have to both obey the FCC and use radio spectrum, but the similarities stop there.

What public interest? Most people who have radio in their phone probably don't even know it. It's not Facebook, it's not Pandora, it's not texting, it is not important. You have to realize most people who use their phones know very little what it is capable of. As far as convenience, radio in phones is very inconvenient. Most people do not want to listen to music with a single ear-phone, which is the only thing most people have for their phone assuming they even have one to get reception. And there is no necessity for it at all. It is not necessary now and that is not going to change.

The NAB isn’t wasting money. It’s doing what it’s membership wants. The NAB, in and of itself, will not benefit. But its members might. And the public might, if this was given a chance. But I guess public service is a waste of money. And yes the radio industry needs people to buy radios in order for their stations to be heard. Right now, people are spending their device dollars on phones, not radios, and there’s not a thing the radio folks can do about it.

I don't think their AM radio station members will benefit. I don't honestly many people support this at all, they just don't want to pay royalties and will agree with whatever it takes to get out of paying them.

Everyone who needs a radio has one. People like me have more radios than they have rooms in their home to put them. I have only bought one new radio in years, I only buy antique radios now. But regardless, people not buying them does not mean they are dying out. Phones are innovative, radio (HD or not) is simply not changing enough to justify buying more for most people. Radio needs to stop worrying out worthless things and start focusing on content. Good playlists with good not-annoying DJ's is an excellent way to start.

 

[TheBigA]

You do realize how this kind of thing works right? Radio fights to get it passed, promises public emergency information, services, etc. and then they never follow through with their end of the deal.

That’s not how this works. Radio has lobbyists, and cell phone folks have their lobbyists. And then the public gets a chance to weigh in and comment on this as well. What you’re reacting to is a proposal from just one side of the equation. That’s not how laws are passed. So as I’ve said, if radio wants this forced on cell phones, it will have to do something in return. That means give in to mandated emergency service. If it’s required by law, then they must follow through.

And there is no necessity for it at all. It is not necessary now and that is not going to change.

That’s no reason not to do something. I don’t understand why you or anyone else is against this. It won’t cost you a dime, and if you don’t use it, it won’t matter. There's no down side to anyone except bloated corporate cell phone companies who use the public airwaves with no obligation to anyone. With all the money these companies make, it's a small price for them to pay.

Radio needs to stop worrying out worthless things and start focusing on content. Good playlists with good not-annoying DJ's is an excellent way to start.

It’s not a one-or-the-other thing. You can do both. But a day will come when the only portable electronic device anyone has is a smart phone. When that happens, it won’t matter how good your content is, because no one can hear it. That’s why satellite and HD radio are both in trouble. Content doesn’t matter when people don’t want to pay for it. And right now, there’s so much content that it’s been devalued .

 

[Casey]

That’s not how this works. Radio has lobbyists, and cell phone folks have their lobbyists. And then the public gets a chance to weigh in and comment on this as well. What you’re reacting to is a proposal from just one side of the equation. That’s not how laws are passed. So as I’ve said, if radio wants this forced on cell phones, it will have to do something in return. That means give in to mandated emergency service. If it’s required by law, then they must follow through.

Radio has lobbyists, that is all that matters. Yes, At&T and Verizon both have more lobbyists than Radio can even dream of, but in this case it makes no difference as At&t and Verizon will not really be impacted. The FCC cannot force radio to follow through with their end of the deal. All Radio has to do is say they are doing more than they were on FM (which is virtually nothing in most markets currently) and they are good to go.

You have too much faith in the government. Look at all the things radio and telecommunications get by with and you will notice that they rarely ever live up to their end of the deal and no one does a thing about it. Look at all the things AT&T and Verizon do and how they virtually never live up to their end of the bargain. When they don't, either nothing happens or they get a small slap on the wrist for a fraction of they would have paid had they done what they were supposed to. Look at the At&t/T-mobile merger. Are there any people for it? None, yet chances are it will pass. Whether we like it or not, we, the average public have no say in anything.

That’s no reason not to do something. I don’t understand why you or anyone else is against this. It won’t cost you a dime, and if you don’t use it, it won’t matter. There's no down side to anyone except bloated corporate cell phone companies who use the public airwaves with no obligation to anyone. With all the money these companies make, it's a small price for them to pay.

Only it won't be the cell phone companies paying the price, it will be Samsung, LG, Sony, Nokia, etc. The reason we are all opposing it is because they want a government mandate. Whether is affects me or not is not the point. The government should never mandate something because a commercial industry wants it.

It’s not a one-or-the-other thing. You can do both. But a day will come when the only portable electronic device anyone has is a smart phone. When that happens, it won’t matter how good your content is, because no one can hear it. That’s why satellite and HD radio are both in trouble. Content doesn’t matter when people don’t want to pay for it. And right now, there’s so much content that it’s been devalued .

I partially agree. Smart phones or similar devices are indeed the future of music listening. However, radio should get on the devices just as any other service has to. Strike deals with manufacturers, make internet capable apps, or simply make consumer demand high enough that manufacturers include it regardless. But forcing their way on is both anti-competitive to services like Pandora and Slacker, but also very closed-minded and with that kind of innovation they will ultimately fail against services like Pandora, Spotify, etc.

Satellite radio continues to grow and has over 20 million subscribers. As much as I would like it to die right now, I can't help but notice that it is gaining subscribers despite being expensive. I would say with the growth of Pandora's and Slacker's pay services, I would say that paying for radio may be more of the future than we care to admit.

 

[TheBigA]

All Radio has to do is say they are doing more than they were on FM (which is virtually nothing in most markets currently) and they are good to go.

You have an exaggerated sense of radio's position in Washington. It's not that easy. Radio has a lot of enemies in DC, and they want to impose lots of new regulations, and lots of new fees, and this is no slam dunk, believe me. If it was, it would have happened. And I'd suggest cell manufacturers have lobbyists who get paid more than radio's. Motorola alone has more power in Congress than all of radio. If they don't want something to happen, it won't happen. And so far it hasn't. There are more Congressmen in favor of a new radio royalty than in favor of this mandate. And if the FCC mandates something that Congress doesn't like, they have the power to over-rule it.

You have too much faith in the government.

No I don't, and if you knew anything about me, you'd know how far off that sentence is. It's all about money and influence, and radio has neither. Now radio is seen as a dinosaur by those in power, and they are looking for ways to bypass radio in the future.

As for pay radio, right now people are cutting back on buying gas for their car. If they're thinking about paying for fuel, they're not about to throw away $15 a month on radio. The 20 million number is a drop in the bucket, and the growth has slowed to a crawl. Pandora is about to experience the same thing, and their IPO has been postponed a few times. The one thing people will pay for is their phone. That's it. The phone is a necessity.

 

[JohnnyElectron]

You guys are making a huge assumption here - that half of us have enough disposable income (or our boss is paying) for a DATA package on your cellphone. I do not have a data package.
I cannot afford it here.
My kids cannot either - school costs just got jacked 3.5% again, and the State just cut funding for the schools, colleges and libraries - (thanks GOP).
People are losing income since the crash, and adding $30 a month / $360 a year for online 'radio' on your cellphone is not in the cards.
Also, being stuck for 2 year contracts on cellphones, you can't even cancel one if you want to.

Adding a 22cent chip and 'wire' antenna in the phone for an FM radio is not such a bad idea, and it would only take 2 years to implement all the cellphone folks that get a new phone every two years with their CostraNostra cell contract. Radios in cellphones (and their overpriced toy friends) makes a lot of sense to me, as would a EAS/NOAA WX radio, but I doubt it will happen with the huge, huge cell phone lobby in DC (that will soon be stealing your HDTV, FM, UHF STL and Ham radio frequencies for their cell profits).

 

[TheBigA]

The government should never mandate something because a commercial industry wants it.

Keep in mind that what brought this on was the music industry attempting to force a new government-imposed royalty on radio. All the NAB is doing is transfering one mandate onto another. In my opinion, it points out the ridiculousness of the RIAA position.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The FCC is wandering onto the path of cell phone emergency notification. The limitations there are significant. If you've ever been in an area-wide emergency situation, you know that the cell system is the first victim of oversaturation. Even the government is limiting itself to text messages, which have limited information capacity.

Many, if not most FM radios already have an FM tuner. It's just not activated in the US. The big advantage is that there's no need for a data plan, or even cell access, for the tuner to work. If it's a real emergency, then FMs will either step up to the plate, or EAS could be activated to make emergency information available to the populace.

The number of cell sites is growing exponentially to provide greater bandwidth to more people. In an emergency, the number of sites that are capable of staying operational for an extended period of time is minimal. The number of radio stations capable of staying operational for an extended period of time can cover a substantially wider area. Even the most jaded corporate beancounters realize that it makes sense to interrupt normal programming to provide information to people when it's warranted. Usually, it's as easy as piping the old AM news/talker through a channel on the FM board. Pretty much everybody wants - and needs - to hear the local tornado/flood/storm/terrorism warning instead of the "greatest hits on earth".

Personally, I'd love to add FM to my cell phone that already has a nice stereo MP3 player/recorder and a decent camera/video recorder installed. Oh, yeah, it also makes phone calls.

 

[tomservo]

Personally, I'd love to add FM to my cell phone that already has a nice stereo MP3 player/recorder and a decent camera/video recorder installed. Oh, yeah, it also makes phone calls.

Psssh. Phone calls? Who makes those anymore?

The phone I have supposedly has an FM radio built in but it's turned off or disconnected in some way. The international model(s) have FM, so why they disabled it when it's already "paid for" is beyond me. Even the aftermarket ROMs and kernals for Android don't seem to turn it back on.

I still carry my (now disconnected) unlocked GSM phone as a handy-dandy note-taker and calculator in the car. Lasts for months now on a single charge since it's not used for going online or calling. It has a perfectly good FM radio with RDS that I can use if I need to. I keep the (proprietary) cable handy since my car's amplified antenna is broken and won't pick up much.

 

[Casey]

You guys are making a huge assumption here - that half of us have enough disposable income (or our boss is paying) for a DATA package on your cellphone. I do not have a data package.
I cannot afford it here.
My kids cannot either - school costs just got jacked 3.5% again, and the State just cut funding for the schools, colleges and libraries - (thanks GOP).
People are losing income since the crash, and adding $30 a month / $360 a year for online 'radio' on your cellphone is not in the cards.

I am not making that assumption at all. I do not own a smart phone, but judging by the trends I would say people are finding a way to pay for it one way or another. Regardless, I am making the assumption that if you don't have a smart phone, you probably listen to your own music or none at all on your phone and if a radio does matter to you, you probably have already gotten a model with it included.

Keep in mind that what brought this on was the music industry attempting to force a new government-imposed royalty on radio. All the NAB is doing is transfering one mandate onto another. In my opinion, it points out the ridiculousness of the RIAA position.

Forcing someone to pay royalties for using someone else's work to make money and forcing a cell phone manufacturer to include an unrelated FM radio are two very different things. I have never liked the RIAA, but they have more of a case here than the NAB.

The FCC is wandering onto the path of cell phone emergency notification. The limitations there are significant. If you've ever been in an area-wide emergency situation, you know that the cell system is the first victim of oversaturation. Even the government is limiting itself to text messages, which have limited information capacity.

Many, if not most FM radios already have an FM tuner. It's just not activated in the US. The big advantage is that there's no need for a data plan, or even cell access, for the tuner to work. If it's a real emergency, then FMs will either step up to the plate, or EAS could be activated to make emergency information available to the populace.

The number of cell sites is growing exponentially to provide greater bandwidth to more people. In an emergency, the number of sites that are capable of staying operational for an extended period of time is minimal. The number of radio stations capable of staying operational for an extended period of time can cover a substantially wider area. Even the most jaded corporate beancounters realize that it makes sense to interrupt normal programming to provide information to people when it's warranted. Usually, it's as easy as piping the old AM news/talker through a channel on the FM board. Pretty much everybody wants - and needs - to hear the local tornado/flood/storm/terrorism warning instead of the "greatest hits on earth".

Personally, I'd love to add FM to my cell phone that already has a nice stereo MP3 player/recorder and a decent camera/video recorder installed. Oh, yeah, it also makes phone calls.

FM radio certainly has advantages for delivering information over that of a typical cell phone, but if you don't have access to an FM radio by any means other than through that of a mandated radio in your cell phone, then we have a bigger problem on our hands. There are billions, literally billions of FM radios in the USA. If you can't find one in an emergency, either you don't truly want one or you are really unorganized.

No I don't, and if you knew anything about me, you'd know how far off that sentence is. It's all about money and influence, and radio has neither. Now radio is seen as a dinosaur by those in power, and they are looking for ways to bypass radio in the future.

As for pay radio, right now people are cutting back on buying gas for their car. If they're thinking about paying for fuel, they're not about to throw away $15 a month on radio. The 20 million number is a drop in the bucket, and the growth has slowed to a crawl. Pandora is about to experience the same thing, and their IPO has been postponed a few times. The one thing people will pay for is their phone. That's it. The phone is a necessity.

Radio is only a dinosaur because they let themselves become unnecessary. Anything can become unnecessary if the consumers think they no longer desire it. This is radio's fault for not being innovative enough and consolidating into conglomerates that play horrible playlists with terrible personalities.

Satellite radio gained 350k subscribers last quarter, which is not bad considering 20mil people already have it and the craze has died down substantially. But 20mil is certainly not a drop in the bucket, it has allowed SiriusXM to become a multi-billion dollar company. As much as I hate Pandora, it is going nowhere at this present time. They are becoming increasing close to making a profit and advertising has proven to be viable for them. Their competitor, Slacker, is already believed to be profitable.

I know paying for gas is tough for people, yet 90%+ of Americans subscribe to cable or satellite tv. Netflix has 23mil subscribers, Sirius 20mil+, 96% of Americans have cell phones and send 2.1 trillion texts annually. Billions of cell phone apps and songs are being purchased. The money spent on entertainment has no end. None of the stuff I just mentioned is necessary, none at all. Yet gas is high and people are paying for all this and much more. Do we know people going on vacation this year? Going to a sporting event? I bet we all do, maybe even we are ourselves. Point being people are willing to spend money on just about anything to be entertained, radio is no exception.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio is only a dinosaur because they let themselves become unnecessary. Anything can become unnecessary if the consumers think they no longer desire it. This is radio's fault for not being innovative enough and consolidating into conglomerates that play horrible playlists with terrible personalities.

None of that has anything to do with what we're talking about. And no one "let" radio become unnecessary. That is just a bunch of crap. In thousands of towns, people at radio stations work hard to provide necessary information and programming to the public. But it doesn't matter because the public mainly cares about the cool new trendy device of the month, and that's not radio. While you seem to dislike the consolidated conglomerates, they're the ones who are innovating themselves with lots of digital options that are attracting millions of people to their content. But a lot of them are listening to OTA programming on their computers, cell phone apps, and iPods. The problem isn't the programming, but the device. The device is the dinosaur. It's one-way communication in an interactive world.

Satellite radio is suffering from churn. They're not retaining old subscribers because their programming is boring and no better than what's available for free. And you can't compare radio with video. People will pay for video. Pay radio isn't a growth area.

 

[Casey]

Radio is only a dinosaur because they let themselves become unnecessary. Anything can become unnecessary if the consumers think they no longer desire it. This is radio's fault for not being innovative enough and consolidating into conglomerates that play horrible playlists with terrible personalities.

None of that has anything to do with what we're talking about.  And no one "let" radio become unnecessary.  That is just a bunch of crap.  In thousands of towns, people at radio stations work hard to provide necessary information and programming to the public.  But it doesn't matter because the public mainly cares about the cool new trendy device of the month, and that's not radio.  While you seem to dislike the consolidated conglomerates, they're the ones who are innovating themselves with lots of digital options that are attracting millions of people to their content.  But a lot of them are listening to OTA programming on their computers, cell phone apps, and iPods.  The problem isn't the programming, but the device.  The device is the dinosaur.  It's one-way communication in an interactive world. 

Satellite radio is suffering from churn.  They're not retaining old subscribers because their programming is boring and no better than what's available for free.  And you can't compare radio with video.  People will pay for video.  Pay radio isn't a growth area.

It makes as much sense as what you have brought up. Paying for radio has nothing to do with including cell phone chips in phones, yet here we are.

Radio has never been necessary, ever. It has always and will always be a convenient luxury. There are however, people who think they need radio and people who think they don't. Many people who grew up with radio think they need it everyday and listen everyday. Many teens listen to their ipods and don't care at all about radio. The fact that teens don't think they need it, is solely and only radio's own fault. Radio has always had the power to make people want to listen, that is truly the only thing it can do as no one has to listen. The fact that fewer people want to listen or feel the need to listen is Radio's fault for supplying poor programming. With good programming, radio can hold onto listeners forever.

Pay radio is a very strong area with an explosion of growth waiting to happen. Satellite radio may have high churn, yet it continues to grow. Slacker has 300k paying users. Spotify can somewhat be called a radio service and is expected to have explosive growth here once it launches. We are entering the era of commercial free because advertisements have gone from being plain and simple to downright annoying, and people will pay to get rid of it. Why not compare radio to video? Both are unnecessary and both supply information and entertainment.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio has never been necessary, ever. It has always and will always be a convenient luxury. There are however, people who think they need radio and people who think they don't.

I understand that. So why did you say that radio "let themselves become unnecessary," when you believe it's never been necessary? Makes no sense to me.

I'm talking about devices. You're talking about programming. The fact is that over 92% of the public listen to radio programming. So programming, generally speaking, isn't bad. It may be in your area, or in terms of your personal taste. But speaking about the general public, they clearly don't agree with your generalizations. The problem is they're using other devices to hear it. And they want to hear their favorite personalities at their convenience, not in real time. So that is moving radio consumption more away from traditional devices, like phone apps, computers, or iPods. But it is simply not true that fewer people want to listen.

 

[Casey]

I should have worded it differently.

In realty, radio is not necessary. However, many people feel it is a very important part of their everyday lives. If radio is to survive, they must make sure people continue to think that. Radio must continue to let people convince themselves that they need and want to listen to radio.

Programming probably does vary greatly by market. Here, we have a classic country station operated by Clear Channel. Despite being an AM station, it has great potential if they would only give it worthwhile programming. As is, the station has no local air staff, a very shallow song library with songs consisting quite a bit of music from the last few years. Better programing would give the station new life. I know several people, including some teens that listened to it for a few weeks only to find that it is honestly a station with terrible programming and not worth the time. It is better programming, not better technology that can save this station and radio in general. Of course AM stereo would help this poor little station, but that is a different matter.

I know a lot of people in general listen to radio and seem to enjoy the programming. But many would say that programming has been getting steadily worse and it does not have to be this way. It can always get better and content is what can make all the difference. I do firmly believe that radio is losing listeners to other mediums, and it does not have to happen. I also believe that including FM in cell phones will not change anything if the programming and content as a whole does not get better.

 

[Savage]

I concur with Casey. The salient issue facing radio is poor quality programming. Most stations are utterly devoid of content these days with the frequent exception of spoken-word formats such as news and talk or full-service. And with the exception of country, the "music" sucks.

It's indicative of the disconnect and smug ennui typical of corporate radio that the trend continues to rely on "technology," regardless of merit or lack thereof, tech-at-all-costs, to revive and retrieve the radio industry's slowly eroding fortunes. HD Radio. Streaming. Apps. FM on wireless devices. Hey, the pipe and size of pipe and location of pipe doesn't matter, if what comes out of the speaker is the same old homogeneous crap.

These obsessions with blaming outsiders (the auto industry for not embracing HD, most radio operators for not embracing HD, the FCC, and now cellphone manufacturers) shows how lame most corporate radio decisionmakers are.

Why don't these guys tend to their own houses and focus on the core product and stop fretting about other industries over which they have no control - and never will?

Corporate radio. Still thinking, typically and narcisisstically, they're the center of the media universe. After all, "96% of people use radio every day." Or some similar irrelevant stat. :

 

[tomservo]

None of that has anything to do with what we're talking about. And no one "let" radio become unnecessary. That is just a bunch of crap. In thousands of towns, people at radio stations work hard to provide necessary information and programming to the public. But it doesn't matter because the public mainly cares about the cool new trendy device of the month, and that's not radio. While you seem to dislike the consolidated conglomerates, they're the ones who are innovating themselves with lots of digital options that are attracting millions of people to their content. But a lot of them are listening to OTA programming on their computers, cell phone apps, and iPods. The problem isn't the programming, but the device. The device is the dinosaur. It's one-way communication in an interactive world.

Satellite radio is suffering from churn. They're not retaining old subscribers because their programming is boring and no better than what's available for free. And you can't compare radio with video. People will pay for video. Pay radio isn't a growth area.

There's a problem about discussing radio on a national level… it varies so much that it's impossible to use one blanket statement for the whole medium. Back when I lived in Mississippi, there was the full spectrum of radio broadcasters: big corporate owners, regional players, small potatoes owners. And within each of those divisions there were well programmed stations, stations running on jukeboxes and others that were an uneasy combination of both.

Truth be told I still believe that John Q. Public either does not know or does not care that his favorite station's deejays are holed up in a Dallas office or coming from LA. No one has ever come up and asked me if Ryan Seacrest flies to Birmingham to do a show just for The Q, for example, and no one has ever complained that his show displaced live and local talent. The only people who seem to care about such distinctions are radio people.

The only time it becomes obvious that something is amiss is when severe weather moves in and the music keeps playing, OR during a segment where the jock decides to "go local" and completely butchers a local town name or something. But those instances are rare. At least down here in the south. The ones who keep playing music during severe weather are most likely to be unmanned small town stations, not giant corporate owned outlets. They've already switched over to TV audio.

You mention that 92% of people listen to radio. That number seems kind of bogus, like it includes people who overhear the radio in stores or in someone else's car or who flip on the car stereo for a traffic report then flip back to a CD.

Now I don't have the widest circle of friends and family, but of a dozen or so people I have regular access to, I am the only one left who listens to the radio anymore. And most of my listening is talk or scanning the dial while looking for changes/DX/etc.

An example. My father used to be an avid classic rock listener. It wasn't the static playlist of the format that drove him (and me) away, believe it or not, but the movement of classic rock to include such 80's bands as Guns N Roses and U2, away from what we've come to enjoy. That and six minute commercial blocks. Annoying jocks are not usually a problem on this format, but it was annoying jocks on the classic rock channels that appeared after the Sirius takeover of XM that, in part, drove me to cancel my subscription.

One of my best friends never even listens because his tastes, which run a mile wide, are simply not catered to by midmarket radio. He recently tried to sample Birmingham's new rock outlet "103.1 the Vulcan", on a translator, and said he hated it after 5 minutes. It's the same corporate rock playlist he/we heard 10 years ago when rock had its own 100 kW class C stick. His love of cheesy 80's music should find him at home on at least two of the area's stations, but neither plays anything other than the same handful of well-tested 80's crossover hits or whatever. It's pathetic.

AFAIK none of my acquaintances have ever said they quit listening due to lack of local programming or live jocks or any of the other things radio people malign corporate radio for. And only the one mentioned a "corporate playlist" as a reason for disliking a rock station that doesn't cater to his tastes anyway.

They quit listening because radio no longer caters to their music tastes. Which is why, in theory, I was excited about HD subchannels. The prospect of some format diversification was exciting, even if it's just a computer in a closet. Hell, the less jock interruption and less commercial interruption, the better, right? Even radio has managed to screw this up in all but a few cases.

 

[tomservo]

I concur with Casey. The salient issue facing radio is poor quality programming. Most stations are utterly devoid of content these days with the frequent exception of spoken-word formats such as news and talk or full-service. And with the exception of country, the "music" sucks.

See, that's just your opinion because you're a crotchety old man. (I am too, at least in spirit.)

What we consider 'devoid of content' is the #1, 2 or 3 station in many major markets. Hip hop, CHR, etc. Popular music stinks to me, but it still brings in the numbers. Talk radio doesn't actually fare so well in the few markets that I eyeball ratings. It's usually middle of the pack 12+ and seems be most successful in older demos that ad agencies (wrongly, IMHO) ignore.

Frankly, talk radio is just as stale to me as music radio. Even local hosts in each market are all cookie-cutter from what I've heard. They all just try to copy the national shows and their agendas. Even NPR is stale. I can usually guess the 'position' of the story teller just by his or her tone on that channel.

It's indicative of the disconnect and smug ennui typical of corporate radio that the trend continues to rely on "technology," regardless of merit or lack thereof, tech-at-all-costs, to revive and retrieve the radio industry's slowly eroding fortunes. HD Radio. Streaming. Apps. FM on wireless devices. Hey, the pipe and size of pipe and location of pipe doesn't matter, if what comes out of the speaker is the same old homogeneous crap.

On this, we agree. But it seems at odds with other assertions in this thread that most people stream broadcast radio on their phones and computers.

I think the reason broadcast radio is so popular online is that outlets like Slacker and Pandora (and SiriusXM's online component) are subscriber-based. Even if that means just creating a free account, they still require personal information and/or subscription fees. Many lazy people like myself are not willing to do that just to try out an app or website. So we use free stuff like iheartradio and TuneIn. Personally, I'm fond of TuneIn because the whole world is your radio dial with that app.

Unfortunately it highlights some of the problems with streaming. Namely, the formats I want to hear most are all "restricted by broadcaster". Our local CC talker is just a 1kW AM over 40 miles from where I live. And their stream is restricted 24/7 for me. I can't listen to anything. Then there's the HD-2 for one of the stations in St. Louis that plays really deep and moldy oldies. But it's also restricted. Even on the stations that DO work, they all drop out because cell coverage is not that great here in the burbs. And sound quality is sub-AM stereo on 3G.

Still, this sort of wankery shows how out of touch broadcasters are with new technology. So I can't listen to KLOU HD-2? I'll listen to K-EARTH HD-2 instead. I can't listen to WNTM online? They're available free on WRKH-HD2 on FM but that benefits me and apparently only me.

If my local station doesn't play what I want, I am not stuck anymore. I can (with some trouble) listen to any station streaming online in the world. It's this reason that programming DOES matter because now listeners aren't restricted to what's available locally. That's why the pipe DOES matter. And if nothing else, corporate radio seems to get that.

But I'm getting off on a tangent, sorry.