"HD is DOA"

[SayNoToIBOC]

"HD is DOA"

http://heartsofspace.typepad.com/spatialrelations/2006/07/index.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 09, 2006

"Only 1% Of 18-64-Year-Olds Say HD Radio Provides More Stations Or Programming Choices"

More proof (as if any were needed) that Ibiquity and broadcasters supporting IBOC/HD have done an absolutely terrible job of promoting it and its purported benefits to the public.

Often IBOC/HD supporters draw an analogy to FM radio and how long it took for FM to be embraced by the American public. But that analogy is misleading and incorrect in this case. Back when FM was striving for public acceptance, its main competition was only AM radio, especially for mobile audio entertainment (car radios, transistor radios, etc.). Today there are numerous alternatives for mobile audio entertainment (such as MP3 players and satellite radio) and additional alternatives that will soon be coming on-line (cellphonecasting, mobile broadband, etc.). It's as if Ibiquity and IBOC/HD supporters think of their competition as only analog AM/FM, and haven't fully grasped how many new competitors are racing toward them from different directions.

It may be, as the linked article above claims, "early in the marketing of HD radio." But IBOC/HD has so far failed to attract even a fraction of the interest that, say, satellite radio managed to attract in a comparable amount of time. Ibiquity and IBOC/HD supporters need to understand their "window of opportunity" is probably measured in months, not years; if significant progress is not made in increasing public awareness of, and interest in, IBOC/HD within the next few months, then IBOC/HD will be stillborn.

 

[SayNoToIBOC]

August 31, 2005
"It's Not Our Fault/Responsibilty/Job," Says Ibiquity Marketing

It's no secret that IBOC/HD radio has not exactly taken the general public by storm. Among terrestrial broadcasters, there is a sense of growing panic that IBOC/HD might never make it past the starting gate and even Ibiquity head honcho Bob Struble admits they need to do a better job selling IBOC/HD radios. But one of the disturbing things about Struble's comments was how he seemed to be placing the entire promotional/marketing burden for IBOC/HD on receiver manufacturers and broadcasters.

And that's still Ibiquity's position, judging by this Radio World interview with Don Kelly, Ibiquity's strategic marketing director. He makes it clear that Ibiquity is, as he puts it, a "technology company" and that it's up to others to figure out how to market IBOC/HD.

With such an attitude, IBOC/HD is destined to fail. End of discussion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 24, 2005
When It Comes To IBOC/HD Radio, The Natives Are Getting Restless

Some remarkable stuff in the latest Radio World. Long a reliable, blindly enthusiastic supporter of IBOC/HD, Radio World is suddenly experiencing some moments of clear thinking, like this piece saying IBOC/HD is in danger of dying on the vine and will face competition from WiFi audio streaming and cell phone audio services. And Skip Pizzi raises an interesting question: will "multicasting" under FM IBOC/HD violate station ownership restrictions in a given market since each multicast is, in effect, a separate station?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 19, 2005
NAB Says Ibiquity Didn't Control IBOC/HD Rulemaking Process

Ya gotta just love the National Association of Broadcasters for bringing the spirit of Dada to otherwise technical discussions about IBOC/HD radio. Here's an example: the NAB says Ibiquity, developer of IBOC/HD, received no unfair competitive advantage as a result of the process that selected IBOC/HD as the U.S. standard for digital broadcasting.

Since NAB and many terrestrial broadcasters have bet the farm on IBOC/HD's success and have no Plan B in case it fails, some self-disingenuousness is to be expected on their part when it comes to IBOC/HD. But can they be as detached from objective reality as they sometimes seem??

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Relying On HD Is Like Waiting For A Popsicle To Melt Before Eating It"

And Steven Van Zandt, friend to both The Boss and Tony Soprano, asks about AM/FM radio: "When did the p*ssies take over?"

The only report about the 2005 Records & Radio Convention that you need to read is here. It actually makes several good points about the total lack of passion (in other words, "innovation") in the programming heard over terrestrial AM/FM stations and the mediocrity of broadcasting executives.

As I've observed before, the management at many AM/FM stations reminds me of the management at General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler; they have existed for so many years in a de facto oligopoly that they have simply forgotten how to innovate and compete. Their very first reaction to new competition from satellite radio, internet radio, etc., is to seek government restrictions against their new competitors----much like Ford, etc., tried to do with import quotas on Japanese cars----instead of getting serious about working harder and thinking more creatively to produce a better product.

Posted on June 29, 2005

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Does Terrestrial AM/FM Radio S*ck So Much?

One of the main drivers behind podcasting, internet audio streaming, satellite radio, and other alternative delivery platforms is that much terrestrial AM/FM radio programming is just lousy, and younger listeners have been the leaders in migrating to alternate delivery platforms.

Now we have some hard evidence of why some terrestrial stations sound so bad: they're playing music according to how much they're getting paid by record companies, not according to whether it's any good or whether listeners actually like it.

It's the same old "payola" racket, and Sony Music has been busted big-time. And I expect we're going to hear about some other companies----like Clear Channel----being caught up in this mess.

The New York Times has a great summary of the story (registration required to read this link, but registration is free). If you have a copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader on your PC, you can read some of Sony's internal e-mails and documents describing their "promotional" practices.

The FCC will also be receiving evidence uncovered in the investigation; will some licenses be on the line as a result?

This situation is an example of why alternatives to existing terrestrial AM/FM radio are needed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IBOC/HD: Is It The New BetaMax Or Just The New Susan B. Anthony Dollar Coin?

"Just because it's invented doesn't mean you are going to get it distributed," says Radio Advertising in a piece about IBOC/HD radio. They also wonder how terrestrial radio will create compelling programming on "multicast" channels when most stations can't produce interesting programming on the single audio channel they now operate.

 

[audiophile.]

August 24, 2005
When It Comes To IBOC/HD Radio, The Natives Are Getting Restless

Some remarkable stuff in the latest Radio World. Long a reliable, blindly enthusiastic supporter of IBOC/HD, Radio World is suddenly experiencing some moments of clear thinking, like this piece saying IBOC/HD is in danger of dying on the vine and will face competition from WiFi audio streaming and cell phone audio services. And Skip Pizzi raises an interesting question: will "multicasting" under FM IBOC/HD violate station ownership restrictions in a given market since each multicast is, in effect, a separate station?

This is probably true. Since HD is intended as direct to public product (unlike analog SCA's) this would seemingly violate the ownership caps if a HD2 or HD3 is used. This is an unfair advantage for FM over AM. Maybe the FCC should only allow simulcasts, except for public stations?

 

[IBOCRocks]

August 24, 2005
When It Comes To IBOC/HD Radio, The Natives Are Getting Restless

Some remarkable stuff in the latest Radio World. Long a reliable, blindly enthusiastic supporter of IBOC/HD, Radio World is suddenly experiencing some moments of clear thinking, like this piece saying IBOC/HD is in danger of dying on the vine and will face competition from WiFi audio streaming and cell phone audio services. And Skip Pizzi raises an interesting question: will "multicasting" under FM IBOC/HD violate station ownership restrictions in a given market since each multicast is, in effect, a separate station?

This is probably true. Since HD is intended as direct to public product (unlike analog SCA's) this would seemingly violate the ownership caps if a HD2 or HD3 is used. This is an unfair advantage for FM over AM. Maybe the FCC should only allow simulcasts, except for public stations?

You think that maybe the FCC would have mentioned early on if they were concerned about ownership caps, instead of talking about how IBOC could help radio?

More FUD, I'm afraid.

 

[audiophile.]

Well, except the FCC's orginal order it was only comtemplated to simulcast, as per Ibiquity's specs.

 

[IBOCRocks]

Well, except the FCC's orginal order it was only comtemplated to simulcast, as per Ibiquity's specs.

Yes, but in several cases, the FCC has given opinions on HD-2, and never mentioned concern about market caps. With HDTV being allow additional channels, I don't think there is much there.