HD RADIO IS A DIVERSION FROM THE REAL THREAT TO LOCAL RADIO

[vsa]

I've always considered HD radio to be a waste of time and resources that could turn out to be a fatal distraction for traditional radio. While HD radio remains a joke, read about some of the real action.

Hear 2.0's Mark Ramsey writes about some of radio's emerging new local radio competition. The most formidable new local competitor is the traditional newspaper. Newspapers in many cities are in the process of morphing into full-blown local media companies. Click this link for a prime example.

http://www.hear2.com/2007/09/meet-your-new-o.html#comments

Make sure you listen closely to the MP3 FILE link. It's an interview with a couple of the RADIO people at the San Diego Union-Tribune NEWSPAPER.

Be scared. Be very, very scared.

 

[amfmsw]

I listened, and feel relieved! These guys can't program their way out of a wet newspaper pirate hat. Hell, they can't even run board levels correctly. They're only 10 years behind their local broadcast competitors. And I assert they'll only attract more olders visitors, like their aging readership. They sound like any PBS station in any city. News/informationtalk in the day, jazz/blues/classical at night. Amateur PBS.

Thanks for the story, but it sounds like this emperor has no clothes, or teeth, or content.

 

[vsa]

They'e hiring some big names in San Diego radio. The real thing isn't on the air yet. They will learn, they'll hire some more "available" radio pros and they will only get better.

 

[arnoldevns]

Let's be clear, the mp3 file linked here is an interview about what this service will be. It's not the content itself. What they're talking about doing is going on at newspapers all over the country.

Here's the thing, print newspapers are dying. People are less and less inclined to pay 50 or 75 cents for a printed newspaper when it's far easier to click on a website and read things there. In order to survive, newspapers are now starting to branch out and offer other things like video and audio on their websites.

Doing talk radio on a newspaper website makes good sense. I don't see it challenging the listenership of any local radio station for a long time. However, it could easily become the top rated local online "radio station" in short order.

 

[vsa]

The San Diego Union-Tribune's website has a monthly reach/cume of more than 3.5 million people. It also regularly reaches 30 percent of the San Diego market. That's not a bad starting point to build an audience for any kind of a radio station. How much of your market does your station's or cluster's website(s) reach?

They say they are positioning themselves for the long run - online. Is relying heavily on HD radio a smart way to position traditional radio for the long run?

Newspapers themselves have flirted with their own version of HD radio. I'm talking about specialized portable devices that carry digital versions of a newspaper. They have apparently rejected such a notion due to lack of consumer interest.

 

[4dude]

Heh they sound like crap ;D

The guy talkings level is SLIGHTLY TOO HOT and they are WAY TOO COLD!! (Cant hear them very well)

I dont think they are much of a threat!!

 

[BRUSSTAR]

VSA's point is well-taken. Terrestrial radio is about to be (and already is being) clobbered from every angle. Its relevance diminishes by the day, yet the ones with the million-dollar licenses spend their time arguing for "HD" Radio.

This is nothing compared to what's being rolled out in the next 18 months. All kinds of media companies are finding ways to relate to the next generation while old-fashioned radio continues to pat itself on the back for "saving lives" two years ago during Hurricane Katrina in a manner perceived as nonsensical as seeing a firefighter putting out press releases today boasting of helping stop a fire in 2005.

Pretty soon many here will realize our arguing over IBOC hash will be akin to arguing over the decorations inside the Hindenburg.

And, as was pointed out already, the media itself linked to in this thread was not indicative of the product to be offered.

The media consumer of tomorrow (or, the consumer today who is under the age of 30) wants what he wants, now. Smart radio operators already understand this, and are doing what it takes to fulfill the needs. Others continue to coast along, pretending the Internet's just a fad and bragging about "playing what they want".

Wait a minute... QVC just did thirty minutes on "HD" Radio. I take back everything I just said.

 

[Mike Walker]

AM/FM/SW I assume you mean it sounds like NPR, not PBS (which is tv only). NPR...the network with over 20 MILLION adult listeners...the ones who used to get their local news from commercial radio. My local NPR stations do a SUPERB job of covering local news, long-form...not in the tiny snippets commercial radio can barely be bothered to offer.

I think one of the biggest mistakes radio has made in the last decade (and out industry has made some whoppers!) is to conclude that local news coverage isn't worth the effort. Talk about leaving a HUGE vulnerability for new competitors to exploit. Adults, at least the educated, EMPLOYED, tax-paying ones...the ones you want to reach because they can afford the products you advertise, care DEEPLY about what's going on in their communities. If you don't tell them, they'll simply find someone who will...usually at the bottom end of the FM dial in the form of a public radio station.

Fortunately both of the local stations here in Wilkes County (NC) still have local news, and one of them has a news director that's been on the local beat for more decades than many listeners have been alive. This is also true in several small markets around here, but when you move into one of NC's "majors"...Greensboro or Charlotte for instance, local news is m.i.a. from the top-rated fm stations, even ones like WTQR which used to pride itself on local news (via a dept shared with news/talk WSJS, which was then their sister-station), and won many awards. Note to radio executives who have never worked on-air: HEY STUPID, GET INVOLVED WITH YOUR COMMUNITY, or your community will damn well never get involved with you!

 

[JohnnyElectron]

LOCAL news is what people still want. In 1970, CKLW was a top-rated Top40 station with a news department staff of 24 people - that's right 24 people for a music station with only their twice hourly 20-20 newscasts - and CKLW made BIG money.

Radio should not have "rolled-over and played dead" allowing TV stations to zoom in and steal their morning audience for news, school closings, etc.

Radio has bigger problems than HD, and HD on AM is bad enough at night.

 

[dbdigital]

As far as the audio quality of the interview itself, this is Mark Ramsey setting an MP3 recorder in the middle of a table and interviewing a couple of guys. He's done interviews like this before. It isn't a reflection of the audio quality of the station.

But the concept being discussed is a potentially powerful one for newspapers which are steadily losing readers while still possessing an asset that many radio stations have long done away with, namely, reporters and a news department. You would think that this would have created a synergy between the two media outlets (without cross-ownership) but it hasn't.

The problem now, of course, is internet bandwidth and the costs associated with it. It can be prohibitively expensive to reach a few thousand listeners on-line while radio can reach far more relatively inexpensively. Couple this with the fact that many cities are now scrapping their muni wi-fi efforts because of being too costly and with little hope of being profitable.

This is why the 700 Mhz auction is so important (BTW, many television stations are fighting this) because it has the potential of bringing the costs associated with bandwidth requirements down to a manageable level while making internet connectivity easier to achieve, especially in the car.

If (or should I say when) all the pieces of the puzzle fall into place then, yes, this will be the future of all media (TV, radio, print), particularly on a local level.

Frankly, any technology that can help move the FCC farther away from broadcasting (in this case, they're licensing spectrum but not monitoring indecency) is welcomed.

db

 

[vsa]

The problem now, of course, is internet bandwidth and the costs associated with it.  It can be prohibitively expensive to reach a few thousand listeners on-line while radio can reach far more relatively inexpensively. 

Good point db.

Several methods are possible to dramatically reduce the cost of bandwidth. And I do mean dramatically!

IP Multicast is a technique for many-to-many communication over an IP infrastructure such as the Internet. It scales to a larger receiver population by not requiring prior knowledge of who or how many receivers there are. More at this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicast

Similar technologies are already available from companies such as:

http://www.Abacast.com
http://www.Allcast.com
http://www.Octoshape.com

As steaming audiences grow in size, webcasters will make greater use of these technologies.

 

[Radioman100]

Diversion? Yeah, this thread is a diversion from the purpose of this board since it has absolutely nothing to do with HD Radio, but kudos to the webcasting enthusiasts for promoting where eyes are likely to see it.

As far as the content of this clearly misplaced thread goes, get real. The web is a young person's medium. Newspapers are an older person's medium. My poor old parents forwarded me an e-mail the other day that said something like "send this to 7 people and you'll see something really funny!" Dutifully, they sent it to 7 people. Doh! Did I mention they subscribe to the paper?

The only other person I know that subscribes is my only living grandparent, and I'm pretty sure she does it mostly for the coupons. Grandma doesn't even own a computer.

I know absolutely nobody in their 20s or 30s with a subscription to the local rag.

Somehow, I just don't see the newspaper as a threat to radio. HD or otherwise.

 

[vsa]

Diversion?  Yeah, this thread is a diversion from the purpose of this board since it has absolutely nothing to do with HD Radio, but kudos to the webcasting enthusiasts for promoting where eyes are likely to see it.

As far as the content of this clearly misplaced thread goes, get real.  The web is a young person's medium.  Newspapers are an older person's medium.  My poor old parents forwarded me an e-mail the other day that said something like "send this to 7 people and you'll see something really funny!"  Dutifully, they sent it to 7 people.  Doh!  Did I mention they subscribe to the paper?

The only other person I know that subscribes is my only living grandparent, and I'm pretty sure she does it mostly for the coupons.  Grandma doesn't even own a computer.

I know absolutely nobody in their 20s or 30s with a subscription to the local rag.

Somehow, I just don't see the newspaper as a threat to radio.  HD or otherwise.

This has nothing to do with a newspaper subscription or even reading a newspaper. San Diego's major daily newspaper, with a staff of 300 reporters, has a staff of 20 people dedicated purely to the task of doing "radio." It has hired several of San Diego's biggest radio personalities to be "on-the-air" ---- and you don't see that kind of effort as any kind of a threat???

If most people in traditional radio think like you, and I know many actually do, then it is already OVER for traditional radio - including HD radio.

 

[Radioman100]

This has nothing to do with a newspaper subscription or even reading a newspaper. San Diego's major daily newspaper, with a staff of 300 reporters, has a staff of 20 people dedicated purely to the task of doing "radio." It has hired several of San Diego's biggest radio personalities to be "on-the-air" ---- and you don't see that kind of effort as any kind of a threat???

If most people in traditional radio think like you, and I know many actually do, then it is already OVER for traditional radio - including HD radio.

No. I don't see that as any type of threat whatsoever. No more so anyway than any other startup webcaster, and so far they aren't making much of a dent. The most listened to webcasts are those of terrestrial radio stations. So no, a webcaster that has only the Geritol crowd in their hip pocket, people who barely know how to use a computer and may not even own one doesn't seem like much of a threat.

I'm not saying that webcasting has no place and can't be successful. If the right talent was behind a webcasting effort, someone like Jimmy Kimmel or Dave Chappelle that appeals to the right demographics, it could enjoy some success. I simply don't see a successful webcasting venture being the product of a local paper.

Again though, I have absolutely no idea why we're discussing this on an HD chat board. This has nothing to do with HD radio.

 

[vsa]

This has nothing to do with a newspaper subscription or even reading a newspaper. San Diego's major daily newspaper, with a staff of 300 reporters, has a staff of 20 people dedicated purely to the task of doing "radio." It has hired several of San Diego's biggest radio personalities to be "on-the-air" ---- and you don't see that kind of effort as any kind of a threat???

If most people in traditional radio think like you, and I know many actually do, then it is already OVER for traditional radio - including HD radio.

No.  I don't see that as any type of threat whatsoever.  No more so anyway than any other startup webcaster, and so far they aren't making much of a dent.  The most listened to webcasts are those of terrestrial radio stations.  So no, a webcaster that has only the Geritol crowd in their hip pocket, people who barely know how to use a computer and may not even own one doesn't seem like much of a threat.

I'm not saying that webcasting has no place and can't be successful.  If the right talent was behind a webcasting effort, someone like Jimmy Kimmel or Dave Chappelle that appeals to the right demographics, it could enjoy some success.  I simply don't see a successful webcasting venture being the product of a local paper. 

Again though, I have absolutely no idea why we're discussing this on an HD chat board.  This has nothing to do with HD radio.

You wrote, "The most listened to webcasts are those of terrestrial radio stations."

That's simply wrong.

http://arbitron.com/onlineradio/topranked.htm

http://www.andomedia.com/home/templates/webcast-metrics-ratings.asp?articleid=40&zoneid=3

My bet is that several decades ago you also didn't see any threat to AM from FM stations.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

The overwhelming choice of digital audio "HD radio" listening is (and as projections show, increasingly will be) on the internet, by WiFi, Wimax, broadband, etc. It supplies virtually everything AM/FM "HD radio" claimed it would provide, but has totally failed to deliver.
Remember, "HD radio" originally meant nothing, later iBiquity decided it might mean Hybrid Digital. Actually AM/FM "HD Radio" is best described as "Highly Destructive".

 

[Radioman100]

You wrote, "The most listened to webcasts are those of terrestrial radio stations."

That's simply wrong.

http://arbitron.com/onlineradio/topranked.htm

http://www.andomedia.com/home/templates/webcast-metrics-ratings.asp?articleid=40&zoneid=3

My bet is that several decades ago you also didn't see any threat to AM from FM stations.

From your own numbers, Clear Channel alone has the second highest cume in online listening. That's one radio company. It's a big one, but it is just one radio company and they own less than 1/10th of all terrestrial radio stations. Add all the others, and I'm certain any of the strictly online webcasters would be dwarfed.

 

[vsa]

You wrote, "The most listened to webcasts are those of terrestrial radio stations."

That's simply wrong.

http://arbitron.com/onlineradio/topranked.htm

http://www.andomedia.com/home/templates/webcast-metrics-ratings.asp?articleid=40&zoneid=3

My bet is that several decades ago you also didn't see any threat to AM from FM stations.

From your own numbers, Clear Channel alone has the second highest cume in online listening. That's one radio company. It's a big one, but it is just one radio company and they own less than 1/10th of all terrestrial radio stations. Add all the others, and I'm certain any of the strictly online webcasters would be dwarfed.

Hundreds of Clear Channel stations can only muster a #2 in cume, worse in AQH. Who's number one? Yahoo's Lauchcast with AOL Radio nipping at Clear Channel's heals. There are thousands of Internet-only stations. Most of them have a head start over AM/FM stations on the web. Traditional stations are merely simulcasting.

You are in DENIAL, and this is NOT a river that flows through Egypt.

 

[Radioman100]

Hundreds of Clear Channel stations can only muster a #2 in cume, worse in AQH. Who's number one? Yahoo's Lauchcast with AOL Radio nipping at Clear Channel's heals. There are thousands of Internet-only stations. Most of them have a head start over AM/FM stations on the web. Traditional stations are merely simulcasting.

You are in DENIAL, and this is NOT a river that flows through Egypt.

Denial? We're talking about online broadcasts of the same stations PEOPLE CAN PICK UP OFF THE AIR. The same broadcasts some 270+ million people listen to each week.

Considering that important fact, web listening to terrestrial stations is limited to people who for whatever reason want to listen to a station from out of market (radio geeks, people yearning for a taste of their hometown, etc.) or people who for whatever reason can't have a $10 radio wherever they are but for whatever reason have a PC.

You assume that this is a zero-sum game. It clearly is not. The fact that Clear Channel is #2 in online listening despite the fact that they put the same programming into the air says a lot.

 

[vsa]

Hundreds of Clear Channel stations can only muster a #2 in cume, worse in AQH. Who's number one? Yahoo's Lauchcast with AOL Radio nipping at Clear Channel's heals. There are thousands of Internet-only stations. Most of them have a head start over AM/FM stations on the web. Traditional stations are merely simulcasting.

You are in DENIAL, and this is NOT a river that flows through Egypt.

Denial? We're talking about online broadcasts of the same stations PEOPLE CAN PICK UP OFF THE AIR. The same broadcasts some 270+ million people listen to each week.

Considering that important fact, web listening to terrestrial stations is limited to people who for whatever reason want to listen to a station from out of market (radio geeks, people yearning for a taste of their hometown, etc.) or people who for whatever reason can't have a $10 radio wherever they are but for whatever reason have a PC.

You assume that this is a zero-sum game. It clearly is not. The fact that Clear Channel is #2 in online listening despite the fact that they put the same programming into the air says a lot.

The game is changing now at hyper-speed. Watch this video:

http://www.myride.com/research/editorial/video/makeandmodel/viewer.html?videoId=1040

Now read this article:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...rola-show-off-wimax-on-the-chicago-river.html

This is a major revolution. Don't be left in the dust. I suspect the leading names in "radio" ten years from today will not be recognizable to most present-day broadcasters.