RADIO SHACK Drops HD Radio Price Again

[dumber than a box of hair]

If you a broadcaster with no technical background then it sucks to be you. It's a technical business.

The problem is that while you're correct, the vast majority of owners don't see it that way. It's a business...period. A means of making money. The demonstrable fact that an overwhelming number of stations don't even have full-time engineers has happened because, in the business world, engineering is a cost, not a profit center...and the bottom-line types who permeate this business (not to mention corporate stockholders) don't understand that without the tech and the people who understand it and make it work, their business wouldn't exist in the first place.

And that's a problem how??

How are you going to convince the public to replace their radios with HD sets if they don't know about it? That's a VERY big problem.

As well they should not overall. Try to get an antenna authorized at a city council meeting on an empty tower you built last month while Joe Average tells them how we should not be allow to add any MORE RF because his whole family already has headaches. The average person has no idea about real world physics.

As adquately demonstrated by the number of times the FCC and Congress have attempted to alter the laws of physics. Science and engineering don't stand a chance in this age of the sound bite. If you can't explain something in five seconds or less, the PTB don't listen. However, when the FCC is on the verge of approving a drastic alteration to RF spectrum occupancy, they had damned well better listen to their engineers. It's our means of earning a living they're toying with.

The single most revealing fact about how iBiquity is marketing HD Radio is that they aimed all their promotional material at station owners. They said nothing to station engineers...the ones who have to implement this system...except after the fact. Few engineers will have the intestinal fortitude to buck orders from their bosses in spite of the fact that many engineers realize this emperor has no clothes.

 

[700WLW]

Satellite radio has a value to the customer beyond its subsciption price: No commercials. No restricted playlists. With few exceptions, no yammering jocks reading liner cards. And frankly, satellite radio is not what broadcasters should be worried about. 10.5 million satellite radio subscribers doesn't hold a candle to the 80-million-plus owners of personal music players, who have abandoned radio altogether...a number rapidly approaching 1/3 of the US population. Assuming that the same programming that drove them away in the first place will attract them back when done in digital is another one of those off-the-wall assumptions that won't fly.

Also, Satellite Radio is not censored, by the FCC, and it is Wireless Internet/Internet Radio, according to the Bridge Ratings, that HD Radio needs to be worried about:

http://www.bridgeratings.com/press_071906-digitalprojectionsupd.htm

 

[Mike Walker]

What a ridiculous "study". "Wireless Internet" is counted alongside radio services, as if radio were the only use for wireless internet.

I agree that internet radio is a far bigger threat to terrestrial radio than satellite. Internet radio has grown by leaps and bounds. But it still represents a tiny slice of all internet traffic...ESPECIALLY on portable devices where bandwidth costs so dearly.

I don't think a medium used by 90 percent of Americans every week (terrestrial radio) is in too much danger! GROWTH has slowed in recent years. That doesn't mean that shrinkage is occuring!

 

[Mike Walker]

"no commercials" on satellite radio? EVERY talk channel has commercials, and now some of the music channels do as well. What satellite lacks that terrestrial has is PROFIT! Satellite radio has no business model that leads to profit...at least not yet. For YEARS they've promised stockholders that "next year we'll be in the black"? HAVE YOU CHECKED THE STOCK PRICE OF XM AND SIRIUS????

I'm an XM subscriber, and want satellite radio to succeed, not as a replacement for, but a supplement to existing services. But "satcasters" will have to take a more realistic look at revenue streams (including advertising) if they're to become PROFITABLE!

 

[700WLW]

What a ridiculous "study". "Wireless Internet" is counted alongside radio services, as if radio were the only use for wireless internet.

I agree that internet radio is a far bigger threat to terrestrial radio than satellite. Internet radio has grown by leaps and bounds. But it still represents a tiny slice of all internet traffic...ESPECIALLY on portable devices where bandwidth costs so dearly.

I don't think a medium used by 90 percent of Americans every week (terrestrial radio) is in too much danger! GROWTH has slowed in recent years. That doesn't mean that shrinkage is occuring!

The Bridge Ratings are very well known - as usual, your statements are baseless. Portable Internet Radio is just becoming available to consumers, and it is poised to explode:

"Iona Wi-Fi Portable Internet Radio Costs Less than $15 to Build"

"A report from the media audience researcher Bridge Ratings notes that weekly listening figures in the US alone for internet radio were estimated at over 60 million in April 2006, and are expected to grow to almost 1 in 4 of the US population by the end of 2006. The firm predicts growth from 70 to over 180 million listeners during the 2006 to 2010 period... Traditional radios offer listeners the choice of relatively few stations that have to appeal to a very broad audience. Internet radio gives listeners access to many thousands, catering for very specific tastes from the mainstream to the exotic. Internet radio also allows you to tune in to your home town station wherever you happen to be in the world,” adds Smith. “Combined with the existing infrastructure of Wi-Fi and broadband, we believe that the internet radio market is poised to explode as soon as the right product price/performance point is achieved."

http://edageek.com/2006/12/07/iona-wi-fi-portable-internet-radio/

"Meet your new competition"

"And demand for all Internet services - not simply audio - will drive product development, marketing, and sales. In other words, the platform will not have to be sold. It will just have to be bought... And that's a key distinction differentiating these services from satellite and HD radio - both of which need both selling and buying. And right now there's a whole lot of the former going on and not enough of the latter. By necessity, satellite is already branching into video and WiFi solutions while HD radio is still trying to emerge from its shell. This is not a good time to emerge from a shell without peeking into the big wide world first to see what awaits you."

http://www.hear2.com/2006/12/meet_your_new_c.html#comment-26335791

I'm a shilln' for HD Radio/IBOC !

 

[clouseau]

I know this will sound crazy to you, but radio people hae actually thought of this.

I know this will sound crazy to you, but no, they haven't. I work for one of the group broadcasters that's pushing HD Radio the hardest. When I talk to their management people about this, they appear not to have considered any of it.

That does sound crazy to me. Most of the people I have talked to in the industry get it. I would suspect either you aren't really "in the loop" (Which would account for the "Their management people" comment) or you have encountered one of the sales type bozos that has become a GM based on nothing more than selling their butt off. (And there are a few of those out there for sure.)

In fact, they haven't got a clue about any of this.

I would put forth that you are wrong in this assertion. That whole "Industry as a whole are morons" thing is funny and at times almost looks true, but it really isn't. The radio industry is actually fairly saavy.

They act as if HD is going to be their salvation. They think HD will reverse the audience loss to other media.

HD-1 won't, but HD-2 and HD-3 very welll might.

They don't see the economic side of the picture...and in an industry driven by its economics, they don't see the huge mistake they're making. Having spent almost 40 years in radio, and having seen the same mistake being made before, based on the same mistaken beliefs, I can see it coming as clear as day.

There is no mistake being made. While a lot of folks in radio would love to go back to the Pre Docket 80-90 days it isn't going to happen. Competition from all media is a fact. Sticking you head in the sand and trying to cost cut your way to another dollar isn't a good strategy.

So in 2006 if you want more revenue, you need more slices of pie.

You still don't get it. If you slice a pie that never gets bigger more ways (i.e., more competitors), the slices get smaller, and having more slices doesn't end up helping you make more money.

The idea here is that if radio offers more choices, it will grow it's audience. That's what YOU don't get. More Choices = More listeners = More revenue (Assuming sales is up to snuff). That's how radio could actually GROW THE PIE. Otherwise most of those "Smooth Jazz" listeners are going to Sat Radio. That's a broad sweeping statement, but MOST areas of the country do not have a Smooth Jazz station ( I see 73 in Radio Locator. If you don't like this example substitute "New Age / Acoustic" or "Classic Country" or whatever isn't in your area.)

10.5 million satellite radio subscribers doesn't hold a candle to the 80-million-plus owners of personal music players, who have abandoned radio altogether...a number rapidly approaching 1/3 of the US population.

Ok, I can't let that slide. Don't suppose you'd like to cite a source that 1/3 of the US population has abandonded radio altogether??? Bueller???

Assuming that the same programming that drove them away in the first place will attract them back when done in digital is another one of those off-the-wall assumptions that won't fly.

Thanks for restating my point. Radio need more choices. I would suggest that the formats that will attract the largest number of listeners in Demo are already on radio. OTHERWISE THEY'D CHANGE.

Further fragmentation of the audience is NOT the answer.

Then what is? A hefty tax on IPods? Kill Howard Stern? Head in the sand?

The answer is growing the pie. Multicast can do this.

Clouseau

 

[700WLW]

HD-1 won't, but HD-2 and HD-3 very welll might... The answer is growing the pie. Multicast can do this.

Clouseau

Even with externally mounted dipole antennas, picking up the multicast channels is problematic, and they will eventually contain commercials. And, with all the cuts at Clear Channel, who's going to coordinate the programming of the multicast channels. With the market already saturated with stations, the multicast channels are just over-kill and will fragment the listener base further:

"The Future of Radio: All Confusion, All the Time"

"Is it the MIX I've known and loved as a listener for years? Is it a second mix with the same music? Is it another MIX with different music - in which case what does it mean to be called "MIX," anyway? And when I talk about MIX am I talking about MIX-1 or the new MIX-2? What is a "multicast channel" and what is "HD," anyway? And what is the benefit to me that this is the "first commercial station in North Carolina" providing this thing I don't understand, anyway? I know I can listen to this online, but why can't I get it on my radio? What? I have to buy a NEW radio? Are you serious?"

http://www.hear2.com/2005/06/the_futre_of_ra.html

I'm a shilln' for HD Radio/IBOC !

 

[clouseau]

HD-1 won't, but HD-2 and HD-3 very welll might... The answer is growing the pie. Multicast can do this.

Clouseau

Even with externally mounted dipole antennas, picking up the multicast channels is problematic, and they will eventually contain commercials.

Again MOST people do not have problems receiving these channels. They work fine unless in distant areas or structures that don't get radio well.

Also Note how when we discuss business models and growing audience yuo change the topic to technical. When we discuss technical you change to business models. I can only conclude you don't like being shown that Multicast might actually grow the radio audience.

And, with all the cuts at Clear Channel, who's going to coordinate the programming of the multicast channels.

First off, Clear Channel doesn't run all the HD stations in the country so even if this point was well taken it would not affect non-Clear Channel Stations. Secondly, the programming of most stations can be handled with existing personell in most cases. And it's not really your or my problem. It's the station's problem.They have to deal with it.

With the market already saturated with stations, the multicast channels are just over-kill and will fragment the listener base further:

You might be right. Maybe we should just restrict the number of choices people have so you don't have overkill.

"The Future of Radio: All Confusion, All the Time"

"Is it the MIX I've known and loved as a listener for years? Is it a second mix with the same music? Is it another MIX with different music - in which case what does it mean to be called "MIX," anyway? And when I talk about MIX am I talking about MIX-1 or the new MIX-2? What is a "multicast channel" and what is "HD," anyway? And what is the benefit to me that this is the "first commercial station in North Carolina" providing this thing I don't understand, anyway? I know I can listen to this online, but why can't I get it on my radio? What? I have to buy a NEW radio? Are you serious?"

http://www.hear2.com/2005/06/the_futre_of_ra.html

Thanks for that year and a half old article about bad marketing of an HD-2 station. Here's the site the writer is referring to.

http://www.wralfm.com/Article.asp?id=68145

If you actualy visit the site above, you can see it's not really that confusing. And there's an interesting part of the article you missed. Despite all of the alledged confusion, it seems to have worked pretty well for WRAL.

If listeners get confused enough, maybe they'll just go listen to Sunny.

Or maybe not. I see even the bad marketing wasn't enough to save this station's competition. Sunny is now "Kiss".

Clouseau

 

[Mike Walker]

EDIT-inflammatory

[EDIT]? Multicast is no more difficult to receive than single-stream, and it isn't "problematic" at all. I do it every day from 80 plus miles away, with a rock solid signal, from an inexpensive INDOOR antenna.


[EDIT-inflammatory]

 

[clouseau]

Re: EDIT-inflammatory

Multicast is no more difficult to receive than single-stream, and it isn't "problematic" at all. I do it every day from 80 plus miles away, with a rock solid signal, from an inexpensive INDOOR antenna.

Wow. 80 miles is pretty far. 57.04 miles should be the end of the 60 Dbu for a full power "C". Of course some grandfathered stations are higher.

Still very nice. How powerful is the station you are receiving?

Clouseau

 

[700WLW]

First off, Clear Channel doesn't run all the HD stations in the country so even if this point was well taken it would not affect non-Clear Channel Stations. Secondly, the programming of most stations can be handled with existing personell in most cases. And it's not really your or my problem. It's the station's problem.They have to deal with it.

Clouseau

Who are you fooling - we all know, that CC owns the majority of the stations running HD (remember, they are a major-player in the HD Radio Cartel), and with the cut-backs, programming the repetitive junk on the HD channels, is going to be problematic.

 

[700WLW]

Re: EDIT-inflammatory

[EDIT]? Multicast is no more difficult to receive than single-stream, and it isn't "problematic" at all. I do it every day from 80 plus miles away, with a rock solid signal, from an inexpensive INDOOR antenna.


[EDIT-inflammatory]

The HD channels run at only 1/100th of the power of the main analog signal, so as to not interfere with the main signal - simple physics tells us, that receiving the HD channels is always going to be problematic, no matter, what type of antenna is used.

 

[clouseau]

First off, Clear Channel doesn't run all the HD stations in the country so even if this point was well taken it would not affect non-Clear Channel Stations. Secondly, the programming of most stations can be handled with existing personell in most cases. And it's not really your or my problem. It's the station's problem.They have to deal with it.

Clouseau

Who are you fooling - we all know, that CC owns the majority of the stations running HD

OK time for facts. I know you don't like them, but for the others in attendance.
I picked Pennsylvania, New York and Texas because they're the 3 states I've "Called Home".

As per Ibiquity at http://www.ibiquity.com/hd_radio/hdradio_find_a_station/PA/StnMarket

PA has 47 HD stations 14 are Clear Channel
NY has 79 HD stations 24 are Clear Channel
TX has 85 HD stations 28 are Clear Channel

The fact is "We all DON'T know that CC owns the majority of the stations running HD"

And that's because you just made it up.


Notice I didn't use
Wyoming 16 HD stations NO Clear Channel
Florida 79 HD stations 16 Clear Channel
Utah 15 HD stations 3 Clear Channel
Arizona 18 HD stations 9 Clear Channel <- You're almost a majority
Missouri 35 HD stations 6 Clear Channel

They might have a majority somewhere, but I have a little more of a life than to pull up all 50 states and look for it.

(remember, they are a major-player in the HD Radio Cartel), and with the cut-backs, programming the repetitive junk on the HD channels, is going to be problematic.

Somehow I think they'll manage.

Clouseau

 

[700WLW]

Shall, we count the number of Clear Channel stations ?

http://www.ibiquity.com/hd_radio/hdradio_find_a_station/SA

OOPS !

 

[clouseau]

Shall, we count the number of Clear Channel stations ?

http://www.ibiquity.com/hd_radio/hdradio_find_a_station/SA

OOPS !

If you feel froggy, leap and count away. It's clear they are not a majority. My point was you're making stuff up. And clearly you are.

Clouseau

 

[700WLW]

Shall, we count the number of Clear Channel stations ?

http://www.ibiquity.com/hd_radio/hdradio_find_a_station/SA

OOPS !

If you feel froggy, leap and count away. It's clear they are not a majority. My point was you're making stuff up. And clearly you are.

Clouseau

The list is filled with Clear Channel, so you get my point - with cuts in Clear Channel, making the programming of the multicast channels a priority is problematic, plus with new ownership, HD Radio may not have the same backing of a major-player in the HD Radio Cartel:

"With budget and personnel cuts now taking place across the industry, it seems unrealistic that more resources are now going to be devoted to multicast stations, Ross concluded."

"Worldwide Radio Wrestling!"

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:431131

 

[clouseau]

The list is filled with Clear Channel, so you get my point

I get your point EXACTLY. You shoot off your yap with pontifications like

Who are you fooling - we all know, that CC owns the majority of the stations running HD

which is just plain incorrect garbage. Your facts and assertions are at least occasionally wrong and frequently suspect. My point is simple. You play fast and loose with the truth, post incorrect assertions, and then when shown you're spouting garbage claim...

The list is filled with Clear Channel, so you get my point

Translation- You can post crap. We're supposed to acccept it because you say so.

The situation is clear.

- with cuts in Clear Channel, making the programming of the multicast channels a priority is problematic, plus with new ownership, HD Radio may not have the same backing of a major-player in the HD Radio Cartel:

FM HD radio is getting there. AM... well we can only hope it dies....But the incessant misinformation by you truly shows how obsessed with this you have become. As a guy who is directly responsible for 3 hours of local programming and 2 of network every weekday let me tell you what I often say.

"Well there's another hour of radio and no one died. It must have been a good show."

Dude it's radio. It's not worth dying for. Or making stuff up.

Clouseau








BTW on a low key personal note..

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/farse

Mix in a "C"

 

[Tom Wells]

Yeah, I've wondering about a nice way to reference the corrected spelling of farce, so let's just say,
"Um, I think that word has a "c" instead of an "s". I haven't looked in a dictionary, I'm just somewhat sure of it."

 

[700WLW]

The list is filled with Clear Channel, so you get my point

I get your point EXACTLY. You shoot off your yap with pontifications like

Who are you fooling - we all know, that CC owns the majority of the stations running HD

which is just plain incorrect garbage. Your facts and assertions are at least occasionally wrong and frequently suspect. My point is simple. You play fast and loose with the truth, post incorrect assertions, and then when shown you're spouting garbage claim...

The list is filled with Clear Channel, so you get my point

Translation- You can post crap. We're supposed to acccept it because you say so.

The situation is clear.

- with cuts in Clear Channel, making the programming of the multicast channels a priority is problematic, plus with new ownership, HD Radio may not have the same backing of a major-player in the HD Radio Cartel:

FM HD radio is getting there. AM... well we can only hope it dies....But the incessant misinformation by you truly shows how obsessed with this you have become. As a guy who is directly responsible for 3 hours of local programming and 2 of network every weekday let me tell you what I often say.

"Well there's another hour of radio and no one died. It must have been a good show."

Dude it's radio. It's not worth dying for. Or making stuff up.

Clouseau








BTW on a low key personal note..

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/farse

Mix in a "C"

I knew, that the Clear Channel list would get your dander up !

 

[700WLW]

Yeah, I've wondering about a nice way to reference the corrected spelling of farce, so let's just say,
"Um, I think that word has a "c" instead of an "s". I haven't looked in a dictionary, I'm just somewhat sure of it."

Thanks Tom, you are correct - I just checked it on spellcheck. Gosh, was it that important to post ?