Slow HD rollout... Did the Alliance plan it this way?

[vsa]

Lino, the radio business needs your kind of thinking. We must find ways to compete effectively into the future.

I grew up with AM and FM and continue to have a fond attachment for this kind of radio. However, I think about the music business and how it has been forced through more changes. They had to transition from vinyl, to 8-tracks, to cassettes to CDs. That last one was from analog cassettes to digital CDs. Imagine if they had insisted on sticking with cassettes by segueing to digital DCC cassettes instead? They probably could also have made digital vinyl records  and digital 8-tracks too. Radio is sort of doing that with HD radio. If this was 1987, HD radio would likely succeed, even with its shortcomings.

We are now approaching 2008. The record industry hasn't adjusted to digital downloads. Why? Because their whole manufacturing and distribution business model is becoming obsolete. And there is no new tangible media that customers are willing to embrace. Downloads, legal and illegal are just too convenient, and they're perfect for iPods. The added problem is that the records biz will have to make some drastic changes just to survive - and survival is not a given.

Radio needs to do two seemingly opposite things. It needs to dive into and fully embrace the Internet as a medium with all the excitement, enthusiasm and commitment of an Internet-only start-up while using it's current assets to fully participate in that push. Yet, it financially needs to maintain and even grow profits in its traditional business. Human nature and the culture within our organizations naturally fights this kind of thing. It's an almost impossible thing to do without creating a separate company. Most organizations just can't make this kind of change. That's why Eastman Kodak (late to embracing digital photography) is a shell of its former self. So is Western Union (not getting serious about telephones so AT&T could take over the phone business). So is Sears and IBM. And I'm only mentioning the names of companies that survived. Many many more just faded away.

I'm convinced more and more every day that you're a CONsultant.  You seem to be really good at identifying a problem that doesn't exist.

Take a look at this website: www.kiisfm.com

There's station information, but there's also recorded interviews, celebrity news, station pics, interactive chat, streaming audio, charts, music videos, a myspace-like social networking portal and even HD Radio information among lots and lots of other features.

Radio has the internet covered in spades, but that's NOT a good reason to stop promoting its terrestrial signals.  For all the reasons I cited in my last post refuting your nonsense, terrestrial radio is a FAR superior method of delivering localized audio entertainment compared to internet radio and it has a huge installed user base.  HD Radio, as it comes of age, will be a similarly superior delivery mechanism but will offer more programming choices.

And if you hadn't noticed, radio designed for younger demos is doing very, very well.  The listenership of the hit music stations in the biggest markets is actually increasing.

Radio doesn't need a "pro internet" messiah.  Sorry!  We already figured it out without your help.

If only all radio stations had a website as great as KIIS-FM! Very sparing on the gawdy ads too. Good.

Still, don't you think they'd really prefer having everyone listen on the FM dial? How can I tell? Easy.

They're hardly serious about being a streaming leader with an FM simulcast MONO 32K Windows Media stream. What if someone wants to tune-in from they're favorite player program? No direct-to-stream link is furnished. You can't use iTunes or a standalone Internet radio or a smartphone either with the provided Java link. At least CCC doesn't force you to register just to hear the 32K MONO stream.

Virgin Radio in London has a good website too:

http://www.virginradio.co.uk

Still, they tend to hide their higher quality streams from website visitors, although you can find their higher quality MP3 and AAC+ streams easily at Shoutcast.com. And Virgin Radio has been a streaming leader for years.

 

[Radioman100]

If only all radio stations had a website as great as KIIS-FM! Very sparing on the gawdy ads too. Good.

Still, don't you think they'd really prefer having everyone listen on the FM dial? How can I tell? Easy.

They're hardly serious about being a streaming leader with an FM simulcast MONO 32K Windows Media stream. What if someone wants to tune-in from they're favorite player program? No direct-to-stream link is furnished. You can't use iTunes or a standalone Internet radio or a smartphone either with the provided Java link. At least CCC doesn't force you to register just to hear the 32K MONO stream.

I'm certain they would rather have everyone listen to their terrestrial broadcast. PPM is going to hit LA sooner or later, and when it does, they won't get credit for their web listeners. Since streams aren't a 100% simulcast, they don't count. The ad agencies insisted on that, and Arbitron was all to happy to oblige them.

KIIS is using internet radio the way a smart terrestrial broadcaster should, particularly in the PPM age, strictly to complement their terrestrial signals.

What incentive would KIIS have for offering a highly compatible, full fidelity internet stream right now? For terrestrial broadcasters with winning stations, chasing webcasters right now makes about as much sense as being reactionary and chasing a new terrestrial format competitor. Why change your operation to emulate a loser? The only reward terrestrial broadcasters could reap right now under PPM is lost cume.

What do you say about that CONsultant? Think radio should cut off its nose to spite its face?

 

[vsa]

If only all radio stations had a website as great as KIIS-FM! Very sparing on the gawdy ads too. Good.

Still, don't you think they'd really prefer having everyone listen on the FM dial? How can I tell? Easy.

They're hardly serious about being a streaming leader with an FM simulcast MONO 32K Windows Media stream. What if someone wants to tune-in from they're favorite player program? No direct-to-stream link is furnished. You can't use iTunes or a standalone Internet radio or a smartphone either with the provided Java link. At least CCC doesn't force you to register just to hear the 32K MONO stream.

I'm certain they would rather have everyone listen to their terrestrial broadcast.  PPM is going to hit LA sooner or later, and when it does, they won't get credit for their web listeners.  Since streams aren't a 100% simulcast, they don't count.  The ad agencies insisted on that, and Arbitron was all to happy to oblige them.

KIIS is using internet radio the way a smart terrestrial broadcaster should, particularly in the PPM age, strictly to complement their terrestrial signals. 

What incentive would KIIS have for offering a highly compatible, full fidelity internet stream right now?  For terrestrial broadcasters with winning stations, chasing webcasters right now makes about as much sense as being reactionary and chasing a new terrestrial format competitor.  Why change your operation to emulate a loser?  The only reward terrestrial broadcasters could reap right now under PPM is lost cume.

What do you say about that CONsultant?  Think radio should cut off its nose to spite its face?

I'm very aware of PPM. It's almost here in Los Angeles.

That's the bind radio is in. That's why great firms tend to eventually fail. KIIS-FM is afraid to shoot for dominance in the Internet radio arena. That leaves the door open to new entrants. It will be too late later to stand out among thousands of competitors.

You still don't get it do you? CCC in its heart-of-hearts thinks it's REALLY a terrestrial broadcaster ONLY, instead of an audio brand.

I'm anonymous and will stay that way. Impossible to make a buck as a consultant that way.

 

[Radioman100]

I'm very aware of PPM. It's almost here in Los Angeles.

That's the bind radio is in. That's why great firms tend to eventually fail. KIIS-FM is afraid to shoot for dominance in the Internet radio arena. That leaves the door open to new entrants. It will be too late later to stand out among thousands of competitors.

You still don't get it do you? CCC in its heart-of-hearts thinks it's REALLY a terrestrial broadcaster only, instead of an audio brand.

I'm anonymous and will stay that way. Impossible to make a buck as a consultant that way.

You're exactly right. I still don't get your way of thinking, because you simply don't get "it" at all.

Radio does radio better than anyone else could hope to. To do anything really well, you need experienced people. The only way webcasters could ever hope to achieve any measure of success against terrestrial broadcasters is to hire the best and brightest radio has and use them against the industry.

Granted, I don't think pulling that off would be all that difficult right now. Clear Channel just handed out its traditional holiday pink slips, and the best and brightest are demoralized again.

The thing webcasters don't understand is it takes more than music and technology to build an audience. It takes people. Skilled people. They don't get that, and that's one reason their listenership is nowhere near as spectacular as you claim it is. Why are some TV shows in reruns and others headed there fast? If you guessed "the Writer's Guild strike" you're right! Without quality writing, TV goes nowhere. Without quality programmers, music directors, imaging people and other talented players, web radio is going nowhere and will continue to go nowhere.

Radio has absolutely nothing to fear from webcasters until webcasters start poaching the best talent radio has. So far, that's not happening. Since the webcasters so obviously "don't get it" to the point you think terrestrial broadcasters "don't get it" I think the resulting talent void on the webcasting side will continue to secure a very healthy future for traditional radio. (In addition to terrestrial radio's inherent benefits for listeners outlined earlier.)

 

[vsa]

I'm very aware of PPM. It's almost here in Los Angeles.

That's the bind radio is in. That's why great firms tend to eventually fail. KIIS-FM is afraid to shoot for dominance in the Internet radio arena. That leaves the door open to new entrants. It will be too late later to stand out among thousands of competitors.

You still don't get it do you? CCC in its heart-of-hearts thinks it's REALLY a terrestrial broadcaster only, instead of an audio brand.

I'm anonymous and will stay that way. Impossible to make a buck as a consultant that way.

You're exactly right.  I still don't get your way of thinking, because you simply don't get "it" at all.

Radio does radio better than anyone else could hope to.  To do anything really well, you need experienced people.  The only way webcasters could ever hope to achieve any measure of success against terrestrial broadcasters is to hire the best and brightest radio has and use them against the industry.

Granted, I don't think pulling that off would be all that difficult right now.  Clear Channel just handed out its traditional holiday pink slips, and the best and brightest are demoralized again.

The thing webcasters don't understand is it takes more than music and technology to build an audience.  It takes people.  Skilled people.  They don't get that, and that's one reason their listenership is nowhere near as spectacular as you claim it is.  Why are some TV shows in reruns and others headed there fast?  If you guessed "the Writer's Guild strike" you're right!  Without quality writing, TV goes nowhere.  Without quality programmers, music directors, imaging people and other talented players, web radio is going nowhere and will continue to go nowhere.

Radio has absolutely nothing to fear from webcasters until webcasters start poaching the best talent radio has.  So far, that's not happening.  Since the webcasters so obviously "don't get it" to the point you think terrestrial broadcasters "don't get it" I think the resulting talent void on the webcasting side will continue to secure a very healthy future for traditional radio.  (In addition to terrestrial radio's inherent benefits for listeners outlined earlier.)

Interesting how the arguement you just made is the same one AM radio made before FM radio became dominant.

Traditional radio has dumbed itself down so much that Internet radio can compete against it effectively on a shoestring budget. What's traditional radio going to do as the advertising money flow continues to go into web-based advertising? Traditional radio will continue to cut back even more and Internet-based radio will invest more money into content. The labor pool and its quality continues to grow daily.

 

[Radioman100]

Interesting how the arguement you just made is the same one AM radio made before FM radio became dominant.

Traditional radio has dumbed itself down so much that Internet radio can compete against it effectively on a shoestring budget. What's traditional radio going to do as the advertising money flow continues to go into web-based advertising? Traditional radio will continue to cut back even more and Internet-based radio will invest more money into content. The labor pool and its quality continues to grow daily.

So that's how it happened! And all this time I thought the AM guys all jumped over to FM about the time it became successful.

While I can't argue that radio isn't what it once was, back when pleasing listeners was more important than pleasing Wall Street, it's still a lot better than any webcast I've ever heard that isn't tied to a terrestrial broadcaster.

As for web based advertising stealing traditional media's thunder, that situation will correct itself eventually. I don't click banner ads, and I suspect a lot of other people don't either. The most sure fire way to piss me off online is with one of those big, animated ads that flys into the middle of the screen and you have to hunt for the close button. I suspect I'm not alone in feeling this way.

People foolishly put stupid money and faith into internet based businesses during the dot com boom, and many people lost their asses. Some think we're in boom 2.0 now. Read all about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_com_bust

Blind faith in the internet has made a lot of people look really, really foolish.

 

[vsa]

Interesting how the arguement you just made is the same one AM radio made before FM radio became dominant.

Traditional radio has dumbed itself down so much that Internet radio can compete against it effectively on a shoestring budget. What's traditional radio going to do as the advertising money flow continues to go into web-based advertising? Traditional radio will continue to cut back even more and Internet-based radio will invest more money into content. The labor pool and its quality continues to grow daily.

As for web based advertising stealing traditional media's thunder, that situation will correct itself eventually. I don't click banner ads, and I suspect a lot of other people don't either. The most sure fire way to piss me off online is with one of those big, animated ads that flys into the middle of the screen and you have to hunt for the close button. I suspect I'm not alone in feeling this way.

A recent study from TNS Media Intelligence shows that the top 100 advertisers spent $230 million less in 2006 than in 2005 on "old media" - TV, radio, and print. Conversely, their online advertising efforts jumped by $558 million. The ad spending trend is clearly AWAY from traditional media.

http://jacobsmedia.typepad.com/jacobs/2007/11/tectonic-shifts.html

Call these advertisers foolish if you want, but they are radio's life blood.

 

[Radioman100]

A recent study from TNS Media Intelligence shows that the top 100 advertisers spent $230 million less in 2006 than in 2005 on "old media" - TV, radio, and print. Conversely, their online advertising efforts jumped by $558 million. The ad spending trend is clearly AWAY from traditional media.

http://jacobsmedia.typepad.com/jacobs/2007/11/tectonic-shifts.html

Call these advertisers foolish if you want, but they are radio's life blood.

Yes, knowing how ineffective banner ads are, I would call them foolish. Google the term "banner blindness." Studies have show that most people aren't even aware that banner ads exist on web pages because people tune them out completely. I know I'm completely banner blind.

Compare that with what we're finding out about radio stopset tolerance with PPM. People don't tune out nearly as much as we thought during stopsets. In fact, they stick around through stopsets more than we ever thought possible.

The only type of web advertising that really seems to work according to all the articles I've seen is search engine advertising. That's when people actively WANT to be marketed to on the web. Given the relatively small number of players in that space, and the fact that each type of search can only produce so many paid results lest the search engine lose credibility, I can see why that particular segment of web advertising would command a premium price. Add professional search engine optimization to the mix to try to gain top billing in the unpaid results, and I can easily see how this form of advertising would be expensive and necessary. Think it's mere coincidence that Tide's web page shows up 2nd in a search for "laundry detergent" in Google, right behind Wikipedia's entry?

The problem is you're not talking about running a search engine. You're talking about running an online radio station. Your users will find your banner ads annoying at best, and will otherwise completely ignore them. If you make them fly in, or they actively have to work to close them, they'll hate you.

That doesn't sound like a winning proposition to me. It sounds like more blind faith in the internet. The kind that led to the original dot com bust, and is leading to dot com bubble 2.0. Kudos on being a part of it!

 

[vsa]

A recent study from TNS Media Intelligence shows that the top 100 advertisers spent $230 million less in 2006 than in 2005 on "old media" - TV, radio, and print. Conversely, their online advertising efforts jumped by $558 million. The ad spending trend is clearly AWAY from traditional media.

http://jacobsmedia.typepad.com/jacobs/2007/11/tectonic-shifts.html

Call these advertisers foolish if you want, but they are radio's life blood.

Yes, knowing how ineffective banner ads are, I would call them foolish. Google the term "banner blindness." Studies have show that most people aren't even aware that banner ads exist on web pages because people tune them out completely. I know I'm completely banner blind.

Compare that with what we're finding out about radio stopset tolerance with PPM. People don't tune out nearly as much as we thought during stopsets. In fact, they stick around through stopsets more than we ever thought possible.

The only type of web advertising that really seems to work according to all the articles I've seen is search engine advertising. That's when people actively WANT to be marketed to on the web. Given the relatively small number of players in that space, and the fact that each type of search can only produce so many paid results lest the search engine lose credibility, I can see why that particular segment of web advertising would command a premium price. Add professional search engine optimization to the mix to try to gain top billing in the unpaid results, and I can easily see how this form of advertising would be expensive and necessary. Think it's mere coincidence that Tide's web page shows up 2nd in a search for "laundry detergent" in Google, right behind Wikipedia's entry?

The problem is you're not talking about running a search engine. You're talking about running an online radio station. Your users will find your banner ads annoying at best, and will otherwise completely ignore them. If you make them fly in, or they actively have to work to close them, they'll hate you.

That doesn't sound like a winning proposition to me. It sounds like more blind faith in the internet. The kind that led to the original dot com bust, and is leading to dot com bubble 2.0. Kudos on being a part of it!

You haven't read "CBS Brings WiFi to Big Apple" - have you? It's in the 11/17/07 MEDIAWEEK.

"In an initiative led by CBS Corp., a bustling swath of midtown Manhattan will soon have free wireless access..." More at the link:

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/interactive/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003673870

Looks like CBS has gone over to the dark side, as you would likely say. CBS is playing catch-up, but CBS now gets it.

 

[Radioman100]

You haven't read "CBS Brings WiFi to Big Apple" - have you? It's in the 11/17/07 MEDIAWEEK.

"In an initiative led by CBS Corp., a bustling swath of midtown Manhattan will soon have free wireless access..." More at the link:

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/interactive/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003673870

Looks like CBS has gone over to the dark side, as you would likely say. CBS is playing catch-up, but CBS now gets it.

Gotcha... When you can't come up with a good counter to the argument at hand, just change the subject.

Maybe CBS will have better luck with the free wi-fi model than all the other companies that have tried it.

 

[vsa]

You haven't read "CBS Brings WiFi to Big Apple" - have you? It's in the 11/17/07 MEDIAWEEK.

"In an initiative led by CBS Corp., a bustling swath of midtown Manhattan will soon have free wireless access..." More at the link:

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/interactive/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003673870

Looks like CBS has gone over to the dark side, as you would likely say. CBS is playing catch-up, but CBS now gets it.

Gotcha... When you can't come up with a good counter to the argument at hand, just change the subject.

Maybe CBS will have better luck with the free wi-fi model than all the other companies that have tried it.

Read this link:

http://www.audiographics.com/agd/110907-1.htm

 

[Radioman100]

Read this link:

http://www.audiographics.com/agd/110907-1.htm

I don't disagree that ad dollars are being shifted away from traditional media. I question whether that is a wise choice on the part of media buyers.

Does internet advertising work? Search engine advertising works. The jury is still out on whether any other form of it does.

 

[RoscoeBrowning]

When is the industry going to concede that HD Radio is a product that the public just does not want to buy?

Maximum 200 radios sold in a half-hour infomercial on QVC. That amounts to less than one radio per radio market. That all by itself (slow roll out or not, "only old women watch QVC", etc.) is astounding.

How in the world can you guys continue to defend this product? Seriously, all kidding aside, how?

 

[Radioman100]

When is the industry going to concede that HD Radio is a product that the public just does not want to buy?

Maximum 200 radios sold in a half-hour infomercial on QVC. That amounts to less than one radio per radio market. That all by itself (slow roll out or not, "only old women watch QVC", etc.) is astounding.

How in the world can you guys continue to defend this product? Seriously, all kidding aside, how?

It's really simple. People don't want boxes. They want entertainment. When HD Radios start showing up in new products like cars and portable radios that allow them to access the new programming available to them in a convenient, familiar form factor, then you'll see the power of HD Radio.

That's how.

 

[KB1OKL]

When is the industry going to concede that HD Radio is a product that the public just does not want to buy?

Maximum 200 radios sold in a half-hour infomercial on QVC. That amounts to less than one radio per radio market. That all by itself (slow roll out or not, "only old women watch QVC", etc.) is astounding.

How in the world can you guys continue to defend this product? Seriously, all kidding aside, how?

Because they have a monopoly and think they can get away with it, it's that simple and they think this bought and paid for free market FCC will give them anything they want, clear and simple. They only thing they don't have is a mandated analog shut off date, if they ever get that (and believe me they are hoping, wishing and praying for it) that will be the beginning of the end of radio as we know it.
People want good content, not new gee whiz objects which really are just inferior copies of existing technologies which work just fine the way they are. People have just barely heard of it and all they do it yawn. People (that I know anyway) don't even like the fact that HD-TV will be mandated in a year or two. If HD-TV had not been mandated not as many TV's would have been sold. And with HD-TV there is a definite selling point, you get a clearer picture and because you have cable and satellite you will not get drop outs, blank spots, fuzzy pictures etc. in short they know they will always get a clear picture. With Hybrid Digital those 500 people who actually know about it, know all the problems that have come to the fore, such as drop outs, poor distance reception, adjacent sideband noise in both but especially AM. IBOC is a case of trying to fix your 73 Impala by taking out the V8 and putting in a diesel 4 cylinder engine, it stinks and annoys all the people on the road in it's vicinity and it now has no power anymore, but it's DIESEL!!! it's the new thing, the buzz word. IBOC is DIGITAL!!!!! If this roll out has been intentionally slow then it's main purpose would be because they wouldn't want Gramps to turn on his beloved AM radio some night and all of a sudden hear a bunch of hssy noise. So it would be called subterfuge or just being plain sneaky I guess. They would hope that Gramps is too dumb to realize that the increasingly noisy bands are because of some natural phenomena rather than some company slowly jamming up the bands with an inferior technology. You don't think the iBlock Alliance would plan something like that do you? :

 

[PhilJSmith67]

People (that I know anyway) don't even like the fact that HD-TV will be mandated in a year or two. If HD-TV had not been mandated not as many TV's would have been sold. And with HD-TV there is a definite selling point, you get a clearer picture and because you have cable and satellite you will not get drop outs, blank spots, fuzzy pictures etc. in short they know they will always get a clear picture.

Just for clarity over-the-air "DTV" is being mandated, not HDTV, and it has nothing to do with cable or satellite. The latest 5th generation receiver chips have become less expensive and work remarkably well, with coverage nearing or equalling the analog signals for some stations. It's leaps and bounds above how well HD Radio works versus the analog counterpart, especially on AM.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Radioman100 said:

Think radio should cut off its nose to spite its face?

Yes, it already has. The totally botched nose job is called HD Radio!

 

[LinoNYC]

Radioman100 said:

Think radio should cut off its nose to spite its face?

Yes, it already has. The totally botched nose job is called HD Radio!

That's a new one, we'll number it "17".

The ironic point in your "logic" is that if your side wins and AM iboc fails as all previous attempts have, in ten years when most of AM is reduced to whoring, vanity and religion people like you will have retired, both layman pundits and those in the industry will be surveying the landscape and saying "why didn't they do something to prevent this!".

Lino

 

[vsa]

Radioman100 said:

Think radio should cut off its nose to spite its face?

Yes, it already has. The totally botched nose job is called HD Radio!

That's a new one, we'll number it "17".

The ironic point in your "logic" is that if your side wins and AM iboc fails as all previous attempts have, in ten years when most of AM is reduced to whoring, vanity and religion people like you will have retired, both layman pundits and those in the industry will be surveying the landscape and saying "why didn't they do something to prevent this!".

Lino

This is sort of like saying - after the refrigerator/freezer was invented - why didn't the people who made their living in the ice delivery business do something to prevent the demise of ice boxes. The smart people in that scenario learned to build and sell refrigerator/freezers to their ice customers. The one's who refused to move on looked for ways to keep their ice business afloat.

How many ice delivery guys do you know today?

 

[Radioman100]

This is sort of like saying - after the refrigerator/freezer was invented - why didn't the people who made their living in the ice delivery business do something to prevent the demise of ice boxes. The smart people in that scenario learned to build and sell refrigerator/freezers to their ice customers. The one's who refused to move on looked for ways to keep their ice business afloat.

How many ice delivery guys do you know today?

I've met several. They sculpt it and sell it for a &*$#load of money.

Regardless, your little web radio snuffing out terrestrial radio fantasy will remain just that - a fantasy. If the royalties don't kill it, and they probably will, the infrastructure to deliver it reliably in cars isn't here and won't be for a very, very long time. Since it's the cell phone companies promising all the future tech or vaporware that you claim will make it possible, I expect them to perfect it about the same time my state of the art cell phone stops dropping calls, which will be never. They've had well over 20 years to get that right and they haven't even come close. Now I'm supposed to believe they're going to offer reliable mobile internet service? Yeah, right!