So, who got or gave an HD Radio for Christmas?

[nd2023]

I gave 3 of my friends the Insignia portable HD radio for Christmas.

Who's doing their part to spread the wonderful technology known as HD Radio? Hope Santa has a lot of HD Radios in his sleigh for all the good little boys and girls.

 

[KB1OKL]

I gave 3 of my friends the Insignia portable HD radio for Christmas.

Who's doing their part to spread the wonderful technology known as HD Radio? Hope Santa has a lot of HD Radios in his sleigh for all the good little boys and girls.

I'm waiting for April Fools day to give any IBOC radios away.

"hey! This thing doesn't work!" April Fools!

 

[tomservo]

C'mon Nick, you know that had to be coming.

Not so much a Christmas present but I got the opportunity for a killer deal on a smartphone (free Galaxy S with unlimited everything for $40/month) so the HD radio has taken a back seat. So far streaming over wifi is a lot more reliable than HD at home, but on the road I can't hold a stream with the phone for more than a few minutes without it buffering or just plain dying. HD is in and out but is better.

 

[davideduardo]

Who's doing their part to spread the wonderful technology known as HD Radio? Hope Santa has a lot of HD Radios in his sleigh for all the good little boys and girls.

The question ought to be "who gave or got a radio for Christmas."

The answer will go a long way to understanding what the issues radio has to face truly are.

 

[Chuck]

The question ought to be "who gave or got a radio for Christmas."

The answer will go a long way to understanding what the issues radio has to face truly are.

Yep, that is the big problem. I haven't seen too many boom-boxes in the stores these days. If you can even find one, it has an ipod dock. That should tell you something.

 

[travisl5678]

I asked for one, but my dad didn't know the difference between an HD Radio and a normal one, so I got a 100 dollar Best Buy gift card,I'll get it tommorow and post a review

 

[arnoldevns]

Who's doing their part to spread the wonderful technology known as HD Radio? Hope Santa has a lot of HD Radios in his sleigh for all the good little boys and girls.

The question ought to be "who gave or got a radio for Christmas."

The answer will go a long way to understanding what the issues radio has to face truly are.

Boy, this really does hit the nail on the head. I looked in Best Buy the other day and had a hard time finding the radio section. What they had was nice, but certainly didn't contain any HD radios. I did find the Insignia walk-man type FM only HD radio in another part of the store, but again.. there was only one and it was an open item.

HD radio is dead. Radio itself is in trouble. Wake up to that reality.

 

[rtc]

SHMBO said to get something so settled on this
after some research:

http://www.amazon.com/jWIN-iLuv-i16...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1293322501&sr=1-1

It is what the reviewers say;doesn't have or need a fan,runs
warm but not hot.FM is OK with a decent antenna (rabbit ears);
AM is what you'd expect...some internal hash (but not as much
compared to an Accurian),sorta like a G8 IOW.
Power supply is internal,good build quality (they were right).
Decodes local subs quickly,does a station 60 miles distant with
r. ears...your mileage will vary.
Has in/out 1/8 inch jacks for phones or mp3.
Some reviewers use it with their systems b/c of the $ and lower
heat as well as stand alone.
Did notice while looking that these things are getting hard-to-find.

 

[davideduardo]

HD radio is dead. Radio itself is in trouble. Wake up to that reality.

Any number of "desk chairs on the Titanic" analgies come to mind. But in essence, we are trying to technology that is 100 years old (AM) and near 80 years old (FM) when consumers have asked for a different delivery model, even if they like the concepts of the content.

 

[radiogooroo]

Any number of "desk chairs on the Titanic" analgies come to mind. But in essence, we are trying to technology that is 100 years old (AM) and near 80 years old (FM) when consumers have asked for a different delivery model, even if they like the concepts of the content.

Content is by far the biggest problem facing radio. Radio as an industry has taken its one biggest advantage - live, local talent - and killed it. For example, know it all consultants have told us again and again that people don't want to hear kids on the radio, not even during the night shows on CHR stations. As a former jock, I guarantee the KIDS wanted to hear themselves on the radio.

Those few seconds of airtime during shout out or goodnight kiss segments tied countless youths to the medium. It gave them the opportunity to be a part of something big, and made them advocates for THEIR station. My hometown had two CHRs when I was a teen, and young people were passionate about them. I remember small fights in my junior high art class when the teacher was deciding which station to put the radio on.

The core technology behind radio may be old, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The core technology behind my home's central heat (which just came on) is way older than radio, but I'm not fretting its age. I'm a huge fan of what it provides, especially when it's in the 20s outside.

If all the companies that make central heating units suddenly decided to start producing systems that didn't provide heat, or provided half the heat they used to, or only provided heat when they felt like it, it might be time to consider some new technology.

 

[TVradioguru]

Radio has evolved into to defacto in-car listening method. That's why few stationary or portable radios are sold today, because one is already where most people listen, their car.

I'm not sure the I buy the live and local argument. Most listeners tested don't comprehend that their favorite station in a market is voicetracked or fed via satellite. To the vast majority, if they listen to whatever station in their local area, it's local. TV tests the same way. A few years ago news consultants jumped on the "live and local' tag line for stations. Then is tests very few understood or even recalled the phrase.

I do agree that it used to be a novelty for kids to hear their voice or the voice of their friend on the radio, but the backstory was adults or other teens found it annoying and a tune out. If only an average of one percent of people call into a radio station, what does that do to the 99% who can care less?

 

[SirRoxalot]

People don't buy HD radios simply because it's unimportant to them. People don't buy radios in general because they already own multiple tuners, many of which are better than what you can buy now.

What's the point of listening to radio, and putting up with commercials, if the content is the same that I can get from my MP3 player that plugs into the dash? In fact, my MP3 player is better. I like all the music, and there are no commercials. Radio had better offer me something that I can't get from my MP3 player.

Live - or at least timely - and locally-targeted content is what differentiates radio from other options. As streaming hits the "mobile entertainment center", it's local content that will differentiate local broadcast companies from generic national providers.

And, Guru, if local TV doesn't matter, most TV stations are spending an awful lot of money on news departments unnecessarily, and charging local advertisers an awful lot of money for spots on those news shows. According to you, an awful lot of commercial inventory is being spent on local news promos and teases for no reason.

 

[arnoldevns]

Radio has evolved into to defacto in-car listening method. That's why few stationary or portable radios are sold today, because one is already where most people listen, their car.

I'm not sure the I buy the live and local argument. Most listeners tested don't comprehend that their favorite station in a market is voicetracked or fed via satellite. To the vast majority, if they listen to whatever station in their local area, it's local. TV tests the same way. A few years ago news consultants jumped on the "live and local' tag line for stations. Then is tests very few understood or even recalled the phrase.

I do agree that it used to be a novelty for kids to hear their voice or the voice of their friend on the radio, but the backstory was adults or other teens found it annoying and a tune out. If only an average of one percent of people call into a radio station, what does that do to the 99% who can care less?

You are either a consultant, used to be one... or a manager who believed all the research you paid tens of thousands of dollars for. I've worked in both Radio and TV and I can assure you of two things: most consultants are not worth the money and putting kids on shows is a good way to get them to tune in. (or their parents)

Radio can survive if localism makes a comeback. If not, radio will shrink to near oblivion with the exception of talk radio and sports.

 

[davideduardo]

Radio has evolved into to defacto in-car listening method. That's why few stationary or portable radios are sold today, because one is already where most people listen, their car.

Many people may listen in the car, but only about 30% of listening time is in-car listening. At home and at work listening are where the TSL is found.

 

[davideduardo]

You are either a consultant, used to be one... or a manager who believed all the research you paid tens of thousands of dollars for.

Well designed and conducted research is well worth the money if the client knows how to use it. After all, "research" just means "talking to the listeners." Why would you not believe what your listeners say?

[/quote]Radio can survive if localism makes a comeback.[/quote]

The problem with localism is that nobody knows what it is. And that's because it is different for each person. For an avid FB user, "local" is their FB community, which may be spread over many continents or, at least, states. To a specialized stamp collector, their community may have no other members within 100 miles. With today's communications, even the word "neigborhood" has an entirely new meaning and with that changed meaning come new priorities.

Just because a local TV station makes money with a couple of hours of local news a day does not mean radio has to talk up local things every hour... doing so, in fact, may get in the way of why the person came to the radio, since they can already get the news on TV and the web.

The whole "localism" thing started by the FCC's desire to give every little town and crossroads a voice is to a considerable extent the reason why we have too many bad facilities, too much interference and many doubts about the future of terrestrial radio.

 

[TVradioguru]

You are either a consultant, used to be one... or a manager who believed all the research you paid tens of thousands of dollars for. I've worked in both Radio and TV and I can assure you of two things: most consultants are not worth the money and putting kids on shows is a good way to get them to tune in. (or their parents)

Radio can survive if localism makes a comeback. If not, radio will shrink to near oblivion with the exception of talk radio and sports.

Interesting that you use the example of news and sports surviving. The fact is in larger markets measured with PPM, talk and sports is taking a drubbing. Granted some of that is because many are on AM stations, which is having it's own challenges, locally programmed or not.

The fact is that one percent or less of listeners ever bother calling into a 'request line'. Most of that one percent are repetitive callers. Focusing on the needs of one percent or less of your audience is a huge mistake, proven over the years as being a mistake. This statistic existed when radio had few competitors back in the 60's and 70's. Reaching out with research to as large a sample as you can afford is always best.

I think you misunderstood my comment about listeners and viewers and the term local. In audience research over the years, listeners and viewers assume that their local station IS live and local. The vast majority of local TV viewers surveyed don't name individual call letters of stations, but instead recall channel numbers, or network affiliation (NBC, CBS, FOX), not that they watch WXYZ because it's 'live and local'. Calling yourself 'live and local' is considered redundant to most viewers and listeners. Ex-radio people or hobbyists who may recognize syndicated programming or automation are a tiny percentage, and not a cross section of what radio listeners want.

To throw additional fuel on the fire, listeners in research always site the higher quality-larger market sound over a lesser-quality talent in the same market, period. If the signal from a larger market or satellite is available, it is always preferred.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The fact is that one percent or less of listeners ever bother calling into a 'request line'. Most of that one percent are repetitive callers.

I don't know of a competent programmer on the planet that programs for request line callers. I don't know of a competent jock on the planet who tailors his show for request line callers. Where did you ever get such an outlandish idea?

The vast majority of local TV viewers surveyed don't name individual call letters of stations, but instead recall channel numbers, or network affiliation (NBC, CBS, FOX), not that they watch WXYZ because it's 'live and local'.

You're applying TV studies to radio? Really?

To throw additional fuel on the fire, listeners in research always site the higher quality-larger market sound over a lesser-quality talent in the same market, period. If the signal from a larger market or satellite is available, it is always preferred.

Oh, please link to THAT research. It certainly doesn't reflect the ratings in many, many markets where there's a choice between syndication and local programming.

BTW, this has certainly gotten WAY off the topic of "Who got or gave an HD Radio for Christmas"

 

[radiogooroo]

The fact is that one percent or less of listeners ever bother calling into a 'request line'. Most of that one percent are repetitive callers. Focusing on the needs of one percent or less of your audience is a huge mistake, proven over the years as being a mistake. This statistic existed when radio had few competitors back in the 60's and 70's. Reaching out with research to as large a sample as you can afford is always best.

I would agree that "focusing" on callers is a huge mistake. The problem is consultants aren't smart enough to use those callers as a tool to create entertaining radio for the other 99% of the audience, and since they can't put their thumb on what might happen in the hands of talented local programmers or air talent, they have simply made sure that caller interaction was eliminated through a number of one size fits all rules.

The most successful stations I've ever been involved with are the ones that broke all the rules. We had fun, and the listeners had fun. The crazy 1% might have had the most fun, but we used them to great effect.

Back in my on-air days, I did middays on one such station and had a lunchtime request show. One day, I got one of those "This is the phone company with a collect call from HEY MAN PLAY SOME NELLY!!! an inmate at the county jail." I did the entire show that day airing only calls from various correctional institutions.

And doing that kind of radio is how the little 6,000W startup took down the 100,000W heritage CHR in the market in just two books. The heritage CHR had a research department. We did not.

 

[KB1OKL]

The fact is that one percent or less of listeners ever bother calling into a 'request line'. Most of that one percent are repetitive callers. Focusing on the needs of one percent or less of your audience is a huge mistake, proven over the years as being a mistake. This statistic existed when radio had few competitors back in the 60's and 70's. Reaching out with research to as large a sample as you can afford is always best.

I have never called in to a request line but several of my favorite stations used to have them and they made me as a listener feel closer to the station, made me feel like "we" had a part in what was played.

 

[davideduardo]

To throw additional fuel on the fire, listeners in research always site the higher quality-larger market sound over a lesser-quality talent in the same market, period. If the signal from a larger market or satellite is available, it is always preferred.

Oh, please link to THAT research. It certainly doesn't reflect the ratings in many, many markets where there's a choice between syndication and local programming.

Look at the shadow markets in Arbitron. For example, the Inland Empire (Riverside / San Berdoo) in California, where about 70% of listening goes to LA market stations. Same goes for Ventura. And LA stations do nothing of significance for those two markets, so there is no targeting to discount.

Place a significantly larger market next to a smaller one, and where the big market signals penetrate at least some of the smaller market and you will see the same thing over and over. Sometimes you have to look at county breaks to see it, but Mr. Guru is quite correct and Arbitron data confirms it.