Tell me, once again, how HD is going to save radio??

[ChiefOperator]

Okay HD defenders, please explain to me, once again, how the sonic improvement of HD is going to save FM? For the past month, I've been listening to both the analog and HD channnels of several stations. Yes, there is a difference, but not much. In fact, by comparison, the FM analog is certainly NOT objectionable. I've also had a few friends who are not "radio geeks" make A-B comparisons. So far, most have said "okay, it sounds a little different, but no big deal."

Now, I don't disagree that an additional HD channel will give more choices and more choices is an improvement. But I'm still waiting to hear someone argue persuasively that a listener who has "tuned out" from a particular station will return simply because of the sonic "improvements" of HD. I've been a skeptic of the argument since HD was first discussed, and I'm even a bigger skeptic since I've listened to HD.. If the argument had any weight, no one would listen to many of the crummy sounding on-line stations or any or the artifact-infected MP3s

Bottom line: People tune in or tune out a station based on its content--If the content drives the listener away, the addition of HD won't bring the listener back....

If radio wishes to help itself, it needs to stop trying to win back listeners and start correcting the actual reasons that radio pushes listeners away in the first place...

 

[TheBigA]

If radio wishes to help itself, it needs to stop trying to win back listeners and start correcting the actual reasons that radio pushes listeners away in the first place...

There is no way to correct that. Take it from me. I've been tracking a lot of stations that have tried everything. Expanding playlists. Live & local personalities. Lots of promotions. Anything you can think of. It barely moves the audience meter.

We are in a time when the audience wants to control the content. There's tons of it out there. Any system that puts someone else in control of it is bad. Each person in the audience wants their own personal station. One that plays what they like, with no songs they don't like, and no commercials or subscription fees. In fact, if you could pay them to listen, you'd have a better chance. Work on that, will you?

 

[Roger That]

There is no way to correct that. Take it from me. I've been tracking a lot of stations that have tried everything. Expanding playlists. Live & local personalities. Lots of promotions. Anything you can think of. It barely moves the audience meter.

I don't know you or your stations, but in playing the odds, one would assume that all those things you've tried didn't work for a simple reason: The fundamentals used in each of them are still rooted in decades-old philosophy that does, indeed, drive the audience away. Think of it as talking AT them, versus talking TO them. Hate to break it to you, but stations that talk TO their audience ARE moving the needle. Content and personalities that relate to their audience still create loyalty.

I 100% agree with your assessment of on-demand desire amongst the audience. But radio will not be that for a LONG time (wish it could get there faster...maybe ever). But the difference between you and I is, I believe that the audience can still have passion for radio if it evolves to better reflect their tastes.

Radio spends too much time trying to wedge their audience into what IT wants. Do something different. Create a product that best reflects what your audience wants. Millions still use radio, albeit differently than the 80's. We're already playing catch up, but trying things that haven't worked for a LONG time (expanding playlists, most promotions, etc) over and over and expecting different results won't get us very far.

 

[Roger That]

Oh, and to answer the original question, no, HD will not save radio. It doesn't HURT it (except that it doesn't have a message as clear as the signal it boasts), but it's not helping, either.

Only the biggest of nerds (including many of us here) care anything about fidelity and sonic quality. Your audience only cares if you're playing their favorite music and talking about things they can relate to.

 

[TheBigA]

The fundamentals used in each of them are still rooted in decades-old philosophy that does, indeed, drive the audience away.

If you read the rest of my post, that's exactly what I said:

We are in a time when the audience wants to control the content. There's tons of it out there. Any system that puts someone else in control of it is bad. Each person in the audience wants their own personal station. One that plays what they like, with no songs they don't like, and no commercials or subscription fees. In fact, if you could pay them to listen, you'd have a better chance. Work on that, will you?

 

[landtuna]

Each person in the audience wants their own personal station. One that plays what they like, with no songs they don't like, and no commercials or subscription fees.

I've done the radio thing since the 50's (both AM & FM) and more recently the MP3 player thingie too. Here's what would bring me back to radio:

1. A format that emulates my MP3 player music (late 50's origins of RnR, 60's, including some surf/psycho/protest/folk rock, 70's except disco). Country Rock is OK too and even some cross-over easy listening. Dedicate some air time to music that doesn't get played in regular rotation. Better yet, dump the programmed rotation and let the air staff program on the fly.

2. Air-staff that makes me feel part of the station/culture and makes listening interesting (beyond just the music). Tell me things about staff/station/music I don't know. Bring back a genuine on-air personality instead of just a boss voice.

3. Commercials pay the bills but don't run 5-8 minutes back-to-back and obnoxious spots prevalent among car dealers. Don't yell at me. And dump the echo and reverb!

4. Give me a signal I can receive home and mobile in my metro area without interference or fade. AM is OK. FM is much better.

 

[XTalker]

Here's what I don't get (and it's not the first time it has happened). Why does the FCC not mandate DIGITAL for radio and force not only the broadcasters, but receiver manufacturers to get with the program?

They have done it for television a couple of times - the switch to color, the "all channel" receiver, and HDTV.

That is really the only way it will ever work.

 

[Roger That]

If you read the rest of my post, that's exactly what I said:

You say there's no way to compete in this on-demand world, because you've tried it. I'm suggesting that what you tried was executed poorly, using outdated practices and philosophy. Your conclusion is that it can't be done. That's the part I challenge, and not even remotely what you quoted. What you said suggests we should just give up and shut the transmitter off.

 

[ChiefOperator]

Folks--

Thanks for all your replies. But I'm still waiting for the HD defenders to tell me how HD is going to save radio?

I remember when HD was first spoke about, and at the time, I was a vocal skeptic. In response, there were MANY who argued against me, stating that HD was the answer and that I needed to "get on-board." And at the time, I argued that content changes, not HD, was the answer (especially for FM). A stale, corporate package--which of course describes most stations today--was a sure loser regardless of how "good" it sounded.

At that time, The HD defenders kept arguing that HD would solve the problem. I know that most of you heard the same argument as well. Okay, HD defenders, I know you're out there. Get ahead and tell us exactly *how* HD is the savior. You've argued it in the past; let's hear it now.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm suggesting that what you tried was executed poorly, using outdated practices and philosophy.

Using what facts? How do you know what was done?

 

[TomT]

It isn't.

That's all folks.

 

[ChiefOperator]

Exactly.... Thank you....

 

[Roger That]

Using what facts? How do you know what was done?

Using no facts. I have no idea what was done. I even stated so in my first reply.

I don't know you or your stations, but in playing the odds, one would assume that all those things you've tried didn't work for a simple reason: The fundamentals used in each of them are still rooted in decades-old philosophy that does, indeed, drive the audience away.

It was a guess, based on the odds (so stated).

Again, I point out that you're asserting that the radio world is doomed and that there is no solution in this on-demand world. I simply suggest that just because YOU don't know what the solution is, doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. I'm just trying to offer a more optimistic counterpoint to your Chicken Little response.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The only chance HD has of saving radio is if some of the guys who don't know what to do with the additional HD channels turn them over to creative programmers who develop outside-of-the-corporate-box programming worth listening to.

Think back to the late '60s and early '70s when maverick programmers - mostly kids - got their hands on underutilized FM stations and created "underground" and "progressive" formats that got the medium noticed. Was it great radio? No. Was it more interesting than the pre-packaged corporate radio on the "main" channel? Yep.

The biggest challenge to HD radio is wireless Internet access. Whether it's 3G cellular, WiMax, area-wide Wi-fi, or something that we haven't heard about yet, ubiquitous wireless Internet access may force radio to completely redefine itself.

Radio is in a great position to take advantage of wireless Internet if they're smart enough to offer content that isn't already available on the web. What's the point in listening to a local version of a syndicated show when you can hear the original feed? Many radio stations are already streaming, and have the local talent, sales forces, and promotional opportunities available to provide programming of interest to LOCAL listeners.

Eventually syndicators are going to wonder why they're giving up commercial inventory, or paying distribution fees in order to service local stations. That may be a few years away, but it's coming. Listeners who want to hear Ryan Seacrest won't need a local station to provide that feed. Look at Howard Stern. You'd think that broadcasters would have learned from the chaos that followed his move to satellite not to put their eggs in that basket. Some stations still haven't recovered.

When wireless Internet becomes widely available and cheap, HD radio - and perhaps all radio - may become a footnote in broadcasting history.

 

[davideduardo]

The only chance HD has of saving radio is if some of the guys who don't know what to do with the additional HD channels turn them over to creative programmers who develop outside-of-the-corporate-box programming worth listening to.

HD was never intended to "save radio" but to, instead, give it a digital presence. That is an evolutionary change, not a revolutionary one.

Revolutionary is the change from RF producing transmitters to streams of any kind as a distribution method. And that is coming, too.

Think back to the late '60s and early '70s when maverick programmers - mostly kids - got their hands on underutilized FM stations and created "underground" and "progressive" formats that got the medium noticed. Was it great radio? No. Was it more interesting than the pre-packaged corporate radio on the "main" channel? Yep.

Actually, what got FM noticed was the FCC rule in larger markets that put a stop to simulcasting in 1967. FMs had to do something new, and free form was one of them... although the most successful one was moving Beautiful Music from AM to FM, where it was not uncommon to find two if not three such stations in the top 10 in a market.

Eventually syndicators are going to wonder why they're giving up commercial inventory, or paying distribution fees in order to service local stations.

Syndicators do not give up inventory, they take it. The whole business model of syndicators is to sell a collection of stations as a national network, using the inventory they "own" to sell multiple markets. Most syndicated shows don't pay a fee to stations (I do not know what you mean by "distribution fees") unless they badly, badly need a market to enhance sales.

Most syndication is free to the station in exchange for inventory. Some top shows are cash plus inventory to the syndicator from the station.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Distribution Fees

(I do not know what you mean by "distribution fees") unless they badly, badly need a market to enhance sales.

Most syndication is free to the station in exchange for inventory. Some top shows are cash plus inventory to the syndicator from the station.

There ain't no free lunch. Syndicators have to pay for distribution of their product - either via satellite time, bandwidth, or producing CDs and mailing them out to customers. That's what I mean by "distribution fees".

Production time also costs money, and there are myriad other expenses included in the production of syndicated material.

 

[XTalker]

Of course, syndicated shows like Rush, Hannity, and a few others charge a "rights fee" to most all stations. Amount is most often based on market size. In the very small markets, they will more than likely make the station by the receiver.

Rush could never survice without the radio affiliations. They bring way too much cash into the system.