I just got an e-mail from Russ Oasis. I'm sure most of you got it, too. Here it is, in full. Discuss.
An Open Letter to the industry, From Russ Oasis:
Is this a bad dream or am I living in "The Land of the Brain-dead?" What is wrong with this industry? We are at the most important crossroad of our existence since the inception of FM and our "Leaders" are overdosing on "Stupid pills."
HD radio is at our doorstep and IT IS TEN YEARS LATE. Why? Because our "Leaders" fought needlessly over engineering standards. We COULD have been first to digital radio, but weren't. The result: A huge opening for satellite, based on digital quality and new channels that you'd never hear on terrestrial radio.
Next, instead of using the greatest marketing minds in America, people who brand and market companies like Microsoft, Mini, and Target, our industry leaves its critical marketing decisions to CEO's and committees who run broadcast groups. What do they know about marketing? If they were brilliant marketers, THEY'D BE IN MARKETING AND NOT RADIO. You wouldn't ask Ries and Trout or Seth Godin how to create a format clock, or whether omni-directional antennas are better than directional antennas. So, why would you ask a radio executive how to market a new product? The HD radio effort is going to take more than TV spots with album covers, music videos, and the Birthday Game.
Continuing our stroll down the path of insanity, there's the HD Alliance. It consists of a group of companies and station owners who march toward doom and failure, in the face of impartial, irrefutable research, warning us to change course. Only one executive had any common sense, commissioning a research project, to determine the basis for the way the HD band is displayed on the YET TO BE PRODUCED HD radios. It's not like the horse is out of the barn....YET.
In fact, not only are there a VERY small number of HD radios in existence, but many of them don't have the ability to receive the additional HD channels that are at the heart of this issue. And, NONE of the manufacturers (Kenwood, Panasonic, Boston Acoustics, to name a few) have agreed upon a standard as to how the extra channels will appear to the listener, or how the listener tunes to them. THIS IS THE TIME FOR US TO SET THE STANDARD; TO ALLOW THE RADIO MANUFACTURERS TO SET THE STANDARD WOULD BE "THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG." Furthermore, the manufacturers don't really care which standard we use, they just want to know what it is. Why isn't "The Alliance" creating and setting a standard that makes sense and then TELLING the radio manufacturers what we intend on using?
Bob Neil, at Cox, hired Bob Harper to determine listener perceptions and how to best capitalize on WHAT THE PUBLIC ALREADY BELIEVES. The results were definitive and irrefutable. The public wants a display that is simple and intuitive, NOT a layered approach. In fact, when the layered approach was suggested to the 12 groups researched, they thought it was a trick question. It made no sense to them. On the other hand, they understood the concept of the expanded band, instantly. The results of this bona fide research are available in both streaming form (you can watch the actual interviews being conducted) or as a written summary, by going to www.bobharper.com/reports.htm. This research has been available and accessible to the HD Alliance, and what was their response? "That's nice but we're doing it the layered way, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary." Are these "Leaders," who, for the most part, have no programming or marketing background, so omnipotent, that their whim overrules even the most compelling and irrefutable research?
Oh sure, the Alliance would rather not change directions midstream, that might create some actual work. I've also heard the argument that if we went to the expanded band, perhaps the FCC would have to approve it. Hey fellas...the expanded band is VIRTUAL. We would not really be using the 108.1 or 111.7 (expanded band) frequencies; the radio would ONLY BE INDICATING that is where the listener had tuned. THIS IS THE KIND OF SYSTEM THAT PEOPLE WANT AND ALREADY UNDERSTAND. If the "Leaders" of the industry don't understand it, they can call me and I'll explain that 108.1 is really a MACRO that performs a combination of functions with one button push.
With the layered approach, if a person listening to the second (or third) new HD channel of 103.5 wants to listen to the third HD channel of 95.7, he must FIRST manually tune down the band until he arrives at the main 95.7 analog / digital channel. THEN, wait 7 seconds for the main channel to buffer to digital and THEN must tune up the dial two stations to FINALLY reach the third HD channel of 95.7 (95.7 HD-3). THAT IS AN UNNECESSARY AND DISORIENTING ORDEAL. With the layered approach, a listener cannot listen to, sense the existence of, or tune to a second or third HD channel without first being forced to hear the audio from the original analog / digital station on that frequency. PLEASE UNDERSTAND: Before being able to listen to one of our new stations, listeners will always be FORCED to first tune to a station that they may hate.
If we utilize the expanded VIRTUAL band, the listener would simply press one button that says (for example) 109.7 and instantly the macro switches to the 95.7 main, analog / digital channel, then automatically mutes that main channel (so that the listener never hears the main channel on the way to the second HD channel) and then it instantly tunes the radio to the second HD channel and unmutes it. The listener never knows that any of that has happened. HE SIMPLY THINKS THAT HE HAS TUNED TO 109.7 AND HE IS NOW LISTENING TO THE STATION WHICH BROADCASTS ON THAT FREQUENCY, when in fact; it is the new second HD channel of 95.7. Why do "The leaders" of the industry not see the simplicity of this?
Remember, in the layered system, if a listener wants to listen to one of the new HD channels, he must first tune to a station that he does not want to listen to, before he gets to the station that he does. If that happens, the new formats on new channels of (each main frequency), become permanently associated (in the listeners' minds) with the format of the main channel. Another negative is that the additional HD channels will seem to not be on the air if a person attempts to tune directly to them, without first going to the analog / digital main frequency. DOES THIS LAYERED SYSTEM MAKE ANY SENSE?
Here's another question: Why would we think that Madonna can promote terrestrial radio? She is a musician. Aside from the fact that Madonna is irrelevant to people under 25, what credibility does she hold in the radio landscape? Would Jerry Seinfeld be a good spokesperson for HD or analog TV because his programs were broadcast on television? Same thing here. Madonna's SONGS were played on radio, nothing more. If you want to bring some credibility to radio, IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF WHAT GOES OUT OVER THE AIR. And by the way, "Less is more," only if less really is. Reducing the minutes of commercials, while increasing the number of units, is hurting the cause, not helping.
Where are the "Leaders" who understand that this moment is the most important moment in the life of terrestrial radio and we are treating it as if we're choosing the color of a car? Now is the time to stop thinking like shareholders and start thinking like consumers. Listeners have told us what they want: 1) Diverse content options, 2) A clutter free environment and 3) A simple and easy way of locating the content (the expanded band).
How many times do we need to make the same mistakes? Take the advice of the listeners and give them what they want, or the satellite broadcasters will.
Russ Oasis
305 667-6800
[email protected]
An Open Letter to the industry, From Russ Oasis:
Is this a bad dream or am I living in "The Land of the Brain-dead?" What is wrong with this industry? We are at the most important crossroad of our existence since the inception of FM and our "Leaders" are overdosing on "Stupid pills."
HD radio is at our doorstep and IT IS TEN YEARS LATE. Why? Because our "Leaders" fought needlessly over engineering standards. We COULD have been first to digital radio, but weren't. The result: A huge opening for satellite, based on digital quality and new channels that you'd never hear on terrestrial radio.
Next, instead of using the greatest marketing minds in America, people who brand and market companies like Microsoft, Mini, and Target, our industry leaves its critical marketing decisions to CEO's and committees who run broadcast groups. What do they know about marketing? If they were brilliant marketers, THEY'D BE IN MARKETING AND NOT RADIO. You wouldn't ask Ries and Trout or Seth Godin how to create a format clock, or whether omni-directional antennas are better than directional antennas. So, why would you ask a radio executive how to market a new product? The HD radio effort is going to take more than TV spots with album covers, music videos, and the Birthday Game.
Continuing our stroll down the path of insanity, there's the HD Alliance. It consists of a group of companies and station owners who march toward doom and failure, in the face of impartial, irrefutable research, warning us to change course. Only one executive had any common sense, commissioning a research project, to determine the basis for the way the HD band is displayed on the YET TO BE PRODUCED HD radios. It's not like the horse is out of the barn....YET.
In fact, not only are there a VERY small number of HD radios in existence, but many of them don't have the ability to receive the additional HD channels that are at the heart of this issue. And, NONE of the manufacturers (Kenwood, Panasonic, Boston Acoustics, to name a few) have agreed upon a standard as to how the extra channels will appear to the listener, or how the listener tunes to them. THIS IS THE TIME FOR US TO SET THE STANDARD; TO ALLOW THE RADIO MANUFACTURERS TO SET THE STANDARD WOULD BE "THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG." Furthermore, the manufacturers don't really care which standard we use, they just want to know what it is. Why isn't "The Alliance" creating and setting a standard that makes sense and then TELLING the radio manufacturers what we intend on using?
Bob Neil, at Cox, hired Bob Harper to determine listener perceptions and how to best capitalize on WHAT THE PUBLIC ALREADY BELIEVES. The results were definitive and irrefutable. The public wants a display that is simple and intuitive, NOT a layered approach. In fact, when the layered approach was suggested to the 12 groups researched, they thought it was a trick question. It made no sense to them. On the other hand, they understood the concept of the expanded band, instantly. The results of this bona fide research are available in both streaming form (you can watch the actual interviews being conducted) or as a written summary, by going to www.bobharper.com/reports.htm. This research has been available and accessible to the HD Alliance, and what was their response? "That's nice but we're doing it the layered way, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary." Are these "Leaders," who, for the most part, have no programming or marketing background, so omnipotent, that their whim overrules even the most compelling and irrefutable research?
Oh sure, the Alliance would rather not change directions midstream, that might create some actual work. I've also heard the argument that if we went to the expanded band, perhaps the FCC would have to approve it. Hey fellas...the expanded band is VIRTUAL. We would not really be using the 108.1 or 111.7 (expanded band) frequencies; the radio would ONLY BE INDICATING that is where the listener had tuned. THIS IS THE KIND OF SYSTEM THAT PEOPLE WANT AND ALREADY UNDERSTAND. If the "Leaders" of the industry don't understand it, they can call me and I'll explain that 108.1 is really a MACRO that performs a combination of functions with one button push.
With the layered approach, if a person listening to the second (or third) new HD channel of 103.5 wants to listen to the third HD channel of 95.7, he must FIRST manually tune down the band until he arrives at the main 95.7 analog / digital channel. THEN, wait 7 seconds for the main channel to buffer to digital and THEN must tune up the dial two stations to FINALLY reach the third HD channel of 95.7 (95.7 HD-3). THAT IS AN UNNECESSARY AND DISORIENTING ORDEAL. With the layered approach, a listener cannot listen to, sense the existence of, or tune to a second or third HD channel without first being forced to hear the audio from the original analog / digital station on that frequency. PLEASE UNDERSTAND: Before being able to listen to one of our new stations, listeners will always be FORCED to first tune to a station that they may hate.
If we utilize the expanded VIRTUAL band, the listener would simply press one button that says (for example) 109.7 and instantly the macro switches to the 95.7 main, analog / digital channel, then automatically mutes that main channel (so that the listener never hears the main channel on the way to the second HD channel) and then it instantly tunes the radio to the second HD channel and unmutes it. The listener never knows that any of that has happened. HE SIMPLY THINKS THAT HE HAS TUNED TO 109.7 AND HE IS NOW LISTENING TO THE STATION WHICH BROADCASTS ON THAT FREQUENCY, when in fact; it is the new second HD channel of 95.7. Why do "The leaders" of the industry not see the simplicity of this?
Remember, in the layered system, if a listener wants to listen to one of the new HD channels, he must first tune to a station that he does not want to listen to, before he gets to the station that he does. If that happens, the new formats on new channels of (each main frequency), become permanently associated (in the listeners' minds) with the format of the main channel. Another negative is that the additional HD channels will seem to not be on the air if a person attempts to tune directly to them, without first going to the analog / digital main frequency. DOES THIS LAYERED SYSTEM MAKE ANY SENSE?
Here's another question: Why would we think that Madonna can promote terrestrial radio? She is a musician. Aside from the fact that Madonna is irrelevant to people under 25, what credibility does she hold in the radio landscape? Would Jerry Seinfeld be a good spokesperson for HD or analog TV because his programs were broadcast on television? Same thing here. Madonna's SONGS were played on radio, nothing more. If you want to bring some credibility to radio, IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF WHAT GOES OUT OVER THE AIR. And by the way, "Less is more," only if less really is. Reducing the minutes of commercials, while increasing the number of units, is hurting the cause, not helping.
Where are the "Leaders" who understand that this moment is the most important moment in the life of terrestrial radio and we are treating it as if we're choosing the color of a car? Now is the time to stop thinking like shareholders and start thinking like consumers. Listeners have told us what they want: 1) Diverse content options, 2) A clutter free environment and 3) A simple and easy way of locating the content (the expanded band).
How many times do we need to make the same mistakes? Take the advice of the listeners and give them what they want, or the satellite broadcasters will.
Russ Oasis
305 667-6800
[email protected]
)