BLOG

The Washington Post misses the point about HD Radio

From the Post:

But far from pushing their HD offerings, most stations seem only halfheartedly invested in the technology. Most Washington stations barely mention their HD channels on their Web sites, let alone on their airwaves.

HD remains a promising technology, but so far, many more people listen to the new programming via online streaming than on an HD radio. Listeners are voting with their ears, and they’re choosing Web-based and mobile audio, in part because most HD radio programming just isn’t compelling enough to lure people to a different gadget.

Even if we put aside the head-rattling conclusion that radio stations are “halfhearted” in their commitment after countless hundreds of millions of dollars in on-air promotion, this is still wrong, and it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of consumer behavior and economics.

First, there is nothing radio stations can do to fundamentally drive listeners to purchase new radios (if, in fact, a purchase is required) because listeners do not have a “radio problem.” These alternatives – online or mobile – are in our lives not because they offer us radio but because they offer us benefits that are specific to these technologies and address unique and particular needs. The fact that they might also offer radio (of one type or another) is strictly icing on the cake.

Second, If you have nearly 100% distribution, as conventional radio does, and you have fresh, compelling content, where is the best place for you to put it?

On the distribution channel that is used by everyone?

Or on the distribution channel that is used by no one?

If you have something good, why place it in an HD ghetto when it can achieve instant critical mass – and be monetized accordingly – in the bright light of day on a full and ubiquitous FM signal?

Web-based and mobile audio are being preferred because they don’t depend on the creation of new audio programming to drive their demand. They are already on our desks and in our palms for reasons which have nothing to do with radio (indeed, this is exactly why they are so important to our future).

I am sick of radio stations being blamed for the difficulties of HD. Folks who complain listeners would come to HD radio if there was something good on it are generally the same folks who have no idea what that “something good” might be.

Besides, when the major groups are firing approximately one program director a day, it tells you all you need to know about the priority placed on fresh and original content.

7 Comments;
  • Bob Young

    Mark said:
    “I am sick of radio stations being blamed for the difficulties of HD. Folks who complain listeners would come to HD radio if there was something good on it are generally the same folks who have no idea what that “something good” might be.”
    No it is the junk HD technology itself which keeps consumers from purchasing HD radios, it is 90′s technology about a decade too late EVEN IF IT WORKED AS PROMISED WHICH IT DOESN’T. I have last.fm on right now. I wish Wifi were available for cars now.

  • Jeff Schmidt

    Bob – you may be correct about the technology – but I’d bet consumers have no idea it sucks. in fact i bet they don’t care.
    like mark said, hd radio is a non-starter because is solves no consumer problem.
    further – it even doesn’t create a consumer problem for which it can be sold as a solution.
    in other words – radio isn’t broken for most people – and hd radio doesn’t break it enough to be a “must buy” device.

  • http://oldgrouch.mee.nu Old Grouch

    “Even if we put aside the head-rattling conclusion that radio stations are ‘halfhearted’ in their commitment after countless hundreds of millions of dollars in on-air promotion…”
    Mark, that’s Hollywood accounting. “Hundreds of millions of dollars” worth of spots– sounds impressive! But when they’re priced at the premium rate, and when many of them would have otherwise been unsold inventory, it’s less so. Giving away airtime is the cheapest (and easiest) thing a station can do. And it doesn’t require any long-term commitment.

  • http://www.mercradio.com Mark Ramsey

    Grouch, sure. But the reality at the station level is that time could be used for something else that has a definite opportunity cost, valued in dollars or in listener entertainment.
    So the commitment is real.

  • Thomas Ammons

    Multicasting isn’t the only thing HDRadio can do. It can also do file transfer or to put it into the current vernacular-podcast to the radio. Mobile devices give the functionality of Audio On Demand. For marketing reasons that I don’t understand Ibiquity and commercial radio have decided not to develop this capability. Public radio yawns too. Sat Radio is justbeginning to catch on to this as a desired feature.

  • http://www.signonradio.com Dave Mason

    Mark says: “I am sick of radio stations being blamed for the difficulties of HD. Folks who complain listeners would come to HD radio if there was something good on it are generally the same folks who have no idea what that ‘something good’ might be.”
    Then you mention the PD a day firings. Which statement are you serious about?
    If the creators of HD radio can’t sell it, this must mean they don’t understand it. If they’re the ones putting the programming on it, who else CAN you blame? Not the consumer-who’s getting half-assed messages about what it’s all about.
    By the way, those messages are NOT in place of paid spots. They’re add-ons in most cases.

  • Dan

    HD radio needs to comply to the desires of real music listeners. That should include classical/symphonic stations. In Phoenix (4th largest city in the USA, there is NO classical channel on HD Radio! (Tucson has one, but it is one 5th the size of Phoenix.

Sign Up For Blog Email Updates

About

MRM President Mark Ramsey has worked with innumerable television and radio broadcasters over his career, including all the biggest names, from Clear Channel, CBS, Bonneville, Sirius XM...

Mark Ramsey