BLOG

“Radio Rocks My Phone” Strains Credibility

This is not a post about the wisdom of FM chips in mobile phones.  I wrote that post already last year and absolutely nothing significant has changed my view since then, nor the facts supporting it.

Nor has the resistance to this wrong-headed industry initiative changed. Indeed, it has deepened over time.  And that resistance has been met with an increasingly shrill effort by NAB to lobby Congress and broadcasters and create the impression that they’re lobbying consumers.

I say “create the impression” because the tangible effort illustrated in NAB’s new “Radio Rocks My Phone” campaign is the most ham-handed, tone-deaf thing I’ve seen since that late, great gem “Radio Heard Here.”

One might argue that there’s more to marketing than creating a website with talking points and a creaky slogan worthy of McMann and Tate’s finest, but don’t bother arguing that to NAB.

“Radio Rocks My Phone!”  Imagine that, the domain was available (as of this writing “hdradiorocksmyphone.com” is still available, which doesn’t say much for NAB’s ability to integrate priorities)!

One can only hope that NAB is better at changing minds on Capitol Hill than it is at marketing to regular folks.

Inside Radio writes:

A new push in the House to block a proposed mandate that cell phones integrate FM chips has the fight back on the air. National Association of Broadcasters members this week will begin running a new “Radio Rocks My Phone” commercial. The spot’s aim is to “educate” listeners and direct them to a website that lists FM-equipped handset models and how to sound-off to their representatives in Congress. The NAB says the spots are to create enthusiasm for voluntary carriage by cell phone companies.

Yes, let’s add more free inventory to the air, that’s the answer!  Because it worked so well when we wasted that precious time on HD radio and “Radio Heard Here.”

Yes, new spots are about to chew up your precious air time on a wild goose chase for consumers who give a damn.

Happy hunting.

It’s not like there’s anything else we’d do with that airtime anyway, right?  Like actually sell it or hand it back to audiences in the form of the content they come to us for in the first place.  Nah!

Got a problem?  Run an ad!

Because consumers need to be educated about what they want!  Nobody really knows what they want, after all.  Do you know whether you want radio in your mobile devices?  Obviously not, according to NAB.  Does NAB know that the magic of streaming already makes radio available to you in those same devices, and does so with added features enabled by technology that no FM chip can match?

Obviously not.

Evidently mobile phone manufacturers are stupid, thinking that consumers buy phones because of what fresh features they have, rather than choosing one because it can make their clock radio redundant.

Nobody wants what’s fresh, right?  I want my iPad magazine app to be an identical digital version of the paper mag, don’t you?  I want my CNN.com to mirror the cable network exactly, don’t you?

The nerve of these manufacturers, thinking that mobile devices are not radios you can talk into but personalized, portable connection devices designed to do what can’t be done other ways, not what’s done other ways by 800 million radios in every home, work, and car.

Thankfully, the NAB is on the case.  And that case contains a laughably tepid slogan borrowed from a boozy martini lunch with the kind of ad men one can only find on AMC and in 1963.

Fortunately for fans of Geocities, NAB has created a site that stretches the technical capabilities of Microsoft Frontpage to the absolute limit!  It makes me want to buy some Netscape stock right now, in fact.

One statistic NAB forgot to provide:  How are those FM-enabled phones selling? And no matter whether or not a consumer tells you she wants FM in her next phone, the real question is whether FM is a reason to buy one phone over another – and it generally is not. The phone-makers, you see, understand what drives the consumption of their devices while the NAB does not.

If only Microsoft’s Zune had included radio – then it would easily have toppled the iPod.  Er…oh…well….maybe if it had been HD radio, then….er…oh…well…never mind.

This is not about “what’s good for the radio industry.”  It’s about what’s good for consumers, and how broadcasters can meet those needs on consumers’ terms, not their own.  Because in so doing, broadcasters grow and prosper.

This is a time of great opportunity for broadcasters who see beyond their hundred-year history.  There is a grand and glorious future for radio brands and their offshoots and compliments on mobile devices.

Just don’t expect tomorrow to resemble yesterday.

18 Comments;
  • http://twitter.com/mrlanser Mike Lanser

    I'm so glad you mentioned the site design. I clicked the link and when it loaded my immediate thought was “I'm supposed to think having a radio in my phone is cool after I load this up?” Nothing says 'Old Guys in Suits' like site design from the early 90s.

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

    Indeed, that's only part of my point. The sad truth is, as I implied, that I don't think NAB really wants to suggest that having a radio in your phone is cool, I think they want their clients and patrons to THINK they are suggesting that. What else could explain such a weak attempt?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Deal/556517321 Andrew Deal

    More crappy campaigns from Radio seeking to latch themselves onto new media devices? Say it ain't so!

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

    I think broadcasters are, can, and will be important parts of new media devices. But not by turning them old-school.

  • Lee Cornell

    Apart from an abysmal website… the thinking behind it just makes my head hurt.

  • http://radionx.com john ford

    until they make a cell phone with one of these, I'm unimpressed

    http://www.inductor2u.com/imag…

  • Jeff Smulyan

    I've just read another of Mark Ramsey's blogs about FM chips and I
    decided that it is time for a vigorous response. When Mark asks, “Does
    NAB know the magic of streaming already makes radio available to those
    same devices and does so with features enabled by technology that no FM
    chip can match?” I feel compelled to answer for the NAB, and the rest
    of the radio industry, so Mark, here goes:

    1. Yes, I know all about streaming. Like thousands of other
    broadcasters, I've been doing it for nearly two decades. I don't know
    if anyone else has made money at it, but we haven't, and I haven't heard
    of anyone else who has. At Emmis, we've invested millions of dollars in
    our interactive ventures because we want to be where our audiences are,
    but we are also realistic about economics.

    2. Streaming is a one-to-one, interactive medium, which does allow
    us to do lots of great things, but there is a tremendous cost to that.
    The best example I can give is to compare streaming with over-the-air
    transmission. In our Los Angeles station, KPWR, we reach around 2.8
    million people a week. Our annual electric costs from our transmitter
    are $39,500, a cost that does not rise if we serve one person in Southern
    California, or all 16 million within the reach of our signal. If we
    were to take down our transmitter and reach every person we currently
    reach through streaming, our cost to disseminate the signal would be
    nearly $1 million per year! Is there enough value in making a broadly
    based entertainment medium a one-to-one medium? That's the current
    debate in this country, and I would submit that consumers haven't found
    that value yet.

    3. Consumers haven't discovered the value yet, and they really
    haven't been paying the true cost of streaming, but that is about to
    change dramatically. Almost every mobile data plan has unlimited usage;
    most plans cost $30 per month. However, with AT&T's data usage growing
    by over 5,000 percent in just three years, the company (and every other
    carrier), admit that this growth is unsustainable. Carriers are going
    to metering, and our question is, how will people feel about streaming
    audio and video when their bills grow from $30 to $60 per month, or
    more? Remember, the average smart phone uses 15 times the data of the
    standard cell phone, and the average iPad uses 30 times the data of a
    smart phone. Is there any wonder that the carriers are demanding
    spectrum from our TV brethren?

    4. When Mark talks about “phone makers understand(ing) what drives
    the consumption of their devices while the NAB does not,” he
    demonstrates a frightening lack of comprehension on this subject. In
    the beginning of my work on this project, I talked to one of the largest
    manufacturers of phones in the world. They have sold many millions of
    phones. Their comment was succinct. “When people know they can have
    radios in their phones, they buy them. It is a very cheap addition, and
    people love the feature.” That's why nearly one billion cell phones all
    over the world have been sold with radios in them!

    5. Why haven't we seen this in the US? Because unlike most of the
    rest of the world, the major carriers control phone sales in our
    country, and they have deliberately kept radio chips out for years. As
    I was told early on in this project, “We're not going to allow free
    radio when we think we can sell music downloads!” Of course, a few
    years later, the carriers found out that music downloads weren't
    selling, and they've largely abandoned that effort. Today, radio chips
    are becoming ubiquitous all over the world as evidenced by a recent TNS
    Global Mobile Life study showing that nearly 70 percent of people
    outside of the U.S. have an FM/AM radio feature on their phone, and
    nearly 43 percent use them. In fact, millions are shipped in radios in
    this country, but they are deactivated. iPhones are just one of the
    models where an FM radio exists but isn't allowed to be used.

    6. The NAB did a study that pointed out that even in the models
    where FM chips were activated, the carriers never mentioned the feature
    in their literature, and cell phone salespeople were never told about
    it.

    7. All media advertising will soon have an interactive factor
    similar to the metrics seen in Internet advertising now. Greater return
    path metrics are good news for Radio. We are the most promotional,
    closest mass medium to the purchase and this interactivity will prove
    out to be a huge proof point for Radio's effectiveness. Premium
    costs-per- thousands from enriched interactive advertising are emerging
    in video through the set top box and in print through QR codes. Radio's
    opportunity, as well as the carriers, lies within a broad reach mobile
    platform the cell phone subscriber base provides. Streaming consumption
    is a good complement to over the air listening, not a replacement. The
    interactivity coming to all media will prove this without a doubt.

    We have been asked, shouldn't the marketplace decide this? Our answer
    is, of course it should. But there has never been a free market for
    radios in cell phones in the US. When people have had the chance to
    vote, all over the world, they pay a small additional fee and get free,
    over-the-air radio in their phones.

    Since this issue has been blocked in the United States, it is incumbent
    on all broadcasters, and especially with the leadership of the NAB, to
    explain and inform the public about what's really going on here. How
    can we expect the public to understand this when industry experts can't
    figure it out?

    And there's one other issue here as well..public safety.

    While Congress required the cell phone industry to alert the public
    during emergencies through the WARN act in 2006, the carriers have still
    not implemented a plan.

    Their “solution” is building a texting system to send the public several
    lines of messages during an emergency.

    We think that makes no sense for the following reasons:

    1. Nearly 40 percent of the American public has never sent or
    received a text.

    2. In an emergency, like in Hurricane Katrina, the Tsunami in
    Japan, or the recent tornadoes in the Carolinas , the power grid goes
    down, rendering the cell system useless. Since most broadcasters have
    emergency generators, we have always provided the only lifeline in such
    instances.

    3. Even when the cell system stays up, it gets jammed when usage
    spikes, which is exactly what happens in an emergency.

    4. The NAB has pointed out that the only way to keep the public
    informed and safe during an emergency is having radios in their cell
    phones at a cost of less than 30 cents per phone!

    For all of these reasons, we will keep fighting vigorously for our
    industry, for our audiences and for keeping the public safe, while
    making sure that those in our industry who don't understand this issue
    will keep hearing from us.

  • http://www.markramseymedia.com/2011/04/why-are-we-debating-fm-on-mobile-phones/ Why are we debating FM on Mobile Phones? | Mark Ramsey Media LLC

    [...] Smulyan thinks otherwise (see his reply to my post here).  I have the greatest respect for Jeff.  He’s a terrific broadcaster and Emmis is a [...]

  • http://friendfeed.com/markedwards MarkEdwards

    Well said. The NAB again isn't thinking about the CONSUMER, they're thinking about, uh, G-d only knows. The smartphone and tablet will be the standard in mobile communication in not too many years. I love radio, radio IS my life, but I don't want a radio in my mobile device. If I'm really dying to hear radio on my device, I stream the station I want to hear from out of town. If I want to hear local radio, I use….get this…A RADIO.

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

    You can see a follow up post which addresses many of these issues here:

    http://www.markramseymedia.com…

  • joecassara

    Jeff, if you really care about the radio industry and consumers, you and everyone else in the “corner office” will step down immediately, apologizing for the abysmal state you've left the biz, and let fresh young minds of New Media take the wheel. What you, and your ilk, have done is wreck radio to the point of irrelevancy. And now you want, in the form of legislation, a government handout.

    What's next? Insisting FM receivers are placed into every microwave oven, so an Emmis FM Talker plays while I heat up my water for morning coffee?

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

    I wish my oven got Ryan Seacrest.

  • http://fullstreamahead.com/%e2%80%9cradio-rocks-my-phone%e2%80%9d-strains-credibility/ “Radio Rocks My Phone” Strains Credibility | Full Stream Ahead

    [...] Tweet(function() { var s = document.createElement('SCRIPT'), s1 = document.getElementsByTagName('SCRIPT')[0]; s.type = 'text/javascript'; s.async = true; s.src = 'http://widgets.digg.com/buttons.js'; s1.parentNode.insertBefore(s, s1); })(); EmailFrom Mark Ramsey Media [...]

  • http://fullstreamahead.com/why-are-we-debating-fm-on-mobile-phones/ Why Are We Debating FM On Mobile Phones? | Full Stream Ahead

    [...] Smulyan thinks otherwise (see his reply to my post here).  I have the greatest respect for Jeff.  He’s a terrific broadcaster and Emmis is a terrific [...]

  • http://byrnesmedia.com/2011/04/26/the-fm-chip-in-cell-phones-debate-may-be-heating-up/ The FM chip in cell phones debate may be heating up — ByrnesMedia

    [...] Jeffrey Smulyan from Emmis has taken Mark Ramsay to task over his comments he has made in his blog and in particular how the NAB’s ad campaign is all wrong. You can see the website the NAB [...]

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KTBHGCXPMYRQEZP2AFWHGTDVJQ Thomas

    Writing from Jeff Smulyans' backyard: Tornado * sever storm warnings presntly blanket the southern half of the state of Indiana and extend well into Kentucky.  This is the same storm cell that leveled Joplin, Missouri yesterday.  (I guess Mark Ransey is only familiar with wildfires, like those that ravaged his Rancho Bernardo backyard a couple years back.)

    I do not understand Mr. Ramsey's adamant opposition to adding one simple feature to a cellphone (as if he will rule on this matter), a feature that, among other things, *can* -as Mr. Smulyan asserts- provide a live alert function to tens even multiple hundreds of thousands of people with NO latency, no network overload.  and only ONE possible point of failure (not several l nodes of such).  Sirens are OK, but can't convey much detailed information.   Broadcast can.

    Also, I can personally attest to one local radio station as being, head-and-shoulders, the *best* and most timely source of information in my community when it suffered a 500-year flash flood in June 2008.  (The station benefited much from callers reporting on conditions; this is the *true* source of such information.)  The value of info on the local newspaper website was marginal at best and the Indy broadcast stations were reporting on the entire region, hence could not inform people how they could navigate those parts of the road system that weren't submerged for a couple of days.

    Does Mr. Ramsey really believe a direct-to-person (text or other) alert by the cellular infrastructure can perform anywhere as well as did the local radio station?  He may overlook that these storms (tornadoes especially) are very, very unpredictable — besides being fast-moving.  The broadcast medium I believe enjoys substantial advantages over the method Mr. Ramsey seems to champion as a substitute.  

    I get the feeling that Mr. Ramsey overstates his objection.  I can imagine his taking such a stance if someone (like the old Ma Bell) were petitioning the FCC to attach a twisted pair to all cellphones, but that's not necessary in the world of radio (aka wireless communications).   I'm still scratching my head….what exactly is his problem with an FM chip?

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

    I'm not against it. I simply think it doesn't solve the problem which matters most: What's radio's role in a technology-driven and -enabled future?

    The relentless fight for more receivers in more places is naive. As the industry so often likes to proclaim: Reach is not our problem.

    If you want to work for an industry that's all about public safety, be my guest. But I want to work in an industry that has a much bigger proposition than simply that.

    To a proverbial hammer everything looks like a nail. And to many broadcasters every problem looks like an opportunity for another receiver.

    Pandora will not steal radio dollars because it has more receivers. And radio will not preserve those dollars with more receivers.

    We have 800 million in the US alone. How many more would you like?

  • Pat Cook

    Jeff – You OBVIOUSLY haven't heard of HAM RADIO have you?

    I ask this because it is HAMS who provide THE BIGGEST lifeline of communication in times of disaster such as those you mention.  Who do you think the local authorities get THEIR information from?

    Ignorance can be such bliss…..

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