....so I spent some time here arguing with a rock, er, an, um, "radio
consultant," who is convinced that by the flawed methodology used by
his clients and the ratings service that all radio listening is local,
and he uses those same flawed methodologies to show that his stations
are now number 1.

The phrase that is important here is "flawed methodology."

I was listing to American Public Media's "Marketplace" last Friday and
they had a piece on AmEx's new "clear" AmEx, that they tested in
Boston (and are advertising in Boston only, but is available anywhere)
using a "survey," with questions like:

o Would you like more clarity in your finances?

o What is a bigger source of stress in your life?
a) personal relationships b) money and finance

They found the survey laughable. So they went out and asked the exact
same survey questions with one mo "Would you want to get a credit
card that would help clear up your finances?" People, of course,
said, no, the last thing they need is another credit card.

AmEx, of course, said that was the wrong question to ask.


....and so it goes with radio. As long as the methodology is skewed to
deliver the wanted results, it is as meaningless as AmEx's absurd
"market research."

So they will go on, with IBOC and so-called "HD" radio with all its
artifacts and dropouts, to the detriment of people who actually
listen.


--
Eric F. Richards

"This book reads like a headache on paper."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/readi...one/index.html

Eric F. Richards wrote:
...so I spent some time here arguing with a rock, er, an, um, "radio
consultant," who is convinced that by the flawed methodology used by
his clients and the ratings service that all radio listening is local,
and he uses those same flawed methodologies to show that his stations
are now number 1.

The phrase that is important here is "flawed methodology."

I was listing to American Public Media's "Marketplace" last Friday and
they had a piece on AmEx's new "clear" AmEx, that they tested in
Boston (and are advertising in Boston only, but is available anywhere)
using a "survey," with questions like:

o Would you like more clarity in your finances?

o What is a bigger source of stress in your life?
a) personal relationships b) money and finance

They found the survey laughable. So they went out and asked the exact
same survey questions with one mo "Would you want to get a credit
card that would help clear up your finances?" People, of course,
said, no, the last thing they need is another credit card.

AmEx, of course, said that was the wrong question to ask.


...and so it goes with radio. As long as the methodology is skewed to
deliver the wanted results, it is as meaningless as AmEx's absurd
"market research."

So they will go on, with IBOC and so-called "HD" radio with all its
artifacts and dropouts, to the detriment of people who actually
listen.



Yes, they will. Why? Two reasons....one is that Powell's FCC
mandated that any future modulation schemes for broadcast must be
digital. But the other is that there's believed to be money in it.

And, again, in the US Radio is ALWAYS about the money.

It may surprise you to know that I agree with you about a lot of
research. Most political polls are constructed to produce a desired
result in precisely the same way as the survey you describe. And I've
been involved with stations that conducted surveys that asked highly
constructed questions that gave the GM precisely the answer he wanted.
While some rather extensive naive listening, produced dramatically
different results. Care to guess how long those GM's last?

But the issue, and this is true of most marketing, but especially
Broadcast, is a matter of cost effectiveness. Why do more work when less
will produce the same profit?

Simple example. When Wapner was on The People's Court, and the
program popularity was at it's zenith, the syndicator announced that
production of new programs would cease, and that all future programs
distributed would be reruns. You should have heard the screaming in my
neighborhood when THAT one went public. It got picked up by the local
broadcasting columnists in the papers and some questions got asked. The
matter was explained by the syndicators: They had enough shows in the
can to keep the program running for several more years. Why spend the
money to produce more shows, when the shows already on the shelf would
produce the same revenue/profit? Of course there were those like you
and me who said things like "To serve the fans?"

Truth is that the syndicator didn't care. He wasn't in the caring
business. He was in the business to make money for himself, his company
and his stockholders. Cutting expenses to maximize profits is only smart
business. And the show, like any show on TV would eventually burn out,
anyway. Any run of more than 4 years is profitable. Anything more than
that is gravy, but gravy with diminishing returns over time, as
distribution costs begin to become a significant fraction of revenue
when the program goes into decline.

Cost/Benefits, Eric. It's all about cost/benefits. And when there can
be revenue generated, without costly methodology, the simpler
methodology will win every time.

It's not about monster signals, anymore. And beyond the 40's it never
really was. There was a certain cache in having a monster signal, but
that was more to dispirit the competition's staff, and do a little chest
puffing. But as far as a practical business strategy...monster signals
beyond the local contours were a waste of energy. No matter who was
listening. Because there was no cost effective (and the key phrase is
"Cost Effective") way of measuring them and making them meaningful to
the sales department. In fact, I've worked for stations that voluntarily
reduced power and reshaped their directional array because the extra
reach was a waste of power. The pennies saved on electricity were more
important and more visible on the books than the extra listeners beyond
the fringe.

The truth is, that the image of public service, huge reach and super
service to the wider area presented by stations in the 60's and 70's
like WLS, WABC, CKLW, KAAY, KNX, WLW and others were more show biz than
substance. In fact, in the late 70's and early 80's when WLS was
snapping up teenagers in ST Louis, it could barely crack the top 10 in
Chicago where it's revenue base was located. Changes in staff, format
and target resulted. Monster signal, and perceived monster reach, but
revenue producing listenership was off. King Kong was finally revealed
to be 3' 6". But the truth is, he always was. WLS, in Chicago, was
just another big signal. And it enjoyed a huge local share for a time.
Huge. But it was still a local station. That you could hear it from the
Rockies to Bermuda was only show biz. King Kong was still only 3' 6".


The public service commitment for Radio has been mostly lip service
for years, anyway. There simply is no profit in it. Hell, I worked for
one GM who SOLD PSA's. Nobody buys, none air. He had lawyers on speed
dial to protect his license. But he never actually did meet his
commitments. He was certainly not alone.

In the late 70's Jesus was kicked off the air at many stations.
Church services broadcast for decades disappeared in a stroke, to make
room for profit producing syndicated programming. Good for business,
but it orphaned smalls groups of loyal listeners for stations
nationwide. Ultimately a large population of listeners if taken as a
class, but a trivial number on the local stations Sales pitch. No
station failed because of them. It's always about the money. And it's
always about Sales. And all stations are bought for their local reach.

David and I have gotten into some pretty tense disagreements over the
state and nature of Radio. But his business is not in creating King Kong
stations of catholic interest and reach, his business is in turning
stations into more of a Mighty Joe Young. Still a lot of strength, but
strength where the money is. And that's locally. Without the wasted
effort into so called national reach. Why? Because he can make more
money for his stations by keeping the effort local. Where the
advertisers buy.

David touched on this but there wasn't a lot of amplification on it.
This is the crux of the matter: Advertisers call the shots. They always
have. Everywhere. Since the first broadcast station hit the air in the
US. The Advertiser calls the shots. Because without the advertiser,
stations do not survive. And if you think Public Radio is devoid of
advertiser pressures, guess again. Corporate underwriting is the
backbone of Public Radio, and corporate underwriters provide more
funding than public donations. Make no mistake, when a corporate sponsor
doesn't like a program....public or commercial radio...it is made clear
that revenue is threatened. And this has been the case since the birth
of the business.

Murrow wept openly in the hallowed halls of CBS when Chairman Paley
killed a story Murrow had been working on for months, bowing to
advertiser pressures. W.C. Fields sponsored by Lucky Strike make
frequent on-air references to his nephew 'Chester' to the horror and
eventual withdrawal of Lucky Strike. Fields often enraged sponsors.
Don't think there weren't heated conversations about his content.

Advertisers were responsible for the abrupt cancellation of a
consumer advocacy program on KRMD some years ago. In the middle of the
broadcast, Gene Dickerson walked into the control room and pulled the
talent out of the chair by his shirt collar under direct pressure from
an offended advertiser.

NPR, locally, has also killed or modified stories to protect funding.

And there are tens of thousands of such stories every year.

Should it happen? No. I don't think so. And there's a lot of evidence
to suggest that in many cases, the impact to advertisers' sales by the
offending content are, at best, minimal. But most GM's, most Chairmen,
most Sales ducks don't have the backbone to stand up to advertisers
writing checks that keep them in their lifestyles. So advertisers rule.
And they always have. In fact, the purpose of programming in the US has
always been to hold the attention of listeners between commercials. An
old joke, but it's always been true.

Radio in the US has always been about the money. Early stations in
rural areas began as ham stations owned by grain elevator operators. The
owners used to report grain prices to the farmers, a commercial
interest. When the grain elevator up the road also became radio
equipped, they began simple programming to fill the gaps between price
reports. This is how WDZ, Tuscola (later Decatur) began. It's how WLS
began. Live programming to fill time between commercial messages.

The commerical content ALWAYS being the more important issue.

And over time, the commercial content evolved, and rules regarding it
evolved, but it's importance and it's position in the scheme of things
has not diminished, but only gotten stronger.

So the methodology, whether it's flawed or not (and that can be
debated until the Second Coming), is the reality by which advertisers
live and die in broadcast media. They like the methodology. It's simple,
it's easily digested, and it produces hundreds of millions of dollars a
year in Sales. It's not going to change, until the revenue stream is
threatened by the external forces on the market. Advertisers call the
shots. They always have, and they always will. This is the way they
like it. It is what it is. And despite what you hear, have heard, or
will hear on the radio, King Kong is still only 3' 6". And so he will
remain, because the people with the money don't care to spend a dime to
see him larger.

David is in the business of keeping radio profitable for his clients.
He does this by showing his clients how to meet the needs of
advertisers. Advertisers who call all the shots. Sometimes you can get
control of an advertiser to do something that's more service oriented.
And for me, that's what keeps me even allied with Broadcast. It's worth
the effort and the heartache for that payoff. But, in the main....it's
just about doing what advertisers want. And the bulk of them do NOT care
about anything but what they see in the books. And the books were
created to meet their needs.

I don't like it. Anymore than you do. But it is what it is.

Unless you can get the advertisers to see a need for change, either
by convincing them, or through a market induced threat to revenue, it's
not going to change. Certainly not revert to the kind of Radio that you
and I enjoyed so many years ago.

Radio was in its adolescence, then. Still learning its way. It's not
now. Today, Radio is a mature product and to survive, it must
concentrate its efforts on to keep it's revenue stream intact. That's
the one thing that's never changed, over the years.

It is, and always has been about the money.

D Peter Maus wrote:


And, again, in the US Radio is ALWAYS about the money.

[...]
This is the crux of the matter: Advertisers call the shots. They always
have. Everywhere.

Sure. But both the stations and the advertisers are working from a
flawed model. It's like two blind guys trying to take care of an
elephant, based solely on how the tail feels to them.

The advertiser is told that if he does such-and-such, the tail will
feel better according to some arbitrary attribute of how the tail
feels. So he does such and such, and the tail feels better according
to his measure.

But his measure has no effect on the real picture. Everyone sees
through the same distorted lens, so they get the right results based
on that view.

But the view has nothing to do with the real elephant, or listening
audience.

Now, if Wendy's wants to advertise on a handful of high-powered
stations blanketing the midwest about a product they are offering
throughout the midwest, they aren't paying extra for the signal to
cross arbitrary lines on a map -- the radio waves don't care.

I've said this nine ways from Sunday, and I don't know how to say it
better, so let's try some fundamental questions -- I respect your
viewpoint, Peter:

Do you think that terrestrial radio will have more listeners hearing
those ads, or fewer, in 10 years? Do you think the so-called HD/IBOC
(which is neither HD, nor in-band) will improve the situation or not?

Why?

If the cost for a more sophisticated methodology is so bad, what about
the cost of adding all the extra, licensed crap to the transmitters?

Do you think people are willing to pay extra for all this? They will,
one way or the other. Content is what keeps the listeners, not
advertisers. If the content suffers, the listeners go away, and the
advertisers will only be talking to themselves. Eventually even their
myopic model will collapse around them.

We're simply witnessing the death of radio.

--
Eric F. Richards

"This book reads like a headache on paper."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/readi...one/index.html

Eric F. Richards wrote:
Do you think that terrestrial radio will have more listeners hearing
those ads, or fewer, in 10 years? Do you think the so-called HD/IBOC
(which is neither HD, nor in-band) will improve the situation or not?

PMFJI, but I believe that even the satellite radio services (XM and
Sirius) will be broadcasting commercials within a year or three, in
addition to charging subscription fees.

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

clifto wrote:

Eric F. Richards wrote:
Do you think that terrestrial radio will have more listeners hearing
those ads, or fewer, in 10 years? Do you think the so-called HD/IBOC
(which is neither HD, nor in-band) will improve the situation or not?

PMFJI, but I believe that even the satellite radio services (XM and
Sirius) will be broadcasting commercials within a year or three, in
addition to charging subscription fees.

I agree completely. The commercial-free aspect of them is a
short-lived hook.

But their advertising model will be different, since their coverage is
nationwide by definition -- the terrestrial people should be looking
closely and their business plan for advertising.


--
Eric F. Richards

"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
clifto wrote:

Eric F. Richards wrote:
Do you think that terrestrial radio will have more listeners hearing
those ads, or fewer, in 10 years? Do you think the so-called HD/IBOC
(which is neither HD, nor in-band) will improve the situation or not?

PMFJI, but I believe that even the satellite radio services (XM and
Sirius) will be broadcasting commercials within a year or three, in
addition to charging subscription fees.

I agree completely. The commercial-free aspect of them is a
short-lived hook.

Actually, XM took commercials off the music channels two years after
start-up. I know; I programmed 5 of the channels.

But their advertising model will be different, since their coverage is
nationwide by definition -- the terrestrial people should be looking
closely and their business plan for advertising.

Satellite has run commercials since its offset on the talk channels, and XM
started with commercials on all music channels but took them off. Neither
believes more than 5% of revenues will ever come from advertising.

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:44:16 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


Satellite has run commercials since its offset on the talk channels, and XM
started with commercials on all music channels but took them off. Neither
believes more than 5% of revenues will ever come from advertising.


Not true. XM has always had some commercial-free music channels.

David Eduardo wrote:
"Eric F. Richards" wrote...
clifto wrote:
Eric F. Richards wrote:
Do you think that terrestrial radio will have more listeners hearing
those ads, or fewer, in 10 years? Do you think the so-called HD/IBOC
(which is neither HD, nor in-band) will improve the situation or not?

PMFJI, but I believe that even the satellite radio services (XM and
Sirius) will be broadcasting commercials within a year or three, in
addition to charging subscription fees.

I agree completely. The commercial-free aspect of them is a
short-lived hook.

Actually, XM took commercials off the music channels two years after
start-up. I know; I programmed 5 of the channels.

And they observed that people weren't paying for commercials, so
they shut them down until the market penetration is high enough
to support them.

It'll grow gradually, like TV advertising did. In the early years
I was shocked the first time a station had the nerve to play TWO
COMMERCIALS IN A ROW! Nowadays, ten in a row isn't uncommon.

Figure in 2007 many stations will play three commercials per hour,
and it'll gradually ramp up from there to about half the level
found on broadcast radio now. (Just a few minutes ago, I turned
on the radio and counted twelve one-minute commercials in a row
on one station; don't know how many preceded my tuning in.)

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

Eric F. Richards wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

And, again, in the US Radio is ALWAYS about the money.

[...]
This is the crux of the matter: Advertisers call the shots. They always
have. Everywhere.

Sure. But both the stations and the advertisers are working from a
flawed model. It's like two blind guys trying to take care of an
elephant, based solely on how the tail feels to them.

The advertiser is told that if he does such-and-such, the tail will
feel better according to some arbitrary attribute of how the tail
feels. So he does such and such, and the tail feels better according
to his measure.

But his measure has no effect on the real picture. Everyone sees
through the same distorted lens, so they get the right results based
on that view.

But the view has nothing to do with the real elephant, or listening
audience.


Yes. Actually, there's more truth to that analogy than most are
willing to recognize. But the real matter is that it doesn't matter
whether the model is flawed, or not. It's what works for the people who
make the decisions and call the shots. It produces revenue and profits
and business embraces it. Radio is in the business of selling the tails.
Advertisers buy the tails by their feel, and turn that feel into
experiences then sold to listeners. It doesn't even matter if it's a
real tail....it only matters that it works. Advertisers buy, Radio
stations sell. Neither is sees no benefit in changing what works.

And for the comparatively few, like you and me, it's distasteful that
things work this way. It's a waste of resource. So be it. It is the way
it is. If you can convince Radio there's money in changing
it...well...then make your pitch. But if there's no money in it...more
importantly, if there's no profit in it (that means the same revenue at
no extra cost to most bean counters these days) then have at it.


Now, if Wendy's wants to advertise on a handful of high-powered
stations blanketing the midwest about a product they are offering
throughout the midwest, they aren't paying extra for the signal to
cross arbitrary lines on a map -- the radio waves don't care.



No they don't. And advertisers don't pay for the extra reach, it's
true. But if, say Wendy's want's to boost sales in Decatur, buying WLS,
WGN and WBBM aren't the cost effective way to do it. Yes, they're still
making impressions in Decatur, but a week's run on three Chicago
stations at $900 a throw will not equal the reach of one single day's
schedule on WSOY, at $75 a throw. So the advertisers don't boost their
WLS, WBBM and WGN buys to get the extra noise into Decatur...they buy a
few spots on WSOY and WDZQ. Why? Because the combined reach of WLS, WGN
and WBBM in Decatur is a statistical no-show compared to any local in
the top 5. For a fraction of the cost.

It's bad business to spend money that produces so little return, so
advertising buys are targeted to local audiences only, where there is
significant listenting done. Since a station out of market has so
little local reach in Decatur, getting back to the original point of
this thread, WGN, WBBM and soon WLS can turn on the IBOC hash blowing
away all the out of market listening, and do so without a care.

It's not something that I personally like. It's just what is. And
it's primarily because advertisers, not radio stations, make the
decisions about what reach is and is not important. Based on actual
listening behaviours measured.

It's a numbers game. Averaged behaviours in desireable demographics.
Stations are programmed to produce the desireable numbers. Or at least
saleable numbers.

Actually listeners...not really the focus here.



I've said this nine ways from Sunday, and I don't know how to say it
better, so let's try some fundamental questions -- I respect your
viewpoint, Peter:

Do you think that terrestrial radio will have more listeners hearing
those ads, or fewer, in 10 years? Do you think the so-called HD/IBOC
(which is neither HD, nor in-band) will improve the situation or not?


Me personally? Fractionalization of the audience will bleed off
listening, yes. I think so. Radio will adapt. As David likes to point
out, listening levels per capita are only marginally less than they were
in the 70's. Although, during some pretty detailed staff meetings at In
finity, Mel Karmazin painted an entirely different picture. HD/IBOC FM
has some advantages, without the liabilities of AM HD/IBOC. Multiple
revenue streams and, ultimately, subscription radio among them. AM
HD/IBOC is not so compelling to listen to as good AM Stereo. And it
comes with some technical liabilities which we've all discussed. But
then, listeners respond to content. If the content is what a listener
finds appealing, quality is relative. Noise, on the other hand, is a
different matter. If HD does away with the crackle of electrical and
atmospheric noise on AM then it will attract a listener base regardless
of the audio quality, which to my ears blows chunks.

So, for AM listening, I think the jury is out as to whether HD/IBOC
will actually make a difference. Ultimately, given that Powell's FCC
mandated that all future modulation schemes be digital, it's here
whether the public is ready for it nor not. Unless the Federal
authorities decide to take the MW Band dark, as they did in Canada,
HD/IBOC AM is here. And it's staying. Given no choices, the public will
adapt and adopt. Whether listener levels will vary remains to be seen.

I don't care for it. But then, I don't do much listening, anymore,
either.




If the cost for a more sophisticated methodology is so bad, what about
the cost of adding all the extra, licensed crap to the transmitters?


Hardware to do the job is a single cost per installation item. It's a
cap item, not a recurring cost.

Ratings methodology gets paid for with each survey period. Recurring
costs multiple times a year. Cap costs can be swallowed. Recurring costs
are the ones to be avoided.

You can get a cap cost past the bean counters. Recurring costs
they'll move heaven and earth to cut.

But the real costs of more sophisticated methodologies would be borne
by the ratings companies. They have no motivation because there is no
demand for them. If advertisers were screaming for more sophisticated
methodologies, the ratings companies could justify the cost, and the
advertisers would be willing to share the increased cost through higher
station rates. But there is no such clamor. So there is no motivation,
when what they're doing right now produces huge revenues and profits.

You don't raise costs unless there is a profit motive. And right now,
there isn't. So cost per point, cost per thousand figures remain the same.






Do you think people are willing to pay extra for all this? They will,
one way or the other.

Yes they will. And eventually, they'll embrace it. Because there will
be little option.

Will they grumble. They already are. Feder has been bitching in his
column about the cost of HD radios and he can't tell the difference
between HD and analog.

Eventually, that noise will die down. Look at cable. Bitching there,
too. And lots of it. Paying for TV? Are you nuts?

Have you seen cable bills lately? Dish? Satellite Radio?

Will the public pay for HD Radio. Sure they will. By the time you
fully dress an iPod system, you can drop half a kilobuck. Doesn't seem
to be slowing things down. HD Radio, especially, when there is no
option, will sell. At least on FM.


Content is what keeps the listeners, not
advertisers. If the content suffers, the listeners go away, and the
advertisers will only be talking to themselves. Eventually even their
myopic model will collapse around them.

With ongoing perceptuals and nearly daily market research
specifically addressing content, if the content suffers, Radio can know
about it and make corrections pretty quickly. Those that don't, fail,
are sold, and picked up by people who will. Remember that the
programming model is NOT the sales model. They interact, but they are
NOT the same. Programming content is crafted to attract a demo. Actual
listenership is what is evaluated for Sales. Programming can be tuned,
trimmed, altered, even changed wholesale, without altering the
Sales/Advertising model in anyway, as long as the demo remains the same.
And the Sales/Advertising model doesn't change even if there is a
significant change in the numbers. Conversion rates are held to the same
figures, only the percentage of national sales changes. The pitch only
goes after different local businesses, with an adjusted rate.

We're simply witnessing the death of radio.


Obituaries may be premature.

D Peter Maus wrote:

Eric F. Richards wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

And, again, in the US Radio is ALWAYS about the money.

[...]
This is the crux of the matter: Advertisers call the shots. They always
have. Everywhere.

Sure. But both the stations and the advertisers are working from a
flawed model. It's like two blind guys trying to take care of an
elephant, based solely on how the tail feels to them.

The advertiser is told that if he does such-and-such, the tail will
feel better according to some arbitrary attribute of how the tail
feels. So he does such and such, and the tail feels better according
to his measure.

But his measure has no effect on the real picture. Everyone sees
through the same distorted lens, so they get the right results based
on that view.

But the view has nothing to do with the real elephant, or listening
audience.


Yes. Actually, there's more truth to that analogy than most are
willing to recognize. But the real matter is that it doesn't matter
whether the model is flawed, or not. It's what works for the people who
make the decisions and call the shots. It produces revenue and profits
and business embraces it. Radio is in the business of selling the tails.

But to stretch the analogy to its limits, the two blind guys are
putting conditioner on the tail to make it softer, but the elephant
never gets fed or gets any water. The elephant dies eventually, no
matter how wonderful the tail feels.


And for the comparatively few, like you and me, it's distasteful that
things work this way. It's a waste of resource. So be it. It is the way
it is. If you can convince Radio there's money in changing
it...well...then make your pitch.

Oh, no. The emperor is naked, but no one is willing to believe that.
I'm just an observer, watching something very sad happening.




I've said this nine ways from Sunday, and I don't know how to say it
better, so let's try some fundamental questions -- I respect your
viewpoint, Peter:

Do you think that terrestrial radio will have more listeners hearing
those ads, or fewer, in 10 years? Do you think the so-called HD/IBOC
(which is neither HD, nor in-band) will improve the situation or not?


Me personally? Fractionalization of the audience will bleed off
listening, yes. I think so. Radio will adapt. As David likes to point
out, listening levels per capita are only marginally less than they were
in the 70's. Although, during some pretty detailed staff meetings at In
finity, Mel Karmazin painted an entirely different picture. HD/IBOC FM
has some advantages, without the liabilities of AM HD/IBOC. Multiple
revenue streams and, ultimately, subscription radio among them. AM
HD/IBOC is not so compelling to listen to as good AM Stereo. And it
comes with some technical liabilities which we've all discussed. But
then, listeners respond to content. If the content is what a listener
finds appealing, quality is relative. Noise, on the other hand, is a
different matter. If HD does away with the crackle of electrical and
atmospheric noise on AM then it will attract a listener base regardless
of the audio quality, which to my ears blows chunks.

Yes. Do you remember when CDs first came out? The "golden ears"
complained about the artifacts, even thought the Nyquist Limit was
22,050 kHz. They found the sound fatiguing.

This time, one won't need a golden ear to hear the artifacts. I
cringe on what comes out of my car radio from NPR when they have a
feed filled with artifacts. When you can hear it over the road noise
on a car radio... that's an accomplishment.

It won't just sound bad, it will be painful to listen to.


I don't care for it. But then, I don't do much listening, anymore,
either.


Bottom line. No matter what the advertisers are willing to pay,
there's no return if there are no listeners.


You can get a cap cost past the bean counters. Recurring costs
they'll move heaven and earth to cut.

Yeah, I have my own experiences along those lines -- like the bean
counters being willing to pay 60% of the buyout cost on a lease for a
piece of equipment... that is, 60% per month! But the accounting
rules made it "cheaper" to do that, no matter where the money goes.
And the equipment, a computer system, would have been put on a 10 year
depreciation schedule. A severe case of unreality.

OBTW, that company is long gone, and they were a Fortune 500 player
when this was going on.



Do you think people are willing to pay extra for all this? They will,
one way or the other.

Yes they will. And eventually, they'll embrace it. Because there will
be little option.

That I disagree with. The growth of podcasts, satellite radio, etc.,
will fill the void. For the longest time, I felt that radio would
endure, because of the low amount of infrastructure to keep it going.
I didn't count on the sheer stupidity of people behind radio.

Eventually, that noise will die down. Look at cable. Bitching there,
too. And lots of it. Paying for TV? Are you nuts?

Have you seen cable bills lately? Dish? Satellite Radio?

Yes, I have. But cable has gone far beyond providing community access
to clean local TV pictures -- cable is clogged with networks
unavailable on broadcast TV.

Even so, there are people who simply have cut the cord to the cable
companies and simply rent/buy movies or don't have TVs. They are a
small minority, but they are there.


Will the public pay for HD Radio. Sure they will. By the time you
fully dress an iPod system, you can drop half a kilobuck. Doesn't seem
to be slowing things down. HD Radio, especially, when there is no
option, will sell. At least on FM.

FM is the only place where the model even remotely makes sense. But
HD FM, taking advantage of the extremely wideband nature of FMBCB,
will be too greedy to just do it better -- it will fit multiple
streams into that bandwidth until they all sound like crap... like the
gas station that waters its gas down until the customers scream.


We're simply witnessing the death of radio.


Obituaries may be premature.


Time will tell. This message will last in archives that long, so
people like Edwardo can point and laugh in 10 years after radio grows
under his mercenary hand.

But my money is riding against it.

--
Eric F. Richards

"This book reads like a headache on paper."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/readi...one/index.html