[BC] HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right!

[Rich Wood]

------ At 11:07 AM 10/16/2005, Bill Sepmeier wrote: -------

>Content, not some Internet-stream-quality Rube Goldberg Designed 
>Signal will preserve and grow audience base... and while there's no 
>money in quality content for manufacturers of widgets, the industry, 
>now mostly part-owners of the widget monopoly bringing the public 
>this non-event called IBUZ won't learn until they've lost the status 
>quo - again - as well as millions of dollars in hard cash spent on 
>adopting this orphan-out-looking-for-a-home-at-my-expense.  Hey - 
>it's just shareholder money ... why not just blow it, write it off 
>and fail yet again? It's only radio ...

That's the feeling I have about the IBUZ attitude. My heartstrings 
were tugged in a message that said we should appreciate all the work 
iBorg engineers did to bring us this lifesaving technology. It's like 
asking us to commend Dr. Frankenstein for his breakthrough human 
design. It moved but never got a date until the good doctor created a 
bride for him. I believe the owners caving to this technology are 
doing it for Wall Street. "Hey guys, we've got something new. Now's 
the time to get on board." Gotta get that stock price up.

I've also never heard any civilian complain about the current AM/FM 
system. I have heard them complain about content. For contemporary 
formats I lay much of the blame on the record companies who have 
settled on formulas. To my ears, virtually every contemporary song 
uses the same rhythm track that was sampled back in 1989. It's now so 
expensive to create a hit that only safe bets are made. We're not 
going to be killed by sure hits. We'll be killed by all the creative 
stuff that's available through labels that have no traditional 
distribution and by artists who release material on the net. Many 
stations won't add a song until it's been proven elsewhere. Some AC 
stations wait up to a year before adding something to be sure it's 
familiar. There's nothing worse than an unfamiliar song, especially 
one by an unfamiliar artist. Unfortunately, the average listener 
wants familiar. Stations that have experimented, for the most part, 
have failed.

It's a problem programmers have faced for decades. Broaden your 
playlist - lose audience. Add new songs right away - lose audience. I 
remember when anything by Michael Jackson would get immediate play. 
In fact, stations would ignore an embargo and play the song before 
release. Record companies would threaten lawsuits or no new record 
service. How do you stop service to a New York station that can give 
you enormous sales? Very few artists get that clout. He wouldn't get 
that access today.

An even bigger problem is clutter. It really doesn't matter what it 
is. Every element adds to clutter, regardless of its length. 
Fortunately for radio, satellite radio is getting cluttered with 
jingles and promos for other channels. One serious problem for Talk 
is the heavy spot load. It's very hard for a host to get rolling when 
he or she has to stop down 7 minutes into an opening monologue. If 
you don'st spread the breaks they'll all end up being 10 minutes. By 
that time you've forgotten the topic.

We're not into iPod history long enough to know if it's got legs. 
iPods generally have smaller playlists than radio stations - an 
average of 325 songs. The difference is that each one is individual 
with music familiar to the user. Remember that familiar problem? Very 
few iPods have their 40gb hard drives full. I'm trying to load my Zen 
XTRA with my entire CD collection a 192 Kbps. It takes forever. I 
still have 25gb to go. I think the real drawback to MP3 players is 
that nearly all listening is done with headsets. There's no better 
way to emphasize any irritating artifacts than stuffing them directly 
into your ears. The better your headsets, the less pleasing the 
experience. There's so much noise in a car, many artifacts will be 
drowned out by wind noise, cell phone ring tones and the sound of 
metal against metal as you crash from lack of attention to driving.

There's no easy solution, especially with listeners who have no 
loyalty and very short attention spans. It's not new with iPods. 
Anyone who has ever had young kids in the car knows how often buttons 
are pushed. They're unforgiving. One song they don't like and you're 
toast. Two songs they don't like and the button gets reset.

What tolerance will they have when the signal quality jockeys back 
and forth (much more noticeable than a little multipath or static) 
between "CD Quality" at vastly lower sample rates than real CD to 
3Khz Wal-Mart telephone quality

All this at a much, much higher price. Sounds like a winner to me. 
The radio industry needs a plan B. Those of us who have experience 
with audience behavior will need yet another organization to rebuild 
AM/FM once this deadly experiment has listeners chasing the monster 
up the mountain.

Rich