Radio InSights

Radio's Death Greatly Exaggerated

The manner in which Inside Radio characterized the results of a new study regarding radio continued a tradition of greeting good news regarding radio with skepticism while gravely reporting any bad news. Monday, sonoro audio, a German audio equipment company released the results of a study of US consumers. Beneath a headline declaring, Radio Still Number One Media Source over MP3 Players, CDs, the company’s press release announced that according to the study, 57% of listening (audio entertainment as the survey puts it) is spent with radio of some sort, two-thirds of which goes to FM. That compares to 23% for MP3 players and 18% to CDs. Sonoro audio CEO Marcell Faller noted, "Even with the advent of MP3 players, consumers are still largely turning to radio for their music needs as it is easily accessible and free." You can read the press release here.

The story complete with upbeat headline was repeated by Yahoo Business, CNET, and other outlets. Yet Inside Radio’s headline was Survey claims radio holds the lead in a head-to-head iPod comparison. The story then begins, "Popularity of MP3 players and digital records hasn’t pushed listeners completely away from radio...."

So Inside Radio takes a positive story about radio and twists it in such a way that the study findings are reduced to claims, and radio’s overwhelming advantage over MP3 players is dismissed as some sort of hollow victory. Why is Inside Radio so skeptical of upbeat news?

Perhaps Inside Radio has been sipping from the new media punch bowl. Nearly a decade ago the new media told us that terrestrial radio was dead. Soon, they said, everyone would be listening to internet radio, obsoleting over-the-air radio. Then they told us that the iPod would kill radio. Even some Chicken Littles within our business declared that the absence of a tuner in the iPod would be our death.

Mark Twain’s comment that, "reports of my death are greatly exaggerated" comes to mind. Radio has been pummeled so long and so hard regarding the medium’s imminent demise at the hands of new media that many within radio accept it as a fact. Consequently, when contrary evidence surfaces, we greet it with skepticism.

No other audio medium comes close to terrestrial radio’s reach and impact. Not the iPod, not streaming, not internet radio, not satellite radio. That is true today and it will remain true in the future. So to radio’s Chicken Littles who continually shout that radio’s sky is falling: Get Over It!

Why HD Radio May Not Make It

Despite the constant stream of upbeat reports from the HD Alliance and iBiquity Digital, there are plenty of reasons to doubt whether HD Radio will have a significant impact on radio. Sales of HD radios have been anemic. Only one in four people are even aware of HD Radio--this after millions of dollars promoting the medium. And awareness is not growing. A well reasoned explanation of why HD is failing can be found at Radio Business Report. Read it here.

Here are the key points:

1) The name is wrong. Brands and Logos create expectations. Why on earth pick a name that was already taken? Why unnecessarily create the impression of a brand extension, one of the toughest marketing stunts to pull off even in the best of circumstances?

2) HD Radio is not listener/consumer-driven. HD Radio has neither compelling content nor is it convenient to use or understand.

3) Connecting the sub-programming to an existing brand on the dial makes no sense to the audience. We spend decades building a brand we willingly dilute with HD-2.

4) Too many people are underwhelmed when they hear HD.

5) The commercials don't work. 

Unfortunately, the majority of these problems cannot be fixed. We are stuck with a system and name that cannot be changed, so even if content is improved there's little reason to expect that listeners will embrace HD. As we wrote some time ago, radio would be better served to invest in streaming and other Internet initiatives rather that waste any more resources in HD Radio.

Satellite Radio Blues

Every new technology goes through a honeymoon phase. Early on, people are so excited about the technology, that they overlook the rough edges or the things they don’t like about it. Over time, however, the newness wears off, and the little things that didn’t seem bothersome begin to bother.

A recent column in PC Magazine illustrates this evolution well. Entitled, The Satellite Radio Blues, author Lance Ulanoff recounts his growing discontent with Sirius (June 5th issue). Knowing that her husband was a Howard Stern fan, Ulanoff’s wife bought him an S50, a Sirius radio that not only plays live feeds, but can also record up to 50 hours of content.

Installing the radio in his home proved a challenge:

I must have tried dozens of different positions on three or fout different window ledges. I even held the thing outside my window, but short of climbing onto my roof, I couldn’t seem to get a consistent signal.

He goes on to tick off all the technical problems he suffered. There were significant dropouts. Whenever the signal got a little thin, voices became tinny. “I’d stop for gas and the station’s awning would block the satellite. That’s not something I ever experienced with good old terrestrial radio....I was also pretty shocked to find commercials on Stern’s and other stations. I thought the whole point of paying for this stuff is that it would be commercial free.”

The author concludes his column with this:

I barely use my satellite radio now. I never realized how much I like simply turning on the radio and listening, and not having to worry if I remembered to schedule a recording or if I could get a clear line of sight to the nearest satellite. I wonder how much I could get for this thing on eBay.

Ulanoff’s experience is not isolated. The enthusiasm towards satellite radio is waning among many of those who subscribed early on. Many listeners would rather put up with terrestrial radio’s clutter and commercials than endure the frustrations of satellite radio.

But Ulanoff’s frustrating experience is not entirely good news for radio. Many of the problems that he experienced with satellite radio are equally troublesome with HD Radio. Spotty coverage, signal drop-out, and other technical problems plague HD Radio as much as satellite radio. Listening to HD Radio during the author’s commute through Penn Station would probably be just as troublesome as was his experience with Sirius. HD Radio can only succeed if it is just as easy to enjoy as analog FM.

New Technologies are Not the Problem and They are Not the Solution

In a recent Friday Morning Quarterback column, I suggested that radio's problem of declining listenership was not driven by newer technologies, nor would our own new technologies, whether it is HD radio or streaming on the Web, reverse this decline. Read the entire column here. Here's the essence of my argument:

Radio is suffering from a serious case of technology envy. Trade publications, consultants, pundits, group heads, and Wall Street analysts are all absolutely convinced that declines in radio lisstenership has been driven by the multiple threats of satellite radio, Internet radio, and iPods. Frothing bloggers are aghast that radio hasn’t responded quickly enough by more aggressively rolling out HD radio. They argue that once listeners discover HD radio, our problems will be solved.

It’s very convenient to blame our troubles on these other technologies and propose that our own technological response will solve the problem, because that way we don’t have to look any further. We don’t have to take an honest look at 21st century commercial radio and wonder whether our problems perhaps have nothing to do with technology. If we did, we might rethink both the source of the problem as well as the solution.

The fact is, radio today is Boring with a capital B. Ask listeners, and they will tell you. Radio is boring. And we have no one else to blame but radio itself. Radio is boring. And that fact will not change if all we change is the way we deliver it. Boring HD radio is just as boring as boring AM radio, which is just as boring as FM radio. Let’s be honest. The sad state of radio has little to do with technology.

We need to stop believing that the source of our problems is newer technologies and that some new technology is going to solve radio’s problems. Innovation in programming and offering what people want to listen to is the only thing that will save commercial radio. It saved radio from television, moved millions of listeners from AM to FM, and is HD radio’s only chance. Radio programmers need to be empowered, encouraged to innovate, and supported. Otherwise HD channels, streaming technologies, and all the other technologies we might embrace will be nothing more than quad stereo for the 21st century.