Radio InSights

Wall Street Journal still HD Radio Skeptic

Another less than than enthusiastic article on HD Radio, this time in the Wall Street Journal. While there's nothing new in it, the fact that the same questions are still being raised about HD's viability suggests that we are far from turning a corner in gaining market acceptance. The title's question, Weak Signals: Can HD Radio Find Listeners? should be a clue as to the article's conclusions. Here's how the article begins:

Four years after the first HD radios hit the marketplace, the new service hasn't gained traction with consumers. For one thing, the signal can be heard only through special digital radio receivers, with prices that start at about $80. And just some of the nation's radio stations offer extra HD-2 or HD-3 channels -- with programming that often isn't much different from what broadcasters play on their primary frequencies. Moreover, the digital signal typically doesn't reach as far as the same station's analog signal, so in many cities, the signal comes and goes as listeners drive around town.

You can find it here (with subscription). 

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.

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.