Those of us with any interest at all in the immediate future of radio are highly skeptical -- to the point of fatally suspicious -- of the proposed merger of the two satellite radio companies, XM and Sirius, AND the regular promises by terrestrial radio giants, like Clear Channel, that High Definition radio will ... real soon ... be all things to all people. Rather than new choices, we see a lot more of the same.
Yesterday, Mel Karmazin, former president of CBS, Inc. (he left in '04 after one too many blow-outs with Viacom tycoon, Sumner Redstone), told the National Press Club that -- in an obvious concession to Republican FCC chairman, Kevin Martin -- he would allow subscribers to proposed the XM/Sirius combination to buy programming "a la carte", something cable TV companies are loathe to offer their customers. (Martin wants to see a la carte in cable and satellite TV, too).
Here is a link to Karmazin's official proposal. It's pretty eye-glazing, and I don't even want to think about the HMO-like sub-clauses, fine(r) print and penalties. But none of this, or any of the stories I read yesterday challenged Karmazin on what for me, and I strongly believe other radio consumers, regard as a primary deal-killer. Namely, commercials. Karmazin has left the door wide open to piling commercials into heretofore commercial-free satellite systems, and frankly, given the debt loads of XM/Sirius ... like most other media corporations, there isn't any other way for them to deliver significant profit unless they do.
Karmazin is, first and foremost, a "super salesman", a guy who looks in the mirror every morning and wonders why he can't sell advertising space on his incisors. His idea of great radio is a five minute block of commercials every four minutes.
Chairman Martin is on the right track with a la carte programming. It makes perfect consumer sense ... on radio and cable TV. But what, I ask, is the consumer interest in BOTH paying a monthly subscription fee for whatever programming they choose AND listening to 20-25 minutes of commercials every hour, we are forced to do on terrestrial radio? (HiDef radio is free.)
I continue to argue that satellite's future is in commercial-free programming, not necessarily three more channels of Howard Stern with 28 minutes worth of ads per hour. (Karmazin BTW was the radio executive most responsible for Stern's rise.)
Here's a "lay person's guide" to the differences between satellite and Hi-Def.
Any radio manager who is candid -- and few are on this topic -- will tell you the single biggest complaint from listeners is ... commercial load. The fact that this complaint plays simultaneous with the dawn of satellite radio with 200 or more channels and HiDef, which allows each licensed signal playing today to triplicate itself, is, at least on one hand, not reassuring to station owners. An extra three channels sounds like fun. But even if they can control the fragmentation, how do they sell all that? And at what price?
I won't belabor this. My real intention here is to tie the "fragmentation" problems afflicting newspapers and TV to radio as well ... and point out that like traditional newspapers and traditional television, traditional radio is preparing to protect its' future with ... more of the same tired business plan. The same programming with the same rate of "clutter" (jargon for ads and everything else that interrupts what people tune in to get.)
HiDef radio exists in the Twin Cities, but only as a kind of stale (but "clearer") "repeater" process for existing stations. Radio giants will remain reluctant to introduce content on HiDef that might shave any kind of significant margin off their existing cash cows. The irony here is that with paradigm-shaking technologies like satellite and HiDef so tightly controlled by the very same people that rigorously market the bland and treadworn formats of old-fashion terrestrial radio, why should any consumer look to these new toys with any great eagerness?
As I've said before, Apple hasn't sold 125 million iPods because
music (and podcast) lovers are satisfied with radio programming as it exists today.
The betting is that the likelihood of FCC approval of the XM/Sirius merger increased with Karmazin's promise to offer a la carte.
Brian, your piece would have been even better with a couple of minor corrections. First, the name hung on digital radio is "HD", not Hi-Def. As you know, "Hi-Def" is the popular name for High-Definition Television or HDTV.
In the radio context, "HD" is a branding the proponents of digital radio are using, in the hopes that the crossover with HDTV would cause well-meaning folks to call digital radio just what you called it. Apparently they've succeeded.
But the digital radio scheme used by terrestrial broadcasters has a built-in quality compromise, due to its technology, and could by no stretch of charity be called "High Definition".
Second, it could be clearer in your copy that the extra channel capacity of "HD" is available only to terrestrial digital FM stations, not satellite services ...or AM broadcasting.
Having said that, I certainly agree that commercial load, not audio quality, is what will kill radio broadcasting as we knew and loved it.
LAMBERT: You are correct, sir. The extra channel capacity is available only to terrestrial broadcasters. I should have made that more clear. And yes, as I understand it the signal quality of HD radio is not at all of "HiDef" quality.
I used HiDef in describing HD radio because in some HD radio websites THEY refer to it as "HiDef", and also because in the minds of some lay folks HD = Hard Drive. I'm sure the marketing kids have research on how many people they can confuse on this point and to what benefit.
But thanks for your input. It is a rare day that I don't need clarification.
Are we not talking about similar issues that the local newspapers are facing and the same pathetic response.
What can make local radio exciting is being local. Talented personalities, local music programming, and community involvement. Instead we have seen the likes of Clear Channel hiring near minimum wage people to voice track stations that are now run by computers. What is left between local music radio and my iPod? Commercials!
Satellite is churning subs pretty bad right now. They went for the zillions of channels angle and the result is terrible sound quality with more voice tracked DJs. XM runs spots on some channels (and you would pay for that because?)
Radio like newspapers is reacting to events. Until they change their business models and invest in themselves, they will continue to decline.