How to Guarrantee HD Radio's Success

To contact us Click HERE
What's 2 years old and doesn't get any respect? HD radio.

Radio's theoretical saving grace is five years too late and by all the data we can see at Bridge Ratings, it will be a smaller consumer niche than satellite radio...if it continues down the path it is currently on.

And with the hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent by American radio companies to upgrade their existing equipment for HD capable broadcasts, there is a dire need for HD to be the technically next great thing for terrestrial radio. But how does this get done?

The answer lies in taking a look at the FCC's mandate for HDTV and applying it to radio.

The FCC notified U.S. television broadcasters that the standard for transmitting TV over-the-air would permanently change from analog to digital. While there are many technical, political, and economic reasons for and implications of this change, the end-result for the American TV audience is a dramatic improvement in picture and sound quality.

According to the original FCC rules, all full power stations were to convert to digital by the beginning of 2007, followed by shutdown of analog broadcasting. An escape clause stipulated that 85% of receivers in the service area must be "capable" of receiving digital signals before the shutdown could occur. At the time of analog shutoff, one of the channels (digital or analog) would then be returned to the government, with the other channel remaining as a digital station; the freed spectrum could then be used for other TV stations, with UHF channels at the high end of the band being decommissioned and sold for other uses.

The 2007 deadline could not be satisfied under many interpretations of 85% "capability" of digital signal reception. So....

On February 8th, 2006, President Bush signed into law the "Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005". This law mandated a hard shut-off date of February 17, 2009 for the end of all analog (NTSC) TV transmissions in the U.S.

A similar hard shut-off date for the end of all analog FM radio must occur in order for HD radio to get past its current consumer growth doldrums. The forced shut-down of analog radio will give America the incentive to adopt HD radio.

Perhaps more importantly, like HDTV, a forced shut-off will force consumers to become more familiar with HD radio's offerings and benefits which will, in turn, motivate broadcasters to develop stimulating content.

This is really the only way to quickly stimulate the rapid adoption of this new technology. One wonders why this wasn't the FCC's plan all along. Why place a mandatory transition deadline on television stations and not radio?

Even our British broadcast neighbors are beginning to lobby their FCC equivalent (Ofcom, the Office of Communications) to turn off the FM band by 2015 in order to force British broadcasters to become digital. They have said they fear being antiquated in the face of all digital audio technologies.

They have a point.

What do you think?

What's Good for the Radio Goose....

To contact us Click HERE
Since February's announcement that Sirius satellite radio was interested in acquiring XM, we've seen many twists and turns in Mel Karmazin's effort to convince the FCC and others that a merger is in the best interests of consumers. In Mel's usual style, he has done an expert job of laying out the rationale and presenting it in an intelligent, non-offensive manner.

However, as we near the end of 2007, we seem to be very close to a decision on this event and as I mentioned in an earlier blog, my money now is on the merger getting approved.

The National Association of Broadcasters has done a respectable job of countering satellite radio's rationale in favor of a merger, but the time has come for the NAB to face the "Rule of Consolidation".

The fact is that the NAB has lobbied for consolidation of the radio industry since the early 90's and got permission for radio companies to begin buying up each other in a 1996 act of Congress.

The argument was that not only is consolidation good for the business - it's good for the consumer.

Now, eleven years later, many in our business - even on Wall Street - believe that this wave of consolidation has had negative repercussions on the financial well-being of the radio business.

Again, in the last two years, the major radio companies have been stamping their feet for further consolidation. It seems that owning 8 radio stations in the biggest radio markets wasn't enough. There are those who want to own 10 or more stations in the same market.

Yet when it comes to satellite radio consolidating, the radio industry says "no".

The radio industry is concerned about this proposed merger for many reasons...but none of them are truly onerous.

If the radio industry manages their business properly...

• A merged satellite radio company will not significantly impact its listenership
• A merged satellite radio company will not impact radio's revenues and profits

This deal has been examined every which way and in the end, there are no grounds to prevent it.

Bridge Ratings has been studying consumers' reaction to the proposed merger since it was announced in February. Over time and 5 studies, current satellite radio subscribers have become less concerned about the impact of such a merger. Potential satellite radio subscribers are confused, but most will delay their decision to subscribe until a decision is made. This is one reason why year-to-year satellite radio subscriber rates have fallen so precipitously in the last year.

The only negative impact the merger has had on the satellite radio companies is that the news of a potential merger has derailed the sector's growth. That's only temporary.

Satellite radio is a niche business and a merger will not automatically make it a broad-based appeal business.

If consolidation was good for the radio goose why isn't it good for the satellite gander?

Optimism: 2010's Secret Weapon

To contact us Click HERE
2009 has been a most difficult year.

Most business leaders - including media professionals - have found themselves unable to lead.

Perhaps for the first time in their careers. And when they lie awake at night in their own space they are terrified.

They watch their organizations crumble under the weight of an unforgiving economy.

They've cut their workforces so much that once-competent employees have been unable to perform due to overwork and distraction.

But there is a way out and it starts with the organization's leader.

Leaders are their most affective when they are most in touch with reality, and this happens when they are almost viscerally in sync with the people and markets they lead and serve.

It's about being able to absorb reality and being able to lead accordingly.

So, despite what you know, the mood your employees experience, is so important.

An optimistic mood will help you communicate in a more effective manner.

A leader's mood is infectious. It can spread like wildfire through an organization.

You, as a leader, can poison or uplift the mood without realizing it.

Be very aware of how your slightest signals can affect people when you are in a position of power (that's for all you formal leaders) or people look to you for a lead (for you informal leaders).

No one wants to work for a grouch. Research has proven it: optimistic, enthusiastic leaders more easily retain their people compared with those bosses who tend towards negative moods.

Numerous studies show that when the leader is in a happy mood, the people around him view everything in a more positive light. That, in turn, makes them more optimistic about achieving their goals, enhances their creativity and the efficiency of their decision-making, and predisposes them to be helpful.

In more than one sense, then, leadership is truly viral.

Become an optimist of the will and your organization can pull itself up.

What's Really Next?

To contact us Click HERE

What's really next for media companies?

Smaller - leaner - more outsourcing.

The chart to the right reflects a related growth curve between staffing and corporate efficiency, or productivity.

The way this applies to radio is at the core of its frustration with attracting more loyal listeners.

There just has not been any investment in the product in over a year at a time when radio is competing with media that understand the importance of creative content.

Radio has its own set of rules and at this point, generally, most radio companies can ill afford to invest in the one thing that will help their business grow: personnel and content creation.

Economies such as the one we're experiencing in late 2009 no longer lend themselves to the operations models which allowed companies to staff more robustly.

The benefit to that kind of structure is that if companies staff responsibly, employees reach their maximum potential to deliver for the company by reaching their own competency levels.

What has led to this redesign of culture is the reduction in staffing and a reduction in quality output. Once highly-competent employees have found themselves delegated more and more work often outside their area of specialty or comfort.

This tends to result in staff that are not competent at the new tasks and somewhat less competent at their old tasks. This amounts to a severe reduction in efficiencies and production which further drives down business cash flow.

This cannot be sustained.

Something's got to change. And this is what we're experiencing.

Change can be uncomfortable.

Ultimately, change is for the best.

Therefore, the best option is to reduce workload to a more comfortable level where talented employees can do their jobs at levels that will again produce positively for companies. Operating in this culture will allow companies to regain traction and begin to rebuild.

This means a shrinking of the business as a whole in every aspect.

It may be "circle-the-wagons" time for the media industry - certainly it is for terrestrial radio - and concentrate on core competencies until things return to a less volitile marketplace.

Yet, despite this reduction in services, companies must also understand they cannot grow by cutting. Business development can continue to be a part of the mix.

For radio, an industry that still experiences respectable profit margins, this will mean figuring out a way to reinvest some of that profit margin back into their businesses.

I'll reveal how to do that, in my next blog.

Radio's New Music Fantasy

To contact us Click HERE
The recent headline "Google and MySpace will challenge radio’s music-discovery position," got me asking the question "What music-discovery position?"

In the years I have been analyzing consumer use of media, including broadcast radio, Internet and more recently smart phone behavior, radio has had the potential to capture the new music discovery crown.

Unfortunately, it never has lived up to this potential.






In 2007, Bridge Ratings conducted a series of deep studies of music consumers of all ages and, as you might suspect, found that 18-30 year olds were most interested in discovering new music though any means possible. In the category of where most of this discovery was occurring, broadcast radio followed peers and the Internet as the place to go to find great new music.

However, in focus groups to dig deeper, radio had the greatest potential of all three for new music discovery due to its primary benefits: ease of use, accessibility and the fact that radio is free.

Yet radio never took the initiative.

In the last two years I have discussed this notion of new music discovery with at least 100 radio programmers in the formats of Contemporary Hit Radio (CHR), Adult Alternative and Alternative.

Would it surprise you to know that none of them saw the wisdom of claiming the "new music" position in their markets by proactively promoting and playing new music by either established performers or undiscovered talent.

Radio's belief that it is the new music discovery destination is pure fantasy.

There's a fabulous on-line worldwide talent competition called "Fame Games" which boasts two million worldwide listeners; 70% listen in the U.S. alone. I have had an interest in this five-shows-a-week talent competition and thought it would suit American radio just fine.

"Fame Games" features unsigned artists of any cross-over genre competing for best track of the week and ultimately a major record contract.

This is a well-produced, fun feature that pits two songs against each other vying for the votes of listeners and the program's judges. So, I took it to U.S. radio.

American programmers won't go there.

Aggressively marketing one's radio station as the "place for new music discovery" would greatly bulk up a station's image if done properly and perhaps even draw young listeners back to a medium that is having its problems holding on to this important demographic.

So, when I read that Google or MySpace will challenge radio's music discovery position, or when I read the RAB's Jeff Haley's concern about how radio has to protect this turf, I have to shrug my shoulders.

As far as radio's listeners are concerned, there is no new music turf to protect.

Radio had the opportunity to claim this territory for itself at least two years ago when audiences told us that radio's convenience would make it the most likely place to go to discover new music.

It never took the opportunity and very well may find itself pushed out by new media which seems to take every opportunity to infringe on radio's weaknesses.

This all points to radio's biggest challenge: getting back to creating and presenting engrossing and compelling programming....for all ages.

The radio industry must build upon its rich history of being listener-focused.

In its confusion in recent years, radio has simply forgotten how to compete.

This just in: We Don't All Suck!

To contact us Click HERE
Got your attention huh?

I'm gonna change the focus a bit on OpenGeek.

Political issues are growing more important. Rather than bleet (ask the great YAK --Jeff Minter what a bleet is) on about that here, I've started writing at OpEd news for those issues on a more frequent basis. This will let OpenGeek continue to be diverse, and hopefully interesting, in the way it is now, while giving me a venue for other issues that is focused in the way it should be.

The core change will be more quick links to popular content here. Google analytics has shown me that a fairly large number of readers here dig through the archives only to leave frustrated. I'll work on changing that in the near future. Regular readers are also often frustrated with the lack of new content. This focus change will allow me to put more things of interest here, without having to worry about content focus clash. (Which has been a big worry as of late.)

As always, thanks for reading. Thank you to all who have sent me interesting e-mails over the years. I blog for this reason if no other! Writing and interacting on the Internet has shown me one core thing that really matters:

We don't all suck Dammit!

Making the switch to Ubuntu: Dapper Drake --That's Linux for the rest of you!

To contact us Click HERE

I've been living by a simple rule, where computing is concerned, for a while now; namely, only run win32 & win64 operating systems if somebody else pays for them.

That means Linux, or a Mac at home for personal computing. So far, I prefer Linux and an older SGI Irix machine for most of my computing needs. The SGI is more or less dedicated to a few tasks, the rest happens on my Linux machine and it has gotten a bit long in the tooth. Time for a new computer and some new Open Source Software!

Having been a very long time Mandrake user since about version 6, the idea of switching didn't hold much appeal. Despite being a fairly happy user, a couple of issues continue to nag at me. These are, package management and desktop functionality.

Enter Ubuntu. These two areas are a focus for this distribution right now and let me tell you, I'm a pretty happy user! Over the last few days, I've been installing some software, getting to know GNOME and generally just checking out the environment. The UNIXey bits underneath are somewhat unfamiliar, compared to Mandrake and it's SGI like structure, but the arrangement is sane overall and easily understood. That means just getting used to a few differences here and there. No biggie.

So far, the GUI controls for nearly everything but window focus behavior are more than adequate for my needs. (Somebody really needs to let these folks know what focus follows mouse means!) Multimedia support is easily added to the base software package as well. Core software included was properly configured and ready to use, making me productive right out of the gate. All in all a net positive.

Package management rocks, particularly with Easy Ubuntu added to the mix. I asked the system for a variety of emulators, editors, some development stuff, etc.. and it was all delivered and installed while I worked on other things. --Nice.

The only downsides I'm seeing right now are some cut 'n paste wierdness, the VMWare Virtual Player and Kernel not matching up, and problems playing DVD media. I don't depend on these things for my core computing, so I'll just work through them and that's it.

Oh, one other thing nagged at me too. The lack of a base development selection choice. Maybe there is one and it was just not obvious. Either way, I was frustrated with having to pick and choose lots of stuff in order to compile some classic game development software. Still having some issues in this area and I'm sure it's just me spoiled by the Mandrake development base. Really I should know better what I am using such that I can just pick it from a menu, but I don't! Guess that's gonna change a bit, probably for the better.

All in all, this has been a great move. My hardware works, including lots of USB stuff, my desktop is functional and productive, and the system runs fast without a hitch.

Nice job guys --appreciated!

If you are looking for a Linux to get started with, Ubuntu sets a nice high bar. Worth learning IMHO.

NYT's David Pogue Takes on VZW

To contact us Click HERE

I always find David's writing on new technology both informative and humorous.

But he has taken an interesting position in the telecom policy area by locking horns with Verizon Wireless.

As he says in today's NY Times,

A few weeks ago, I wrote about two particularly nasty Verizon Wireless practices. First, Verizon doubled the early-cancellation fee for smartphones, the price you pay for canceling before your two-year contract is up (it’s now $350).

Second, I passed along a note from a Verizon whistleblower who identified a really outrageous Verizon profit center: if you accidentally hit one of the arrow keys on your Verizon cellphone (which come premapped to various Verizon Internet functions), you’re charged $2 instantaneously, even if you cancel instantly. (Verizon confirms that on many models, you can’t remap those buttons to other functions even if you’re tech-savvy enough to try.)

VZW has finally responded, after requesting a delay, and he calls their response "outrageous".  So read for yourself and see what you think of the VZW response to this matter.

Pogue ends with this line,

"In short, the headline for this entire episode might as well be:

'Verizon to FCC and Customers: Go Soak Your Heads.' "

An odd PR move from a cellular company that is pressing FCC to reallocate 800 MHz! 
=====
A Pogue Video with links to others:




Updates
A reader pointed out the original link above was actually to an unrelated VZ FCC filing.  I pointed this out to David and he quickly corrected the link, which has been changed above.
=========


Comm. Clyburn's 12/23/09 Statement on VZW Letter
An excerpt:

 "I am concerned about what appears to be a shifting and tenuous rationale for ETFs. No longer is the claim that ETFs are tied solely to the true cost of the wireless device; rather, they are now also used to foot the bill for ‘advertising costs, commissions for sales personnel, and store costs.’ Consumers already pay high monthly fees for voice and data designed to cover the costs of doing business. So when they are assessed excessive penalties, especially when they are near the end of their contract term, it is hard for me to believe that the public interest is being well served.

I am also alarmed by the fact that many consumers have been charged phantom fees for inadvertently pressing a key on their phones thereby launching Verizon Wireless’s mobile Internet service. The company asserted in its response to the Bureau that it ‘does not charge users when the browser is launched,’ but recent press reports and consumer complaints strongly suggest otherwise."

  Business Week/Bloomberg coverage
  Huffington Post coverage
  ars technica coverage

The future for AM HD Radio doesn't feel nearly as secure (according to iBiquity!)

To contact us Click HERE
This, direct from iBiquity's own website...

The future for AM HD Radio doesn't feel nearly as secure. Ibiquity seems to have made a concession to the reality of staying alive here and now on the medium-wave band by offering a compromise mode of AM IBOC that trades down digital bandwidth for acceptable analog audio quality. Among AM license holders, interest these days seems to have shifted from a digital solution to AM's woes to what's available in the next FM translator filing window. To be sure, AM IBOC still has a few champions, but looking at receivers, it's clear their passion isn't moving anyone at the retail level. Long wavelengths remain a huge handicap in an era of tiny, processor-driven devices.

To contact us Click HERE

HD Radio Shouldn't Be This Hard

by Thomas R. Ray III, 08.11.2010

NEW WINDSOR, N.Y. — Unless we give Joe Consumer a reason to go out and purchase an HD Radio for his car — until he can obtain it easily and at a reasonable cost, and a device that works — I fear that HD Radio is going to go the way of FM quad and AM stereo, relegated to the scrap pile of history.  
This statement may surprise you, coming from me. I'm the vice president/corporate director of engineering for Buckley Broadcasting/WOR Radio, New York City. As you may be aware from news reports and my own commentaries, I've been a vocal HD Radio supporter; indeed our station WOR was the one of the first AMs on the air with an HD Radio signal.

The author contemplated the install of his new Kenwood KDC-HD545U, featuring built-in HD Radio…

Optimism: 2010's Secret Weapon

To contact us Click HERE
2009 has been a most difficult year.

Most business leaders - including media professionals - have found themselves unable to lead.

Perhaps for the first time in their careers. And when they lie awake at night in their own space they are terrified.

They watch their organizations crumble under the weight of an unforgiving economy.

They've cut their workforces so much that once-competent employees have been unable to perform due to overwork and distraction.

But there is a way out and it starts with the organization's leader.

Leaders are their most affective when they are most in touch with reality, and this happens when they are almost viscerally in sync with the people and markets they lead and serve.

It's about being able to absorb reality and being able to lead accordingly.

So, despite what you know, the mood your employees experience, is so important.

An optimistic mood will help you communicate in a more effective manner.

A leader's mood is infectious. It can spread like wildfire through an organization.

You, as a leader, can poison or uplift the mood without realizing it.

Be very aware of how your slightest signals can affect people when you are in a position of power (that's for all you formal leaders) or people look to you for a lead (for you informal leaders).

No one wants to work for a grouch. Research has proven it: optimistic, enthusiastic leaders more easily retain their people compared with those bosses who tend towards negative moods.

Numerous studies show that when the leader is in a happy mood, the people around him view everything in a more positive light. That, in turn, makes them more optimistic about achieving their goals, enhances their creativity and the efficiency of their decision-making, and predisposes them to be helpful.

In more than one sense, then, leadership is truly viral.

Become an optimist of the will and your organization can pull itself up.

What's Really Next?

To contact us Click HERE

What's really next for media companies?

Smaller - leaner - more outsourcing.

The chart to the right reflects a related growth curve between staffing and corporate efficiency, or productivity.

The way this applies to radio is at the core of its frustration with attracting more loyal listeners.

There just has not been any investment in the product in over a year at a time when radio is competing with media that understand the importance of creative content.

Radio has its own set of rules and at this point, generally, most radio companies can ill afford to invest in the one thing that will help their business grow: personnel and content creation.

Economies such as the one we're experiencing in late 2009 no longer lend themselves to the operations models which allowed companies to staff more robustly.

The benefit to that kind of structure is that if companies staff responsibly, employees reach their maximum potential to deliver for the company by reaching their own competency levels.

What has led to this redesign of culture is the reduction in staffing and a reduction in quality output. Once highly-competent employees have found themselves delegated more and more work often outside their area of specialty or comfort.

This tends to result in staff that are not competent at the new tasks and somewhat less competent at their old tasks. This amounts to a severe reduction in efficiencies and production which further drives down business cash flow.

This cannot be sustained.

Something's got to change. And this is what we're experiencing.

Change can be uncomfortable.

Ultimately, change is for the best.

Therefore, the best option is to reduce workload to a more comfortable level where talented employees can do their jobs at levels that will again produce positively for companies. Operating in this culture will allow companies to regain traction and begin to rebuild.

This means a shrinking of the business as a whole in every aspect.

It may be "circle-the-wagons" time for the media industry - certainly it is for terrestrial radio - and concentrate on core competencies until things return to a less volitile marketplace.

Yet, despite this reduction in services, companies must also understand they cannot grow by cutting. Business development can continue to be a part of the mix.

For radio, an industry that still experiences respectable profit margins, this will mean figuring out a way to reinvest some of that profit margin back into their businesses.

I'll reveal how to do that, in my next blog.

Radio's New Music Fantasy

To contact us Click HERE
The recent headline "Google and MySpace will challenge radio’s music-discovery position," got me asking the question "What music-discovery position?"

In the years I have been analyzing consumer use of media, including broadcast radio, Internet and more recently smart phone behavior, radio has had the potential to capture the new music discovery crown.

Unfortunately, it never has lived up to this potential.






In 2007, Bridge Ratings conducted a series of deep studies of music consumers of all ages and, as you might suspect, found that 18-30 year olds were most interested in discovering new music though any means possible. In the category of where most of this discovery was occurring, broadcast radio followed peers and the Internet as the place to go to find great new music.

However, in focus groups to dig deeper, radio had the greatest potential of all three for new music discovery due to its primary benefits: ease of use, accessibility and the fact that radio is free.

Yet radio never took the initiative.

In the last two years I have discussed this notion of new music discovery with at least 100 radio programmers in the formats of Contemporary Hit Radio (CHR), Adult Alternative and Alternative.

Would it surprise you to know that none of them saw the wisdom of claiming the "new music" position in their markets by proactively promoting and playing new music by either established performers or undiscovered talent.

Radio's belief that it is the new music discovery destination is pure fantasy.

There's a fabulous on-line worldwide talent competition called "Fame Games" which boasts two million worldwide listeners; 70% listen in the U.S. alone. I have had an interest in this five-shows-a-week talent competition and thought it would suit American radio just fine.

"Fame Games" features unsigned artists of any cross-over genre competing for best track of the week and ultimately a major record contract.

This is a well-produced, fun feature that pits two songs against each other vying for the votes of listeners and the program's judges. So, I took it to U.S. radio.

American programmers won't go there.

Aggressively marketing one's radio station as the "place for new music discovery" would greatly bulk up a station's image if done properly and perhaps even draw young listeners back to a medium that is having its problems holding on to this important demographic.

So, when I read that Google or MySpace will challenge radio's music discovery position, or when I read the RAB's Jeff Haley's concern about how radio has to protect this turf, I have to shrug my shoulders.

As far as radio's listeners are concerned, there is no new music turf to protect.

Radio had the opportunity to claim this territory for itself at least two years ago when audiences told us that radio's convenience would make it the most likely place to go to discover new music.

It never took the opportunity and very well may find itself pushed out by new media which seems to take every opportunity to infringe on radio's weaknesses.

This all points to radio's biggest challenge: getting back to creating and presenting engrossing and compelling programming....for all ages.

The radio industry must build upon its rich history of being listener-focused.

In its confusion in recent years, radio has simply forgotten how to compete.

This just in: We Don't All Suck!

To contact us Click HERE
Got your attention huh?

I'm gonna change the focus a bit on OpenGeek.

Political issues are growing more important. Rather than bleet (ask the great YAK --Jeff Minter what a bleet is) on about that here, I've started writing at OpEd news for those issues on a more frequent basis. This will let OpenGeek continue to be diverse, and hopefully interesting, in the way it is now, while giving me a venue for other issues that is focused in the way it should be.

The core change will be more quick links to popular content here. Google analytics has shown me that a fairly large number of readers here dig through the archives only to leave frustrated. I'll work on changing that in the near future. Regular readers are also often frustrated with the lack of new content. This focus change will allow me to put more things of interest here, without having to worry about content focus clash. (Which has been a big worry as of late.)

As always, thanks for reading. Thank you to all who have sent me interesting e-mails over the years. I blog for this reason if no other! Writing and interacting on the Internet has shown me one core thing that really matters:

We don't all suck Dammit!

Making the switch to Ubuntu: Dapper Drake --That's Linux for the rest of you!

To contact us Click HERE

I've been living by a simple rule, where computing is concerned, for a while now; namely, only run win32 & win64 operating systems if somebody else pays for them.

That means Linux, or a Mac at home for personal computing. So far, I prefer Linux and an older SGI Irix machine for most of my computing needs. The SGI is more or less dedicated to a few tasks, the rest happens on my Linux machine and it has gotten a bit long in the tooth. Time for a new computer and some new Open Source Software!

Having been a very long time Mandrake user since about version 6, the idea of switching didn't hold much appeal. Despite being a fairly happy user, a couple of issues continue to nag at me. These are, package management and desktop functionality.

Enter Ubuntu. These two areas are a focus for this distribution right now and let me tell you, I'm a pretty happy user! Over the last few days, I've been installing some software, getting to know GNOME and generally just checking out the environment. The UNIXey bits underneath are somewhat unfamiliar, compared to Mandrake and it's SGI like structure, but the arrangement is sane overall and easily understood. That means just getting used to a few differences here and there. No biggie.

So far, the GUI controls for nearly everything but window focus behavior are more than adequate for my needs. (Somebody really needs to let these folks know what focus follows mouse means!) Multimedia support is easily added to the base software package as well. Core software included was properly configured and ready to use, making me productive right out of the gate. All in all a net positive.

Package management rocks, particularly with Easy Ubuntu added to the mix. I asked the system for a variety of emulators, editors, some development stuff, etc.. and it was all delivered and installed while I worked on other things. --Nice.

The only downsides I'm seeing right now are some cut 'n paste wierdness, the VMWare Virtual Player and Kernel not matching up, and problems playing DVD media. I don't depend on these things for my core computing, so I'll just work through them and that's it.

Oh, one other thing nagged at me too. The lack of a base development selection choice. Maybe there is one and it was just not obvious. Either way, I was frustrated with having to pick and choose lots of stuff in order to compile some classic game development software. Still having some issues in this area and I'm sure it's just me spoiled by the Mandrake development base. Really I should know better what I am using such that I can just pick it from a menu, but I don't! Guess that's gonna change a bit, probably for the better.

All in all, this has been a great move. My hardware works, including lots of USB stuff, my desktop is functional and productive, and the system runs fast without a hitch.

Nice job guys --appreciated!

If you are looking for a Linux to get started with, Ubuntu sets a nice high bar. Worth learning IMHO.

What's Really Next?

To contact us Click HERE

What's really next for media companies?

Smaller - leaner - more outsourcing.

The chart to the right reflects a related growth curve between staffing and corporate efficiency, or productivity.

The way this applies to radio is at the core of its frustration with attracting more loyal listeners.

There just has not been any investment in the product in over a year at a time when radio is competing with media that understand the importance of creative content.

Radio has its own set of rules and at this point, generally, most radio companies can ill afford to invest in the one thing that will help their business grow: personnel and content creation.

Economies such as the one we're experiencing in late 2009 no longer lend themselves to the operations models which allowed companies to staff more robustly.

The benefit to that kind of structure is that if companies staff responsibly, employees reach their maximum potential to deliver for the company by reaching their own competency levels.

What has led to this redesign of culture is the reduction in staffing and a reduction in quality output. Once highly-competent employees have found themselves delegated more and more work often outside their area of specialty or comfort.

This tends to result in staff that are not competent at the new tasks and somewhat less competent at their old tasks. This amounts to a severe reduction in efficiencies and production which further drives down business cash flow.

This cannot be sustained.

Something's got to change. And this is what we're experiencing.

Change can be uncomfortable.

Ultimately, change is for the best.

Therefore, the best option is to reduce workload to a more comfortable level where talented employees can do their jobs at levels that will again produce positively for companies. Operating in this culture will allow companies to regain traction and begin to rebuild.

This means a shrinking of the business as a whole in every aspect.

It may be "circle-the-wagons" time for the media industry - certainly it is for terrestrial radio - and concentrate on core competencies until things return to a less volitile marketplace.

Yet, despite this reduction in services, companies must also understand they cannot grow by cutting. Business development can continue to be a part of the mix.

For radio, an industry that still experiences respectable profit margins, this will mean figuring out a way to reinvest some of that profit margin back into their businesses.

I'll reveal how to do that, in my next blog.

Radio's New Music Fantasy

To contact us Click HERE
The recent headline "Google and MySpace will challenge radio’s music-discovery position," got me asking the question "What music-discovery position?"

In the years I have been analyzing consumer use of media, including broadcast radio, Internet and more recently smart phone behavior, radio has had the potential to capture the new music discovery crown.

Unfortunately, it never has lived up to this potential.






In 2007, Bridge Ratings conducted a series of deep studies of music consumers of all ages and, as you might suspect, found that 18-30 year olds were most interested in discovering new music though any means possible. In the category of where most of this discovery was occurring, broadcast radio followed peers and the Internet as the place to go to find great new music.

However, in focus groups to dig deeper, radio had the greatest potential of all three for new music discovery due to its primary benefits: ease of use, accessibility and the fact that radio is free.

Yet radio never took the initiative.

In the last two years I have discussed this notion of new music discovery with at least 100 radio programmers in the formats of Contemporary Hit Radio (CHR), Adult Alternative and Alternative.

Would it surprise you to know that none of them saw the wisdom of claiming the "new music" position in their markets by proactively promoting and playing new music by either established performers or undiscovered talent.

Radio's belief that it is the new music discovery destination is pure fantasy.

There's a fabulous on-line worldwide talent competition called "Fame Games" which boasts two million worldwide listeners; 70% listen in the U.S. alone. I have had an interest in this five-shows-a-week talent competition and thought it would suit American radio just fine.

"Fame Games" features unsigned artists of any cross-over genre competing for best track of the week and ultimately a major record contract.

This is a well-produced, fun feature that pits two songs against each other vying for the votes of listeners and the program's judges. So, I took it to U.S. radio.

American programmers won't go there.

Aggressively marketing one's radio station as the "place for new music discovery" would greatly bulk up a station's image if done properly and perhaps even draw young listeners back to a medium that is having its problems holding on to this important demographic.

So, when I read that Google or MySpace will challenge radio's music discovery position, or when I read the RAB's Jeff Haley's concern about how radio has to protect this turf, I have to shrug my shoulders.

As far as radio's listeners are concerned, there is no new music turf to protect.

Radio had the opportunity to claim this territory for itself at least two years ago when audiences told us that radio's convenience would make it the most likely place to go to discover new music.

It never took the opportunity and very well may find itself pushed out by new media which seems to take every opportunity to infringe on radio's weaknesses.

This all points to radio's biggest challenge: getting back to creating and presenting engrossing and compelling programming....for all ages.

The radio industry must build upon its rich history of being listener-focused.

In its confusion in recent years, radio has simply forgotten how to compete.

NYT's David Pogue Takes on VZW

To contact us Click HERE

I always find David's writing on new technology both informative and humorous.

But he has taken an interesting position in the telecom policy area by locking horns with Verizon Wireless.

As he says in today's NY Times,

A few weeks ago, I wrote about two particularly nasty Verizon Wireless practices. First, Verizon doubled the early-cancellation fee for smartphones, the price you pay for canceling before your two-year contract is up (it’s now $350).

Second, I passed along a note from a Verizon whistleblower who identified a really outrageous Verizon profit center: if you accidentally hit one of the arrow keys on your Verizon cellphone (which come premapped to various Verizon Internet functions), you’re charged $2 instantaneously, even if you cancel instantly. (Verizon confirms that on many models, you can’t remap those buttons to other functions even if you’re tech-savvy enough to try.)

VZW has finally responded, after requesting a delay, and he calls their response "outrageous".  So read for yourself and see what you think of the VZW response to this matter.

Pogue ends with this line,

"In short, the headline for this entire episode might as well be:

'Verizon to FCC and Customers: Go Soak Your Heads.' "

An odd PR move from a cellular company that is pressing FCC to reallocate 800 MHz! 
=====
A Pogue Video with links to others:




Updates
A reader pointed out the original link above was actually to an unrelated VZ FCC filing.  I pointed this out to David and he quickly corrected the link, which has been changed above.
=========


Comm. Clyburn's 12/23/09 Statement on VZW Letter
An excerpt:

 "I am concerned about what appears to be a shifting and tenuous rationale for ETFs. No longer is the claim that ETFs are tied solely to the true cost of the wireless device; rather, they are now also used to foot the bill for ‘advertising costs, commissions for sales personnel, and store costs.’ Consumers already pay high monthly fees for voice and data designed to cover the costs of doing business. So when they are assessed excessive penalties, especially when they are near the end of their contract term, it is hard for me to believe that the public interest is being well served.

I am also alarmed by the fact that many consumers have been charged phantom fees for inadvertently pressing a key on their phones thereby launching Verizon Wireless’s mobile Internet service. The company asserted in its response to the Bureau that it ‘does not charge users when the browser is launched,’ but recent press reports and consumer complaints strongly suggest otherwise."

  Business Week/Bloomberg coverage
  Huffington Post coverage
  ars technica coverage

This just in: We Don't All Suck!

To contact us Click HERE
Got your attention huh?

I'm gonna change the focus a bit on OpenGeek.

Political issues are growing more important. Rather than bleet (ask the great YAK --Jeff Minter what a bleet is) on about that here, I've started writing at OpEd news for those issues on a more frequent basis. This will let OpenGeek continue to be diverse, and hopefully interesting, in the way it is now, while giving me a venue for other issues that is focused in the way it should be.

The core change will be more quick links to popular content here. Google analytics has shown me that a fairly large number of readers here dig through the archives only to leave frustrated. I'll work on changing that in the near future. Regular readers are also often frustrated with the lack of new content. This focus change will allow me to put more things of interest here, without having to worry about content focus clash. (Which has been a big worry as of late.)

As always, thanks for reading. Thank you to all who have sent me interesting e-mails over the years. I blog for this reason if no other! Writing and interacting on the Internet has shown me one core thing that really matters:

We don't all suck Dammit!

Making the switch to Ubuntu: Dapper Drake --That's Linux for the rest of you!

To contact us Click HERE

I've been living by a simple rule, where computing is concerned, for a while now; namely, only run win32 & win64 operating systems if somebody else pays for them.

That means Linux, or a Mac at home for personal computing. So far, I prefer Linux and an older SGI Irix machine for most of my computing needs. The SGI is more or less dedicated to a few tasks, the rest happens on my Linux machine and it has gotten a bit long in the tooth. Time for a new computer and some new Open Source Software!

Having been a very long time Mandrake user since about version 6, the idea of switching didn't hold much appeal. Despite being a fairly happy user, a couple of issues continue to nag at me. These are, package management and desktop functionality.

Enter Ubuntu. These two areas are a focus for this distribution right now and let me tell you, I'm a pretty happy user! Over the last few days, I've been installing some software, getting to know GNOME and generally just checking out the environment. The UNIXey bits underneath are somewhat unfamiliar, compared to Mandrake and it's SGI like structure, but the arrangement is sane overall and easily understood. That means just getting used to a few differences here and there. No biggie.

So far, the GUI controls for nearly everything but window focus behavior are more than adequate for my needs. (Somebody really needs to let these folks know what focus follows mouse means!) Multimedia support is easily added to the base software package as well. Core software included was properly configured and ready to use, making me productive right out of the gate. All in all a net positive.

Package management rocks, particularly with Easy Ubuntu added to the mix. I asked the system for a variety of emulators, editors, some development stuff, etc.. and it was all delivered and installed while I worked on other things. --Nice.

The only downsides I'm seeing right now are some cut 'n paste wierdness, the VMWare Virtual Player and Kernel not matching up, and problems playing DVD media. I don't depend on these things for my core computing, so I'll just work through them and that's it.

Oh, one other thing nagged at me too. The lack of a base development selection choice. Maybe there is one and it was just not obvious. Either way, I was frustrated with having to pick and choose lots of stuff in order to compile some classic game development software. Still having some issues in this area and I'm sure it's just me spoiled by the Mandrake development base. Really I should know better what I am using such that I can just pick it from a menu, but I don't! Guess that's gonna change a bit, probably for the better.

All in all, this has been a great move. My hardware works, including lots of USB stuff, my desktop is functional and productive, and the system runs fast without a hitch.

Nice job guys --appreciated!

If you are looking for a Linux to get started with, Ubuntu sets a nice high bar. Worth learning IMHO.

What's Good for the Radio Goose....

To contact us Click HERE
Since February's announcement that Sirius satellite radio was interested in acquiring XM, we've seen many twists and turns in Mel Karmazin's effort to convince the FCC and others that a merger is in the best interests of consumers. In Mel's usual style, he has done an expert job of laying out the rationale and presenting it in an intelligent, non-offensive manner.

However, as we near the end of 2007, we seem to be very close to a decision on this event and as I mentioned in an earlier blog, my money now is on the merger getting approved.

The National Association of Broadcasters has done a respectable job of countering satellite radio's rationale in favor of a merger, but the time has come for the NAB to face the "Rule of Consolidation".

The fact is that the NAB has lobbied for consolidation of the radio industry since the early 90's and got permission for radio companies to begin buying up each other in a 1996 act of Congress.

The argument was that not only is consolidation good for the business - it's good for the consumer.

Now, eleven years later, many in our business - even on Wall Street - believe that this wave of consolidation has had negative repercussions on the financial well-being of the radio business.

Again, in the last two years, the major radio companies have been stamping their feet for further consolidation. It seems that owning 8 radio stations in the biggest radio markets wasn't enough. There are those who want to own 10 or more stations in the same market.

Yet when it comes to satellite radio consolidating, the radio industry says "no".

The radio industry is concerned about this proposed merger for many reasons...but none of them are truly onerous.

If the radio industry manages their business properly...

• A merged satellite radio company will not significantly impact its listenership
• A merged satellite radio company will not impact radio's revenues and profits

This deal has been examined every which way and in the end, there are no grounds to prevent it.

Bridge Ratings has been studying consumers' reaction to the proposed merger since it was announced in February. Over time and 5 studies, current satellite radio subscribers have become less concerned about the impact of such a merger. Potential satellite radio subscribers are confused, but most will delay their decision to subscribe until a decision is made. This is one reason why year-to-year satellite radio subscriber rates have fallen so precipitously in the last year.

The only negative impact the merger has had on the satellite radio companies is that the news of a potential merger has derailed the sector's growth. That's only temporary.

Satellite radio is a niche business and a merger will not automatically make it a broad-based appeal business.

If consolidation was good for the radio goose why isn't it good for the satellite gander?

Optimism: 2010's Secret Weapon

To contact us Click HERE
2009 has been a most difficult year.

Most business leaders - including media professionals - have found themselves unable to lead.

Perhaps for the first time in their careers. And when they lie awake at night in their own space they are terrified.

They watch their organizations crumble under the weight of an unforgiving economy.

They've cut their workforces so much that once-competent employees have been unable to perform due to overwork and distraction.

But there is a way out and it starts with the organization's leader.

Leaders are their most affective when they are most in touch with reality, and this happens when they are almost viscerally in sync with the people and markets they lead and serve.

It's about being able to absorb reality and being able to lead accordingly.

So, despite what you know, the mood your employees experience, is so important.

An optimistic mood will help you communicate in a more effective manner.

A leader's mood is infectious. It can spread like wildfire through an organization.

You, as a leader, can poison or uplift the mood without realizing it.

Be very aware of how your slightest signals can affect people when you are in a position of power (that's for all you formal leaders) or people look to you for a lead (for you informal leaders).

No one wants to work for a grouch. Research has proven it: optimistic, enthusiastic leaders more easily retain their people compared with those bosses who tend towards negative moods.

Numerous studies show that when the leader is in a happy mood, the people around him view everything in a more positive light. That, in turn, makes them more optimistic about achieving their goals, enhances their creativity and the efficiency of their decision-making, and predisposes them to be helpful.

In more than one sense, then, leadership is truly viral.

Become an optimist of the will and your organization can pull itself up.

What's Really Next?

To contact us Click HERE

What's really next for media companies?

Smaller - leaner - more outsourcing.

The chart to the right reflects a related growth curve between staffing and corporate efficiency, or productivity.

The way this applies to radio is at the core of its frustration with attracting more loyal listeners.

There just has not been any investment in the product in over a year at a time when radio is competing with media that understand the importance of creative content.

Radio has its own set of rules and at this point, generally, most radio companies can ill afford to invest in the one thing that will help their business grow: personnel and content creation.

Economies such as the one we're experiencing in late 2009 no longer lend themselves to the operations models which allowed companies to staff more robustly.

The benefit to that kind of structure is that if companies staff responsibly, employees reach their maximum potential to deliver for the company by reaching their own competency levels.

What has led to this redesign of culture is the reduction in staffing and a reduction in quality output. Once highly-competent employees have found themselves delegated more and more work often outside their area of specialty or comfort.

This tends to result in staff that are not competent at the new tasks and somewhat less competent at their old tasks. This amounts to a severe reduction in efficiencies and production which further drives down business cash flow.

This cannot be sustained.

Something's got to change. And this is what we're experiencing.

Change can be uncomfortable.

Ultimately, change is for the best.

Therefore, the best option is to reduce workload to a more comfortable level where talented employees can do their jobs at levels that will again produce positively for companies. Operating in this culture will allow companies to regain traction and begin to rebuild.

This means a shrinking of the business as a whole in every aspect.

It may be "circle-the-wagons" time for the media industry - certainly it is for terrestrial radio - and concentrate on core competencies until things return to a less volitile marketplace.

Yet, despite this reduction in services, companies must also understand they cannot grow by cutting. Business development can continue to be a part of the mix.

For radio, an industry that still experiences respectable profit margins, this will mean figuring out a way to reinvest some of that profit margin back into their businesses.

I'll reveal how to do that, in my next blog.

Radio's New Music Fantasy

To contact us Click HERE
The recent headline "Google and MySpace will challenge radio’s music-discovery position," got me asking the question "What music-discovery position?"

In the years I have been analyzing consumer use of media, including broadcast radio, Internet and more recently smart phone behavior, radio has had the potential to capture the new music discovery crown.

Unfortunately, it never has lived up to this potential.






In 2007, Bridge Ratings conducted a series of deep studies of music consumers of all ages and, as you might suspect, found that 18-30 year olds were most interested in discovering new music though any means possible. In the category of where most of this discovery was occurring, broadcast radio followed peers and the Internet as the place to go to find great new music.

However, in focus groups to dig deeper, radio had the greatest potential of all three for new music discovery due to its primary benefits: ease of use, accessibility and the fact that radio is free.

Yet radio never took the initiative.

In the last two years I have discussed this notion of new music discovery with at least 100 radio programmers in the formats of Contemporary Hit Radio (CHR), Adult Alternative and Alternative.

Would it surprise you to know that none of them saw the wisdom of claiming the "new music" position in their markets by proactively promoting and playing new music by either established performers or undiscovered talent.

Radio's belief that it is the new music discovery destination is pure fantasy.

There's a fabulous on-line worldwide talent competition called "Fame Games" which boasts two million worldwide listeners; 70% listen in the U.S. alone. I have had an interest in this five-shows-a-week talent competition and thought it would suit American radio just fine.

"Fame Games" features unsigned artists of any cross-over genre competing for best track of the week and ultimately a major record contract.

This is a well-produced, fun feature that pits two songs against each other vying for the votes of listeners and the program's judges. So, I took it to U.S. radio.

American programmers won't go there.

Aggressively marketing one's radio station as the "place for new music discovery" would greatly bulk up a station's image if done properly and perhaps even draw young listeners back to a medium that is having its problems holding on to this important demographic.

So, when I read that Google or MySpace will challenge radio's music discovery position, or when I read the RAB's Jeff Haley's concern about how radio has to protect this turf, I have to shrug my shoulders.

As far as radio's listeners are concerned, there is no new music turf to protect.

Radio had the opportunity to claim this territory for itself at least two years ago when audiences told us that radio's convenience would make it the most likely place to go to discover new music.

It never took the opportunity and very well may find itself pushed out by new media which seems to take every opportunity to infringe on radio's weaknesses.

This all points to radio's biggest challenge: getting back to creating and presenting engrossing and compelling programming....for all ages.

The radio industry must build upon its rich history of being listener-focused.

In its confusion in recent years, radio has simply forgotten how to compete.

NYT's David Pogue Takes on VZW

To contact us Click HERE

I always find David's writing on new technology both informative and humorous.

But he has taken an interesting position in the telecom policy area by locking horns with Verizon Wireless.

As he says in today's NY Times,

A few weeks ago, I wrote about two particularly nasty Verizon Wireless practices. First, Verizon doubled the early-cancellation fee for smartphones, the price you pay for canceling before your two-year contract is up (it’s now $350).

Second, I passed along a note from a Verizon whistleblower who identified a really outrageous Verizon profit center: if you accidentally hit one of the arrow keys on your Verizon cellphone (which come premapped to various Verizon Internet functions), you’re charged $2 instantaneously, even if you cancel instantly. (Verizon confirms that on many models, you can’t remap those buttons to other functions even if you’re tech-savvy enough to try.)

VZW has finally responded, after requesting a delay, and he calls their response "outrageous".  So read for yourself and see what you think of the VZW response to this matter.

Pogue ends with this line,

"In short, the headline for this entire episode might as well be:

'Verizon to FCC and Customers: Go Soak Your Heads.' "

An odd PR move from a cellular company that is pressing FCC to reallocate 800 MHz! 
=====
A Pogue Video with links to others:




Updates
A reader pointed out the original link above was actually to an unrelated VZ FCC filing.  I pointed this out to David and he quickly corrected the link, which has been changed above.
=========


Comm. Clyburn's 12/23/09 Statement on VZW Letter
An excerpt:

 "I am concerned about what appears to be a shifting and tenuous rationale for ETFs. No longer is the claim that ETFs are tied solely to the true cost of the wireless device; rather, they are now also used to foot the bill for ‘advertising costs, commissions for sales personnel, and store costs.’ Consumers already pay high monthly fees for voice and data designed to cover the costs of doing business. So when they are assessed excessive penalties, especially when they are near the end of their contract term, it is hard for me to believe that the public interest is being well served.

I am also alarmed by the fact that many consumers have been charged phantom fees for inadvertently pressing a key on their phones thereby launching Verizon Wireless’s mobile Internet service. The company asserted in its response to the Bureau that it ‘does not charge users when the browser is launched,’ but recent press reports and consumer complaints strongly suggest otherwise."

  Business Week/Bloomberg coverage
  Huffington Post coverage
  ars technica coverage