James.Cridland.net

James Cridland's blog

Where radio and new platforms collide. With beer.

« Planning permission | Blog index | Viewing virginradio.co.uk on the Nintendo Wii browser »

The benefits of choice

Posted on Thursday, December 21st, 2006 at 10:36pm. #

In a post to his blog, Mark Ramsey warns about the dangers of choice.

Words of warning for those who think a zillion channels of anything - satellite, hd, or Internet radio stations - will give more people more of what they want and make them happier as a result.

Too much choice is a turn-off.

Read this piece from Australian TV

The Australian TV story talks about making purchases - and appears to claim that less people buy jam if there is more choice of jams to buy in the first place. I think it’s wholly irrelevant when you look at the media choices we make.

Contrary to popular opinion, satellite radio (in the US) or DAB Digital Radio (in the UK) does not succeed because it offers a gazillion extra channels. In London, my FM dial offers me around 15 channels, while my DAB Digital Radio offers me around 50. I listened to around four or five channels when I had an FM radio, and I listen to around four or five channels now I’ve a DAB Digital Radio. The DRDB’s research, from memory, doesn’t show that people with DAB listen to many more radio stations (although does show that they do listen longer than an average radio owner).

The point isn’t that I’ve three times the channels to choose from (I have), but that I now have three times the chance of finding a channel I like. That channel might be one also available on FM, but might also be one new to digital. For me, I listen more to BBC Radio Five Live (in analogue it’s on scratchy medium-wave), and LBC (in analogue it’s on an FM signal particularly badly affected by pirates), as well as the BBC World Service, a new-to-digital channel (in the UK, at least).

As radio businesses, we need to appreciate that it’s not just other radio stations that can steal our audience away: it’s everything from Pandora and last.fm, to iTunes and in-car CD auto-changers; and shortly, mobile TV. I’m a long-time reader of Mark’s insightful blog; but the benefits of adding more choice is clear - it allows radio businesses to retain current listeners and attract more listeners, even if they listen to one of your other digital-only services. (You *are* selling these as a network sell, aren’t you?)

Mark’s regularly posting against HD Radio; I’m not convinced that the technology is right, but the fact that it offers more choice is a benefit, not a drawback.

Incidentally, my favourite jam is Bonne Maman, but if that choice isn’t available, I’ll happily cope with Robertsons. If neither of these choices are available and I can only choose from the crappy supermarket brand, I’ll pass, thanks. I’m clearly in the minority in terms of jam buying, at least in Australia.

5 comments

700WLW said at December 22nd, 2006 at 3:37am

HD Radio is a fraud and a farse - sales of HD radios are anemic, as the general public is not buying into this joke. HD Radio/IBOC causes adjacent-channel interference and has only 60% the coverage of analog. The HD channels require mounting external dipole antennas and the channels will eventually have commercials. HD Radio is not free, as you pay the outrageous price of HD radios up-front. HD Radio will fail to reach critical mass, as AM Stereo failed in the 1980’s.

James Cridland said at December 25th, 2006 at 1:04am

Mark has since replied in his blog posting - http://www.hear2.com/2006/12/the_dangers_of_.html - and I have replied in his blog this time. And messed up the formatting. Which is why I try not to do that.

To 700WLW: I’m unconvinced about IBOC as a technical solution for a variety of reasons; and similarly unconvinced that HD Radio can attain critical mass in its current guise. Please understand that I am not arguing on behalf of HD Radio, or in defence of it. That said, some of what you’ve written is not my understanding of the IBOC system. Finally, farce is spelt with a ‘c’.

700WLW said at January 1st, 2007 at 6:00pm

Hey, thanks for pointing out my spelling error - that was brilliant. Aside, from the anemic sales of HD radios, terrestrial radio has failed miserably, in winning over the hearts of the 18-24 year-olds, the would-be next generation of listeners, as the baby-boomers once were:

“iPods More Popular Than Beer”

“So, if you are dependent on 18-24 year old ratings from Nielsen, Arbitron or BBM and you keep wondering why you’re having a hard time reaching them, it’s not just because they’re doing another beer bong. They’re on their iPod.”

http://jointcommunications.blogspot.com/2006/06/ipods-more-popular-than-beer.html

Terrestrial radio is losing out to iPods/MP3s, the Internet, cell phones/streaming, Satellite Radio,and gaming-systems. During “Black Friday”, for HD Radio, noboby was lined up around the block for a new HD radio, as they were for $600 PS3s:

“HD Radio and the “myth” of price”

http://www.hear2.com/2006/05/hd_radio_and_th.html

HD Radio, will go the way of AM Stereo, of the 1980s.

James Cridland said at January 1st, 2007 at 7:10pm

700WLW - thanks for the link to that blog, it’s interesting. (The Joint Communications one).

I listen to a lot of radio content (WBAI, Virgin, BBC, WNYC) on my iPod.

True, terrestrial radio isn’t seen as trendy (which is really all that link tells us), but I would suspect podcasts are; and so I certainly don’t agree that terrestrial radio has “failed miserably” in attracting 18-24 y’olds. Perhaps if we don’t take advantage of all that new technology has to offer, of course we’ll fail: but we’re doing considerably better than most media are.

The method of distribution isn’t important. Nobody cares a stuff about whether the signal comes from a terrestrial analogue transmitter (FM), a digital terrestrial transmitter (DAB/HD/XM/Sirius/Freeview), a satellite transmitter (XM/Sirius/Sky/Worldspace), a cable (NTL/Telewest), or the internet. People care about content.

As to your link about the price of HD - I appreciate that there are people heavily against HD, and people heavily *for* HD. I appreciate that you and Mark appear to be tremendously anti HD, for whatever reason. All I can point to is the experience in the UK where the turning point for DAB Digital Radio takeup was when the sets fell below £100 *and* radio stations launched some widely publicised additional channels - BBC7 (archive comedy and drama), Planet Rock (classic rock, a format unavailable until its launch), OneWord (classic books and more), BBC Asian Network, etc. Once more - the public doesn’t care about technology, but it does care about content.

Of course, the link you point to says:

Take, for example, Sony’s new PlayStation 3 set to debut just in time for the 2006 holiday season. This unit will be priced up to $600 - $600! And the games, the software, will run perhaps $60 a piece. Now I ask you, do you have any doubts that this machine will sell like hotcakes?

…well, with hindsight, you can clearly see that the product isn’t right, and - guess what - the Wii has stolen the show. Why? The PS3 has been sold on techie stuff that people don’t care about (Blueray, processor power, HD picture, etc). While the Wii has innovative controllers, it’s been sold by pictures of people like you and me playing the unit, waving our arms around like a lunatic, and having fun. The content. Not the technology.

700WLW said at January 1st, 2007 at 11:00pm

As you say, “The content. Not the technology.”. This is exactly HD Radio’s problem - trying to sell the public on technological gimmickry, when the real problem with terrestrial radio, as we all know, is lousy content.

Leave a comment

This website's Gravatar enabled (that's the pictures on the right)

To prove you're human, type the two words below into the box provided.