Why Do You Keep Asking That Question?

"Is radio ready for a digital future?"

It's a question that has had high visibility over the last six weeks.

"Is radio ready for a digital future?"

It's been the title of a Bridge Ratings Study that was released on June 30, 2010.

And the title of a webinar I presented in July.

So, why did I give the title to this blog and why should you care?

Because after six weeks of disseminating this data across the web and in person, I'm finally ready to answer the question for you.

This was the most important graphic from the study and my webinar:

[click image to go to study]

This chart represents just how well terrestrial radio is satisfying radio listeners' Internet needs.

Not too good. (Pardon my grammar, mom)

The answer to the question is....

No. Radio is not ready.

Why?

Though its perception among radio listeners is poor, radio has all it needs to make it right.

Radio is having a good year. That's what I read and that is what market managers tell me.

Why not reinvest some of that new profit into the cost of setting up a qualified digital department?

Remember the story of the squirrel storing his nuts for a cold winter?

That's what radio's owners and operators are doing. Very few are taking the new found (and temporary) flushness and sinking it back into the product where it needs it.

Radio is gathering its profit nuts after a dismal 2009.

Who can blame them?

But still, the industry has the money to make some effort to build out a respectable digital division.

It can hire the right people.

It probably has the right equipment.

If it doesn't have the know-how, it can hire that, too.

So, if all of this is true, why does radio management avoid making the commitment?
Because it takes courage!

Yet, COURAGE is precipitated by a perceived threat. That's what Daniel Webster tells me.

So, "this must be it", I think to myself. This is why the industry as a whole is not moving itself forward fast enough.

No courage.

Because there is NO PERCEIVED THREAT.

And despite the fact that the threat is clear from digital entertainment options, by the time terrestrial radio perceives the threat and act, it will be too late.

The industry does have its handful of owner/operators who are investing as they are able.

And, for that, I am grateful.

But, it's the industry that is the concern.

Time is running out and the radio industry's place may well be marginalized by this time next year.

So, there. Asked. And answered.

Losing the Great Advantage

Businesses have been trained for decades to beat the competition and to make a killing. Management principles are often taught using military strategies as analogies.

Yet in the natural order of things, being at the top and having the competitive advantage is merely transitory. In the realm of entertainment, new technologies are part of the evolutionary process. And because we are not returning to the way things used to be business, media in this case, is being called upon to be different and to operate differently.

The competitive advantage mass media such as radio have possessed for decades, is slipping away.

In a study conducted earlier this year on listener streaming trends as well as a report published in 2007, Bridge Ratings analyzed music consumption among radio listeners as well as new music discovery.

The essence of the 2007 study was that if traditional radio didn't respond to the new music discovery needs of its youngest listeners (12-24 year olds at the time), those listeners would find it elsewhere....and without hesitation.

This has happened.

The recommendation was for youth-oriented radio formats to take a much greater foreground approach to presenting and offering new music. At the time, and continuing to today mind you, programmers of these stations have done little to capture this new music curiosity exhibted by young music fans once the Internet introduced us to Napster, iTunes, Pandora and the dozens of other websites and applications that allow customized music consumption.

But the Bridge Ratings study uncovered a jewel. Young listeners to traditional radio who had wandered to other sources for their new music habit, had higher expectations from terrestrial radio and actually wanted radio to offer more new music.


Why?

Because while searching on-line and using Pandora, etc., can be fun, it is also fatiguing and takes time. Young listeners to traditional radio kept coming back to FM radio to check in and see if there was more new music content. Unfortunately, what they found was uninteresting to them.

And in the intervening time since that study was published, little has been added to youth formats to return them to traditional radio.

And now I fear it is too late.

A soon-to-be published Bridge Ratings study will continue to show significant usage (time-spent-listening) attrition for traditional radio among young listeners. That may not come as any surprise to you.

What may surprise you is those 12-24 year olds we surveyed in 2007 are now 15-27 year olds and radio's appeal to the 18-34 year olds is also fading.

Over time these listeners have gotten used to going elsewhere for this music discovery. They want to learn about what's the best of the best new music released each week and use that knowledge to guide them as to what to download.

It's no different, really, from when I was growing up. Seems my friends and I were trained by our Top 40 stations that on Tuesdays at 2pm, the new songs of the week would be featured in a countdown. We'd listen.

And we went down to our favorite record store and purchased the ones we liked.

Nothing has changed.

Why does traditional radio ignore the signs that many research companies like Bridge Ratings continue to publish?

I do not know.

I know this much though.

Contemporary music radio is rapidly becoming marginalized - pushed out to the farthest reaches of awareness and interest - because its audience is not being served. And as more alternatives become available, there is less desire to discover whether FM radio is responding.

It is remarkable that in the face of so much new technology and alternative entertainment, there is generally a lack of aggressive content development and technical adaptiveness at traditional radio headquarters.

CEO's have forgotten their business training. They have lost their courage to compete aggressively.

Whether it is a product of false security or just obtuse planning, terrestrial radio is in a position to lose its traction with a dominant audience most digital businesses covet.

A friend of mine at Harvard Business School has advised me that it is a good thing that radio is losing the competitive advantage.

Why?

Because, he says, sustainability in the new world order of digital media requires that the "old" lose their competitive advantage in order to shake its owners and management out of its doldrums and sense of security. This, in turn, is supposed to fire them up - dig deep within its creative teams to reinvent themselves.

This, I am told, is how business in 2010 faces shifting competition.

I have yet to see this "digging deep" that is supposed to reinvigorate the radio business.

If it doesn't happen soon, traditional radio may find itself not only marginalized, but it may find that it is included in a business course case study called "Terrestrial Radio: How it Lost the Great Advantage".

The Clock is Ticking

First quarter revenues for the radio industry are UP. UP big time. Depending on whom you ask, advertising revenues are up close to 10% and the rest of the year is looking just as good!

Time to celebrate, right?

Not so fast.

Just think about this for a moment.

"Comps" or comparisons to last year's revenue are out of whack, i.e., 2009's growth percentages were in negative territory right out of the gate with double-digit numbers in negative territory. So comparing this year's revenue gains to last year's horror movie is deceptive, if anything.

Then there's the aura that was pervasive at this year's National Association of Broadcasters annual meeting in Las Vegas in April. The mood was light and there were smiles and optimism all around.

That's a good thing. Traditional radio took it on the chin mightily in 2009 and it wasn't that great for several years prior to that.

Yet, the good natured radio broadcasters were not only pleased with advertising 'traction' thus far this year, but the implication that a large political advertising revenue windfall was forthcoming for this fall's elections.

It may still happen. And should it be so, that is also a good thing.

But then what?

2011 is only a few months away and if 2010 ends up with double-digit revenue growth what will happen when the 2011 "comps" don't live up to 2010's growth?

Here's a straight-forward note to radio operators: THE CLOCK IS TICKING.

Your industry is still facing stiff competition for both audience and revenue. Digital appeal for both is accelerating while you read this.

A recent Bridge Ratings study called "Device Usage", shows traditional radio making some inroads into the digital landscape and capturing some lost AM/FM listening on their digital streams.

It isn't nearly enough.

The time is now for radio companies to significantly increase their investments into their digital businesses.

Time cannot be wasted. The year is already rapidly moving along.

Reinvest while Dr. Feelgood is dispensing his positive revenue growth.

Because it is likely to be short-lived and if it is, radio operators will not feel in the mood to invest next year or even the year after.

And if there is no significant investment this year, radio's ability to compete will be deflated and the industry will be sequestered to the fringes.

Left behind.

And in a world of rapidly expanding technology and digital capability where millions can create entertaining content in their bedrooms far cheaper than corporations can, if traditional radio loses one step more, it will be extremely difficult to keep up.

THE CLOCK IS TICKING.

Save your industry now while you have the resources, the know-how and the audience.

Hire a vice president to oversee digital operations. Let them do their job. Give them time to make it work.

Times seem to be good right now. Terrestrial radio cannot afford to let this opportunity - perhaps its last - to slip away.

The Decade of Radio Cannibalism

What is the most interesting/startling/eye-opening thing I've learned this year about the radio business?

There are no leaders - only followers.

The conversion of a highly independent-thinking, proactive industry to a defensive, lack-of-self confidence one didn't happen overnight. It's been nine years in the making. Sort of like James Cameron's "Avatar", only this time it ain't pretty.

Up until 2000 when the Internet bubble burst, the radio industry was robust, creative and ballsy, i.e. it took on all 'comers' who wanted to threaten its very existence and it took each and every one on with gusto. It thrived in that environment and it made its members love their business that much more.

The bubble burst and there were no more $1000 spot rates from Internet start-ups.

9-11 halted everyone's business, but radio never recovered because around the same time Napster taught our kids that they didn't really need radio...

The Internet proliferated as high speed access surpassed the tipping point of 50% of households...

Internet radio, You Tube, Smartphones, subscription radio, technology and...

Arbitron's PPM. The last straw.

Audience measurement systems for any consumer product have always been a reflection of usage; no more-no less. Once delivered, it was up to the customer to interpret the data.

What changed with the introduction of Arbitron's PPM service?

The methodology influences the business.

PPM is arguably more accurate, yet it has its limitations just like the diary-system does.

It allows programmers and managers alike to dissect audience movement down to the minute and to over-react to changes in listening behavior. The cause of that change in listening is not measured, yet programmers can make assumptions which may not prove accurate.

The science of Arbitron's meter system has taken advantage of radio management's building inferiority complex by eliminating the 'long-tail' or product variety evident among radio's vast potential listening audience.

The most mass-appeal stations are the victors in PPM rated markets.

The stations that take the least risks to create exciting, compelling listening perform best in this metered world.

PPM has surgically removed radio's best traits: it's abilty to respond quickly to consumer trends and to offer entertainment faster than any other medium. This ability to read its audience from gut and sound research, kept interest in radio at high levels before technology brought new competition.

Perhaps the worst part of this is that the industry has been led by its nose into this quagmire without a fight. And now it has a ratings system which does not fully support its business potential.

If the motion picture industry followed this path, we would be presented with only the most bland, smallest common denominator movies. And while there's certainly a place for them, consumers would never have been exposed to such interesting films as "Momento", "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" or "Requiem for a Dream" over the last decade.

And this secret sauce which the radio business held in high esteem is what is missing in today's newly competitive landscape.

A new study from Bridge Ratings suggests that radio is not dying on the vine it's just sharing usage with other media and tune-in is as high as ever.

This is the time for creativity, risk and reward. Results of this study show that radio consumers like the ease-of-use and the pervasiveness of over-the-air radio. In fact listeners of all ages are pulling for radio, and want it to be better, funnier, more stimulating.

Consumers are pulling for radio because they know it can do better.

The industry is ending a decade of cannibalism. We have seen the disease of "no confidence" coupled with "less courage" seasoned with a measurement system that doesn't support the creation and delivery of many potentially popular radio formats.

During times like these it is strength, courage and the ability to think independently that is needed.

Perhaps it is not too late to embrace those traits that brought the radio industry its greatest successes. There are options to Arbitron's meter methodology; options that would measure the totality of the interests of radio's consumer base.

For 2010, we look for a more positive landscape for all business to operate, and the radio business, specifically, has a chance to be reinvigorated.

Local, Local, Local

I've been at my new job at ABC radio for about a month now and it's great; I'm really enjoying the fact that as Vice President of ABC Radio Networks' Affiliate Relations department, I can interact with so many radio stations across our grand land.

The lessons I learned through my years of working at Bridge Ratings I brought with me and after a few weeks communicating with a much more diverse group of stations than I ever have before, here's what I've learned:

1. Regardless of market size everyone has the same problems and opportunities.

It wasn't always this way, you know. Before consolidation took our industry by storm, major markets and stations in the top 50 had far different considerations in operating their businesses than did operators in markets 51 and below. Pre-'96, top 50 market stations had operating budgets that included marketing, promotion and research. They also had personnel resources that allowed them to be extremely competitive and allowed them to keep their eyes on the various balls they had to juggle. Major market operators only recently have had to deal with managers overseeing multiple stations. Top 50 stations in those days actually had time to plan and strategize for the future and act upon those strategies. They also have years more experience operating multiple properties than do their big market cousins.

Medium and small market operators have always had to work harder at making their businesses work. They did so with good old fashioned sweat and creativity along with building relationships. They still do it this way today.

2. Medium and small market operators are more aware of the importance of reflecting the local audience.

While this has been a staple of broadcast operations for-ever, somewhere along the line major market radio pushed it to the back burner. Now, I'm generalizing here because there are some major market operators who have not only remembered this important element of serving the public interest, they use their major market resources to make a difference in their towns and cities.

Local radio has always been compelling. The genericizing of American radio which has been pushed along by companies with such huge footprints as Clear Channel have literally taken the spine out of these stations which no longer sound like their communities. These stations provide impetus for all listeners - not just Gen-X, Y and Z - to seek alternative entertainment by virtue of the obvious lack of interest in their local communities.

3. Major market management drink their own kool-aid.

These people are so impressed with their climb to the top many have forgotten their roots. I was visiting a small market operator a couple of weeks back and I was taken by his continued passion and optimism for our business.

On the other hand, not a phone call I have with major market managers doesn't include a doomsday outlook. Small market operators don't fear Internet and satellite radio like their big market brethren. Perhaps there is some legitimacy to this perspective since there seems to be wider consumer acceptance of these technologies in the larger markets, yet I have spoken with some major market management who understand that it is NOT Internet radio and it is NOT satellite radio that has caused terrestrial radio's ills.

My view of the radio landscape is undergoing some adjustment simply because I am now exposed to a broader perspective and I love that. In fact, this broader perspective has allowed me to share some of the small and medium market wisdom with the big boys who seem to react positively to a fresh perspective.

I look forward to being exposed to the inclinations of all of the broadcasters I come in contact with these days and sharing them with each other in a way that perhaps has never been done before.

After all the things I learned through the consulting work I've done through my Bridge Ratings experience, I didn't have the ability to share with the industry the insight of so many others.

The insight seems to be helping gain perspective which we can all use from time to time.

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

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?

Will Traditional Radio be Invited to the Wi-Fi Party?

As a proud owner of an iPhone I was thrilled to hear that Steve Jobs had cut the price of the 8 gig iPhone by $200 just in time for the upcoming holiday season. Boy, that makes me feel just great!

But wait....as radio broadcasters, we should we feel good or bad that Mr. Jobs didn't 'refresh' his new Fall iPods with FM radio receivers.

The radio industry shouldn't feel slighted that FM radio seems to be at the back of the line of applications that are waiting to be included in America's favorite audio toy. We need to be realistic; it's just never going to happen.

Why is this?

Bridge Ratings has conducted studies over the past two years on iPod and MP3 use and believe me when I say that very few users of these devices want a radio in them. It just is counter-intuitive. Focus groups have been asking why it would make sense to put a radio in an iPod.

Steve Jobs has seen the research too. He's not even contemplating adding a radio to his iPods. Because Mr. Jobs doesn't ever look back. He has the luxury of doing what radio management hasn't had the chance to do in over 7 years - look to the future.

Of more concern to traditional radio is the new iPod Touch which comes with Wi-Fi capability and a Safari browser - the best mobile device browser out there. It's on the iPhone and it makes surfing the Internet effortless.

And now a music-playing device has the ability to go to iTunes and download music direct to the player. How far away are we from a time when these same devices can surf over to an Internet radio website and in a Wi-Fi hot zone listen to Internet radio. Not very far.

Generally, the radio industry has done a decent job and has dedicated some resources to its Internet radio efforts. This has occurred in mostly large and some medium markets. The remaining markets/stations haven't taken the step because they are intimidated by the streaming/copyright expense issue and they really don't know how to do an effective job of delivering an Internet radio product.

But if you can feel that Wi-Fi enabled MP3 player train bearing down on you, you are not alone, traditional radio. It's coming and coming fast and as far as Internet radio is concerned, traditional radio's greatest weakness is the vast choice (thousands) of stations available on the Internet. Practically every taste is served. And soon it will be served in a small hand-held device.

Traditional radio's greatest strength is its brand and the current distribution system of blasting its programming across metropolises (is that a word) up and down our great land. Radio's bright leaders should take these Steve Jobs press conferences to heart because each time Jobs steps on that stage, radio's exclusivity and relevance shrinks.

If you have not instituted an Internet radio effort for your company or station, don't wait too much longer. The pervasiveness of portable devices that can bring the world of radio to a hand-held music player or mobile phone is on the horizon. In fact, some already do.

You want to be invited to that party.

The Radio Fortune Teller: Teen Radio to Return

I received two interesting calls in the last 24 hours - from 'kingpins' at high levels at two of the biggest advertising agencies in the land. They wanted to apologize.

Apologies from such lofty men and women who control so much of the advertising dollar in the U.S. are hard to come by, so I promised that comments I may use in my blog or in research we do at Bridge Ratings would be anonymous.

One of biggest - and quietest - radio industry issues to come out of the last ten years has been the theory that one key reason radio is experiencing such attrition from teens and young adults is the perfect storm that was created as technology eclipsed radio's lack of compelling youth radio content. The logic goes that if radio had been a bit more aggressive with radio programming geared to 13-24 year olds over the last ten years, it is possible that radio time-spent-listening among this group would not have fallen so sharply.

But, the chicken-and-the-egg fairytale dictates that radio would have gladly pursued such a course of teen programming if ad agencies would have supported it. No big ad dollars for teen radio - not likely money-hungry broadcasters would spend the resources required.

So, what about those calls from ad agency big-shots?

The calls (I just got another while writing this blog) were about the just-released report by TRU, a subsidiary of Research International, that revealed that teen spending in 2006 had reached $179 billion. That amounts to about $180 in disposable income per average teen per month. These media buyers have apparently awoken from a deep sleep (or deep denial) and were asking poignant questions about the possibility of a rebirth of youth radio and what would I recommend.

I pointed them to a Bridge Ratings' study we published earlier this year that glancingly mentioned some new youth radio formats that had tested extremely well. Not really a mystery since the radio formats were put together and researched with the help of a pretty smart group of average 13-21 year olds.

Formats of particular interest to these media buyers had working titles of "Youth News" and "Current Blend".

"Youth News" is fairly easy to figure out - only you wouldn't believe how good it sounded in testing. That's because this new youth information format was written and delivered by no one older than 24 and it had music throughout.

"Current Blend" is a bit more difficult to decipher. However, I can tell you that it's a music-focused radio format that is not currently heard anywhere on the planet on traditional, satellite or Internet radio!

So, I'm excited because there seems to be a glimmer of anticipation on the part of some of the smarter media buyers about radio formats that focus on 13-21 year olds.

It would seem that they have just been waiting for something like this to come along.

I asked these buyers if radio stations began popping up around the country with these two ideas (and more), would they send more dollars - many more dollars - their way, and these buyers gave a profound "yes"! response...."...but only if they get ratings..." they concluded.

I asked, "Where have you been placing youth ad dollars over the last few years?".

They replied, "CHR and Rock stations, primarily. But we know we're missing a tremendous number of these kids because many of them don't listen to those formats."

I have no doubt that traditional radio can regain some of the lost youth listening it has been faced with in recent years. And these formats will do amazingly well with both of Arbitron's methodologies (diary and People Meter).

Which broadcaster(s) have the courage to step up?

I'm waiting for your call. 818-291-6420.

HD Radio: Why Marketing Matters

I was impressed with the British Invasion in the 1960's. "Those Brits are real good", I thought to myself as the whole string of music successes starting with the Beatles came across the 'pond' to invade America.

Now, they're showing up America once again, but this time it's in the area of HD radio - or "Digital Radio" as they package it.

In a survey just released by Britain's ratings service RAJAR, more than 25% of the British population listen to digital radio, defined as Digital Audio Broadcasting, Digital Television and the Internet.

At first glance, this is rather impressive. However, when combining those three digital radio sources in the U.S., the percentage of the American populous that listens to some form of digital radio is closer to 50%:

• Internet radio - 60 million
• HD Radio - 500,000
• Digital TV - 90 million homes

What is intriguing is the marketing of digital radios (comparable to the U.S. HD concept).

Unlike the U.S. where broadcasters must market HD radio by themselves and with the help of the National Association of Broadcasters, the United Kingdom has a dedicated body: the Digital Radio Development Bureau.

It has become clear in our studies at Bridge Ratings that there is considerable consumer confusion in the U.S. about HD radio and its benefits. Three quarters of the U.S. population has heard of "HD Radio". Less than 5% really want it.

So, the Brits and their Digital Radio Development Bureau are taking the U.S. broadcasters to school about digital radio. Here are some of the ways Digital Radio is marketed in the UK:

• More Choice - "Because of the way it transmits a signal, DAB Digital Radio can double the number of radio stations you can get on FM. Many cities will pick up around 40 stations, and in London you can receive more than 50!

There are national, local and regional stations on DAB Digital Radio, and more than 85% of the population is covered by the DAB signal.

It's not just more of the same... there are new, unique stations on DAB with programmes designed for different segments of the population. So, rather than trying to be all things to all people, DAB means you can have stations dedicated entirely to dance, hip-hop, garage, rock, jazz, big band, country, pop, soul and disco. Or your can get stations specifically for young children, the mature listener, ethnic communities, news junkies, sports fans, lovers of the spoken word, world music and environmentalists, gays, classical buffs, ...in other words, something for everyone."

• No Interference - "DAB Digital Radio means interference free listening in digital quality sound. There's no hiss, crackle, or pop, no fading, no overlap, just great radio all the time. We've surveyed thousands of DAB owners and nearly 90% reckon DAB sounds great."

• Ease of Use - "Quick, what's the frequency of your favourite FM radio station? You'd be surprised how many people know the name, and kind of, sort of where it is on the dial, but waste time searching around for it. Some people are even afraid to change stations because they worry they'll never get back to their favourite. Others mark the dial with a pen, or sticky tape so they'll always be able to find their way home... a bit like a trail of breadcrumbs.
  
  With a DAB Digital Radio there are no frequencies. Just choose the station you want by name from the text display screen. It's easy every time and you don't need to worry about getting lost."

• Control Time - "With some DAB Digital Radios let you pause and rewind live radio. And with some of the latest models, you can record radio to a memory card. For the first time this puts you in control of when you listen to the radio. You can stop time, go back in time, or set a timer to record a future programme."

• No Re-tuning - "National DAB Digital Radio stations, both commercial and BBC, are broadcast on the same frequency across the country, so you never need to retune when you're on the move."

Does all this sound vaguely familiar to you? It should because it is almost exactly the Satellite Radio model. In the UK, though, the contemporary evolution of radio is focused on Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) services, such as HD Radio rather than satellite radio.

Much has been said of American radio's indecisiveness when it came to moving into the 21st century with HD/Digital Radio. It took so long, Satellite Radio took the position right away from U.S. Broadcasters. And now the fight to insert HD radio into the lives of Americans has become an offer of another product where there already is one.

Yet, marketing may solve this problem - but it also may be too late.

In our society we thrive on choice - too much choice - and the successful products that have identical competitors are the ones that market and position themselves most skillfully. Has anyone read Ries & Trout's The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing"?

Oh, and one more thing. Digital radios in the UK start at about $58 (29 pounds).

So, while the UK has managed to effectively launch Digital Radio, U.S. Broadcasters - who should know better - are fighting a positioning battle which, frankly, is over.

HD Radio in the U.S. is a niche market out sized by Internet Radio and Digital TV music services. And portable digital radio will be real with the arrival in the near future of wide-area-wireless Internet or Wi-Max.

This lesson has been difficult to learn - but it is time to face the facts.

The Last Brand Standing

Choice is a good thing, right? Not so fast.

Having choice has its place, but the staggering array of consumer goods from which we must choose overwhelms the average consumer, and in a 2005 book psychology professor Barry Schwartz argues that that's not such a good thing.

In the book "The Paradox of Choice", Schwartz tells us that constantly being asked to make choices, even about the simplest things, forces us to "invest time, energy, and no small amount of self-doubt, and dread." There comes a point, he contends, at which choice becomes debilitating rather than liberating. Did I make the right choice? Can I ever make the right choice?

It would be easy to write off this book as merely an extended riff on that well-worn phrase "too much of a good thing," but that would be a mistake.

Part of the professor's point in the book is that rules and constraints in society help us make decisions and this is a good thing and should be embraced.

The book's concepts are easily applied to media consumption as well. Because of the growing number of choices we are presented with, consumers of media don't always have the time to look at all the information out there to make the best choice or to even consider all of the options. People expect certain decisions to be made for them.

The term "decision stress" has also been tossed around by marketers over the years and Professor Schwartz's concepts hinge on similar rationale that when faced with too many choices a consumer will often "short-circuit" with too much information overload and tend to decide on what to purchase or read or listen to using the easiest method.

In most cases brand is the balm that soothes decision stress.

And it is for this reason that those of us running media companies in 2007 should consider just how powerful our brand is - or should be.

In our recent studies of media consumption - especially in the Internet radio space - Bridge Ratings has discovered that with tens of thousands of Internet radio options, most average consumers of Internet radio will gravitate to a brand they are familiar with. In many cases they do this to reduce or eliminate the "decision stress".

We have seen new consumers interested in Internet radio go directly to AOL.com for their Internet radio experience without much thought about what else is out there. Why? It's a brand they know and it makes the process of deciding easier.

This process of "going to the brand" is more prevalent in media than in other consumer products and services. Why? Because in most cases, media is simply a utility, something that doesn't hold significant importance to our lives and like the light switch on the wall, we as consumers of media tend to "throw the switch" on whatever media we are consuming without much thought.

Of course, this is a generalized perspective. There are passionate consumers of media that give great thought to what they watch or listen to, but generally, we have found that the average consumer has too many decisions they need to make each day and any time the decision process can be eliminated or reduced, most consumers will take that road.

Certainly, deciding on which radio station to listen to doesn't hold the significance in consumers' lives that selection of which doctor should be seen or which food product will enrich health, and therein lies the most key of all of the factors leading to "decision stress". The hierarchy.

To make the process of decision easier, consumers have an internal mental product ladder upon which they have placed their favorite brands.

They go to a store looking for a product and, in most cases, when faced with too much choice, a consumer makes the easy choice - almost without thought - and goes for the brand they know.

If brand building has not been a part of your business strategy, it is time to invest time, energy and yes, even financial resources, into building, maintaining, supporting and/or strengthening your brand.

Because media consumption isn't getting any easier for the consumer. Whether you run a radio station, and Internet radio business or produce content for other digital and mobile media, your brand will be they key to unlocking consumer use and recall.

The easier you make it for the consumer to make that choice, the more likely they'll choose you.

The Radio Airplay Debate

Since Bridge Ratings was one of the first to expose the truth about how radio airplay affects music sales, I think it only appropriate that I weigh in on this latest controversy that is brewing.

Seems the music industry has forgotten the "partnership years" when radio and records virtually changed the way music was consumed. Performers and labels alike believe radio has a one-side relationship with the music industry.

Programming radio stations was one of the favorite aspects of my career and a large part of those years was spent in the company of some of the record industry's best, most creative people. Most of the time those people where record company promotion people, whom I loved working with.

Many of the relationships I had with these people turned out to be much more than the typical program director/record label promo people relationship where they would come by the radio station on Tuesday's and wait outside my office until it was their turn to "pitch" their latest and greatest artists or albums.

Many of these people became good friends and I had the chance to learn just how hard they worked and how difficult their jobs were.

But in the seventies and eighties, radio and records worked as a team of sorts. The record promotion people would provide data or insight as to the record's benefits. Remember, this was before the Internet so airplay data was difficult to come by - part of record promo people's gigs was to enlighten, and the program directors and music directors of the industry would assimilate that information and determine whether songs and albums were worthy of airplay.

One music was added to radio playlists the relationship didn't end there. There were concert promotions, music store promotions and artist interviews, the two industries were connected at the hip in an effort to give momentum to careers of worthy performers. Sure it helped sell records, but the radio industry benefited just as well.

The world seems to have changed since then and now it's coming back to bite the radio industry in the butt. Those that represent the music industry - both corporate and performers alike - feel it is time that radio's "free ride" is over. They want their money.

See, radio pays licensing fees to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC based on the station's revenues. The better a radio station's revenue, the more fees that station pays. It has always been a common belief that radio stations that rely on music for their ratings should pay music publishing houses for the right to use the music that drove revenues for the stations. Fair enough.

Now, the performers - who have not been receiving any special licensing or royalty from radio - want to pluck from the "money tree" they think radio is. It is, they claim, time for the performers of songs to benefit from the years of airplay.

Radio's argument is that the two industries have worked in tandem to benefit the music industry. Radio has - and continues to be - a wonderful promotional vehicle for artists who write and perform music no matter the genre.

In 2005 Bridge Ratings conducted a study to determine the influence radio airplay, Internet airplay and MP3 plays have on the consumer. Due to this current controversy, we just completed an update on this study.

Here are a few facts:

*88% of radio's total audience listens to music radio at least once a week

*50% of these listeners consider music radio to be their primary radio experience.

*Nearly 90% of these "music primaries" agree with the phrase: "I have purchased music I have heard on the radio."

*32% of these radio consumers have purchased music through brick and mortar stores or on-line in the last 30 days.

Does this sound like the radio's relationship with the music industry's artists and performers is one-sided? No.

Perhaps the more appropriate step is for the music labels to offer all performers new or updated agreements in order to include them in the cash flow from music sales.

Radio influences music purchase. There is no doubt in my mind.