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.

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.

Radio Needs a Re-mix

I was recently listening to the soundtrack to the Beatles' Las Vegas Cirque du Soleil show called "Love". In-person, it's a fantastic buffet of lights, sound and images in the typical Cirque way coupled with an amazing soundtrack of Beatles tracks remixed by the genious of George Martin and his son Giles.

The soundtrack to this show is available on CD and when turned up, the music reminds you of how great this band was/is, but the remixes which took pieces of other Beatles songs in the same keys added to basic tracks we've heard hundreds of times, leaves the listener with a revitalized listening experience.

This leads me to why I named this blog "Radio Needs a Re-mix".

Traditional radio, like the Beatles, has been around for a great many years. And like the Beatles radio is a comfortable place for its millions of listeners to visit. According to many research studies, 93% of Americans still visit, but they just aren't spending as much time as they used to.

So, why not a Radio re-mix?

Like the Beatles "Love" soundtrack, radio's inspiration needs to be a few sessions of revitalization. I'm not suggesting, like the Martins did, to bring back some of the great old radio wisdoms of the past and insert them into today's programming.

What I am suggesting is that radio owners, operators, managers - all of its employees, should shake themselves out of the creative quicksand of the last ten years.

It's about time that radio leadership discontinue its sense of dread and investigate the creative juices that each company most surely has locked up in each of their employees. I believe that for most of them, the creative outlet may have been a part of the reason they are in the business.

Creative brainstorming sessions used to be one of the most enjoyable parts of the radio industry.

Egos were left at the door, people got into a room with other people they liked, and they started talking...about anything. Then someone in the room known for their 'crazy' view of things, allowed their stream of consciousness take over from the conversation and suddenly there was an idea on the table for a new promotion. People would start laughing at some of the more extreme ideas, but that laughter spawned further discussion until an hour or two later, the group emerged from the meeting with several new ideas and a sense of team effort which only created a more enjoyable working environment. And they'd do it again the next day, next week or next month.

There's no reason this cannot happen today. In fact, it does happen today just not nearly in enough cities. Some of the greatest call letters in the land go through exactly this process weekly and their success and low personnel turnover reflect this culture.

So, a remix is in order.

The radio industry's potential is tied to its past in many ways.

By overdubbing the technology and what we know about today's consumers on top of radio's foundation just might produce a renewed compelling listening experience listeners would never have expected until they listened to it again in a slightly new light.

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.

Optimism: 2010's Secret Weapon

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.

An Open Letter to Investors in the Radio Business

Dear investor-person:

I have tremendously good news to share with you.

Our great national nightmare is over.

After 12 years of consolidation that is the universal field theory of why the radio industry is in its current state of woe, the business that for decades was not only delivering better cash flow than just about any business you could find, but was also growing, is set for a renaissance.

I haven't been hitting the tequila; I'm referring to the sudden flood of radio properties - generally excellent properties - that are on the market. With Clear Channel setting free 60 stations and Dan Mason & CBS putting up their 50, immediate reaction from some might be "the radio business must really suck, look at these major players bailing!"

Not so fast.

Finally, the radio industry is experiencing the first phase of its rebirth and that is the return to the transition phase of its business cycle to what amounts to 'circling the wagons and concentrating on the segment of the business that is delivering the best financial results.' Clear Channel and CBS should be proud of the fact that they actually have significant numbers of stations they can operate that are throwing off cash flow. By trimming the fat, these two companies can concentrate on running a number of stations that may be more comfortable for them.

These 110 radio stations up for sale now offer an opportunity for two things to begin occurring: 1) the return of more intelligent operators who one way or another were no longer needed by those companies that were so greedy in 1996-2000 that they grabbed up as many radio properties as they could without a consideration as to whether they could operate them all effectively. They THOUGHT they could...but time has proven them wrong.

And 2) many of the profoundly intelligent general managers, program directors and owners who got out of the radio business because they were forced or just gave up, will now start re-entering a business they have loved for years and who had become sickened by what we all have witnessed - the gutting of a business that lost its way.

Yes, I am giving all you investors out there a BIG early tip now so you can start realigning your portfolios or - even better - if you've got money to lend and you've given up on the industry, now is the time for you to feel inspired.

I can count on all my fingers and toes a partial list of highly qualified radio managers who at this moment could take a cluster of any of these soon-to-be-sold groups and make them profitable, compelling to listen to and maybe most importantly, return the fun to working in the radio business that got skewered by operators who saw an opportunity in the late 90's and 2000's but never had a clue as to the 'secret sauce'.

Me and my compatriots who have been in this business since the good times (pre-1996), completely get what made the business such a great investment then and why it attracted some of our country's most creative minds through the years. The time may be coming when you see the return by these individuals to the business as operators. Smart operators.

Expect those who have been on the sidelines in recent years to begin pulling money together and buying some of these stations. I know because I've spoken with them!

Expect those Clear Channel and CBS stations that will be sold to out-perform under these new owners.

Expect this to be the watershed we've been waiting for. 2009 will be the year of the turnaround.

2009 will prove to be a great year for investment in the radio business.

These new independent owners know more about the terrestrial side of the business than most of their peers who seem to have no clue what to do with this vast new frontier.

They have been cooking up digital solutions that will expand the radio business.

If they haven't been scared away for good; if they haven't given it up through disgust, this infusion of lifeblood into station ownership will be the beginning of a return to pre-consolidation days when men were men and radio ROCKED!

Indiana Jones & Terrestrial Radio

Interesting title for a blog, eh?

If you're an Indiana Jones fan - or at least have seen one or two of the franchise movies - you know there is always a moment when Indie is faced with being left alone behind a sliding door with spiders or snakes. But, at the last second, he manages to pull out that trusty whip of his and snag it on a branch on the other side of the closing door and he is able to swing himself through to be alive for another day! Hurray!

This happens in the latest Indiana Jones movie as well and it enabled me to visualize what is happening terrestrial radio. The industry is at a significant crossroad and is in severe danger of being left behind a impenetrable door.

I've been researching the radio industry in earnest with my company Bridge Ratings since 2002 and have watched trends from a vantage point few have. Our projects cover everything component of radio listener usage. Over the last six years there were actually moments when radio's pulse increased as if its efforts to postpone or stop listening attrition were beginning to find traction, only to learn in a project 3 or six months later, that what I witnessed was a false revival or it was still-born.

Now with six years 'visibility', and with multiple signposts struggling to show improvement, the industry's efforts may now be too little too late.

What signposts do I pay attention to?

• Young listeners' time spent with the medium
• The multiple alternate media listeners of all ages are using over time
• Strategies used by media companies and how they play out
• Stock price of terrestrial radio companies and how that price has been affected by corporate decisions
• Media coverage of terrestrial radio
• Changes in consumer interest in Internet, Satellite and HD Radio

Of late, the most revealing signpost has been that of corporate radio's decision-making. In the period of 2002 to 2008, we tracked a greater number of missteps or no-decisions that hastened a company's inability to compete.

Poor programming decisions, lack of marketing resources, reduction of key management personnel and slowness to adapt to changing technologies; these are all key contributors to terrestrial radio's current malaise and more of these contributors have had as their source the poor decisions and lack of focus at radio's corporate headquarters (a generalization). There remain a handful of broadcast executives who 'get it', but not enough. It's like an V-8engine running on one cylander.

An objective observer to these trends would perceive (almost) that in many cases the industry had given up the fight or is simply resting on its aging laurels. And that wouldn't be far from the facts.

Terrestrial radio can learn at least one thing from Indiana Jones and that is courage. Our fictional hero never seems to give up even in the face of some of the ugliest circumstances placed before him. And while terrestrial radio as a whole has a tougher time reacting to change than our celluloid hero, the industry cannot afford to be left behind that slowly closing door without a whip.

Certainly the radio industry is hobbled by new technologies it simply cannot compete with, but it is being forced to change with the times which is a good thing. It can offer young and old a new blend of media that is better than its version before there were MP3 players, the Internet or satellite radio.

It only requires the old Indie courage. Where will our heroes come from?

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 Little Merger That Could

Here we are six months down the road from the first announcement by XM and Sirius that they intended to merge these two companies to form a singular satellite radio company.

From the beginning, Bridge Ratings has examined the response by the consumer - both current and potential satellite radio subscribers - to better understand the perceptions about such a merger.

From the start, the mood among both groups of consumers was not positive. In fact, they were very near equal. The general consensus was that it would be bad for the public. The current subscribers we interviewed were more concerned than the potential subscriber group, but I think that had more to do with the passion current subscribers have for their preferred service and an emotional response to change.

Now, six months later, the mood has generally moved to the more positive side by current subscribers while potential subs have not moved much off their initial "monopolies aren't good for consumers" position. Perhaps the difference in perceptions by these two consumer groups has more to do with the satellite companies marketing to these subscribers. I think they simply did a better job internally marketing the coming merger.

And as Congress considers Mel Karmazin's statements and all the supportive paperwork associated with both sides' reasons for merging or not, there are two signs now that are much clearer for me which point to the approval of this merger.

1) God love David Rehr, President of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB). He has been on the job only a short time and done a great job. He has certainly made a case for his passion for the radio business and his willingness and ability to be direct and confrontational in defense of all things radio.

As a great consumer products CEO once told me about products of all kind, "Products have strengths and weaknesses...and in most cases, one's strength is also one's weakness."

In the case of the NAB and Mr. Rehr in particular, he doth protest too much.

In his passion to protect radio in the case of a satellite merger, Mr. Rehr has firmly crystallized Mr. Karmazin's point that a merged satellite company is not a monopoly because the "marketplace" is varied with many competitive offerings.

The whole merger approval likely will hinge on a singular point: the definition of the competitive market in which satellite radio competes. Is their market satellite radio? Or is it all audio radio which today is defined not only by satellite radio, but traditional radio, Internet radio, iPods, iPhones, Podcasts, cell phones, etc., etc.

Mr. Rehr's enthusiasm has confirmed for Congress that terrestrial radio is so concerned about the possibility of a merger, that the louder Mr. Rehr protests, the more obvious it is that traditional radio considers satellite radio a competitive medium thereby defining the market.

The second reason I think this merger will go forward?

The early departure of XM's brilliant CEO Hugh Panero. He was to leave his post at the point the merger occurred, but the news is so encouraging, Hugh has set an August date for vacating his office in order for the cleaning crews in DC to get his office ready for Mel. There's confidence there that cannot be denied and it is backed by encouragement from Capitol Hill.

Now with everything I know, I believe that between XM & Sirius, the combined entity will offer a solid consumer product, will not diminish the current experience and will encourage potential subscribers - especially those buying cars and trucks - to go forward with their choice.

And, oh yes, I forgot: Howard Stern will attract an additional 500,000 to 800,000 new listeners over the next 18 months. XM subscribers who have missed him.

Was the approval of this merger terrestrial radio's to lose? I think so. The strategy was wrong. The NAB made the case for the other side.

Radio should now forget about satellite radio as a competitor, get back on track (it's been distracted for five years) and look to developing better content, re-hire its best talent that has left the business and market its digital platforms.

Your comments are always welcome.

2010: A Radio Odyssey

Did you see the film "2010", the sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey? A joint American- Soviet expedition is sent to Jupiter to discover what went wrong with the U.S.S. Discovery against a backdrop of growing global tensions. Among the mysteries the expedition must explain are the appearance of a huge black monolith in Jupiter's orbit and the fate of H.A.L., the Discovery's sentient computer.

It was released in 1984. Good times.

That was before the Internet, before rap replaced pop, before iPods replaced discmans, file sharing changed music purchase habits, satellite radio, digital music, Internet radio, and terrorism was something that happened overseas.

Hard to believe we're closer to 2010 now than we are to 2001.

And 2010 will be a tipping point for radio in many ways.

From developing behaviors of radio listeners, changes in the ways they use radio are occurring more rapidly than perhaps is commonly known. Much like time-lapse photography where you don't recognize change unless you piece together views of behavior over long periods of time, the change in media has truly been a rapid development over a short period of time and radio's 'light at the end of the tunnel' is more likely to be an on-coming train than an end to difficult times.

And like the movie "2010", if radio had had the ability to send a probe into the future back in 1984 to learn what went wrong, hindsight would most surely have kick-started an industry wide reaction that would have perhaps led to a different outcome.

For here we are a mere 29 months from 2010 and radio is running out of time.

Running out of time to remain competitive.

Running out of time to develop its people.

Running out of time to adapt to the digital universe.

Running out of time to learn how to microtarget.

Looking back over the last 6 years of work with clients of Bridge Ratings, it is becoming agonizingly clear that while the radio business has made solid efforts to grow its industry and to adapt it to the changing technological realities, it truly has not done enough. And this is what concerns me: current senior management at radio's best companies is not embracing the fact quickly enough that the future of our business rests solely on their shoulders - on their watch.

Today's senior radio managers will be long gone leaving their trainees the keys to the kingdom. It is the opinion of many that the next generation of radio leaders, in general, do not have the technical and operational knowledge or experience to lead this business into the future.

Left in the hands of less experienced, inappropriately trained and myopic junior management, the industry will struggle to maintain status quo.

There is little going on in the area of strategic development in our business: programming development, creative sales development, new revenue stream development, marketing development and personnel/management development.

Frankly, I'm flummoxed (great word) about why this industry doesn't respond to the implications of its future.

Certainly, there has been plenty of coverage of multiple future forecasts about impending change and how fast it is occurring and the impact of audience attrition. So, it isn't non-awareness - and it isn't stupidity.

It is inertia more than actual resources that is the problem. And inertia in many ways is a much more difficult quagmire to be free of.

Yes, 2010 is coming fast and radio seems less prepared to exist in a technologically accelerating world.

It does, however, have a resource most of its competitors covet: its people. And its people are what just might save the radio industry from being swept over by the tide of change.

Let us hope that the powers that be know this too.

Radio: A Great Place to Work?

I have just completed reading a massive study on the Best Places to Work. Guess what? Radio doesn't fare very well.

It's fascinating in that the study takes into account issues that get to the root of what makes employees happy and productive:

* The Credibility Index
* The Respect Index

The study consists of approximately 40 statements that cover company credibility, respect, fairness, pride and camaraderie as well as agree/disagree statements about the work experience and satisfaction of the work along with how the company itself contributes to employee feelings of fulfillment.

The radio industry performs so poorly on employee job satisfaction, job fulfillment and company credibility that it has a negative score. This means that more people are leaving the industry than are joining it and a high percentage (29%) of those who remain employed in the business are either worried about their future with the company they are with or are seeking other employment.

When one considers all of the issues facing the radio industry mid-2007, I don't believe companies place employee satisfaction or fulfillment near the top of the list. The most important matters of financial and legal stability remain at the top of lists.

In one intriguing comparison report, company management rank "employee morale and job fulfillment" as one of their top three most important issues.

The same questionnaire filled out by company employees ranks "employee morale and job fulfillment" out of the top 10 most important issues employees believe are considered by their employers.

The radio industry has its problems whether it be audience attrition or technology challenges but it has become so myopic in its view of the world when it comes to the welfare of its most important resource - its people - that until the industry returns to treating its people with respect, caring about their futures, and motivating employees all of the other challenges the industry faces will hardly have a chance of being overcome.

Many of managers and radio industry employees I speak with have known for some time that radio is no longer an industry that lives up to the promise it did 30 years ago, but to see the industry I love rank so low in black & white, truly brings home where things stand.

Open Letter to Radio CEO's

Are you working for or running a financially oriented organization? If so, you may be headed for trouble. Finance provides the capital to fund business development and tracks the results of operations, but it doesn't have that much to do with what comes in between. The bottom line is on the bottom for the simple reason that it is the result of operations, not the cause. Yet many managers focus on bottom-line financial results and thereby fail to manage the things that drive those results.

How do you know if you or your organization is overly financial in orientation? The most obvious clue is that everybody is held to "the numbers". That's how managers are evaluated, that's what the boss always wants to talk about, and that's what everybody manages for. If you find that you or your people are obsessed with "making their numbers", then you know you have a financial orientation. And while financial management needs to be a core activity in the organization, it cannot be permitted to displace other forms of management.

People and organizations that manage by the bottom line never perform as well in the long run as those that focus on the causes of bottom-line performance. An orientation toward your employees, customers, technologies, and business processes is much more likely to produce good bottom-line results.

Let's look at a real-life example. Radio group "X" hires a new GM for its major market cluster of 5 stations. This person is tough. That's why he was hired. This person insists that his sales managers make their numbers, even though the sales goals they were given were unrealistic. And so, these sales managers - constantly pressured to make their numbers did so - by "loading the trade" or unrealistically overselling the commercial unit limits, under pricing, throwing in "value-added" promotions that the programming department could not live up to and using other aggressive sales methods. The numbers that were seen by this new market manager looked great and subsequently they were passed on up the food chain to corporate. Confidence was high. Then it hit the fan.

Commercial inventory was so oversold and there were not enough cancellations 30% of the projected revenue evaporated. The lower priced spots that were sold and did get on in high-revenue day parts like morning drive did not enable the station to achieve budgets. So much for rubbing people's noses in the bottom line. It just doesn't produce long-term results.

Financial statements offer one of many possible views into the inner workings and end results of a highly complex business process that is itself a small part of a complex economic and social system. If you focus only on the bottom line results in your financial statements, you will be managing in the dark because you won't seek out and understand the variables that drive your systems.

The Missing Link

Gen Y Americans (those aged between 18 and 26) spend 12.2 hours online every week, 28% longer than 27-40-year-old Gen Xers and almost twice as long as 51-61-year-old Older Boomers. Gen Yers are also much more likely to engage in social computing activities while online.

Inside these powerful numbers is a key for terrestrial radio - or any business with the need to capture this moving target demographic. There are a handful of broadcasters who understand not only the need to pursue Gen Y, but also who have begun to figure out that the Internet is a god-send. Up until very recently, it has been difficult, at best, for any marketer to capture the attention of the all-too-critical 18-26 year old consumer. But they live on the Internet. They are mobile consumers most of the time, but when they sit still for 12 hours a week in order to surf on-line, the opportunity to reach them is glaring.

2006 was the year in which traditional radio discovered they needed to get traction in their efforts to attract Gen Y back to traditional media. There are those who say this generation is lost forever to traditional media, but they really are referring to the early adopters and innovators among this group who are the leading edge of those who have gravitated away from traditional radio, for example, because there was/is nothing of compelling substance for them. Well folks, it's not too late.

By our observations of the entire spectrum of 18-26 year olds (38 million of them), the dark ages of traditional radio are far from evident. 17% or 6.5 million Gen Yers have mentally committed to new technologies that have replaced traditional media. MP3 players and the Internet consume most of this commitment and they will be difficult to re-attract. But 83% of this group, in our analysis, is either still listening to traditional radio or is sharing their listening with new technologies. It is this group broadcasters should target.

2007 should be the year of re-investment by traditional broadcasters in their products (radio stations). There are a few broadcast companies that never stopped doing this and whether small or large, these companies - over the long term - are profitable companies which attract excellent talent and management and...they are winning. They believe in spending money today even though it may mean less profitability in the short term in order to insure a more stable workforce environment and an on-air product that caters to the local community and gets results for its advertisers.

The word "courage" is found at the core of what is missing from much of the management employed at today's broadcast companies. There really is a shortage of people who have the quality of mind or spirit that enables them to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear. It's a trait lost on many but it is one that is sorely missing from management skill sets.

If you are in a position to hire, motivate and direct your workforce, look for courage as an asset along with the other skills you require of your managers. Finding courage in yourself and reflecting it back on your staff is the missing link to sustaining and protecting the future of traditional media.

Decision Stress - Traditional Radio's Friend

2006 has been the year of extensive reportage about the demise of traditional radio. Many of these stories focus on all the wonderful choices listeners to traditional radio now have and how these choices will whittle away at radio's tune in and time-spent.

Research we have conducted this year with over 12,000 listeners of traditional radio all across the U.S. has uncovered a little secret that I'll let you in on. Radio's got a friend called "decision stress". Not a new term, this marketing term originally coined by Alvin Tofler in the classic book "Future Shock" gets to the heart of choice in the human brain. In his book written in 1970 about life in the future, Tofler examines what he foresaw as the overstimulated individual, the bombardment of the senses, information overload and the decision stress associated with all of this over stimulation.

If traditional radio has done anything right, its brands are comfortable and recognizable.

Related to today's entertainment choices, decision stress plays a major part in how the average consumer selects what they will view, read and listen to. When faced with too much decision, the average person will respond by attempting to postpone decisions or reduce the choices - sometimes logically, other times emotionally. In most cases, most consumers faced with this decision stress, will gravitate to brand strength to aid in easing the decision-making process. It clears the stress of making a decision even though considerable thought may allow them to choose more wisely. Nonetheless, brand strength can be the antidote to decision stress. In study after study this year, over 80% of the time consumers we interviewed about their radio and digital options chose brand over generic.

Why is this important? If traditional radio has done anything right, its brands are comfortable and recognizable by the average consumer and when placed in a position to remember or choose, for example, from among thousands of Internet sources for music and their traditional radio station(s), they choose to recall terrestrial radio brands. As you know, building brand takes years and there are only a handful of products competitive to radio whose brands have broken through the consumer psyche - Apple's iPod is one.

Reading media reports this year, you'd think traditional radio needs all the friends it can get in order to succeed into the future. Perhaps one of radio's most important friends, decision stress, has not been considered by those in and out of the business when considering all of the tools from which radio benefits.

The Reluctant Broadcaster

For many of us who have been in this great radio business for more than three years, the idea that the paradigm is/has shifted out from under us is a bit like feeling your first earthquake. It's crazy! Unlike most natural disasters, earthquakes give you the feeling that you are no longer in control - that there is, indeed, a greater force at work and you can't do a damn thing about it. Welcome to the world of traditional radio 2.0 - the new reality.

Does traditional radio's senior management have trouble seeing that their legacy businesses can not only peacefully but constructively co-exist side-by-side with digital media? The combination can be quite potent:

• Broadcast towers + any digital network = greater reach.
• Professional DJ's/hosts + user-generated content = more compelling programming.
• Being "local" + being virtually local, national, even global = vast audiences.
• Scheduled programming + time-shifted content = convenience for listeners.
• Over the air or streamed transmission + recorded, shared or networked = greater distribution.
• Single programs with many listeners + many large niches of listeners = listener super-serving.
• A radio receiver for AM or FM + many digital delivery devices = traditional radio can be everywhere.
• Only ad revenue + content revenue + fees + upsells = multiple revenue streams and recovery of lost traditional dollars.
• A 'receive only' or one-way system + an interactive system = greater listener satisfaction.

The transition from old to new requires a juggling act of sorts. Traditional radio must maintain its current "legacy business" while quickly adapting to this new reality. Develop the new with the resources of the old. It can be done - they are not mutually exclusive.

Yet when I sit in front of broadcast executives and try to help them navigate the future and we discuss how they have the power to adjust, they acknowledge that they need to do some or all of it, but they insist they can't! They just don't have the resources.

Sure, radio matured into a business some time in the 80's, and there's nothing wrong with being a business with positive cash flow and expenses. But, folks, business has sucked the life out of this business. In the 80's and 90's, before consolidation and Clear Channel and CBS Radio's scorched earth policies, broadcast companies figured out how to make money and how to spend it. Something bad happened in 1996. The last ten years have not been good to our business and now we're attempting to fight our way out. The industry has its visionaries who have carefully explained what to do. There's just not enough courage at the highest levels to do what needs to be done. Yet.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner