An Idea To Ponder.

Dat Factory.

One of the biggest problems about being an avid music fan in New York City is getting blocked out of purchasing tickets to a show. Whenever I hear about a concert that I simply must attend (or if I can’t, as I like to put it, a little piece of my soul will wither), I immediately check to see if there are tickets available on all of the money-eating online vendors. But more recently, New Yorkers seem to be anxious to purchase tickets as soon as they go on sale, and an interesting condition has developed, which I like to call the “early bird” syndrome. A certain common knowledge has been spread amongst consistent concertgoers that unless the tickets are purchased online at the exact time that they go on sale, they will surely be gone after five minutes. Take the Arcade Fire’s five-night residency at Judson Church in Washington Square. Gone in even less than 5 minutes flat. Eager fans were left to stand in the cold on the nights of the shows, hoping that they might score a ticket, but in the end, they wasted their time, having to download the show recorded by a lucky line-waiter.

So how does satellite radio deal with the problem of independent acts whose shows get sold out in the time it takes to click a mouse three times? For XM, the solution comes in the form of a recently announced partnership with the legendary Knitting Factory (both in LA and NYC) to broadcast the shows on their independent music station. Although listeners will not be able to actually see the show itself, they will be treated to the audio being broadcasted live from the venue, giving fans a taste of the musical fire being played by the bands onstage, right as it’s happening. The first band to be broadcast on March 2 is indie megastars Art Brut, who have played the Knitting Factory several times before in New York, giving XM subscribers less of an incentive to venture to the venue again when they can just hear the show on their receivers.

Let’s run through the benefits. Listeners will be able to get access to the concerts that they may be unable to attend, due to location woes or scheduling conflicts (surely someone who can find the time to listen to their XM receiver can attend a concert). XM is getting exclusive content for their channel, and the Knitting Factory is getting a whole lot of attention. The concerts being broadcasted include The Boy Least Likely To (I missed them at the Knitting Factory when I showed up at 10:00 PM and they went on at 8… I’m not bitter, I swear), Portastatic, Chin Up Chin Up, and several others, representing the best in independent music. Plus, when a concert at the venue has sold out at the drop of a mouse click, music lovers will be able to cry next to their receivers, listening to the concert that got away. Personally, I missed a plethora of concerts because I was overseas last semester, and although it most likely would have been 4 in the morning when I could actually hear the concert, knowing that I could listen to a live broadcast would have been nice. I’m sure it will be nice for plenty of people overseas, too.

But there are downsides. The joy of going to a live concert is that you are able to feel the music being created before you, breathing life into songs that you could only vitalize on your own. That’s the essence of a live show; seeing the artist’s creativity and skill at work, and getting a first-hand experience of that production. XM subscribers would not be able to have the same experience; it would be a stunted and under-stimulating one. Also, the artist would probably not receive the same amount of money at the end of the performance, since some might think it more fiscally efficient to listen to the concert as it is being broadcasted instead of purchasing a ticket. And since the bands are predominately independent, they could most likely use those extra ticket sales, miniscule as they may be.

What XM needs to do is to dive into the world of podcasting. If there were live sessions offered by XM of concerts from venues all over the country, even the world, then listeners would be able to listen to the shows on-demand, and not have to conform to the schedule of live broadcasting to enjoy the show. Sure, they might repeat the show later on, but it’s not exactly the same. The listener would still have to tune in at the same time that the broadcast was being made, and would not have an opportunity to have it on their iPod or computer to listen to whenever they pleased. With the scheduling conflict their biggest problem, XM would surely get subscribers that would simply want an MP3 version of the live show. In this way, XM would get more subscribers, the Knitting Factory would still get paid, and the listener would get to hear the concert whenever they would like.

But that’s probably never going to happen. XM bases its broadcasting on live programming (or pre-recorded, but, like, you know what I’m saying), and there would never be an opportunity to turn back time if a show had been missed. XM is definitely delving into a lucrative facet of the music industry, for which there is a high demand, and they would ultimately benefit in the end, both in terms of subscribers and in digging out of that recently announced loss of $6 million. Listeners may be entertained in the short run, but no one is going to run to the radio to listen to a live broadcast of a band. It’s simply boring to sit in front of the radio and imagine what the concert actually looks like. So in the end, XM is getting great programming. The Knitting Factory is becoming more relevant. And for you, well, you have another excuse not to go to that party on Friday night. Just simply respond to the invite, “Art Brut concert tonight, have to stay home.” They’ll get what you mean.

XM IV

What a real blitzkrieg looks like.

Only in radioland would it be a good thing to lose $263.1 million in just a single economic quarter. For XM, this number signified its losses in the fourth quarter, and was just released to the public, making it known that the company is slowly pulling itself out of its great loss percentage of each quarter. Sure, a “narrower fourth quarter loss,” as the blitzkrieg of articles has dubbed it, is a sign that things are looking good for the media giant. Their losses in the same quarter last year were $270.4 million. Not bad, right? Well, I suppose it’s bad if you look at how much revenue they received throughout the quarter, which came to a grand total of $257 million. But on the upside, their revenue took a 45% increase from last year’s $177 million, showing that things can potentially get better for the conglomerate. With only $6.1 million dollars lost, they must be ameliorating their economic situation. Yeah!

With the good, of course, comes the bad, and the downsides are in abundance. The company now has to push back the projected time of when they think they will turn a profit to 2008. XM also has to move their guesstimation to the end of the year to hit the 9 million subscriber mark, which was their company’s goal to achieve by the end of 2006. With subscriptions at a consistently decelerating basis (2.7 mil. Subscribers added in 2004, 1.7 mil. in ’05, 1.4-1.6 mil. in ’06), XM may even be too overly optimistic in their projections to reach the 9 million mark this year. Stockholders are probably weary about this foretelling, since they already have been taken for fools, and will most likely pull out their stock like lemmings, causing the company to break apart, piece by piece.

Or maybe I’m being a bit overdramatic (I have a tendency to do that). With last week’s official announcement to merge into a single conglomerate with Sirius, XM can claim that the pairing will only produce revenue for the company, leading stockholders to keep their wallets open. But stockholders don’t want money later; they want it now. Those who have faith that the company will do well may only be supportive at the moment, but unwilling to wait and see if the FCC and ruling boards approve the merger. The stockholders will eventually see that there are many, many obstacles to overcome in addition to the legislative approval, like the problem of cross-pollinating signals and merging all of the little deals that have already been set in stone with other companies. Plus, I’m sure they’re not happy when $50 million of Sirius’ money goes to Howard Stern just as a bonus. Can’t forget about that.

So what’s in the future for this company? If my predictions are correct, the company is only going to make less and less money, and at the same time, hold onto their big dreams. I find it already unbelievable that they are nearing the point of profit with each quarter, since the number of new subscribers keep steadily decreasing (hm, highly suspicious). Stockholders will abandon ship, and the company will inevitably crumble, much like a fallen Rome, except without all the literal death. Just metaphorical. The company has the ability to save itself, though. If they treat their stockholders like kings, then they are bound to stay, but that depends on their willingness to do so. The company can also cut costs; no company is too big to do that, even if all of their reported numbers have six zeros. So in the end, will they succeed? That’s up to you. Do you want to become a subscriber or a stockholder after reading all of this? Be wise, my friend, and do what you think is right.

Pandora: Hardly As Chaotic As The Name Suggests

Don't do it!!

You may be a little slow to keep up with the ever-bending technological curve, but if you gobble up any/everything that makes your life easier because of technology, then you’ve probably heard of Pandora. This website is more than just an internet radio phenomenon; it redefines the entire idea of radio. Pandora is a completely internet-based phenomenon, and makes itself stand out from the rest of the internet counterparts by making its service interactive, which is where it differs from producer-to-receiver internet radio. But before we get into how it works, you should probably know how this website came into fruition, silly.

The Music Genome Project, according to its website, was formed on January 6, 2000, when a big group of musicians and “music-loving technologists” (what is that? ohhh) banded together to fit every record they owned with certain tags, or attributes that can be used to describe the music, in an effort to make the most comprehensive collection of music ever. The groups of people giving these records their tags, or “genes,” as they so called them, decided to make an interactive music website that allowed users to begin with an artist that they liked and rate it, thereby picking the songs and artists that followed according to their picks. Boiled down for your understanding, Pandora is a customizable playlist generated by the types of genes you tell the service you like or don’t like. The more you listen, the more specific the songs get, since the program almost “figures out” your music taste. The music technologists (still can’t get over that) have already given over 10,000 songs upwards of 400 genes, and they additionally claim that it takes 20 minutes to analyze a single song (found it on the biggest FAQ EVER). That right there is a lot of man hours.

Let’s do a walkthrough, why don’t we. I went onto the website and got a free account (the only advantages of paying for a subscription is that there won’t be ads, which aren’t really that intrusive to begin with, and a standalone player… I can live without that) and set up a channel that started with a specific artist. For the sake of newsworthiness, I chose Britney Spears, since she’s all over the internets and such with her rehab and hair-buzzing escapades (sorry to use you as an example Brit, I’ll make it up to you one day…). The song that started off the pop-a-thon was “Lonely,” a kind of lame funk track twisted into a glittery pop confection, from her album Britney. I didn’t like it, so I gave it a thumbs down. The next track that popped up (no pun intended, really) was by Cascada called “Everytime We Touch,” a song that all the bridge-and-tunnel peeps would definitely be caught grinding to up on 21^st and 10^th. I kind of like the pretty melodies (let’s be real, I have to like something, and I’ve heard this enough to begrudgingly click the thumbs up button), so low and behold, another Britney track comes up, but it’s something that sounds more like Cascada’s jam. It’s a remix to “Toxic,” done by Peter Rauhofer (called the Reconstruction Mix, which it most definitely is, since it sounds like he took the original out back and mangled it). Ok, I hate it. But at least Pandora picked a song that had that same gross trance bounce. Next song.

Nelly Furtado’s “Maneater”!!! If you’ve ever read my other blog about her (let's be real, k? I know you haven't. Warning: it has profanity), you might have learned that I think Furtado has sacrificed any scrap of morality she ever had. But for the sake of nostalgia, and the fact that I loved “I’m Like A Bird,” I’ll give it the thumbs up. In creeps BS’s “I’m A Slave 4 U,” which I must say I’ve always had a soft spot for. We’ll just keep that between us, and skip right ahead to the next jam. Ugh, a new one from Jessica Simpson’s latest? Next. But wait, something happened. Pandora popped up a little message stating that due to legal issues, I’m not allowed to skip a certain amount of songs an hour. I guess that’s the downside of not getting an account. The upside, though, is that you can easily create a new channel and start with the same artist, yet yield different results. Simply divine.

But now it’s time for analysis. Sure, it was fun to listen to Britney and have a reason to do it, but Pandora was on to something. They knew when I liked a certain type of sound, and knew what types I didn’t. Since I had started out with a Britney song I didn’t like, then ended up with a Cascada track that I did, Pandora automatically went back to a Britney song that had the same trance bounce as in the Cascada song. I didn’t like the Britney track, but it moved on to a Nelly Furtado song that was pop in the same way that Britney usually is. So they went back to BS, and I ate it up. Pandora started to get a little to ahead of itself by thinking that I would like Jessica Simpson, but on average, the Pandora listener would probably like a Simpson track, so I think that they would probably have hit the nail on the head in 95% of cases.

Pandora is clearly working. By taking genre labels and creating a customizable radio playlist for you, Pandora is both entertaining you and making radio into an interactive media format. The service, which surely thrives off of its big square advertisements that hang in the upper-right corner of your screen, offers you something that you don’t have: a machine to suggest music that it would think you like. The benefits are for everyone involved: Pandora makes money off of advertisements and subscriptions (in addition to the information that they most likely sell to record labels about your choices), the user gets to listen to music for free and additionally gets to find out about artists they have never heard of, and the artists who get played get exposure and more fans to buy their records and merchandise. Who could get hurt from such a nice service?

The answer, my internet friends, is no one. This is a completely legitimate service that, in this internet-based age, could thwart the standard forms of radio. Many big radio stations play a large assortment of music (kind of like how a Z100 or PLJ plays R&B, ‘90s and pop in a big slushy mix), leaving listeners to cruise the channels when a song they don’t like comes on. But in the case of Pandora, listeners can determine whether or not they like a song on the spot, and if they do not want to hear the track, they can easily skip to the next one that Pandora has hand-picked according to their gene-mapping. The downsides, of course, are there, if you’re a big music dork and look for artists of which you haven’t heard, since there are only 10,000 artists. Also, the inability to switch more than approximately 10 songs per hour is a major downside, but that’s how they ring you in to buy a subscription. So what’s the verdict? Pandora can only change the future of how we listen to music and alter the way that radio is perceived by audiences. If you want to both listen to free music, have an intelligent computer figure out your tastes, and turn you on to good music, well then, it’s onnnnllllyyyy a clicccccck awayyyyy (note: musicals do not appear on Pandora, so I guess you’ll have to hop onto Amazon for that one).

XMus Has Arrived

These look like some happy dudes.

It wasn't all a dream after all! The satellite radio companies, XM and Sirius, dazzled us with talks of an alleged merger just a mere month ago, although our hopes were unfortunately squashed after we learned that the FCC would block it. We read news reports on why the merger would never happen, in addition to the FCC's barring of such an action, because of antitrust laws that would be violated in the process. But in all honesty, America wouldn't want to give two companies more power than they already have anyway. Our country doesn't try to make itself the richest and best nation in the world or anything, so of course they would forbid the merging of the only two companies in an entire industry. Duh.

Alright, all sarcasm aside, the CEO's of Sirius (Mel Karmazin) and XM (Hugh Panero) announced today that the two companies would be merging in the months to follow. Confirming all the talk of "will they or won't they," the two men agreed that they would be going up against the law to merge in the interest of saving money for both of the companies and to bring the best entertainment to the masses. The announcement prompted our dear friend at the FCC, Kevin Martin, to get a lick in, stating that there would be no deal if the companies did not prove - with sufficient evidence, mind you - that the deal would be in the benefit of the consumer, and that the monopolized conglomerate would not take advantage by raising subscription prices. But while this merger seems to be a blessing for the alleged XMus, there are loads of complications that are to follow.

The companies are up against the hardest and tightest regulatory board in the United States (FDA aside): the FCC. The name even brings chills when you hear or read it. The commission has been notoriously hard on all of the media that it governs, and since the FCC has not had a hand in the programming of both satellite radio stations, they are sure to exercise their power now that they have the ability. The companies are merging without necessarily giving a reason - only to save money on both sides - and it leaves them looking suspicious. The FCC is making them both outline a specific business plan that would be convincing enough for them to change their regulations. But how are the companies going to prove that they will not go against what the FCC is making them promise in advance? XMus can easily get around a mere contract or promise to the FCC by raising the prices of the subscription rates penny by penny, or even inflating the price of receivers each year. In the long-term, the companies can get around legislation and they know it. That's not really an issue for them.

One of the more significant concerns comes in the immediate future. For all of the subscribers of one satellite service and not the other, it is impossible to make your receiver capable of receiving the other services' broadcast. In this way, it's a one-way street for both companies: Sirius receivers can only pick up Sirius signals and vice versa with XM. If the companies are planning on cross-pollinating their signals by making a whole new receiver, the expense of merging may not seem worth it after all. The company would have to recall every receiver that they have already sold (most are built into cars, remember?) and put out a new one that can accept both signals. Users would most likely be irritated with the extra energy required to get both of the companies' programming, and start to reevaluate the need for such a service. Also, the cost of recall would significantly put a dent in the profits gained from the merger. Is it worth it in this regard? Let us further discuss.

What about the fact that this merger will create a monopoly? As I explained in the first post at the bottom of this page, a monopoly gives a company too much power. Although XMus can get around that legislation, the subscriber will be the one who inevitably suffers. The companies will be able to get better programming, which is a plus for the consumer, but the prices will inevitably increase. There's no question. Be it 10, 5 or even 1 year from now, the company will want to turn out more of a profit - and additionally appease stockholders - and increase the cost of something to do with their product. Sure, the subscriber will benefit by getting both MLB games and Howard Stern on their receiver, but the cost will inevitably outweigh the benefit. And since people are already becoming less interested in satellite radio, their future-telling skills may deter them from ever having faith in the company.

So what do you think my opinion is of the merger, in relation to whether it's good or bad? If you've been paying attention, you will be able to tell that I am extremely opposed to the merger. The coalescing programming would be the major benefit, in addition to not having to make a choice and weigh one company over the other, but in the end, the companies are only out to please themselves. The point of the merger is to turn more of a profit, and by simply merging without increasing any subscription costs, they are not going to accomplish much. They will dig into your pocket every way they know how, whether it's pulling you in with a cheap initial rate and then jacking up the prices, or creating bigger 'n better receivers that look cooler yet cost less to produce (only more to buy). Are corporations money-hungry vacuums that just want to suck everything out of your pocket? Yes. Will they do anything to get more money? No doubt. And finally, would they be so soulless to increase the costs on you after you put so much faith into the fact that they wouldn't? You betcha.

Dixie Chicks: Still Relevant, Apparently.

Hottie-Bo-Botties.

Ah, the Grammy's. The record industry's most unworthy award show that still somehow manages to make itself self-important every year. This year's award show was no exception, with Blair Witch-style cameras all up in Justin Timberlake's face, the Black Eyed Peas winning a little phonograph for a song created by a computer algorithm, and the weirdly synergized Police reunion. Not to mention that high note that Christina tried to hit during the James Brown tribute (hint: scroll to 1:51). Hilarity. But the real stars of the night were the Dixie Chicks, whose success even I was shocked at, considering I thought they were as irrelevant as the award show itself. Winning the album, record, and song of the year awards is a huge feat in the world of music - since no one ever wins them all - and even more shocking if you seem less relevant than Shawn Colvin was at the 1998 awards or Shelby Lynne in 2001 (don't remember her, I take it). So the main question here is if the Dixie Chicks are good enough to win all three of those hotshot awards, and are apparently still important, then why haven't I ever heard them on the radio this year?

The main concern that arose from the big Grammy night win was that country radio was not willing to spin the record. In the flurry of news stories that followed, country radio was made out to be the enemy, as they were still harboring bad feelings about the anti-Bush comments made way back in 2003. As a result of the lead singer (Natalie Maines) badmouthing the political administration for their decisions in the Iraq war, country radio declared a no-play policy on the three ladies. Sure, that sounds reasonable for a genre that is based on Republican ideology and geared towards Bush-loving Middle America, and why should radio stations be obliged to play the group if it will reflect negatively on the station? But as the story goes, the Chicks were just as unforgiving in the matter, upholding their anti-Bush beliefs and acting in defiance. The title of their winning album, "Not Ready To Make Nice," is even a completely unshaded and obvious namesake, and the Dixie Chicks further made themselves the pariah in the industry by doing so.

But after the Grammy's, journalists started to realize that there was a problem that could be on two sides of the equation: either the Grammy's are completely out of touch with the record industry and award the top honors to groups that have no commercial appeal, or the radio is immaculately corrupt for blacklisting the best country band in the world. While I would like to believe that the Grammy's are out of touch with reality and what constitutes good music (once again, "My Humps" = computer-generated), it seems that radio is the culprit in the situation. I am not precisely positive that the Dixie Chicks are the greatest country band in the world, and I have no interest in listening to their music, but I assume that they must have some aspect of greatness to get hordes of sparkling reviews and highly lauded honors, in addition to massive sales. The radio is simply unwilling to back down, and as they stick with artists like Toby Keith and Keith Urban (any other Keith's I'm forgetting?), it's becoming clear that not only is country radio conservative, but part of the problem of why radio is and has been losing its listeners.

In the radio industry, listenership has considerably deflated since the advent of YouTube and satellite radio, as listeners are becoming bored and tired with loads of commercials and repeated playlists. Country music surely falls into the same category, and by ignoring the better music in the genre, they are sure to lose listeners in the process, not gain. But that's how radio has always been, I suppose. Mainstream radio, or "pay-for-play" as I like to describe it, is based on the repetition of songs that become popular because record companies dish out dollars to get spins. That is how the industry has always been and probably will be run, but the future looks grim in the on-demand world of technology and entertainment. Consumers are no longer interested in listening to programming that does not play the best music in the genre. Sure, little teenage girls will tune into Z100 to hear the hot new Fergie jam, but that demographic is even digressing from that type of music. Listeners are no longer faceless entities; radio has to be able to account for every single one, and find music that is both good and appealing.

That sure puts country radio in a quandary. The stations are completely unwilling to play the most successful band in the genre, and all because of political beliefs. Since Bush's approval ratings have declined significantly from the time that Maines made her biting comments, there must be some chunk of America that has hopped off the pro-Bush wagon and hopped on the anti-Bush one. Listeners on the coastal areas were mostly anti-Bush to begin with, so it suggests that some portion of middle America has switched their attitude, which suggests that they no longer have hatred towards the Dixie Chicks' stance, even if they do not like their music. This is a great indicator of the hypocrisy in mainstream stations, in that they are simply unwilling to give listeners what they want to and/or should hear. How is radio to survive if they cannot appeal to their demographic?

The Dixie Chicks may be doing alright for themselves, but they sure are not going to find a home on mainstream radio stations. Call the girls boring, talent-less, even ugly: that does not stop the fact that their music is of the highest quality. I am in no way promoting the music of the group, but I do take their awards and reviews seriously, and even if I don't like the genre, I'm sure that they have some sort of quality product. Radio needs to stop taking moral stances against or ignoring the best music in the genre; listeners have seen it happen with independent rock bands and hip-hop musicians since the genres gained underground popularity. In order for radio to survive in a world that is constantly growing around them, they need to cut their attitudes and get down to what radio is meant for: the promotion of good music and entertainment. If they can't shape up, then they're going to fail, and if that means that I never have to hear "My Humps" again, then I guess it's not such a bad thing after all.

All Up In Your Cell Phone

Haha.

There's something that needs to be discussed here. For all practical purposes, the idea of a cell phone that can accomplish "everything" is in need of attention. With the iPhone causing a massive industry buzz (every child that has no idea what it does is pining for one), the "almighty" cell phone seems to be the next technological focal point of the tech device industry. But while decent service that doesn't cut out is starting to become a secondary consideration, the phone's extras have become the selling point. Consumers are no longer interested in being able to talk to their friends and fam without having it cut out; they want to be able to download the hot new jam by the Black Eyed Peas to their phone, snap a photo of the Black Eyed Peas at their banging live show with their cell's built-in camera, and/or watch the sweet new Fergie video while on a train uptown (note: this blog no way endorses the Black Eyed Peas). Cell phone purchasers want it all, and with the latest release by Motorola - the SLVR 9 (pause for ooh's) - may just have their dreams come true.

But what's so different about the phone that makes it relevant to this weblog? Ah, yes, the inclusion of FM radio on the device. In addition to Bluetooth, MP3 ringtones, a camera and a video recorder, Motorola promises to give you the option of carrying around your own personal radio receiver/player on which you can listen to that DJ Drama show that's finally coming back on the air. I know you're thinking, "So, what? What's the big deal with a harmless FM receiver in a cell phone?" Let me break it down, if I may. The idea of a cell phone is to be able to call people on-the-go. Sure, having an MP3 ringtone is a plus for anyone (I cherish my Clipse ringtone, thank you), as is having an MP3 player built into your phone. But for consumers, what exactly is the point of an FM receiver in the phone?

For most of us that feel obligated to purchase every new device that graces an advertisement, the idea of having an MP3 player in a cell phone is good enough for entertainment. You can listen to anything while on your morning commute (if you don't drive, mind you), and not have to hit any buttons once you get off of your train or bus and are almost at work. With an FM Radio receiver built into a phone, this becomes a matter of convenience. As we all hate whipping out our iPods to switch from the Fergie solo track to the group number, pulling out your cell phone to switch on your FM radio is going to be an inconvenience. Not to mention, if you are listening to your cell phone's radio channel and you get a call, how are you to distinguish whether or not it's part of the show? You don't. That's the beauty of a radio receiver in your phone. And I know, I'm making claims that are kind of lame, and putting in a radio receiver doesn't necessarily inconvenience anyone. But let's look ahead into the future, and see where the radio capabilities could potentially go.

Let's say that the FM inclusion is a hit. I seriously doubt it, since no one really seems to be jumping out of their skin for their free FM/AM capabilities these days, but what if it was? Cell phone companies are finely tuned into what their customers want in a product, as they spend tens, even hundreds of dollars (a lot, right?) on focus groups and market research. What if the cell phone company decided to turn it into a pay-for-play service? It doesn't really seem like a long-shot to predict that companies will do anything - even sleazy tricks like this - to suck money out of your wallets. What's going to stop them from doing it? It's their product, and they can charge you for whatever feature they want. Well, then that just attaches a little piece of negative stigma to the gigantic one that's already attached to FM radio, now doesn't it? As a consumer, I would immediately give up FM radio if it meant that I had to pay less per month. And as a consumer who is sucked into buying products like the rest of the masses, I can representatively say that the rest of you would, too.

Motorola, among other cell companies, will eventually catch on that satellite radio is getting bigger and bigger everyday. Consumers want exclusive broadcasting, not the ho-hum type of programming on FM/AM radio stations. The conglomerates will eventually push out FM radio and make satellite radio the norm for their products, additionally contributing to your forgetting about free radio's existence. This makes the cell phone more than just a device with some features thrown in; it makes your handheld something that will inevitably rule your life. You won't have to buy any extra products to get the features of every hot piece 'o technology. That's not such a punishment, but inevitably, it will have a terrible effect on free services. Major corporations are only interested in profit, and if that means making you forget about FM and AM radio in order to satisfy both their own company and the satellite radio company that they signed a deal with, then they're going to do it. It sounds like a far-fetched idea, but with a burgeoning industry for radio and the way that people listen to it, it's going to happen.

I suppose I'm being overdramatic. This post is, after all, about the new cell phone from Motorola, and you must be thinking that I'm a total drama king for even suggesting that the FM radio industry will be erased because of it. But just think about what is happening in the world of technology. FM radio is already losing their steam, and the FCC is coming down harder on them everyday. Satellite radio is aggrandizing at the same rate that FM radio is deflating, and cell phone companies don't have to be geniuses to figure out that people will pay for radio. So I suppose I must be the cautionary measure here: before you run out to the store to buy this smoking piece of merchandise, all I ask is please - think of the FM.

Video Killed the Satellite Radio Star.

The Ice Age? Siriusly?

Alright, so maybe I was really behind on this, but I suppose it's a newsworthy subject, considering the recent and possible fakery that comes in the form of a YouTube video of an advertisement (see the bottom of the post for the clip, k?). Last January, the Internet was all abuzz with the latest news that satellite radio could potentially be complemented by the addition of satellite video features. The device, which would enable users to have on-the-go broadcasts delivered straight to their handheld XM receiver, looks kind of like hand-held video game console: jet black, directional pad, color screen… you get the idea. Where the Wii made the jump from a standalone device to a satellite and wi-fi monstrosity, XM is willing to make the jump as well, expanding on the radio-only format of their services to include streams upon streams of audio-visual entertainment. I can just picture it now: you're sitting on a bench in a park on a gorgeous Spring afternoon; the birds are chirping, babies are giggling, and there you are, missing it all, because you're streaming the new episode of 24 on your XM receiver. Shame on you, consumer.

But it's a cutthroat industry, and XM is willing to make the first move to reign supreme. Partnering with On2 to mooch off of their technology, XM is going to be a "wearable video device," according to Bear Stearns analyst Robert Peck, which receives streaming video at 256 kbps and receives at least 20 video channels (thanks Orbitcast, for the tip). There is no foreseeable release date on the product, but it's no surprise that it will be an enormous hit when it is released. Imagine sitting on the subway and being able to watch the cached shows that XM downloaded for you. Where the iPod made it possible to have portable video players in the palm of your hand, XM is taking the next step by making it streamable and cutting out the computer middleman. Although this would be a fantastic and revolutionary technology, a question must be brought into consideration: what will happen to the satellite radio aspect of the company, and what is the inevitable future of satellite radio?

Consumers that purchase the devices will most likely be concerned with the ability to get their favorite TV shows and movies delivered right to their device, and mostly ignore the availability of music stations. It comes in the form of simple logic: why listen to the radio when you can mindlessly watch a video? As our society becomes more Internet-friendly and sites like YouTube and MySpace are replacing their music-based formats with video technology offerings, people are going to become dependent on the video technology and forget about the music aspect that used to be dominant. Or, in my opinion, music will have to be accompanied by a complementary visual for people to truly experience it and maintain their interest. If these situations are the case, and society is gearing towards the video form of entertainment, then what happened to all of the effort to make satellite radio a major outlet for listening to music?

Most likely, the satellite radio stations will just be an extra feature, and will eventually be fazed out over an extended period of time. With the radio industry dying a slow and relatively painless death, XM video will predominately be able to replace the satellite radio technology, and Sirius will have to follow in suit. Sure, satellite radio may stick around for a while for those who commute and enjoy dancing to the 60's channel when cooking dinner for the family, but in the technology-friendly society, even working-class society will get tired of a radio format. Color me pessimistic, but given the above speculation and a knack for predicting the future (some say it's a gift, I call it a curse), I just don't see satellite radio lasting in a world that is already having a hard time accepting it.

They Wish.

I must admit, as an avid radio listener and a DJ on an FM station, I should know what exactly HD radio is - maybe even want it - but I just don't. Nor do I care; I enjoy "normal people" radio as is. All of that hissy reception simply adds to the aesthetic, and I just love getting mad at the piece of technology every time my favorite jam cuts out right when the song gets gutsy. But for the sake of dissecting how much of the current population is in the same boat as me in regard to HD radio, I must go with what I've gathered about the industry's alleged future. HD - or hybrid digital (don't even think about calling it high definition) - radio allows users to experience their favorite shows from the comforts of their home, in the car, or basically anywhere else (except in portable form, mind you) that allows for uninterrupted transmission. But where the product becomes unique is in the quality; the technology promises crystal-clear audio of every broadcast played over the airwaves. Or, as the official HD radio website declares, FM radio sounds like CD-quality and AM sounds like FM. Wow. My years of dreaming have come true.

So it's no surprise that Bridge Ratings, a company that claims to accurately poll a media audience, recently released amusing results from a poll conducted of 2,448 people regarding their consumer habits and knowledge of HD radio. The conclusions drawn are completely unsurprising and expected, and for someone like myself who should entirely understand HD but doesn't, the poll becomes somewhat laughable in a sense that the product is made to look like a media child in a room full of corporate adults. The same poll was administered in June 2006, and in comparison, the only increase in consumer percentage responses was in the results of the question that asked if they had heard of HD radio. Simple enough, right? Well, the numbers only went higher in every age category, consisting of 12 or below, 12-24, 25-54, and 55+. The biggest increase came in the last category, but that's expected, since everyone in that age group keeps up with all the hottest trends in technology. Forget the 12-24 gap; 55+ is the future.

I know, I know, I'm straying from the subject here. The rest of the poll is what was so LOL-worthy. The second question was concerned with finding out whether or not the poll-taker knew what HD radio is or what it does. In every single category, in comparison to the June results, the number of people who replied "Yes" had decreased by a maximum of 4% to a minimum of 1%. The change is a bit ironic, considering that the 55+ group had the lowest percentage of understanding, with 7% knowing what it is and what it does (yet 71% of them know about it?). This is significant of one of the biggest problems with HD radio, in a sense that most people know about the product yet don't even know what it is or what it does. As a result, people wouldn't be inclined to even buy it, right? The poll confirmed that, with even more of a percentage drop since June 2006, with a maximum of 5% and a minimum of 3% change in the number of people answering that they were interested in purchasing a receiver. Once again, the 55+ group was the victor in least interested, with 8% of the age group replying that they were interested in purchasing a system.

So what does this poll indicate? Bridge Ratings unveiled the flaws with the product, and if the poll is significant of anything in the radio industry, people are simply uninterested in HD radio. Even though the FCC ruled that U.S. stations have to broadcast in HD, what incentive does that give consumers to purchase a receiver? With offers as "low" as $99 and as high (no quotes needed) as $600 for a home appliance, the only convincing factors come with the idea of crystal-clear audio and a lack of subscription fees to get the broadcasts. But in all honesty, who's ready to pay that much for a receiver when you can simply buy a regular-quality and portable Walkman for $2 at the bargain store? That's where the idea of luxury comes in, but radio has always been a luxury, even without the special receivers. I suppose one could pose the idea that satellite radio is a luxury, and it certainly is, but it offers something much better than the independent CD quality feature of HD radio. So would you rather go HD or satellite? I think the answer there is clear (note: pun absolutely intended).

Also, the idea of podcasts is dwarfing the HD radio concept. Podcasts of radio shows are usually of decent quality, with no need for improvement, and since the idea of a podcast is to be able to listen to a radio show after the fact, there would be no benefit in getting a receiver that allows you to listen to the broadcast live when you could just listen to it at the same (or near) quality later, on your own time. Why bother spending so much money on an appliance that is already behind the on-demand curve of today's technological society? It seems that consumers have already figured that one out, and with this poll's indications, what's already been figured out has simply been put in writing.

What does this mean for the industry? The only way that HD radio could potentially become popular is if consumers are given more of an incentive to buy it. Sure, it may scroll the song playing on the receiver, but who cares? In the same way, are you really jones-ing for better quality radio, when you can simply get the established quality for a considerably smaller sum? The industry is going to have to give these receivers away for people to catch on, or make a receiver that is so inexpensive that it matches the price of the regular ones. Since Bridge Ratings was forced to lower their projected number of purchasers from 2.1 to 1.5 million in 2007, I think that the FCC has found itself in a goofy situation, where the only ones that are screwed by the failure of the product are themselves and the companies producing the product. Based on the evidence, are you surprised? Or, like your probable attitude towards HD radio: do you even care?