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?