Comparing our recent ListenerThink HD study with our last one (September ’08), we find no progress.

Awareness has actually declined. In ’08, 67% had at least “heard of” HD Radio; now, 54% do. And consumers’ understanding (and misunderstanding) of HD is virtually identical to what we found three-plus years ago…

Then, 21% told us HD Radio delivers better sound quality; now 20% do. And now, as then, many base this perception on their understanding of HDTV, rather than actual knowledge of HD Radio.

Then, 8% said HD Radio delivers more channels and choices; now the exact same percentage do!

Then, 7% said HD Radio was satellite radio; now 6% do.

And then, 14% said they had only heard of HD Radio, but didn’t know anything about it; now, 16% do.

It’s great that HD Radio is finding its way into new cars. Over time, that is undoubtedly the single best way to get into the minds of consumers.

But for now, HD Radio’s “Knowledge Gap” continues.

(More details on our recent survey: http://kassof.com/2012/knowledge-of-hd-radio-is-low/ )

A majority (54%) have heard of HD radio. And some of them totally “get” it:

It delivers CD-quality sound for FM stations and FM-quality sound for AM stations.

It’s high definition radio with better quality and more stations are available.

Unfortunately, “right on” comments like these are truly the exception. For one thing, 16% have only heard of HD Radio and don’t know anything about it:

I’ve heard of it, but don’t know what it is and don’t have one.

For those who have a clue, the #1 image of HD Radio is that it delivers better audio quality…20% of 18-64′s express that:

It has a richer fuller sound…feels more like you’re listening to a CD.

But for many, better quality sound is not something they actually know about HD Radio…it’s something they infer based on their knowledge of HD TV:

It’s, uh, I haven’t heard much about it. It’s high definition. So it’s probably clearer like the high definition TV’s.

I have an HD TV that has a clearer picture. Maybe that is what HD radio is, clearer.

I am assuming it is just like HD TV and comes in a little clearer.

Only 8% understand that it delivers more channels and choices, and that’s its #2 image:

You get more channels than regular radio.

Different channels on same frequency.

Wide variety of specialty stations.

Some of this image might be coming from confusion between HD and satellite radio….6% of those who’ve heard of HD Radio think it is satellite radio…its #4 image. Still, the choices/satellite connection isn’t overt like the HD Radio/TV conflation.

Here’s the complete breakdown of the top responses to the question: What is HD Radio? How is it different from regular radio? (Note that percentages add up to more than 100% because multiple responses were permitted.)

.

The “Bottom Line”: The industry still faces a big challenge marketing HD Radio. Its best decision was to call it “HD Radio,” because that enables consumers to at least infer that it delivers better quality. The industry needs to continue to focus on sound quality, plus MORE CHOICES and (to separate HD from satellite radio) FREE.   Period.

Check out hdradio.com and you’ll see it’s saying way more than that — more music, tagging, bookmarking, traffic, how it all works, etc. etc. No wonder so many listeners don’t get it!

Many radio execs and consultants are experts on the radio industry. I’ve met guys who seem to know any station and format you can think of (and some that you can’t).

Sure, it’s good to know what’s going on in New York, L.A., Wichita… wherever.

But that’s not the right focus…

My focus is radio listeners… the ones in whatever market I’m working on at the time.  Frankly, I’m even more interested in listeners than whatever is going on in the industry.

I hope you are too. Because listeners in your market are the only ones that can make your ratings success.

History is rife with examples of stations that failed because their managers focused on an industry trend (or fad), rather than what’s needed and will work in their own markets.

The one I always think of first is Disco,  pioneered by the original WKTU (not the current one) in the late ’70s. That station was an instant smash in New York, prompting “industry savvy” G.M.’s (note: sarcasm) to clone it. Unfortunately, the format didn’t play in Peoria (literally) and lots of other places it was tried.

The Disco fiasco is especially poignant to me because a station I successfully programmed as an AOR — San Antonio’s original KTFM (not the current one) — foolishly jumped on Disco after I left, with disastrous results.

There have been many more since — the ’70s format, the ’80s format, Jammin’ Oldies…

More recently, the Adult Hits format has been a winner in some places, a flop in others. Even in Canada, where the format enjoyed its first and biggest successes, “Jack FM” failed to gain traction in Toronto.

And most recently, the success of “Amp Radio” in Los Angeles has prompted a revival of CHR. Jack in Toronto is now CHR — Kiss 92.5. At least they picked a different name…others must have thought that the name “Amp” has magic, for some unfathomable reason. CBS planted Amp in Detroit — where it displaced a solid 4 share Smooth Jazz format. It’s too soon to say, but I’d bet Detroit’s Amp won’t do as well.

Unfortunately, listeners in Detroit just don’t read Inside Radio, Radio Ink, All Access and the countless industry-oriented web sites. What’s the matter with them??? Don’t they know that Amp in L.A. had a 3.8 in September???

To some extent, listeners in every market are unique. But even more significantly, the competitive structure of every market — based on listeners’ needs and perceptions — is unique. So just because a format is hot in one market doesn’t do you a damn bit of good in yours!

So, sure…keep on top of “the biz.” But keep your focus on listeners in your market. Base your strategies on them.

So, when we moved to Ann Arbor, I was thrilled to discover the “Chicago Dog House”…a run down shack with the Vienna sign proudly displayed. As soon as I walked in, the smell of greasy fries hit me and I felt right at home.

The Dog House was a dump. It was crowded, noisy and had questionable cleanliness. Its counters were worn. Its tables were warped and carved up. It had a street sign “borrowed” from one of Chicago’s North Side corners. It blasted an eclectic music mix — anything from classic rock to Etta James and Leon Redbone. Behind the counter was a wall of bizarre headlines from tattered tabloids, yellowed by age and the grease in the air.

The Dog House closed last year when the city shut down its street for a major construction project. I grieved.

But recently, the shack reopened as “Ray’s Red Hots.” Of course, I had to check it out…

Ray’s Red Hots is clean and bright. Everything’s freshly painted and fixed up. The counter is new and the tables have been refinished. The street sign is gone. The tabloids are gone. They’re not serving Vienna brand, but something called “Red Hot Chicago.” They don’t taste quite like Viennas.

Ray’s dogs don’t have the flavor of the Chicago Dog House. Neither does the place.

So what’s the point???

Too many radio stations are like Ray’s Red Hots. There’s nothing wrong with them. They’re technically competent. They’re clean. They’re professional.

But something is missing…call it charisma, the “X-factor,” a certain specialness or even quirkiness.

For example, as a Chicagoan, I grew up listening to Larry Lujack. He wasn’t the most smooth and professional announcer. He screwed up sometimes. He had dead air sometimes. I think that made listeners pay more attention. They knew they weren’t listening to a machine.

Lujack was a star on WLS. Its smooth-as-silk midday jock Bernie Allen was a personality that only I would remember.

This isn’t unusual. One of the things I’ve learned doing research is that some of the most compelling personalities are ones that most “radio professionals” would think flat out suck! But they’ve made a personal connection to listeners in their communities.

Think about your friends. Are they perfect? Or do they have certain “schticks” that make them interesting, amusing or endearing?

Ideally, a radio station is like a friend to the listener. There’s a personal connection, and a hometown connection. But too many stations today sound like they’re from a cookie cutter and could literally be from anywhere.

What about your stations? Are they like Chicago Dog House, or Ray’s? Are they merely professional, or do they have flavor ?

And, now more than ever, I think radio managers get the idea of establishing a brand and being focused and consistent. They get it more than they did years ago. It’s been years since I’ve heard statements like: We need more 25-54′s…let’s add some oldies to our CHR station.”

Radio guys “get” brand integrity more than some big money execs in some other industries…

The auto industry has been a lifelong interest of mine and I follow it closely. As a marketing guy, I was astounded by something I heard recently from Chrysler brand CEO Peter Fong. He sees the brand moving “a notch above Lincoln, a notch above Cadillac.”

I say two things: (1) Mr. Fong, check your medications, and (2) I want my tax money back!

Even in the best days of the Chrysler brand, it was never more than upper-middle, like Buick. And that was a long time ago. When the corporation dropped Plymouth (another mistake), Chrysler became the purveyor of its low-end minivans and cheaper cars like the PT Cruiser. Chrysler moved downscale, not up.

Once you do that, there’s no turning back. It’s just not possible to move a brand up the luxury and prestige ladder. (Unless consumers didn’t know who you were in the first place.)

And that’s why Toyota, Nissan and Honda created Lexus, Infiniti and Acura back in the ’80s…because they knew consumers wouldn’t pay big bucks for “Toyota,” “Nissan” or “Honda”!

In contrast, it is quite possible to move downscale, but it’s not usually a good idea…

Until recently, the 3 Series was the least expensive BMW. In ’08, they launched a lesser model — the 1 Series. It’s not selling well.

Undaunted, BMW is now reported planning a new 0 series! Not only will the model be cheaper yet, but it will also be the first front wheel drive BMW. Front wheel drive has advantages, but optimum handling isn’t one of them. Ask any car aficionado…y’know, the kind that have bought “The Ultimate Driving Machine” for years.

Besides, who wants to say: “I drive a zero”?

Moving a luxury brand downscale is hardly limited to autos. Starbucks recently introduced Via — an instant coffee….hardly an upscale product.

Starbucks must know it’s on shaky ground here. Its website states: This is not instant coffee as you know it. This is rich, flavorful Starbucks® coffee in an instant… Starbucks has found a way to offer a truly great cup of coffee that you can prepare by just adding water.

This is brand dilution…literally. Even if Via tastes as good as Starbucks claims, that’s missing the point. Starbucks isn’t just about the coffee…it’s about the total experience. Y’know, the rich smell of coffee in the air, the barrista skillfully preparing your Grande Java Chip Frappacino with a shot of espresso (note: not my order), the students spending hours on their laptops…

Why else would someone spend $5 for a coffee???

You’d think the folks at Starbucks would understand this, but execs often lose sight of the big picture when they’re chasing revenue in a down market. Even if Starbucks sells tons of Via, it hurts them long-term.

So, I have a suggestion for BMW, Starbucks and any other companies that are losing their way. Hire some ex-radio execs as brand managers. There are certainly a lot of them looking for work, and they “get it.”

That made a big impression on me.

Or maybe it was Larry Lujack’s start on WLS in Chicago. He had come over from working overnights at WCFL and even as a teen I understood that this was a real opportunity…kind of like being called up from the minors to start for the White Sox.  I hated Lujack that day.I thought he was blowing it. He made a lot of mistakes.  There was a lot of dead air. He was snarly and sarcastic — not smooth and smiley like the other ‘LS jocks.

A week later, I was hooked.  And I didn’t just like Larry Lujack…I wanted to be him, or at least where he was, doing what he was, at that moment.

Larry Lujack was the reason I had to get on the radio.  Didn’t just want to…had too.  I didn’t want to miss a minute of his show.I would constantly tell my friends about the crazy things “Superjock” said.

This isn’t just my story.  I suspect it’s your story too. Many of us got into this business because there was a personality they idolized and identified with.

Here’s my question for you: Who are they identifying with now???

Let’s flash back to a more recent memory.  It was the ’90s. WNDU-FM — “U93″ — was my client when it was owned by Notre Dame.  As a favor to them, I would drive to South Bend once a quarter and talk to a Radio-TV class about radio.  Actually, my one-hour talk was the only radio part of the so-called Radio-TV class!

And that was probably appropriate. Because,  invariably,  few or none of the students raised their hand when I asked who was interested in a radio career.

Radio isn’t glamorous any more.  It’s more like a utility. Still important and valuable, but I don’t see kids aspiring to work for Detroit Edison!

Some of this was inevitable given the explosion of technology and new media.  But radio has helped it along by watering down or flat out eliminating the most unique aspects of its product…the very things that make radio radio and not just a succession of songs.

Our personality “gene pool” has been in a death spiral for decades.  I was inspired to go into radio because I idolized Larry Lujack.  But I wasn’t as good as Larry Lujack, and not as inspiring to the next generation of would-be radio personalities. Still, there were a handful of kids who hung around the station to work “gofer” jobs for free they thought it was the coolest place they could possibly be, and wanted to be like me.

Unfortunately, most weren’t even as good as me.  So as time went on, personalities as a group weren’t as good or inspiring as the ones who came before.  Fewer and fewer kids even thought about radio as a career.

And because “personalities” weren’t as good, they were put on a tighter leash so their ability to screw up was limited.  Some who had potential never got a shot, since owners increasingly turned to syndication to cover shifts and slash expenses.

So, today, at the very time radio needs great talent to compete with all the other sources of entertainment available today, it has instead a handful of aging stars and no “farm system” for replacing them.

Who am I to complain about this, you might ask. I’m a research guy…aren’t we the ones who tell stations to “shut up and play the music”???

No!  We sometimes tell stations they’re perceived to “talk too much.”  But shutting jocks up is the knee-jerk response and usually the wrong one.  Instead, how about coaching them to edit their bits?  How about encouraging them to talk about things that entertain and relate to listeners?The issue isn’t literally the amount of talk…it’s if it’s worthwhile.(Few complain that Bob & Tom talk too much, and they talk all the time!)

Radio must rebuild its farm system.  It must refocus on its local communities.  It must start giving budding personalities opportunities to grow, succeed and even fail sometimes.  It must take some chances, even if it’s on an HD-3 channel at 3 in the morning.

Radio must do this because if audio entertainment simply comes down to who plays the most tunes a listener likes best it will lose.  Radio has to be more, and in most cases, personalities are a big part of that.

Rush Limbaugh started out as a journeyman jock.  Howard Stern sucked when he started out. Larry Lujack’s first show on WLS was a nightmare.

Where is the next generation of Limbaughs, Sterns and even Lujacks coming from?

Who wants to be in radio???

“In five years,” he told me, “the evening network newscasts will cease to exist.”He said shows like NBC Nightly News (at that time, hosted by Tom Brokaw) would succumb to 24-hour cable news and the exploding use of the World Wide Web.

Now, with the perspective of time, it looks like my friend’s prediction was just a little premature. NBC Nightly News, along with The CBS Evening News and ABC’s World Newsare still very much with us, thank you.

Now, it’s absolutely true that these shows are not what they used to be. These days, the three network newscasts garner around 20 million viewers…half as many as when my friend made his “visionary” prediction. But then, what shows are generating the kind of numbers TV used to? The Super Bowl? American Idol? It takes less than five fingers to count them.

The fact is, we’re taking society’s time for information and entertainment and slicing it into more and more, tinier and tinier pieces.

What’s the point of this story? That the predictions of radio’s demise are similarly way ahead of themselves. If you listen to some pundits, radio is already cooked, over, done…, a “dead man walking”…ancient technology shunned by a new generation in favor of texting, iPods and self-programmed information and entertainment on demand.

I’m not buying it. And hard data says it’s wrong. Arbitron Radio Listening Trends shows that radio’s 12+ cume rating was 95.3 in Fall ’98 and 93.3 in Spring ’07. It’s AQH rating went from 1630 to 1400 during that period.

A decline? Sure. A meltdown??? Hardly.

And honestly, how could radio not decline giving the tsunami of technology-driven time-wasters — err….innovative sources of information, entertainment, social networking, etc. — that keeps coming?

If anything, the fact that radio has held up as well as it has reveals the remarkable resiliency of the medium…

Not only has radio been challenged by new choices, but at the same time it has been battered by (mostly) horrendous management, led by mega-groups that ran up debt, increased spot loads and slashed programming to pay for it, and in general, miserably failed to serve listeners and communities. Great radio stations, always the exception, are now an endangered species.

Now is not the time for radio to abdicate what still are its significant strengths. For example, just a few days ago, I had an online discussion with some smart radio people who suggested that music stations should shift their information efforts almost exclusively to their web sites. Certainly, some should! But what about music stations that are also the information leaders in their communities? How many listeners have seamless, touch-of-the-button Internet access with text-to-speech software in their cars??? Do you???

When I was programming CHR stations, I learned early on that it was a mistake to get ahead of my audience. I learned that songs I was already sick of were ones that listeners were just beginning to become aware of.

In our quest to cope with the brave world of new media, let’s move to the future. But let’s not get ahead of the audience.

Here’s my view of radio’s future: One or more of the mega-groups goes down. Local stations are again taken over by locals and well-run, smaller groups, run by radio people who know that serving their local communities is the way for stations to remain relevant and viable.

Certainly, online content will be a essential aspect of this future. For example, who better to deliver local information online than stations that have decades establishing credibility in their markets?

But, don’t turn off that transmitter just yet…

Radio’s power has been demonstrated once again in recent weeks with the controversy around Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh drew the attention of none other than the new President of the United States.He told Republican congressional leaders that “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.”

Then, GOP congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia defended congressional Republicans against criticism by Limbaugh. Quoted in an article on politico.com, he stated: “I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh…to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows.” The next day, after being inundated with phone calls and emails, Gingrey then went on Limbaugh’s show to beg forgiveness:

GINGREY: Rush, thank you so much. I thank you for the opportunity, of course this is not exactly the way to I wanted to come on. … Mainly, I want to express to you and all your listeners my very sincere regret for those comments I made yesterday to Politico. … I clearly ended up putting my foot in my mouth on some of those comments. … I regret those stupid comments.

This past Saturday, Limbaugh closed the Conservative Political Action Committee’s annual meeting in Washington As Fox, CNN and C-SPAN carried his speech live. Later in the day, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele appeared on CNN’s D.L. Hughley Breaks the News. Hughley referred to Limbaugh as “the de facto leader of the Republican Party.” Steele objected…

STEELE: I’m the de facto leader of the Republican Party….Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it’s incendiary. Yes, it’s ugly.

Limbaugh fired back on his radio show Monday, and by that night, Steele backtracked: “My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”

I guess we now know who the real leader of the Republican Party is!

The fact is: Limbaugh is on 500+ radio stations. Tune around AM any weekday between Noon and 3 (Eastern) and you’re likely to hear him at multiple places on the dial. He boasts 20 million listeners, many of whom call themselves “dittoheads.” He is their source of information and opinion.

Whether this is good for the country or the Republican Party is something I’ll leave for political pundits to comment on. But I know one thing for certain…

It’s good for radio…

and Rush Limbaugh’s numbers.

• 67% of 18-64 year olds have heard of HD Radio. This represents a dramatic increase from ’06, when only 38% had heard of HD Radio.

• Consumers’ understanding of HD Radio has also grown. Now, 21% indicate HD Radio delivers higher quality sound, versus 17% in 2006. Eight percent now volunteer that HD Radio delivers more stations or choices, versus only 1% two years ago.

• We also find continued misconceptions about HD Radio. Now, 7% indicate that HD radio is satellite radio, up from 3% in 2006. And 3% think they receive HD Radio even though they have not purchased an HD-capable receiver.

• 18-44′s, men (and, especially, 18-44 men) have the highest awareness and best understanding of HD Radio. But we do not find major demographic differences on these measures.

The “bottom line” is: HD Radio has made significant progress over the past two years. The biggest jump is in the percentage of consumers who have at least heard of HD Radio.

Of course, now, as in ’06, not everyone who claims they’ve heard of HD Radio truly “gets it.” Nine percent tell us they’ve just heard of HD Radio and don’t know anything about it. And, no doubt, some of those who say that HD Radio means “higher quality sound” are simply inferring that from their knowledge of HDTV.

Still, the increase in awareness is so dramatic that it’s clear HD Radio is “on the map” in a way it wasn’t two years ago.

Also highly significant: the growth in consumers who tell us HD Radio means “more stations.” These are people who undoubtedly get it. The good news is that there are now more of them — 8% versus just 1% two years ago. But they still represent a “small sliver” of the population.

The consumers who confuse HD Radio with XM or Sirius is a similarly-small group. But they’re joined by another 2% who thing HD Radio is something you subscribe to. And then there are the folks who think they’re getting HD even though they don’t have an HD radio…seriously confused!

So, the industry still has a long way to go educating consumers about HD Radio. But at least most have heard of it, and that’s movement in the right direction.

In its battle with satellite radio and iPods, home court advantage can be an edge for your local radio station as well…

The obvious edge is that it’s local. Too few stations fully exploit this advantage. Many times, friends who aren’t in radio have commented to me that stations they hear in their travels sound pretty much like the ones here in the Detroit metro. Consolidation, syndication, consultants and (yes) even researchers have contributed to this homogenization of radio.

But this article isn’t about that. It’s about creating and exploiting an edge by shifting the home court.

Here’s an example from the world of politics: In 2004, George Bush had a perceived edge on terrorism and national security; John Kerry had a perceived edge on health care and the environment. If the biggest issues in the minds of Americans were health care and the environment, it would be “President Kerry” today. But the Bush campaign, aided by the powers of incumbency, kept voters’ focus on terrorism, and you know the rest.

For most radio stations, “home court” is music…better music, more music, etc. Sure, music consistently tests as the most important programming element for listeners, as a group. But radio certainly can’t compete with satellite radio or iPods for most music. It can’t compete with satellite radio for music variety. And it can’t compete with iPods for best music…what could be better than music listeners choose for themselves?

For the most part, radio is doing a good job with music! But if music is “home court,” that gives satellite radio an iPods an edge. Radio needs to shift home field to a broader construct — local entertainment…

For one thing, satellite radio and (obviously) iPods can’t deliver appealing morning personalities who relate to your market. Unfortunately, many radio stations have a tough time delivering this as well, but yours can and should do it!

And local radio’s personality should go beyond mornings. Whatever happened to killer PM drive jocks? Or charismatic night jocks that have cult followings among younger listeners? I can tell you that it’s a rare occasion when a personality outside morning drive emerges as a top-of-mind favorite in my research.

Personalities aren’t the sole source of entertainment local stations can offer. Contests that capture the imagination and attention of a city take a station way beyond “jukebox” status.

But home court advantage can’t be achieved merely doing these things on the air!!! It’s also about advertising and promoting the elements of your station that competitors cannot deliver, and, in doing so, raising those elements to the level of crucial criteria on which listeners choose from their multiple sources of entertainment.

Of course, emphasizing “local entertainment” isn’t the right strategy for every station. But shifting home field advantage to your strengths (whatever they happen to be) is always the right strategy for your station. And it’s the right strategy for local radio as a whole.