Radio Self-Fulfills Self-Aggrandizing Prophecy

    “A new survey from radio marketers Mercury asked 1,000 people, if a new iPod and an HD Radio receiver were the same price, which would they prefer. As seen in the graphs… the majority chose HD Radio, citing that a radio is simply easier to use than an iPod.”

We think this is a crock of unprocessed bologna bits. Small surprise that the survey was conducted by a radio marketing group and reported on FMQB, a radio industry newsletter.

Let’s do our own survey:


Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you’re viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. ExVee says:

    Now, to be a fair representation, shouldn’t your poll also have a “no preference” option as well? I just raise the point since whether this poll or the marketing poll, I’d answer with “neither.” I love contributing uselessly.

    I’m also inclined by that pie chart to wonder if the original poll actually asked, “If they were the same price, which would you prefer: An apple, or an HD radio?” Really, that wouldn’t be especially more obviously skewed than it is right now, would it?

  2. RowdyRoddyPiper says:

    Couldn’t I just get a radio receiver in my next iPod….I’m looking at you Jobs.

  3. Papercutninja says:

    Yeah but isn’t that dumbass HD-Radio like $500? It’s pointless. To buy something like that, you might as well get XM, they have FREE/under $100 units, and most of the music channels are COMMERCIAL free. The only ones that have commercials are the ones owned by ClearChannel. Why XM would broker a deal with the evil underlors of ClearChannel is beyond me.
    What’re the advantages of HD-Radio? Multiple feeds of the same crappy playlist from the same ClearChannel/Viacom owned crap stations? Digital quality audio of commercials?
    HD-Radio is a desperate attempt by terrestrial radio to try and gain back some market share lost to satellite radio and the iPod.
    All i have to say is, Good luck, bro.

  4. Andrew W says:

    HD-Radio was in the works at the same time as satellite radio. It just took longer to pull off logistically (raise money for satellites, launch satellites vs. install thousands of transmitters and repeaters across the country).

    And yes, for godsakes, get an XM radio. It lets you listen to FM/AM and, I assume, now HD as well. The portable versions are still the size of a walkman, but they’ll get smaller. And if they can be integrated with an iPod, oof, now there’s a product. (And a product waiting to be hacked to record XM songs, beyond the five hours they allow now.)

    The study itself must be utter bullshit. The actual data is available only for a fee. How pathetic is that? A radio insider conducts a survey that contradicts common sense, gets it promoted on radio websites as proving something pro-radio, and doesn’t actually make any information available.

  5. AcidReign says:

    …..I second the “neither” option. You either get a battery-eating box that squeaks out compressed audio through lousy earbuds, or a boombox with dinky speakers. Radio’s compression these days is worse-sounding than 128k mp3s. And let’s get real, any high-def radio station likely to appear in the near future around my area is either going to be Re-yull Kunn-tree, or Urban. Or worse than either, a high-def sportstalk/gambling station…

    …..I don’t need either item cluttering up my pad!

  6. airship says:

    Gosh, why do we have to choose? Personally I am driven to accumulate ALL of the consumer crap that marketers worldwide are striving to shove down our acquisitive American throat-holes. GIMMEE MORE!!!

  7. Bubba Barney says:

    How is Hi Def Radio different from Satellite?

  8. GenXCub says:

    There are some terrestrial radio stations that broadcast in HD (102.7 in Vegas is one I know of for sure), so you could pick them up in HD without paying extra for them, as opposed to a subscription service like you see with some HD tv channels and satellite radio

  9. CMPalmer says:

    Maybe their survey was phrased similarly to yours:

    “Would you like a surround sound quality satellite radio system that will let you listen to hundreds of channels of commercial free music of any genre without having to purchase the music or go through the trouble of connecting it to your computer, or would you like a gimmicky, passing fad iPod that only plays DRM’ed music that you have to purchase from Apple and download on your computer and, oh yeah, they make you go deaf, too.”

    I’m making up the HD radio part – I know nothing about it.

    Polls suck – depending on how you word your choices, you can force almost any result…

  10. L_Emmerdeur says:

    Radio is for peasants. Let them eat cake.