Don Keith N4KC's Technology, Media and Ham Radio Blog

A truly startling realization

2011-08-07T10:59:00.000-05:00

I no longer subscribe to many printed magazines but I still always look forward to receiving a couple of my amateur radio publications, QST and CQ magazines, each month. I really do enjoy reading about our hobby and appreciate the authors who contribute to these publications (for very little money in return). Shoot, I even study the ads, including those that have not changed in decades. (Why do some vendors insist on showing the faces of every radio by every manufacturer, as if we make our purchasing decisions based on those tiny thumbnails? And will MFJ ever change the full-page Hy-Gain rotator ad?) I always feel good when I open the mailbox and one of the magazines is in there, waiting for me. It usually lies right there on the hearth next to my recliner where I can pick it up and read an article whenever the mood strikes.

However, as I thumbed through the current edition of CQ, I could not help but notice that the lead article is about all the new gear unveiled this year at the largest amateur radio gathering in the world, the Dayton Hamvention in Dayton, Ohio. The event was in May! And it’s August as I write this. You know, there was a time when we took such delay in a story’s content as the norm. It is, after all, the nature of the magazine publishing biz that there must be considerable lead time for reporting, gathering info, composing the magazine, getting it printed and bound, and putting it in the mail at a rate that the publication can afford, even if it takes a few days to wend its way out to its readers.

But, for example, as I read the short writeup on the exciting new Elecraft KX3 portable transceiver, I recalled that there was a YouTube video posted way back on May 20 featuring Wayne Burdick K6XR giving a very enlightening ten-minute demo of this interesting bit of kit. Posted the same day it happened. Video. In full color. With sound. That I could pause, back up, re-run, and go back and look at anytime I wanted to without having to subscribe to and save a magazine or riffle through a bunch of musty, stacked-up old mags to find the one that had the article I wanted to read. I just went to YouTube and pulled up the video. It took me all of 20 seconds to find it and get it running.

Is the KX3 story old news in CQ? I’m afraid so.

ARRL recently did a major update on their web site, but though they are trying and it does give us quite a bit of content, it is still clunky and hard to navigate. It does offer some video (welcome to the 21st century) and plenty of archived articles and reviews, all of which is much more current, colorful, and searchable than the magazine could ever be. CQ is also trying, buying World Radio News and offering it as a free PDF download. However, it is still basically a "print" magazine that can be read on a computer monitor (can ONLY be read there unless you print it out). It still seems to have many of the same disadvantages as any other printed pub, though. It just happens to be available on the Internet instead of showing up in the mailbox.

I would hate to lose the printed magazines, though. I have to worry that the day will come when it is no longer economically feasible to mail me a magazine every month. I still prefer taking that paper-and-stapled thing out on the deck to read on a nice morning. Or along with me to Subway at lunch to peruse while I enjoy my Black Forest ham sandwich. And am I the only one that has trouble reading things on a monitor--even a big one--when I have to scroll and click?

Won’t happen, you say? The traditional magazine will never go away. Okay, what was your favorite article in your latest copy of Look or Life? Mind if I borrow your Saturday Evening Post? There was a time when magazines argued that they could offer more in-depth reporting and analysis than newspapers or radio/TV. More pretty pictures than you could ever get in a newspaper. No longer true. Google "Dayton Hamvention" (146,000 results) or "Elecraft KX3" (13,400 results) Any publication offering that amount of stuff would not fit into my mailbox!

I rest my case. Truth is, media consumers want their content in a wide variety of ways, and will choose such media on three primary criteria:

1) How easy it is to consume in all those myriad ways,

2) How compelling the content is, and

3) How cheap it is to access.

We see it happening with books, movies, television, music and more and it amounts to a revolution. Some media will not fare well unless they figure out how to monetize--the new buzz word for all media--or subsicize some of the old ways of distribution. As in any revolution, there will be casualties.

I’m afraid that does not bode well for QST and CQ.

73,

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.donkeith.com/
http://www.n4kc.com/

Radio on the phone?

2011-07-30T11:47:00.000-05:00

The National Association of Broadcasters has taken the stance that having the ability to receive FM-broadcast radio built into cell phones--by law--is the salvation of the medium. In fact, it is about the only solution they are offering to keep over-the-air radio viable.

So along comes researcher (and a blogger I frequently reference here) Mark Ramsey who has conducted a survey to see just how much phone owners who already have this feature care about such a thing. The results:

What this says is that it simply is not all that important to them. If the question had been, "How often do you listen to the radio?", it would have been a huge percentage...somewhere north of 90% I'm betting. But of these guys who already have a phone on which they can get FM radio, only 5% say they listen "nearly ever day."

What this says...and what Mark Ramsey has been maintaining all along...is that consumers don't particularly care about FM on the telephone. Mark...nor I...are opposed to such a thing. If the phone companies can sell it to their customers, bring it on! The point is that the NAB and broadcasters are wasting time, effort and money pushing this as THE solution.

As I have said here over and over, consumers of media want to get content in a wide, wide variety of media. They want radio from a radio, from the computer, from their smart phones, from their iPads...well, you get the message. But what they really, really want is content that is compelling and engaging enough that they will dial it up, click on it, download it or do whatever they have to do to get it. That includes over-the-air broadcasters, the historical controllers and purveyors or content.

But those broadcasters, as never before, face competition--not from each other so much--but from a broad variety of content pushers. Pushers who are not only offering better heroin but giving it to users in a dizzying array of distribution methods.

People want what they want when they want it and by whatever means they can get it. If broadcasters don't realize they are no longer in the tower-on-the-mountain-over-the-air-streaming-the-hits business, they are doomed to failure. And it ain't gonna be pretty.

Don Keith
http://www.donkeith.com/
http://www.n4kc.com/

Nobody to talk to?

2011-07-20T11:29:00.000-05:00

There's an interesting forum discussion going on at http://www.eham.net/ in which a relativly new amateur radio licensee asks why he is having so much trouble finding people with whom he can carry on a good conversation. The responses have been all over the map but quite a few take the tack that society is mean, that amateur radio ops are not what they used to be, that the quality of people who are currently in the hobby is not what it once was...back in "the good old days."

You know what is funny? Had there been an Internet and online forums back in 1962, you would have seen many of the very same comments you see there now. You know the kind...whether it's a forum for ham radio or for stamp collectors:

The hobby is going to heck. Nobody to talk to. Those SSBers are ruining the whole thing for the rest of us. People are impolite and disgustingly uncivil. They talk about things they shouldn't on the air. No wonder our numbers are dropping...kids aren't entering the hobby...the FCC is ignoring us, hoping we go away. The test is too easy. 5 WPM Novice? Disaster! Guys don't even know how to turn on their radios. Where's the challenge, the barrier to entry to keep out the riffraff? Glorified CB! Weed 'em out! Make 'em build a transmitter before they can get a license. Make the code test be 40 WPM. That'll make sure anyone entering ham radio represents the elite, the best. (Sound just a tad "Nazy Youth?")

I'm no Pollyanna, and I think I have a realistic view of the hobby, current society, and technological change. I even blog on it here for all five or six of my loyal followers. We have the same problems, issues, idiots, and goofballs as we probably had when Marconi made the first DX QSO. We just have a much more elaborate (and anonymous) way to hear and complain about them.

There's an interesting concept among those who study media. It suggests that while life on this planet is so far superior for most of its inhabitants than it has ever been in history, we dwell on the bad things more. That's because good news and positive stories don't sell papers, increase viewers and listeners, or make you click on web sites. Doom sells! (See my earlier rant about global warming. Lots of folks have made money and won prestigious awards selling that concept!)

Case in point: that gal who was charged with killing her daughter down in Orlando but was found innocent. Women have been accused of killing their kids since the very beginning of time. Many were found innocent. Why does this one continue to be the lead story on all those cable channels?

And what does that have to do with not being able to find a QSO on 146.88? Well, hopefully you get the point. The hobby is not going to heck in a handbasket. There are jerks out there...on the hams bands just as there on the Internet and in real life. But there are also plenty of delightful, interesting people. We just tend to blog and post about the bad ones.

Maybe everyone should get off the forums and blogs and, instead, go twist a dial on their radios and listen! Or actually smile and say hello to that person next to you on your next airplane trip.

When did "for-profit" become a slur?

2011-06-30T10:08:00.000-05:00

(Off the technology-change topic for a bit this time, but I have to vent!)

There was a story on PBS's "Frontline" this week that purported to show all the terrible things for-profit colleges are doing to veterans, ripping them off as they are returning from serving their country. Each time the reporter said the words "for-profit," it appeared he was using some kind of vile expletive. And the story implied that schools that seek profit for educating veterans...and anyone else...are not only not providing any value, but are brutally abusing those who risked their lives for our country, all in the name of greed and avarice and obscene profits.

(BIAS DISCLAIMER: I work in marketing, advertising and PR for a company that operates colleges...for a profit. I am in no way speaking in an official capacity or on behalf of my company in this article.)

Now, I can debunk the PBS story in so many ways it would make your head spin. Give me a camera crew and several months and I can find disgruntled students from any college or university you name...from the University of Phoenix to Harvard or Yale. For-profit schools are getting a growing portion of veterans' educational benefits because we are doing a much better job than traditional institutions in meeting the needs of those students. Unlike state universities and other traditional schools, we don't get a penny of money from the government. Students do, in the form of Title IV student aid or veterans' benefits. They vote with their feet and go to schools that offer the education they need when they need it. This story further implies that veterans don't have sense enough to investigate schools and potential careers without the Veterans Administration or some other government entity showing them the way. That borders on slander.

In the story, we see a vet decide he wants to get a bachelor's degree in animation and video game design, signs up for classes at a for-profit, and then learns what a tough job field that is to break into. Seems that before I committed thousands of dollars and four years of my life to preparing for a career, I would invest twenty minutes on the Internet to see if there were jobs available. Your government spends millions of your tax dollars doing career research, publishes books available at the library and on the Internet, and anyone can access the data. Google "Occupational Outlook Handbook." There are regulations in place that forbid schools from promising jobs, lying about career options, or confusing or misleading potential students. If anyone does that...and especially to men who have risked their lives on my behalf...they should be punished severely.

By the way, for-profit schools like ours are required to graduate a large percentage of people who enroll and to place them in their chosen career fields. If we don't, we lose our accreditation and are out of business. That's why you won't find academic programs in philosophy, basket-weaving...or journalism...at most for-profit career colleges. If we see job demand diminishing, we drop the program. If we see increased demand, we start the classes, as we have just done with our green energy tech school in Denver. Start them with a big investment, taking the risk to hopefully meet the demand of students and the companies that will employ them, all with the expectation of being able to make a profit. The point is that good for-profit schools have no incentive to enroll people who are not good prospects to complete the program and graduate. Then, if we send ill-prepared grads out to potential employers, you can bet they won't hire them. Or anyone else we send them in the future. We have to do what we do well or we don't make a profit. Or stay in business. Or invest in new schools and programs and hire people.

But the even bigger issue here is how "for-profit" has gradually come to mean "fat cats in their corporate jets and yachts, ripping off poor, unsuspecting people." I know it seems obscene when we hear how much so-and-so company pays its CEO, or what the profits are for a bank we taxpayers just bailed out a couple of years ago. But stop and take a breath for a moment. If the company is doing something well and making lots of money doing it, they will be incentivized to do other things well, invest, and hire. So what's wrong with the company making ridiculous profits? And shouldn't we praise them for dong so?

As I mentioned before, if someone is truly breaking a law or regulation...and there are plenty of those laws and regs on the books, I can tell you...then they should be punished. Fined. Thrown into the calaboose. Enforce the existing regs! But don't punish anyone for making an honest profit. Or even a really huge profit. And I know it galls me, too, to see profitable companies avoid paying taxes, but don't blame them if our tax system is chaotic and they take advantage of the mess. They only follow the laws as written, just as you and I do when we do our own taxes. Are you going to stop deducting your charitable contributions just because you are a wonderful citizen and don't want to use a lawful part of the tax code?

Let's say I have a little start-up company that takes some risks, I invest my 401K money and put some startup costs on my Visa card, and we develop and market a widget. We are taking a big risk, but that widget is better than anyone else's and becomes a runaway hit. My little company starts to make some serious profits. We hire more people, build some more widget factories. We even raise the price on our widget because we can, and people willingly pay it. And that gives us more capital to develop another great product and build more plants and hire more folks. But I also pay myself more, too. And build a beach house, buy a corporate jet, join a country club, and take vacations in Europe. Note that at no point have I burned any money, taken unlawful advantage of anyone, or stuffed cash under the mattress so nobody else can see it or use it. Every self-indulgent thing I have done with those profits...willingly paid by people who like and want my widget...has created more wealth for others: the people I hire, the people who build and maintain those new factories, the carpenters, electricians, and plumbers who built my beach house, the guys who designed, built and sold me the corporate jet, the people who drill and refine the oil that I burn in the plane, the hundred or so people who are employed by the country club, the airline, hotel, and other workers who so ably hosted me on those European vacations.

Now, if in the process of creating and marketing that widget, I bribed somebody, lied about the dangerous materials we used to build it, colluded with anyone to set the price, or did anything else illegal or unethical, then hit me. Hit me hard. Prosecute me. Fine me. Send me to the slammer.

But in every other way, government should be doing all it can to encourage me and others like me to create, innovate, invest, and build something. It should not be throwing up new and convoluted ways of preventing me from creating wealth...and tax revenue...in a legal way. Or demonizing me because I make a profit.

Listen to me: so long as I am doing it legally and ethically, THE BIGGER PROFIT MY COMPANY MAKES THE BETTER IT IS FOR EVERYBODY!

If I make an inferior or dangerous product, or if I charge too much for it, the marketplace will speak loudly and clearly and I will not only not be banking all the filthy lucre, I will be shuttering my plants and laying off people. Especially now, consumers are better informed than ever.

I'll give you one more example. I heard a story the other day on NPR (see a pattern here?) about the huge profits being made by for-profit correctional companies. These are companies that contract with governmental entities to operate jails and prisons, and apparently, because they are doing something traditionally done by government (another parallel with the for-profit educational companies), they are not supposed to make too much profit. Never mind that they are doing something the cities, states or federal government don't want to do, and that they are doing it more efficiently and are saving taxpayers millions and millions of dollars. Or that the entities hiring them are perfectly well pleased with them. They should not make too much money doing what they contracted to do or they are ripping us off.

If they are mistreating prisoners, feeding them gruel, sleeping a dozen to a cell or in any way violating the terms of their contracts, then go after them. But don't punish them...and don't denigrate them...for making a profit, no matter how much it is.

Profits are not a zero-sum deal. A company making a profit legally and ethically is not hurting or abusing anyone. Profits don't get sent on a rocket ship to the moon. They are used to buy and invest and inject a boost into every other sector of the economy. Tax profits fairly, evenly and consistently so companies can plan for it and you will see our economic woes disappear.

Remove the profit motive from our free-enterprise system and you kill it. But maybe that is the agenda some people have. All profit is evil. "For-profit" is obscene. Anyone who makes a profit is a money-grubber and must be taking advantage of someone else or breaking laws to do so. Let government dictate how much profit a person or a company can make. Protect us from the robber barons!

That's the answer.

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.donkeith.com/

"There's no such thing as TV anymore"

2011-06-19T11:04:00.000-05:00

The television cable industry is struggling with the same rapid changing dynamics as all other branches of media are. The way consumers want to subscribe to, access and use media is changing so rapidly and in so many directions it can only be compared to trying to nail Jello to a tree. Some of the comments coming from the Nationa Cable Show clearly demonstrate how the leaders of what we still consider to be "cable television" have hammers in hand and a dollop of Jello ready to make the attempt. They just can't quite figure how to get it accomplished.

Perhaps the most telling comment was the shortest, from Time-Warner CEO Glenn Britt: "There's no such thing as TV anymore." How true! He says there are now, in the minds of most consumers, only "video devices." Case in point: how many of you use that big screen in the den just to watch over-the-air TV? And where else do you watch what might be classified as "video?"

This goes directly to my contention that regardless the medium, users want to be able to access their media in a variety of ways. Few are exclusive to one. We want to watch movies on our TV sets, on our iPads, on our computers, on our smart phones, and, yes, in theaters down at the mall. We like to read books on our computers, on our smart phones, on our Nooks or Kindles and, yes, on paper, bound, with a cover.

This is still baffling to traditional broadcasters, cable operators, movie studios, book publishers and others who have seen their businesses remain relatively the same for decades. Centuries in the case of book publishing. But now, suddenly, everything is topsy-turvy. Traditional business models that enriched them don't work anymore.

Those who cannot understand that they are no longer in the "TV," "radio," "movie theater," or "book publishing" business are in real trouble. Those who understand that they are in the "content" business and that they need to be able to deliver that content in whatever ways people want to consume it will be the ones that prosper. Whatever ways and forms. Radio with video. Books with dynamic web links. Audio with pictures. Magazines that talk and move. Video games with printed backstory. Movies that allow you to "chat" with the characters.

And wow! The implications of all this to the business of advertising is staggering! People not only want all this stellar content coming at them in a variety of ways but they also want it cheap, cheap, cheap. Cheap content distribution has almost always been possible because of the support of advertising. Advertising planned, priced, and paid for based on the numbers of eyeballs or ears that consumed it. Numbers determined by ratings measurement.

All that is changing just as quickly and dynamically as everything else associated with media. If there is no such thing as TV anymore, then how do TV advertisers get their message to folks? If I listen to radio in a wide variety of ways, how can advertisers assure I hear their sales pitch enough times to make it effective?

And believe me when I tell you that nobody can measure media usage the way media is now being used.

It's a wild scenario, my friend, filled with drama, intrigue, and unexpected plot changes! And I can't wait to see how the story develops.

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/

Our little sliver of time

2011-06-15T16:04:00.000-05:00

All the news sources--I saw it on Yahoo!, of all places--are churning out stories today about the current state of the surface of the sun. Three different sources have issued dire predictions about the sleepy sun and what it means for mankind...and not just us hams, who enjoy bouncing signals off an ionized atmosphere.

You know as well as I do that simply saying this cycle is slow to develop is not going to attract much reader interest. But if you say there is the possibility that the dormancy of Ole Sol portends historic implications, that it could reverse the effects of that evil, man-made global warming, that there could be unknown but potentially catastrophic weather events as a result...heck, even that we are on the verge of another Maunder Minimum, when the sun went to sleep for 300 years and we entered a "mini-Ice Age!"...then you will get some attention. Attention to your columns, your websites, your blogs, your books, your speeches.

I know it is human nature to see things from a very narrow perspective. Understanding things like climate change that usually takes eons to be obvious and variations in sunspot minima and maxima that only occur in eleven-year cycles are difficult for us mortals to do. Geologic time is impossible for us to comprehend in our simple little seven- or eight-decade life spans. That's why all the junk about rapid climate change (which I consider normal weather variation) has found so many who are willing to swallow it, hook, line and sinker.

I admit I know little about sunspots or solar weather, beyond the fact that more spots equal better propagation on the high-frequency radio bands and pretty displays of the Northern Lights. But seems to me that it is far too early to say the sun is going to be dozing for the next three centuries simply because cycle 24 is a tad bit slow to get moving. After all, many of these same "experts" were touting what an active cycle this was going to be...and doing it only a year or so ago.

Reminds me of the high-tech "weather rock" my wife has in her flower garden. "If this rock is wet, it is raining. If it is dry, it is sunny. If it is white, it is snowing."

I'm still hoping for an active solar cycle. I have somehow managed to be inactive in my amateur radio activities during each of the past two cycle maxima, and I had high hopes for that "arm-chair" ragchew with the Far East on 10 meters in the middle of the day. But if it doesn't measure up, so be it. I talked to guys all over the world at the lowest point, after all.

But most of all, I'd like to see everyone calm down a bit and not be so myopic. We see only a tiny slice of time in our own existence. Even so-called scientific observations are looking at a pitifully narrow slab of time.

Put it into perspective before you panic and sell all your ham gear. Or before you stop gazing northward for a glimpse of the aurora borealis.

By the way, I checked. There is nothing we can do about the state of the sun's surface, so why worry?

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/

An amazing piece of "kit"

2011-05-23T21:01:00.001-05:00

That's what the Brits call ham radio gear..."kit." And let me apologize right up front for two amateur radio blog posts in a row. However, I think this one speaks well to the rapid technological change that is going on in the hobby.

I remember when I started out...way back when Marconi was spitting sparks off an energized bit of wire...a ham radio station usually consisted of a big transmitter--like a Viking Valiant or a Heath DX-100--and an even bigger receiver. I had a Hammarlund HQ-180 and it was the size of a larger microwave oven. Only the rare amateur radio operator dared put radios into his vehicle, and the thought of putting any kind of station into a pack and heading for portable operation was unheard of.

Things have changed dramatically. I have a Yaesu FT-857D that is about the size of a cigar box and it, along with a tiny switching 12-volt power supply and a simple wire antenna, gets me on the air from anywhere there is AC. And Yaesu makes a version of my radio that has a built-in battery pack that removes the necessity of AC altogether. There are many other examples of very small, very advanced radios that can sit on the desk at home with a full set of features, be easily installed in the vehicle for mobile operating, or head for the campground or beach (or some emergency shelter somewhere).

Now, I have seen the most amazing bit of "kit" yet. Elecraft, a company that has really created some elegant new gear that takes advantage of emerging technology, announced a transceiver at the Dayton Hamvention in Ohio last weekend. The Elecraft KX3 is a truly remarkable slice of technology. HERE is a demonstration of this thing. I have no idea what the price will be, but I want one!

No, I want several!

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/

(PS: Somebody wrote that if you just use the words Elecraft and KX3 in a blog, the search engine robots beat a path to your site. We'll see! Any of you robots interested in hooking up with a KX3?)

Technological change finally comes to my basement

2011-05-15T17:11:00.000-05:00

So, I do this blog dedicated to rapid technological change and its effect on society, media and my beloved hobby of amateur radio. Seems I spend an inordinate amount of bandwidth on the "media" part, but that is where there has been the most fodder for blogs lately. I suspect it shall remain so. At least from my limited perspective, since that is where I make my living.

But I am pleased to report that technological innovation has finally come to my basement--right here in my office/ham shack. After years of resisting it, I have finally succumbed to the lure of DIGITAL MODE communication! My excuse has been a good one. I spend ten to twelve hours a day on a keyboard...doing advertising and marketing stuff at the office and writing books here in the home office. When I get ready for some ham radio operating, I don't necessarily want to go back to a keyboard yet again. The available gear has also been very kludgy with lots of cables running about, tricky interfaces to radio gear, and devices that put a big strain on computers.

But a couple of things shoved me in the direction of such acronyms as PSK31 and RTTY. One was the urging of some buddies (W9YNF, KW4J, and others) who sing the praises of the fun that is digital. Another was the claim that I could work much DX with very low power. And then I keep seeing rare countries pop up on the DX cluster spotting systems that are only working teletype or PSK31.

Then here comes a tiny little box that addresses my cables-everywhere worries. It is a neat little device called a SignaLink USB, which offers the ability to easily and quickly link a computer to a ham radio receiver/transmitter using minimal cabling, and, obviously the USB port. It does not get in the way of anything I might want to do on the computer or the radio, and simply plugs into a USB port on the 'puter and the accessory socket on my Kenwood TS-2000 radio. It even contains its own sound card so it does not muck up anything on the computer while it decodes digital tones being transmitted by other stations and takes my own keyboard input and converts it to a long list of modes. And hooking it up and getting it adjusted took a whopping fifteen minutes. Downloading and figuring out one of the shareware software programs was a bit more of a challenge but nothing to really fuss about.

I must admit I am impressed so far. I played with teletype back in the '70s when we had to use big, noisy, oily teletype machines and fairly frightening voltages to be able to print out stuff on fan-fold paper. Tuning in a station was a real task and any nearby interfering station ruined any hope of a good chat. The way it's done now is so far superior to that it is silly.

When I first tuned down to 14.070 megahertz on the 20-meter ham band, it sounded like a choir of banshees all screeching at once. Or like punk rock. But you know what's cool? You don't have to listen at all. You can turn down the volume and not hear anything at all when you use the accessory port on the radio. The SignaLink gets its audio back there. But how do you pull any intelligence out of all those stations, all basically on the same frequency at the same time, competing with each other?

Amazingly, it's easy. The software (I'm using a free program called Digital Master) shows what is called a "waterfall." It is a moving view, with each signal displayed as a little red/yellow trace making its way down the screen. All I have to do is click on one of those traces and words start appearing in a text window above. And it is guys chatting. On Saturday night, there must have been a dozen traces at once, all perfectly readable. Some are more yellow than red, indicating they are weaker, but I was able to print them even when they were almost invisible on the screen.

OK, so I decide to jump right in and answer a "CQ" (someone putting out a call looking for another station to talk with). He came right back to my call and we had a nice, short contact. And he was in Russia. So were the next three stations I spoke with. All came back to my initial call and all gave me "599," which is a very strong signal. Oh, and by the way, I was putting out a mere 20 watts! I was hooked! And after 48 years in the hobby, I had "gone digital."

I'm still having trouble getting used to dropping in the pre-set information at the right time without messing up and sending the wrong thing, and I'm still learning which function keys do what with the software, but so far, it seems like a very nice way to chat. I've talked with guys all over Europe so far on PSK31, and am soon going to play with this new-fangled version of radio teletype that promises to be so much better than that old oil-slinging, sprocket-throwing Kleinschmidt clunker I used back in the '70s.

See, embracing change is no big deal!

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith

Broadcast radio and smart phones

2011-04-22T10:36:00.000-05:00

It has been a while since I have charged off after the keepers of the keys to America's over-the-air radio broadcasting facilities and their obvious inability to comprehend what consumers want. Now, in a new demonstration of dunder-headedness, the group's lobbying and membership organization, the National Association of Broadcasters, has launched a really silly campaign to try to convince common folks to lobby Congress to require phone manufacturers to include radio reception "chips" in all phones sold in this country.

Never mind that there is no pent up demand for radio on cell phones. Those who want it typically already have the ability to access more radio streams than anyone could imagine or ever possibly use. Nor is there any indication that people even care. But get ready. Soon you will be hearing commercials...amid all the other many, many commercials...on your favorite radio station urging you to pick up the phone and call your rep in Washington and lobby for this redundant capability. In typical fashion, all radio broadcasters understand is "run some commercials" and put up a web site that meets no real perceived need.

Why? Because radio broadcasters simply don't understand. If they would put the time, effort, and money into providing compelling content and somethign worth listening for, and if they would provide that content in a variety of ways that people expect to be able to access it, then they just might be able to salvage what was once a powerful, dynamic, ubiquitous medium.

See more at my friend Mark Ramsey's blog HERE. Or, if you want a laugh and a prime demonstration of self-massage, visit the NAB web site devoted to this really goofy campaign HERE.

When I talk about the inability of some to comprehend technological change and adapt their industries to that change, I can't help but point at radio broadcasters. How ironic that folks who have those towers pointed high into the sky also have their heads so deeply buried in the sand!

Don Keith
http://www.donkeith.com/
http://www.n4kc.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith

Change sweeps away ten "solid" business types

2011-04-05T08:51:00.002-05:00

As the pace of change--and especially change of the technological variety--increases, there are inevitable winners and losers. We have to stay informed, adapt, and be ready to accept the inevitable. That is especially true if we are to be successful in business.

I have blogged at length here about how I am afraid my beloved medium of over-the-air radio is much too slow to adapt and expect to continue to remain viable. Thus I am mildly surprised that radio broadcasting did not make the list of top ten industries on life support recently featured in an article in THE STREET.

I was not surprised at any of the ones that did:

Wired communications carriers
Record stores
Photo-finishing
Video post-production
Newspapers
Stores that rent DVDs and video games.
Stores that rent formal wear and costumes (no technological aspect here...China and other countries are simply making clothing so cheaply that you can buy a tux as cheaply as you can rent one)
Textile mills...no need to mill cotton when synthetic fabrics can be produced cheaper and better
Apparel manufacturing...same reasons as the previous two bullets
Manufactured housing...again not necessarily a technological victim, just another one of the industries that have been hardest hit by the recession. This seems to me to be one that could innovate and come out of the recession when pent-up housing demand is unleashed, though.

I know it sounds Darwinian, but industry has to innovate or die. Technological change may be quick and getting quicker, but it is still possible to see it coming and feint and parry. But it takes insight and a willingness to listen and innovate.

Find out what the customer wants. Give it to him. Tell him you are giving it to him.

There it is: a degree in marketing in three sentences.

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.donkeith.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith
www.twitter.com/don_keith

Self Promotion...and a Treatise on Book Titles

2011-03-17T16:47:00.000-05:00

So, the paperback version of my latest book, WAR BENEATH THE WAVES, is due to ship to bookstores in early April. I got my copies yesterday, and the publisher has done a nice job.

I also note that my next book--publication date of November 11--is now being listed on Amazon.com, and they have the title as UNDERSEA WARRIOR: THE WORLD WAR II STORY OF MUSH MORTON AND THE USS WAHOO. That was one of the titles we were kicking around, so I suppose it is settled.

Titles are funny things. I'm not especially good at them and often defer to the publishers, whose job it is to create interest and sell copies. They do it every day, so I figure they must know what title ideas might help sell them.

My favorite two titles of my books are THE FOREVER SEASON and WIZARD OF THE WIND, both of which I came up with. I don't dislike any of the others, though. But there is more that goes into titling a book than you might think.

My title idea for WAR BENEATH THE WAVES was SOMEWHERE SOUTH OF HELL. I thought it described very well a hellish undersea incident involving depth charges, and was based on a description by a submariner that I had seen somewhere of just such an incident. But my editor informed me that WalMart--who sells more books than just about anybody nowadays--will not put a book on their racks with "damn," "hell," or other words they deem inappropriate.

OK. Those are their stores and they are perfectly within their rights to refuse to stock any item for any reason they want. And, by the way, I am perfectly willing to forego my wonderful title idea if it helps them help me to tell Charlie Rush's amazing story.

One more bit of shameless promotion: the book I co-wrote with radio personalities Rick Burgess and Bill "Bubba" Bussey (who is also ham radio op KJ4JJ) is in stores next week. WE BE BIG is a very interesting book, and I am proud to have been a part of it. If it follows most of their previous titles--with which I had no association whatsoever--it will be a New York Times bestseller.

That means I can then add that descriptor to my name! "New York Times best-selling author Don Keith!"

I like the sound of that!

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/

Friends in Faraway Places

2011-03-13T11:01:00.000-05:00

Even as our planet continues to shrink, we sometimes have difficulty understanding or contemplating disasters that happen on the other side of the globe from where we reside. It is so remote, so...well...foreign. However, one of the things about my hobby of amateur radio is that whatever happens and wherever on the planet it occurs, I have probably spoken on the radio with and know someone who lives there.
I remember a few years ago when the earthquake hit Costa Rica, I was immediately concerned about my friend, Carlos TI8II. I heard him on the air a few days later and thankfully, he and his family were okay. He told an amusing story about how his wife was still mad at him. It seems that as soon as the shaking stopped, his first concern was his 80-foot tower in the backyard. His wife accused him of checking on his tower before he did her.

Well, the horrible disaster in Japan this weekend was another instance in which I immediately thought of the many Japanese amateur radio friends I have made over the years. One is Koichi JR1MLT. I have spoken with Koichi several times and we exchange messages on the reflector group for the hexbeam antenna, which we both use for our shortwave radio work. He posted this message on the reflector this morning:

It is 11:30AM, Sunday morning here in Yokohama, Japan. Myself and my family are OK. The antennas and shack are OK as well but many stuffs came fallen down on the floor. Not serious fortunately.
All the trains and public transportations in Tokyo area on Friday were out of operation. It made many people including myself stayed overnight in the offices, etc. I finally returned home Saturday afternoon.
As you heard through the news over one thousand people were killed and/or are missing due to the giant tsunami in mainly JA7 area. It was nothing but unbelievable! But it happened....
Currently the most horrible news is the accident at the atomic power plant in Fukushima (appx. 250 km north of Tokyo) where a very serious conditions at Plant #1 and may be #2 and #3.

The government spokes man is trying to calm down the public but his words smell something wrong....

I sincerely hope things will get well soon but no idea for the time being. Even now some shaking keeps going. I would sincerely appreciate your help and support globally.
Regards,
Koichi
JR1MLT

Not video on CNN or Fox. Real words from a friend in a faraway place. A friend made through this magical hobby of ours.

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/

Future of media gets cloudier and cloudier

2011-03-02T22:01:00.000-06:00

Big announcement this week that Clear Channel...which started as a single radio station in San Antonio and is now the largest owner of radio outlets in the world...has purchased Thumbplay, a Pandora-like cloud-based music service. Why? Because CC finally understands, unlike most other traditional broadcasters, that listeners will expect to find their media in myriad places, available on a wide range of "devices," so they can consume that media in any way they wish.

I first met Bob Pittman when he was in broadcasting. He left radio to start a little cable channel called Music Television (MTV). He later worked with AOL and was unfortunate enough to ascend to the CEO position after the ill-conceived merger with Time-Warner. Now, he has joined Clear Channel to try to help them understand the rapidly changing nature of media.

HERE he is interviewed on CNBC's "Power Lunch" about the Thumbplay acquisition and what is happening in media.

Funny thing is, nobody has it figured out yet. And when somebody does, it will change the next day. But somebody has to lead radio into the future. Pittman is one guy who could do it. Watch this one. It could be the harbinger of...not spring, like the first robin...but of the future of mass media.

Are you hungry yet?

2011-02-21T19:38:00.000-06:00

Interesting article on Yahoo about how the planet will have to look totally different from space by 2050...a mere 39 years into our future. See the article HERE. The premise is that if population growth continues at its current rate, we will either run out of food or have to find radically new ways to produce it.

Kind of makes me hungry.

The author indicates that capping growth will become more and more a function of government. People will either be told they cannot have more than 1.7 kids...or whatever the number is to stem growth...or will be rewarded in some way for doing so.

Maybe get an extra slab of meat on their hamburger?

Your cost-saving government at work

2011-02-01T20:33:00.000-06:00

OK, regulars know that I rarely do anything political on this little self-indulgence I call a blog. I would usually rather talk about technological change, media and my beloved hobby of amateur radio. I'm not apolitical, though. Just hard to pin down or label according to the usual definitions. Truth is I am way, way conservative on some things and way, way liberal on others. Add it all up and I guess it puts me--on average--somewhere near the middle.

But our government's proclivity to spend more and more and more money that we don't have is really bothering me lately. Even with tax season and the usual awareness of how much of my income gets sucked in, I do maintain that I don't mind paying my fair share. If I had even an inkling that the various governments out there were being good stewards of those involuntary contributions I make.

That's why I thought this bit of whimsy I received in my email today was especially appropriate:

President Obama has given his cabinet instructions to cut $100 million from the $3.5 trillion federal budget! I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to do the same thing with my personal budget. I spend about $2000 a month on groceries, medicine, bills, etc, but it's time to get out the budget cutting ax, go line by line through my expenses, and see what I can do.

I'm going to cut my spending at exactly the same ratio -1/35,000 of my total budget. After doing the math, it looks like instead of spending $2000 a month, I'm going to have to cut that number by six cents!

Yes, I'm going to have to get by with spending $1999.94, but that's what sacrifice is all about. I'll just have to do without some things, that are, frankly, luxuries. I expect all of you to follow the lead of our president and I and make similar sacrifices.

Just plain fun

2011-01-12T09:24:00.000-06:00

Look, I'll be the first to admit that amateur radio is not a hobby for everyone. I even wrote an article about the subject for the eHam.net web site. But for a bunch of us--and we are not all nerds, geeks, or sparks-for-brains--the hobby offers a lot.

Some love it for the technical aspect, and the hobby continues to lead the way with new and innovative ways to involve computers, wi-fi, and the Internet with our radios. (My own things are antennas and propagation, and with the unusual nature of sunspot cycle 24 and how it affects us all in more ways than most folks know, it is a fascinating time for us solar flux watchers!)

Others like radiosport, using their "rigs" in active competition with other hams around the world in contests or chasing operators in rare, exotic places. (I am a casual contester, too, since it is a good way to learn more about propagation and how my homebrew aerials perform...plus it is just a lot of fun! There is a group of hams about to set up and operate on Spratley Island...bet you never heard of it. And I talked to a station operating from the Japanese exploration base in Antarctica the other day. Heck, you can even talk to the International Space Station as it orbits above earth.)

Still others like helping out in emergency situations, and perform valuable public service. A lot of us simply enjoy chatting with like-minded people around the planet. (I had an enjoyable conversation ["QSO"] with a fellow in Latvia yesterday, and exchanged signal reports with guys in Namibia, French Polynesia, Latvia, European Russia...and Nashville, Tennessee...just in the last few days.)

Here's a great video of a ham in Melbourne, Australia, showing us his set-up in a park in the city where he just likes to go operate for a while, using solar power and a simple radio station. You can hear the joy in his voice!

Okay. Enough selling. If you are interested...click here for more info on the hobby.

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/

That picture of me

2011-01-04T15:36:00.000-06:00

I have a photo I use on my web sites and even here on this blog. It was taken about ten years ago by a photographer from a local daily newspaper (like so many daily papers, it is now defunct) for an article they were doing on me. When my book editor at St. Martin's Press saw the photo, he said, "That's a good shot. You should use it as your publicity photo."

Bob Wyatt was seldom wrong so I did. And now, as I am on the verge of having my daughter-in-law, who is a good photographer, take some new pictures for that use, I am reminded of a telling exchange I had recently with a young person regarding the photo. An exchange that fits the theme of this blog exactly.

"Don, what is that thing in the picture?" he asked.

Thinking he meant the "old-fashioned" CRT monitor, those big monsters that you can't even give away anymore at garage sales. I told him.

"No, not that."

"Oh, the mouse," I said. "There was a time when mice had cords that actually plugged into the computer."

"No, not that," he persevered. "I mean that black thing over there next to the lamp. The thing with the twisty cord on it."

Then I realized he was talking about my desk phone. I tried to explain to him that telephones once had cords that not only ran between the headset and the main part of the 'phone, but had to plug into something in the wall, too. You couldn't walk all around the house talking because you couldn't get any farther away from the phone itself than the "twisty cord" could reach.

He blinked a few times and finally said, "Yeah, I think my grandma had one of those one time." I didn't even try to describe rotary dials and such arcane stuff as that. And I also resisted the impuse to ask him if he was familiar with phone booths.

Do you realize how many people do not even have landline telephones at home anymore? And will never know about cords, wall plugs, long-distance charges, party lines, telephones without video screens and apps...

Similar thing hit me just yesterday. A group of us were talking about what our kids and grandkids got for Christmas (my darling Alexa got a Barnes & Noble Nook, bless her heart) and one fellow said his kid got a CD. A CD album, with songs on it. She had no idea what it was. And then Dad realized the only things they had that would play it was their BluRay player or their computer. Finally, it dawned on them--on the kid first and then her old man--that she needed to get on the computer and put the tracks she wanted into her iTunes folder so she could download them to her iPod.

Have you tried to describe a 33-and-a-third record album or a 45 RPM record to anyone under 30? Of dragging a needle through a groove on a piece of plastic and amplifying the resulting vibrations as a way of playing music?

Of having to buy a whole album of bad songs to get the one or two that you really wanted to own?

Save your breath for talking on the telephone.

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith

THE DIGITAL STORY OF THE NATIVITY

2010-12-23T17:22:00.000-06:00

I don't think anything says "change!" any better than this. Enjoy...

Don Keith N4KC
www.n4kc.com
www.donkeith.com
www.facebook.com/donkeith

Fun with graphs and charts

2010-12-15T16:55:00.000-06:00

Want a really cool way to demonstrate the progress of man over the last few centuries. Here it is. And it's fun!

See. Numbers can be kind of cool. Plus you can see easily that everything is NOT going to hell in a handbasket!

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith

A few words about criticism

2010-12-10T11:06:00.000-06:00

Someone once said, "If you believe the good reviews, you have to believe the bad ones, too."

I totally agree. After a long career in broadcasting and now, with over twenty books in print, you can be sure that I have seen my share of both. When my first novel was published, THE FOREVER SEASON, I could hardly wait for that first round of reviews. Based on my very experienced editor's feedback, I just knew they would be uniformly glowing. Not so. Both Publishers Weekly and Library Journal, the two sources in which those in the publishing industry put the most stock, were awful. Never mind that few potential readers ever see these--unless the publishing house yanks them out as blurbs when they are positive and puts them on covers and press releases that zoom out to the masses. And never mind that we got scores of other reviews that were absolutely wonderful and never--to this day--ever received another negative one.

You see, those two highly subjective reviews caused the sales and publicity staff at St. Martins Press to totally lose interest and move on to other books that were not roasted in PW and LJ.

Now, jump ahead fifteen years. Anyone with a computer and an Internet connection can post reviews on such sites as Amazon.com and Bestreads.com. It does not matter if they have read the book or not. Or whether or not they like the way the author combs his hair. They can give glowing reviews for no good reason or completely pan an author's work, based on any criteria they want. And people considering purchasing those books can't really tell which reviews are helpful and which ones are garbage.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
I admit I check travel review sites when I am booking a hotel, and I read the customer reviews and consider their rankings. In my ham radio hobby, if I am considering a purchase, I go to eham.net and scroll through user reviews, and take that into consideration. I even take time to post reviews on those sites in an effort to be helpful to others, and try my best to remain objective.
I'm sure hotels, restaurants, and amateur radio equipment manufacturers--among others--have developed thick skins. I wonder how many even bother to check the reviews they are getting on these sites.
It is a little tougher, though, for folks like authors. We bleed and sweat to make our works as good as we can make them. Then, we have some uninformed or prejudiced yahoo call our baby ugly for no good reason!
Hey, I'm a big boy, and I know what I do will not appeal to everyone. Constructive criticism is always welcomed. So is fact-correcting. But when I see "reader comments" that are scathing, based on purely arbitrary opinions, it bothers me. I have one fellow who has posted lengthy diatribes on several of my World War II submarine books (I have resisted replying to him on the actual sites where they appear because I don't want to legitimize his rants, but I do appreciate others who have commented on his stuff.). If his points were consistent or made any sense, I would accept them and move on, but it appears he has an almost personal axe to grind. Truth is, he is so far off base, it doesn't hurt my feelings at all. But the trouble is, I know the comments could negatively impact book sales. And that does bother me on several levels.

First, he apparently has not read the books since he makes mistakes about names, dates, and many of the facts. He chides me for not giving more detail and then makes an issue of the amount of detail I give in other areas. He wants footnotes and sources like a scholarly work, not understanding that these books are not intended to be that at all, but human stories of real people in extraordinary circumstances. And they are not written as historical record or analysis for scholars, but for people looking for good, real stories that just happen to be true, and may not know much about WWII history or submarines. I only try to tell enough to put the events and personalities into context. He rants about my boring style in one sentence then talks about how the good writing style masks a lack of scholarly historical analysis in another. He also seems to think that my not being a former submariner prohibits me from being able to tell these stories about submariners.
Yes, a few factual errors creep in...some my fault, some not...in a book as full of facts as these are. It always galls me when a book typesetter or line editor accidentally changes a date or number. We just corrected a fewof those in the upcoming paperback release of WAR BENEATH THE WAVES. These manuscripts have had many eyes of well-informed people on them, including men who spent a large portion of their lives on submarines did not catch them and others who actually lived through what I write about. And, by the way, none of them are major flaws at all. (The one I keep hearing about is a wrong number I gave when converting knots to miles-per-hour when talking about the speed of a Japanese destroyer...and we still don't know where that bogus number in the text came from...I know the formula!)
So I guess my question is, how do we deflect misdirected arrows of criticism when everybody with a keyboard has a quiver full of arrows? Or should we? With the hotel and amateur radio gear reviews, the sheer volume of input allows us to quickly cull the outliers--pro or con. It's the same concept as Wikipedia, where incorrect info is immediately corrected by all the army of people looking at it. If a ham radio antenna has a 4.8-out-of-5 average rating after 200 reviews, I am probably not going to pay much attention to the one guy who gave it a zero unless he has a darn good reason. However, on most books with limited sales--like mine--one or two negative reviews carry a lot of weight when Amazon starts adding up the stars.
Just like Publishers Weekly and Library Journal.
Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith
www.twitter.com/don_keith

Things that are going bye-bye

2010-11-30T12:27:00.000-06:00

Got an interesting email today, talking about all the things we take for granted--things most of us assume will always be with us--that will soon be gone, ready or not. I disagree with a couple of them. But as change inevitably erases the un-erasable, look for many of these things to soon be gone bye-bye:

The Post Office. (Saw one of the USPS's top bureaucrats on TV the other day justifying his archaic department by talking about how mail carriers check on the elderly and report fires and crime. Sigh.)
The check. I could add cash money, too. Both rapidly going away, replaced by plastic and cyber-money.
The newspaper. I've talked about that here before. No more ink on your hands. News that is 24 hours old? How twentieth century!
The book. I'm not convinced that the traditional paper book is gone just yet. Other ways to read? Sure, and as an author, anything that encourages people to read and makes it easier for them to buy "books" is fine with me. But I still think enough people like the feel, portability, and ease of use so that they'll still have to print and bind them for a while yet.
Land line telephone. A given. When cell service is good enough at my house, bye-bye land line.
Music. (?) The writer says that since nobody exposes good, new music, the entire genre is self-destructing. I think new ways of exposing are emerging. Exciting days are coming.
Television. Yes, for over-the-air or cable, and for the big four networks. No for video. Our grandkids will not know the difference. TV is moving pictures on a screen of some kind. Moving pictures are moving pictures, whether it comes from a tower on a hill or via wireless.
Computers with hard drives and data stored on CDs/DVDs. It's all going to the "cloud." Everything you would normally keep on your machine will reside out there in the ether somewhere...software, data, pictures. And you will use myriad devices to access it, not just a desktop computer.
Privacy. 'Nuff said.

Agree?

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith

The broadcasting feel-good blurb of the year!

2010-10-28T16:59:00.000-05:00

Broadcasters have their hind end so far up their ailementary canal these days it's almost hilarious. It seems difficult but every day they seem to manage to top the previous day's example of trying to convince themselves everything is rosy. Here's today's bit of self-massage, from INSIDE RADIO's email newsletter:

The radio industry had its best cost per thousand (CPM) rates in five months in October, according to the SQAD-Inside Radio CMP Tracker. Costs to ad buyers were up by as much as 15% compared to one year ago, the latest data shows.

So, kind reader, glance around and tell me what might cause the rates stations charge for advertising to be higher this October than last year. Higher ratings? No. They continue to tail off (look at rating numbers...percentage of all people out there who listen to a particular station...NOT share...percentage of people listening to any radio who are listening to a particular station).

Better results? Hardly. I know it is difficult to measure, but does anyone really believe advertising, especially on radio, is producing better results than last year?

So why would rates be higher, according to SQAD?

POLITICAL! Millions and millions of dollars are being dumped into media right now. Even though broadcasters are required by law to sell political ads at their "lowest unit rate," you can be sure that unit rate was established outside the political window and it is not radically different from what other advertisers have been paying.

So that's why rates and revenues are up. Don't delude yourselves, broadcasters. The holiday season will help, but once all the levers are pulled and the chads have been hung on November 2, reality sets in.

Don Keith
http://www.donkeith.com/

Simple...but complicated

2010-10-26T11:24:00.000-05:00

To most radio listeners and TV viewers out there, the sea change in technology that is radically altering over-the-air broadcasting is little more than a hum. They still see images flickering on the TV screens...though admittedly now in high def or even 3-D and with a lot more choices...and there are 800 million radios so switching one on and finding some music or people screaming at each other on talk or sports radio is still an option.

It's simple. Radio and TV are still there, just as they have been since the 1920s for radio and 1940s for TV. But behind the scenes, it is vastly more complicated, and how broadcasters are handling change is shaping the future of the media for viewers/listeners, advertisers, and station owners in fundamental ways.

Case in point is the ongoing haggle between music licensing entities and radio broadcasters. Unbeknownst to most listeners, radio stations pay for the privilege of broadcasting music. That money goes to the people who write and produce the songs we listen to. The amount each station pays is determined by a formula based on how much revenue the station takes in.

Now the music guys want to change how things work. With radio stations not only casting out radio signals but also streaming their music programming on the Internet, the music licensing agencies have dollar signs in their eyes. They want more money for the use of their songs. This really complicates things. First, listeners are not aware but the union for voice talent has been lobbying for more royalties for their members because of streaming. So far, stations have resisted paying that, and that's why, if you listen to your local station's stream, you won't hear the commercials. They're covered by music, station promos, or other commercials that don't use union talent. I won't even go into what a hassle that is, or how it effects things like the rates advertisers pay or how it negatively impacts the potential reach and effectiveness of a station's commercials. Or the fact that stations typically make no money on their streams. Complicated!

The National Association of Broadcasters has a committee that has been negotiating with music licensing groups, trying to come up with a new formula that would include some payment for Internet music usage. Broadcasters are in a tough spot. Audiences are diluted. Revenue is down. Wall Street still demands stations' bottom lines increase year-over-year. Ratings services can't really measure listening on the Internet combined with over-the-air. Advertisers don't know what they are getting for their money.

As mentioned, commercials only play over the air, not on the Internet stream. Stations have not been able to figure a way to make money on the Internet stream, yet they are convinced audiences demand it...whether that is true or not. So why pay more--for commercial talent and the music you put on the air and the stream--if you are not making more money? Especially when stations are struggling to make a profit at all. And don't radio stations help sell music by playing it on the air? And on the Internet? There has even been talk of CHARGING record companies and artists to expose their music. That has not gone very far at all, nor will it.

All this leads up to the announcement yesterday that the NAB committee has proposed a plan in which royalties paid to play music will increase, but not necessarily in response to streaming. No, it would be tied to penetration of chips in smart phones that would allow the devices to tune broadcast radio. Not apps. Chips, inside phones. The broadcasters have been lobbying for a long time to have the Federal Communications REQUIRE in all phones sold in this country.

Huh?

First, if broadcasters have not figured out how to make money off streaming existing programming on the web, how do they expect to make money--and pay bigger royalties--based on smart phones being able to get over-the-air broadcasts? As mentioned, there are 800 million radios already. Pandora and all those guys who compete for listeners with terrestrial radio don't need chips in phones. They have 80 million users without it.

Truth is, this chip-in-the-phone thing has been a priority for broadcasters for a while now. For some reason, they are convinced that having a "radio" built into a cell phone will solve all problems.

Here's the simple truth: radio is ubiquitous already. Being able to get a station is not the problem. There are apps for that already with more on the way.

No, putting something on their air (and Internet stream) that will entice people to listen to them instead of robotic sources like Pandora or satellite niche formats like Sirius/XM is what needs to happen. Monetize those outlets by learning who listeners are and providing advertisers multiple ways to target and reach those listeners with a compelling message. Build a loyal tribe of listeners (and viewers, too..."radio" MUST become a visual medium!) who respond to what the station and its sponsors say. Then work with the people who own the music and who voice commercials for real-world licensing so stations can do what they need to do.

Oh, and convince music providers that their wagon is hitched to radio's star. If radio goes away, the plight of record companies and music publishers will be worse. Make them partners, not enemies. Tie royalties to broadcaster success, not to government-mandated gizmos in cell phones.

Determining license fees based on penetration of mandated "radio" chips in cell phones is a waste of time and effort.

It is, at best,a solution in search of a problem.

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/
http://n4kc.blogspot.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith
www.twitter.com/don_keith
don@donkeith.com

Yi-Tan...wish I had known!

2010-10-22T10:07:00.000-05:00

When I started this blog about rapid technological change, I wish I had known that "yi tan" was Mandarin Chinese for "change." That would have been so cool! However, somebody much more linquistically aware than I has jumped on the web with an interesting discussion forum on change and they grabbed that moniker.

They came to my attention through a podcast they hosted that discusses online radio, including who is doing it, who has failed at it, what is going to happen with it, and more. It's an interesting 45 minutes of so.

When everyone can access the Internet from a device in the dash of their car (sound like a "radio?"), and whether it works by wi-fi, smart-phone technology, satellite or tin-can-and-a-string, it will revolutionize media in a way I think none of us can predict. Imagine streaming Shrek to the kids in the backseat while mom and dad use Bluetooth earpieces to listen to each person's favorite music or a talk show. Or maybe one of them is chatting--hands-free, of course--with a friend. All this while a GPS-like device displays where they are, how far they are from their exit, and what the weather is like along the route.

You know what? All this is coming, and it is just around the corner.

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.donkeith.com/
http://www.n4kc.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith
www.twitter.com/don_keith

"National Public Radio" no longer exists

2010-10-13T14:00:00.000-05:00

It's true. "National Public Radio" has gone away. It is no longer in existence. Note the quotes, though, as you read this from the Washington Post:

NPR says it’s abbreviating the name it has used since its debut in 1971 because it’s more than radio these days. Its news, music and informational programming is heard over a variety of digital devices that aren’t radios.

In case you haven't noticed, rapid technological change has brought us myriad new ways for us to get entertainment, news, commentary, and just plain junk. "Radio" as we know and love it is no longer a tower on a hill and a 100KW transmitter blowing RF all over the countryside. "Radio" is not even just audio anymore.

We have a local morning show here in my hometown (Rick and Bubba...look for their new book early next year, partially written by yours truly...and Bubba is actually Bill Bussey KJ4JJ) that plays video clips on a "radio" show. And simultaneously broadcasts on about fifty over-the-air stations around the country even as they can be found on Sirius-XM from the satellite, on the worldwide web, and on UStream, which carries a video version of the program.

Aren't you noticing how many TV network shows are urging you to be online as you watch so you can see additional material, vote on stuff, or just see more. NASCAR races offer an abundance of online stuff to go with the TV or radio play-by-play. Add in blogs, Facebook and Twitter updates, individual web sites, and more and you can see the future of media is here. Now.

And it is MULTI-media!

Don Keith N4KC

So many topics, so little time!

2010-10-07T08:53:00.000-05:00

Between the day job (in budget meetings all day every day this week), the book projects (working on a wonderful story about one of the most unique characters of World War II, a great story about three old vets returning to Washington to visit the WWII memorial, and a sequel to FINAL BEARING), and some upcoming minor eye surgery, I am having trouble finding time to post here. And never mind getting on the air on the ham radio! My poor amp has not even been turned on since Saturday. She's feeling neglected.

I did want to mention a wonderful editorial in the current issue of CQ Magazine. Rich Moseson W2VU covers a subject near and dear to my heart: attracting young people to our hobby. Near and dear because I, like so many of my generation, fell in love with the magic of radio at an early age, got our licenses, and many of us used that interest as a springboard to careers in related fields. If you ever feel depressed about the upcoming generation--and it seems it is a requirement for us curmudgeons to decry "these damn kids today!"--READ THIS EDITORIAL. CQ has been so kind as to post it on the Web so you can read it without subscribing to the magazine or standing in your local bookstore.

And for my broadcasting buds out there, I have been trying to work this quote into a post and expand upon it. However, since they are now calling me to yet another all-day budget meeting, I am going to throw it out there. Feel free to comment until I get the opportunity. The quote:

“Digital is not about replacing traditional [media], it’s about empowering it."

It comes from an author and commentator named Rick Mathieson, whose latest book is THE ON-DEMAND BRAND. Interesting thoughts, and they come at a time when those in traditional media--especially radio--take two stances: head-in-the-sand or "the world is coming to an end!" Neither is appropriate or the way to survive the rapid technological change we are experiencing in media.

Okay, okay! I'm coming! Get the Power Points and the spreadsheets warmed up. And I'll try to talk about Rick's propositions later. Meanwhile, comment away!

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith

"We are in a perpetual future"

2010-09-26T13:30:00.000-05:00

If you have fifty minutes or so, listen to this PODCAST. It is a program produced by the local NPR station here in Birmingham, Alabama, hosted by a college classmate of mine and friend Greg Bass. Some other folks I know make appearances on this month's show, too. That's because the subject is "radio." Broadcast radio, to be precise.

It takes an interesting look--especially the first twenty minutes or so--at the changes in the medium, nationally as well as right here. If you are from or spent time in the Birmingham area, you will hear some familiar voices, from Greg himself to Rick Dees to Rick and Bubba.

One very interesting interview is with Vivian Shuler, the CEO of National Public Radio. She uses one of my favorites lines...one I use all the time: "Media has changed...changed since we sat down here to talk." She emphasizes that by maintaining that "We are in a perpetual future" due to the rapid changes in how people seek and use media.

It's interesting stuff and well worth the listening. I'd love to hear your comments, too.

(Thanks to my friend Dennis Dease N4NR for forwarding the link to the podcast.)

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith

Politics...sorry!

2010-09-18T13:31:00.000-05:00

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm wandering off technology, media and amateur radio just a bit today, but sometimes I can't help myself. Those who know me well know that I am a staunch conservative on some issues, like size and reach of government, and a raving liberal on others, such as human rights. On the political spectrum, that means I have no real home, though I probably land closer to "Libertarian" than to any other label.

Someone sent me a quote from Abraham Lincoln that I especially like and, with your indulgence, I will share it here:

You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out the trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

See why I think these words are especially appropriate for today? I am no fan of greed and corruption, whether it be government or big business. As Libertarian as I lean, I think a legitimate function of a federal government is regulation of business--to a point. Taxation should be only for the true needs of government and the people it represents, not to promote any percieved social or societal benefit, or to punish those who work hard, invest, take risk, hire people, pay wages, and build wealth honestly. If reasonably regulated, but otherwise left unfettered, free enterprise and the profit motive will greatly improve the status of us all. Patchwork legislation, redistribution of wealth, or ill-concieved regulation based on hysteria or poor data will only continue to cripple the one thing that has made our country the envy of the world.

And it will only continue to take us down the path of mediocrity. Man, do we need more of Mr. Lincoln's common sense today!

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith

Fun with mathematics

2010-09-14T21:20:00.000-05:00

First, for the three or four people who actually follow this exercise in egoism, sorry it has been a couple of weeks since the last post. I had the thrill of being in Cincinnati for the annual submarine veterans' convention, and on VJ Day, I was actually standing there behind a stack of my books talking to guys who helped win that war. These guys are amazing! Bitter-sweet time, though. We had a great breakfast with the sub vets amateur radio group on Friday morning, organized by Jim Flanders, W0OOG. Then I got word that my friend John Crouse had had a serious heart attack. John was the manager of the submarine museum at St. Mary's, Georgia, and has been a big help to me on a couple of my WWII books. Unfortunately, John passed away a couple of days later. Those who try to preserve this little niche of history have lost a tireless curator.

Now, to the topic. An article in one of the broadcast media newsletters reports:

Seventy-six percent of American cell phone owners would consider paying a one-time fee of 30 cents to gain access to their local radio stations through a built-in radio chip on their mobile phone, according to a new online survey commissioned by the NAB and conducted by Harris Interactive. Two-thirds (66%) of all adults and 71% of 18-34 year-olds say they would listen to local radio stations on their cell phones if that feature was available.

The newsletter sees this as a positive. Huh? A quarter of cell phone users would not even consider adding the ability to listen to radio stations on their phones, even if it only cost 30 cents! And that amazing number of folks who would say they would only "consider" it. Of course, if they did not have to do anything at all--the second question in the survey--only 66% of users would even think about taking the trouble.

Then there is the Pew survey that reports: Fewer people are turning to radio for news and information than at any point in the history of media usage analysis. Remember when radio bragged, "See tonight on TV, read it tomorrow morning in the newspaper, but hear it NOW on radio!" See, I think radio still has the unique ability to put listeners in the middle of whatever is going on...even better than the Internet. But that takes talent, equipment, and, unfortunately, imagination.

And friends, that last commodity is in short supply in the scintillating, fast-paced world of radio broadcasting.

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith
www.twitter.com/don_keith

Just when you thought you were ahead of technology...

2010-08-16T12:02:00.000-05:00

For those of us who try to stay up to date on the mass of changing technology, here comes word that the stuff we just this minute adopted is already passe. An article on Yahoo claims the following very, very recent products are way past being the final answer...thanks to the iPhone and the Android. ("The iPhone and the Android?" Sounds like the title of some Pixar animated feature!).

The article claims, "The future of technology is integration, something Apple's iPhone and Google's Android products have a better grasp of than, say, Garmin's personal navigation devices or Acer's netbooks. Though there seems to be enough room for everyone -- with the Commerce Department finding last week that American spending on tech items increased 1.8% from 2007 through the first six months of this year while spending on appliances, furniture and clothing declined -- analysts agree that the only thing separating some gadgets from the grave is the size of their displays."

It goes on, "With motion-control gaming, e-books, navigation, mid-range-megapixel cameras and myriad other computing options already included in smartphones, the market space and need for more screens is shrinking. While the iPad is among the devices shrugging it off with more than 14 million sales so far this year, the nearly 4 percentage point growth in the smartphone market so far in 2010 and the $6.2 billion pundits predicts will be spent downloading 4.5 billion mobile applications in app stores this year has navigation devices, netbooks and even Nintendo starting to feel pressure in their numbers."

So what's now virtually worthless, ready for the scrap heap?

Digital cameras
Video game consoles
Navigation devices (such as those manufactured by Garmin)
Netbooks
E-readers

By the way, if you are no longer using any of those devices and have made the transition to doing it all on your iPhone or Android, I'll be happy to take them off your hands, so to speak. I'll see that they get the proper attention!

Don Keith
http://www.donkeith.com/
http://www.n4kc.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith

They know where you live...

2010-08-14T11:29:00.000-05:00

Did you see THIS? As it becomes easier to communicate and share thoughts and images with others, we give up more and more of our ability to remain hidden or maintain any semblance of privacy. As with many things, it is a trade-off. I love the ability to post pictures of my grandkids, for friends and their family members on the West Coast. But I must also be aware that anytime I do so, I am posting those images for anyone anywhere on the planet to see.
And you know what? There are dangerous people out there.
Facebook is facing these issues. People chat and post and share things on Facebook that they'd hesitate to chat about, post, or share around a table with friends at lunch.
To make an ancient analogy, I remember when the average police scanner could pick up mobile telephone calls. I had one of the channels programmed in and heard some truly wild conversations. Did people did not realize they were--in effect--broadcasting? That anyone with a $30 Radio Shack scanner could eavesdrop on their chats?
But how is that different nowadays? All you need is a computer, the Internet, and a Facebook account.

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith

545 People

2010-08-11T13:42:00.000-05:00

This really has nothing to do with technological change, media or amateur radio. However, it seems an appropriate time to dust off this evergreen from a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel. The age-old argument is, "My senator or congressman is fine. It's the other ones that are rotten." If everybody felt that way, these guys and gals would have office for life, since we have no limits on terms.

It is also an almost insurmountable obstacle, too, when the representatives who are able to bring the most federal taxpayer money back to their districts or states--and brag about how much more they were able to get than was contributed as taxes by their constitutents--are the ones who get re-elected. Re-elected over and over.

The two big flaws in our representative form of government: 1) From the day he or she is elected, everything a senator or member of Congress does is aimed at getting re-elected, and 2) A seat in Congress gives someone an extremely powerful platform from which to run for the next term...one that a challenger finds very difficult to overcome...even if the incumbent is a total dolt.

I could add a third flaw: I really don't want to vote for anybody who would WANT to run for public office. Fewer and fewer are willing to do so for a variety of reasons. And even if one does, and miraculously gets elected, he is corrupted almost immediately.

Sigh!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

545 PEOPLE--By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.. Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits? Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insolvable government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power..

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...

This "ham radio" stuff is fun!

2010-08-01T09:02:00.000-05:00

I know. Two amateur radio posts in a row. But several interesting things lately prompted me to break my "variety" rule.

One was the receipt early this morning of a press release from my friend, fellow ham and writer, Wayne Long K9YNF. He will be celebrating his golden anniversary in the hobby by operating from Fox Island, Alaska, on August 16 through 20. He will be using solar power, operating mostly around 14.260 mhz on the 20-meter band and 18.128 on 17 meters. Wayne maintains a very interesting and entertaining web site at http://www.longshortstories.com/.

This comes on the heels of an operating event called Islands on the Air in which amateur radio types get on the air from islands--big and small--all over the world. I spoke with folks on big islands like Australia, New Zealand, and Great Britain, and tiny ones, such as one in Long Island Sound off Norwalk, Connecticutt, and another in the South Cook Islands in the South Pacific. Great fun and interesting people!

Just this weekend, and in only a few hours available for getting on the air, I have spoken with a trucker as he went from the Texas Panhandle into New Mexico, another very nice fellow who lives in the suburbs of Paris, and a ham in an aircraft over Kansas headed for an air show in Illinois. I also spoke with what we call a "special events station," on the air from the famous Oshkosh, Wisconsin, airplane fly-in. I also had brief chats with folks in Greece, Herzogovina, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Finland, and Argentina.

When I flip that "ON" switch, I never know what or where I will hear or who I will meet!

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith

Still dying after all these years...

2010-07-29T11:30:00.000-05:00

Back to amateur radio for a moment. Amateur radio and how technology is affecting its growth. There is a very good editorial in the August issue of CQ MAGAZINE about how ham radio has been dying...for over 60 years. As with many other things technological, innovation and change is supposed to have been causing eroding interest in the hobby since the so-called glory days of the early 1950s.

See, that was when people were buidling their own gear--because they could, before ICs, surface-mount technology, computers-masquerading-as-radios, and the like--experimenting, learning. It was also before ubiquitous cell phones brought us the ability to talk without wires around the world, the internet, email, IM, and Facebook.

Ham radio is dying! That became the cry from the masses. And it only got worse when things began to change and the old timers felt their world crumbling beneath their feet.

Hey, I was just getting into the hobby when SSB began replacing AM. Talk about wars!

Well, all that technology has failed to put a dent in our wonderful hobby. The numbers are up and, as of right now, we have far more active amateurs than ever before. Some of CQ's guesses on how to determine who is "active" may be statistically fuzzy, but I think they are about as close as we can get.

I'll throw one more thing into the mix: I hear people say that the bands are just not as crowded as they once were. Well, they weren't in the pile-up for the Rwandan dx-pedition the other night! Truth is, we have more bands now than we had in the '50s. 160, thanks to antenna experimentation and more widely available commercially made gear, is viable. And many prefer VHF/UHF and FM now and spend more time there. They were non-starters 60 years ago.

No, CQ's point is right on. The hobby is healthy and growing, innovating and morphing. And it's still one heck of a lot of fun!

Agreed?

73,

Don Keith N4KC

And now for something completely different...

2010-07-24T15:30:00.000-05:00

To quote Monty Python...and now for something completely different. My son and his family are on the final leg of a three-week road trip from Alabama to Oregon and back. They went by way of Glacier National Park, and then back through Utah and Colorado. Here are some of the pix they have sent along the way.

That guy in the beard is my son, Gary, along with his wife, Trish, and our grandkids Laci and Alexa.

Old tech, new tech

2010-07-23T20:52:00.000-05:00

Some news items:

Arbitron announces that they will now go door-to-door in some of their rated markets in attempt to convince certain hard-to-reach demographic representatives to participate in their PPM panel. Hear that? Door-to-door. "Please, please, please carry one of these little devices so we can see what radio stations you listen to."
My old friend Alan Burns has conducted a survey that says almost 60% of females 15-24 years old can foresee a day when they won?t need to listen to music on the radio. That is because they?ll be able to get what they want on their cell phone, iPod or online. Another 24% strongly agree with that prediction. That, my friend, sounds the death knell for radio.
Ad sales have turned the corner for a segment of broadcast radio. No, not necessarily who you think. National Public Radio--NON-COMMERICAL RADIO--reports ad sales are pacing as high as 7% above this time last year.

Change is coming rapidly for one of the most archaic of media: the book. Have you heard of the "amplified edition?" That is what they are calling Ken Follett's new "book," "Pillars of the Earth." According to the publisher's press release, it will include “striking video clips, beautiful art and original music from the upcoming, critically acclaimed Starz Originals 8-hour epic television event based on the book.” It will be available for the iPad, the iPhone, and the iPod and can be continually updated with new material during the time of the airing of the TV mini-series. Thnik Gutenberg just rolled over in his grave?

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.donkeith.com/
http://www.n4kc.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith

Sorry. I could not help myself.

2010-07-16T10:59:00.000-05:00

I promised myself I would not get back on this subject for a while...that I would get back to other rapid tech change topics and amateur radio and leave broadcast radio alone for a while. However, I thought parts of this interview on Mark Ramsey's blog were so right-on, I couldn't help myself. Some of you know that I've been preaching for a while now that traditional, over-the-air, broadcast radio's whole model is quickly being turned upside-down, that how radio serves listeners and sponsors and how they make money off that service is changing radically. That is so obvious, yet broadcasters still try to keep the medium locked into 1975.

Mark's interview talks mostly about "social media," but that is mostly a buzz word. What it comes down to are those other buzz words: "content," "interaction," "distribution," "companionship," and "tribe building." Radio, TV, Arbitron, Nielsen, and ad agencies better learn what those mean, and what they mean to their business, or they will go the way of the daily newspaper. It just won't take nearly as long for some of them! I found Brogan's comments on "formats" especially on-target.
----------------------------------------------

Chris Brogan doesn’t do a lot of interviews, and it’s because he is in such strong demand. Chris is a well-known name in digital media circles. He’s a social media advisor and the author of a terrific new book called Social Media 101: Tactics and Tips to Develop Your Business Online and the co-author of the modern classic Trust Agents: Using the Web to Build Influence, Improve Reputation, and Earn Trust.

Today, Chris has some lessons in social media for radio and some criticisms over the way radio is currently sold relative to rising digital media. Listen to our entire interview here – or subscribe to all the Mark Ramsey Media podcasts at iTunes.

Chris, when we talk about social media strategy, what are we talking about?

We’re talking about how you use the various social media tools to handle your existing business communication needs. That could be marketing, it could be customer service, it could be sales. We’re talking about how you go down those roads to deliver further business value.

Okay, so if I’m a radio station looking to develop a social media strategy, what are my first steps?

Radio stations are looking for a few things. They’re looking to keep their audience quite engaged. They’re looking to show some value back to their sponsors (that’s really the basic business model there). Radio stations get paid when sponsors feel like they’re having some kind of impact using the station.

So the strategy begins with using listening tools to find out who’s who in your local target audience. If you’re a digital radio station, you can search and find who’s talking about the various topics you cover on the web. If you Google the phrase “grow bigger ears,” I walk you through how they do that in a blog post.

After you’ve listened and you find where your audience is, the question is how can you drive a little more value for your various sponsors?

For example, if you’ve got a sponsor selling golf club memberships and you’re local to this particular country club, then you might start looking for golfers who are talking about being in your area or visiting the area where your audience and your sponsor is. You can start actually targeting and making conversations happen. And if the audience is amenable to it, then of course you’ve done a bit of service to your sponsors. And it’s a lot more two-way.

I think there’s a lot of opportunity to do more two-way conversation, because if you think about your typical on-air persona, it doesn’t allow for back-and-forth but you can easily do it online.

Chris, that brings to mind another question: To a great degree, radio broadcasters view the social media tools as extensions of their marketing and promotional capability, and this type of marketing (unless we’re talking about contesting) typically isn’t two-way. How can they think differently about this and view it as something bigger than simply another way to promote their wares?

First off, listening applies here. You can actually listen at the point of need. You can find people who are open to the opportunities you’re selling. So as opposed to just blurting out that “we’re sponsored by Buffalo Trace Whiskey,” it would be great to be watching people talk on the social web or talk in blog posts about using or consuming that kind of a product, and then you can actually jump into the conversation, talk to them about what they’re interested in and “oh by the way, I happen to be sponsored by Buffalo Trace Whiskey. Have you ever tried that? Do you like that?” etc. So there are a lot of opportunities for that sort of a thing as well.

What do you say to broadcasters who say this sounds great, but there are two problems: First, the numbers seem really small compared to the world of broadcasting. And second, advertisers pay us for the number of ears we reach, and with that smaller audience, it messes up our business model?

To be honest, the numbers that are getting quoted a lot by most of the ratings services are all sort of back-of-the-envelope guesses. There’s a whole lot of extrapolation that comes from the mainstream marketing machine as far as how many people are listening to any given station. There’s not a lot of reality between what the quoted circulation is and real consumption. The online opportunity is to say we can track exactly who takes an action. Otherwise, it’s what I call the “shiny store syndrome.” If I have a video on YouTube and I get 10 million views of that video but I get four more sales, is that a real success or not?

So what I tend to do is look for ways to measure on the dollar sign because that’s really the opportunity that’s going to move the needle somewhere. What I tell clients is don’t look at the numbers and simply how much you spend; look at whether or not you can actually track uptake in sales based on the execution.

When you say “on the dollar sign,” you’re saying measure the end result that one is trying to achieve, not the number of ears one gets along the way, right?

Exactly. Because, again, I just don’t think that the “ear” numbers that we’re getting in mainstream media or “eyes” in television are actually accurate anymore. And it’s time for a change.

I had a conversation with another author who used to be with P&G, and he said in terms of the mass amount of reach, those numbers are generally discounted by advertisers anyway because they’re so far from the sale. That relates to the point you’re making.

Right. What I’m saying is who really gives a rat’s a** if you say my audience is 65,000 strong. If you don’t make four more sales after buying some advertising space on that particular show, then who cares? I would spend a lot of my time using the social tools to build relationships, build community around the would-be sponsors that you have; not necessarily about your content, but about the kinds of people who would need to consume that content with whom you’re actually placing your advertising relationships, and then see if you can actually move the needle.

Especially with the social website tools, you can have tracking, you can have links and actually measure the success of those links, and then you can show it to the advertisers and say “you know what, I got you 125 clicks and I know that doesn’t sound like a lot, but look how many of those converted to a sale?” If you say 40, then I had a 30-something percent success rate on anyone who looked at your sales material and actually took an action. And of my 65,000 listeners, a 100-and-something came.

That’s the real percentage. That’s the real number, and I can show it to you on a graph. As opposed to “here are some people I think might be listening to the station sometimes, and here’s how old they are because that’s what they said in a survey, etc.”

You’re not arguing that broadcasters face diminishing prospects, are you?

No. Actually, I keep thinking that there’s a lot more opportunity in things like broadcast radio as well as satellite, but I think we have to rid ourselves of this whole mystique about it being one thing and the social web being another thing. I think a lot of these stations are starting to falter. So many programming formats don’t work the way they used to. I think the opportunity is to really get in there and shake it up.

As I’m watching some stations decline, I have seen two come up in the Boston market where I’m based, and I think about it with my wallet and say: Could I spend a little differently if I had access to the air? And I think the answer is “yes.” I think too many broadcasters used to say “I have this money now. I’m just not going to jump to this other thing,” and then they were saying, “I lost some of that money, but I’m still not going to jump because at least I have some of it.” Instead, they should be saying “I’m ready to make some investments and I know it’s going to be smaller yields in the short term, but it’s going to grow.”

Here’s what I think: There’s no such thing as radio per se anymore – or television or advertising agencies – it all falls under the same banner called “media” which includes social media as part of its tapestry. And if you’re a broadcaster reaching zillions of ears, your job is to give those ears something to do and someplace to go whether or not it’s to a website devoted to your radio station. True or not?

Way back in the 1990s, we were saying “come to this website because I’ll have a whole bunch of ads around it and you can click on something, and hopefully I’ll make some money if you do that.” The new way we do it is we go where the people are – we fish where the fish are – and we build opportunities to make more impressions.

I think there are a lot of more interesting opportunities today, but it’s going to be more of it’s a blended thing. If I were a guy holding on to a bunch of radio stations, I would hold on to them, but I would really reconsider my programming, and I would definitely create a home-based “outpost strategy” where there’s main content, and then there’s a lot of effort devoted to going out to where the fish are – to bring some presence and relationship in there.

So, what you’re talking about is not more “impressions” but more impression?

Yes, absolutely. That’s a really great way to say it. I think that there’s so much more opportunity to get ahead of people and make relationships happen, but it’s going to be a model where you’ve got to get to where they are. Don’t expect them to come to you.

Don Keith
http://www.donkeith.com/
don@donkeith.com
www.facebook.com/donkeith

A true hero

2010-07-10T13:02:00.000-05:00

Want to meet a true hero? Charley Odom is one of the key characters in my book WAR BENEATH THE WAVES. The local TV station in his hometown did a profile on Charley this week, and I believe it is well worth watching.

That is not because they feature several pictures of my book (though I am thrilled to hear that Charley loved the book and recommends it to everyone he meets).

No, it is the simple fact that we are losing a thousand WWII veterans every day. I'm on a mission to not let their stories die with them. And it was an honor to be able to keep Charley's heroic night in the Makassar Strait--as well as all the other things he did on our behalf--in front of people.

Click HERE to see the TV profile.

Don Keith N4KC

Jumping around...

2010-07-10T12:48:00.000-05:00

Several things on my mind this morning, so indulge me as I jump from one blog-related (more or less) topic to another:

Defending Microsoft
Why do I find myself continually defending Bill Gates and Microsoft, as if they need my help? I know it is popular to pick on them because of their size, wealth, power and oft-times obtuse behavior. But I wonder where computers would be today if Bill had not semi-swiped that first OS code and made it possible for the average guy to put truly amazing computing power on his desktop. Yes, someone else would have done it if he had not. And people would have hated him, too.

Need I remind folks again that Windows has to work on an almost infinite array of hardware, and perform with an unbelieveably large number of software apps? And that there is a massive sub-culture out there bent on finding holes in the system and ways to break it? Trying to stay ahead of that bunch of inglorious bastards is one reason Microsoft has to continue upgrading, fixing holes, making things more complicated for us law-abiding users.

(And you self-righteous Apple bigots: Apple is hardware. They only have to write and upgrade an OS that works on their hardware. Developers write apps for their hardware and OS, not something that has to work with an almost infinite variation of hardware. Where are the SOBs who want to go after the smugness and self-importnce of Apple? I don't understand. They are rich and powerful, too. Just not as rich and powerful as Bill and his little software company.)

Heat affecting FM radio
The latest excuse coming from broadcasters to explain why ratings are diminishing? It's too hot! Yes, the heat wave on the East Coast has caused listeners to have a harder time pulling in the FM stations. Somehow, the heat is sapping the signals.

Huh? First I have heard of this phenomenon. Stations in Arizona and Florida have never--to my knowledge--noticed such a thing. No, it is more likely that the heat has kept people inside more, not in their cars, where traditional terrestrial radio still has an advantage over other media.

Can anyone enlighten me? Can a temperature 10 degrees above normal affect FM broadcast radio signals enough to keep someone from being able to listen to a station?

Every vote counts--for a hundred thousand people
As the good folks at Arbitron continue to give value to their expensive ratings, they are allowing subscribers to carve up their data thinner and thinner. When interfaced with the Selector music scheduling system, program directors can see exactly what happened to their "audience" when a particular song played at a specific time of day, down to the minute.

Beautiful! You play the latest Lady Gaga and the numbers dive. You drop the song and play something else that showed a healthy spike the last time you played it. Everybody's happy, right?

How goofy is that? When you carve up the ratings so fine, you are depending on a very, very small sample base. See, Arbitron relies on a panel of people who have agreed to carry their portable people meter, which can tell what radio station the volunteer is listening to at any moment. In a city the size of Birmingham, Alabama, there may be only 800 people participating as panel members. That means every person is representing almost 1,300 people's radio listening.

But in some very narrow demo groups (say, African-American women, 18 to 24 years old) one person could represent a far larger percentage of the group. If that one person stops listening when the Lady Gaga song comes on, the needle dips and the program director panics. Never mind that the one meter-carrier actually loves the song but arrived at work, or had to turn own the radio because she was at the drive-through at Wendy's. But based on her actions, neither she nor all the others who like the song will hear it again on that station.

I'm a data guy. Research is a wonderful thing. But this is just plain goofy!

Agree?

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith
www.twitter.com/don_keith

If you had to give up...

2010-07-07T15:54:00.000-05:00

There's a column in the current issue of POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS magazine that does some mean speculating. It is based on the old premise of if you were stranded on a desert island, what food -- music -- books -- whatever -- would you want to have with you. Well, it turns out that my old friends at Arbitron and Edison Research have done a similar study, asking people what medium they would prefer giving up if forced to choose, television or the Internet.

Does it surprise anyone that the answers break out neatly along generational lines? Those born from 1945 to about 1965 don't even hesitate. The Internet is gone baby gone. Those born after 1965, and who came of age with the advent of the web, would kick the TV set to the curb in a heartbeat.

It would be very interesting to give respondents more choices. How many, if required to do so, would keep their cell phones to the exclusion of everything else? Their satellite TV? Their wi-fi?

How many of them would choose radio? No, don't answer that!

As I watch how quickly new technology like smart phones is assimilated by younger people today, I wonder just how quickly the pace of technological and communications advances will accelerate. Companies depend on creating buyers for ever-changing products. Unlike dishwashing detergent or ketchup, we have a generation that not only wants something new all the time but that demands it. They are quick to abandon anyone who does not innovate...or at least give the appearance of being out there, leading the pack.

Have these companies created a beast they will have trouble feeding? Or is there room--technologically and economically--for ever-growing advancement? That is, if there are enough visionaries to keep coming up with ideas, enough venture capitalists to stoke the furnace, and enough potential buyers to make it rewarding.

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith

"Facing" Technology

2010-07-03T08:47:00.000-05:00

In the face of rapid technological innovation--when there are more and more gimmicks and gadgets to capture our imagination and dollars--we sometimes forget what that technology is supposed to do. What it means to real people doing real things in a real world.

Here is an example. The iPhone is a cell phone, right? It is a gadget, and people migrate to it and line up to buy new versions of it--even if the antenna doesn't work right sometimes. But the people at Apple realize something very important. No matter how many Gs it accesses or what the data bit transfer rate is or how easily it can acquire a cell site, it is far more to their customers than a telephone/game device/camera/GPS. Watch this video, and than I want to compare this to another technology that is near and dear to my heart:

http://www.youtube.com/apple#p/u/2/R1wbQdVezio

Now, let's talk about broadcasting. And by that, I mean traditional, over-the-air radio and TV. How do the guys who have the keys to these stations reach to the heart of their customers, their listeners and viewers? By playing "the best of the 70s, 80s, 90s and today?" By "playing more of your favorites without commercials?" By running promos with "The Night Team" out on the street (where they NEVER are!), coatless, tie undone, shoving a microphone into the face of a firefighter?

When has radio truly offered companionship, a shared experience? When has your local TV station done something that met a real need for a significant number of its potential viewers? When have broadcasters truly done something that reached the hearts of the people they purport to serve?

When have they done what Apple is doing and used their technology to do anything more than try to jack the ratings?

Don Keith
http://www.donkeith.com/
http://www.n4kc.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith

When American business led the world

2010-06-16T10:14:00.000-05:00

There was a time when America was the envy of the world when it came to technology, manufacturing, entertainment and about every other category. We still are, to some extent, but I can point to many industries where that is not even remotely true. Look at automobile manufacturing. GM and
Ford have long since been surpassed by Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and Mercedes Benz. And now that particular business has come almost full circle and are now building cars in major plants in the US...many of them within a few hours' drive of where I live.
Here's another example that is near and dear to my heart. I remember when American radio broadcasting was undeniably the leader in the world. Our free-enterprise system--as opposed to government ownership of media so prevalent in most other countries--led to creativity and innovation. If, for a second, you think it is still that way, then click HERE and watch the interview linked in the middle of the page.
I had the pleasure of traveling to Australia several years ago and visiting with many Australian broadcasters. They were full of questions about media in the USA, how we did it, what we thought the future held.
Based on the linked interview with an exec from Austereo, a large broadcaster in Australia, it appears we should be full of questions for THEM!
Don Keith
http://www.donkeith.com/
http://www.n4kc.com/
www.facebook.com/donkeith

Hodge podge post

2010-06-09T09:07:00.005-05:00

Necessarily a hodge podge of a post again to catch up on a couple of topics. Anybody excited about the new Apple iPhone? Sure got lots of press (including the problems getting their wi-fi to work at the debut event!), and early adopters are saying it gives Apple a good year's lead over anybody else out there.

Radio laments that it does not include an FM tuner, much less a digital radio capability. The fact that a cloud-computing hookup to iTunes is imminent further gives broadcasters the shakes. The time is coming when, if your only goal is to listen to the songs you want to hear, all you need is a telephone. A telephone that can be hooked to your computer, your home audio system, or your car stereo. And you can either buy or "rent" the songs. How can radio trump this? By touting "the biggest variety of your favorites?" Bigger variety than, well, infinity?

I still wonder how long the exclusivity with iPhone and ATT will last. ATT's customer service continues to be about as popular as BP. I think the continued pushing of the envelope by iPhone is only shoving other manufacturers to do more and more.

How much longer do we continue to call these things "telephones?"

Another topic: considerable debate in amateur radio circles about whether the guys who use Morse code decoders to receive and interpret CW, and keyboards instead of "bugs" or paddles to send it, are really "doing Morse code." An article in the latest ARRL Contest Bulletin points out that the very first Morse code was actually "read" on a machine before it occurred to anyone that the human being was capable of hearing and interpreting the dots and dashes.

That revelation does not settle the controversy, of course. I say, what does it matter. I enjoy the mode very much, primarily because it enables us to make contacts that might not otherwise be made.

Oh, and it is fun!

Don Keith N4KC

http://www.n4kc.com/ (website update in the works...standby!)

Catching up

2010-05-29T09:54:00.006-05:00

Couple of topics on my mind this thundery morning in the southeast...one to do with media and another related to ham radio.

TOPIC 1 -- Radio ratings are killing radio

The oft-quoted Mark Ramsey has a great video on his blog this morning on this topic, and Mark flatly states that is the case, that ratings are killing radio broadcasting. Even if you are not into media, it is a thought-provoking commentary, even if Mark does look a little like he has been working on the piece all dang night!

Here, with some elaboration, was my comment on his piece posted to his blog. Ratings are a tool. An RF ammeter in a radio station's transmission line is a tool to make sure the station does not break FCC rules. The computer and software package a radio station uses to keep track of billings and to send out invoices each month are tools to help the station do business. Ratings are a tool to help a station estimate what its listenership is, to help make programming decisions, and to help market the station to potential advertisers.

If the station uses a slight deflection in the meter readings to decide that, since it is reading incorrectly, they will arbitrarily double the power to make up for it, is that appropriate? If the station determines that the billing software has an error and it is charging customers 15% too much, do they simply keep going and not fix it?
Same with ratings data. So long as rating estimates are not the sole reason for making decisions, or the only benefit a station can present to a potential sponsor, then they are well worth the money invested. It is when the tail wags the dog -- when everything we do, every decision we make, is to try to squeeze out another tenth of a share point--that we get into trouble.
I posit that is part of the angst with PPM, Arbitron's new methodology for gathering audience info using data encoding on transmitted signals measured by devices hanging on recruited panel members. (Disclaimer: I was an executive with Arbitron during the early development of this technology and am convinced it is the best method yet for measuring radio listening.) It is more and more difficult for radio stations to "game" the numbers. PPM carriers are listening or they are not. No rubber clocks (giving incorrect time so diarykeepers would write down longer periods of listening) or hyped contests all aimed at getting diarykeepers to write down our station, whether they are listening or not.

Radio programmers nowadays have no idea how to make people listen to their stations. They only know how to make them write down their station in their diaries. PPM carriers write nothing down. If they listen, it is recorded. If they don't, the station gets no credit.
I still cringe when I hear about stations interfacing music scheduling software with PPM data and making major song choices based on a precious few "meters" who "tune out" during the song. Or using dangerously narrow demo/daypart/geo data to make crucial choices in programming and personnel.
The ability to get near-immediate multi-media single-source listening data that is gathered as impassively as PPM does is a wonderful thing. The danger of reading too much into those data could be another nail in the coffin of a medium we all love so much.

TOPIC 2: New Kenwood radio

Lots of commentary since the Dayton Hamvention about the prototype Kenwood TS-590 transceiver displayed there. It looks almost exactly like the prototype at the Tokyo show last August, and the Kenwood reps were saying the same things they said there and when I talked with them at the Huntsville Hamfest, also last August.

Two things are sparking this interest in just another HF/6-meter radio:

1) Kenwood has been relatively dormant in the amateur radio HF market for a while. The TS-2000 (Disclaimer: a rig I own and love!) is, well, 10 years old now with practically no changes in design or firmware. The TS-480 is their other primary HF radio, and, as I hear, a good one, but hardly groundbreaking or a major challenger to Yaesu or Icom and their very full range of gear. Is Kenwood--and especially since their sale a few years ago to a massive electronics conglomerate--going to remain in the ham radio business? If this rig is as robust as some hope, it is a good sign that they are.

2) I was told in Huntsville that the new radio would have a receiver the equivalent of the Elecraft K-3, a very fine little radio indeed. Some commenters have proclaimed Kenwood has declared war on the K-3. I doubt that is their intent, but if they do have a competitive receiver to go along with Kenwood's excellent user interface, transmit audio, and other features, they could have a winner with the 590.

Why should we hams care? The more competition the better. And the more manufacturers stretch the capabilities of their products, the greater performance for the dollar for us.

And that is a very good thing.

Don Keith

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=533718

Interesting times

2010-05-13T09:34:00.002-05:00

I don't do much politics here, preferring to deal with technological change, and especially as it applies to media and amateur radio. But I received the following link from my friend Dennis Dease N4NR:

It sort of got me going. First, let me say again, I was absolutely thrilled when America finally reached the 21st century and elected a black man as president. This was a far-too-long delayed milestone. I only wish it had not been this particular black man. It should not surprise anyone that the most liberal senator is now our most liberal president in decades. And with a Congress now controlled by the most liberal leadership in my lifetime, it should come as no surprise that we are seeing more and more proposals that shock my Libertarian soul to its core. See, I think less government is best government. It is not the role of government--and especially a federally centered government--to make sure everyone is shielded from any bad stuff from cradle to grave, regardless their own choices in life. I'm not radical about it. I think collectively as a nation we should have systems in place to take care of those who, through no fault of their own, need asssitance.

But look at "The War on Poverty." How many billions of our taxpayer dollars have been thrown down that rat hole and more people are living in poverty than ever? Look at government education. Despite billions of our taxpayer dollars and an astoundingly massive bureaucracy, test scores continue to go down.

Now they want to re-work our individually controlled retirement savings accounts so they can "take care of us," and, by the way, do it with OUR money. I've always been amazed that the government created and allows us to "get away with" anything that makes as much sense as IRAs and 401Ks. I bet the way they go about this will be that they will dredge up some poor souls who lost everything in their 401Ks during the big downturn and are now surviving on dog food and Cheetos. Never mind those pitiful so-and-sos got greedy and put all their IRA money into stock in Fly-by-night Platinum Mining Company in East Timor.

"See, this kind of individual-funded retirement account does not work," they'll say. "People who don't know what they are doing are losing their nest eggs. Poor things! We--the kind and benevolent government--will now take charge of these accounts and assure old folks are taken care of, with no risk or danger whatsover."

And I'm sure the government will do just as swell a job with my IRA and 401K as they have done with Social Security, AMTRAK, and the U.S. Post Office.

Your thoughts?

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.donkeith.com/
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.n4kc.blogspot.com/

Bouncin' around

2010-05-08T06:26:00.003-05:00

The press of the day job and several book projects are my excuse for not having posted here in a while, so let me catch up on a couple of things.
First, for you media types, here is a LINK to a very interesting--if not downright profane--presentation by a very smart guy. His name is Bob Garfield, host of NPR's "On the Media," author of "The Chaos Scenario," and former media critic for Ad Age. This is a speech he gave to the British Columbia Broadcasters Association in which he tells a bunch of TV and radio guys exactly what they don't want to hear. The key point to me--just in case you don't want to or can't stand to watch the whole thing--is that radio and TV stations must compete with more than video and audio. They must be a full-bore media provider, using every means that the audience uses to consume media.
And the truly frightening part is that, if you are, say, a radio cluster, you must compete with not only every other radio station in the market, but also with every TV station, newspaper, and other media in the market, plus limitless other sources around the world, including Internet, iPod, cell phone, etc.
Forget "local." Forget the other radio signals if you are a radio station. Your competition is multi-pronged, it's worldwide, and it is, in many cases, far better and more relevant than and almost as easy to get as what you have on your air right now.
Second quick subject, and it is for my ham radio brethren. The continual evolution of the amateur radio equipment market continues to fascinate me, because it is a study in marketing to a decidedly vertical market. The big guys--Icom and Yaesu--continue to introduce scads of new model radios with only slightly different feature sets. I assume they know what they are doing, but one has to wonder. Unless they re developing the different models that are for potential markets other than amateur radio and slightly modifying them and putting a different face on them for us hams, I don't see where the profit is. Still, it is a wonderful thing for us. We get plenty of choices in feature-rich gear. We gripe about prices, but if you look at the quality and technology we are able to purchase, even the most frugal among you (as if hams are a frugal lot!) have to admit these radios are bargains. Of course, these guys have much new competition for this very limited market from people like Elecraft, who is producing really innovative and wonderfully performing radios, and Flex, who developed the first practical software-defined radio and pushed technology to a new level. Maybe having a dozen HF transceivers in your catalog is one way to fight back. I just don't know.
And then, there is Kenwood. They announced in a cryptic press release on Friday that they would be debuting a new HF radio at Dayton Hamvention. It has long been rumored that Kenwood (once the third leg on the big amateur radio manufacturing stool but now almost an after-thought) was developing something new and exciting. The "new" part is now confirmed. The "exciting" part is yet to be.
Their TS-2000 has been a big seller for almost ten years now and is a marvel of technology with so much packed into such a small box. I know. I own one and love it. But what could they possibly do with a new rig to compete with all those choices from Yaesu and Icom, not to mention Flex and Elecraft and TenTec, and even low-end guys like Alinco and the new gear emerging from China?
Here's one to watch. And I wish them all the luck. If it turns out to be a good product with some distinguishing features or technology, it can only mean more competition, more choice, more pressure on pricing...and that is all good for us, even if it causes ulcers down there at the manufacturers' plants.

Don Keith N4KC
www.donkeith.com
www.n4kc.com
www.facebook.com/donkeith

Ancient technology gets NPR treatment

2010-04-15T20:09:00.003-05:00

There are those who denigrate amateur radio because they accuse us "hams" of using old-fashioned technology, and they claim the hobby is dying. Yes, we use radio-frequency waves to communicate. And RF communication has been around for over a hundred years. But believe me when I tell you that many aspects of the hobby are as modern as anything on the WWW. (The web, by the way, is just a glorified telephone, and wifi is--dare I say it?--made possible by that hundred-year-old RF stuff.)

Well, no less an observer of all things new and hip than National Public Radio did a story recently on the resurgence in interest in the hobby. You can read the story and listen to the on-air version HERE.

I think they give too much credit for an increase in interest to the elimination of the Morse code as part of the licensing process. That may have helped some, but I really think the hobby has enough to recommend it that it will continue to find a ready group of folks who want to join in.

I just celebrated my 47th year as a licensed "ham" and, despite being an old geezer, I'm enjoying it as much now as I ever have. I had a great chat last weekend with a fellow who was hiking in the mountains of upstate New York. He had climbed a firetower and set up his station there. He also hooked up a VHF radio and transmitted a signal that allowed me to go to a web site and see on a map exactly where he was. A few days before, I spoke with a couple of guys who had ridden snowmobiles out to an island in the far northern reaches of Hudson Bay and were operating from there. And I talked with a group who were using solar-powered radios from the Dry Tortugas off the Florida coast. (By the way, I made some of those contacts using an antenna I built myself.)

I also had a chat the other day--from my car--with a nice guy in Baranquilla, Ecuador. There have been other stations recently operating from an island off Vietnam and from Baghdad, Iraq. Next weekend, huge dish-type antennas--including the famous SETI dish in Arecibo, Puerto Rico--will beam amateur radio signals that will bounce off the moon and back to earth. Many of us will tune in and listen to them.

Dying hobby? Technology passed us by? Even NPR has shoved that notion aside!

73,

Don Keith N4KC

Your taxpayer dollars at work

2010-04-10T07:00:00.005-05:00

So the Federal Communications Commission has been slapped by a judge who says the agency has no authority to regulate the Internet. Knotty issue, this. When the former Federal Radio Commission was first formed, its primary purpose was to bring some order to the chaos that was the rapidly expanding radio-frequency spectrum. That chaos was first brought to the attention of the public by the Titanic disaster, and the fact that a distress signal from the sinking ocean liner was lost in the interference and nobody heard it.

Things changed rapidly...as they tend to do...and the Commission had to take on commercial broadcasting--first radio and then TV--and telephone communications, and the name of the agency changed to Federal Communications Commission. And since most people use telephone wires in some form or another to ultimately connect their various computers to the Internet, the FCC decided they could jump in and try to deal with the chaos there, too.

They have not done a good job. We ham radio guys know about the BPL (broadband over power lines) debacle, in which the Commission inexplicably ignored all negatives associated with the technology and pushed it hard. There had been rumblings that the Commission wanted to not only regulate the technological side but start meddling in content and many other areas of the web. But a judge said, "No." He said the FCC had no jurisdiction at all.

This hits close to home for me on another front. Readers of this blog know that I have taken issue with the FCC thinking it had any dog in the hunt when it came to radio and TV ratings. The agency has heard testimony about Arbitron's personal people meter radio-ratings technology and has indicated it would wade into that realm. That, to me, is the equivalent of, say, the Securities and Exchange Commission telling Morningstar what criteria to use in ranking mutual funds. There is no reason or right for a regulatory agency to tell a publisher of audience estimates how to do what they do. If Arbitron turns out bad numbers, broadcasters will stop buying them.

And even if the Internet is chaotic, why does the FCC feel they have any authority--statutory or any other kind--to try to do anything about it?

Don Keith N4KC

Well, make that THREE self-serving posts in a row!

2010-04-05T20:29:00.003-05:00

I just wanted to remind those who might be interested that I will be hosted for the publication party for my new book, WAR BENEATH THE WAVES, tomorrow--Tuesday, April 6--from 4 to 6 PM at Alabama Booksmith in Homewood, Alabama. Details are at:
http://alabamabooksmith.com/event/don-keith-war-beneath-waves
I will also be appearing on "The Rick and Bubba Show," which is syndicated to over fifty radio markets across the country tomorrow morning at 8 AM CDST. They are on 104.7 FM in the Birmingham area or you or check HERE for a station near you. (By the way, ham buddies, Bill "Bubba" Bussey is also an active amateur radio operator, KJ4JJ.)
I am pleased to say that the book...which does not even release until tomorrow...has already broken the top 1,000 on Amazon.com and has been in the top five on several of their military history lists.
Funny what happens when you threaten enough people with violence against their persons if they don't buy the book!

Don Keith
www.donkeith.com
www.n4kc.com

Two self-serving posts in a row? Geeez!

2010-03-23T16:44:00.005-05:00

Hey, it IS my blog, okay? I just wanted to make certain that anyone who stumbled onto this mess while looking for Don Keith Opper or Toby Keith or Don Juan or Keith Olberman or somebody really famous knew that the new book--WAR BENEATH THE WAVES--is also going to be available as an audio book.

No, I didn't know. Not until I saw it on Amazon and then went to the audio publisher's site and read the whole deal...which you can do, too, if so moved, by clicking on the link you can find HERE.

Or quit the stalling and go buy a copy by clicking HERE.

The hero of the book is a WWII veteran named Charlie Rush. He is 91, lives in South Florida, and is as lucid and interesting a fellow as you will ever meet. I admit I was a bit worried about how he would like the book, or that he would find mistakes. I had a long chat with him last weekend, after he got his copy of the book and read it cover-to-cover in one day. His first words to me on the telephone were, "Fanstastic book!" He went on to tell me he was amazed how accurately I told the story without having actually been there. You cannot imagine how thrilled I was to hear that. It was important to Charlie--and to me, by the way--that the story be told accurately and without bias. I should give credit to Captain Rush, who spent quite a bit of time on the phone with me doing interviews and referred me to a few other interviews and oral histories he gave. And to Chief Charlie Odom, who left a great oral history at the University of Tennessee. And to John Crouse, who runs the Submarine Museum in St. Mary's, Georgia, and was kind enough to copy and send me a stack of patrol logs from the Billfish.

Now, I can't wait to HEAR how the book turned out!

Don Keith

eBooks vs. paper books -- where are the profits?

2010-03-02T20:11:00.004-06:00

An article that hits close to home appeared on the NEW YORK TIMES website recently. It talks about the effect of electronic books on the traditional printed book. And it also debunks the thought that publishers will realize a much greater profit from electronic books. Here are the highlights:

In the emerging world of e-books, many consumers assume it is only logical that publishers are saving vast amounts by not having to print or distribute paper books, leaving room to pass along those savings to their customers.

Publishers largely agree, which is why in negotiations with Apple, five of the six largest publishers of trade books have said they would price most digital editions of new fiction and nonfiction books from $12.99 to $14.99 on the forthcoming iPad tablet — significantly lower than the average $26 price for a hardcover book.But publishers also say consumers exaggerate the savings and have developed unrealistic expectations about how low the prices of e-books can go. Yes, they say, printing costs may vanish, but a raft of expenses that apply to all books, like overhead, marketing and royalties, are still in effect.

All of which raises the question: Just how much does it actually cost to produce a printed book versus a digital one? Publishers differ on how they account for various costs, but a composite, and necessarily simplified, picture might look like this, according to interviews with executives at several major houses:

On a typical hardcover, the publisher sets a suggested retail price. Let’s say it is $26. The bookseller will generally pay the publisher $13. Out of that gross revenue, the publisher pays about $3.25 to print, store and ship the book, including unsold copies returned to the publisher by booksellers.For cover design, typesetting and copy-editing, the publisher pays about 80 cents. Marketing costs average around $1 but may go higher or lower depending on the title. Most of these costs will deline on a per-unit basis as a book sells more copies. Let’s not forget the author, who is generally paid a 15 percent royalty on the hardcover price, which on a $26 book works out to $3.90. For big best-selling authors — and even occasionally first-time writers whose publishers have taken a risk — the author’s advance may be so large that the author effectively gets a higher slice of the gross revenue. Publishers generally assume they will write off a portion of many authors’ advances because they are not earned back in sales.

Without accounting for such write-offs, the publisher is left with $4.05, out of which it must pay overhead for editors, cover art designers, office space and electricity before taking a profit.Now let’s look at an e-book. Under the agreements with Apple, the publishers will set the consumer price and the retailer will act as an agent, earning a 30 percent commission on each sale. So on a $12.99 e-book, the publisher takes in $9.09. Out of that gross revenue, the publisher pays about 50 cents to convert the text to a digital file, typeset it in digital form and copy-edit it. Marketing is about 78 cents.

The author’s royalty — a subject of fierce debate between literary agents and publishing executives — is calculated among some of the large trade publishers as 25 percent of the gross revenue, while others are calculating it off the consumer price. So on a $12.99 e-book, the royalty could be anywhere from $2.27 to $3.25.

All that leaves the publisher with something ranging from $4.56 to $5.54, before paying overhead costs or writing off unearned advances.

At a glance, it appears the e-book is more profitable. But publishers point out that e-books still represent a small sliver of total sales, from 3 to 5 percent. If e-book sales start to replace some hardcover sales, the publishers say, they will still have many of the fixed costs associated with print editions, like warehouse space, but they will be spread among fewer print copies.

Moreover, in the current print model, publishers can recoup many of their costs, and start to make higher profits, on paperback editions. If publishers start a new e-book’s life at a price similar to that of a paperback book, and reduce the price later, it may be more difficult to cover costs and support new authors.

Another reason publishers want to avoid lower e-book prices is that print booksellers like Barnes & Noble, Borders and independents across the country would be unable to compete. As more consumers buy electronic readers and become comfortable with reading digitally, if the e-books are priced much lower than the print editions, no one but the aficionados and collectors will want to buy paper books.“If you want bookstores to stay alive, then you want to slow down this movement to e-books,” said Mike Shatzkin, chief executive of the Idea Logical Company, a consultant to publishers. “The simplest way to slow down e-books is not to make them too cheap.”

In many ways, the $12.99-$14.99 price bracket for e-books is an experiment. With it, the publishers seem to have beaten back, for the moment, the $9.99 price that Amazon has offered for Kindle versions of most new releases and best sellers, but it remains to be seen whether consumers will tolerate that.

Music prices, for example, have come under significant pressure in the digital age: from 2000 to 2009, the price of audio discs, tapes and other media, which includes digitized music, fell a little more than 3 percent, according to the federal Consumer Price Index. Prices of so-called recreational books, meanwhile, have increased just over 6 percent during that same period.

Certainly, publishers argue that it would be difficult to sustain a vibrant business on much lower prices. Margins would be squeezed, and it would become more difficult to nurture new authors. “Most of the time these people are probably not going to make huge sums of money the first time they publish,” said Carolyn Reidy, chief executive of Simon & Schuster.

In fact, the industry is based on the understanding that as much as 70 percent of the books published will make little or no money at all for the publisher once costs are paid. “You’re less apt to take a chance on an important first novel if you don’t have the profit margin on the volume of the big books,” said Lindy Hess, director of the Columbia Publishing Course, a program that trains young aspirants for jobs in the publishing industry. “The truth about this business is that, with rare exceptions, nobody makes a great deal of money.”

Hey, I certainly won't argue with that conclusion!

Don Keith N4KC

Catching up

2010-02-27T08:21:00.004-06:00

A veritable cornucopia of topics this week:

A major passing of the guard this week: The company that built out the original telephone network and ruled it as a monopoly, AT&T, is asking the FCC to phase out the circuit-switched legacy network and transition to broadband and IP-based communications.

"With each passing day, more and more communications services migrate to broadband and IP-based services, leaving the public switched telephone network ("PSTN") and plain-old telephone service ("POTS") as relics of a by-gone era," the company wrote in comments filed with the FCC.

Congress has charged the FCC with creating a National Broadband Plan and AT&T was commenting on that plan. The commission must martial its resources to ensure the "necessary deployment of the enormous amount of infrastructure necessary" for service to be available to 100 percent of the population, according to AT&T.

No kidding! (And want to hear something weird? Blogspot would not allow me to use an ampersand in a post label for this article! Odd.)

Second topic: lots of chatter lately about how to measure Internet ad effectiveness, or just how to measure things like audio streaming sources. HERE is a link to a recent podcast on the subject that makes some good points. And raises a bunch of questions, not just on that topic. (Thanks to John WA5MFL for forwarding.) When I was with Arbitron, we were seriously trying to enter the Internet streaming measuring business, but never seemed to get traction. We were still diary-based, of course, but looked at accessing server logs and all that kind of stuff. But that still left much to know about who was clicking on those links and listening to all that audio and watching all that video. You know, little stuff like age, sex, race, household income, home zip code, etc. Work in progress, and it will be for some time, even as billions of dollars chase those ears and eyeballs.

And finally, an email landed in the inbox this week that reached me on two different levels. First, it was a notice about the upcoming and massive (though not quite as massive, maybe, as in the past) show in Las Vegas in April, and a request that I pass along an invite to my blog readers, including a code to get free admission to the exhibit floor. Cool! But I also was interested in how Jason Rouse and Tuvel Communications, who are working with NAB to market the show, are using this simple means to contact bloggers and get the word out. Ads in the broadcast trades? Direct mail? Exhibitors giving out passes? All still viable. But why not get guys like me to also help push attendance? Well, for all half dozen of my regular readers, here, in its entirety, is Jason's suggested blog post:

There have been some rapid changes over the last few years that we as a digital broadcasting community face. The 2010 NAB Show is the place to discover new opportunities for all of us in the broadcaster world.

The NAB Show is coming up faster than you think – April 10-15 in Las Vegas! For a taste of what the 2010 NAB Show has to offer, check out what the Broadcast Management Conference and discover how to further monetize and manage your digital products in today’s dynamic marketplace: http://ow.ly/15xv1

Oh, and just because you are reading my blog, I’m giving out a code for FREE ACCESS to the Exhibit Hall at the show. This free Exhibits-Only pass includes (but is not limited to):

- Access to the Opening Keynote and State of the Industry Address
- Info Sessions
- Content Theater and Destination Broadband Theater

Visit http://ow.ly/13T8Q today to redeem or register at http://nabshow.com/register with the code A913 (and feel free to pass this along).

Don't forget to check out the official show website at http://www.nabshow.com for more information, news, and to register!

And yes, I DO get a listing for my blog in return! Now I just wish I could go. For a gear goober like me, there is nothing else like it...miles and miles of electronic stuff! And a great ham radio get-together with lots of door prizes, too.

Whew! Glad I got all that in. Now I'm going to go lie down for a while.

Don Keith N4KC

www.facebook.com/donkeith (friend requests welcomed)

Blowing my own horn

2010-02-19T20:42:00.003-06:00

Excuse me a bit of crass self-promotion. eHam.net, an amateur radio web site, has run a press release about my forthcoming book, WAR BENEATH THE WAVES. You can read it by clicking H E R E. Or go to my web site to see more about this book.

I also just recorded a two-part interview for The Rain Report, an audio news service aimed at amateur radio enthusiasts. It should be available next week. You can visit the web site and--when available--download the programs by clicking H E R E.

Hap Holly KC9RP, who hosts the program and conducted the interview with me, is an interesting individual. Blind since the age of 7, he has coped well and been very successful in life. He is the son of blind parents whose marriage was the subject of a best-selling book and made-for-TV movie. To see more on this very interesting man, click H E R E.

So that's it. No controversy. No rants. No raves. But I have some interesting info on the sorry state of measuring Internet audiences that I'm digesting. (Thanks to my friend John Krupsky WA5MLF for forwarding me the podcast that started me on this path.)

Besides, sunspots are returning, 12 and 15 meters are open to exotic spots all over the world, and I'd rather concentrate on that for a while rather than get my blood pressure up over such trivialities!

Don Keith

Just how super was the Super Bowl?

2010-02-09T15:06:00.002-06:00

It is, after all, the media event of the year, but I was totally unaware that, despite all the annual hype, the Super Bowl had never been the record holder in TV viewership. Until this year, that is. The final episode of MASH has held that lofty perch for decades, but this year, thanks to a bunch of factors, the Saints and the Colts tackled more viewers than any other TV show in history.

Of course, there were some compelling story lines--what the team means to Katrina-wracked New Orleans, the Mannings and their split loyalties, just a couple of very good football teams who got to the game by playing well--but it is interesting to note some of the reasons Nielsen, the company that measures TV viewership, gave for the big score this year.

The proliferation of HD television sets has led to a renewed interest in sports, and especially the NFL, which has had a good ratings year. Makes sense. I'll accept that.

The economy. Good, cheap entertainment. OK. I guess that makes sense. Guacamole is still relatively cheap.

The weather, and especially the big snowstorm in the northeast. Huh? Well, Nielsen says more people stayed home to watch the game instead of going out into the elements to gather at parties, bars. and sports restaurants, thus allowing them to capture that viewing on their set-top boxes. That is a big admission of a major flaw in how TV audiences are measured. It is the equivalent of Sean Payton admitting his team had no hope of blocking Dwight Freeney.

See, if you watch TV in a sports bar, at a friend's house, in a hotel room, or in the backseat of your mini-van, that viewing is not necessarily captured by the ratings company. If you are a Nielsen family and have a set-top box on all your TVs, but you watched Drew Brees throw those pinpoint passes over at a buddy's house, you did not get counted in those 106 million households. Oh, if you are in one of those many markets where Nielsen uses the diary method, you may have been honest enough to make the proper entry in your diary while gnoshing on nachos, but that did not get counted in the overnight numbers that are being bandied about. In fact, that data won't be available for a while yet.

There are better ways. Arbitron has one. If you were a PPM panel member and watched the game at Smokey Joe's while scarfing up wings and beers, your viewing could have been recorded so long as the sound on the TV was up. But Arbitron lacks the wherewithal to go after the TV ratings business.

Truth is, it's no big deal to CBS, who carried the Super Bowl. 100 million? 106 million? No big deal. But why should it matter to you? When you consider the same antiquated technology makes the difference between a good show surviving to grow or being tossed on the trash heap, the measurement makes a big difference. Or if you are an advertiser deciding how to place your media dollars to grow your business and hire more folks, it is crucial that you get accurate and timely data, or you make mistakes that could be fatal.

Bottom line is billions are being spent--including $5 million per minute on Super Bowl ads--on TV advertising using numbers generated by 1950s technology. Heck, the Super Bowl has been around since 1966! That's XLIV years.

Not so super when we don't know how to keep score, huh?

Don Keith N4KC

Technological change frustrations

2010-01-30T10:44:00.002-06:00

Somewhere way back up the way, I talked about how rapidly technological change was occurring in the medical field. No doubt about it. We have made amazing strides in so many areas, and in many cases, we have prolonged life to the point that we are encountering some totally new threats--Alzheimer's comes to mind--that our parents and grandparents didn't live long enough to experience.

Well, I have had occasion over the last few weeks to experience some health issues of my own and, despite some good doctors and some really amazing technology, I have encountered some frustrations with the pace of where we are.

First, I have been declared officially to be a type II diabetic. No surprise there, considering my diet, weight and lifestyle. But I have been truly amazed how many others have the same malady. It is not valid research, I know, but in my own experience, based on how many folks say, "Oh, me too!" when I tell them, diabetes is epidemic. And especially if you consider those who don't even know they have it.

As mentioned above, part of the deal is that, since we are living to be older, and since our pancreases tend to go to sleep as we age, it will only be more prevalent. The modern diet almost assures it. Yet I am shocked at how little research is available for a cure. Oh, you can be sure that there is an amazing array of drugs available to treat the symptoms. Thank goodness for that, at least, since this disease can have devastating effects on the body. But where is the cure?

And diet is a not only a major force in prevention, it is by far the most effective treatment against symptoms. Yet dietary information is archaic. Count carbs. Take your pills and count carbs and prick your finger often to see what your blood sugar is. That's the gist of the info I got from "diabetes school" recently, and the mantra from the American Diabetes Association.

Not to get too technical, but the fact is that carbs are not necessarily carbs. Different foods are treated very differently by our bodies, and that especially applies to carbohydrates. A strawberry may have the same carbs as a slice of white bread, but they behave much differently as they affect your blood sugar. This is because of the variations of the glycemic index of various foods...how quickly your body converts food to sugar in your blood.

Yet accurate tables of the glycemic index (and its sister, glycemic loading) of various foods are very limited and have a pronounced Australian accent. See, the only real research on this subject has come from Australia, and relies on very limited studies that are now almost a decade old. And because of the nature of the study, they were done on a relatively few people. See, they had to feed healthy people various foods and then measure the result several hours later by drawing blood and checking their blood sugar.

Where is all this amazing research and technology on this very basic subject? And about something that affects millions around the world?

One other thing: my symptoms also necessitated a look at the old ticker, including a stress test and an echocardiogram. The echo deal is a wonderful bit of technology but is many years old now. You have to wonder when they'll be able to do it in 3D. The stress test has come a long way, thanks to nuclear imaging, but is still really primitive.

Well, the stress test was inconclusive and the cardiologist recommended we take a closer look. There are two ways. One is the long-standing arteriogram, in which he sticks a wire into the femoral artery in your crotch and runs it up into the heart and releases dye to see if there are blockages. It is invasive and has its risks, but if he finds something, he can often fix it with a stent or balloon while he is in there. It's also expensive.

There is another deal, though. It is called a cardiac CT scan, is not invasive at all, shows everything the other test does, and is about a fourth the cost. Trouble is, Blue Cross will pay for the arteriorgram but not the CT scan. Has nothing to do with technology, but guess which procedure we did.

Feel my pain?

(The arteriogram showed only one minor narrowing in one artery, which is being treated with medicine. Not bad for a long-time fat boy who loves Southern cooking. And armed with what little glycemic knowledge I can garner, and with a fistful of pills twice a day, I've got the blood sugar close to being in control. And I've lost 35 pounds. I'm convinced losing 50 more will solve all these problems!)

Don Keith N4KC

http://www.n4kc.blogspot.com/

Succinct but so powerfully true

2010-01-18T11:51:00.003-06:00

I know my "technological change" blog has veered lately to diatribes on the current state of broadcast radio. But I'm not going to apologize for that. The medium touches almost all of us. It is a powerful way to reach and affect folks. And it was how I made my living for 34 years...and still do peripherally. So humor me.

Now comes a truly succinct but powerfully true sentence from media consultant--one of the few who actually "gets it" when it comes to how technology affects traditional broadcast radio--Mark Ramsey. On a recent blog post he concluded with this statement about radio:

It's everything except our music that will make us the most popular place to hear music in the future.

You don't have to be a media consultant, a former disk jockey/programmer, or media blogger to appreciate the fact that when people can program their own music in any mix or order they want, a radio station that tries to please a large number of them will ultimately fail. When people can tailor that music mix and get it on their car radio, smart phone, computer or any number of other sources (heck, I get 40 channels of music on my DirecTV!), then those stations broadcasting from a tower on a hill will get lost in the fog of available songs.

Only people who are too lazy to do more than switch on the radio, or who just don't really care and will put up with just about anything, or who accidentally fall into the small number who really like the radio station's music mix will be long-term listeners.

(Insider note: stations may not care. They still live on SHARE. Shares of audiences are still high, since it is based on the number of people listening to radio at a given time. A station can have a 25 share...25% of people who are listening to their radios...but when you look at their RATING...percentage of the total population...it may be less than 1%. At one time it would have been much higher. SHARE is the percentage of the listening pie. That pie is getting smaller and smaller.)

But it takes creative people to concoct the "glue" between the songs. The "glue" that holds listeners and causes them to prefer the station's stream of songs to their own self-created stream. Creative people cost money and a benefits package. And the really good ones want some control . Sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes it takes them awhile to get the recipe right. And if they are good, someone will try to hire them away. All that's trouble. They are a risk. Risk is avoided at all costs by today's broadcast owner/operators. It must be avoided!

Somehow, they don't realize that the biggest risk of all is being too safe.

Don Keith N4KC

http://www.donkeith.com/

www.facebook.com/donkeith

Your cell phone may be good for you!

2010-01-09T13:06:00.004-06:00

It's true! Your cell phone may actually help prevent alzheimer's disease. Talk away, confident in the fact that RECENT RESEARCH (on mice) shows the radio frequency emissions from the typical mobile phone may actually help people with the malady and similar others.

Next they are going to find that the RF from my ham radio station is keeping me from catching the common cold. And all those years I sat fifty feet away from a 50KW AM radio station has increased my intelligence and prevented the heartbreak of psoriasis.

Bottom line--and all kidding aside--is we learn more and more everyday, and the real point is that knowledge builds on knowledge. Recent breakthroughs in using RF to kill cancer cells (mentioned way back up the archive...with development by a ham radio guy) is a good example. I still believe the good news is that we will conquer many known killers and debilitators in the next decade, greatly prolonging life for people in most parts of the world (it will take longer where people still rely on witch doctors and ju ju).

The depressing news is there will always be new threats coming along to challenge those who strive for the end to unnecessary death.

Remember that scene from Star Trek when surgeons were about to cut into the brain of an injured crewmember and the ship's doctor was appalled at such "barbarism?" He pulled a little device from his pocket, passed it over the man's head, and healed him in a few minutes.

I have a scar from my ribcage halfway around my right side from a cholecestomy (gall bladder surgery) in 1974. A nurse saw it this week when I was in for some tests and couldn't believe it. That surgery now--and for the last dozen or so years--leaves a few tiny pips. The nurse had never seen such "barbarism!"

Well, I digress. I've been forgetting a lot of things lately so I need to go call up somebody and talk to them on my cell phone...if I can remember where I put the dang thing!

Don Keith N4KC

www.facebook.com/donkeith (friend requests welcomed)

Thanks for the bulletin, Nielsen!

2010-01-04T12:48:00.003-06:00

If the TV audience ratings company Nielsen produced viewer data with the speed and forethought they did media analysis, "Laugh In" would still be number one. Here's a bit of a release just out from the Nostradamuses at Nielsen:

"Last year’s downturn caused not only changes in how broadcasters operate, but also marketers. In a new report, Nielsen outlines five advertising trends that will shape continued evolution of the ad business next year. Media convergence tops the list, with a focus on improving return on investment. “The ability to accurately measure activity and link online ads to offline purchasing behavior will be critical,” says the report. Smart phones will be a growing issue, but Nielsen believes accurate measurement will be needed to track the snowballing growth of the mobile media platform. In addition, look for advertisers to continue to build cross-media campaigns. There's also a growing mainstream acceptance of social networking."

So, they have discovered convergence! And recognized the existence of SmartPhones. Linking online ads to offline purchases? And they predict that people will be more accepting of social networking? Oh, and if Nielsen believes that we need better measurement of "the mobile media platform" then where is the world's number one provider of media research's plan to do just that? (What would you expect from a company that still measures most TV markets with diaries, and uses diaries with little stickers for station call letters for radio...and measures almost all their radio markets ONCE PER YEAR?)

Stop the presses!

Would somebody call up Nielsen and let them know Dinah Shore is no longer on the air each week, and if you see "The Beverly Hillbillies," you are probably not watching over-the-air TV?

Don Keith

Everyone loses

2009-12-21T20:21:00.003-06:00

Typically and philosophically, I am opposed to any more government regulation than it takes to keep order and maintain a level playing field. That is primarily because I have seen big government regulate good industries right into the ground. Take broadcasting. Specifically radio broadcasting.

Some regulation is absolutely necessary. If anyone could go buy a transmitter and start broadcasting, the airwaves would be chaos. See "Citizens' Band." But when the Federal Communications Commission deemed it wise to allow an owner to buy many, many signals in a single market, they condoned commoditization of limited spectrum space and effectively shut out good, creative--but not so wealthy--owners. Sure some of those small owners made out like bandits (assuming they got cash and are not holding paper!). See those big guys had to buy every available signal to fill out their portfolios--whether they were a viable station or not--all to assure stockholders, boards of directors, and Wall Street analysts that they were poised to grow.

I'm not the only one who thinks that kind of deregulation is destructive. Many who were forced out of radio by the cost-cutting weasels and their slash-costs-until-you-are-profitable mentality agree, as you might expect. Shareholders of such hollow "media companies" as Citadel should be complaining the loudest. Those geniuses have managed to take a decent lineup of radio stations and fly them nose first into the ground. (They declared bankruptcy over the weekend. That's right. Over the weekend! That is so typical as to be stereotypical!).

Here--from a broadcasting trade report today--is another lone voice in the wilderness:

“The fruits of deregulation are now clear – everyone loses”, says Connecticut station owner Dennis Jackson. He says “the big story of 2009 is the ultimate comeuppance of impending bankruptcy being earned by the big three plundering conglomerators. These folks, with our NAB as their mouthpiece, persuaded Congress to require the FCC to deregulate radio ownership using the ruse that the new Docket 80-90 FMs were not otherwise economically viable, just as PC-based automation was making it possible to run a station on a shoestring. The fruits of deregulation are now clear - Everyone loses. That’s the listening public, investors, lenders, advertisers, and thousands of broadcasters who once made radio great and were fired from jobs to which they were dedicated. For the most part, corporate radio is a hollow, bloodless shell replacing a medium that listeners once cared deeply about. Perhaps 2010 will be the year when real broadcasters are let back into their stations and we can begin to turn our medium around before it's too late.”

I have a one-word response.

Amen.

Don Keith

Catching up

2009-12-15T10:16:00.004-06:00

A few items in the "technology change" bucket the last few days:

Bills have been introduced in both the House and the Senate that would require TV stations to keep the audio level on commercials the same as regular programming. The sponsors claim significantly higher audio levels on the ads is not in the public interest. Once again, I am thankful our representatives are concentrating on important, life-changing issues. Next I would like to see them deal with billboards with scantily-clad young ladies, direct mail pieces with compelling messages that make them stand out from the bills in the mailbox, and songs I don't especially like getting played on the radio.

There is a report in the broadcasting trades about a study that shows consumers are weary of all the technology that has invaded their media world. Tired of having music everywhere, instant connectivity, news at the tips of their fingers and such, they are likely to revert to ancient technology...like broadcast radio. I say it again: finding solace in such studies is nothing more than whistling past the graveyard. Adapt, revise, innovate...and most importantly, be creative!..or, well, die.

A study by Duke University says advertising spending will begin to recover this coming year to the tune of a 1.1% increase. But the bulk of that will be in on-line marketing (9.9%). Traditional advertising will decline by 1.1%. For anyone in the ad biz, this is no surprise at all. Ads go where the customers are. And more so than ever, where the accountability is. If the advertiser is able to target potential customers down to the nth degree, and only pay for those who actually become customers, why would he continue to spend most of his budget on media that sell exposure, not customers? And that are measured by rudimentary methodology?

Your thoughts?

Don Keith

Oh, Lord! Nothing has happened!

2009-12-09T16:58:00.002-06:00

So it has been over a month since I breathlessly bemoaned some major technological brouhaha and how it would upset this little applecart we call "life as we know it." Does that mean nothing at all has happened since?

No! Stuff has happened since I started typing this post. Big stuff. But it will have to wait. I've been busy traveling and promoting a couple of books I wrote under the pseudonym Jeffery Addison. And doing final edits on WAR BENEATH THE WAVES, my new non-fiction book that will be out in early April 2010. And starting a novel that has been rattling around in my head for a while yet. And checking on a movie project on one of my books that will--please!--be announced early next year. And squeezing in some ham radio activity when I can. And, of course, trying to stay ahead of the behemoth that is my day job at Education Corporation of America.

There are topics I want to address as I sit here and listen to the lifeless "all-Christmas-music" radio stations. Or learn more about the radio ratings head-butting between Arbitron and Nielsen. Or read of several medical breakthroughs...still anticipating one that will make life much better for someone I love very much, just as her newly-discovered meds are already doing.

But that will have to wait. I've got commercials to produce, collateral to design, books to write, and fellow amateur radio operators in exotic countries to talk with.

But if I don't talk to you in the meantime, have some especially great holidays. That's an order!

Don Keith N4KC

DVR--good news or bad news for TV advertisers?

2009-11-02T16:05:00.003-06:00

It is the sort of story I usually see in the TV trades, the rags that are required to find a silver lining in every media cloud if they hope to hang onto their subscriber base. But this one comes from the New York Times, who have no reason to pump up TV. The article talks about how TV owners and advertisers once saw the DVR--TiVo and the like--as the worst possible thing that could happen. People would record expensive primetime programming and watch it later. Sometimes weeks later. And the stations would not get the benefit of the ratings.

Well, Nielsen will now count that viewing if it occurs within about three weeks from the original airing, so the stations get the ratings that they can sell to advertisers. And who cares when people watch a show so long as they watch it? A good show, pitted in the same time slot as an established hit on another network, now has the ability to find a sizeable audience...albeit one that is delayed in viewing. That does seem like a good thing. "House" and "The Office" are mentioned as big beneficiaries of time-delayed viewing.

That same research also gets credit in the Times article for more good news about the devilish DVR: people are actually not skipping commercials when they finally get around to watching that recorded programming. In fact, the article crows, 46% of the valuable 18-49-year-olds say they do not fast-forward through the commercial breaks. 46%!

That reminds me of those casinos who claim "97% payout on our slot machines!" That just means that for every dollar you feed the little monster, 3 cents goes into the coffers of the casino. Three dollars out of every Benjamin. That adds up when you sit there all day, feeding the slot dollar bills.

And if 46% are not fast-forwarding past those high-priced ads, 54% are. Does that mean the networks are going to start charging advertisers 54% less for those commercials?

Right now, they are simply fast-forwarding past that question.

Don Keith N4KC

Pandora's box

2009-10-30T10:59:00.004-05:00

I know regular readers of this self-indulgent waste of bandwidth suspect I have an unnatural man-love for consultant/marketer/blogger Mark Ramsey. Not true. I do have an unnatural respect for many of his well-spoken opinions about the state of media in general and radio (still my first love!) in particular.

One of his latest posts revolves around the Pandora on-line radio service. And in that post, he refers to an article in the radio trade news service INSIDE RADIO:

Pandora is pushing its way into the car. The pure play webcaster that allows users to create and customize their own radio stations has its eye on the auto market and home appliance integrations. Pandora VP of business development Jessica Steel tells eMarketer that many of its 30 million registered users stream the service in their car via mobile apps. “We’re definitely looking at ways to make that experience more seamless — basically making all the core user interactions of Pandora integrated into the vehicle, so that you don’t have to fumble around with your iPhone to skip or rate a song.” Pandora has partnered with Sony to be included on Blu-Ray players and other devices. Echoing a refrain often heard in the over-the-air radio industry, Steel says: “Success for my team looks like Pandora being available on pretty much any connected entertainment device.”

You see that? 30 million registered users are already streaming their own customized "radio station" into their cars! 30 million! Add to the in-car listening sources such ubiquity-busters as satellite radio, people talking away on their cell phones, DVD players in the back seat, other people bringing "radio" into their ears using the cell phone, and you see why fewer and fewer are listening to traditional, over-the-air broadcasting RF from that tower on the hill. Radio broadcasters are losing critical mass at a stunning rate!

How do you counter that? Simple answer: put something on the air that people really want to hear and can't get anywhere else and offer it to them on a wide variety of platforms, not just from the roto-tiller antenna on the side of that tower on the mountain.

But, as you guessed, it's not that easy. Most stations are automated, voice-tracked, and syndicated, pulling music from a hard disk and personality from somewhere far, far away. Walk through your typical "cluster" facility. Nobody there! A receptionist. A gaggle of eager salespeople first thing in the morning and at COB. Maybe a GM or a "program director." They may or may not stream from a web site...many don't because they have not figured out how to make money on it or how to measure its reach...but otherwise, you got to have a radio to hear them. (I can actually show you stations who have to stop the occasional salesperson in the hall to voice a commercial. There are no announcers left except maybe the "production director," and he is already on 90% of the locally produced commercials.)

And when Arbitron (and now Nielsen) measures radio listening, everything is based on "share." Share of people who are listening to over-the-air radio who is listening to a particular station during a particular daypart. Oh, the research companies publish "rating" numbers, too--the percent of ALL people in the market who listen to a particular station, not just of those who are listening to ANY station. Shares are still showing in the 20s for some stations. But ratings are quickly ducking below 1, and you can bet salespeople for The Q and Classic Rock 100 Point 5 are not touting those numbers, regardless of where their stations rank. ("Rank" is an especially appropriate word to describe a list of stations, lined up according to their "share" numbers from three months ago.)

See, the day is coming when one lucky station will have a share of 100. The one person left still listening to traditional radio station will write down those call letters in his diary.

Everybody else will be "0."

Don Keith

Rapid technological change? Do we appreciate it?

2009-10-23T19:13:00.002-05:00

Here's a funny take on rapid change and how we take it for granted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk

I guess it is always your perspective!

Don Keith
www.donkeith.com
www.n4kc.com
www.facebook.com/donkeith

Radio waves from hallowed ground

2009-10-09T15:56:00.003-05:00

Let me digress from the usual for a short post about an upcoming event that will have absolutely no significance to most of you. It will, though,be near and dear to the hearts of my fellow amateur radio operators, and especially those of us who enjoy communicating with groups who set up in remote locales for what we call "dx-peditions."

But there is another reason I am excited about this particular operation. Using the call sign K4M, the "hams" will be set up and communicating from Midway Island in the middle--thus the name--of the Pacific between San Francisco and Tokyo. Some--though not nearly enough--also know it as the spot where one of the key battles in naval history was fought in 1942. Many feel the course of the war, and thus of history, was altered just a few wavelengths away from where the hams and the gooney birds--the islands only permanent residents now--will share sand the next few weeks.

Now, for those who don't know, I have written several books about the exploits of U.S. submarines in the Pacific during World War II. That little atoll somewhere northwest of Hawaii played a huge role in the success those submarines...more correctly, those submariners...had in doing more than their share of winning the war.

One of the most remarkable things that I wrote about was a former submarine commander...one who gave up his commission because he thought he was not being effective enough. That gentleman actually won a submarine command back in a poker game. He was the XO at the sub base on Midway when, one night in a heated card game, he made a daring move and took a huge pot. The base commander was one of the players at the table who lost, but he was duly impressed with how Commander Joe Enright played his hand.

"Joe, if you ran a submarine the way you played that hand, I'd give you the next boat that comes in," he said. And he did.

Enright ended up as skipper of USS Archerfish. All he and his brave crew did on that first patrol was sink the biggest ship that has ever been sunk by a submarine--the Shinano, a massive, "unsinkable" aircraft carrier caught emerging from Tokyo Bay on her maiden voyage.

What an amazing story! If you are interested, take a look at Gallant Lady on my web site.

But now you see why I am especially excited about talking to guys who will be set up on that hallowed ground, contacting fellow amateur radio ops around the world. It will be a new tally mark in my "Countries contacted" column. But I will also be proud to talk to that gooney-bird covered sliver of sand in the Pacific because of the brave men who stopped over there more than sixty years ago.

Don Keith N4KC

Old People and Change

2009-10-03T09:02:00.003-05:00

I think noted media researcher Larry Rosin has it exactly right when he talks about how the people who run radio--and other traditional media--are getting pretty long in the tooth, and is doing nothing to bring in young, creative talent to keep media relavant. Read his post HERE and come on back.

He's not saying, and neither am I, that us old guys can't and don't have ideas and relevancy. With age comes wisdom. Our experience has great value (though radio in particular has lost many of its true geniuses to other endeavors, but that is another post). But there must also be a constant influx of new talent and ideas, whether the industry is radio, TV and print, or car-making or widget-building. Larry is exactly right when he talks about today's younger creative folks wanting nothing to do with a moribund medium like radio, and industry that has shut its doors to them for a couple of decades now in the name of cost-savings, control, and that old bugaboo "risk aversion."

The smartest, most creative radio personalities worked out their chops at 3 AM on a little AM station in Keokuk. That station today is either dark or running ESPN Radio off the satellite twenty-four hours a day.

And that creative young guy is creating web apps for iPhones.

Don Keith N4KC

www.twitter.com/don_keith

Another multi-number Flash movie

2009-09-18T19:19:00.003-05:00

There seems to be an abundance of Flash movies out there that show us just how dramatically things are changing in the world of communications, advertising and media. HERE is another one.

Again, I don't know if the numbers presented (a bit fast for my tired old eyeballs) are accurate or not, but the story they tell is certainly true. It can be astounding for those of us who remember three TV channels, four or five radio stations...most of which we couldn't hear after the sun went down and we had to tune for WLS in Chicago or some other station that played our music...and, of course, no cell phone, Internet, or Facebook.

Heck, a blog was some other word misspelled.

And I'm not talking about going back to the '50s. As the video points out, change causes change, and it causes the whole thing to speed up.

Accept it? You may as well. It has its own momentum and there is nothing you can do to slow it down. And certainly not stop it.

The challenge is to help guide it in a positive way if you can. Or make the most of it for your own purposes. These are marvelous times for some, frightening as hell for others. Some fight it, ignore it, pray about it, or merely hide. But a couple of things are for certain.

It is inevitable. And the revolution has already begun.

Don Keith N4KC

www.twitter.com/don_keith

Exponential times

2009-09-16T19:56:00.003-05:00

Change begets change. As one development appears, more follow in a geometric progression. Here's a video I'd highly recommend. I don't know if all the facts are absolutely correct (was there even an "internet" in the 1980s?), but I think they are close enough to make the potentially frightening point...at least to some.

Things is changing!

Is that a good or a bad thing? I think the answer is, "Yes."

What do you think?

Don Keith N4KC

http://www.donkeith.com/

http://www.n4kc.com/

www.twitter.com/don_keith

www.facebook.com/donkeith

Electromagnetic soup

2009-09-04T17:49:00.003-05:00

Have you ever considered how much radio frequency energy is swirling around us like an invisible fog? And whether or not it has any effect on our fragile bodies? I admit, all those years I sat and spun records within fifty feet of a 50KW AM transmitter, I did wonder what vital organ all that stuff might be cooking. Far as I know, I suffered no ill effects, though my family and friends might consider it an explanation for many things they previously could not understand about me.

All this popped up again with the ubiquity of the cellular telephone--which is, don't forget, simply a radio transceiver--and most people began spending far more time with that little device clamped to the sides of their heads. They work in a frequency range that does show some evidence of doing some serious cellular rearrangement. But all studies seem to indicate that at the low power levels used by most such devices, there is no real danger. Until people suddenly start bleeding from the eyes and turn into something out of the movie I Am Legend. Or brain cancer is as common as sunburn.

Here's a humorous example of what can actually happen. We hams know all too well how a stray bit of RF getting into a poorly designed device can build mightly walls between neighbors.

What do you think? With the massive increase in the numbers of devices using radio frequencies, from wi-fi to cell phones to broadband over power lines, do you wonder if you will suddenly grow a horn in the middle of your head and start speaking in Martian?

Or start getting the SyFy Channel on your bridgework?

Don Keith N4KC
www.donkeith.com
www.n4kc.com
www.facebook.com/donkeith

Morse Code Limerick

2009-08-30T13:46:00.003-05:00

Okay, enough ranting and raving for now. This is fun. My friend, Jim Carpenter, N4PAI, sent me the following. You have to know Morse code to appreciate it:

A U F

U U F

A U

U U

U U F

The author is Bill Munsil, K1ATV, from Flagstaff, Arizona. Am I a geek because I think this is hilarious?

Don Keith N4KC
www.n4kc.com
www.donkeith.com
www.facebook.com/donkeith
www.twitter.com/don_keith

The World's 4th Largest Country

2009-08-27T21:09:00.003-05:00

I had occasion to attend an interesting conference today. An assortment of folks gave presentations about new interactive media, social media, email marketing, and the like. All interesting and enlightening stuff. These speakers were smart, and I learned quite a bit. But I came away thinking--and I'm convinced every one of them would agree--that nobody really has a handle on this sort of thing.

See, for the first time in the history of marketing and advertising, the customer is in control, not the marketer or advertiser. For the first time, the people we are trying to sell is more in control of our message than we are. A couple of generations who have been sold, sold, sold are perfectly willing to tell us to take our sales pitch and put it where the sun don't shine--sideways. That's hard for some staid, set-in-their-ways marketers to understand.

Traditional media are already hurting. Newspapers, TV, radio. Oh, they'll blame it all on the recession, but the boat had sprung a sizeable leak long before that storm blew up. (There is a stunningly accurate essay on researcher Mark Ramsey's blog that talks about the reluctance of radio station owners to change their ways. It's long but worth the read HERE)

If nothing else, the sheer size of it all should be enough to strike terror into the hearts of the Luddites in the ad game. There are 200 million blogs out there. YouTube posts videos so fast, you would not have time to watch them all without getting behind. The Krispy Kreme doughnut Facebook page has 20,000 followers.

If Facebook was a country, its "population" would make it the fourth largest on the planet.

A Chinese web site similar to Facebook is even larger.

I think I need to lie down for a while.

Don Keith

Here's how: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2009-08-19-twitter-bicycle-drive-through-bike-tweet_N.htm

Whatever happened to, "I wanna see the manager?"

2009-08-22T12:37:00.005-05:00

Ever been miffed by the tatted-and-studded person at the drive-thru at the Burger Doodle? Got a potato-crunch-grease-patty in your sack instead of the fried doughnut stick you actually ordered. You probably demanded to talk with the manager, who turned out to be a slightly older tatted-and-studded person, and who promised you a free chocolate-covered simulated frozen milk wad on your next visit to make up for it.

Well, you've been going about it the wrong way. Technology has evolved to the point that, if you are creative enough, you can bring the whole chain to its knees:

Don Keith N4KC