[BC] HD Radio Consumer Satisfaction

[Ernie Belanger]

Bill if you are going to cite a survey the honorable thing to do is cite the 
overall conclusion of the survey not just the part that justifies your 
position.

Don't lower yourself to the iBiqity standard of telling half the story.

>From the survey
62% of respondents indicated they were "Very satisfied" or "somewhat 
satisfied" with their HD radio experience, while only 23% said they were 
"Somewhat Dissatisfied" or "Not satisfied at all" with their HD experience.

We asked the 23% who indicated they were dissatisfied, why they felt that 
way. The following chart indicates their responses:

Cant show the chart here are the stats: Remember these numbers are the % of 
the 23% who were "dissatisfied "

Reception was the largest factor leading to dissatisfaction (35%) among this 
group with "on-air quality not as advertised" (22%) coming in second. 
Further explanation of these responses showed that reception was perceived 
as "receiving the station's signal poorly at times" and "on-air quality" was 
described as the "technical clarity of the programming". "Lack of Variety" 
17%, "Low Quality programming " 15%, "Value for the money" 11%



"Low quality programming" is related to "manner in which the programming 
offerings are presented" and "Lack of Program Variety" refers to the number 
of different types of programs offered.

Overall, positives outweigh the negatives in this first-ever study of actual 
users of the HD radio receivers and the programming initially being offered 
by broadcasters, however positive response is not as high as one might 
expect based on the marketing of HD radio. More detailed perceptions of the 
HD programming in this study is proprietary and only available to Bridge 
Ratings clients.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Harms" <wharms at philcobill.com>
To: <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 5:38 AM
Subject: Re: [BC] HD Radio Consumer Satisfaction


> Or instead of "fixing" it, give up the whole idea because it is not
> worth the cost.
>
> Bill Harms
> Elkridge, Maryland
>
> On 29 Jun 2006 at 13:07, Mark Humphrey wrote:
>
>> This recent survey points out the problems we will need to fix for HD
>> Radio to succeed.
>>
>> http://www.bridgeratings.com/press_5.22.06.HDSatisf.htm
>>
>> (Of the 23% dissatisfied with their "HD" experience, over a third said
>> it's because "reception is not always the best" and another 22% responded
>> that the "quality is not as advertised".)
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
> http://www.radiolists.net/
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.6/378 - Release Date: 6/28/2006
>