This is the official Web site for GuyOnTheAir. It is not intended to amuse, entertain, or be a useful or factual source for information. Thoughts recorded on GuyOnTheAir.com are just the streaming content of GuyOnTheAir's brain, nothing more or less. For more information, email Guy@GuyOnTheAir.com
GuyOnTheAir's Latest Projects:
Get deeper into the mind of GuyOnTheAir with private.GuyOnTheAir.com, the members only private blog of GuyOnTheAir. Sign up for access!
Thursday, May 05, 2011
-
Lip service on Facebook shows rogue restaurants or managers, and is more annoying than the initial problem
Today I returned to Chipotle on Sunset in West Hollywood. Upon asking for the quesadilla with tomato salsa cooked inside, I was told no. A manager, Humberto Rosales, Apprentice, was summoned. He told me emphatically, "We are not going to do that. We WILL NOT do that." He also said that he had been with Chipotle for 4 years, knew what was going on, and that no matter what I said, my request was "NOT going to happen." He then basically dismissed or turned away from me, even when I referenced this communication on Facebook.
At this point, what bothers me more than being unable to get the stupid quesadilla, is the attitude of management and staff at the restaurant. This is not a customer service attitude, but one of total disdain for the customer. Emphatically denying a customer ANYTHING as the FIRST course of action is ridiculous.
Further, to be promised by Joe, representing Chipotle on Facebook, that things would be taken care of, almost a month ago, and still it is not resolved, shows that the Facebook representatives either have no clue what is going on, or, what they say is meaningless.
I would like to hear from the office of the president at Chipotle about what will be done to resolve this situation, or someone with authority to make and implement a policy that will guide this issue.
For more information, please read these previous posts:
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
-
Chipotle Mexican Grill? Maybe not.
I see that it's been close to a year since I last wrote on this blog. Apparently my life is so boring, that there is nothing to write, or maybe I just don't feel like sharing...
Until today.
You see, I just got off the phone with John Saucedo (maybe not his real last name, it is very difficult to understand on my voicemail) with Chipotle "Mexican Grill." John called me, after I left a message with the Chipotle corporate office, yesterday. I'll start at the beginning.
Since sometime in 2001 or 2002, I've been an avid customer of Chipotle. It started at the Chipotle that opened up down the street from me in Redlands, CA. While I enjoyed their vegetarian burritos, what became my regular was a couple of sides of their excellent cilantro-lime rice, with some of their tomato salsa on top. Fresh, this was tasty, but it even held up to refrigeration, and nuking a day or two later. As I worked about 3 doors down from this Chipotle, I was there regularly. Then I moved, and didn't have a Chipotle so convenient, or nearby.
In the last couple of years, this has changed, as more and more Chipotle restaurants popped up. About 2 or 3 years ago, a friend of mine asked me if I'd ever had a Chipotle quesadilla. I didn't even know they had such a thing, but tried one the next chance I got. (It's not on the menu at most locations.)
The simple cheese quesadilla was tasty, but I wanted a bit of tomato-ey goodness, so asked the restaurant to add tomatoes while they cooked the quesadilla. (I'd been spoiled by some little Mexican joint that did this somewhere along the way.) And goodness, with the tomato salsa cooked into the quesadilla, it was INCREDIBLE, the kind of thing you begin to crave.
Wikipedia defines "quesadilla" like this (emphasis mine):
A quesadilla is usually made with a corn tortilla and is filled primarily with cheese and other ingredients such as cooked meat, refried beans, and vegetables. The filled tortilla is then toasted under a boiler or fried, usually until the cheese is melted. Once the quesadilla is cooked, it is traditionally cut into slices, or wedges.
What's not to love!
Chipotle is careful to make their quesadillas. They start with the flour tortilla, add the cheese right in front of you, (and tomato salsa, in my case), and then wrap the entire thing up in a big piece of thick tinfoil. Then it's placed into their "grill presses". After, it's opened up, cut with a knife, wrapped back up, and given to you!
And then the trouble started. My next visit to a Los Angeles area Chipotle, I was told by the employee that they were not allowed to put the tomato salsa into the quesadilla. It was not an issue of cost, but that the grill presses couldn't accommodate it. That struck me as odd, as for the last number of times, the grill presses and employees had accommodated my request just fine!
Indeed, this started to become a problem at many Chipotle's that I visited. Almost every Chipotle was now saying it was impossible for them to add tomatoes to my quesadilla, until after it was cooked. Reasons varied from "it messes up our presses", to "it takes too long in the press", to "it will damage our equipment."
It doesn't take a genius to figure out why I want my tomato salsa cooked inside. Chipotle's cut up tomato salsa, or, really, pico de gallo, is a fresh salsa, with fresh tomatoes, perhaps some onions, maybe some cilantro, seasonings and a touch of green and hot pepper. Anybody will attest that a fresh tomato tastes completely different than a cooked one. And, when I could get Chipotle to put my tomatos into the grill presses, the flavor of the tomatoes, onions, and green and hot pepper seasonings would just spread throughout the whole thing. A light touch of zest greeted me with each bite.
Now, Chipotle would only add their tomato salsa, AFTER the quesadilla was cooked. Since a cheese quesadilla is just cheese and a flour tortilla grilled up together, adding some refrigerated salsa at the end had the effect of cooling down the quesadilla, and adding a fresh tomato taste, not the experience I was looking for.
The difference is amazing. The quesadilla with baked-in salsa? EXCELLENT. The quesadilla with ingredients added on later? BLAND, cold, and not at all notable.
This couldn't be right, I decided. I mean, why can't a restaurant honor a simple customer request? So, I went to Chipotle.com and submitted a note. As I wrote this on my iPhone, there are a few mistakes...
I've been to many chipotles and enjoy your food. However, in the last few months, the restaurants (more than just this one) refuse to make the simplest of items for me. I like a large cheese quesadilla with a few tomatoes (salsa) cooked into it. This should be simple for a restaurant that bills itself a "Mexican grill". The employees ans their managers refuse, saying that it hurt the grills or create a mess on them. Yet to create the quesadilla, they wrap the entire thing in tin foil. How could a few tomatoes get on the grill any more than the cheese that has been put in? And how would the cheese or tomatoes get through the tinfoil envelope they've created anyway? I would think that satisfying the simplest request from a customer would be more important than some arbitrary policy or procedure.
Thanks for writing us. I am sorry that you were not able to receive salsa on your quesadilla with your recent order from our Sunset Blvd. restaurant. I am not sure what the intensions were here, but we first cook the quesadilla, and then add in any additional salsas after it has been cooked. Did they put the salsa that you asked for in your quesadilla after it was done? If not, we apologize for this inconvenience, and we’ll follow-up with our team at this location and make sure that we assemble our orders as our guests request.
For your less than satisfactory experience, I’d like to offer you a free burrito card (good for quesadillas too). Simply send me your mailing address and I will get that to you shortly. When we miss the mark we really appreciate guests who take the time to help us realize how we can improve on what we do.
We hope that you’ll give us another try and come see us again soon!
Sincerely,
Louisa
Apparently Louisa didn't quite understand either. So I wrote her back (with my mailing address):
Hi, Louisa,
Thanks for your response. I understand that in general, for some reason that doesn't make any sense to me, that you want to cook the quesadilla first, and then add additional items. However, sometime you should really try a quesadilla with the tomato salsa cooked into it. The light green peppers and other flavors of the salsa really spread throughout the quesadilla, and make it very delicious. When you add the cold salsa after the quesadilla has cooked, it just makes the whole quesadilla cold, and the flavors don't react in the same way.
I really wish there wouldn't be a problem with cooking the salsa into the quesadilla. It's such a simple request, and makes the item so much more delicious. I urge you to try it!
Other mexican style grills in town, and even some "food trucks" so popular in Los Angeles are making a similar item, and have green chilies and such cooked into the quesadilla. It's so very tasty.
Thanks.
Louisa responded:
Thanks for getting back to me. Please share your request next time with our Sunset Blvd team and they will cook your quesadilla with the salsa inside. I will follow-up with them again and make sure that we accommodate this request. While this may be the standard way we prepare the quesadilla, we can certainly make it the way you like it too. I will send that card shortly.
-Louisa
I had one more question for Louisa:
Louisa,
Just curious: will only the Sunset team be permitted to make my quesadilla to my request?
Thanks.
She responded:
No, this applies to all of our locations. While we may have a standard way of preparing our quesadillas, all of our teams should accommodate your request. Just make it known to them and they will make it just as you’d like it.
I was thrilled. Now, I could finally have a tasty quesadilla again, and there shouldn't be any problems. I even made sure to save the email so that I could show it to employees who might have questions, and to show them that their Chipotle corporate office had approved the addition of tomato salsa into my quesadilla.
For about a month, I didn't go to Chipotle, for whatever reason, but one day, I began craving the quesadilla again! I stopped by the Sunset Boulevard location and asked for the quesadilla with tomato salsa cooked inside. The employee told me that it was not possible. I politely argued with the employee, who called over his manager. The manager would also not budge. Apparently, at Chipotle, the customer is NOT always right. So, I pulled out my phone, and looked up the trusty email from Louisa. I showed the email to this manager, who, after reading it carefully, decided that "this one time, we'll make an exception for you."
By the time I got to the register, I was being "dealt with" by 3 employees: the register person, the manager, and a new guy who, when asked, identified himself as Marc Montoya, the general manager. And, the manager also had a guy on a cordless phone he claimed was his boss, and I could speak to him if I liked. Each of them explained that I could not get tomato salsa inside the quesadilla, until after it was cooked. This time, Marc the general manager noted that putting tomato salsa inside the quesadilla while it cooked would cause the grill presses to crack.
When I pointed out that Louisa at the corporate office didn't seem to have any trouble with this issue, Marc let me know in sharp words that he didn't care what the corporate office had to say, as this was HIS restaurant, and if HIS employees broke the press that HE would have to pay for it, NOT the corporate office. I also declined to speak to the "boss" on the manager's phone, as I noted I already had confirmation from the corporate office, that would seem to be enough confirmation for me!
After my visit, on a lark, I dialed 1-800-Chipotle, and it rang to the corporate office. In the online phone book, I dialed in Louisa's name, and got her extension. I left a message for Louisa, explaining my problem again.
The next day (today), I got a message on my phone from John ???? from Chipotle. John, who called me from 530-301-0636, in Marysville, CA claims to be the regional manager, who oversees the Chipotle restaurants.
When I called him back, he explained that he cannot allow the restaurants to cook tomato salsa into the quesadillas, due to "cross contamination." He said something to the effect of "we can't have tomato juices getting into all of our products and our grills, in case people are allergic to tomatoes." I noted that if cross contamination was the true problem, then what about people allergic to cheese, what about that tinfoil envelope that kept everything inside of it, and what about vegetarians? The "buffet"-style setup of the Chipotle serving line pretty much guarantees that meat pieces, cheese, rice, and all sorts of products are mixed, even slightly, just in the normal course of business. Like the others, John was firm. His employees were NOT going to put tomato salsa into the quesadilla. I also asked John why I've heard so many different reasons for this "policy." John could only repeat his lines, and had no insight. I mentioned to John that I'm not here to run his business and tell him what to do, but it would seem that they could find a way to honor a simple customer request. I noted that I was not asking him or his employees to do something like "add a whole chicken to my quesadilla", that he could not accommodate, due to the size of the presses.
UPDATE, April 13, 2011: After I posted my questions on the Chipotle Facebook, a guy "Joe" there has vowed that I'll be able to get whatever I want on my quesadilla, except meat, which, if you know me, know isn't a problem. So, perhaps a happy ending? I'll have to try this, soon.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
-
magicJack has horrible business practices.
A couple of years ago, I purchased two magicJack devices online to help cut my phone bills. While this isn't a post to complain of their sometimes unreliable service, beeps during calls, and strange software updates that seem to make their product worse, it is a note to bring to light some business practices I find troublesome.
I registered my devices a few days apart, and used the included year of service. When it came time to renew in 2009, I renewed one device for another year at $19.95, and the other device I renewed in their 5-year plan for $59.95.
Things went on as normal until this year. The first device came up for renewal. I went to renew on their Web site (the only way, as there is no way to contact them via phone), and their order form would not let me complete the process, giving me a "AddRenewal QuickOrder Problem: K." Chat Customer Service representatives offered no resolution for over a week, although they claimed they'd escalate the issue.
Finally, I made a formal complaint with the South Florida Better Business Bureau, where magicJack is headquartered. In that complaint, I noted my problem. Within a few days, a simple message instructed me to try again. And this time, my order went through.
Now I faced a new problem. My second magicJack was now claiming it was up for renewal, yet, with the 5-year plan, it should not have expired until 2013. I waited, thinking that the erroneous message would go away. But, finally the magicJack was made inoperable, as my service had expired.
I tried contacting magicJack via Chat Customer Service, and representatives were completely unhelpful, and would even end the chat on me. Finally it was determined that magicJack had arbitrarily cancelled my 5-year plan. And, it was even later determined that when they did this, they had refunded my $59.95 back to my credit card! All of this was done without my request, or consent. Now, they tell me the only way to restore service, is to either pay the $19.95 for a year of service, or get my 5 year plan back, at a new price. Now the price is $69.95. It seems like a sort of bait and switch kind of game, where you pay one price, and get certain things promised. But instead of delivering on those promises, they just refund your money in order for you to have to pay MORE money to get what was promised the first time. This is very frustrating.
So, I went back to the South Florida Better Business Bureau. I wrote of my new problem, and how they company had cancelled my cheaper plan, in order to get me to purchase the same plan for more money. magicJack responded, and told me "Customer can e-mail rikard.bone@magijack.com and he can assist the customer if he wants to re-order the five year plan for $59.95."
Numerous detailed emails to rikard.bone@magicjack.com have gone unanswered. I've since submitted 2 subsequent complains to the South Florida BBB, and they will not open a case about it, which is strange.
So, I'm not sure what to do about this. All over the internet, there are complaints about this company and its business practices. I'm surprised that a site like Consumerist.com doesn't really seem to list any information about it. Now my only hope is to bring some light to my situation, to see if it can be resolved.
Let us hereby be reminded, before sadness and frustration overwhelm once more: Proposition 8 and its ilk are merely the last, fitful gasps of a long-dying ideology, markers of a certain kind of sad, conservative desperation. They are the final clawings and scrapings of a reactionary worldview that attempts to outlaw and punish all it cannot, will not understand. Same as it ever was, really.
One of the parts of this article that is great is a comment made by a 60 year old white haired woman:
If I remember correctly, Jesus said, "Love one another." He didn't specify gender nor whom you should. Those words came from a man who hung out with twelve disciples and a prostitute. He never married nor had children. I look forward to the time in our lives when this will be a footnote in our history. Hold on.
A few words on Prop 8 (not my own)...
For fear that this may some day disappear from the MSNBC site, I've quoted the entire article referenced. From the Monday, Nov. 11 edition of "Countdown with Keith Olberman" on MSNBC, comes this*:
SPECIAL COMMENT By Keith Olbermann Anchor, 'Countdown' msnbc.com updated 6:13 p.m. PT, Mon., Nov. 10, 2008
Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.
Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.
And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?
I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.
The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.
You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.
How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?
What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.
It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.
And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?
With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.
You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.
This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.
But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:
"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love."
If the mood so strikes me in the coming days, I may post some more of my own thoughts on the passage of Prop 8. But, so far, all I've been able to put together is the wording of my "status" on Facebook. It reads, "GuyOnTheAir is discouraged that people feel justified in their hatred, based on their religion, when no religion truly supports hatred of people."
I have not followed, nor seen any of the Michael Moore movies. I don't know if I respect the man, or what I think about him. But I have to tell you, this clip makes me laugh, and makes me so very happy!
Monday, April 21, 2008
-
Major GrandCentral outtage, and my response
I've become a huge user of GrandCentral, a service bought by Google, which claims to be your one stop shop for a phone number that won't change for life...
So, most people that know me now have my GrandCentral phone number. (Readers of private.GuyOnTheAir.com even have a button to click to call me directly from there...) And, overall, I like the features and service...except when it goes down, as it did on my birthday, just a couple weekends ago.
And, upon service restoral, shocker, they even posted something about it on the GrandCentral blog. So, I've posted my "comments" response. But, since my comments are awaiting "moderation", I have a sneaky suspicion they might never see the light of day. So, I publish them here, so that all the world can read, whether or not they become an "official" comment.
GuyOnTheAir Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. April 20th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
I find it astounding that this service seems to be no more than a “mom and pop” setup. Sounds like it’s coming from someone’s garage.
A number of things are disturbing:
1) A colo facility, apparently now contracted by Google, had a “power issue” that knocked the whole service offline. Any colo facility I’d ever do business with would have backup power, generators, something. Did all of those fail? Were they even in place?
2) Every guy deserves time with his family, and Craig should be no different. But, is Craig the ONLY guy running GC? Is there NOBODY else that could deal with problems? Would not a variety of people be paged and consulted in case of an issue? Craig says “we were able to restore the service”, implying it’s more than just him, but I’m starting to wonder.
3) Keeping us informed would be great. It seems that all communication, save one or two blogs, has been cut off ever since Google acquired GC. As an end user, it would appear the service is doomed, as there have been no major developments, and changes, other than the mysterious end being able to invite others to the service. That doesn’t bode well, either. Is the service doomed?
I do appreciate that at least SOMETHING was written about this outtage. I’m sure most people don’t even realize this blog is here, though, and it certainly hasn’t seemed to be a complete resource for all things GC in ages…
I do hope that things improve.
Finally, can we get a way to call our GC number, look somebody up in our Address book, and then be able to call them, if we’re not able to get the web interface? That and text messaging are the biggest hurdles to making this service truly replace all my other numbers.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
-
Duck, an HD Radio might be flying off a shelf and about to hit you!
Radio is in my blood. It's my everyday job, and it's something I do even in my spare time.
Now, it's possible you've heard of the "next-generation" of radio - HD Radio. Unlike HDTV, which every viewer can notice the dramatic change from a normal signal to the crystal-clear high definition images on the screen, HD Radio offers only a digital service for terrestrial radio, not necessarily any sort of improvement.
It's just like the switch from analog cellular phones to today's more popular digital services. Back a few years, everyone that had a cell phone, had an analog cell phone. Those sounded okay, but, if you started to get out of range, you could hear noise, or distortions based on other radio interference. Along came GSM, CDMA, and other digital phone technologies. Phone carriers sold these to us as an improvement, and wanted us to "listen to the difference." We were asked to "see how clear it sounds", and more. However, over time, carriers could greatly increase the number of users per cell, and then decrease and compress the digital signals, making each one use less bandwidth, and eventually making the signals sound worse. With digital, you either get it, or you don't. There's no fade-outs, there's just dropped calls, or no service.
So would seem the so-called "HD Radio." Stations that typically broadcast thousands of watts of power would be reduced to a mere fraction of that amount to spit out this digital signal. And, for upwards of $150, you too can buy an HD Radio and, if you hold the antenna just so, the phase of the moon is correct, and you've said the proper incantations, you can tune into these HD channels.
Oh, and there's more of them. You can have an HD-1 channel, HD-2 channel, or even HD-3. So, instead of (or alongside) one analog channel, you can now have up to 3 digital channels. You either get the signal, or you don't. For AM this could be good, as there's no fade-out as you pass under a bridge or venture too close to a building or other interference. For FM, you get about the same audio. But, the amount of available bandwidth is limited. For each additional channel you add, you've got to divide the total available bandwidth. So, those 3 HD channels now start sounding a lot like, um, digital phone service. In a case study in Radio Magazine, Certified Broadcast Radio Engineer (CBRE) Don Danko explains:
"The overall HD Radio data stream is set at 96kb/s. Streaming a second signal involves lowering the bit rate on the main channel and giving those saved bits to the second channel."
"Here’s what the industry wants you to get excited about: digital broadcast radio or HD (high definition) radio. It’s the worst of both worlds: Bad FM programming plus satellite-like digital audio quality. FM stations in your area will simulcast a digital signal in addition to the analog one you can listen to.
Bottom line: It means that you’ll be able to listen to mediocre-sounding digital music streams of the same horrible FM stations you can’t stand to listen to now."In other words, no one will ever walk up to your speakers and notice the "increased" clarity, cleanness, and fidelity like they do when they walk up to an HDTV and notice all the exciting new detailed images."
But, proponents of HD Radio, mostly the NAB and Ibiquity, the company that has a monopoly on making, licensing, and selling the technology, love to boast how HD Radios are "flying off store shelves", and how it's the greatest thing to happen to radio since transistors. In fact, although the HD Radio standard was approved by the FCC in 2002, 5 years later, it's still not in great use. Not according to Ibiquity, though.
In a article titled "HD Radio Gains Support", Jeff McGannon, Vice President of OEM Business Development at iBiquity Digital predicts, "By 2010, HD Radio will be offered on more than half the vehicle lines." Clear Channel President and CEO John Hogan, says "We fully expect receivers to start flying off the shelves because the audio quality of an HD digital radio broadcast is amazing."
So, if I am to understand correctly, 8 years after HD Radio is approved, only half of new cars will have it? That doesn't sound like anything is flying off of any shelves. An independant community station in the Boulder and Denver, Colorado area, KGNU, is telling it's staff of other issues with HD Radio, including:
For the broadcasters, HD is a chicken and egg deal. HD will cost a lot of money, and broadcasters don't want to spend it if HD if people won't buy HD receivers.
Listeners won't buy HD receivers (which cost at least $ 100 more than standard ones) if no broadcasters use HD.
Manufacturers have no incentive to develop HD receivers until they have reason to believe that HD will take off.
No one will embrace HD if it doesn't really improve the sound.
HD is meant to sound CD quality, but in reality it will sound like internet radio: low noise, but also digital artifacts. This may not be seen as any improvement at all compared to standard FM. (On the other side, it's going to be a great improvement in AM.) Two major examples of such conversions gone bad are AM-stereo and quadrophonic sound. Both promised great improvements in sound quality, and neither succeeded.
Organizations and consumers who bought the equipment found themselves with white elephants.
And the article lists whole sections of pros and cons for HD Radio. But, you certainly won't hear any cons from the NAB or Ibiquity. It's all butterflies and daisies.
An article in trade publication Radio World Newspaper from January, 2004 notes that WOR's Thomas R. Ray, III, believes "that HD Radios will be in stores in the first quarter of 2004." Or at least that's what he was told. And yet, to this day, I've yet to see any HD Radio in my local Best Buy, Target, or Circuit City. Of course, Thomas Ray repeats that often observed state of HD Radio proclaiming, "once the public hears the benefits of non-fading AM and multipath-less FM, I think you will see them [HD Radios] start flying off the shelves." That, of course, still in 2004.
But, let's update. What were they saying in 2005? Billboard Radio Monitor Paul Heine, in Nielsen's (of TV ratings fame) MediaWeek, says in an article from October 31, 2005, that "This year was tagged as the tipping point for high-definition radio," and goes on to note that "HD Radio missed the holiday buying season." That, in 2005.
So, when is this stuff actually going to catch on? Will it ever? Consumer Reports even recommends in 2006:
"...most people will want to wait before investing in HD-Radio equipment. At this stage, choices are limited and prices are high. More and cheaper HD-Radio compatible gear is coming soon, and analog radio isn’t likely to become obsolete within the lifetime of a new radio, receiver, or even a car."
Few opponents of the HD Radio system seem to exist in broadcast circles, or are published in widely read radio journals, but not everyone is blind. In a July 29, 2007 article in the Washington Post regarding the possible sale of Christian music station WGTS, Marc Fisher notes that "WGTS's current format could be salvaged even if the station is sold by putting the programming on a digital sub-channel that would be available to listeners who buy the HD or digital radios that came on the market last year. But sales of those radios have been slow."
Could it be that sales of the radios have been slow, because few are willing to purchase a radio for at least $150? Or are they reluctant to invest in a technology that supposedly missed the 2005 holiday shopping season, but just, then, came "on the market last year"? Or, are they too having a hard time even finding a radio for sale? But, hurry quick and buy one of these exciting radios, "since HD Radio is a free broadcast, all you have to do is get a new HD Radio receiver for your home or car. Prices are plummeting as more and more people are discovering what HD Radio is all about", at least according to Ibiquity's "consumer friendly" HDRadio.com. But what about those commercials on some regular, analog stations that promote these free new channels and content that are free of commercials and subscription fees? Yes, indeed, current HD-2, and even HD-3 channels are commercial free. But, more than anything else, it's because they aren't worth anything. Few are listening, and would-be advertisers don't generally want to market to just a few. If the whole HD Radio thing took off, do you really believe those channels would truly remain completely commercial free, forever? Anyone with a business mind can see notice the lack of a sustainable business model.
And what of satellite radio? Satellite radio was supposed to be the next big thing, and although satellite radio services now boast close to 10 million listener subscribers, it's hardly become a standard. You don't hear much talk these days of the CD-quality sound that satellite radio once tried to boast. Internet music streams aren't highly regarded, unless they're at least 128kbps. Says Gary Krakow:
"Satellite radio sound is, at best, barely passable. That’s because your satellite service provider sends only one digital signal to your receiver. The receiver then splits that signal into hundreds of audio streams: some, for voice, very narrow; others, for music, a little wider. I’ve been told these streams run from a few kbps for voice to something like 30 to 60kbps for music.
A typical music satellite radio station is thus compressed and expanded at a much lower rate than many MP3s. A reader will write me to defend the sound of a 128kpbs ripped music file (it’s not near-CD quality despite what anyone tells you) but I can’t believe anyone can defend the sound quality of a 36kbps satellite radio music stream."
Chuck Gage agrees:
"No one has mentioned the sound quality! Yes, it is all digital and there are none of the usual analog problems. However, the bandwidth and thus the fidelity, is quite bad in many cases. Both systems [XM and SIRIUS] talk about “CD quality”. Well, yes, CD clarity perhaps, but not CD quality. Both companies use compression techniques to cram as much as they can down that soda-straw of bandwidth."
And what about the commercials? An understanding of "Commercial-free" for the entire service (an understanding not specifically stated by the companies, but pretty much implied), paved the way for "100% commercial-free music". From there, suddenly XM Radio was boasting "…the most commercial-free music channels in satellite radio." About.com:Radio guide Corey Deitz understands the confusion there:
"Notice it doesn’t flat out state they are all commercial-free. Increasing the number of channels allowed the company to boast of quantity – which can easily be misinterpreted by an average listener to mean they are all commercial-free."
"A radio station (or stream) is entitled to promote itself but it’s also common knowledge in the Radio Industry based on perceptual studies that a typical listener perceives a promo as a commercial and does not differentiate between the two."
That fact, is reconfirmed by well respected radio consultant Mike McVay from McVay Media, as quoted by Mr. Deitz,
"[Radio stations]...run :15 promos, traffic commercials, weather commercials, sold and sponsored PSA's, and community activity calendars that are sponsored. They do not count these as part of their commercial load. The listeners always count them as part of the commercial load. Listeners hear anything that is not music or entertainment as a commercial."
So, as far as variety of content, satellite radio services win. Again, Chuck Gage:
"...Americans will go for quantity over quality, sadly, any day."
So what does this all mean? The advantages of HD Radio should be clear. There should be greater sound quality, more variety due to increased numbers of channels, and fewer commercials. But those advantages already aren't true, even as Ibiquity's shill site HDRadio.com still proclaims "CD-quality sound" and "crystal clear reception". Variety? Well, honestly, do you see more variety as the same people get access to more channels? Look at Clear Channel. They went from 173 radio stations in 1997, to 1,400 stations in 2004, and has the variety increased? No. Most stations are network downlinks, or voice-tracked remotely to sound identical to stations in other formats. And fewer commercials? Don't count on it.
So the verdict from a guy who has listened to, installed and maintained an HD Radio transmitter, and deals with this stuff on a daily basis? Stay away, and save your money. There's no need, at least yet, to update your radio facilities and broadcast sites for HD Radio, and there's even less need for you to dump your ghetto blaster in favor of an outrageously priced HD Radio. Forget the hype, and for a good laugh, go visit HDRadio.com. Or, just go listen to your AM-Stereo set, instead.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
-
Help Patti Fight the RIAA!
Patti is the New York working mother with five children who's decided she's not caving in to Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal, Warner Music or EMI, the multi-billion-dollar members of the Organized Music cartel which has been trying to extort 'settlement' money from her, and more than 17,000 others like her, including school kids.
She is NOT willing to be blackmailed for something she didn't do and when she presents her case to a jury on an as-yet to be determined date, she'll be the first to meet these hard-core, multi-billion-dollar bullies with their teams of PR hacks, their bought-and-paid for politicians, their unimaginably vast financial and legal resources, face-to-face.
And she's doing it alone, without expert help or legal representation.
