That barbaque analogy, as it applies to me. I dislike barbaque. If you
knocked on my door, giving the stuff away, I wouldn't eat it. Darren





http://community-2.webtv.net/DEMEM/L...mes/page2.html

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...


Too true. Poor marketing can also doom an *excellent* product that may
have
been a big hit.

Although my example isn't radio related, it serves as a fair example of
the
impact (or lack of impact) resulting from good marketing. Allow me to moan
the blues for a bit...

Bar-B-Que in this town is worse than "average", and for no good reason.
"Average" BBQ isn't difficult at all. "Good" BBQ isn't really all that
difficult. "OH-MY-GAWD!!!" BBQ may look easy, when done by those who know
what they are doing, but is not as easy as it looks.

A guy opened a small BBQ restaurant that was *behind* a local Italian
restaurant. He had a couple of big problems - his establishment wasn't out
front where you could see it, and he wasn't allowed to put a sign up on
the
street-side of the building.

His BBQ was incredibly good. You could shake (just once) the big, meaty
ribs he cooked and the meat would just fall off the bone onto your plate.
He made his own sauces (three different styles) and all were outstanding.
His prices were about 5% to 10% less than the other BBQ places in town.
His
restaurant was clean, neat and the service was great.

He was in business for 6 months before he had to cut his losses and run.
Why? Not that many people even knew he was open for business and he held
the opinion that (quote) "paid advertising is over-rated"...

Most everyone has a "benchmark" restaurant for whatever. The best steak
you ever had; best breakfast; best dessert; etc. This guy was my benchmark
for great ribs. And, for lack of a bit of marketing, he's out of
business...

There's one comparison which comes to mind. The BBQ joint generated
interest among BBQ enthusiasts, but that interest didn't translate to a
broader interest among the general restaurant consumers. Good marketing
would certainly have helped.

DRM doesn't seem to have much interest even among radio enthusiasts, if the
responses on this forum are any indication. Expecting DRM to generate
interest in shortwave radio among casual radio listeners looks like
somebody's pipe dream.



DRM may or may not be a (good, better, best) broadcasting service. But
without a decent marketing plan, it would be pure luck for *any* product
to
succeed (IMHO).

-=jd=-


Monopolies in vital services don't need marketing. Marketing becomes
increasingly important as the markets become more competitive.

DRM has the monopoly on shortwave digital modulation for international
broadcasting. If people want digital SW broadcasting, DRM is the only game
in town.

So, what's the best way to market digital SW radio? With a gimmicky name?
If the DRM wizards asked me, I'd suggest they need to develop a low cost,
easy to use, long battery life portable radio. I don't know if such a radio
is possible.

Or the old line international broadcasters could broadcast programs which
the casual radio listener would want to listen to. But, since the Cold War
and colonial era have both faded away, I don't know if that's possible,
either.

If Alex Jones and the Prophet of God go to DRM, I'll be right there with
them.

Frank Dresser

In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...


Too true. Poor marketing can also doom an *excellent* product that
may have been a big hit.

Although my example isn't radio related, it serves as a fair
example of the impact (or lack of impact) resulting from good
marketing. Allow me to moan the blues for a bit...

Bar-B-Que in this town is worse than "average", and for no good
reason. "Average" BBQ isn't difficult at all. "Good" BBQ isn't
really all that difficult. "OH-MY-GAWD!!!" BBQ may look easy, when
done by those who know what they are doing, but is not as easy as
it looks.

A guy opened a small BBQ restaurant that was *behind* a local
Italian restaurant. He had a couple of big problems - his
establishment wasn't out front where you could see it, and he
wasn't allowed to put a sign up on the street-side of the building.

His BBQ was incredibly good. You could shake (just once) the big,
meaty ribs he cooked and the meat would just fall off the bone onto
your plate. He made his own sauces (three different styles) and all
were outstanding. His prices were about 5% to 10% less than the
other BBQ places in town. His restaurant was clean, neat and the
service was great.

He was in business for 6 months before he had to cut his losses and
run. Why? Not that many people even knew he was open for business
and he held the opinion that (quote) "paid advertising is
over-rated"...

Most everyone has a "benchmark" restaurant for whatever. The best
steak you ever had; best breakfast; best dessert; etc. This guy was
my benchmark for great ribs. And, for lack of a bit of marketing,
he's out of business...

There's one comparison which comes to mind. The BBQ joint generated
interest among BBQ enthusiasts, but that interest didn't translate to
a broader interest among the general restaurant consumers. Good
marketing would certainly have helped.

DRM doesn't seem to have much interest even among radio enthusiasts,
if the responses on this forum are any indication. Expecting DRM to
generate interest in shortwave radio among casual radio listeners
looks like somebody's pipe dream.



DRM may or may not be a (good, better, best) broadcasting service.
But without a decent marketing plan, it would be pure luck for
*any* product to succeed (IMHO).

-=jd=-


Monopolies in vital services don't need marketing. Marketing becomes
increasingly important as the markets become more competitive.

DRM has the monopoly on shortwave digital modulation for
international broadcasting. If people want digital SW broadcasting,
DRM is the only game in town.

So, what's the best way to market digital SW radio? With a gimmicky
name? If the DRM wizards asked me, I'd suggest they need to develop a
low cost, easy to use, long battery life portable radio. I don't
know if such a radio is possible.

Or the old line international broadcasters could broadcast programs
which the casual radio listener would want to listen to. But, since
the Cold War and colonial era have both faded away, I don't know if
that's possible, either.

If Alex Jones and the Prophet of God go to DRM, I'll be right there
with them.

They have taken their shot at marketing and blew it big time. They came
out and presented DRM as an open system, which it is not. They state
that it will sound better in the same bandwidth, which it can not. They
state that it can stay in the current channel assignments but does not
spreading out beyond + / - 5KHz.

DRM = Deception Radio Mondiale

It is just a different system with some pluses on one side and
drawbacks on the other side of "better than the current analog system."

For digital to be unquestionably better it would take another approach
than DRM, which would use digital signals to better adapt to the
resultant distortions HF of propagation.

Newer and different does not equate to better.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

They have taken their shot at marketing and blew it big time. They came
out and presented DRM as an open system, which it is not. They state
that it will sound better in the same bandwidth, which it can not. They
state that it can stay in the current channel assignments but does not
spreading out beyond + / - 5KHz.

DRM = Deception Radio Mondiale

It is just a different system with some pluses on one side and
drawbacks on the other side of "better than the current analog system."

For digital to be unquestionably better it would take another approach
than DRM, which would use digital signals to better adapt to the
resultant distortions HF of propagation.

Such a system might be technically better, but would people buy it? The
synchronous detector reduces the problems with SW reception and a radios
with synchronous detectors have been around for years. But radios with
synch detectors haven't taken a large percentage of the radio marketplace.

Technically oriented people see a problem and expect a technically oriented
solution. International broadcasting isn't what what it was twenty years
ago. Thinking that people are being driven away from SW by SW radio's sound
quality is an understandable reaction. But, if sound quality is really the
reason old line international broadcasting is declining, shouldn't radios
with sync detectors have been much more successful?

As I see it, sound quality is irrelevent to the decline of old line
international broadcasting. Governments are less interested in public
diplomacy since the end of the Cold War. Also, people with interent access
have the world's news at their fingertips when they want it, not when the
broadcasts get through.

The problem with DRM, as I see it, isn't marketing, it's market research.
It seems this scheme got started without a firm answer to the question,
"Will people really want to buy this thing?"


Newer and different does not equate to better.

No doubt about that!


--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Frank Dresser

In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

gy.com.. .

They have taken their shot at marketing and blew it big time. They
came out and presented DRM as an open system, which it is not. They
state that it will sound better in the same bandwidth, which it can
not. They state that it can stay in the current channel assignments
but does not spreading out beyond + / - 5KHz.

DRM = Deception Radio Mondiale

It is just a different system with some pluses on one side and
drawbacks on the other side of "better than the current analog
system."

For digital to be unquestionably better it would take another
approach than DRM, which would use digital signals to better adapt
to the resultant distortions HF of propagation.

Such a system might be technically better, but would people buy it?
The synchronous detector reduces the problems with SW reception and a
radios with synchronous detectors have been around for years. But
radios with synch detectors haven't taken a large percentage of the
radio marketplace.

Technically oriented people see a problem and expect a technically
oriented solution. International broadcasting isn't what what it was
twenty years ago. Thinking that people are being driven away from SW
by SW radio's sound quality is an understandable reaction. But, if
sound quality is really the reason old line international
broadcasting is declining, shouldn't radios with sync detectors have
been much more successful?

As I see it, sound quality is irrelevent to the decline of old line
international broadcasting. Governments are less interested in
public diplomacy since the end of the Cold War. Also, people with
interent access have the world's news at their fingertips when they
want it, not when the broadcasts get through.

The problem with DRM, as I see it, isn't marketing, it's market
research. It seems this scheme got started without a firm answer to
the question, "Will people really want to buy this thing?"


Newer and different does not equate to better.

No doubt about that!

Your point about wether people will buy into one thing or radio
receiving system over another is the same as any other purchase, which
is finding a solution to a problem. The problem here is the desire to
receive world wide radio stations. In juggling all the parameters of
the individual radios a consumer will determine a cost to benefit ratio
or in other words bang for the buck. Technically it is not hard to find
the best radio or group of radios but the better designed radios with
more bells and whistles will cost more money so it comes down to how
much they are willing to spend to get a radio (solution to the
problem).

In order to get people to spend more money for an item the increase in
the benefit of that item must be greater then the resistance of
spending that extra money. There is no question that synchronous
detection provides a vast improvement in reception but it costs more
money for the modest increase in circuitry. You don't have to have it
in a radio so people still consider it an extra that they may or may
not want to pay for.

If I was Drake or some other radio manufacture that has sync detection
I would have a comparison audio steam on the web site with the same
received signal with and without sync detection (stereo) on, so people
could understand the difference it makes. Currently you have to have a
technical understanding of what that feature does. This requires a
consumer to spend his money first and then find out wether the feature
is worth the extra money. This is a poor way to improve sales.

I think it likely that most SW radio buyers don't understand the
benefit of sync detection unless they already have a radio with that
feature.

I think the DRM people have done a better job in the sales department
with DRM than radio manufactures have done with sync detection. They
have provided comparison audio streams on their web site so you can
hear the difference. They have created a lot of interest with
broadcasters with the promise of reduced electrical costs to broadcast.
They have plenty of hype in the press going with announcements of
various broadcasters currently testing or buying DRM ready
transmitters. You can't read about short wave radio without a mention
of DRM so what's the problem with the acceptance of it?

There are two problems as I see it. First is the cost. The current
system works so DRM is just an improvement of some magnitude. This
improvement must, in the consumers mind, be greater than the increased
cost to buy it or they are not going to buy it.

The second problem is technically DRM does not provide a significant
improvement in reception as this system is depicted. As far as I can
see the only delivered promise so far in this digital system is the
reduced electrical power to broadcast and that is the only thing
driving the change to DRM. The broadcasters not listeners are driving
this change to save on electrical costs.

Unfortunately the consumer of these broadcasts will have to spend more
money on a radio to receive them. Many decades of produced radios will
become obsolete. The reception will not be any better because the
received signal will be weaker. It will not sound any better because
encoding techniques can't make up for bandwidth, which is the same
occupied bandwidth as now. Despite the lower modulation rate multiple
carrier digital approach the signal still spreads out beyond its
specified confines and will interfere with adjacent signals. This is
guaranteed because it is technically very difficult to keep the
transmitter in proper alignment for DRM.

DRM provides no significant benefit to the radio listener only to the
broadcaster is the simple truth. DRM is a snow job on the listener.

DRM = Deception Radio Mondiale

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

FD,
..
You may have something here.
..
IIRC - WWV runs a semi-suppressed Carrier with Dual Side Bands.
..
I all of the International Broadcasters did the same and all
new Shortwave Radios had AM-SYNC. Then that just may be the
better 'improvement' for the Media of Shortwave Broadcasting.
..
now why didn't i think of that ~ RHF