We all have pet peeves. Some of my peeves deal with English. I’m not perfect, but I think I’m pretty good.

This time it’s about “you.” Or as I keep hearing more and more, “you guys” and “you all” (or “y’all”).

I find it funny that so many people try so hard to make “you” an obvious plural. “You” is singular and plural in modern English, and except in rare cases, it’s obvious when “you” is meant to be singular or plural. So why do so many feel the need to use “you guys” so often?

What’s ironic about the forced plural is that historically, “you” was only plural. (”Ye” was also used.) The singular was “thou” or “thee.” Over time, “you” become a formal singular usage and then finally replaced thee/thou for familar usage.

Back to the present, the most absurd use of “you guys” is when it is made possessive. “Is this your guys’ store?” where it sounds like “Is this your guises store?” Just today i saw someone write “What is your all’s preference?”

The connection to broadcasting? Listeners hear language misused on the air and tend to repeat it. While colloquialisms and regional speech are part of localism, broadcasting should set an example. It’s almost to the point where non-native English speakers speak English better than the native speakers.

The FM multicast capability is still one of the highlights of HD Radio. As a straight replacement technology (digital for analog), HD Radio has a challenge. Adding additional program streams adds new revenue streams, which I would think any station would welcome.

But maybe not.

I talked to a radio colleague the other day about his station. He works on air, and while his FM station transmits an HD Radio signal, the station does not have any multicast streams. I asked why. He told me the program director does not want to erode the primary listening audience on the main signal.

I can appreciate not wanting to harm the prime revenue source, but this kind of short-sighted thinking does nothing to help HD Radio acceptance, let alone grow a new listening audience or create a new revenue stream for the station owner.

With a little creative thinking, that program director could create a specialized format that would complement the main channel rather that erode it.

Multicast streams often do this quite well. If the main channel is a classic rock format, make the HD2 a deep cuts format and the HD3 a live cuts format. The multicast streams can reinforce the main channel rather than detract from it.

And when a listener doesn’t want to hear what’s on the HD1, instead of forcing him to the competition, let him turn to the HD2 or HD3.

Recently, I had to prepare a chapter meeting announcement. I worked with the chapter member assigned to arrange the program. After multiple requests for information about the meeting, I was finally given a program topic and nothing more. I asked for a description of the topic and the name of the presenter. I received a definition of the key term in the topic, and name that included a job title a “bio” that read: “[Name] has 35 years of broadcast industry experience.”

Obviously I pushed for more information, and I tempered that request with some of the points I list below. The next item I received was a flyer about the company’s touring road show. The flyer basically said that this company was the leader in several aspects of broadcast technology, and all its products would be on display.

Again, I told the coordinator that this was worthless for a meeting announcement. The coordinator went back to the company one more time, and the manufacturer replied that he would like us to promote the company’s road show, which is why he was in town in the first place.

How nice. The manufacturer expected the chapter to do his PR work for him. He never provided any additional information about the original program topic. The end result: the meeting announcement was weak, few members attended, and the manufacturer was dissatisfied with the turn out.

What could have changed? Plenty, but mainly, an educational topic with a clear description would have attracted more attendees. I have my own method of arranging chapter programs, and there are a few regular steps I take. While I don’t expect to arrange all the programs myself, I am working with this coordinator to improve the methods he uses.

Here are my tips on getting the maximum effect for both manufacturers and chapters.

Manufacturers:

Teach us first.

A chapter meeting provides a captive audience. This audience knows when the program is pure pitch and when it’s is truly educational. If you start with a pitch, you lose them from the start.

Avoid the sales pitch.

If possible, eliminate the sales pitch. Like I said before, teach us first. Now we also know that there is a cost involved in this process. Companies exist to make money, and they make money by selling equipment and services. Save the sales element for the end. Better yet, once you have taught the audience something, tie it into your product to show a real-world example.

Put yourself in the audience’s place and consider the program.

Would you sit through the presentation on why you should buy the condominium? Even if it’s the best condominium in the world? Unless you really wanted a condo, probably not, and even then, if the presentation only covered how great that condo is, you probably would not want to hear it. Chapter meetings are the same way.

Provide a detailed program description that encourages people to attend.

Write the description so engineers will feel they are missing out if they are not there. Include why the topic is important. Don’t assume the potential attendee knows the topic in-depth.

Chapters:

A chapter meeting delivers a prime, targeted audience that has value to the presenter.

Don’t give it away. I hear lots of chapters rejoice that they have a program, yet the program itself may have no real value to the chapter. Chapter members can read a product sell sheet online. Don’t waste time by bringing a group together only to be told how great a product is.

Define the chapter’s expectations.

Be careful not to demand too much, or the presenter will either decline or expect just as much in return.

Suggest providing a meal, but don’t require it.

It’s no secret that feeding an engineer increses the chances of him attending. If the chapter requires the presenter to pay for a meal, it makes the presentation a sales effort from the start. The presenter is there to promote his company and product. If he has a mandatory cost involved, he wants something in return.

Beware of claims that a program is purely educational.

Just because the presenter says it’s not a sales pitch doesn’t mean it’s not. I know of one presenter who says he doesn’t know the price of the equipment, so it can’t be a sales pitch. Not true. It’s still a sales pitch, but it also makes that presenter a bad sales person. And honestly, if it’s the greatest technology in the world, it’s still useless to a station if it costs $100 billion.

On the other hand I ask, “Why bother?”

For some time I have said that the real mark of HD Radio success is to have the technology in every radio receiver. If it’s an option it will always be just that. If it’s in every receiver, there’s no doubt. Adding the technology to devices such as the Zune is a good step in this direction.

I don’t know how many people use the radio receiver on the Zune. I don’t own one, nor do any of my friends. (If you have a Zune, tell us what you use it for.) Regardless, once it has an HD Radio receiver, that’s one more not-an-option choice.

But why the “why bother?” comment? While I admit to not knowing the stats on radio usage for Zune owners, I would think people are buying a Zune because it’s a media player, not a portable radio. Sure, radio is one form of media, and if it’s already in there, perhaps it will get used. Having the radio receiver is one advantage the Zune has over the Ipod. I’ll have to reserve judgment until some stats are available.

The Zune HD is slated for release in the fall 2009. I look forward to seeing one in action. I also wonder what the battery life will be like.

In the end, call the Zune HD a win for HD Radio.

Using the term engineer causes some people to take a defensive stance. It seems that many of these people are state-certified professional engineers as well. (Not all the defenders are PEs, but it seems many of them are.)

I admire anyone who holds a PE. That’s quite an accomplishment. But I see that accomplishment recognized by referring to that person as a PE or professional engineer, not just an engineer.

Despite this, the argument is raised regularly. Should those who do not hold a state-issued professional engineer designation be allowed to call themselves an engineer? I think they should be allowed.

Some caution is due. If someone is using the services of an engineer, the person authorizing the work should ensure that the people he is hiring is qualified, regardless of a state-issued certificate. I would never represent myself as being qualified to design a bridge. Likewise, I know plenty of PEs who have no business popping the lid on a piece of audio equipment.

However, we are both engineers.

Something for clarification from Merriam Webster (edited):

Engineer

Etymology: Middle English engineour, from Anglo-French, from enginer to devise, construct, from engineering

1: a member of a military group devoted to engineering work

2 a: a designer or builder of engines b: a person who is trained in or follows as a profession a branch of engineering c: a person who carries through an enterprise by skillful or artful contrivance

3: a person who runs or supervises an engine or an apparatus

2b and 2c apply to me.

In an address during the Free Press Summit on May 14, Copps dropped something of a bomb on broadcasters when he said that he wants to reform the license renewal process. From his speech:

If old media is going to be with us a while still, what implications does this have for us? It means we still need to get serious about defining broadcasters’ public interest obligations and reinvigorating our license renewal process. Since we still need broadcasters to contribute to the democratic dialogue, we need clear standards that can be fairly but vigorously enforced. It is time to say good-bye to postcard renewal every eight years and hello to license renewals every three years with some public interest teeth.

I understand that many thoughtful people are ready to give up on the public interest. They would rather just impose a spectrum fee on broadcasters and be done with it. I’m not ready to throw in the towel. The public interest standard is like a grand old theater that has been badly neglected over the years. The structure is sound, and with a little imagination and a lot of hard work we can make it a showplace once again.

I’m all for ensuring the public interest is met by broadcasters. There are limited licenses, so the spectrum is valuable. It should be treated like a valuable resource. However, juke box radio stations thrive according to ratings, so there is obviously some public interest being shown.

I get the feeling that Copps has the view that every consumer is actively involved in every detail of social and political events, and that radio should be just as active in covering the details. There are some listeners who want that, but it seems obvious that most listeners are happy to turn on the radio and hear something akin to what is already available. (What each market has may not be perfect, I know.)

Public interest is always a compromise. Public appeal is the counterbalance.

So Copps wants to end the postcard renewal and make it a process with some teeth. I can imagine that will involve much more paperwork. And if it’s shortened to three years, more paperwork more often.

Perhaps Copps will get his wish. I think most stations could handle increased filing requirements. The question is, can the FCC handle the new workload of reviewing and granting the revised renewal application process in a timely and efficient manner?

The other engineer was telling me about some work he was being asked to do. The tasks in the assignment were clear, but there were some contingencies involved. Mainly, if the initial steps of the project were done within a certain time frame, the later steps would be easier to accomplish and more likely to be accomplished successfully. Sounds simple enough, right?

This engineer explained the time sensitivity to the person assigning the work. The engineer outlined the cause and effect of the tasks and the timeline. He explained that as delays from management were introduced it would make the final result less likely to be successful. Again, sounds simple.

The problem is that engineer didn’t explain all this with an approach that built on a teamwork relationship between himself and the managers. He instead took a logical approach and presented it as if this then that scenarios, but he put a condition on the project by saying that if the management won’t agree to the strict timeline for the later tasks, he won’t waste his time on the initial tasks. Basically, he told them it’s his way or no way.

There are certainly times to take such a hard approach. Contract engineers know that some clients have to be handled in absolutes. In this case, the engineer was not to that point. By forcing the management to do it on his terms, he effectively told them he wasn’t going to take on the project.

He got his way on the project. He didn’t have to do it. But I know the relationship between the engineer and the management has been damaged.

The better way to handle the situation would be to explain the cause and effect of not staying on the timeline, and getting management to buy in on the idea. This would also involved giving the management specific parts of the project, again stressing that they affect the outcome.

I see this hardball approach too often at stations. Sometimes it’s part of the us/them mentality that engineers have toward management. Sometimes it’s just the analytical and logical engineering mind putting things into specific and concrete terms.

We’re all salesmen in our jobs. Some people sell tangible goods. Some sell intangible goods (like radio air time). Some sell ideas. Sell your idea. Make your client (the management) your partner in your work.