Merlin" wrote in message
...

Yes - and as they use automation more and more, it gets easier. The
"stream" will have an announcement (don't worry, we're not playing you
the commercial", or, morel likely these days, a commercial produced
with non-AFTRA talent. This gives the streaming station another
potential revenue opportunity.


As a layman who browses in here from time to time, I am amazed at the
negative reactions over new ideas -- "if it doesn't fit the proven model,
it can't possibly work."

Such an attitude is reminiscent of a recent support call - my internet DSL
line went down and I called to report it. An offshore call center person
said "It is not possible. No problem has been reported." When I said "I
am reporting the problem" - circular reasoning began.

What little I know of radio -- I **do** know that when broadcasting began,
it was experimental. People tried things that worked and others that
didn't. The same happened with televison. Brooks and Marsh were very
quick to point out old 1940s TV shows with concepts that fell flat. The
same with FM radio - some formulas worked and others flopped. The internet
is no different.

I think it came to a point - where radio seems to be locked in a
conservative framework -- several months back -- when someone said LPFM will
fail, because it doesn't track in "the book". My response is - while LPFM
does not have the scientific studies that the mainstream broadcast world
has, its commercial underwriters don't care about "the book". If Louie's
Sub Shop underwrites the high school football game at a cost of $150 and the
spots yield him $400 in extra business that night, it works, regardless
of what Arbitron says or doesn't say.

I guess I'm amazed, because the Internet is a "wild west" medium, and I
would think that broadcasting - with its long, rich history of not being
afraid to try new things - would have been pioneering there, rather than
running scared and away from it for the first several years of its
existence.