D Peter Maus wrote:
And, again, in the US Radio is ALWAYS about the money.
[...]
This is the crux of the matter: Advertisers call the shots. They always
have. Everywhere.
Sure. But both the stations and the advertisers are working from a
flawed model. It's like two blind guys trying to take care of an
elephant, based solely on how the tail feels to them.
The advertiser is told that if he does such-and-such, the tail will
feel better according to some arbitrary attribute of how the tail
feels. So he does such and such, and the tail feels better according
to his measure.
But his measure has no effect on the real picture. Everyone sees
through the same distorted lens, so they get the right results based
on that view.
But the view has nothing to do with the real elephant, or listening
audience.
Now, if Wendy's wants to advertise on a handful of high-powered
stations blanketing the midwest about a product they are offering
throughout the midwest, they aren't paying extra for the signal to
cross arbitrary lines on a map -- the radio waves don't care.
I've said this nine ways from Sunday, and I don't know how to say it
better, so let's try some fundamental questions -- I respect your
viewpoint, Peter:
Do you think that terrestrial radio will have more listeners hearing
those ads, or fewer, in 10 years? Do you think the so-called HD/IBOC
(which is neither HD, nor in-band) will improve the situation or not?
Why?
If the cost for a more sophisticated methodology is so bad, what about
the cost of adding all the extra, licensed crap to the transmitters?
Do you think people are willing to pay extra for all this? They will,
one way or the other. Content is what keeps the listeners, not
advertisers. If the content suffers, the listeners go away, and the
advertisers will only be talking to themselves. Eventually even their
myopic model will collapse around them.
We're simply witnessing the death of radio.
--
Eric F. Richards
"This book reads like a headache on paper."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/readi...one/index.html