Interesting changes in HD marketing afoot.

http://gormanmediablog.blogspot.com/2007/09/halif-dead-radio.html

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

It is bad enough that they are trying to peddle that junk. What really makes
it bad is that they don't even care about the adjacent channels they are
wiping out. Now, the evening broadcasting takes it to new heights.
Quite disgusting.

Pete

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
Interesting changes in HD marketing afoot.

http://gormanmediablog.blogspot.com/2007/09/halif-dead-radio.html

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Pete KE9OA" wrote in message
...
It is bad enough that they are trying to peddle that junk. What really
makes it bad is that they don't even care about the adjacent channels they
are wiping out. Now, the evening broadcasting takes it to new heights.
Quite disgusting.

Pete

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
Interesting changes in HD marketing afoot.

http://gormanmediablog.blogspot.com/2007/09/halif-dead-radio.html

--
Telamon
Ventura, California



It's pretty much a big fraud being foisted upon the American consumer to
trash their perfectly good AM/FM radios in their homes and cars and instead
spend 200 to 400 dollars to buy one of the HD sets. So what are we going to
do with all these old radios? Are we going to send them to Chad via Ebay or
just let them collect dust. The FCC said they would let the market decide so
hopefully the END User consumer will drop this idea like a hot potato. And
fortunately, it seems that they are doing just that. But instead the radio
mafia still wants to jam this retarded idea down our throats. Not to mention
sell everyone a bill of goods with their 300 dollar crappy looking junk
boxes.

I noticed that WTAM was wiping out adjacent channels last night on 1100 khz
and WBT which is usually audible here was getting splattered. The best thing
to do is for people to start writing the Commission and let them know what a
boondoogle this is. Ridiculous

On Sep 23, 9:33 pm, Telamon
wrote:
Interesting changes in HD marketing afoot.

http://gormanmediablog.blogspot.com/2007/09/halif-dead-radio.html

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"HD Radio: Stunts and symbols at your expense"

http://www.hear2.com/2007/09/hd-radi....html#comments

"HD on QVC -- Lipstick on a (Roast) Pig"

"Can you imagine how ****ed buyers are going to be.I'm going to turn
QVC on and have a few laughs. (If I'm a lawyer, I'm recording it)."

http://insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com...roast-pig.html

HD Radio gets more comical by-the-minute!

Telamon wrote:

Interesting changes in HD marketing afoot.

http://gormanmediablog.blogspot.com/2007/09/halif-dead-radio.html


I like this response:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for having the balls to challenge Ibiquity and the NAB.
They are doing serious damage to our once great industry.

Bring broadcasters back to broadcasting otherwise you may as well
sign the stations off.

September 21, 2007 3:04 PM

Hmmmmm...
--
Eric F. Richards,
"It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
I like this response:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for having the balls to challenge Ibiquity and the NAB.
They are doing serious damage to our once great industry.

Bring broadcasters back to broadcasting otherwise you may as well
sign the stations off.

September 21, 2007 3:04 PM

Hmmmmm...


That's IF the broadcasters want to stick exclusively with broadcasting, at
least free broadcasting. Consider that the broadcasters have spent millions
on IBOC radio interference transmitter equipment and only a pittance on HD
radio content. And they've spent millions more on advertising HD radio
before adaquate mass market radios were available.

HD radio might not have been designed to fail, but it sure doesn't look like
the smart guys have thought out the elements of success, either.

But now we have a FCC decision which will mark the latest first start date
in which very important things got fixed. Inexpensive low power consumption
chips are in the pipeline and I'll bet these new, improved chips are
subscription radio ready.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
I like this response:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for having the balls to challenge Ibiquity and the NAB.
They are doing serious damage to our once great industry.

Bring broadcasters back to broadcasting otherwise you may as well
sign the stations off.

September 21, 2007 3:04 PM

Hmmmmm...


That's IF the broadcasters want to stick exclusively with broadcasting, at
least free broadcasting. Consider that the broadcasters have spent
millions
on IBOC radio interference transmitter equipment and only a pittance on HD
radio content. And they've spent millions more on advertising HD radio
before adaquate mass market radios were available.

The investment in equipment in the top markets is minimal. As I mentioned,
in LA we spent 10 times as much on the new studio for one morning show as
the HD gear for all 5 of our signals.

The principal objective of HD for us is to put out a digital FM signal; in
LA it is very much less susceptable to multipath. HD2 is a side benefit, but
not critical at this time.

There was no expenditure on ad time by the HD Alliance. It is all based on
the value of time on the Alliance stations themselves.

On Sep 24, 12:10 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message

...







"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
.. .
I like this response:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for having the balls to challenge Ibiquity and the NAB.
They are doing serious damage to our once great industry.

Bring broadcasters back to broadcasting otherwise you may as well
sign the stations off.

September 21, 2007 3:04 PM

Hmmmmm...

That's IF the broadcasters want to stick exclusively with broadcasting, at
least free broadcasting. Consider that the broadcasters have spent
millions
on IBOC radio interference transmitter equipment and only a pittance on HD
radio content. And they've spent millions more on advertising HD radio
before adaquate mass market radios were available.

The investment in equipment in the top markets is minimal. As I mentioned,
in LA we spent 10 times as much on the new studio for one morning show as
the HD gear for all 5 of our signals.

That's not what the major stations in the LA market reporting. You
might want to check your facts again.


The principal objective of HD for us is to put out a digital FM signal; in
LA it is very much less susceptable to multipath. HD2 is a side benefit, but
not critical at this time.

There was no expenditure on ad time by the HD Alliance. It is all based on
the value of time on the Alliance stations themselves.- Hide quoted text -

This is incorrect. The HD Alliance reports that a very large amount of
money was used to purchase ad time.

"Steve" wrote in message
ps.com...

The investment in equipment in the top markets is minimal. As I
mentioned,
in LA we spent 10 times as much on the new studio for one morning show as
the HD gear for all 5 of our signals.

That's not what the major stations in the LA market reporting. You
might want to check your facts again.

I was not speaking of other stations. Our station cluster in LA spent about
10 times more on one single broadcast studio than it did to put HD on all 5
of our transmitters. Heck, the studio lights in that studio cost more than
the HD on KRCD.

There was no expenditure on ad time by the HD Alliance. It is all based
on
the value of time on the Alliance stations themselves.- Hide quoted
text -

This is incorrect. The HD Alliance reports that a very large amount of
money was used to purchase ad time.

No, there was no cash spent. Each member committed to giving a certain VALUE
in ad time to HD promotion on its own stations. There is no out of pocket
cost in giving your own time to a particular purpose.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. ..

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
I like this response:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for having the balls to challenge Ibiquity and the NAB.
They are doing serious damage to our once great industry.

Bring broadcasters back to broadcasting otherwise you may as well
sign the stations off.

September 21, 2007 3:04 PM

Hmmmmm...


That's IF the broadcasters want to stick exclusively with broadcasting,
at
least free broadcasting. Consider that the broadcasters have spent
millions
on IBOC radio interference transmitter equipment and only a pittance on
HD
radio content. And they've spent millions more on advertising HD radio
before adaquate mass market radios were available.

The investment in equipment in the top markets is minimal. As I mentioned,
in LA we spent 10 times as much on the new studio for one morning show as
the HD gear for all 5 of our signals.

Yes, but that wasn't the comparision. How much had been spent on HD radio
content compared to how much had been spent on IBOC hardware?

And, to get to the point, there would have been good promotional value if
the HD radio early adoptors had something special to listen to, and maybe
brag about.

HD radio won't get many more chances to make a good first impression.



The principal objective of HD for us is to put out a digital FM signal; in
LA it is very much less susceptable to multipath. HD2 is a side benefit,
but
not critical at this time.

But people have to at least hear the radios to appreciate any difference.
The market for "crystal clear" simulcasts at high prices is obviously and
predictably small. Better radios at lower prices and worthwhile HD radio
programming would have sold plenty more radios.

Not to say that I have any idea if such a rollout would have been worth it.
The idea of putting more channels on the air without a corresponding
increase in overall listenership and advertising revenues seems
problematical to me but I'm just some guy with a radio, hearing the damn
noise nobody listens to.



There was no expenditure on ad time by the HD Alliance. It is all based on
the value of time on the Alliance stations themselves.



The ads were on the air and from the radio buying public's point of view, it
doesn't matter how they were paid for.

Frank Dresser