"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Why should more channels of the same content be something people would
want?

That's just it! The HD 2 channels in most markets are totally
non-duplicative of the Analog/HD1 channel content. NY has, for example,
things like traditional jazz, country, classic hip hop, 50's and early
60's
oldies, standards, etc. that are not available on main channels.

Why should formats that are not stations now be added as additional HD
channels. Where is the logic in that?

Because many formats are excluded because, with the finite number of FMs in
any market, there is not room for the second tier of formats. With HD 2
channels, there is.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
t...
Why should formats that are not stations now be added as additional HD
channels. Where is the logic in that?

Because many formats are excluded because, with the finite number of FMs
in any market, there is not room for the second tier of formats. With HD 2
channels, there is.

Now, now, Eduardo... you know full well that the reason that a given format
is not available in a given market is because it's just not profitable to
program it. The only difference with IBOC-FM is that now they can use a
single plant to provide multiple formats.. I don't see a lot of stations
doing this, though, on a long-range model, since these formats will still
not be profitable.

Brenda Ann wrote:
"David Eduardo" wrote in message
t...
Why should formats that are not stations now be added as additional HD
channels. Where is the logic in that?
Because many formats are excluded because, with the finite number of FMs
in any market, there is not room for the second tier of formats. With HD 2
channels, there is.

Now, now, Eduardo... you know full well that the reason that a given format
is not available in a given market is because it's just not profitable to
program it. The only difference with IBOC-FM is that now they can use a
single plant to provide multiple formats.. I don't see a lot of stations
doing this, though, on a long-range model, since these formats will still
not be profitable.




Unless they are subscription based. Technology which is currently in
test.


Once that seal is broken, there will be no reason for broadcasters
to stop its spread, and given the ever widening range of options,
expanding costs, and mounting fees, royalties, and surcharges, every
reason to.

Under that scenario, anything can be made profitable.

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
t...
Why should formats that are not stations now be added as additional HD
channels. Where is the logic in that?

Because many formats are excluded because, with the finite number of FMs
in any market, there is not room for the second tier of formats. With HD
2 channels, there is.

Now, now, Eduardo... you know full well that the reason that a given
format is not available in a given market is because it's just not
profitable to program it.

That is absolutely untrue.

There are many profitable formats that could be done that are not being done
because there are even more profitable formats that "use up" all the
available FM channels in the market.

Depending on the market, there are probably a dozen or so profitable,
although less so than those on the air already, formats available.

Call them what you will, they are simply formats 13 to 24 in a market with
12 or so stations.... profitable, salable, listenable. But not as profitable
as other formats, so they don't get broadcast until HD comes along.

The only difference with IBOC-FM is that now they can use a single plant
to provide multiple formats.. I don't see a lot of stations doing this,
though, on a long-range model, since these formats will still not be
profitable.

Sure they will be. Our Tejano formats on HD in 5 markets in Texas are
getting excellent response, and should be generating respectable income
soon, even without that many receivers out there. Tejano, as an example, was
about a 0.8 to 1.1 share format in Dallas on a signal that now has about a 2
share... the Tejano format was lost to the market till we put it on HD, and
now, over time, it will be a respectable performer... just right under the
better performing formats we have on the main channels.

David Eduardo wrote:
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...
"David Eduardo" wrote in message
t...
Why should formats that are not stations now be added as additional HD
channels. Where is the logic in that?
Because many formats are excluded because, with the finite number of FMs
in any market, there is not room for the second tier of formats. With HD
2 channels, there is.
Now, now, Eduardo... you know full well that the reason that a given
format is not available in a given market is because it's just not
profitable to program it.

That is absolutely untrue.

There are many profitable formats that could be done that are not being done
because there are even more profitable formats that "use up" all the
available FM channels in the market.



Now, weren't you the one that said that before consolidation, 50% of
all stations were not profitable?

Since there is only a 100 share in ratings and revenue, how does
doubling, or even trebling the number of channels in a market, even
under consolidation, make these additional number of channels profitable?

You can't have it both ways.

Forgive me for saying this, but.....


Now you DO sound like a shill.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...
"David Eduardo" wrote in message
t...
Why should formats that are not stations now be added as additional HD
channels. Where is the logic in that?
Because many formats are excluded because, with the finite number of
FMs in any market, there is not room for the second tier of formats.
With HD 2 channels, there is.
Now, now, Eduardo... you know full well that the reason that a given
format is not available in a given market is because it's just not
profitable to program it.

That is absolutely untrue.

There are many profitable formats that could be done that are not being
done because there are even more profitable formats that "use up" all the
available FM channels in the market.


Now, weren't you the one that said that before consolidation, 50% of
all stations were not profitable?

Yes, most are the dogs that can not be profitable. A B or C FM in a rated
market has a tough time losing money.... a daytimer has a tough time making
any, and most metro AMs are not profitable.

The bulk of brake even stations are small market ones.... the owner gets a
salary, but no return on the investment. the station is guaranteed lifetime
employment, unless it is an AM, in which case it should be good for 5 or 6
years still.

Since there is only a 100 share in ratings and revenue, how does
doubling, or even trebling the number of channels in a market, even under
consolidation, make these additional number of channels profitable?

Most radio operators know that unless we offer the variety of more formats,
many people will leave radio or use it less. In this case, we talk
ratings... if we want to preserve the same rating base, called Persons Using
Radio, we have to keep the erosion down. Markets are highly fragmented
already; in Houston's PPM the difference between #1 and #15 is 0.2 ratings
points. So some additional fragmenting in the family is better than losing
listeners who want a specific format and can't get it on terrestrial radio.

On Sep 30, 12:10 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in ...





David Eduardo wrote:
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
om...
"David Eduardo" wrote in message
.net...
Why should formats that are not stations now be added as additional HD
channels. Where is the logic in that?
Because many formats are excluded because, with the finite number of
FMs in any market, there is not room for the second tier of formats.
With HD 2 channels, there is.
Now, now, Eduardo... you know full well that the reason that a given
format is not available in a given market is because it's just not
profitable to program it.

That is absolutely untrue.

There are many profitable formats that could be done that are not being
done because there are even more profitable formats that "use up" all the
available FM channels in the market.

Now, weren't you the one that said that before consolidation, 50% of
all stations were not profitable?

Yes, most are the dogs that can not be profitable. A B or C FM in a rated
market has a tough time losing money.... a daytimer has a tough time making
any, and most metro AMs are not profitable.

The bulk of brake even stations are small market ones.... the owner gets a
salary, but no return on the investment. the station is guaranteed lifetime
employment, unless it is an AM, in which case it should be good for 5 or 6
years still.



Since there is only a 100 share in ratings and revenue, how does
doubling, or even trebling the number of channels in a market, even under
consolidation, make these additional number of channels profitable?

Most radio operators know that unless we offer the variety of more formats,
many people will leave radio or use it less. In this case, we talk
ratings... if we want to preserve the same rating base, called Persons Using
Radio, we have to keep the erosion down. Markets are highly fragmented
already; in Houston's PPM the difference between #1 and #15 is 0.2 ratings
points. So some additional fragmenting in the family is better than losing
listeners who want a specific format and can't get it on terrestrial radio.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, is this what you wrote your dissertation on?

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...
"David Eduardo" wrote in message
t...
Why should formats that are not stations now be added as additional HD
channels. Where is the logic in that?
Because many formats are excluded because, with the finite number of
FMs in any market, there is not room for the second tier of formats.
With HD 2 channels, there is.
Now, now, Eduardo... you know full well that the reason that a given
format is not available in a given market is because it's just not
profitable to program it.
That is absolutely untrue.

There are many profitable formats that could be done that are not being
done because there are even more profitable formats that "use up" all the
available FM channels in the market.

Now, weren't you the one that said that before consolidation, 50% of
all stations were not profitable?

Yes, most are the dogs that can not be profitable. A B or C FM in a rated
market has a tough time losing money.... a daytimer has a tough time making
any, and most metro AMs are not profitable.

The bulk of brake even stations are small market ones.... the owner gets a
salary, but no return on the investment. the station is guaranteed lifetime
employment, unless it is an AM, in which case it should be good for 5 or 6
years still.
Since there is only a 100 share in ratings and revenue, how does
doubling, or even trebling the number of channels in a market, even under
consolidation, make these additional number of channels profitable?

Most radio operators know that unless we offer the variety of more formats,
many people will leave radio or use it less. In this case, we talk
ratings... if we want to preserve the same rating base, called Persons Using
Radio, we have to keep the erosion down. Markets are highly fragmented
already; in Houston's PPM the difference between #1 and #15 is 0.2 ratings
points. So some additional fragmenting in the family is better than losing
listeners who want a specific format and can't get it on terrestrial radio.



You can't have it both ways, David. You can't insist that Radio is
healthier than ever, and then claim your worry is about the success of
terrestrial radio against alternatives.

You can't have it both ways, David. You can't claim that there are
too many signals to be profitable, and then solve the problem with more
options.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Like I said, now you really DO sound like a shill.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:

You can't have it both ways, David. You can't insist that Radio is
healthier than ever, and then claim your worry is about the success of
terrestrial radio against alternatives.

But I do not claim that. Radio is in slow revenue growth mode, and this year
may be no-growth (although due to automotive and mortgage / housing crisis
situations) so it is critical to keep the existing audience base, which the
PPPM shows to be a 96% reach of all 6+ Americans.

You can't have it both ways, David. You can't claim that there are too
many signals to be profitable, and then solve the problem with more
options.

It is rational to offer more formats on the good facilities via HD2,
although the losers will be the rimshots and AMs. This will allow the
listeners to pick free, terrestrial radio with more options.

It's the same reason stores open branches... when I have to drive 15 miles
to Bed Bath and Beyond, I pick the Linens and Things that is 3 miles away,
but if there is a new BBB at equal distance, I will remain loyal to that
chain. The total market sales of BBB will be divided, but they keep my
dollars...

On Sep 29, 11:21 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message

...



"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...
Why should formats that are not stations now be added as additional HD
channels. Where is the logic in that?

Because many formats are excluded because, with the finite number of FMs
in any market, there is not room for the second tier of formats. With HD
2 channels, there is.

Now, now, Eduardo... you know full well that the reason that a given
format is not available in a given market is because it's just not
profitable to program it.

That is absolutely untrue.

There are many profitable formats that could be done that are not being done
because there are even more profitable formats that "use up" all the
available FM channels in the market.

Depending on the market, there are probably a dozen or so profitable,
although less so than those on the air already, formats available.

Call them what you will, they are simply formats 13 to 24 in a market with
12 or so stations.... profitable, salable, listenable. But not as profitable
as other formats, so they don't get broadcast until HD comes along.

The only difference with IBOC-FM is that now they can use a single plant
to provide multiple formats.. I don't see a lot of stations doing this,
though, on a long-range model, since these formats will still not be
profitable.

Sure they will be. Our Tejano formats on HD in 5 markets in Texas are
getting excellent response, and should be generating respectable income
soon, even without that many receivers out there. Tejano, as an example, was
about a 0.8 to 1.1 share format in Dallas on a signal that now has about a 2
share... the Tejano format was lost to the market till we put it on HD, and
now, over time, it will be a respectable performer... just right under the
better performing formats we have on the main channels.

Of course, you tried to get everyone to believe you had a college
degree, too.