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.