On Sep 30, 11:23 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
Steve wrote:
On Sep 30, 1:43 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in ...

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.

No, radio isn't in slow growth mode. You're just in talk trash mode.

I sense a lot of animosity against Eduardo, but I think he has a valid
point about the viability of multiple formats. The Baltimore AOR
station has added sub-channels for Classic Rock and Indie Rock, which
is just great for fans of the "rock" genre. Now they can hear music
that they might otherwise not be able to hear. They have more choice.

I know.

You're going to say, "But it's not profitable". Okay well apparently
the station manager disagree with you (which is why he's now
programming 3 channels for his station). BUT even if we assume you're
correct and it's not profitable..... so what?

A station can just as easily broadcast *1* channel at high-quality 300
kbps.

The HD Radio standard is flexible.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Three channels? Have you ever looked into what's available on the
internet. This isn't 1950 anymore.