Know your listener/market
 

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
...so I spent some time here arguing with a rock, er, an, um, "radio
consultant," who is convinced that by the flawed methodology used by
his clients and the ratings service that all radio listening is local,
and he uses those same flawed methodologies to show that his stations
are now number 1.

All radio listening is not local. But nearly all of it is. The main point
YOU do not get is that advertisers do not care about out of market
listening. They will not look at it and will defininately not pay for it.

In the case of AM, sykywave listening only happens at night, and advertisers
buy very little night advertising on AMs unless it is local sports.

Int he case of FM, out of market listening is generally from adjacent
markets, and the out of market signals generally do not cover all the
geography of the peripheral market, so advertisers buy local stations that
cover the entire local market, not just one area of it that is next to
another market.

The out of market listening on AM skywave is so small as to be unmeasurable.
It is unwanted by advertisers, so the whole argument is moot.

The phrase that is important here is "flawed methodology."

...and so it goes with radio. As long as the methodology is skewed to
deliver the wanted results, it is as meaningless as AmEx's absurd
"market research."

Radio ratings diaries do not ask questions. They record day by day, hour by
hour listening in blanks the diarykeeper fills in. The only instruction is
to fill in each day what you listened to and when you listened. There is no
questionnaire bias as there is no questionnaire.

So they will go on, with IBOC and so-called "HD" radio with all its
artifacts and dropouts, to the detriment of people who actually
listen.

IBOC and HD are the same thing. One is the technical term, the other is the
marketing term. And it sounds great.

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
...so I spent some time here arguing with a rock, er, an, um, "radio
consultant," who is convinced that by the flawed methodology used by
his clients and the ratings service that all radio listening is local,
and he uses those same flawed methodologies to show that his stations
are now number 1.

All radio listening is not local. But nearly all of it is. The main point
YOU do not get is that advertisers do not care about out of market
listening. They will not look at it and will defininately not pay for it.

In the case of AM, sykywave listening only happens at night, and advertisers
buy very little night advertising on AMs unless it is local sports.

Int he case of FM, out of market listening is generally from adjacent
markets, and the out of market signals generally do not cover all the
geography of the peripheral market, so advertisers buy local stations that
cover the entire local market, not just one area of it that is next to
another market.

The out of market listening on AM skywave is so small as to be unmeasurable.
It is unwanted by advertisers, so the whole argument is moot.

The phrase that is important here is "flawed methodology."

...and so it goes with radio. As long as the methodology is skewed to
deliver the wanted results, it is as meaningless as AmEx's absurd
"market research."

Radio ratings diaries do not ask questions. They record day by day, hour by
hour listening in blanks the diarykeeper fills in. The only instruction is
to fill in each day what you listened to and when you listened. There is no
questionnaire bias as there is no questionnaire.

So they will go on, with IBOC and so-called "HD" radio with all its
artifacts and dropouts, to the detriment of people who actually
listen.

IBOC and HD are the same thing. One is the technical term, the other is the
marketing term. And it sounds great.

Really? It sure sounds like QRM here.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Know your listener/market
 

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
...so I spent some time here arguing with a rock, er, an, um, "radio
consultant," who is convinced that by the flawed methodology used by
his clients and the ratings service that all radio listening is local,
and he uses those same flawed methodologies to show that his stations
are now number 1.

All radio listening is not local. But nearly all of it is. The main point
YOU do not get is that advertisers do not care about out of market
listening. They will not look at it and will defininately not pay for it.

In the case of AM, sykywave listening only happens at night, and
advertisers
buy very little night advertising on AMs unless it is local sports.

Int he case of FM, out of market listening is generally from adjacent
markets, and the out of market signals generally do not cover all the
geography of the peripheral market, so advertisers buy local stations
that
cover the entire local market, not just one area of it that is next to
another market.

The out of market listening on AM skywave is so small as to be
unmeasurable.
It is unwanted by advertisers, so the whole argument is moot.

The phrase that is important here is "flawed methodology."

...and so it goes with radio. As long as the methodology is skewed to
deliver the wanted results, it is as meaningless as AmEx's absurd
"market research."

Radio ratings diaries do not ask questions. They record day by day, hour
by
hour listening in blanks the diarykeeper fills in. The only instruction
is
to fill in each day what you listened to and when you listened. There is
no
questionnaire bias as there is no questionnaire.

So they will go on, with IBOC and so-called "HD" radio with all its
artifacts and dropouts, to the detriment of people who actually
listen.

IBOC and HD are the same thing. One is the technical term, the other is
the
marketing term. And it sounds great.

Really? It sure sounds like QRM here.

In LA, there are nearly a dozen HD-2 channels already active, all with
previously uncovered niche formats. Serving listener groups is not QRM.

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
...so I spent some time here arguing with a rock, er, an, um, "radio
consultant," who is convinced that by the flawed methodology used by
his clients and the ratings service that all radio listening is local,
and he uses those same flawed methodologies to show that his stations
are now number 1.

All radio listening is not local. But nearly all of it is. The main point
YOU do not get is that advertisers do not care about out of market
listening. They will not look at it and will defininately not pay for it.

In the case of AM, sykywave listening only happens at night, and
advertisers
buy very little night advertising on AMs unless it is local sports.

Int he case of FM, out of market listening is generally from adjacent
markets, and the out of market signals generally do not cover all the
geography of the peripheral market, so advertisers buy local stations
that
cover the entire local market, not just one area of it that is next to
another market.

The out of market listening on AM skywave is so small as to be
unmeasurable.
It is unwanted by advertisers, so the whole argument is moot.

The phrase that is important here is "flawed methodology."

...and so it goes with radio. As long as the methodology is skewed to
deliver the wanted results, it is as meaningless as AmEx's absurd
"market research."

Radio ratings diaries do not ask questions. They record day by day, hour
by
hour listening in blanks the diarykeeper fills in. The only instruction
is
to fill in each day what you listened to and when you listened. There is
no
questionnaire bias as there is no questionnaire.

So they will go on, with IBOC and so-called "HD" radio with all its
artifacts and dropouts, to the detriment of people who actually
listen.

IBOC and HD are the same thing. One is the technical term, the other is
the
marketing term. And it sounds great.

Really? It sure sounds like QRM here.

In LA, there are nearly a dozen HD-2 channels already active, all with
previously uncovered niche formats. Serving listener groups is not QRM.

Wiping out adjacent channels is.

IBOC = QRM

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Know your listener/market
 

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

Know your listener/market
 

"David Eduardo" wrote:

IBOC and HD are the same thing.

Yes, I know that. But it is neather in-band, nor high definition. It
is sanctioned splatter that everyone in your circle pretends isn't
there, and the "content" is monkey-chatter, dropouts and compression
artifacts.

One is the technical term, the other is the
marketing term. And it sounds great.


Sounds like ****, no matter what you call it. You'd know that if you
listened using something with better frequency response than a
telephone handset. To many people, those artifacts *hurt*.


--
Eric F. Richards

"...there are moments (as when Gore speaks... slowly... and... heavily....
to... grown... men... and... women... so... that... you'd... swear... he...
was... trying... to... explain... Wittgenstein... to... three... year...
olds) when you have the disconcerting thought that the vice president may
come from Mars."
Lance Morrow, http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/...rrow7_21.a.tm/

Know your listener/market
 

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:15:40 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
...so I spent some time here arguing with a rock, er, an, um, "radio
consultant," who is convinced that by the flawed methodology used by
his clients and the ratings service that all radio listening is local,
and he uses those same flawed methodologies to show that his stations
are now number 1.

All radio listening is not local. But nearly all of it is. The main point
YOU do not get is that advertisers do not care about out of market
listening. They will not look at it and will defininately not pay for it.

In the case of AM, sykywave listening only happens at night, and
advertisers
buy very little night advertising on AMs unless it is local sports.

Int he case of FM, out of market listening is generally from adjacent
markets, and the out of market signals generally do not cover all the
geography of the peripheral market, so advertisers buy local stations
that
cover the entire local market, not just one area of it that is next to
another market.

The out of market listening on AM skywave is so small as to be
unmeasurable.
It is unwanted by advertisers, so the whole argument is moot.

The phrase that is important here is "flawed methodology."

...and so it goes with radio. As long as the methodology is skewed to
deliver the wanted results, it is as meaningless as AmEx's absurd
"market research."

Radio ratings diaries do not ask questions. They record day by day, hour
by
hour listening in blanks the diarykeeper fills in. The only instruction
is
to fill in each day what you listened to and when you listened. There is
no
questionnaire bias as there is no questionnaire.

So they will go on, with IBOC and so-called "HD" radio with all its
artifacts and dropouts, to the detriment of people who actually
listen.

IBOC and HD are the same thing. One is the technical term, the other is
the
marketing term. And it sounds great.

Really? It sure sounds like QRM here.

In LA, there are nearly a dozen HD-2 channels already active, all with
previously uncovered niche formats. Serving listener groups is not QRM.

Which LA stations?

Know your listener/market
 

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:18:14 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:15:40 GMT, "David Eduardo"

Which LA stations?

I like the AM 1260 gang on 105.1's HD2. Gary Owens, etc.

Star 98.7 has an all '80s stream. 92.3 plays soul classics. Those
are the ones I can get up here in Duckburg. Oh yeah, KROQ is just
mirroring their main channel.

Know your listener/market
 

Eric F. Richards wrote:
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?

PMFJI, but I believe that even the satellite radio services (XM and
Sirius) will be broadcasting commercials within a year or three, in
addition to charging subscription fees.

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

Know your listener/market
 

Eric F. Richards wrote:
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.


Yes. Actually, there's more truth to that analogy than most are
willing to recognize. But the real matter is that it doesn't matter
whether the model is flawed, or not. It's what works for the people who
make the decisions and call the shots. It produces revenue and profits
and business embraces it. Radio is in the business of selling the tails.
Advertisers buy the tails by their feel, and turn that feel into
experiences then sold to listeners. It doesn't even matter if it's a
real tail....it only matters that it works. Advertisers buy, Radio
stations sell. Neither is sees no benefit in changing what works.

And for the comparatively few, like you and me, it's distasteful that
things work this way. It's a waste of resource. So be it. It is the way
it is. If you can convince Radio there's money in changing
it...well...then make your pitch. But if there's no money in it...more
importantly, if there's no profit in it (that means the same revenue at
no extra cost to most bean counters these days) then have at it.


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.



No they don't. And advertisers don't pay for the extra reach, it's
true. But if, say Wendy's want's to boost sales in Decatur, buying WLS,
WGN and WBBM aren't the cost effective way to do it. Yes, they're still
making impressions in Decatur, but a week's run on three Chicago
stations at $900 a throw will not equal the reach of one single day's
schedule on WSOY, at $75 a throw. So the advertisers don't boost their
WLS, WBBM and WGN buys to get the extra noise into Decatur...they buy a
few spots on WSOY and WDZQ. Why? Because the combined reach of WLS, WGN
and WBBM in Decatur is a statistical no-show compared to any local in
the top 5. For a fraction of the cost.

It's bad business to spend money that produces so little return, so
advertising buys are targeted to local audiences only, where there is
significant listenting done. Since a station out of market has so
little local reach in Decatur, getting back to the original point of
this thread, WGN, WBBM and soon WLS can turn on the IBOC hash blowing
away all the out of market listening, and do so without a care.

It's not something that I personally like. It's just what is. And
it's primarily because advertisers, not radio stations, make the
decisions about what reach is and is not important. Based on actual
listening behaviours measured.

It's a numbers game. Averaged behaviours in desireable demographics.
Stations are programmed to produce the desireable numbers. Or at least
saleable numbers.

Actually listeners...not really the focus here.



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?


Me personally? Fractionalization of the audience will bleed off
listening, yes. I think so. Radio will adapt. As David likes to point
out, listening levels per capita are only marginally less than they were
in the 70's. Although, during some pretty detailed staff meetings at In
finity, Mel Karmazin painted an entirely different picture. HD/IBOC FM
has some advantages, without the liabilities of AM HD/IBOC. Multiple
revenue streams and, ultimately, subscription radio among them. AM
HD/IBOC is not so compelling to listen to as good AM Stereo. And it
comes with some technical liabilities which we've all discussed. But
then, listeners respond to content. If the content is what a listener
finds appealing, quality is relative. Noise, on the other hand, is a
different matter. If HD does away with the crackle of electrical and
atmospheric noise on AM then it will attract a listener base regardless
of the audio quality, which to my ears blows chunks.

So, for AM listening, I think the jury is out as to whether HD/IBOC
will actually make a difference. Ultimately, given that Powell's FCC
mandated that all future modulation schemes be digital, it's here
whether the public is ready for it nor not. Unless the Federal
authorities decide to take the MW Band dark, as they did in Canada,
HD/IBOC AM is here. And it's staying. Given no choices, the public will
adapt and adopt. Whether listener levels will vary remains to be seen.

I don't care for it. But then, I don't do much listening, anymore,
either.




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?


Hardware to do the job is a single cost per installation item. It's a
cap item, not a recurring cost.

Ratings methodology gets paid for with each survey period. Recurring
costs multiple times a year. Cap costs can be swallowed. Recurring costs
are the ones to be avoided.

You can get a cap cost past the bean counters. Recurring costs
they'll move heaven and earth to cut.

But the real costs of more sophisticated methodologies would be borne
by the ratings companies. They have no motivation because there is no
demand for them. If advertisers were screaming for more sophisticated
methodologies, the ratings companies could justify the cost, and the
advertisers would be willing to share the increased cost through higher
station rates. But there is no such clamor. So there is no motivation,
when what they're doing right now produces huge revenues and profits.

You don't raise costs unless there is a profit motive. And right now,
there isn't. So cost per point, cost per thousand figures remain the same.






Do you think people are willing to pay extra for all this? They will,
one way or the other.

Yes they will. And eventually, they'll embrace it. Because there will
be little option.

Will they grumble. They already are. Feder has been bitching in his
column about the cost of HD radios and he can't tell the difference
between HD and analog.

Eventually, that noise will die down. Look at cable. Bitching there,
too. And lots of it. Paying for TV? Are you nuts?

Have you seen cable bills lately? Dish? Satellite Radio?

Will the public pay for HD Radio. Sure they will. By the time you
fully dress an iPod system, you can drop half a kilobuck. Doesn't seem
to be slowing things down. HD Radio, especially, when there is no
option, will sell. At least on FM.


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.

With ongoing perceptuals and nearly daily market research
specifically addressing content, if the content suffers, Radio can know
about it and make corrections pretty quickly. Those that don't, fail,
are sold, and picked up by people who will. Remember that the
programming model is NOT the sales model. They interact, but they are
NOT the same. Programming content is crafted to attract a demo. Actual
listenership is what is evaluated for Sales. Programming can be tuned,
trimmed, altered, even changed wholesale, without altering the
Sales/Advertising model in anyway, as long as the demo remains the same.
And the Sales/Advertising model doesn't change even if there is a
significant change in the numbers. Conversion rates are held to the same
figures, only the percentage of national sales changes. The pitch only
goes after different local businesses, with an adjusted rate.

We're simply witnessing the death of radio.


Obituaries may be premature.

Know your listener/market
 

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:39:42 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:18:14 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:15:40 GMT, "David Eduardo"

Which LA stations?

I like the AM 1260 gang on 105.1's HD2. Gary Owens, etc.

Star 98.7 has an all '80s stream. 92.3 plays soul classics. Those
are the ones I can get up here in Duckburg. Oh yeah, KROQ is just
mirroring their main channel.

All stations repeat the main channel in HD. It is the HD-2 channel that will
have the new formats.


I'm talking about the 2nd channel. All CBS HD2s in a market are
mirroring the main channel for the time being AFAIK.

Know your listener/market
 

clifto wrote:

Eric F. Richards wrote:
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?

PMFJI, but I believe that even the satellite radio services (XM and
Sirius) will be broadcasting commercials within a year or three, in
addition to charging subscription fees.

I agree completely. The commercial-free aspect of them is a
short-lived hook.

But their advertising model will be different, since their coverage is
nationwide by definition -- the terrestrial people should be looking
closely and their business plan for advertising.


--
Eric F. Richards

"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940

Know your listener/market
 

D Peter Maus wrote:

Eric F. Richards wrote:
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.


Yes. Actually, there's more truth to that analogy than most are
willing to recognize. But the real matter is that it doesn't matter
whether the model is flawed, or not. It's what works for the people who
make the decisions and call the shots. It produces revenue and profits
and business embraces it. Radio is in the business of selling the tails.

But to stretch the analogy to its limits, the two blind guys are
putting conditioner on the tail to make it softer, but the elephant
never gets fed or gets any water. The elephant dies eventually, no
matter how wonderful the tail feels.


And for the comparatively few, like you and me, it's distasteful that
things work this way. It's a waste of resource. So be it. It is the way
it is. If you can convince Radio there's money in changing
it...well...then make your pitch.

Oh, no. The emperor is naked, but no one is willing to believe that.
I'm just an observer, watching something very sad happening.




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?


Me personally? Fractionalization of the audience will bleed off
listening, yes. I think so. Radio will adapt. As David likes to point
out, listening levels per capita are only marginally less than they were
in the 70's. Although, during some pretty detailed staff meetings at In
finity, Mel Karmazin painted an entirely different picture. HD/IBOC FM
has some advantages, without the liabilities of AM HD/IBOC. Multiple
revenue streams and, ultimately, subscription radio among them. AM
HD/IBOC is not so compelling to listen to as good AM Stereo. And it
comes with some technical liabilities which we've all discussed. But
then, listeners respond to content. If the content is what a listener
finds appealing, quality is relative. Noise, on the other hand, is a
different matter. If HD does away with the crackle of electrical and
atmospheric noise on AM then it will attract a listener base regardless
of the audio quality, which to my ears blows chunks.

Yes. Do you remember when CDs first came out? The "golden ears"
complained about the artifacts, even thought the Nyquist Limit was
22,050 kHz. They found the sound fatiguing.

This time, one won't need a golden ear to hear the artifacts. I
cringe on what comes out of my car radio from NPR when they have a
feed filled with artifacts. When you can hear it over the road noise
on a car radio... that's an accomplishment.

It won't just sound bad, it will be painful to listen to.


I don't care for it. But then, I don't do much listening, anymore,
either.


Bottom line. No matter what the advertisers are willing to pay,
there's no return if there are no listeners.


You can get a cap cost past the bean counters. Recurring costs
they'll move heaven and earth to cut.

Yeah, I have my own experiences along those lines -- like the bean
counters being willing to pay 60% of the buyout cost on a lease for a
piece of equipment... that is, 60% per month! But the accounting
rules made it "cheaper" to do that, no matter where the money goes.
And the equipment, a computer system, would have been put on a 10 year
depreciation schedule. A severe case of unreality.

OBTW, that company is long gone, and they were a Fortune 500 player
when this was going on.



Do you think people are willing to pay extra for all this? They will,
one way or the other.

Yes they will. And eventually, they'll embrace it. Because there will
be little option.

That I disagree with. The growth of podcasts, satellite radio, etc.,
will fill the void. For the longest time, I felt that radio would
endure, because of the low amount of infrastructure to keep it going.
I didn't count on the sheer stupidity of people behind radio.

Eventually, that noise will die down. Look at cable. Bitching there,
too. And lots of it. Paying for TV? Are you nuts?

Have you seen cable bills lately? Dish? Satellite Radio?

Yes, I have. But cable has gone far beyond providing community access
to clean local TV pictures -- cable is clogged with networks
unavailable on broadcast TV.

Even so, there are people who simply have cut the cord to the cable
companies and simply rent/buy movies or don't have TVs. They are a
small minority, but they are there.


Will the public pay for HD Radio. Sure they will. By the time you
fully dress an iPod system, you can drop half a kilobuck. Doesn't seem
to be slowing things down. HD Radio, especially, when there is no
option, will sell. At least on FM.

FM is the only place where the model even remotely makes sense. But
HD FM, taking advantage of the extremely wideband nature of FMBCB,
will be too greedy to just do it better -- it will fit multiple
streams into that bandwidth until they all sound like crap... like the
gas station that waters its gas down until the customers scream.


We're simply witnessing the death of radio.


Obituaries may be premature.


Time will tell. This message will last in archives that long, so
people like Edwardo can point and laugh in 10 years after radio grows
under his mercenary hand.

But my money is riding against it.

--
Eric F. Richards

"This book reads like a headache on paper."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/readi...one/index.html

Know your listener/market
 

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
m...


In LA, there are nearly a dozen HD-2 channels already active, all with
previously uncovered niche formats. Serving listener groups is not QRM.



Are these niche formats expected to get people listening to the radio when
they otherwise would not be listening? If IBOC significantly expands the
audience, I can see an advantage for both the audience and the advertisers.

However, my Inner Conspiracy Theorist keeps telling me that IBOC won't
expand the total radio audience much, if at all, and multicasting's biggest
effect will be in drawing advertising revenue away from from the smaller,
non-IBOC stations.

Frank Dresser

Know your listener/market
 

"David" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:39:42 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:18:14 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:15:40 GMT, "David Eduardo"

Which LA stations?

I like the AM 1260 gang on 105.1's HD2. Gary Owens, etc.

Star 98.7 has an all '80s stream. 92.3 plays soul classics. Those
are the ones I can get up here in Duckburg. Oh yeah, KROQ is just
mirroring their main channel.

All stations repeat the main channel in HD. It is the HD-2 channel that
will
have the new formats.


I'm talking about the 2nd channel. All CBS HD2s in a market are
mirroring the main channel for the time being AFAIK.

No, the HD-2 channels are separate.

Know your listener/market
 

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
clifto wrote:

Eric F. Richards wrote:
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?

PMFJI, but I believe that even the satellite radio services (XM and
Sirius) will be broadcasting commercials within a year or three, in
addition to charging subscription fees.

I agree completely. The commercial-free aspect of them is a
short-lived hook.

Actually, XM took commercials off the music channels two years after
start-up. I know; I programmed 5 of the channels.

But their advertising model will be different, since their coverage is
nationwide by definition -- the terrestrial people should be looking
closely and their business plan for advertising.

Satellite has run commercials since its offset on the talk channels, and XM
started with commercials on all music channels but took them off. Neither
believes more than 5% of revenues will ever come from advertising.

Know your listener/market
 

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:41:58 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:



No, the HD-2 channels are separate.


OK, Mr. Smarty Pants Communist; what's on KROQ's second HD channel?

Know your listener/market
 

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:08:04 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:


"David Eduardo" wrote in message
om...


In LA, there are nearly a dozen HD-2 channels already active, all with
previously uncovered niche formats. Serving listener groups is not QRM.



Are these niche formats expected to get people listening to the radio when
they otherwise would not be listening? If IBOC significantly expands the
audience, I can see an advantage for both the audience and the advertisers.

However, my Inner Conspiracy Theorist keeps telling me that IBOC won't
expand the total radio audience much, if at all, and multicasting's biggest
effect will be in drawing advertising revenue away from from the smaller,
non-IBOC stations.

Frank Dresser

It's only purpose is to slow the permanent loss of audience to SDARS,
Cell Phones and MP-3 players.

Know your listener/market
 

"David" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:41:58 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:



No, the HD-2 channels are separate.


OK, Mr. Smarty Pants Communist; what's on KROQ's second HD channel?

I have no idea. It was active when I scanned last week, but I am in Chicago
and my HD radio is in LA.

Know your listener/market
 

"David" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:41:58 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:



No, the HD-2 channels are separate.


OK, Mr. Smarty Pants Communist; what's on KROQ's second HD channel?

Infinity HD 2 channels
Los Angeles:

Adult Hits KCBS HD2 "Variety Top 40"

Talk KLSX HD2 "Female Talk"

Alternative KROQ HD2 "Xtreme Active Rock"

Oldies KRTH HD2 "50s/60s Oldies"

Smooth Jazz KTWV HD2 "Classic Jazz"



Clear Channel

Los Angeles:

Hot AC KBIG HD2 "Disco"

Urban AC KHHT HD2 "Jammin Oldies with Hispanic Skew"

Top 40 KIIS HD2 "Kisspanic/Hispanic KISS"

AC KOST HD2 "Lite Classics (Madonna to Sinatra)"

Modern AC KYSR HD2 "All 80s/80s Hits"

These multicasts are launching on MONDAY (1/23).



Emmis has Power Dos on 1|05.9 and alternative on KZLA.



That makes 12.

Know your listener/market
 

Eric F. Richards wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

Eric F. Richards wrote:
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.

Yes. Actually, there's more truth to that analogy than most are
willing to recognize. But the real matter is that it doesn't matter
whether the model is flawed, or not. It's what works for the people who
make the decisions and call the shots. It produces revenue and profits
and business embraces it. Radio is in the business of selling the tails.

But to stretch the analogy to its limits, the two blind guys are
putting conditioner on the tail to make it softer, but the elephant
never gets fed or gets any water. The elephant dies eventually, no
matter how wonderful the tail feels.


And the final analogy would be that the elephant is only a tool. It
will be replaced by a younger, more complaint elephant that meets the
needs of both the blind men. If it dies, it will be replaced.





And for the comparatively few, like you and me, it's distasteful that
things work this way. It's a waste of resource. So be it. It is the way
it is. If you can convince Radio there's money in changing
it...well...then make your pitch.

Oh, no. The emperor is naked, but no one is willing to believe that.
I'm just an observer, watching something very sad happening.


You, like me, are one who is no longer being served. It happens. The
more desirable are younger, hipper, or less demanding in areas not
easily provided for. The emperor may be naked. But we, and a few like
us, are the only non nudists in the empire. The those who advise the
emperor only listen to the many who are also naked.





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?

Me personally? Fractionalization of the audience will bleed off
listening, yes. I think so. Radio will adapt. As David likes to point
out, listening levels per capita are only marginally less than they were
in the 70's. Although, during some pretty detailed staff meetings at In
finity, Mel Karmazin painted an entirely different picture. HD/IBOC FM
has some advantages, without the liabilities of AM HD/IBOC. Multiple
revenue streams and, ultimately, subscription radio among them. AM
HD/IBOC is not so compelling to listen to as good AM Stereo. And it
comes with some technical liabilities which we've all discussed. But
then, listeners respond to content. If the content is what a listener
finds appealing, quality is relative. Noise, on the other hand, is a
different matter. If HD does away with the crackle of electrical and
atmospheric noise on AM then it will attract a listener base regardless
of the audio quality, which to my ears blows chunks.

Yes. Do you remember when CDs first came out? The "golden ears"
complained about the artifacts, even thought the Nyquist Limit was
22,050 kHz. They found the sound fatiguing.


And they were. Digital recordings by engineers recording with analog
mindsets. Too much equalization. Preemphasis. Compression. Then came the
'purists.' Mic to disk. No better. Finally came those who really got it.
Who understood the medium, and also understood the way listeners really
hear music. Back came some limiting and the spectral effects. But
applied with different intents. And applied differently by each
recordist, mastering engineer, and mixer. Some CD's still suck. But
nothing sounds like those early discs.

So it will be with HD. If it lasts, it will evolve. Like the CD, it
will eventually be embraced as a fidelity medium.

For the record, though, CD's were never intended to be high fidelity.
Philips promoted them as mid-fi media. Of course Philips also intended
the cassetted to be a dictation only medium...so things don't always fly
as intended.


This time, one won't need a golden ear to hear the artifacts. I
cringe on what comes out of my car radio from NPR when they have a
feed filled with artifacts. When you can hear it over the road noise
on a car radio... that's an accomplishment.


It's one of the reasons I listen to less radio, these days.



It won't just sound bad, it will be painful to listen to.


And it will improve.



I don't care for it. But then, I don't do much listening, anymore,
either.


Bottom line. No matter what the advertisers are willing to pay,
there's no return if there are no listeners.


Reality: listeners lost will be replaced. Every assault to radio over
the last 75 years has resulted in a revolution of sorts. With new
listeners being replaced by the old.

You and I will be replaced.

We already have been.



You can get a cap cost past the bean counters. Recurring costs
they'll move heaven and earth to cut.

Yeah, I have my own experiences along those lines -- like the bean
counters being willing to pay 60% of the buyout cost on a lease for a
piece of equipment... that is, 60% per month! But the accounting
rules made it "cheaper" to do that, no matter where the money goes.
And the equipment, a computer system, would have been put on a 10 year
depreciation schedule. A severe case of unreality.

OBTW, that company is long gone, and they were a Fortune 500 player
when this was going on.


Do you think people are willing to pay extra for all this? They will,
one way or the other.
Yes they will. And eventually, they'll embrace it. Because there will
be little option.

That I disagree with. The growth of podcasts, satellite radio, etc.,
will fill the void. For the longest time, I felt that radio would
endure, because of the low amount of infrastructure to keep it going.
I didn't count on the sheer stupidity of people behind radio.


We're not in disagreement here. There will be options to Radio. There
ARE options to Radio. My point was that for those who choose Radio,
there will be little option but to embrace HD. And those who choose
Radio will embrace it.


As to the sheer stupidity...I can tell you from my 4 decades + of
experience on the inside...that hasn't changed. It's always been stupid
on the inside.





Eventually, that noise will die down. Look at cable. Bitching there,
too. And lots of it. Paying for TV? Are you nuts?

Have you seen cable bills lately? Dish? Satellite Radio?

Yes, I have. But cable has gone far beyond providing community access
to clean local TV pictures -- cable is clogged with networks
unavailable on broadcast TV.


As will Radio soon be clogged with things not found on Radio today.


Even so, there are people who simply have cut the cord to the cable
companies and simply rent/buy movies or don't have TVs. They are a
small minority, but they are there.


But because they are a small minority, they don't matter to the Cable
Companies. Or Satellite Companies.

So it is with Radio. Small numbers, even when large if taken in
aggregation, do not matter. Because the numbers are small locally.




Will the public pay for HD Radio. Sure they will. By the time you
fully dress an iPod system, you can drop half a kilobuck. Doesn't seem
to be slowing things down. HD Radio, especially, when there is no
option, will sell. At least on FM.

FM is the only place where the model even remotely makes sense. But
HD FM, taking advantage of the extremely wideband nature of FMBCB,
will be too greedy to just do it better -- it will fit multiple
streams into that bandwidth until they all sound like crap... like the
gas station that waters its gas down until the customers scream.


No argument there.



We're simply witnessing the death of radio.

Obituaries may be premature.


Time will tell. This message will last in archives that long, so
people like Edwardo can point and laugh in 10 years after radio grows
under his mercenary hand.

But my money is riding against it.


I'd hedge that bet, if I were you.

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"David" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:41:58 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:



No, the HD-2 channels are separate.


OK, Mr. Smarty Pants Communist; what's on KROQ's second HD channel?

I have no idea. It was active when I scanned last week, but I am in Chicago
and my HD radio is in LA.

Chicago? Give the clowns at WBBM a call and tell them to shut their damn IBOC
off!

IBOC = QRM

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Know your listener/market
 

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"David" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:41:58 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:



No, the HD-2 channels are separate.


OK, Mr. Smarty Pants Communist; what's on KROQ's second HD channel?

I have no idea. It was active when I scanned last week, but I am in
Chicago
and my HD radio is in LA.

Chicago? Give the clowns at WBBM a call and tell them to shut their damn
IBOC
off!

IBOC = QRM

The analog signal sounds pretty good. Since it seems every orthopedic
surgeon in the world is here today, maybe we could have a splint applied to
your fractured perspective on reality.

Know your listener/market
 

Suppose all the radio stations switch to iboc = In Behest Of Commie,fed
fascist govt.What happens to our Analog radios then? Way I see
it,concerning In Behest Of Commie,fed fascist govt = iboc,there will be
a lot of fed govt Commies making a lot of money.
cuhulin

Know your listener/market
 

wrote in message
...
Suppose all the radio stations switch to iboc = In Behest Of Commie,fed
fascist govt.What happens to our Analog radios then? Way I see
it,concerning In Behest Of Commie,fed fascist govt = iboc,there will be
a lot of fed govt Commies making a lot of money.

HD, like FM stereo, is backwards compatible. You hear an analog signal on
current radios, and it detects and switches to the HD signal on an HD radio.

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"David" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:41:58 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:



No, the HD-2 channels are separate.


OK, Mr. Smarty Pants Communist; what's on KROQ's second HD channel?

I have no idea. It was active when I scanned last week, but I am in
Chicago
and my HD radio is in LA.

Chicago? Give the clowns at WBBM a call and tell them to shut their damn
IBOC
off!

IBOC = QRM

The analog signal sounds pretty good. Since it seems every orthopedic
surgeon in the world is here today, maybe we could have a splint applied to
your fractured perspective on reality.

Fractured? WBBM's IBOC (QRM) signal renders 790 unlistenable here.

That's reality, no matter which way you decide to slice, dice, or spin it.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Know your listener/market
 

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

Fractured? WBBM's IBOC (QRM) signal renders 790 unlistenable here.

Most likely the 790 signal is not supposed to cover your area with a
listenable (and thus protected) signal. If you are referring to the 790 in
Saginaw, it is not protected to Grand Rapids.

That's reality, no matter which way you decide to slice, dice, or spin it.

Yep, radio is moving on. You aren't.

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

Fractured? WBBM's IBOC (QRM) signal renders 790 unlistenable here.

Most likely the 790 signal is not supposed to cover your area with a
listenable (and thus protected) signal. If you are referring to the 790 in
Saginaw, it is not protected to Grand Rapids.

That's reality, no matter which way you decide to slice, dice, or spin it.

Yep, radio is moving on. You aren't.

Yep, taking up 3 channels is really 'moving on'.

LMFAO

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Know your listener/market
 

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...

wrote in message
...
Suppose all the radio stations switch to iboc = In Behest Of Commie,fed
fascist govt.What happens to our Analog radios then? Way I see
it,concerning In Behest Of Commie,fed fascist govt = iboc,there will be
a lot of fed govt Commies making a lot of money.

HD, like FM stereo, is backwards compatible. You hear an analog signal on
current radios, and it detects and switches to the HD signal on an HD
radio.



"Even Mr. Struble of iBiquity put the most optimistic date for an analog
shutdown as 12 years from now, though he thought that was unlikely."

By the way I read this, Bob Struble, President, CEO and Chairman of iBiquity
Digital Corporation, is anticipating an analog shutdown sometime after 2018.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/te...gewanted=print

So, please reassure us. Tell us Bob Struble was misquoted by the New York
Times. Tell us analog radio will remain for HD radio receivers to be
compatible with.

Just saying HD radio is currently compatible with analog doesn't really
address the point, does it?

Frank Dresser

Know your listener/market
 

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...
So, please reassure us. Tell us Bob Struble was misquoted by the New York
Times. Tell us analog radio will remain for HD radio receivers to be
compatible with.

I took the context of the post I replied to te be "today" and not 12 years
in the future. By tha6t time, most of today's analog receivers will be gone,
irrespective of the nature of broadcasting over a decade from now.

Just saying HD radio is currently compatible with analog doesn't really
address the point, does it?

Sure it does. How many electronic devices that are 12 years old are
currently being used in the average household? R-390's don't count, btw.

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...
So, please reassure us. Tell us Bob Struble was misquoted by the New York
Times. Tell us analog radio will remain for HD radio receivers to be
compatible with.

I took the context of the post I replied to te be "today" and not 12 years
in the future. By tha6t time, most of today's analog receivers will be gone,
irrespective of the nature of broadcasting over a decade from now.
Just saying HD radio is currently compatible with analog doesn't really
address the point, does it?

Sure it does. How many electronic devices that are 12 years old are
currently being used in the average household? R-390's don't count, btw.




Except for the DVD players, all my TV/Video gear. With the exception
of the XM receiver, the Fanfare tuners, and my studio gear, all my audio
hardware. The microwave is an AMANA commercial unit that I bought in
'86. The radio in my office is Proton 300 I bought in the early 90's
and my clock radio is a Proton 320 from '88.

You don't want to know about what's in my radio room.

Quite a bit of the electronics in my house is 12+ and counting. And
of the people I know, I'm the radical one whose stuff is 'all new.'


There's a bit more out there than Marketing would have you believe.

Know your listener/market
 

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:44:16 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


Satellite has run commercials since its offset on the talk channels, and XM
started with commercials on all music channels but took them off. Neither
believes more than 5% of revenues will ever come from advertising.


Not true. XM has always had some commercial-free music channels.

Know your listener/market
 

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:18:47 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:41:58 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:



No, the HD-2 channels are separate.


OK, Mr. Smarty Pants Communist; what's on KROQ's second HD channel?

I have no idea. It was active when I scanned last week, but I am in Chicago
and my HD radio is in LA.



It's the regular stream, delayed about 5 seconds. A friend of mine
who's a junior executive at CBS says that's the official SOP until
some kind of agreement with Clear Channel kicks in.

Know your listener/market
 

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:22:21 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:41:58 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:



No, the HD-2 channels are separate.


OK, Mr. Smarty Pants Communist; what's on KROQ's second HD channel?

Infinity HD 2 channels
Los Angeles:

Adult Hits KCBS HD2 "Variety Top 40"

Talk KLSX HD2 "Female Talk"

Alternative KROQ HD2 "Xtreme Active Rock"

Oldies KRTH HD2 "50s/60s Oldies"

Smooth Jazz KTWV HD2 "Classic Jazz"



Clear Channel

Los Angeles:

Hot AC KBIG HD2 "Disco"

Urban AC KHHT HD2 "Jammin Oldies with Hispanic Skew"

Top 40 KIIS HD2 "Kisspanic/Hispanic KISS"

AC KOST HD2 "Lite Classics (Madonna to Sinatra)"

Modern AC KYSR HD2 "All 80s/80s Hits"

These multicasts are launching on MONDAY (1/23).



Emmis has Power Dos on 1|05.9 and alternative on KZLA.



That makes 12.


KMZT is running KKGO/X-Bach (or whatever 1260/540 is called this week
on their HD2)

Know your listener/market
 

In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...

wrote in message
...
Suppose all the radio stations switch to iboc = In Behest Of
Commie,fed fascist govt.What happens to our Analog radios then?
Way I see it,concerning In Behest Of Commie,fed fascist govt =
iboc,there will be a lot of fed govt Commies making a lot of
money.

HD, like FM stereo, is backwards compatible. You hear an analog
signal on current radios, and it detects and switches to the HD
signal on an HD
radio.



"Even Mr. Struble of iBiquity put the most optimistic date for an
analog shutdown as 12 years from now, though he thought that was
unlikely."

By the way I read this, Bob Struble, President, CEO and Chairman of
iBiquity Digital Corporation, is anticipating an analog shutdown
sometime after 2018.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/technology/circuits/28basics.html?ei=5090&en=d7749d9c2348d999&ex=12802 03200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

So, please reassure us. Tell us Bob Struble was misquoted by the New
York Times. Tell us analog radio will remain for HD radio receivers
to be compatible with.

Just saying HD radio is currently compatible with analog doesn't
really address the point, does it?

The situation would be much better if the band was split up between
analog and digital.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

IBOC Article
 

I can pick up at least nine FM radio stations in the day time and eight
AM radio stations in the day time in the Jackson metro area.A few years
ago,Betsy Myers (of nbc or whichever commie crooked fed govt Ministry Of
Propaganda network she works for) phoned me.I dont know why though,as
soon as I said,Who is this? and she said her name,I slammed my phone
down so hard you could hear it from here to Anchorage,Alaska.Once in a
great lonnnngggg while I will forget to unplug my phone when I get
through using it,and "she!" sneaks in on my phone!,it made me Sick!
Those kind of "people" take whatever you tell them and they twist it
around to fit their commie twisted agenda.I know how they work.
cuhulin

Know your listener/market
 

"David" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:44:16 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


Satellite has run commercials since its offset on the talk channels, and
XM
started with commercials on all music channels but took them off. Neither
believes more than 5% of revenues will ever come from advertising.


Not true. XM has always had some commercial-free music channels.

Wrong. When the sytem launched, all music channels had 6 minutes of "ad
quota" which was not used because nobody wanted to advertise on satellite
int he first few years. Later, when Sirius made inroads and started
promoting commercial free music channels, XM killed the commercial
opportunities on their music channels to be equal to Sirius.

From the start, I was programming 5 of the music channels, and two years and
a couple of months later the commercial avails were eliminated.

Know your listener/market
 

"David" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:18:47 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:41:58 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:



No, the HD-2 channels are separate.


OK, Mr. Smarty Pants Communist; what's on KROQ's second HD channel?

I have no idea. It was active when I scanned last week, but I am in
Chicago
and my HD radio is in LA.



It's the regular stream, delayed about 5 seconds. A friend of mine
who's a junior executive at CBS says that's the official SOP until
some kind of agreement with Clear Channel kicks in.

That is HD-1. All HD main channels repeat the analog channel with a delay
that fills a digital buffer for fallback. The HD-2 channels are as listed.
And they are on, for Emmis, Clear and CBS. There is no "agreement" with CBS
and Clear as that would be collusion.

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"Eric F. Richards" wrote...
clifto wrote:
Eric F. Richards wrote:
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?

PMFJI, but I believe that even the satellite radio services (XM and
Sirius) will be broadcasting commercials within a year or three, in
addition to charging subscription fees.

I agree completely. The commercial-free aspect of them is a
short-lived hook.

Actually, XM took commercials off the music channels two years after
start-up. I know; I programmed 5 of the channels.

And they observed that people weren't paying for commercials, so
they shut them down until the market penetration is high enough
to support them.

It'll grow gradually, like TV advertising did. In the early years
I was shocked the first time a station had the nerve to play TWO
COMMERCIALS IN A ROW! Nowadays, ten in a row isn't uncommon.

Figure in 2007 many stations will play three commercials per hour,
and it'll gradually ramp up from there to about half the level
found on broadcast radio now. (Just a few minutes ago, I turned
on the radio and counted twelve one-minute commercials in a row
on one station; don't know how many preceded my tuning in.)

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

Know your listener/market
 

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:41:49 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:44:16 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


Satellite has run commercials since its offset on the talk channels, and
XM
started with commercials on all music channels but took them off. Neither
believes more than 5% of revenues will ever come from advertising.


Not true. XM has always had some commercial-free music channels.

Wrong. When the sytem launched, all music channels had 6 minutes of "ad
quota" which was not used because nobody wanted to advertise on satellite
int he first few years. Later, when Sirius made inroads and started
promoting commercial free music channels, XM killed the commercial
opportunities on their music channels to be equal to Sirius.

From the start, I was programming 5 of the music channels, and two years and
a couple of months later the commercial avails were eliminated.

That's bogus. Ask Abrams.