"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. net...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message

Actually, I am a programmer and a pretty good one. I am in favor of
anything that extends the life of AM radio or terrestrial radio in
general.

Is AM radio or terresterial radio really going to die? If so, how?

It is, in business terms, in full matruation and in slow decline. It will
not grwo in usership, and will only grow slightly ahead of inflation in
revenues. At some point in time, the deliver system will be obsolete, but
HD
can extend that somewhat.

What's the timeframe? When might the delivery system become obselete?

We don't even know if we are going to be useing towers and transmitters 10
or 15 years from now. technology is moving radpidly enough to consider that
the current bands and distruibution systems will become obsolete, while
content may be moved on other carriers. However, we weredall told that the
Internet and streaming would kill radio back in the late 90's, and that
never happened.

Nobody has any basis for making a prediction as the device that will move us
from towers and transmitters probbly does not exist yet

Sure. It's easy to imagine Pandora like programs autoloading
individualized
net programming into portable players and car radios in the near future.

So, who needs IBOC?

There is no system with adequate bandwidth to satisfy the needs of a quarter
billion people at present. There is also no system that can do it free, like
radio is today. The major impediment to satellite and other systems is the
cost of delivery on an ongoing basis.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. net...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. net...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message

Actually, I am a programmer and a pretty good one. I am in favor of
anything that extends the life of AM radio or terrestrial radio in
general.

Is AM radio or terresterial radio really going to die? If so, how?

It is, in business terms, in full matruation and in slow decline. It
will
not grwo in usership, and will only grow slightly ahead of inflation in
revenues. At some point in time, the deliver system will be obsolete,
but
HD
can extend that somewhat.

What's the timeframe? When might the delivery system become obselete?

We don't even know if we are going to be useing towers and transmitters 10
or 15 years from now. technology is moving radpidly enough to consider
that
the current bands and distruibution systems will become obsolete, while
content may be moved on other carriers.

The broadcasting establishment concievably could get out of radio someday,
but I can't imagine any way radio itself could go away. If the price of the
equipment goes down enough, there will always be some dreamer who will try
to make a go of it.

And the evangalists don't expect to turn a profit.


However, we weredall told that the
Internet and streaming would kill radio back in the late 90's, and that
never happened.

But there are reasons streaming audio didn't have many advangages over
radio. "Net congestion" audio. Streaming wasn't portable or availble on a
car radio. Podcasting fixes those and offeres it's own advantages.

Nobody has any basis for making a prediction as the device that will move
us
from towers and transmitters probbly does not exist yet

Sure. It's easy to imagine Pandora like programs autoloading
individualized
net programming into portable players and car radios in the near future.

So, who needs IBOC?

There is no system with adequate bandwidth to satisfy the needs of a
quarter
billion people at present. There is also no system that can do it free,
like
radio is today. The major impediment to satellite and other systems is the
cost of delivery on an ongoing basis.



At present, no. But I don't think it would take a technological
breakthrough for somebody to do it right now. That's "somebody" not
"everybody". And, if there's a limitation on internet bandwidth, we're
nowhere near it. Bandwidth will continue doubling and doubling again into
the forseeable future.

Radio, however, is stuck. It might get a bit more bandwidth at the fringes,
but it won't double.

I also suspect IBOC is fixed in it's currrent incarnation. The newest IBOC
AM might sound good even with it's limited bandwidth, but I can't see any
reason why similiar bandwidth conserving plans can't be used across the
internet. And the internet has the advantage of being able to continually
update it's decoders.

Although I sitll figure ibiquity has the pay radio card up it's sleeve.

I wouldn't blame the ipod generation if they thought IBOC just another
dinosaur media attempt to sell them something like a more sharply pixellated
newspaper.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
news


Radio, however, is stuck. It might get a bit more bandwidth at the
fringes,
but it won't double.

FM HD doubles or even triples the program offerings in each market.

I also suspect IBOC is fixed in it's currrent incarnation. The newest
IBOC
AM might sound good even with it's limited bandwidth, but I can't see any
reason why similiar bandwidth conserving plans can't be used across the
internet. And the internet has the advantage of being able to continually
update it's decoders.

So does HD... at the transmission end.

Although I sitll figure ibiquity has the pay radio card up it's sleeve.

I tis never mentioned, The license fees are ad-billing based, in fact. The
contracts have no provisions for pay radio.

David Eduardo wrote:
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
news

So does HD... at the transmission end.
Although I sitll figure ibiquity has the pay radio card up it's sleeve.

I tis never mentioned, The license fees are ad-billing based, in fact. The
contracts have no provisions for pay radio.



When I was with CBS, and Mel Karmazin was running the radio division,
he used to come to us from time to time, for a staff breakfast and a chat.

He would do most of the chatting.

The subject of IBOC came up at one such, and at the time IBOC was
still quite a ways off. But he did pointedly say that the future of any
successful business long term will include multiple revenue streams, and
that IBOC, much in the same manner as SCA, will offer the opportunity
for alternative programming streams, and the digital nature of the
stream will permit technology to be implemented for make alternate
streams both advertising and subscription based.

He said he was quite excited about this.

Similar pronouncements have been utterred about HD TV. But that's
another topic for another time.

The conversation became quite active with the rest of the staff, and
you could see exactly who was really getting it, and who wasn't. One
side was clearly excited about the digital medium for its quality
improvement, and the other, excited about the digital medium for it's
ability to be broken up into salable chunks to add to the company's
bottom line. Quality for that side was only an opportunity to steal
bandwidth from the higher quality transmission, and use it for other,
salable commodity. At one point, Karmazin said that users of radio are
not significantly driven by audiphile quality, and that the extra
bandwidth will be used for revenue enhancement, and that audio quality
will be about what it is now.

And what came out of that particular chat session was that the idea
that IBOC's implementation would create opportunities for new business.
And eventually, as a salable listener base becomes measured,
subscription radio.

This for FM. AM IBOC was not going to be as versatile, but would
present the opportunities for marketing AM radio, again, but with,
again, the possibility for subscription based listening.

A few years later Karmazin was 'out-Karmazin'd' By Sumner Redstone,
and he found that the best way to improve his station was to gt out.
Interesting that, now, he's at subscription radio and the discussion is
about increasing the subscription base, and debate about advertising.

iBiquity may not have mentioned subscription implementation, but its
licensees certainly have.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

A few years later Karmazin was 'out-Karmazin'd' By Sumner Redstone, and
he found that the best way to improve his station was to gt out.
Interesting that, now, he's at subscription radio and the discussion is
about increasing the subscription base, and debate about advertising.

iBiquity may not have mentioned subscription implementation, but its
licensees certainly have.

Nice post, with an interesting insigt from one company's point of view. Mel
is definitely one of the most interesting people we have seen in radio, and
his statements are well worth considering.

Mel, despite his rather edgy manner, did think out of the box as he looked
at future revenue opportunities. I was once offered a job with him for the
NY Spanish station, but was so putt off by either him or the native New
Yorker he represented that I did not take the opportunity. It would have
been an interesting ride, though, until one of us screamed at the other.

I have never had any discussion either in-house or with members of the
industry committee, about pay channels. I think nearly all of us see that
associating "pay" with terrestrial radio is a mistake. While the discussion
may have come up, I never saw it progress. Most of us believe that splitting
the HD digital FM in two offers great quality (absolutely marvelous, in
fact, compared to iPod and satellite channels) and the ability to market new
free channels.

Since there are only 100 shares in any market, there will be no expansion of
radio listening, but there may be a slowing of any erosion. At the same
time, selling today is about clusters and combos, not single stations for
the most part... so having more specifically targeted stations will
definitely help. Low spillage and finely honed targets get better rates than
broad, vague targets, as sports AMs demonstrate.

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A few years later Karmazin was 'out-Karmazin'd' By Sumner Redstone, and
he found that the best way to improve his station was to gt out.
Interesting that, now, he's at subscription radio and the discussion is
about increasing the subscription base, and debate about advertising.

iBiquity may not have mentioned subscription implementation, but its
licensees certainly have.

Nice post, with an interesting insigt from one company's point of view. Mel
is definitely one of the most interesting people we have seen in radio, and
his statements are well worth considering.

Mel, despite his rather edgy manner, did think out of the box as he looked
at future revenue opportunities. I was once offered a job with him for the
NY Spanish station, but was so putt off by either him or the native New
Yorker he represented that I did not take the opportunity. It would have
been an interesting ride, though, until one of us screamed at the other.


LOL! I've heard tell that this happened from time to time at the
corner office at BlackRock. But nothing definitive.

I do know of at least one GM who voluntarily fell on his sword rather
than deal with Mel after a series of bad quarters. And here, in Chicago,
Mel refused to speak with my GM, after a revenue tumble. This went on
for a couple of years.

He's an interesting bird. And I'm not at all sure he's been good for
radio, except in that he put radio revenue on the map, and proved
conclusively that many of the myths by which radio lived were, in fact,
mythical.

I found him real easy to work for, though. He's very clear about his
expectations. You meet them. He doesn't care how, as long as it's ethical.

His expectations are VERY high. But, then, so are his rewards.

That's a dream job, compared to some I've had.



I have never had any discussion either in-house or with members of the
industry committee, about pay channels. I think nearly all of us see that
associating "pay" with terrestrial radio is a mistake. While the discussion
may have come up, I never saw it progress. Most of us believe that splitting
the HD digital FM in two offers great quality (absolutely marvelous, in
fact, compared to iPod and satellite channels) and the ability to market new
free channels.


I actually disagree with you about the mistake of pay terrestrial
radio. And so do others in the biz. Truth is, that subscription radio,
whether it be the baseband channel, or one of the alternates, may be the
only way to create viability for some formats that are not supportable
through traditional advertising.

My GM, for instance, desperately wanted to create a viable blues
format. (Imagine, the Blues not viable in Chicago...but there it is). He
could never get the perceptual data to support it. But subscription
radio would have made that possible. Just as a number of the niche
formats on XM and Sirius, now.

Now, on the other side of that, Karmazin believed the ratings/revenue
relationship to be more myth than reality in the presence of REAL sales
people. He preached it regularly. That the only thing needed to
overcome weak ratings is more sales people, who could then create demand
within an single station. Even driving rates up the card. And the 30+
sales ducks we had on staff were a testament to that. And he believed
that any station that couldn't convert at a minimum of 200% needed an
new Sales Mangler. We routinely converted at 200% and above.

So, though, it's a good bet that subscription terrestrial radio is
bad idea, questionable at best, it's not entirely a settled issue. Out
of the box thinking can make pay radio happen, and clever execution can
make it work. Especially, where there is little advertiser support.

(One of Karmazin's other bone deep beliefs is that every service pay
for itself. No one gets subsidized. And if it can pay for itself, it can
profit. In that aura, pay radio is an eventual certainty.)

As far as quality goes...that's a better marketing point than it is
a broadcast reality. Everyone talks about quality, and everyone has a
standard, but where quality is defined as absolute faithfulness to the
original material, it's failed everytime. If you use the tone control,
on your car radio, you're not that interested in high quality. If you
have an equalizer on your audio system....you get the picture.

HD Quality is, and will be, perceptual and personal. Right now, it's
being presented at its optimum. That will change. Stealing bandwidth
will begin. And look straight into your monitor and tell me you can name
5 engineers who can resist the temptation to 'tweak' their audio. Name
me 5 more who don't believe they can 'improve' it.


The Quality pitch is temporary. Once HD is established, and there is
a significant user base, the whole 'quality' issue will no longer be
mentioned, except to say 'digital quality.' Which is what they say
about Sirius and XM...and some of that is pretty ratty.






Since there are only 100 shares in any market, there will be no expansion of
radio listening, but there may be a slowing of any erosion. At the same
time, selling today is about clusters and combos, not single stations for
the most part... so having more specifically targeted stations will
definitely help. Low spillage and finely honed targets get better rates than
broad, vague targets, as sports AMs demonstrate.


No question. And HD formats will be, as cluster formats are now,
selected strategically, to protect the cash cow, and mop up any
periphery. Likely to be sold in unwired combo packages. With lip service
paid to innovative and alternative programming. At least in the short term.

And at least for the time being, you may indeed see a slowing of
erosion. New, exciting toys, with fresh options for things not commonly
heard. But as XM did recently, gutting a number of the channels I
enjoyed, and replacing the music I preferred to hear with things that
are more 'salable' and adding commercials to some music channels,
eventually terrestrial and HD will fall into the same patterns as
terrestrial radio exhibits, today.

The pith, here, is this statement:

"Since there are only 100 shares in any market,
there will be no expansion of radio listening,
but there may be a slowing of any erosion."

With evermore options for listening, and fractionalization of the
listenership into potentially thousands of niches, eventually,
programming offerings are going to have to be sold in combinations.
Actually quite large clusters of programming issues. That means that
programming offernings, whether on the baseband or the HD's, will have
to fit into certain packageable categories. Since the target demos
essentially do not change, and the maximum share is 100%, The total
numbers are fixed. Competition will have to be within the existing
numbers. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, as it were. Combo programming
packages will have to be selected, or created, with some target demo
participation. To remain salable in that context, some alternatives will
be too far off the target to be salable, in favor or more mainstream,
salable content. Not exactly like anything else, in the package, but not
that different, either. No matter how you slice it, if advertising
support is going to be part of the business framework, nothing's really
going to change, except how the programming offerings slice up the
existing demos.

In the end, the same research that gives you what you have now, will
give you a different slicing of the same listeners for thousands of new
channels.

More channels, less revenue per channel. More channels, less expense
per channel.

Profits fall.

Consolidation of expenses rears its ugly head, once again.

In the end, not much really changes, except how the pie is sliced.
Because there are only 100 shares in any market. And radio has saturated
the market with a mature product.

Now, in reality, Radio can't acknowledge this. Especially, not
today, in a stock price driven radio economy. So HD will forge ahead,
with promises of newer, better, cleaner, stronger.

Most only realized for a short time before economic realities crash
the party. The rest, unrealized at all.


All on technology that admittedly is a best guess at preventing
erosion. Sounds a lot like "do something, even if it's wrong."

But then, a lot of business is like that.

In the process. We, as listeners, get our dial trashed, but spend
more money. And in the end, the overall economy booms.

Which is the point. Because after all, in the US, Radio is ALWAYS
about the money.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A few years later Karmazin was 'out-Karmazin'd' By Sumner Redstone,
and he found that the best way to improve his station was to gt out.
Interesting that, now, he's at subscription radio and the discussion is
about increasing the subscription base, and debate about advertising.

iBiquity may not have mentioned subscription implementation, but its
licensees certainly have.

Nice post, with an interesting insigt from one company's point of view.
Mel is definitely one of the most interesting people we have seen in
radio, and his statements are well worth considering.

Mel, despite his rather edgy manner, did think out of the box as he
looked at future revenue opportunities. I was once offered a job with him
for the NY Spanish station, but was so putt off by either him or the
native New Yorker he represented that I did not take the opportunity. It
would have been an interesting ride, though, until one of us screamed at
the other.


LOL! I've heard tell that this happened from time to time at the corner
office at BlackRock. But nothing definitive.

I do know of at least one GM who voluntarily fell on his sword rather
than deal with Mel after a series of bad quarters. And here, in Chicago,
Mel refused to speak with my GM, after a revenue tumble. This went on for
a couple of years.

He's an interesting bird. And I'm not at all sure he's been good for
radio, except in that he put radio revenue on the map, and proved
conclusively that many of the myths by which radio lived were, in fact,
mythical.

I found him real easy to work for, though. He's very clear about his
expectations. You meet them. He doesn't care how, as long as it's ethical.

His expectations are VERY high. But, then, so are his rewards.

That's a dream job, compared to some I've had.



I have never had any discussion either in-house or with members of the
industry committee, about pay channels. I think nearly all of us see that
associating "pay" with terrestrial radio is a mistake. While the
discussion may have come up, I never saw it progress. Most of us believe
that splitting the HD digital FM in two offers great quality (absolutely
marvelous, in fact, compared to iPod and satellite channels) and the
ability to market new free channels.


I actually disagree with you about the mistake of pay terrestrial radio.
And so do others in the biz. Truth is, that subscription radio, whether
it be the baseband channel, or one of the alternates, may be the only way
to create viability for some formats that are not supportable through
traditional advertising.

My GM, for instance, desperately wanted to create a viable blues format.
(Imagine, the Blues not viable in Chicago...but there it is). He could
never get the perceptual data to support it. But subscription radio would
have made that possible. Just as a number of the niche formats on XM and
Sirius, now.

Now, on the other side of that, Karmazin believed the ratings/revenue
relationship to be more myth than reality in the presence of REAL sales
people. He preached it regularly. That the only thing needed to overcome
weak ratings is more sales people, who could then create demand within an
single station. Even driving rates up the card. And the 30+ sales ducks we
had on staff were a testament to that. And he believed that any station
that couldn't convert at a minimum of 200% needed an new Sales Mangler.
We routinely converted at 200% and above.

So, though, it's a good bet that subscription terrestrial radio is bad
idea, questionable at best, it's not entirely a settled issue. Out of the
box thinking can make pay radio happen, and clever execution can make it
work. Especially, where there is little advertiser support.

(One of Karmazin's other bone deep beliefs is that every service pay for
itself. No one gets subsidized. And if it can pay for itself, it can
profit. In that aura, pay radio is an eventual certainty.)

As far as quality goes...that's a better marketing point than it is a
broadcast reality. Everyone talks about quality, and everyone has a
standard, but where quality is defined as absolute faithfulness to the
original material, it's failed everytime. If you use the tone control, on
your car radio, you're not that interested in high quality. If you have an
equalizer on your audio system....you get the picture.

HD Quality is, and will be, perceptual and personal. Right now, it's
being presented at its optimum. That will change. Stealing bandwidth will
begin. And look straight into your monitor and tell me you can name 5
engineers who can resist the temptation to 'tweak' their audio. Name me 5
more who don't believe they can 'improve' it.


The Quality pitch is temporary. Once HD is established, and there is a
significant user base, the whole 'quality' issue will no longer be
mentioned, except to say 'digital quality.' Which is what they say about
Sirius and XM...and some of that is pretty ratty.






Since there are only 100 shares in any market, there will be no expansion
of radio listening, but there may be a slowing of any erosion. At the
same time, selling today is about clusters and combos, not single
stations for the most part... so having more specifically targeted
stations will definitely help. Low spillage and finely honed targets get
better rates than broad, vague targets, as sports AMs demonstrate.


No question. And HD formats will be, as cluster formats are now,
selected strategically, to protect the cash cow, and mop up any periphery.
Likely to be sold in unwired combo packages. With lip service paid to
innovative and alternative programming. At least in the short term.

And at least for the time being, you may indeed see a slowing of
erosion. New, exciting toys, with fresh options for things not commonly
heard. But as XM did recently, gutting a number of the channels I enjoyed,
and replacing the music I preferred to hear with things that are more
'salable' and adding commercials to some music channels, eventually
terrestrial and HD will fall into the same patterns as terrestrial radio
exhibits, today.

The pith, here, is this statement:

"Since there are only 100 shares in any market,
there will be no expansion of radio listening,
but there may be a slowing of any erosion."

With evermore options for listening, and fractionalization of the
listenership into potentially thousands of niches, eventually, programming
offerings are going to have to be sold in combinations. Actually quite
large clusters of programming issues. That means that programming
offernings, whether on the baseband or the HD's, will have to fit into
certain packageable categories. Since the target demos essentially do not
change, and the maximum share is 100%, The total numbers are fixed.
Competition will have to be within the existing numbers. Robbing Peter to
pay Paul, as it were. Combo programming packages will have to be
selected, or created, with some target demo participation. To remain
salable in that context, some alternatives will be too far off the target
to be salable, in favor or more mainstream, salable content. Not exactly
like anything else, in the package, but not that different, either. No
matter how you slice it, if advertising support is going to be part of the
business framework, nothing's really going to change, except how the
programming offerings slice up the existing demos.

In the end, the same research that gives you what you have now, will
give you a different slicing of the same listeners for thousands of new
channels.

More channels, less revenue per channel. More channels, less expense
per channel.

Profits fall.

Consolidation of expenses rears its ugly head, once again.

In the end, not much really changes, except how the pie is sliced.
Because there are only 100 shares in any market. And radio has saturated
the market with a mature product.

Now, in reality, Radio can't acknowledge this. Especially, not today,
in a stock price driven radio economy. So HD will forge ahead, with
promises of newer, better, cleaner, stronger.

Most only realized for a short time before economic realities crash the
party. The rest, unrealized at all.


All on technology that admittedly is a best guess at preventing
erosion. Sounds a lot like "do something, even if it's wrong."

But then, a lot of business is like that.

In the process. We, as listeners, get our dial trashed, but spend more
money. And in the end, the overall economy booms.

Which is the point. Because after all, in the US, Radio is ALWAYS about
the money.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
I found him real easy to work for, though. He's very clear about his
expectations. You meet them. He doesn't care how, as long as it's ethical.

His expectations are VERY high. But, then, so are his rewards.

That's a dream job, compared to some I've had.

A friend was one of his major PDs. But he left, and Mel was upset. A few
years later, my friend, who I will call Bill Smith, was on an elevator at
NAB when Mel got on. Mel turns to a person who was with him, and says, "I
would swear Bill Smith was on this elevator. But that can't be. Bill Smith
is dead, so he can't be here." The door opened, Mel got off and my friend
broke into laughter.


I have never had any discussion either in-house or with members of the
industry committee, about pay channels. I think nearly all of us see that
associating "pay" with terrestrial radio is a mistake. While the
discussion may have come up, I never saw it progress. Most of us believe
that splitting the HD digital FM in two offers great quality (absolutely
marvelous, in fact, compared to iPod and satellite channels) and the
ability to market new free channels.


I actually disagree with you about the mistake of pay terrestrial radio.
And so do others in the biz. Truth is, that subscription radio, whether
it be the baseband channel, or one of the alternates, may be the only way
to create viability for some formats that are not supportable through
traditional advertising.

I just don't think they will be on AM and FM. The problem is that the niche
formats, after the major ones are covered, do not get sizable local
audiences, even to justify subscription based concepts. Thi sis where
satellite works. take a format that attracts 500 listeners in the average
metro, and you have 250 thousand listeners in the top 50 cities in the
USA... or 125 thousand in the top 50 markets. With that, you can do very
good programming, as it is the equivalent of a #1 station in LA or NY. But
market by market, is is the equivalent of a no-show, and not enough
subscriber revenue to support it.

My GM, for instance, desperately wanted to create a viable blues format.
(Imagine, the Blues not viable in Chicago...but there it is). He could
never get the perceptual data to support it. But subscription radio would
have made that possible. Just as a number of the niche formats on XM and
Sirius, now.

I just do not se blues just for Chicago working Not enough subscribers. But
nationally, very viable format.

Now, on the other side of that, Karmazin believed the ratings/revenue
relationship to be more myth than reality in the presence of REAL sales
people. He preached it regularly. That the only thing needed to overcome
weak ratings is more sales people, who could then create demand within an
single station. Even driving rates up the card. And the 30+ sales ducks we
had on staff were a testament to that. And he believed that any station
that couldn't convert at a minimum of 200% needed an new Sales Mangler.
We routinely converted at 200% and above.

There are fewer and fewer cases of this... there is a finite revenue base in
each market, and as one staiton overconverts share to revenue (power ration)
the others wake up and do the same thing, and it levels out. There is no
"undiscovered" revenue in any market.

So, though, it's a good bet that subscription terrestrial radio is bad
idea, questionable at best, it's not entirely a settled issue. Out of the
box thinking can make pay radio happen, and clever execution can make it
work. Especially, where there is little advertiser support.

I'd love to do some of these formats, well (not like XM, which is a bunch of
juke boxes, mostly) but with real talent and real PDs doing one format...
but on WiMax. If there is a system where you can "push star 113 for blues"
this will work. If we have to type in URLs, it will not.

(One of Karmazin's other bone deep beliefs is that every service pay for
itself. No one gets subsidized. And if it can pay for itself, it can
profit. In that aura, pay radio is an eventual certainty.)

I think this was true in one window in time. In some cases,using one station
to protect or widen the moat makes another more profitable, so they,
collectively, do well. I did that back in the 60's, where I always tried to
have a spare station to use as the alligator in the moat to protect my big
stations from competiton. For those unfamiliar, consolidation is a very old
concept outside the US, going back into the 50's in places like Mexico. I
had a large cluster in Ecuador, built in the mid 60's... 4 AMs and 5 FMs in
one market.

As far as quality goes...that's a better marketing point than it is a
broadcast reality. Everyone talks about quality, and everyone has a
standard, but where quality is defined as absolute faithfulness to the
original material, it's failed everytime. If you use the tone control, on
your car radio, you're not that interested in high quality. If you have an
equalizer on your audio system....you get the picture.

Just look at the amazing percentage of listeners to FM who do not listen in
stereo... it is about good sound and good programming together. Hey, I
listen to an iPod while biking, and we know what that quality is...

HD Quality is, and will be, perceptual and personal. Right now, it's
being presented at its optimum. That will change. Stealing bandwidth will
begin. And look straight into your monitor and tell me you can name 5
engineers who can resist the temptation to 'tweak' their audio. Name me 5
more who don't believe they can 'improve' it.

In all fairness, engineers who know their stuff get a panel together when
tweaking and adjust the audio for a compromise sound for a range between
cheap and good radios, so that all can hear the station nicely.


The Quality pitch is temporary. Once HD is established, and there is a
significant user base, the whole 'quality' issue will no longer be
mentioned, except to say 'digital quality.' Which is what they say about
Sirius and XM...and some of that is pretty ratty.

I am not pitching quality, I am pitching digital. We know that there is
sucky digital, but it is a buzz word. Whatever works.

Since there are only 100 shares in any market, there will be no expansion
of radio listening, but there may be a slowing of any erosion. At the
same time, selling today is about clusters and combos, not single
stations for the most part... so having more specifically targeted
stations will definitely help. Low spillage and finely honed targets get
better rates than broad, vague targets, as sports AMs demonstrate.


No question. And HD formats will be, as cluster formats are now,
selected strategically, to protect the cash cow, and mop up any periphery.
Likely to be sold in unwired combo packages. With lip service paid to
innovative and alternative programming. At least in the short term.

Some of the new HD 2 formats are very clever, and others make up for what we
would have done if we had 5 instead of 4 statins in a market. In essence,
the formats are picked in descending order of audiencepotential, with
attention given to potential for taking your competitor's lunch a the same
time.

And at least for the time being, you may indeed see a slowing of
erosion. New, exciting toys, with fresh options for things not commonly
heard. But as XM did recently, gutting a number of the channels I enjoyed,
and replacing the music I preferred to hear with things that are more
'salable' and adding commercials to some music channels, eventually
terrestrial and HD will fall into the same patterns as terrestrial radio
exhibits, today.

Only in a static world. All broadcasters arelearning that there is a much
lower commercial load that will hold listeners, and there is better
understanding of listeners. That will enhance the experience as product is
re-emphasized.

The pith, here, is this statement:

"Since there are only 100 shares in any market,
there will be no expansion of radio listening,
but there may be a slowing of any erosion."

With evermore options for listening, and fractionalization of the
listenership into potentially thousands of niches, eventually, programming
offerings are going to have to be sold in combinations.

Many are now. Clusters sell together for national and regional, mostly. And
lots do combos locally. It will increase.

Actually quite large clusters of programming issues. That means that
programming offernings, whether on the baseband or the HD's, will have to
fit into certain packageable categories. Since the target demos
essentially do not change, and the maximum share is 100%, The total
numbers are fixed. Competition will have to be within the existing
numbers. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, as it were. Combo programming
packages will have to be selected, or created, with some target demo
participation. To remain salable in that context, some alternatives will
be too far off the target to be salable, in favor or more mainstream,
salable content.

Not necessarily. Efficient targets get better rates So targeting that is as
precise as magazines can be obtained, and advertisers pay more for less
spillage.


More channels, less revenue per channel. More channels, less expense
per channel.

Unless we use HD2 to develop very good regional or national concepts, those
that will work bess by summing stations to pay for better talent and staff.

Which is the point. Because after all, in the US, Radio is ALWAYS about
the money.

That is and has been correct since about 1921.