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

Well, of course it's a vicious circle. Most everything in Radio is. You
remember how tough it is to get hired until you have experience, but you
can't get experience until you get hired. Vicious circles in Radio aren't
news. But the fact remains.

That said, it's content that drives listening. If the content is of no
interest to the target, HD isn't going to help. What's not happening, is
there's no change in content to accompany HD implementation. WGN didn't
change content when HD was installed. And I'm sure that Ace will point out
that WBBM's content is the same as before HD was installed. So, HD is only
really benefitting those who are already using AM. And those younger demos
you wish to attract with audio quality, will be just as unintersted in the
content after HD, as the stations themselves are in those who listen
outside of the city grade contour.

But, until there are receivers out there... nobody is going to cange much in
a succesful (still) format. The changes will come in second tier formats, I
think... and in modifications of existing ones to broaden them. WGN has to
change, as it is in a revenue death spin, and is hurting the Trib's stock
price single handed.


That's exactly my point...it's a gamble. A crap shoot. Targeting the
superficiality and subjective perception of audio quality. While the real
attraction to listening is content.

No station today will do a youjnger A format. There is still time to adapt
as HD gets into user hands. This is a 5 year issue. Keep in mind that
satellite has talken 5 years to get to around 11 million subscribers. Of
course, this is a poor analogy as satellite seems to have hit a wall... and
may truly never be viable financially.

You've noted growth at your AM's on the West Coast. Those are due to
content, not audio quality. And your growth has exceeded expectations.

But the growth is in existing older formats on stations that were not doing
well, like KLOK. Its a stop-gap until HD makes younger formats viable. Our
main Miami AM station has an average age of 72!

Whether HD has been implemented or not, HD's 'improved' audio quality is
not a factor, since receiving hardware is both expensive and not widely
available.

$149 car radio this week. 6 others, from the Tivoli on down were announced.

In fact, your share increase would exceed the number of HD radios sold in
those markets were explosive growth has taken place. IF HD audio is not a
factor, it's the content that's attracting listeners. In under 45 demo's
at that.

Nope, It is all older, and we are talking about going form 0.4 to 0.6 in
some cases. Holding the water out of the fields by putting a finger in the
dike. Waiting for the chance that HD affords us.

However, HD is putting that content off limits to potential listeners,
by trashing the bands in weak signal areas with other station's HD rash.
If noise and audio quality are, indeed, factors keeping AM from stable
growth, or at least stable levels of listenership, increasing noise found
in HD sidebands is not going to be a viable solution.

None of the stations I have studied gets any real listening outside of its 5
mv/m signal area (and what there is is suspect... probably done in the car,
etc) and most is inside the 10 mv/m. In LA, nearly all our listening is
inside the 15 mv/m due to the high noise levels in this market.

We don't lose anything. In fact, the AM HD is useable farther than analog
due to analog noise.

Then, again, if audio quality is really an issue, that same Tejano
format on HD2, since HD radios must resolve both AM and FM HD, will
present an attraction of listeners away from the AM station, even if
listening is done in AM HD.

The AM will probably go away eventually. It is one of the AMs that shoud
never have existed. As long as we keep the audience, and expand it, we
really don't care what the delivery method is.

It's a gamble... but doing nothing is not an alternative.

If this is the best you can come up with, I suggest you read up on how
to put satellites into orbit.

"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...

It's a gamble... but doing nothing is not an alternative.

If this is the best you can come up with, I suggest you read up on how
to put satellites into orbit.


That is an even worse business model. There is some doubt that satellite
will be profitable before WiMax makes it obsolete, with better reception in
the long run... especially in home and at work, where satellite is a frail
contender.

David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...

It's a gamble... but doing nothing is not an alternative.

If this is the best you can come up with, I suggest you read up on how
to put satellites into orbit.


That is an even worse business model. There is some doubt that satellite
will be profitable before WiMax makes it obsolete, with better reception in
the long run... especially in home and at work, where satellite is a frail
contender.

Gee, in that case it looks like your f*cked. Not to mention BUSTED!!!

"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...

It's a gamble... but doing nothing is not an alternative.

If this is the best you can come up with, I suggest you read up on how
to put satellites into orbit.


That is an even worse business model. There is some doubt that satellite
will be profitable before WiMax makes it obsolete, with better reception
in
the long run... especially in home and at work, where satellite is a
frail
contender.

Gee, in that case it looks like your f*cked. Not to mention BUSTED!!!

Satellite has 300 channels in the hands of only two owners.

AM and FM radio have 13,500 stations in the hads of about 3500 owners.

When there are viable alternative delivery systems to towers in the marksh
and antennas on the hill, we will push the content through them. For the
moment, there are no "free" alternatives that seem to be both viable, not
tied to a cellular provider, or don't have recurring fees associated to
them.

David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...

It's a gamble... but doing nothing is not an alternative.

If this is the best you can come up with, I suggest you read up on how
to put satellites into orbit.


That is an even worse business model. There is some doubt that satellite
will be profitable before WiMax makes it obsolete, with better reception
in
the long run... especially in home and at work, where satellite is a
frail
contender.

Gee, in that case it looks like your f*cked. Not to mention BUSTED!!!

Satellite has 300 channels in the hands of only two owners.

AM and FM radio have 13,500 stations in the hads of about 3500 owners.

When there are viable alternative delivery systems to towers in the marksh
and antennas on the hill, we will push the content through them. For the
moment, there are no "free" alternatives that seem to be both viable, not
tied to a cellular provider, or don't have recurring fees associated to
them.


For the moment, you are BUSTED!!!!

Stereo plus www.thebuttkicker.com is good.I dont own a
buttkicker,but I want one.Maybe the prices will come down enough someday
I can buy one.
cuhulin