[BC] HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right!

[Rich Wood]

------ At 07:18 AM 10/17/2005, Mike wrote: -------

>Rich I think you are wrong here.  If stations take your approach 
>then multicasting will go no where.  Offer then something worth 
>listening to right up front and I believe you will see a turn around 
>in listeners purchasing radios.  Do the bare minimum and you are 
>wasting your time and theirs. It's that simple.  In our case we 
>actually did a study and found what our listeners wanted and we plan 
>on making that our second channel.  As soon as we get our antenna 
>problem fixed it's the next thing I devote all my time to.  Yes it 
>will cost us money and yes it will require more work on the staffs 
>part yes we plan on hiring probably two more people but we have the 
>approach of build it and they will come where many are taking the 
>approach of wait till they have radios then we'll build it.  By then 
>it's likely that those that got it and did it up front have taken 
>away half your listeners because you were busy debating what if and 
>how come.  It's here and it's not going any where so the best thing 
>we can do is suck it up and make it happen the best possible 
>way.  If you put junk on the SAC and then promote you have a SAC 
>you've defeated the purpose and you hurt the system.  Like I said 
>those that put thought into it and money behind it will win and 
>those that don't will most likely lose in a big way.

You're making part of my point for me. I agree that the secondary 
can't be an also ran. It has to be a real radio station. What I would 
do is also stream it on the web until there are receivers in the 
field. At this point in time you'll have a larger web audience than 
IBUZ. It might be a good way to introduce it to advertisers who might 
add it to their buy. Right now, streaming is understood and many ad 
agencies have web divisions. Promoting the web stream on your main 
might be a problem because you're suggesting listeners go elsewhere.

Rich