[BC] RDS Receiver/Tuner

[Robert Orban]

At 11:38 AM 8/25/2006, you wrote:
>From: "Glen Kippel" <glen.kippel at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [BC] RDS Receiver/Tuner
>To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Message-ID:
>         <c3588a560608250757neacb0bfs72a1af3d93269e13 at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>On 8/25/06, Rich Wood <richwood at pobox.com> wrote:
><SNIP>
>
>Create so many additional "radio stations" in each market that your
> > analog unit ad rate goes down the toilet as agencies spread a limited
> > budget among twice the number of stations. I realize $19 billion
> > doesn't go as far as it used to but Warren Buffet might be interested
> > in allowing Bill Gates to give $1.6 billion in grants to little radio
> > companies like Clear Channel and Infinity to make the NAB's
> > prediction come true.
> >
> > ------------
>
>
>Precisely.  For those poor souls who think that adding an HD2 channel will
>double their revenue, may I add this reality check:  there are only so many
>ad dollars to go around.  And the HD2 would be a hard sell at this point,
>anyway, considering that there are hardly any radios in the hands of the
>general public.

It seems to me that the main business purpose of the HD2 channels is to 
keep people listening to radio (as opposed to abandoning it to 
iPods/streams/whathaveyou) by giving them more choice of program material. 
The argument about diluting the revenue stream ignores the big picture -- 
broadcasters *hope* that making radio more compelling for listeners, it 
helps retain (or maybe even increases) the number of "people who listen to 
the radio." The pool of advertising dollars is variable and will shrink if 
radio's total audience declines.

Bob Orban