[BC] Digital vs new (was: stamping opinions)

[Dana Puopolo]

I think that the broadcasters want digital because DIGITAL meanns "new" to the
average person, while analog means old.

To the average Joe, digital has been taught to mean, new, modern, BETTER!
Even though virtually no one in our business disagrees that the analog LP
could blow away the CD quality wise, even WE believe that the CD is better.

Problem is, there are many other digital formats that have a major leg up on
radio. I won't go into them; everyone knows what they are. There are so many
of them available to the average consumer that radio is now only one of a
couple dozen ways for the consumer to get content. As an aside, Microsoft will
have their own IPOD killer out for Christmas. Expect a dozen million of them
to be sold in the next few years, more then the entire installed base of
radios.

I'm willing to give you 99.9% odds that IBOC radios won't be selling that
fast.

Since (analog) radio is what's out there now, what needs to be done is for
radio to provide the best content it can in it's analog channel! Put the $$
into that not IBOC or the format labs on the secondary. Put your effort into
the MAIN channel that everybody can hear, instead of the secondary that no one
listens to now and will for a long time!

Do you need some examples? Okay. CBS radio's programming on their New York
flagship FM's is so pathetic that the combined share of all 3 stations (92.3,
101.1, 102.7) is less then just 101.1 a year ago by itself as oldies.  Three
full power FM stations with a combined audience share under a five (or is it a
4?). Shares of radio listening have been going down for some time. No, it
isn't all radio's fault, but some of it is.

Analog radio is far from dead, especially since there are so many radios in
the public's hands. 

So, rather then trash analog radio a la' IBOC let's embrace it and put content
on it that the public wants to listen to....and let's promote the hell out of
it so they know that it's there!

Finally, let's get real. Radio's salvation isn't IBOC. Digital radio needs to
go into its own band. TV was able to pull this off; now radio needs to do the
same. The big consolidators should be using their bully pulpits to help make
this happen. The NAB should also 'get real' about IBOC and use their
considerable lobbying efforts to get Congress to do for digital radio what it
did (succesfully and well) for digital television.  This CAN HAPPEN, but only
if radio as a group and business wants it to, and works for it.

No, analog radio sin't dead. But  the patient is sick and needs tender loving
care and nurturing. Let's help it get better instead of wasting our resources
killing it faster with IBOC.

Comments?

-D

------ Original Message ------
Received: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:06:42 AM EDT
From: "Phil Alexander" <dynotherm at earthlink.net>
To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Subject: Re: [BC] stamping opinions

On 21 Jul 2006 at 11:59, Rich Wood wrote:

> I think I've asked questions people fear answering. As a matter of 
> fact, I'm the person who has been pushing for 24/7 operation of AM 
> IBUZ. 

I agree with you completely on that point, however there should be
a mechanism for subcarrier reduction or discontinuance in the 
event of primary interference clearly the fault of the IBOC emitter.
This in in the nighttime proposals but lacks sufficient range to
deal with a coincidence of problematic factors.