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

[Douglas B. Pritchett]

No disagreement from me. Digital will not fix anything. Only 
entertaining and compelling content will. But, since radio (meaming 
AM/FM) has become, for the most part, diluted and soul-less, I don't see 
anything changing. A mentor of mine, John Long who programmed many 
great, successful radio stations - many of them AMs, blames the 
consolidation of control and "branding" for much of radio's demise. I 
agree that digital radio should be on it's own band. But it, too, has to 
have entertaining and compelling content. Otherwise we'll have "Lite", 
"Power", "Jack", "Mike" "Mix" etc in near CD digital quality....and 
we'll have gained nothing.

-- 
Douglas B. Pritchett 
(who was asked to leave many great, successful radio stations - many of them AMs :-))
Fort Wayne, IN
WBZQ1300 at verizon.net


 Dana Puopolo wrote:

>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.
>  
>