[BC] Live on HD-2 or HD-3?

[Rich Wood]

------ At 12:08 PM 12/22/2006, David Reaves wrote: -------

>Seems to me the more aggressive programmers would opt for live, and
>budget accordingly. At the least, it would not be unfair to use this
>as an indicator of how seriously the programmers and owners take
>their investment in these new signals.

As much as I believe live programming is what will sell receivers I 
can't see any contemporary broadcaster hiring staff with no 
listeners. The best approach is to make a deal with a satellite 
provider and pay a programming fee in lieu of barter. It has to be 
cash because there's no value to the inventory unless it can be run 
on the analog signal where the listeners are. Deals like this are 
done all the time in syndication and networking to make barter work 
on low rated stations. At ABC we would give low-rated AMs the news 
networks if they agreed to run the inventory on the FM. Network 
advertisers look for tonnage, so Folgers, for example, doesn't care 
where the ads run so long as the numbers were there.

WCBS-FM is the perfect example. They moved the legendary oldies 
format to HD-2 without the legendary personalities. It would cost too 
far too much with no return expected for years.

Secondaries are very difficult to make compelling. You need the same 
on-air staffing as the analog to create good stuff.

Rich

Rich Wood
Rich Wood Multimedia
Phone: 413-454-3258