[BC] The costs of going digital

[Rich Wood]

------ At 11:12 PM 1/17/2006, Davis, Steve - SVP wrote: -------

>You create programming which is used as a platform to sell advertising.
>You truly believe that advertising is worthless?  Then I won't be able
>to convince you otherwise.  Also as I said a portion IS cash.

The press releases I saw implied it was all cash. You don't attract 
audience by advertising on your own station. Cume comes from outside. 
AQH and TSL or conversion comes from good programming.

>Sorry.  I got the impression you thought terrestrial radio today wasn't
>serving the public need, and that the formats we were providing were
>insipid.

I'll have to reread what I've written but I recall using that term in 
reference to Touched by an Angel. I may have suggested that the 
suggestions for secondaries would fit that description if they 
weren't treated the same as main channels.

>I got the feeling that your
>position was that the programmers employed by the satellite broadcasting
>corporations were somehow more creative than the programmers employed by
>the terrestrial broadcasting corporations.

Again, I'll check, but I believe the point I was making was that 
everything was in place before sales and promotion began. I'm seeing 
people suggest that some free software and liners might be all we 
need for secondaries until there were audiences. If you build it they 
might come. If you don't build it they won't come. It assumes you 
build it right.

>Is it your position then that
>the formats terrestrial radio is programming today on their analog
>channels are serving the public need and that there is no need for
>additional formats to be made available on the new outlets that HD2 will
>provide?

Of course not. Radio is vital when it's creative. We still command a 
dramatically larger audience than any competing technology. If we 
weren't serving a need that wouldn't be the case. Formats come and 
go. Compelling ones stay a while.

>Clearly you and I are not often going to agree.  My hope is that both of
>us share the same ultimate goal: to keep free terrestrial radio fresh,
>relevant and viable into the 21st century.  I am involved in
>implementing a technical infrastructure that affords free terrestrial
>radio broadcasters a "second chance": a means to provide programming
>content that is apparently missing in today's offerings, a void which
>Satellite radio purports to fill, while still preserving the vibrant
>competition and programming that still attracts over 200 million
>listeners a week.  Engineers like myself cannot do this alone.  We can
>provide the platform or stage.  You and your compatriots have to provide
>the performance.  I am excited to see what new offerings our creative
>programming people can come up with!

Please understand that my objection to IBUZ is AM adjacent channel 
interference. Knowing what I do about listening habits, I can tell 
you listeners won't stick around. I'm told there's FM interference, 
as well. I can't speak to that because I haven't heard it. I have 
heard the AM problem and see it as extremely serious. I've had the 
fortune of playing with a Kenwood receiver for a couple of months, 
thanks to Kenwood's Mike Bergman. I found the tuner to be very good. 
So good I almost didn't return it. It's the AM system and it's 
destructive properties I don't appreciate.

I don't doubt your motives a bit. I simply believe this isn't the 
technology that will accomplish it.

Rich


Rich Wood
Rich Wood Multimedia
Phone: 413-303-9084
FAX: 413-480-0010