[BC] The reason for having Satellite Radio

[DANA PUOPOLO]

Yes, but you're assuming that more is better. I do not agree with this.

Beofre consolidation, you had two of thre 'big' formats. Two stations that
were owned by different owners, both trying to beat the other.

In Boston, we had WRKO and WMEX for example. Both did top 40, both were great
- the reason being the competition of the other.

Today we do have more stations, but commonly owned. Now we have a CHR, a hot
CHR, an AC, a hot AC. a soft rock, a lite rock, a classic rock, an alternative
rock, an adult rock...and on and on ad nauseum.

Explain to me the benefits of this - other then fragmanting the audience so no
one has great shares any more.

More is not always better....

-D




There are more choices on the terrestrial dial today than ever before...no 
not every programming genre is represented...I doubt most markets could 
support a full-time gay talk, blues, dance or bluegrass station...even 
classical is too narrow in appeal in many markets.  For the most part it's 
fans of these genres who are flocking to satellite radio (as well as 
Stern's audience), not the ones with more mainstream tastes.  This does not 
mean terrestrial radio is doing anything wrong...it's just not for 
everyone.  Also, the two are not mutually exclusive.  My brother in law 
(truckdriver) has XM, but he finds it sterile after a while & needs a dose 
of "real" radio too.  Also, not everyone wants yet another subscription 
service..."pennies a day" adds up.

Someone else mentioned Ipods...other than being a little more convenient 
they're nothing more than the 00's version of the Walkman.


_______________________________________________
This is the BROADCAST mailing list
To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
http://www.radiolists.net/