[BC] Uselessness of HD

[Rich Wood]

------ At 02:10 AM 6/26/2012, Mike Vanhooser wrote: -------

>Strip" (Rat-Pack and classic Vegas sounds).  I enjoy the format and
>listen to it regularly, but it brought up a glaring problem (at
>least to my thinking).  I do enjoy the fact there are no freaking
>spots, but the problem is that there are no freaking spots.  I would
>listen and possibly patronize the sponsors, but since there are
>none, I can't.  So that brings me to the problem... what is the use
>for this waste of electricity?  It clearly is pulling me away from
>other stations on the dial, which do run spots, and are the reason
>for the station's existence.  If this is being encoded for PPM (I
>have no idea if sub-channels are), it is giving a false indication
>if it is tied to counting 100.3's main channel.  What is on 100.3's
>main channel?  I haven't a clue,!
>   I've never listened to it, and if I was logged as a listener,
> sponsors should be irate, as a non-listener to their spots was recorded.

Though I agree with it 100% the subject line isn't mine.

Sponsors (and agencies) would be irate. Arbitron's credibility would
be at stake. Arbitron requires sources that are not 100% duplicated
to be encoded separately. That's why Internet streams can't be
combined with any others because the spots are usually different,
thanks to the AFTRA requirement for additional payments to talent.
Agencies won't pay.

IBUZ subchannels are, almost universally, bastard stepchildren. In my
market, when they're not filled with dead air or off completely,
they're "format extensions." Picture a country main channel with a
few extra cuts that wouldn't be played on the cash cow. They're not
significantly different enough to warrant buying a receiver. Add the
technical issues of bad coverage and audible artifacts and it becomes
a waste of electricity and dashboard space. I'm told there are a few
markets where this kludge actually works. Mine isn't one of them.

If the analog channel were off the air Heaven and Earth would move to
restore it. If IBUZ is off there's no such effort. In my market it
seems like the equipment is removed, shipped back for repair and the
channel is off the air until it's returned. It can be a week or more.
That assumes someone has noticed something's wrong. If there were
spots, imagine the response from advertisers and agencies. In years
past Arbitron would add a sticker or note to the book explaining a
technical failure. IBUZ subchannels aren't ready for prime time and
the advertising that goes with it.

>I'm not against HD sub-channels, I think they're pretty cool, I'm
>just wondering what's the point?  This is clearly an expense, not
>only in building an HD facility, but man-hours in programming,
>royalty fees, and maintenance.  Why would any bottom-line-conscious
>GM expend a penny on something so worthless?  Maybe there's
>something here I'm missing, but I don't think so.  Enlighten me, why
>are these channels here if they generate no revenue and diminish the
>real station's listenership?  I guess I've spent too many years in AM.

AM experience isn't the reason. You've spent too many years being
rational. You can rest easy knowing that IBUZ subchannels aren't
hurting real radio. There are so few listeners that the eight IBUZ
receivers in a market aren't stealing enough listeners to affect
anything. That being said, the biggest downside would be if you, as
an IBUZ subchannel listener, had an Arbitron meter. Your listening
time would affect the rating results as your listening gets
projected. Since so few people listen to those subchannels, the
chance of this happening are astronomically remote.

I hope this information allows you to sleep again without worry. No
radio stations were harmed in the creation of this message. Harm
caused by IBUZ is another matter.

Rich