[BC] Uselessness of HD

[Alex Hartman]

Streaming is, and can be very lucrative. I know several "internet
only" stations making about $40k/mo revenue in the UK. I also know of
several "multi-state" AM signals that would love to make 40k/mo...
it's all in how you sell and knowing your demos. With the internet,
you *can* have arbitron, but the server itself gives you very hard
numbers to sell by, not a "guess" or "arbitrary" number... (see what i
did there?? :) )

Streaming is very easy, and obviously the barrier to entry is that
it's the internet, you're a drop in the bucket. So you have to work
pretty hard to market your "station" to the masses. But if you list
your station on things like shoutcast.com, live365, streamguys, etc,
then you have a good entry. Just like google, they'll take money to
put your station at the top of the list.

The one thing terrestrial broadcasters have over the internet still
(and probably always will) is the localism factor. This is also the
problem with those "multi-state" AM signals. They only sell to the
small town they're in, not the big city 40 miles out. Thus why they
don't generate much revenue. With the internet however, you can have
advertisers from all over the world on your station. Remember, your
audience potential is *global*, not just multi-state. :)

It's all semantics beyond this point however. A lot of traditional
broadcasters can't shape their mind to think this way, thus why it
tends to fail quite quickly.

--
Alex Hartman

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Rob Landry <011010001 at interpring.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, Gary Peterson wrote:
>
>> I've wondered the same thing regarding streaming. When the IP addresses
>> of most of the listeners are obviously in other states or countries,
>> what is the benefit to our local advertisers?
>
> I've always regarded streaming as a prmotional gimmick, not unlike a
> high-powered AM boasting of homw many states it reaches at night. There
> are a few benefits of streaming: listeners can hear you when they're out
> of town, and advertisers based out of town can also hear you.
>
> But streaming will never make a profit, I think.
>
>> "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 are these channels
>> here if they generate no revenue and diminish the
>> real station's listenership? Mike Vanhooser"
>
> The thing is, if you originate a second programming channel, whether via
> HD or streaming, and put your brand on it, you have to make it meet the
> same standards you uphold for your main channel, or else it makes you look
> cheap. One local broadcaster has several secondary internet streams, all
> branded with his name, but they're just a bunch of mp3's in playlists.
> You'll never hear news, weather, commentary, commercials, or any of the
> station's special features; the streams are just glorified iPods for which
> the station presumably pays for bandwidth and music licensing. They hardly
> enhance the station'simage, I think, and they do cost money. So... why?
>
> Rob
>
> ~_________________________________________________________________~
> If you have not subscribed to the one-time-a-week BDR Newsletter,
> you are missing some good material. It only takes 30 seconds:
> http://lists.theBDR.net/mailman/listinfo/bdr