[BC] HD multicast alliance

Mon Dec 12 14:19:26 CST 2005

Steve

Thank you for sharing those thoughts. It is quite true that if you never 
try anything new you will never advance.
I and glad you are monitoring this list and joining in from time to time 
as I know some CC Engineers have dropped off because of those who choose 
to 'bash' digital.

The only way this will all work in the end is if ideas are shared and 
honest criticism, where necessary, is offered and discussed intelligently.

R

Davis, Steve - SVP wrote:

>>Message: 3
>>Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:46:54 -0500
>>From: Rich Wood <richwood at pobox.com>
>>Subject: RE: [BC] While you are waiting for receivers
>>To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>>Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20051211233151.0764be20 at yahoo.com>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>>
>>------ At 10:42 PM 12/11/2005, Williams, Chris 
>>\(Albuquerque\) wrote: -------
>>
>>    
>>
>>>In my opinion the IBOC alliance is a good step towards serving the
>>>consumer only problem I see is the big broadcasters will need to 
>>>make a profit to keep shareholders happy.
>>>      
>>>
>>Why is collecting a group of "usual suspects" from all the Gargantua 
>>Internationals going to help the consumer? Where are the small and 
>>medium sized broadcasters in this wondrous collection? You know, the 
>>folks who might actually know a few of their listeners personally. 
>>You know, the people who are the most likely victims of this 
>>technology. You know, the people who aren't investors in the 
>>technlogy.
>>
>>If this were the oil industry, it might be called a cartel. If this 
>>were GE and Westinghouse, like in the 60's it would be called price 
>>fixing or restraint of trade and forbidden under anti-trust. I think 
>>the street term might be "railroading."
>>
>>Where's Elliott Spitzer when you need him?
>>
>>Rich
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Rich and others,
>
>As I speak with listeners and read posts at sites such as this, one
>recurring theme is "It's the CONTENT stupid" or something similar.  I
>hear people say that radio is stale, not innovative enough, and/or the
>formats are too narrow or limited.  Satellite radio, which unlike free
>radio is 100% controlled by only two companies (Elliot are you
>listening?) on the other hand is lauded as an answer to these maladies.
>
>So why can't the hundreds of free, over-the-air broadcasters provide a
>challenge to the two national satellite companies?  One of the primary
>reasons has always been the competitive nature of our business and
>pursuit of maximum audience and profits.  Because each terrestrial radio
>broadcaster only has a few "channels" (independent radio stations)
>availble in any given market (FCC maximum is 8 in even the very largest
>markets), no single broadcaster can itself provide a variety of
>programming similar to what the two satellite providers, with their 100+
>channels each, can provide.  And because there are so many competing
>terrestrial broadcasters in each market, out of financial necessity we
>have tended to compete over the most popular or lucrative formats.  The
>result of this is that we don't have a variety of programming choices in
>each market equal to the number of stations in that market.  Listeners
>may have a number of country stations, a number of top-40, hip-hop and
>rock stations, etc., but more eclectic, adventurous, innovative or
>"niche" formats are few and far between.
>
>The objective of the HD alliance is to learn from history and work
>cooperatively to address programming diversity and meet the listeners'
>needs BEFORE everyone is on the air with the new digital signals and
>this becomes a big business, as traditional analog radio has become over
>time.  The alliance isn't about "big vs. small".  In fact the plan
>really can't provide maximum variety to the consumers unless ALL the
>broadcasters in a market, large and small, participate.  We invite, and
>in fact, implore, all broadcasters, large, medium or small, to join in
>this effort.  Our studies of the number of radio signals providing
>reliable coverage of each market have demonstrated that it will take all
>of the broadcasters in each market cooperating to provide the variety of
>program content that satellite can provide.  The innovative concept of
>the alliance is simply about deciding on programming in a market FIRST,
>and working together, to guarantee that no two secondary digital
>channels in a market duplicate the same programming, and that maximum
>programming innovation, diversity and CHOICE is available to the
>listeners.  So we'll have a free radio service that is equivalent or
>superior in depth, variety and diversity, to satellite.  If all the
>stations each go their own way, do research, and then select the most
>popular formats to compete over for these new secondary channels as
>we've traditionally done with the analog stations, we simply won't
>achieve this worthy and important goal of programming diversity.
>
>As many have already correctly pointed out, if there isn't something
>unique, better, and different provided by digital radio, it's going to
>be difficult to get any significant number of consumers to invest in the
>hardware.   Here then is something unique, better, different, and FREE!
>
>What this is all about is saving free radio.  Listeners will be able to
>get digital clarity, with variety on a par with what the satellite
>services can provide, for free.  We can do this with the new digital
>channels since they don't already have an entrenched listener base and
>established revenue stream that we're depending on to keep the lights
>on.  As with FM radio back when AM was king and FM was a novelty, we can
>afford to do something new and different on these new channels.  So why
>even consider programming each of those channels via the same
>competitive paradigm as we've done with our existing analog stations?
>To me that doesn't make a lot of sense.  It's a little like the classic
>definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, but
>expecting a different result.
>
>Is this concept guaranteed to work?  No.  But I believe it's the right
>thing to do at this critical time.
>
>Also as a sidebar, I take excepton to the statement "Where are the small
>and medium sized broadcasters in this wondrous collection? You know, the
>folks who might actually know a few of their listeners personally."
>Clear Channel Radio owns or programs roughly 1200 radio stations in the
>US.  Far from a "monopoly" as we're accused of being, this amounts to
>about 9% of all US radio stations.  Still, those 1200 stations are
>programmed by 900 local program directors.  Those local program
>directors live and work in their local markets and DO know their
>listeners personally.  Just because their paycheck says "Clear Channel"
>and they happen to work for a company that owns a large number of
>stations, doesn't make them any less locally connected or committed. 
>
>I love the radio business and am passionate about it, and I am
>optimistic that these second audio channels will give us all a chance to
>provide a new, relevant, meaningful service to the listening public, for
>free, WITHOUT disrupting a service and business model that still
>attracts millions of listeners (and dollars) daily and provides many of
>us with our income.  Until we had the second digital channels we were
>trapped in a "Catch-22": we couldn't afford to change (too much revenue
>riding on the status-quo) but we couldn't afford not to (lest we get
>left behind as people adopt satellite radio, cell-phone entertainment,
>Internet Radio and iPods).
>
>We stand today at a pivotal crossroads in the evolution of our industry.
>My hope is that you and the leaders at your stations and companies will
>join us in reinventing our business to maintain our vibrancy and
>relevance into the 21st century.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>Steve Davis
>Senior Vice President, Engineering
>Clear Channel Radio
>SteveDavis at clearchannel.com
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/
>
>  
>