[BC] RE: extra channel naming

[Scherer, Chriss]

I observed almost all of the sessions. I used to agree that 100.7 HD2 was not a hard concept to understand. Listening to the average listeners trying to comprehend it was frustrating. Then I realized that using 120.7 to mean 100.7 HD2 was just a number assignment. To the engineers, this sounds wrong. To the listener, 100.7 is just a number. So is 120.7.

The expanded band labeling also creates an easy way to identify that something is new. You need a new radio to hear the new signals.

How many listeners actually have a radio capable of tuning 120.7 MHz? A few might hear something odd up there. 99%+ won't.

I encourage everyone to take some time and view the sessions. It will be quickly seen that listeners know frequency assignments as well as station handles -- in most cases they know the frequency better. If 100.7 is rock and 100.7 HD2 is country, that will confuse the listener. 100.7 is as much of an identity as the call letters or slogan. This is why converting to channel assignments (265.1, 265.2, etc.) will also see resistance among listeners and established stations.

Read the second part of my December editorial on this:
http://beradio.com/eyeoniboc/radio_keep_simple/

Read another source of the story:
http://beradio.com/currents/radio_currents_121205/index.html#cox

See the consultant's report:
http://www.bobharper.com/reports.htm

Chriss