[BC] Digital vs new (was: stamping opinions)
Douglas B. Pritchett
wbzq1300
Wed Jul 26 15:45:34 CDT 2006
No disagreement from me. Digital will not fix anything. Only
entertaining and compelling content will. But, since radio (meaming
AM/FM) has become, for the most part, diluted and soul-less, I don't see
anything changing. A mentor of mine, John Long who programmed many
great, successful radio stations - many of them AMs, blames the
consolidation of control and "branding" for much of radio's demise. I
agree that digital radio should be on it's own band. But it, too, has to
have entertaining and compelling content. Otherwise we'll have "Lite",
"Power", "Jack", "Mike" "Mix" etc in near CD digital quality....and
we'll have gained nothing.
--
Douglas B. Pritchett
(who was asked to leave many great, successful radio stations - many of them AMs :-))
Fort Wayne, IN
WBZQ1300 at verizon.net
Dana Puopolo wrote:
>I think that the broadcasters want digital because DIGITAL meanns "new" to the
>average person, while analog means old.
>
>To the average Joe, digital has been taught to mean, new, modern, BETTER!
>Even though virtually no one in our business disagrees that the analog LP
>could blow away the CD quality wise, even WE believe that the CD is better.
>
>Problem is, there are many other digital formats that have a major leg up on
>radio. I won't go into them; everyone knows what they are. There are so many
>of them available to the average consumer that radio is now only one of a
>couple dozen ways for the consumer to get content. As an aside, Microsoft will
>have their own IPOD killer out for Christmas. Expect a dozen million of them
>to be sold in the next few years, more then the entire installed base of
>radios.
>
>I'm willing to give you 99.9% odds that IBOC radios won't be selling that
>fast.
>
>
More information about the Broadcast
mailing list