CBS Expanding HD Radio Offerings in Orlando, West Palm, Tampa, and San Diego (with content from New York, L.A., Boston, and San Diego) as HD reaches critical mass.
SMS
new higher-end vehicles, CBS Radio is expanding its HD footprint
One interesting note about the new sub-channel content is that they're
able to use HD content from other affiliates, which eliminates the cost
of doing programming that is only used on a single station.
"From its inception, CBS Radio has embraced HD Radio and aggressively
moved to upgrade our stations with this forward-thinking technology,"
said CBS Radio VP/Programming Chris Oliviero. "Digital radio has
afforded the industry a way to expand its audience and increase brand
awareness, while giving listeners unmatched sound quality. We're
thrilled to expose our best in class stations to like-minded audiences
in cities across the county."
"http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=1569110&spid=24698"
It's often nice to read what's actually happening in HD Radio, versus
the uninformed rantings of our favorite HD troll, and the opinions of
purist radio engineers that are terrified that HD Radio will impact the
quality of analog FM (in fact the FCC has not received any complaints
from listeners within the protected contour of analog FM stations.
Eric Weaver
> Encouraged by the rapidly expanding deployment of HD radio receivers in
> new higher-end vehicles, CBS Radio is expanding its HD footprint
>
> One interesting note about the new sub-channel content is that they're
> able to use HD content from other affiliates, which eliminates the cost
> of doing programming that is only used on a single station.
>
> "From its inception, CBS Radio has embraced HD Radio and aggressively
> moved to upgrade our stations with this forward-thinking technology,"
> said CBS Radio VP/Programming Chris Oliviero. "Digital radio has
> afforded the industry a way to expand its audience and increase brand
> awareness, while giving listeners unmatched sound quality. We're
> thrilled to expose our best in class stations to like-minded audiences
> in cities across the county."
The way I read this: "We're going to have one set of unattended,
ignored PCs in the closet here in NY feeding the HD2 streams everywhere
over a satellite link. That way we can be SURE they get looked at once
a week."
If 99.7-HD2 is any indication of how much effort they will be putting
into those program feeds, the whole thing will be nothing to write home
about.
SMS
> If 99.7-HD2 is any indication of how much effort they will be putting
> into those program feeds, the whole thing will be nothing to write home
> about.
Perhaps, but it costs them very little to deploy the HD sub-channels.
Even in the short term it's nearly all upside revenue and at the very
least it takes market share away from their more slow-witted
competitors. In the long term, as HD radios become standard equipment in
more and more vehicles, they're all ready to move to other programming
should there be a business case to do so.
IBOCcrock
"Radio’s Revenue Falls Even as Audience Grows"
"And automakers, which have other problems, are not embracing the
technology; so far, only Volvo is offering HD Radio as a standard
feature in its new cars (it is standard in all but one of its 2009
models). HD radio is pretty much going to be nonexistent, because they
can’t figure out how to get the auto guys to include that as an
option, and the auto guys that do include HD don’t let the consumers
know about it, Ms. Ryvicker of Wachovia Capital Markets said. It’s
been a horribly marketed product that’s not going to save the radio
industry."
"DEAD AIR: Radio’s Great Leap Forward stalling in the Valley"
"Nearly two years after the Valley’s four Clear Channel stations went
HD, several high-end car manufacturers have promised to offer HD
radios as an option on new models. But while Ford announced in
September that it offers the radios as dealer-installed upgrades — as
have Mini, Volvo, Jaguar and BMW — local Ford and Lincoln dealers had
not heard of HD and said they don’t offer the option."
"Are Ford and HD Radio in Sync?"
"The radio industry will, of course, promote Ford for free in exchange
for this development as part of the presumably soon-to-expire pledge
of airtime to the HD radio effort."
http://www.hear2.com/2007/09/are-ford-and-hd.html
"BMW HD-Radio™- Functionality and Diagnosis"
"SI B65 25 05Sound System, Cruise, Alarms, Monitors August 2007
Technical Service. This Service Information bulletin supersedes S.I.
65 25 05 dated March 2007. Frequent causes of HD Radio complaints."
"Could HD Radio Be Good For Satellite Radio?"
"When the complaints start rolling into the dealership service
departments, surely one suggestion from service advisers will be to
switch to Satellite Radio. Ironically, the end of terrestrial radio
may come at the hand of terrestrial radio itself."
Promises, promises - LOL! Too expensive, doesn't work, and no across-
the-board FM-HD power increase - it's over!
IBOCcrock
If it's over the Internet, HD Radio pays RIAA royalties - no
listeners, no revenue to cover the costs. Look how mamy are streaming
- only a handful, and the rest are "future":
http://streamingradioguide.com/
It's nothing but a joke. Over-the-air - virtually no listeners.
IBOCcrock
Do you realize that RadioInk is owned by Clear Channel - a huge
iNiquity investor?
John Higdon
Eric Weaver <we...@sigma.net> wrote:
> The way I read this: "We're going to have one set of unattended,
> ignored PCs in the closet here in NY feeding the HD2 streams everywhere
> over a satellite link. That way we can be SURE they get looked at once
> a week."
>
> If 99.7-HD2 is any indication of how much effort they will be putting
> into those program feeds, the whole thing will be nothing to write home
> about.
And again, I state the obvious:
If HD-2 channels are carrying killer programming that will attract
listeners away from all the other means of program delivery, why the
hell don't the broadcasters put that programming on their flagging main
channels to increase their declining ratings and actually provide
revenue to stations that are otherwise failing?
Even if the HD-2 channels are carrying killer programming that will
attract listeners, it provides no attraction or loyalty to the host
station's main channel, which is the only place that the station
receives traditional broadcast revenue. On the contrary, HD-2
programming has the ability to actually attract listeners FROM the host
station's main channel, reducing its Arbitron numbers and further
eroding the station's revenue.
Of course, by centralizing this in New York the conglomerate can save a
lot of money. And while failure in New York takes down all those HD-2
channels nationwide, it makes little difference since effort, minimal as
it is, contributes absolutely nothing to the main channels' ability to
generate revenue. HD-2 programming does not attract listeners to a
station in any way that counts, so if it goes down, who cares?
We have had eight years of intense technical and marketing activity to
sell HD Radio to the public by the beneficiary CODEC licensee and its
partners/investors. There have been conventions, intra-industry
promotions and pep rallies, trade magazines promoting the whole mess as
the Savior of Radio Broadcasting...and yet the ONE segment of the market
that matters, the public, has expressed zero interest.
One can only characterize the efforts by the conglomerate broadcasters
as masturbation but without the happy ending.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
David Kaye
>If HD-2 channels are carrying killer programming that will attract
>listeners away from all the other means of program delivery, why the
>hell don't the broadcasters put that programming on their flagging main
>channels to increase their declining ratings and actually provide
>revenue to stations that are otherwise failing?
But is CBS really doing so badly with their main channel programming? I don't
think so. So, it appears that they're just adding additional programming.
When I first suggested some months ago that people look into CBS stock, it was
trading at about $5. Today it rose as high as $12.60. I don't think they're
doing so badly.
--
"You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most
Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco"
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> But is CBS really doing so badly with their main channel programming? I
> don't
> think so. So, it appears that they're just adding additional programming.
And what does this "additional programming" (that attracts listeners
away from their main channels and ratings and spots) get them? It
doesn't get them listener loyalty or any other side benefits that I'm
aware of. Fortunately for them, HD-2 is still down in the noise,
penetration-wise. If it were really successful, their main channel
ratings would suffer!
> When I first suggested some months ago that people look into CBS stock, it
> was
> trading at about $5. Today it rose as high as $12.60. I don't think they're
> doing so badly.
Stock price manipulation is not skillful broadcasting, in my opinion.
Watchin & Waitin'
"John Higdon" <hi...@kome.com> wrote in message
news:higgy-E5DAF8....@news.announcetech.com...
> In article <4af1d8f8$0$1589$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Eric Weaver <we...@sigma.net> wrote:
>
>> The way I read this: "We're going to have one set of unattended,
>> ignored PCs in the closet here in NY feeding the HD2 streams everywhere
>> over a satellite link. That way we can be SURE they get looked at once
>> a week."
>>
>> If 99.7-HD2 is any indication of how much effort they will be putting
>> into those program feeds, the whole thing will be nothing to write home
>> about.
>
> And again, I state the obvious:
>
> If HD-2 channels are carrying killer programming that will attract
> listeners away from all the other means of program delivery, why the
> hell don't the broadcasters put that programming on their flagging main
> channels to increase their declining ratings and actually provide
> revenue to stations that are otherwise failing?
who said they are carrying "killer programming"?
hd is just an added feature that adds some extra functionality to radio.
it can extend the reach of some stations (like cbs is doing)
it can also give life to some formats that dont have room or financial
viability to be on the regular analog band
as soeone who has worked in classical radio, you can see that classical
stations are dying off all over the country
hd2 channels can help classical radio live on...whereas it couldn't do so on
it's own.
Watchin & Waitin'
> In article <hcsoo8$78s$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
>
>> But is CBS really doing so badly with their main channel programming? I
>> don't
>> think so. So, it appears that they're just adding additional
>> programming.
>
> And what does this "additional programming" (that attracts listeners
> away from their main channels and ratings and spots) get them?
added listeners not neccessarily from their main channel
ability to superserve the fringes of their main channel constituancy
(i.e..like a classical station that does opera on it's hd2 channel, to
satisfy the few that are craving it on their main channel. like an hot
country station doing country oldies on their hd2 channel)
it expands the brand and brings in brand loyalty.
not to mention the possibility for added promotions/revenue....similar to
what a web page does.
Watchin & Waitin'
"IBOCcrock" <ibocis...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3e4fa3a4-f0da-4824...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 1:50 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Encouraged by the rapidly expanding deployment of HD radio receivers in
> new higher-end vehicles, CBS Radio is expanding its HD footprint
>
> One interesting note about the new sub-channel content is that they're
> able to use HD content from other affiliates, which eliminates the cost
> of doing programming that is only used on a single station.
>
> "From its inception, CBS Radio has embraced HD Radio and aggressively
> moved to upgrade our stations with this forward-thinking technology,"
> said CBS Radio VP/Programming Chris Oliviero. "Digital radio has
> afforded the industry a way to expand its audience and increase brand
> awareness, while giving listeners unmatched sound quality. We're
> thrilled to expose our best in class stations to like-minded audiences
> in cities across the county."
>
> "http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=1569110&spid=24698"
>
> It's often nice to read what's actually happening in HD Radio, versus
> the uninformed rantings of our favorite HD troll, and the opinions of
> purist radio engineers that are terrified that HD Radio will impact the
> quality of analog FM (in fact the FCC has not received any complaints
> from listeners within the protected contour of analog FM stations.
> "Radio�s Revenue Falls Even as Audience Grows"
radio is old line media much like newspapers/tv both have had
revenue declines
people are expecting more from technology. more choices, etc
radio has got to embrace new technology, new modes of operation.
thats why radio has got to embrace hd and other technologies
if not, it will go the way of the am band, which is almost dead in the water
for anyone under 55
Watchin & Waitin'
who owns you?
SMS
> And what does this "additional programming" (that attracts listeners
> away from their main channels and ratings and spots) get them?
It's an incorrect assumption that the additional programming attracts
listeners mainly (or only) from their analog channels. Often the
programming on the HD sub-channels is a completely different format.
SMS
> John Higdon <hi...@kome.com> wrote:
>
>> If HD-2 channels are carrying killer programming that will attract
>> listeners away from all the other means of program delivery, why the
>> hell don't the broadcasters put that programming on their flagging main
>> channels to increase their declining ratings and actually provide
>> revenue to stations that are otherwise failing?
>
> But is CBS really doing so badly with their main channel programming? I don't
> think so. So, it appears that they're just adding additional programming.
>
> When I first suggested some months ago that people look into CBS stock, it was
> trading at about $5. Today it rose as high as $12.60. I don't think they're
> doing so badly.
John is fond of making incorrect proclamations about the state of the
broadcaster's main channels. He doesn't understand (or understands but
doesn't want to admit that he understands) that the HD sub-channels are
represent incremental revenue for stations that deploy it properly
without spending a fortune on creating a whole new source of content (at
least initially). He needs to remove his HD blinders before "his"
stations lose out to stations with management that thinks strategically
and looks at the big picture.
David Kaye
>And what does this "additional programming" (that attracts listeners
>away from their main channels and ratings and spots) get them?
This assumes that the listeners they'll get with the second channel would draw
away from the main channel. If this were the case, station groups would never
have more than one station in a market.
>
>Stock price manipulation is not skillful broadcasting, in my opinion.
Manipulation? What kind of manipulation are you talking about? Do you have
evidence that can cause those of us who hold CBS stock to bring charges
against anyone for fraud?
Sumner Redstone was on the hook for paydowns of debt, which should have driven
the price downward, given the pressure for him to sell stock to cover his
debt. The stock went up. There are much more likely candidates for
manipulation than CBS.
SMS
> And again, I state the obvious:
I think your problem is that what you believe to be obvious is in
reality not obvious (or true) at all.
> If HD-2 channels are carrying killer programming that will attract
> listeners away from all the other means of program delivery, why the
> hell don't the broadcasters put that programming on their flagging main
> channels to increase their declining ratings and actually provide
> revenue to stations that are otherwise failing?
1. Their main channels aren't flagging.
2. The ratings of their main channels aren't declining.
3. Putting the present analog content onto the HD sub-channels will not
increase revenue.
You need to look at the sub-channels not as HD versus analog, but as
additional sub-channels for different content that costs the station
nothing extra in terms of purchasing additional spectrum, and relatively
little in terms of new broadcast equipment.
> Even if the HD-2 channels are carrying killer programming that will
> attract listeners, it provides no attraction or loyalty to the host
> station's main channel, which is the only place that the station
> receives traditional broadcast revenue.
Some stations have management that are astute enough to look beyond
"traditional broadcast revenue" into other future sources of revenue.
The stations that lack that management will eventually sell out to
better managed stations.
> On the contrary, HD-2
> programming has the ability to actually attract listeners FROM the host
> station's main channel, reducing its Arbitron numbers and further
> eroding the station's revenue.
Again, you're assuming clueless broadcasters that put similar content on
their analog channel and HD channels. You need to look at the big
picture and understand the the HD channels are simply additional
channels that have very little cost to the broadcaster. If there were a
good way to do analog sub-channels as opposed to digital sub-channels
there would still be an upside to using them.
> Of course, by centralizing this in New York the conglomerate can save a
> lot of money. And while failure in New York takes down all those HD-2
> channels nationwide, it makes little difference since effort, minimal as
> it is, contributes absolutely nothing to the main channels' ability to
> generate revenue.
Oh jeez, now your creating a mythical single point of failure that will
knock out HD channels nationwide as if such a temporary failure,
unlikely as it is to occur, would have some kind of lasting negative
effect on the station's HD programming streams.
> HD-2 programming does not attract listeners to a
> station in any way that counts,
Not today, but soon.
> so if it goes down, who cares?
Oy, you can turn something that hasn't happened into a potential
disaster that everyone has been saved from.
> We have had eight years of intense technical and marketing activity to
> sell HD Radio to the public by the beneficiary CODEC licensee and its
> partners/investors. There have been conventions, intra-industry
> promotions and pep rallies, trade magazines promoting the whole mess as
> the Savior of Radio Broadcasting...and yet the ONE segment of the market
> that matters, the public, has expressed zero interest.
The public is not going to pay extra for HD. It's becoming a standard
feature on more and more new vehicles and those customers prefer it to
analog stations. Eight years is nothing in the big scheme of things.
Look how long it took after FM was created for FM receivers to become
standard equipment in vehicles. It's a long process, especially because
it's so tied to vehicle replacement.
> One can only characterize the efforts by the conglomerate broadcasters
> as masturbation but without the happy ending.
The stations without the happy ending will be the ones that fail to
deploy HD in a timely manner.
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> This assumes that the listeners they'll get with the second channel would
> draw
> away from the main channel.
Well, the HD-2 listeners have to come from somewhere, and the only place
they're going to hear about it is from the main channel. HD-2 channel
surfing is painful to say the least.
> Manipulation? What kind of manipulation are you talking about? Do you have
> evidence that can cause those of us who hold CBS stock to bring charges
> against anyone for fraud?
Oh, please! Everything affects stock prices: the buying and selling of
stations (which CBS does at least as much as changing its socks), firing
people (another major CBS activity), mergers and acquisitions,
restructuring the stock (which it did at least three times while I
worked there, buying and selling itself repeatedly), and many other
things. But then, you knew that, right?
> Sumner Redstone was on the hook for paydowns of debt, which should have
> driven
> the price downward, given the pressure for him to sell stock to cover his
> debt. The stock went up. There are much more likely candidates for
> manipulation than CBS.
Neither you nor I have any evidence that any particular stock price
performance is due to excellence in broadcasting. Most of what I see of
note regarding stock performance at CBS is due to heavy traditional
corporate shuffling.
If you believe CBS is a good investment performer, fine. I have no
interest in that whatsoever. You will never convince me, however, that
CBS is some sort of stellar broadcasting performer.
David Kaye
>Well, the HD-2 listeners have to come from somewhere, and the only place
>they're going to hear about it is from the main channel. HD-2 channel
>surfing is painful to say the least.
I have no idea how they're promoting HD-2 since I have absolutely no interest
in the technology or in the programming of music stations. I'd assume that
they'll do some promotion elsewhere than just the main channel. Maybe they
just haven't launched an ad campaign yet.
>Oh, please! Everything affects stock prices: the buying and selling of
>stations (which CBS does at least as much as changing its socks), firing
>people (another major CBS activity), mergers and acquisitions,
>restructuring the stock (which it did at least three times while I
>worked there, buying and selling itself repeatedly), and many other
>things. But then, you knew that, right?
I happen to have a good record buying and selling stocks. Hiring and firing,
buying and selling only create a temporary stock movement. The effect is
usually gone the next day or two. Meanwhile, CBS has had an upward rise in
stock price over many months. Sure, they've declined from their high of $14 a
few weeks ago, but even so, it's been an upward trajectory, not the kind of
thing affected by fleeting announcements, or what you call "manipulation".
>Neither you nor I have any evidence that any particular stock price
>performance is due to excellence in broadcasting. Most of what I see of
>note regarding stock performance at CBS is due to heavy traditional
>corporate shuffling.
What do you call "excellence"? Is it the ability to attract viewers and
listeners in desirable demos and sell products to them? Well, that's what
commercial radio and TV are all about (and always have been about). Might I
remind you that CBS-TV is doing well in that regard, as are many of the CBS
radio stations.
Heck, take a look at KCBS. They have a much more desirable demo than KGO. In
fact, how many CBS radio stations are performing well in the demos they stake
out? Most of them, actually.
Locally, the only real dogs are KITS and 1550, which is what, KFRC or KYCY or
something? Well, 1550 is a dog of a station and hasn't led in ratings in 50
years. KLLC seems to be satisfying its niche. KMVN or whatever it's called
at 99.7 is doing nicely.
KPIX won the ratings at noon and at 11pm. They also won 9 Associated Press
awards for excellence. I don't think CBS is any kind of slouch in the
excellence department.
In fact, these days, GE is about to dump NBC. KGO-TV news panders nearly as
badly as KNTV. Citadel/ABC Radio panders in every network newscast with
bubblegum entertainment "news". Only KCBS, KPIX, and KRON seem to treat the
news with any dignity anymore. Even KTVU has slipped.
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> I have no idea how they're promoting HD-2 since I have absolutely no interest
> in the technology or in the programming of music stations. I'd assume that
> they'll do some promotion elsewhere than just the main channel. Maybe they
> just haven't launched an ad campaign yet.
So...not only have they not really figured out what they are going to do
on HD-2 yet, they really haven't even figured out how to promote it. I
guess that makes sense: if you don't have anything to sell, why waste
time selling it?
> What do you call "excellence"? Is it the ability to attract viewers and
> listeners in desirable demos and sell products to them? Well, that's what
> commercial radio and TV are all about (and always have been about).
I see you've had a slight shift in perceptions. When I reported in this
very forum patriarch George Snell saying that very same thing in my job
interview with him in the sixties, you told proclaimed that to be a
short-sighted view of the industry. What happened?
> Might I
> remind you that CBS-TV is doing well in that regard, as are many of the CBS
> radio stations.
I'll say right up front that I couldn't care less about TV. But I will
acknowledge that it could certainly fund a go-nowhere radio department.
> Heck, take a look at KCBS. They have a much more desirable demo than KGO.
Looks like their only decent performer in this market. KGO does,
however, pull its usual #1 in its AQH persons.
> In
> fact, how many CBS radio stations are performing well in the demos they stake
> out? Most of them, actually.
OK...Let's look.
PPM Data:
KCBS: ranking = 2
KSFO: ranking = 7
KMVQ: ranking = 11
KLLC: ranking = 18
KITS: ranking = 24
KFRC: ranking = 48
(Arbitron P 6+ Oct 2009, came out moments ago)
Truly stellar (and absolutely nothing I can even stand to listen to)!
But let's see...KSFO, an AM with practically no coverage at night...a
real throwaway facility, no?
> Locally, the only real dogs are KITS and 1550, which is what, KFRC or KYCY or
> something? Well, 1550 is a dog of a station and hasn't led in ratings in 50
> years.
Compared to KSFO, 1550 has superb coverage in the city and to the north.
And CBS has never been able to do a thing with it.
> KLLC seems to be satisfying its niche. KMVN or whatever it's called
> at 99.7 is doing nicely.
Nat as bad has they have been, that's for sure.
> In fact, these days, GE is about to dump NBC. KGO-TV news panders nearly as
> badly as KNTV. Citadel/ABC Radio panders in every network newscast with
> bubblegum entertainment "news". Only KCBS, KPIX, and KRON seem to treat the
> news with any dignity anymore. Even KTVU has slipped.
KCBS, CBS' crown jewel of radio in this market is, to me, painful to
listen to. Ignoring the wretched audio quality on both AM and FM, the
news seems hit and run. Everything but the anchor is pre-recorded. It is
stodgy and lifeless. Screwups abound. I used to be really impressed with
KCBS; now it sounds like News-On-A-Budget.
That's not outstanding radio in my book.
David Kaye
>if you don't have anything to sell, why waste
>time selling it?
Yet. Yet.
>I see you've had a slight shift in perceptions. When I reported in this
>very forum patriarch George Snell saying that very same thing in my job
>interview with him in the sixties, you told proclaimed that to be a
>short-sighted view of the industry. What happened?
Let's see if I can dredge up that thread. If my feeling has shifted it's
likely because a founder and a corporate holder are different. A founder has
the luxury of lower start-up costs and often a facility that's already paid
for. Certainly that would have happened by the time you were involved with
KEEN/KBAY, given that they started in 1946. Thus, they have the luxury of
being able to program niche local service formats. A corporation with
anonymous stockholders to please and debt to service doesn't have that luxury.
>Looks like their only decent performer in this market. KGO does,
>however, pull its usual #1 in its AQH persons.
Which means nothing. KCBS at #3 has far more salable demographics than KGO
has at #1. I'm sure the addition of the FM hasn't hurt them, either. Since I
listen to both KGO and KCBS I notice that KCBS has a wider range of
advertisers, fewer snake oil clients, and ads that would appeal to a younger
demographic as well.
Again, I don't mean to trash oldsters, but it's well known that older folks
have buying habits pretty much set in stone and are fairly immune to
advertising. I'm surprised that Mancini's, Sleep Train, and Dux choose to
fight it out there. Are any of them really going convert customers to their
side? I notice that McRoskey has given up on KGO, though they advertise on
KCBS.
>PPM Data:
>
>KCBS: ranking = 2
>KSFO: ranking = 7
>KMVQ: ranking = 11
>KLLC: ranking = 18
>KITS: ranking = 24
>KFRC: ranking = 48
NONE of these make any difference because buyers don't buy ages 6+. But even
if you never take your head out of the back end of a transmitter, you still
know the fundamentals: Nobody buys 6+ or 12+ or any of that nonsense. They
buy, say, 25 to 49 males or 18 to 35 females or whatever. THAT is where the
numbers are important.
>But let's see...KSFO, an AM with practically no coverage at night...a
>real throwaway facility, no?
KSFO does better than KGO in desirable demographics. It seems almost that
KSFO's upper age range is KGO's lower. And night coverage doesn't matter so
much, since few people listen to radio after 7pm anyway.
>Compared to KSFO, 1550 has superb coverage in the city and to the north.
>And CBS has never been able to do a thing with it.
Huh? KSFO's coverage of SF is far superior to 1550's. First, KSFO is located
within SF. Second, its lower dial position gives it better coverage. True,
KSFO suffers from being surrounded by pavement rather than water as 1550 has,
but still, KSFO is extremely well heard in SF. Neither hits SJ well at night,
though.
>KCBS, CBS' crown jewel of radio in this market is, to me, painful to
>listen to. Ignoring the wretched audio quality on both AM and FM, the
>news seems hit and run. Everything but the anchor is pre-recorded.
Not the case at all. The sports is live more than half the time, even at
times you'd think it was recorded such as at night. The weather is often
live. The traffic, of course, is live. Jan Wahl's movie reviews are often
live. I think they could improve by bringing in more live people at other
times of the day, but during drive times I think they're nearly all live.
KCBS presents the news in an even-handed, professional manner, not the
silly-talk that KGO has been doing of late. I mean, hell, the KGO crew
singing karaoke in the middle of the news block?
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> Which means nothing. KCBS at #3 has far more salable demographics than KGO
> has at #1. I'm sure the addition of the FM hasn't hurt them, either.
At least I can listen to the AM. With its unnecessary 5KHz brick wall
filter, it masks the dreadful audio that comes out of that studio. Your
hearing would have to be just about gone to tolerate the FM
> Since I
> listen to both KGO and KCBS I notice that KCBS has a wider range of
> advertisers, fewer snake oil clients, and ads that would appeal to a younger
> demographic as well.
Almost giving away the spots doesn't hurt, either.
> NONE of these make any difference because buyers don't buy ages 6+. But even
> if you never take your head out of the back end of a transmitter, you still
> know the fundamentals: Nobody buys 6+ or 12+ or any of that nonsense. They
> buy, say, 25 to 49 males or 18 to 35 females or whatever. THAT is where the
> numbers are important.
Oh, I fully understand what goes on in the smoke-filled rooms when the
numbers are massaged and finessed. It IS interesting that the first
numbers out of the chute each rating period are the 6+ numbers, since
they are so unimportant.
> Huh? KSFO's coverage of SF is far superior to 1550's. First, KSFO is
> located
> within SF. Second, its lower dial position gives it better coverage. True,
> KSFO suffers from being surrounded by pavement rather than water as 1550 has,
> but still, KSFO is extremely well heard in SF. Neither hits SJ well at
> night,
> though.
1550 also puts a searchlight-like beam of RF right smack dab through San
Francisco.
> KCBS presents the news in an even-handed, professional manner, not the
> silly-talk that KGO has been doing of late. I mean, hell, the KGO crew
> singing karaoke in the middle of the news block?
Yeah, you wouldn't catch KCBS deviating one iota from its
three-times-per-hour rotating clock. And by the way, KCBS does not do
seven hours a day with a full live (field reporters and all) newscast.
But whatever. The newscasts on KGO are their weakest link. During the
talk hours there's no contest.
Let reconvene in six months after CBS blows it all up and re-assembles
its stations in some other way. It's like a box of chocolates: you never
know what you're going to get.
Mike Russell
> 1550 also puts a searchlight-like beam of RF right smack dab through San
> Francisco.
>
Be fun to grab the FIM to see what they are doing over my house near
92/101.
-Mike
David Kaye
>Oh, I fully understand what goes on in the smoke-filled rooms when the
>numbers are massaged and finessed. It IS interesting that the first
>numbers out of the chute each rating period are the 6+ numbers, since
>they are so unimportant.
Then you have no idea what you're talking about. Arbitron allows the 6+ (and
earlier the 12+) AQH numbers to be given out specifically BECAUSE they aren't
useful. But allowing them to be published keeps the Arbitron name high in the
minds of the public. I think you should stick to engineering because every
time you try to talk about programming or sales you tend to put your foot in
your mouth.
>1550 also puts a searchlight-like beam of RF right smack dab through San
>Francisco.
True, both day and night patterns are on a 325 degree heading from Belmont,
which hits the middle of SF, but it's still 20 miles away and on the upper
reaches of the AM dial. Not only that, but it misses most of the rest of the
Bay Area rated counties. KSFO, meanwhile, is smack in SF itself, on a low
frequency.
But the ratings facts speak for themselves. As I said, it's been 50 years
since 1550 (which I noticed is actually the newest KFRC) was #1, and it was
only briefly. The rest of the time, through beautiful music, classical, news,
and talk, it just couldn't pull any numbers. KSFO, on the other hand was #1
or within the top 5 under a personality MOR format, oldies, and now talk.
KSFO, of course, has good management at this time, but they had a
multiplicity of owners and managers over the years and still did just fine
despite the changes. They have a damned good signal, and that's my point. ABC
bought KSFO not at a firesale price, but at a premium.
>But whatever. The newscasts on KGO are their weakest link. During the
>talk hours there's no contest.
While indeed KGO has more reporters in the field doing live stories (or at
least it seems that way), the stories are often non-entities.
There was no reason for KGO to do a remote from Treasure Island when the Bay
Bridge was closed. There was absolutely nothing they could see there.
>Let reconvene in six months after CBS blows it all up and re-assembles
>its stations in some other way. It's like a box of chocolates: you never
>know what you're going to get.
You're trying to give this impression that CBS (aka Westinghouse, aka old
Viacom) is unstable. They've kept news on KFWB for 40 years and are only now
changing it because rating have begun to sink. They've kept KCBS, KNX,
KCBS-FM (in LA), KLLC, WCBS-FM, WCBS, KMOX, and all their other powerhouse
market leaders in very consistent formats for decades.
If anything CBS appears to be conservative in its approach to programming, not
cavalier. And even here, they're treading lightly on format adjustments.
They haven't appreciably changed KITS. They stuck with KFRC 99.7 and 106.9
for a couple oldies tries and then finally bit the bullet and changed formats
on both stations. And both have done better with the changes.
CBS appears to be the only major broadcaster with any sense these days. WABC
keeps changing its lineup. Citadel keeps losing its syndicated talk shows
either to Premiere or indie distribution. Cumulus is off the map entirely.
I mean, heck, I'd love to love Citadel. I'd prefer (as Sean Hannity says)
their "left-leaning politics", but Citadel is just not very stable these days.
Dave Barnett
> and the opinions of
> purist radio engineers that are terrified that HD Radio will impact the
> quality of analog FM (in fact the FCC has not received any complaints
> from listeners within the protected contour of analog FM stations.
Thanks for recognizing us. Yes, that is my opinion. It is also
apparently the opinion of NPR and a number of the participants in their
study, who have said that they would turn off the radio when subjected
to the type of D/I ratios we experience here in the Bay Area.
I've done exactly that, and so have a number of my friends who still
enjoy listening to radio, we just have to get it over the Internet now.
Dave B.
Dave Barnett
>
> "From its inception, CBS Radio has embraced HD Radio and aggressively
> moved to upgrade our stations with this forward-thinking technology,"
> said CBS Radio VP/Programming Chris Oliviero. "Digital radio has
> afforded the industry a way to expand its audience and increase brand
> awareness, while giving listeners unmatched sound quality. We're
> thrilled to expose our best in class stations to like-minded audiences
> in cities across the county."
>
> "http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=1569110&spid=24698"
I actually have to applaud CBS for this idea. If you read the link,
what they've essentially done is to establish out-of-market translators
for these signals. LA listeners get a San Diego station & vice-versa.
The New York sports fan get their home station after they retire to
Florida. It keeps the advertising dollars in the right place (for
national spots at least) and provides a very small increase in cume, tho
probably not as much as webcasting or making your signal available to a
cell phone. It might sound terrible with cascaded compression and all,
but it'll be a great novelty for the sports fan in Florida.
Dave B.
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> You're trying to give this impression that CBS (aka Westinghouse, aka old
> Viacom) is unstable. They've kept news on KFWB for 40 years and are only now
> changing it because rating have begun to sink. They've kept KCBS, KNX,
> KCBS-FM (in LA), KLLC, WCBS-FM, WCBS, KMOX, and all their other powerhouse
> market leaders in very consistent formats for decades.
How long ago was "Movin'" KFRC? How long ago did they still have the
legendary KFRC at 610? How many formats have been on 1550 in the past
five years? 106.9? 99.7? Did you know that as we speak, 99.7 is
undergoing "adjustment" by some programming genius?
> CBS appears to be the only major broadcaster with any sense these days. WABC
> keeps changing its lineup. Citadel keeps losing its syndicated talk shows
> either to Premiere or indie distribution. Cumulus is off the map entirely.
What? I just got out of a meeting discussing the next five years of the
company I work for. I don't know anyone more stable than this place!
> I mean, heck, I'd love to love Citadel. I'd prefer (as Sean Hannity says)
> their "left-leaning politics", but Citadel is just not very stable these
> days.
What's unstable about it? There has been less carnage at the local
Citadel stations than in any other cluster.
David Kaye
>How long ago was "Movin'" KFRC?
The oldies didn't work. They gave it a long trial on 99.7 and finally dropped
it. They tried it again just to be sure on 106.9 and it didn't do any better,
so they dropped it again.
>How long ago did they still have the
>legendary KFRC at 610?
The "legendary KFRC" went out of business when RKO General sold it eons ago.
Oldies KFRC was not legendary in any way, shape, or form.
>How many formats have been on 1550 in the past
>five years?
Uh, one? They experimented with podcasting and it didn't work. It was an
innovative idea, but people just weren't into it. It seems to work on TV
(Current TV) but not on radio. Who knew?
>> CBS appears to be the only major broadcaster with any sense these days. [....]
>What? I just got out of a meeting discussing the next five years of the
>company I work for. I don't know anyone more stable than this place!
Your company is NOT a major broadcaster.
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> Your company is NOT a major broadcaster.
No, but it is a quality broadcaster, which is what interests me and why
I continue to work there.
David Kaye
>No, but it is a quality broadcaster, which is what interests me and why
>I continue to work there.
But once again, that wasn't my point. My point was that CBS appears to be the
only major broadcaster actually running its stations properly, which more than
likely accounts for the upsurge in its stock recently.
Jo Jo Gunn
"Dave Barnett" <dave.db...@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:4AF2DFF8...@SPAMgmail.com...
> SMS wrote:
> > and the opinions of
>> purist radio engineers that are terrified that HD Radio will impact the
>> quality of analog FM (in fact the FCC has not received any complaints
>> from listeners within the protected contour of analog FM stations.
>
> Thanks for recognizing us. Yes, that is my opinion. It is also
Apparently NOT, NPR is going full steam ahead with HD.
No participants said they would turn off the radio.
Jo Jo Gunn
> In article <hcva31$tks$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
>
>> Your company is NOT a major broadcaster.
>
> No, but it is a quality broadcaster,
That's debatable.
SMS
> SMS wrote:
> > and the opinions of
>> purist radio engineers that are terrified that HD Radio will impact
>> the quality of analog FM (in fact the FCC has not received any
>> complaints from listeners within the protected contour of analog FM
>> stations.
>
> Thanks for recognizing us. Yes, that is my opinion. It is also
It isn't NPR's opinion, at least not any more. The concerns have been
mitigated and a compromise reached.
"http://www.twice.com/article/383009-Pact_Paves_Way_For_FM_Stations_To_Boost_Range_Of_Digital_Signal.php"
"http://www.npr.org/everywhere/digital/"
This is excellent news for all the stakeholders including the listening
public, NPR, iBiquity, the FCC, the NAB, equipment manufacturers, and
the radio stations. Also good news for broadcast engineers, since the
power boost pretty much assures the success of HD Radio so nearly every
holdout FM station will be adding HD.
So go have glass of champagne with Higdon to celebrate digital radio
finally coming to the U.S. in a big way. Look for "HDRadioFarce" crying
in his beer.
HD Radio Farce
> "Dave Barnett" <dave.dbarnet...@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
"NPR Partners with Livio for Internet Radio Device"
"In addition, local stations, having already developed expensive
secondary programming for their HD stations that nobody listens to,
are excited to have another outlet for that programming. They see this
as a great salvation from the HD experience, because they’ve already
invested that money, and everything that they’re putting on their
secondary [HD] channels, that their audience isn’t able to hear either
because of the antenna problems with HD, their location, or because
they don’t want to invest in HD radio, said Sopato. All of those
secondary streams are on the web and on this radio. Now, they don’t
have to tell their audience, 'go get an HD Radio.'”
Really? Also, of all the NPR stations polled, only 183 responded, and
only 70% stated they would up the power, if approved.
HD Radio Farce
> Dave Barnett wrote:
> > SMS wrote:
> > �> and the opinions of
> >> purist radio engineers that are terrified that HD Radio will impact
> >> the quality of analog FM (in fact the FCC has not received any
> >> complaints from listeners within the protected contour of analog FM
> >> stations.
>
> > Thanks for recognizing us. �Yes, that is my opinion. �It is also
> > apparently the opinion of NPR.
>
> It isn't NPR's opinion, at least not any more. The concerns have been
> mitigated and a compromise reached.
>
> "http://www.npr.org/everywhere/digital/"
>
> This is excellent news for all the stakeholders including the listening
> public, NPR, iBiquity, the FCC, the NAB, equipment manufacturers, and
> the radio stations. Also good news for broadcast engineers, since the
> power boost pretty much assures the success of HD Radio so nearly every
> holdout FM station will be adding HD.
>
> So go have glass of champagne with Higdon to celebrate digital radio
> finally coming to the U.S. in a big way. Look for "HDRadioFarce" crying
> in his beer.
"Warp Factor 6, Mr. Scott"
"To wit, how many existing installations will have sufficient headroom
to implement the increase without significant retooling of
transmission hardware?.. Some simply won't make it with their existing
transmitters, and plant cooling capacity will also have to be bumped
up along with electrical power mains service, and back-up generating
plant output... Those using high level combining schemes will face
similar issues, as reject loads, digital transmitters, etc., will all
have to be upsized... One thing's for certain: approval of a 6dB HD
digital boost will mean lots of extra hours, as managers and owners
task their engineers with delivering a wee bit more digital drive
without melting down already overheated corporate budgets. For many,
actually making it happen is likely to be an agonizing process."
Really?
Jo Jo Gunn
"HD Radio Farce" <hdradi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4849f983-12d0-4caf...@m13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...> > ?> and the opinions of
> >> purist radio engineers that are terrified that HD Radio will impact
> >> the quality of analog FM (in fact the FCC has not received any
> >> complaints from listeners within the protected contour of analog FM
> >> stations.
>
> > apparently the opinion of NPR.
>
> It isn't NPR's opinion, at least not any more. The concerns have been
> mitigated and a compromise reached.
>
> "http://www.twice.com/article/383009-Pact_Paves_Way_For_FM_Stations_To..."
> "http://www.npr.org/everywhere/digital/"
>
> This is excellent news for all the stakeholders including the listening
> public, NPR, iBiquity, the FCC, the NAB, equipment manufacturers, and
> the radio stations. Also good news for broadcast engineers, since the
> power boost pretty much assures the success of HD Radio so nearly every
> holdout FM station will be adding HD.
>
> So go have glass of champagne with Higdon to celebrate digital radio
> finally coming to the U.S. in a big way. Look for "HDRadioFarce" crying
> in his beer.
>>"Warp Factor 6, Mr. Scott"
In a development that could vastly improve HD Radio signal reception
and propel the digital radio service forward, an agreement has been
reached for an HD power increase. It would give all HD FMs a
four-fold power hike, but most stations could get an even BIGGER bump.
Jo Jo Gunn
On Nov 6, 1:32 am, "Jo Jo Gunn" <vhr74a...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> "Dave Barnett" <dave.dbarnet...@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4AF2DFF8...@SPAMgmail.com...
>
> > SMS wrote:
> > > and the opinions of
> >> purist radio engineers that are terrified that HD Radio will impact the
> >> quality of analog FM (in fact the FCC has not received any complaints
> >> from listeners within the protected contour of analog FM stations.
>
> > Thanks for recognizing us. Yes, that is my opinion. It is also
> > apparently the opinion of NPR..
>
> Apparently NOT, NPR is going full steam ahead with HD.
>
> No participants said they would turn off the radio.
"NPR Partners with Livio for Internet Radio Device"
see, this is why you bug people.
someone refutes a statement...and then you spam with article that is not
even related to the points made
this is why when people see your blog, they quickly deduce what a
knucklehead you are.
can't have a decent discussion without reverting to your cut/paste/spam?