HD Radio

[Rocco]

"Cox Radio’s Bob Neil says radio shouldn’t be afraid of HD Radio. He tells his Q3 call “We’ve been dealing with fragmentation all our lives” - and that HD Radio might even draw in new listeners. "

--------------------------------------------

Yes, but why INVITE fragmentation. That's just plain stupid. The fragmentation we've always dealt with was thrust upon us from the outside.

Might even draw in new listeners? What's he smoking?

 

[BoardmanDJ]

Hypothetically, let's say Cox radio owns 5 stations in a market. With HD radio they can add at least 5 more.
If Cox Radio has 10,000 listeners, but by adding more 'fragments' they can gain 2,000 more, then they can effectively charge money for adds on these new fragments (Which will no doubt be highly automated and voice-tracked, for low overhead).
More money for them, more choice for the listener.

Take a station like Jack or Bob. Those are cheap to run, as they tend to be jukeboxes. Jukebox some more formats on secondary HD channels would be good business sense.

Not that I agree with any of the above, from a radio guy standpoint.


> "Cox Radio’s Bob Neil says radio shouldn’t be afraid of HD
> Radio. He tells his Q3 call “We’ve been dealing with
> fragmentation all our lives” - and that HD Radio might even
> draw in new listeners. "
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Yes, but why INVITE fragmentation. That's just plain
> stupid. The fragmentation we've always dealt with was
> thrust upon us from the outside.
>
> Might even draw in new listeners? What's he smoking?
>

 

[Rocco]

How's the bottom line going to benefit if the Law of Diminishing Returns is crossed where you're spending more to operate your station (whether it's automated or not) than you're getting in "new listeners" (just getting the 2,000), and also considering that the "new listeners" may be coming from your station that once had 10,000 listeners but now has fewer because you've introduced more fragmentation?