XM gets "sirius"
Mon Dec 29 15:18:16 EST 2003
You have me confused with Laurence Glavin of Methuen. WCRB has never been a
target of mine. Sorry.
Dan Strassberg, email@example.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph Pappalardo <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Dan Strassberg <email@example.com>
Cc: Boston Radio Interest <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: XM gets "sirius"
> > Joe: Your condescending, cock-sure tone is just PERFECT for your
> Thank you.
> > but what you wrote is simply not true. With 13,000+ radio signals in
> > country, the market is HIGHLY fragmented, except in small markets where
> > signals are audible. It is NOT at all OBVIOUS that the most profitable
> > strategy for all stations in medium and large markets is to cater to the
> > lowest common denominator.
> The term "Lowest Common Denominator" is euphemism.
> The fact remains that the most profitable stations try to get the MOST
> people listening for the LONGEST time possible.
> (Add in the factor of advertisers wanting to reach "their" audience most
> efficently...i.e...Beer for sports, tractors for Country, funriture for
> people settling into a house.)
> > The proof is that in many medium and large
> > markets "narrowcasting" to ethnic minorities yields owners of secondary
> > signals (and in some cases MAJOR signals, such as WIND Chicago, WADO New
> > York, and KHJ Los Angeles) much greater profits than are possible by
> > attempting to split the majority audience with four or five competitors.
> Whatever these stations are doing, they are doing it because they believe
> this will give them the most audeince, for the longest time....and an
> audience which advertisers want to reach.
> > The reason that broadcasters are
> > such copycats is that, as a group, they are greedy and stupid (which
> > NOT mean that there are no exceptions).
> The reason radio broadcasters are such copycats, is because they do R & D,
> much like any other business, to find out what works, and what their
> listeners want.
> Again, I point to your favorite target WCRB. Highly sucessful, highly
> profitable...more people are enjoying classical music in Boston now than
> ever before. But you are still not happy.
> Oh, yes, Sumner Redstone, Mel Karmazin, etc. Why, yes...these sre some of
> the stupidest people on earth, right?
> As far as "greedy"....this isn't a charity, hospital, or soup kitchen.
> a business, much like you expect your bank to give you the highest yeild
> your deposit as possible...and the lowest rate on your mortgage.
> That's why an owner puts his money in radio...and not in a mattress. Is
> that greed?
> > So much erroneous "conventional
> > wisdom" floats around the industry that nearly everybody believes it.
> You have yet to provide one peice of erroneous wisdom...
> > And so
> > we have a herd of sheep (with the intelligence of sheep) making format
> > decisions--and what looks to me to be no chance of reversing the trend.
> If your point is that you have more intelligence than a sheep....I suppose
> if you were running WCRB, they would NOT be one of the most listened to
> classical station in America, they would play ENTIRE LONG peices of music,
> they would be LESS profitable, and fewer people would enjoy Classical
> in Boston.
> But you would be happy, right?
More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest