Can WBCN lead listeners to buy HD radio?

[Alan Tolz]

That's interesting about the ZLX HD side channels.  As for exclusive, desireable programming available on HD only, the economics don't work out...Howard on Sirius/XM has only 9% of his FM audience, and that was with the allure of being able to talk about things and use language not allowed on FM/AM.  The only reason this works at all is that the number of subs he brought to satellite radio nationally coverved their commitment to him.  Another issue with HD is that those signals are not as robust as their analog counterparts and they are on/off rather than degrading with static, so they don't offer a fringe listening area.  In my view, IBOC HD is an unmitigated failure based on the number of receivers vs. the number of potential users and the contours that they cover.  There are thousands of hours of great radio of the past from each market that could fill an HD station in virtually every top 20 radio market in America. It would be compelling and entertaining and it would not reach critical mass nor would it be profitable.  If HD2 or HD3 was viable, it would show up in PPM numbers more so than it does.  
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Laurence 
  To: Alan Tolz 
  Cc: Bob Nelson ; BostonRadio Mailing List 
  Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 2:49 PM
  Subject: Re: Can WBCN lead listeners to buy HD radio?


  On Apr 16, 2012, at 01:35 PM, Alan Tolz <atolz@comcast.net> wrote:


    I would presume that the last thing WZLX wants to do is canabalize it's 
    audience by putting WBCN HD on its HD2 position.
   
  They actually put WBCN on WZLX-HD3. I'm surprised the New York
  Times didn't mention this, but there are two HD stations branded as
  WBCN: the freeform WBCN on WZLX's HD, and the "Rock Revolution"
  WBCN on WBZ-FM's HD.  It's one way to salute both identities of
  the legendary station, but could it get more confusing?



  I bet they would sell a lot of HD radios if they put the Red Sox on
  HD2, exclusively.  Or Howard Stern.