.....snippetysnip.....
NB> >
NB> >As a matter of fact, I put this question to the forum of commercial
NB> >broadcasters and while mostly I got the conclusion that you did, there
NB> >was a very interesting suggestion that a shortwave station could turn
NB> >profitable by covering international sports...and before you argue about
NB> >better coverage by satellite and cable TV, consider that the sports that
NB> >originate from the U.S. aren't necessarily of international interest,
NB> >e.g. look how long the US broadcasting entities have ignored the very
NB> >popular international sport of soccer.  Only in recent years has the NBA
NB> >spread basketball across the globe, and they've just started.  Baseball
NB> >is about as close as U.S. originating coverage gets to international
NB> >interests.  So--I think a sports shortwave station would do well
NB> >financially.
NB>Sports.....YUK! But I can see your point. Broadcasting sports might bring
NB>in  a bigger audience. I personally would like to see more music programs.
Not very wise...learn from the would-be cop that wasn't hired because he
was too intelligent:  it's a FOOL and his money that are easily parted.
:)  Either that, or a sysop....     (see also the Playboy channel
and the world's oldest profession) (see that as a f'rinstance of
fool-fleecing, I mean... )
Ya can't catch tuna in a catfish farm; ya gotsta go where the tuna iz.
But nobody has ever written a law that says that you can't mix formats,
either...hmmmm...see also the old NBA ads that are set to ballet music.
Oh, that's right--if you don't follow sports, you miss out on some of
the most entertaining ads on the planet, like Keystone's Bitter Beer
Face and the Budweiser frogs.  The biggest ad bucks are sunk into sports
air time because no other programming format, on radio and TV, put
together or separate, brings in bigger returns for the big bucks spent.
And the best way to bring the world in together with gusto for a common
goal is to make that goal a soccer goal.    :)  What's even nicer, what
leaves the gaping barn door open for a US-based SW sports-only station
is that our domestic media giants have all but ignored that sport
altogether.  NOW is the best time to make hay with that li'l factoid.
NB>That's might be another indication of the problems with shortwave....too
NB>much news/propoganda and not enough real entertainment. It's possible to
NB>tell other countries about your culture while still entertaining them. But
NB>an hour long dissertation on copper-wire production will turn folks off in
NB>a  hurry.
...and nonstop Merengue won't. :) I remember "This Is Santo Domingo"
quite fondly and wish somebody would do something like it.  There's
never a Tom Meijer around when ya need one...    But I do
agree--I mean, shortwave has had too long of a tradition of
propaganda/soapboxing that today's supposedly commercial US SW
broadcasters were supposed to be an alternative to.  They're the worst
propagandists of the bunch, ranking right up there with the old Radio
Tirana and the current North Korea.  Bleah.  But those have been
assimilated by the Prepaid Programmers Of Borg (listeners are
irrelevant)...and I'm guessing it's what's spelled the end of Winkler's
program, too--while it's a noble idea to tout freedom of speech and the
broadcast media as the inner sanctum of soapboxery, nobody wants to PAY
to hear diatribes, and running a station at the rate of kilowatts per
second still need to pay the light bills; if nobody wants to pay to
listen to your program, then the free market demands that it gets
yanked.
There's nothing wrong with shortwave radio in its own right as a medium;
it certainly can do no worse than AM MW, and the (broadcast-only) money
being made by the likes of Ollie North, Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy,
and (not to be outdone) a class act like Paul Harvey has already proven
that it ain't a shabby way to go.  What has proven to be poison is the
traditional SW mindset that taxes is what pays the bills and therefore
you can afford to be penny wise and pound foolish.  What's needed here
is not a condemnation of a so-called arcane medium, for such is AM MW;
what's needed in the world of SW are some real live businessmen and not
some rightwingers who only pay lipservice to an unrealistically ideal of
an unregulated free market.  They talk the talk, but stumble when they
try to walk the walk.  They can't handle it.
NB> >Hear, hear.  Like shortwave, the internet requires expensive special
NB> >equipment to access, ergo not everybody accesses it.  To make money in
NB> >broadcasting, you need to  a) cover everybody with sets
NB> >                           b) claim a large part of everybody as "market
NB> >                              share"
NB> >
NB> >The internet just plain ole doesn't reach everybody, and that argument
NB> >could also be used in the cases of satellite broadcasting.  What you CAN
NB> >say about both the internet and satellite broadcasting is that they only
NB> >reach people with deep pockets.  Ya can't make no money offa broke folk.
NB>'Fraid I have to disagree with you on one point here, Diane, and that is,
NB>shortwve isn't expensive, at least not to get into it the way we're
NB>discussing here. (That is, casual program listening.) Granted, the folks
Come on, Nathan--a Walkman costs less and provides you with all you need
for clean FM stereo listening pleasure, something SW will never do with
its propagational features. :)  Yet FM is severely more restricted in
terms of coverage area, and I don't wanna hear it from TV/FM DX'ers
because DXing does not ever provide quality-on-demand reception.  You
get it only when there's an opening.  The only thing that we get out of
comparing these apples to oranges is purely the cost of the set,
especially when compared to the quality-return-per-dollar. Walkmans beat
the snot outta SW receivers any day including on the FM band, yet you
pay so much much more for an SW rig, so it stands to reason that the FM
audience is truely a MASS audience--most everybody has 'em.
NB>that would prbably benifit the most from shortwave live in poor countries
NB>where even a $50 portable can be out of the financial reach, but I've read
NB>of places where entire commuinties would gather around some guy's 
l-cheapo
NB> portable to listen to VOA of the BBC.
El cheapo is relative;  relative to the price of a decent SW rig, it's
cheap--but compared to a single-chip credit-card sized AM/FM receiver
that could double as a Cracker Jack prize is still cheaper than an el
cheapo SW rig, 'specially at the local Salvation Army Thrift Shop (or
whatever passes for a recycled-goods/consignment/surplus shop abroad).
NB>But you do raise an interesting point. The only way a shortwave station 
an
NB> REALLY make money is to sell ad time. And the only way they can do this 
s
NB> to prove to the advertisers that they have a large audience share that 
as
NB> money to spend. One way local stations do this is buy having those
NB>"dial-in"  contests which you mentioned. That's not an option for
NB>international  broadcasters, unless they're catering to a domestic 
dience
With the deregulation of utilities including phone service these days,
calling international numbers is no big whoop especially when you're
getting up during Latenight Rates to call some station with a live
call-in program at high noon where they're at.  The times I've called
Radio Nederland (this was back before I put 'em on my personal
"blacklist", the calls didn't put a big enough dent in the budget to
sweat over.  Besides, with technology AND deregulation going the way
that it has been, I can see in the forseeable future that there will be
such a thing as an 800-like number anyone should be able to call from
anywhere in the world.  It'll happen, it's just not here yet and until
there is such a thing, what we have isn't all that bad to muddle with
in the mean time.
Consider the hundreds of thousands of dollars required to pay for just
10-15 seconds of ad time during a prime sports event like the Superbowl.
Don't you believe that the guys who spend that kind of money aren't
making many times that much money as a result of that advertising.  It's
all relative--compared to the return, the 15-seconds-of-fame pricetag on
Superbowl exposure is just chump change.
NB>and have a  toll-free number. (And as you probably know, a US shortwave
NB>broadcaster  cannot legally direct its broadcast toward a US audience.) 
he
NB>other way is  to give out QSLs, and considering the fact that QSLing cost
NB>money, (for both  the broadcaster AND the listener) that's not a very
>>> Continued to next message
 * SLMR 2.1a * A fool and his money are some party.
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------