w9wi said:
While I don't disagree with the general point of your post, I did want to comment on this portion. It's not a good assumption that those who don't have cable/satellite are necessarily lacking in money -- accepting that assumption is also accepting the underlying belief that those relying on OTA television would prefer to have cable or satellite if only they could afford it. In some cases, that is true -- but in many cases, those of us relying on OTA are doing so because we don't want cable/satellite, not because we can't afford it. And while it's true that many of us may watch less television than those who subscribe to cable or satellite, broadcasters should also consider that we're a relatively hard to reach audience -- and one more factor that makes broadcast TV advertising essential to any advertiser who wants to achieve maximum reach on their ad campaigns.
Or to put it another way: OTA-only viewers need to be pitched as an advantage for broadcast advertising, instead of being treated as if we're inconsequential.