R
Radio_Realist
Guest
Re: Once Again Realist Shows why he can't make a point
> > Radio pros, ask yourself how many people you know who got
> > cable TV who decided to switch back to rabbit ears?
> >
> So you're telling me that you don't watch PXI, PGH, TAE or
> KDKA? Are you saying that FX burried the networks?
No, I'm telling you that I don't watch them AS MUCH as I did when I didn't have cable. I'm telling you that when a station reaches 100,000 listeners it makes a certain amount of money, and when it loses 20,000 listeners to satelite, it won't make AS MUCH money.
> Realist, you're comparing apples to oranges. Look at your
> post. That's like saying...
>
> "Radio pros--ask yourself how many people you know who got
> sterio systems switched back to mono systems."
>
> Realist, you are comparing the tools that people use to
> watch tv, not the channels that they watch. Which again
> shows that you are incompetent to make a VALID post on this
> board.
No, I'm comparing alternative forms of audio entertainment. You're one of the ones who thinks that broadcast radio exists in a vacuum. If you were a REAL radio professional, then you'd know about how the rise of television (which was another apple to radio's orange) caused massive changes in the way radio operated.
When television came along, it killed radio as the medium people used when sitting around in their homes. Radio had to re-invent itself as the medium people used for background music in their cars and at work. I'm trying to tell you that satelite radio is going to force radio to once again find a new niche, because satelite does a better job of providing background music.
> This guy is why I don't look at the board anymore.
Hearing the truth can be disturbing to someone who can't face the truth.
> > Radio pros, ask yourself how many people you know who got
> > cable TV who decided to switch back to rabbit ears?
> >
> So you're telling me that you don't watch PXI, PGH, TAE or
> KDKA? Are you saying that FX burried the networks?
No, I'm telling you that I don't watch them AS MUCH as I did when I didn't have cable. I'm telling you that when a station reaches 100,000 listeners it makes a certain amount of money, and when it loses 20,000 listeners to satelite, it won't make AS MUCH money.
> Realist, you're comparing apples to oranges. Look at your
> post. That's like saying...
>
> "Radio pros--ask yourself how many people you know who got
> sterio systems switched back to mono systems."
>
> Realist, you are comparing the tools that people use to
> watch tv, not the channels that they watch. Which again
> shows that you are incompetent to make a VALID post on this
> board.
No, I'm comparing alternative forms of audio entertainment. You're one of the ones who thinks that broadcast radio exists in a vacuum. If you were a REAL radio professional, then you'd know about how the rise of television (which was another apple to radio's orange) caused massive changes in the way radio operated.
When television came along, it killed radio as the medium people used when sitting around in their homes. Radio had to re-invent itself as the medium people used for background music in their cars and at work. I'm trying to tell you that satelite radio is going to force radio to once again find a new niche, because satelite does a better job of providing background music.
> This guy is why I don't look at the board anymore.
Hearing the truth can be disturbing to someone who can't face the truth.