Re: [Swprograms] Kim Andrew Elliott on VOA cuts

[John Figliozzi <jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

No tears here, Scott!  :-)) I use my iPod, satellite radio and  
computer to hear "radio" as well.  I just also use my shortwave radio  
too.  (And you know that old NRA chestnut about prying things from  
cold, dead hands?  Well, for me, that applies to my shortwave radios.)

Now, in partial rebuttal...

On May 4, 2006, at 8:51 PM, Scott Royall wrote:

> Although I agree with the good doctor's commentary, I do see some  
> flaws in
> his logic.
>
> First, he presumes that shortwave will be a useful option if it's  
> needed one
> day. To be useful, shortwave must a) reach its target audience, and  
> b) be
> receivable on they have. Those two criteria are always the very  
> same areas
> shortwave has been weak in forever. I mean, shortwave broadcasters  
> have
> never been able to compile credible statistics about their listening
> audiences.

If that be true, then the BBC's assertions about declining audiences  
can't be substantiated.  The truth is there are numbers, they are  
credible and they have been compiled by--among others--the BBC and  
VOA for decades.  And the numbers compiled are not confined to just  
those two broadcasters.  Now we can argue about how accurate we think  
they are and whether the proper conclusions have been drawn from  
them.  But there most assuredly is audience research for shortwave  
and it's been around for quite a long while.

> I suppose that's just inherent to the medium, but it is also what
> is driving shortwave listening to virtual extinction. Logic says  
> that you're
> going to catch hell trying to retain funding if you can't provide
> solidly-based numbers about your audience. I sadly don't think  
> shortwave
> broadcasters realized just how important audience statistics were  
> until the
> early '90's, and it was already much too late by then.

What's really driving the decline of shortwave are (1) the  
availability of alternatives; and (2) the expense of shortwave  
relative to those alternatives.

> You can bet your last dollar that consumer electronics companies know
> exactly how many television sets are sold, and in which countries.  
> Those
> companies take delight in publishing that data because it shows how
> successful they are. No such statistics were ever kept on the sales of
> shortwave-capable radios.

Again, not true.  There are figures for the sales of shortwave  
capable radios and those sales had been rising even as broadcasters  
like the BBC undertook plans to de-emphasize shortwave.  If one looks  
at the trends in content distribution (including broadcasting), a  
strong one is the effort to shift costs directly to the consumer.   
Shortwave is dirt cheap for the consumer, but as mentioned above  
considerably expensive for the program producer/provider.  Much of  
the effort of managements today is to shift as much of those costs  
directly to the end user as possible.  No doubt there will be an  
effort to charge for podcasts sometime down the road.

> I guess you can chalk the omission up to an
> earlier, less sophisticated era, but that lack of data now leaves
> broadcasters with very little hard numbers to use in justify their  
> budgets.

IMHO, the numbers available actually show that stations do have  
audiences.  It's the availability of cheaper alternatives that can  
also produce "instant statistical data"  (you see, I agree with you  
to a point)--whether real, illusory, or just plain misleading (you  
know, lies, damned lies and statistics), combined with management's  
current love affair with bean counters, that's the real culprit  
here.  (Parenthetically, isn't it a pity that the same passion for  
rationalizing budgets and spending decisions doesn't apply to oil  
company profits and CEO compensation.)

> Another facet of Dr. Elliot's commentary that makes my teeth itch  
> is the
> supposition that shortwave can again be valuable in crisis areas if  
> only
> we'll maintain the physical plants. Maybe, but I find myself  
> wondering about
> the average life-span of a shortwave portable in your typical third- 
> world
> environment. They may be so cherished that they are pampered and last
> forever. That might be the case, but I seriously doubt it. I think  
> a more
> likely scenario is that we would have saved expensive fixed-point
> transmitter facilities to reach into a stricken area where few--if  
> any--can
> hear us. If it comes down to a choice between reaching a few radios  
> or TVs,
> the latter would probably give more information faster to the  
> people who
> need it the most.
>
> I notice that most "radio people" still think in terms of fixed-point
> operations. Where were they these last twenty years? These days,  
> it's a lot
> cheaper to pop a Commando Solo into wherever a RF presence is  
> needed. We
> have at one squadron of those puppies already, and they're pretty  
> cheap to
> buy and fly. The bulk of their budget just goes to program  
> production costs.
> The C-130s themselves are incredibly reliable, rugged, and  
> downright miserly
> on gas when asked to be. An added advantage is that signals from  
> aircraft
> (including TV signals) are much harder to jam effectively. Hell, I  
> daresay
> that even the Aussies and Kiwis could afford a few copies of a  
> stripped-down
> Commando Solo (without our onboard jammers and other spooky toys).

Apples and oranges, IMHO, my friend.  Different situations demand  
different solutions.  The Commander Solo approach works for some; the  
fixed operations for others.
>
> By the way, I'm now listening to more "radio" than ever before. The  
> only
> differences are that the shows are now called "podcasts," and I  
> listen at a
> time of my choosing. If I get a bur up my ass, I can even listen to  
> the BBC,
> R. Australia, R. New Zealand, etc live via EVDO as I walk my dog.
>
> (Easy John, don't cry. :))
>

_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms

To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.