What percentage of audience will you lose?

[Fake Post]

When the DTV transition takes place in February?

[Roy Hobbs]

Fake post.

[News Is Broken]

South Phoenix will probably riot. They've been waiting for a reason for quite some time now.

[Jane Craig]

I heard last week that the Atlanta area, where I live, is one of the best prepared areas because of high cable/satellite penetration. Haven't hear about chaos in Wilmington -- if it had been a mess, I'm sure Kace would've kept us posted.

[Gil]

Hard to know now, of course, but judging from the number of callers who cannot get our digital signal with a converter box, I suspect it will be quite significant. Up here in the northwoods there are thousands too far away from town for cable and too deep in the tall trees for satellite. In some cases, between here and Duluth, our analog signal is all they have ever seen... and it is not going to be fun answering the phone after the switch is off.

[TAFKA wacowx]

Well, if truly the only way a viewer can get your signal is through an antenna, I am sure they will go out of their way to get you back on their TV...even if it means shelling out 1-200 bucks for a new rooftop antenna. I actually thought about putting a big honkin' antenna in my attic to improve my reception and to maybe pull in some regional stations from here in Houston.

It's been my experience that I actually get better digital reception (distancewise) than analog. I commonly got Dallas and sometimes Austin stations while living in Waco...and these were stations I could barely see through the analog snow regularly. Crisp and clear with only a few dropouts on digital. Mind you, this was 90 or so miles away from the antenna. Signal strength was as high as 80 at times!

But seriously, if someone is out in the 'boonies' without any other way to receive a TV signal (Gil says cable and satellite are impossible in those locations) then I can't imagine someone not going out of their way to try to improve their antenna setup/signal strength.

[Gil]

And that is exactly what we are advising them. But until the actual switch, it is hard to know what will work best in each location. And in our market, two stations presently broadcasting digital on UHF are going back to their VHF channels on Feb 17 - so the consumer will need an antenna for both UHF and VHF to get all the digital signals over the air.

Believe me, life will be a lot tougher in these hyphenated stations. Three of the four affiliates have translator stations that will also be going digital, so we have multiple signal patterns to consider.

[Clever Login Name]

Shouldn't the bigger concern be whether these analog viewers have Nielsen diaries?

[tater]

I heard last week that the Atlanta area, where I live, is one of the best prepared areas because of high cable/satellite penetration.

*cough* THATSWHATSHESAID!!!

[Gil]

Shouldn't the bigger concern be whether these analog viewers have Nielsen diaries?

In our case, no, not at all. We do not subscribe to Nielsen or use Nielsen ratings.

[Convergence_Divergence]

From personal experience, I can agree with what Gil said about the Northwoods. Infact, in many areas, rooftop antennas won't help very much. I think northern Wisconsin/Minnesota and the UP of Michigan will be a hard hit area. I had a professor who used a rooftop antenna on his 2-story house and he was able to pick up one channel clear (only because there was a translator a few miles away) and the other one fuzzy. The one that was fuzzy was interesting because its off a translator on the North shore of Minnesota. He was out on the Bayfield peninsula and had a direct line of sight on it.

Basically, any area where there is heavy terrain and vegetation will be hit hardest. I also believe portions of Tennessee will have issues.

[TVMattNYC]

Basically, any area where there is heavy terrain and vegetation will be hit hardest. I also believe portions of Tennessee will have issues.


Don't these people have phones?

Seems to me that if they can run a phone line to their far-flung homes, they can run cable, too.

[wx or not]

Matt, consider that phone lines were originally installed as a public service under the Ma Bell monopoly. Cable providers do not have the same obligation, especially considering the per capita costs of installing lines to remote areas.

[TAFKA wacowx]

If people are getting their locals from translators, then there should be no issues anyway as LP stations (essentially what a translator is) will not be going digital...or at least are not mandated to go digital.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

Don't these people have phones?

Seems to me that if they can run a phone line to their far-flung homes, they can run cable, too.

You really need to off that island every now and again, Matthew.

I hooked up Mom's digital converter when we visiting her over the holidays.
I bought one of those flat antenna to replace the rabbit ears she had and everything was good.
Keep in mind that Colorado Springs has transmitters on a 12,000 foot mountain and most folks have a good line of sight.
Her big problem was figuring out the menus she would need to use occassionally.
Older people don't handle menus well.
What we use everyday is a foreign concept to them.
When something goes wrong I know I will get a call asking for help navigating through the problem.

[Clever Login Name]

In our case, no, not at all. We do not subscribe to Nielsen or use Nielsen ratings.

Is that because of the expense? Insufficient (and inaccurate) distribution? I'm curious to know how you measure your viewership ... if you can say without divulging too much.

[east coast producer]

7 percent.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Don't these people have phones?

I'm with you, Boo! Let's all move to New York right now!!

[11-Evil]

Is that because of the expense? Insufficient (and inaccurate) distribution? I'm curious to know how you measure your viewership ... if you can say without divulging too much.


Gil's station is basically the only "local" station in the area.

[Fake Post]

7 percent.

Congrats ECP. You are the ONLY person to answer the question.

[wx4svr]

Her big problem was figuring out the menus she would need to use occassionally.
Older people don't handle menus well.
What we use everyday is a foreign concept to them.
When something goes wrong I know I will get a call asking for help navigating through the problem.

Bingo... I think you hit the nail on the head. Older people don't take change well at all. My great grandmother lives about 2 minutes from me, and I recently went to hookup a new TV. (She JUST now got DirectTV... thats a different story and a different struggle... and YES, she does have a rotary dial phone, and YES... she still uses it religiously. :)) And I had to change some settings on her DirectTV to make it come in properly. Now she thinks the end of the world is coming because there is a little thing that shows up when someone calls (I secretly enabled that). But, I think after February, we will see a FLOOD of non-happy customers. I'm sure some will even sue the bastards.

[Gil]

Is that because of the expense? Insufficient (and inaccurate) distribution? I'm curious to know how you measure your viewership ... if you can say without divulging too much.

Nielsen wants us to pay about 70K a year for ratings. But we don't need no stinkin' ratings.

In the real world, bigger agencies have access to the ratings and won't accept what you tell them anyway. We estimate the ratings and if they say we are wrong, we say, OK, and give them additional weight to make up for it. It really doesn't matter if a local station has the ratings, because we have to deal with what the agencies want when it comes to national and regional business. Planning your advertising based on ratings is sort of like steering a boat by looking at the wake.

Local advertisers don't know or understand ratings and don't care anyway - they measure advertising effectiveness by how much it makes their cash registers ring, which is how it should be. If you bring up ratings to local advertisers, their eyes get all sort of glassy.

What we do have, which is wonderful, is Marshall Marketing research that goes into a lot of detail about buying habits and intentions. So, for example, if you have a furniture store, we can tell you how many people are planning to buy furniture in the next six months, what stores they shop at, and what programs they watch on our station and the competing stations and what newspapers they read and what radio stations they listen to and what time of day, etc., etc. This is much more useful than Nielsen, costs a lot less, and is exclusive in each market. Marshall Marketing research is done once a year and with a much larger sample than Nielsen, and it easily pays for itself.

[Gil]

If people are getting their locals from translators, then there should be no issues anyway as LP stations (essentially what a translator is) will not be going digital...or at least are not mandated to go digital.


Not always true. Many translators are full power. We are going digital with ours.

[Clever Login Name]

Nielsen wants us to pay about 70K a year for ratings. But we don't need no stinkin' ratings.

In the real world, bigger agencies have access to the ratings and won't accept what you tell them anyway. We estimate the ratings and if they say we are wrong, we say, OK, and give them additional weight to make up for it. It really doesn't matter if a local station has the ratings, because we have to deal with what the agencies want when it comes to national and regional business. Planning your advertising based on ratings is sort of like steering a boat by looking at the wake.

Local advertisers don't know or understand ratings and don't care anyway - they measure advertising effectiveness by how much it makes their cash registers ring, which is how it should be. If you bring up ratings to local advertisers, their eyes get all sort of glassy.

What we do have, which is wonderful, is Marshall Marketing research that goes into a lot of detail about buying habits and intentions. So, for example, if you have a furniture store, we can tell you how many people are planning to buy furniture in the next six months, what stores they shop at, and what programs they watch on our station and the competing stations and what newspapers they read and what radio stations they listen to and what time of day, etc., etc. This is much more useful than Nielsen, costs a lot less, and is exclusive in each market. Marshall Marketing research is done once a year and with a much larger sample than Nielsen, and it easily pays for itself.


Interesting ... thanks, Gil.

[SamG]

But until the actual switch, it is hard to know what will work best in each location. Why? The stations should be broadcasting digital now, so it's a perfect time (ok, maybe not weather wise) to get things set up.

[Gil]

Why? The stations should be broadcasting digital now, so it's a perfect time (ok, maybe not weather wise) to get things set up.

In our case, because we are broadcasting our digital signal only from our primary transmitter, not from our translator station. Our translator actually covers a greater population.

In the case of two of our competitors, because they are currently broadcasting their digital signals on UHF but are going back to VHF on February 17th.

And in the case of a third competitor, because they are not yet broadcasting a digital signal.

[BSUStormChase]

I'm guessing my station loses 12%-17% percent of its viewers.

[Gil]

I'm guessing my station loses 12%-17% percent of its viewers.

Which brings these questions:

Do you think your owners will accept a 12-17% decrease in revenue? Profit? Do you think there is another 12-17% that can be cut out of station expenses?

Do you think your sales manager is ready to concede a 12-17% reduction in rates for agency business?

Do you think employees are willing to accept a 12-17% decrease in compensation?

Fasten your seat belts, ladies and gentlemen, we are in for a wild ride.

[TAFKA wacowx]

The owners have already seen a 12-17 percent drop in ratings, probably over the past 5 years...10 years if you are really lucky. I very much doubt that was accompanied by a similar drop in profit...in fact, TV stations have probably increased their profits over the last decade.

I'm not saying losing a chunk of your audience is a good thing, but it's been happening for decades now. The people who still find you a necessary part of their lives will still see you, they will do all they can to continue to get a signal, even if it includes putting up a massive antenna.

Honestly, do you REALLY think that 12-17 percent of people are simply no longer to going to watch TV? People have tasted what is spewed from the idiot box and will do whatever is in their power to continue to receive this programming.

Does anyone REALLY think that somewhere around 15% of the US population is just going to give up TV?

Gil, I think you have yourself spooked. You said yourself in this most recent post that you have a non-digital translator (although in a previous post you said that was digital too???) that most of your audience receives you on...if that's the case, I can't see the problem. Even if it does go digital, again, those outlying areas will have a strong signal from that tower and with a converter box or new TV, they will get your signal. If they can't see TV in the traditional ways, they will find a way....even if it means cutting down a line of trees for a line of site to the Dish or DirecTV satellite. They will not go quietly into that good night.

[BSUStormChase]

Honestly, do you REALLY think that 12-17 percent of people are simply no longer to going to watch TV?

Sadly Waco, some of the western counties of my DMA might be forced to do that. Those particular counties are heavily over the air viewers. After the switch, there are about 6-8 counties in the extreme south central part of the state that will not be able to receive a TV signal from any of the surrounding markets. Both stations' in-house computer models and the FCC surverys are indicating this.

[Gil]

The owners have already seen a 12-17 percent drop in ratings, probably over the past 5 years...10 years if you are really lucky. I very much doubt that was accompanied by a similar drop in profit...in fact, TV stations have probably increased their profits over the last decade....


Gil, I think you have yourself spooked. You said yourself in this most recent post that you have a non-digital translator (although in a previous post you said that was digital too???) that most of your audience receives you on...if that's the case, I can't see the problem. Even if it does go digital, again, those outlying areas will have a strong signal from that tower and with a converter box or new TV, they will get your signal. If they can't see TV in the traditional ways, they will find a way....even if it means cutting down a line of trees for a line of site to the Dish or DirecTV satellite. They will not go quietly into that good night.

I have the figures in my office... I can't speak for other stations, but this one has not seen an increase in profits. (For the sake of discussion, let's not get into "profit" vs. "cash flow" and other measurements.)

We have a translator on Mosinee Hill in Wausau that is currently analog, but will be switched to digital on February 17th. The largest population center is Wausau and nearby Stevens Point... our main transmitter in Rhinelander covers the less populated northern part of the market and does not reach Wausau or Stevens Point with the digital signal.

There is a significant audience that will not be able to see our digital signal from either transmitter, and they are not in a position to cut down trees (which may not be on their property) to get a satellite signal. I get phone calls every day, as does our chief engineer, from people who have purchased converter boxes and cannot get our digital signal in the northern part of the market.

We won't know for a while, but it is my opinion that we will lose a significant part of our audience and that only a few of them will find a way to get the digital signal with a tall antenna. And I also feel it will not take long for the advertisers to expect and demand reductions based on a smaller audience.

[Calvin]

Even in cable/satellite households, there is often at least one set that's not hooked up, so some homes will have partial loss of capability as well.

[TAFKA wacowx]

Sadly Waco, some of the western counties of my DMA might be forced to do that. Those particular counties are heavily over the air viewers. After the switch, there are about 6-8 counties in the extreme south central part of the state that will not be able to receive a TV signal from any of the surrounding markets. Both stations' in-house computer models and the FCC surverys are indicating this.

Of course it was my experience that I got greater out-of-market reception when I was living in Waco. I got the DFW area stations I was never able to get on analog....additionally, the PBS (DTV 9) in Houston is currently running on lower power to avoid interference with the channel 9 in Waco. I guess the 'models' and surveys indicated that there would be no interference, but reality showed that there is a heck of a lot. In some cases, these digital signals have travelled a lot further than the FCC had originally predicted...engineers at my old station told me about that. Hence, the issue with the two (actually 3 if you include WFAA in Dallas) digital channel 9s in such close proximity. When they assigned the DTV channels, the FCC thought that they were spread out enough to avoid interference, but reality proved them wrong.

Now I am not saying it will be difficult for some folks, but it seems to me that if you are used to getting TV broadcasts in some form, you will go out of your way to get them in the future. And for some, I think it will be like Y2K where there is a lot of doom and gloom but the reality is a lot fewer problems than were expected.

[Gil]

Now I am not saying it will be difficult for some folks, but it seems to me that if you are used to getting TV broadcasts in some form, you will go out of your way to get them in the future. And for some, I think it will be like Y2K where there is a lot of doom and gloom but the reality is a lot fewer problems than were expected.

UnllikeY2K, we already have a way of seeing some of the effects of using digital vs. analog, and in our market, digital is not getting out as far.

[TVMattNYC]

Sadly Waco, some of the western counties of my DMA might be forced to do that. Those particular counties are heavily over the air viewers. After the switch, there are about 6-8 counties in the extreme south central part of the state that will not be able to receive a TV signal from any of the surrounding markets. Both stations' in-house computer models and the FCC surverys are indicating this.

I'm curious.

Do these folks out in East Kabumphuck happen to have cell phones and computers?

[TAFKA wacowx]

UnllikeY2K, we already have a way of seeing some of the effects of using digital vs. analog, and in our market, digital is not getting out as far.

Well can't your station petition the FCC to increase your signal strength to cover your market at the levels it is right now? Seems like a reasonable request...to match you current broadcast pattern.

[Gil]

Well can't your station petition the FCC to increase your signal strength to cover your market at the levels it is right now? Seems like a reasonable request...to match you current broadcast pattern.


In a word, no.

Two reasons, as I understand it. First, the signal strength was computed to be a close match to the analog footprint. The fact that it does not match in reality was unforseen, but there was, to my knowledge, no provision for adjustments based on reality.

Second, there is a school of thought that the analog signal actually overdelivers what was originally intended. For example, we get out far enough to overlap into the Marquette market and the Green Bay market and the Duluth/Superior market. Folks who think this way also think it is only fair to reduce the coverage a bit.

It is the homes in the fringe areas that will lose over-the-air TV from both markets.