The Entercom spots criticizing Satellite Radio are a big mistake, I think.
The arguments used are serious s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-s. Namely:
– The coverage is spotty (the spotty-ness of terrestrial radio is one of the reasons-to-be for Satellite) – “Tens of thousands of people who have it cancel it” (well, every service has churn. The issue isn’t, are people cancelling? The issue is, is Satellite Radio growing on net – and that answer is YES) – It’s a “lousy deal” – (lousy for the stations competing against it, that is. I gladly pay $150/month for cable, digital cable, DVR, and Internet access – is THAT a lousy deal? Not by me.) – When Satellite Radio goes out of business, you’ll be stuck with expensive equipment that is worthless (Wow, now there’s a presumptuous argument. The same will be true of my radio when radio goes out of business) – This is a message from “your local stations” (is if the mention of the word “local” implied a benefit to the audience that they must support – as in “local team.” I say as long as a radio station is predominantly a music box it matters not whether it’s local, national, international, or intergalactic. It matters not to the AUDIENCE, that is)
I’m not the only one who thinks these are a bad idea.
All of these arguments are obviously constructed around the concerns and fears of radio as an industry, not the concerns and fears of Joe and Jane Radio Fan and Music Consumer. Every single one of these objections is see-through like Victoria’s Secret lingerie. They all sound defensive. They all sound like the grasping, desperate attempts of an industry to ward off competition with no regard whatsoever for the interests of the consumers for whom this particular broadcaster espouses so much “passion” on their website.
That’s not how it sounds just to me, folks. It’s how it plays to your audience.
Think before you attack.