4 ms·
Compared to U.S. radio in my area, this is indeed fairly complex. In my "market" we have mostly local stations and the complexity is minimal: rent office space
by delinka 11y ago
Compared to U.S. radio in my area, this is indeed fairly complex. In my "market" we have mostly local stations and the complexity is minimal: rent office space for offices and DJ booths, send mix to a directional transmitter on the roof pointed at the tower site, tower decodes and blasts a 100K watt signal.
Of course, Clear Channel also has lots of robot stations in many markets in the country, which seems like it might approach similar complexity. However, of the few I've experienced, Clear Channel don't handle the complexity well and there's nowhere near the BBC's level of professionalism: they'll overlap commercials and songs for the entire duration, drop off the air (no signal) or broadcast dead air for 15min at a time ...
- MistahKoala 11y agoThat's pretty much how it works in UK independent local radio (ILR). There's been a fair bit of change over the past decade, resulting in a lot more network programming and automation amongst stations established prior to 2000 or so. Core programming hours can be 7am-6pm, with local presenters, news, sport, traffic and weather, but that's it. Post-2000 stations seem to be a lot more local, they only appear to serve larger cities - smaller towns are stuck with carbon copy stations. Specialist and talk radio stations are virtually non-existent. It sounds like Clear Channel's problem is with automation and production. It's really not that hard to automate a station such that it sounds like it's being produced live. I would take a guess that they're using some early 90s - maybe even 80s - tech to drive their automation. One thing you've got going for you in the US is local TV. It's something that's only just started to be done in the UK and it's pretty amateurish stuff. I can't see it succeeding - wrong era and stations exist on their own channels, rather than as network affiliates.