That's a biiiig gamble to take. The fact is that just like the introduction of colour HD will be the absolute standard at some point. When HD reaches saturation point the stations that still broadcast SD...
You're mixing up the issues. I'm talking specifically about
acquisition in HD, not broadcast. Stations must at the very least upgrade to digital transmitters, because they are required by law to do so. Most of them will broadcast HD, because once they've upgraded their transmitters they really have no reason not to. They'll take their HD network signals and broadcast those out to their viewers.
But in their own local work, as in local news, many will continue to shoot SD and upconvert it to their HD signal. They're still
transmitting HD. They're just not
shooting HD. That's what's happening at many shops now. The gamble to which I referred is that the folks at home won't care about the lower quality of news video compared to what they see on network programming. Management at those stations believes SD video will be "good enough." Since local news video has traditionally been of a lesser quality than network programming anyway, they figure the viewers are used to it and won't really object.
Let me stress that I am not necessarily advocating this position. But from a pure business standpoint, at this point in time it is no less valid a strategy than making a full conversion and gambling that the viewers
will know the difference.
... will be in serious trouble and left reeling from the expense of trying to upgrade to HD when their revenue will be in decline!
They could find themselves in trouble, but not likely, for a few reasons. One is that even if their revenues fall, the cost of upgrading to HD will also fall, so that when they're ready to upgrade they'll still be able to afford it.
Another is the time value of money. One of the basic principles of financial management is that money is worth more the longer you keep it and worth less the sooner you spend it, due to interest. Most individuals deal with such small amounts in their daily lives that the time value of money doesn't affect them very directly and they never get a good sense of it. But at a corporate level, it adds up to a lot of money. Thus, a million dollars spent today on equipment is a lot more than a million spent five years from now, because the company can make use of that million dollars in the interim to make more money.
So, to a station that waits, they're making money in the meantime off the money they
didn't spend, while everyone else's equipment is aging. Then when the prices are low enough that they're ready to buy, not only will their product be as good as everyone else's, but all the bugs will have been worked out by everyone else to make the transition smoother.
Upgrading to HD capability isn't just a case of moving with the times to what will be a certain eventuality. In the current climate it is also an added selling point to get more people to watch your station.
You don't need a complete top to bottom upgrade to HD to still use it as a selling point. Many stations that have gone to HD advertise their newscasts in HD, while still shooting their video in the field in SD. To us, it looks misleading, but viewers don't understand enough to know the difference.
Is their newscast in HD? Yes. They upconvert everything and broadcast an HD signal. The station isn't
lying about it. And if you
tell the audience it's HD, they'll simply believe it.
To illustrate, consider two stations, one that does everything in HD and the other that shoots SD in the field and upconverts.
Station 1 says, "Everything we do is in HD!"
Station 2 says, "Everything we broadcast is in HD!"
Station 1 says, "We're the only station that produces its news completely in HD!"
Station 2 says, "We broadcast every newscast to you in crisp, clear HD!"
Station 1 says, "We're the only station using HD cameras to get the news we bring to you!"
Station 2 says, "Every newscast we bring you is shot with our new $100,000 HD studio cameras!"
I hope you can see that from the standpoint of the viewer at home, who generally has no idea how the sausage is made behind the scenes, all those lines seem to be saying the same thing. You don't necessarily have to be shooting everything in HD to find a way to promote yourself as an HD station.
The number of HD channels is small at the moment and people who have HD are hungry for more. Surely more can be charged for advertising time too?
I doubt it. HD airtime is not worth more money than SD. What determines the price is not the quality of the video, but the number of eyes glued to it.
