"Stinger" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
t...

"Stinger" wrote in message
news

Has no basis in "reality."

What does is the fact that WLIB is doing very well vs. WABC in the areas
where the coverage is usable.

And this is what you are refusing to see.


No, I just say it's basically irrelevant. It's like saying some hobbyist
with a low-power FM transmitter has a good following in a 4-block area of
Manhattan, so he's a threat to WABC. He's a flea on an elephant.

You are one dense person. It is very common to compare lesser and greater
signals based on usable coverage. This is why Arbitron issues "embedded
market" reports so that smaller signal stations in distinct parts of a
market can sell effectively in smaller geographies against the larger signal
stations. In fact, no US market has more embeded markets inside it than the
NY MSA.

And to wrestle this thing back to what we were talking about earlier, I
pointed out that their ratings were stagnant (with some evidence of an
actual fall in listenership).

There is no statistical evidence of a fall in listenership. There is
evidence that the listenrship is stable, and not in a growth pattern. when
compared to WABC in 25-54, where the money is, the comparison is good and
very salable.

Then you came up with a bunch of irrelevant gobbledygook trying in vain
to explain why that was a good thing.

I came up with the usable signal comparison which is a standard practice in
the industry in evaluating signals.

It's like trying to say the Philadelphia Eagles won the Super Bowl
because they played a good game.

Unlike sports, where there is only one winner, in radio there are many
winners. Stations way down in the 1-share range make excellent money. In
fact, the third highest billing station in the market is 18th in ratings
(nearly tied with WLIB) proving that rank alone has nothing to do with
making money.

So, your sports comparison is invalid.