why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
 

ohhhh,,, Hut Sut Rawlson on the Rillerahhh and a brawla,brawla
sooit,ohhhh,,,, Hut Sut Rawlson on the Rillerah and a brawla,brawla
sooit.

Now the Rawlson is a Swedish town,the Rillerah is a stream,the brawla is
the boy and girl,the Hut Sut is their dream.

ohhhh,,,,, Hut Sut Rawlson on the Rillerah and a brawla,brawla sooit.
cuhulin

why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
 

Bart Bailey wrote:
In Message-ID:zRNKh.347$742.57@trndny07 posted on Sat, 17 Mar 2007
08:42:07 GMT, HFguy wrote: Begin


David Eduardo wrote:

This is not market research of some unknown brand. It is the analysis by ZIP
Code and signal strength of what gets listening and what does not. Smaller
signals get no significant diary mentions.

How often do shortwave entries show up in the diaries?


Many years ago when I was in the 17 - 34 demographic and telephone
surveyors would call, I'd often indicate my true favorite, WWV

LOL. I couldn't spare the time listening to that station.

why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
 

On Mar 16, 11:37�am, D Peter Maus wrote:
David Eduardo wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:
, ground condutivity, tc.
Must be a piece of crap software you use.
It's the most used software for both vieweing existing operations and
for creating applications for new stations. It gives very precise
contours per the FCC rules, although I used the option to do signal
averaging for a ZIP Code since the data I am referencing to, Arbitron
listening, can be broken into ZIP Codes also.
So how are you misusing it then?

I am not misusing it. It's pretty easy to use even for a layman, and totally
simple for someone with an engineering background.
Yet listeners do not listen to them when the signal is below 10 mv/m
in your ZIP code.
Sounds like a false assumption.

It's been proven in every market Arbitron measures... in urban zones, there
is essentially no listening outside the 10 mv/m contour.

* * Pardon me for butting into this love-fest, but let's try to
establish an understanding of what really are the objections here. And
why this exchange can get as heated as it does.

* * Start with the presentation of Dismissal. *David, 'essentially none'
is not the same as 'none.' Just as statistical zero is not zero.

* * And what's been bandied about here, is the relative merits of simply
dismissing those numbers which don't fit a profile of behaviour mated to
a sales curve.

* * No one on either side of this discussion has suggested that 1) there
is zero listening outside the contours, nor that 2) what listening does
exist outside the contours is in mainstream numbers.

* * What's being objected to, David, is the abject dismissal of a body
of listeners for the simple reason that they don't fit into established
sales categories, or that they don't exist in numbers worthy of a
station's time.

* * There was a time that FCC protected the rights of listeners to
select the station of their choice no matter what, so that content,
local or not, that was available to the individual listener could be
heard, absent unavoidable interference from co- and adjacent channels.
What's so strenously objected to, here today, is that those listeners
are no longer considered. That a station in protecting it's sales curve,
may acceptably and with FCC blessing, create interference with stations
not in it's ADI. Removing from availability content that may simply not
be available anywhere else.

* * The presumption that all content that's local is desireable content
is false on it's face. As you've lived and worked in smaller markets,
you know that out of market listening is more common than in larger
markets because local content is of a lesser quality, or of a lesser
psychographic match to the listener. For instance....when I worked
evenings at KOEL-Oelwein, Iowa (77-78), my biggest competition was KWWL,
Waterloo. Followed very closely by WLS. Stuart's research arm noted
often that our local playlist was influenced by listening out of market,
and that songs that sold well, based on radio airplay were often songs
that were not being played in town. Or even, in state. Randy Newman's
"Short People" was the classic example. WLS and KWWL were on it. We were
not, nor was any local station available to the market. And yet, it was
the number one selling song in-market, and research indicated that those
sales were spurred by airplay.

* * Now, WLS listenership was not big in town. And KWWL listenership was
about 1/10th of our own, But it was not uncommon. And, content that was
available on WLS, was NOT available locally. Cutting off those listeners
for whatever reason, removed both their freedom of choice, as well as
their availability to information that was not available locally.

* * That didn't change the local sales strategy. And sales remained only
focussed within the contours, as you and I have delineated. But
listenership was NOT limited to the contours. And this was a phenomenon
that I have experienced in multiple markets.

* * WLS, WGN and WBBM were factors in Decatur, and Rockford, as well.
WGN was particularly strong in Rockford when I was at WROK. And our
daily RAM showed WGN consistently strong in Rockford, especially where
news was concerned, and WE were the local news leader, hands down.

* * But news content not available locally was daily picked up from WGN
and WBBM.

* * Today, IBOC hash from Chicago reaches into Rockford, Decatur and
some of Oelwein's listening area, affecting listenership in those
markets, by putting off content that is NOT available locally.

* * Hell, Steve's whole point about WBBM's IBOC hash is that it keeps
him from listening to HIS station of choice. Content that's not
available within his protected contour. What he's objecting to, here, as
are Brenda Ann, Eric Richards, Telamon and others (including myself) is
the ease with which we are dismissed as listeners, because we don't fit
into established cubbyholes based on map and Arbitron sales contours.

* * We count. We are big users of Radio. And we are not an insignificant
number. In aggregate, nationwide, we are a top 10 market. And yet, we
are dismissed, because we are not saleable locally. Even undesireable,
as Mark Byford so elegantly put it. No longer protected by the standards
of interference from FCC, or by standards of good practice established
by Radio's greatest practicioners.

* * We are dismissed. And we are dismissed with prejudice. And we don't
like it. We don't like having our choices limited. And we don't like
having our access to, sometimes, important information restricted by
cutting us off from sources where that information available.

* * Admit it or not, the homogenization of Radio is not complete. And
local news is both highly selective and highly edited. Just because the
same information is available to news organizations nationwide doesn't
make it available to local listeners everywhere the same. Just because
content is available to stations nationwide, doesn't make it available
to local listeners, everwhere the same. Rush is not locally available
everywhere. Neither is Liddy. Nor Dr Laura. And where, previously, a
little ingenuity and a piece of wire made content not locally available
accessible, now, that's not the case. *And denial of this distinction is
at the heart of the hostility you've been the brunt of since this
discussion began.

* * Alternatives are available. Webcasting, for instance. I've moved to
satellite. And thousands of other orphaned listeners are now accessing
their content of choice from alternative sources, where they can.
Alternatives that take them away from Radio.

* * Statistically, they're zero. Essentially, there is no listening
where they are.

* * But "essentially none" none is not NONE. And "statistically zero" is
not ZERO. *And you're not going to convince anyone here that they are.
Especially, in the effort to tell them that they don't matter, that
their freedom of choice is not important, and that they can always
access content locally. *Because none of that is true.

* * And if you REALLY want to create allies, telling us how little we
matter, and using statistical renderings to do it, isn't the way.

* * The biggest problem that Americans have with the businesses they
have to interface every day, is that they are told in not so subtle
ways, with every transaction, that they don't matter. That they are only
numbers. That they are only ticks on a sales curve. And that their
complaints are simply not relevant.

* * As long as you continue to quote statistics, contour minima, and FCC
policy, you're assertions, here will not only fall on deaf ears, but
they will continue to ratchet up the ire of everyone so easily and
statistically dismissed. And you will be held in the same high esteem as
the asshole goat ****ers in boardrooms worldwide, who do business with a
nearly open contempt for their customers. You will continue to be the
face of "The Corporation." And this ****ing match between your side and
ours will go on, without resolution.

* * But consider, that as a Program Director, you have the skills to not
only present your product in a venerable light, and do so while
listening to your listeners one on one, you have the experience and the
skills to make a personal "Lifetime Experience" contact with anyone
here. But as a Broadcaster, you have the talent and resources to change
the face of this discussion. To turn adversaries into allies.

* * To find a better way.

* * For this discussion, take a step back. Don't talk like a boardroom
weenie. Talk like a broadcaster. Listen like we're your listeners.
Communicate. One on one. As you and I have here on occasion. Listen to
what these people have to say. Don't be so quick to dismiss. Embrace. We
are all, here, potentially your biggest allies. And you treat us like
dog **** on the sole of your boot.

* * Find a better way.

* * David Peter Maus.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is exaclty what AM-HD will do - drive listeners away, in-droves,
to Satellite and Internet Radio, or just to abandon radio altogether.
What a joke - a few tens-of-thousands of HD Radio listeners, versus
alienating many more times analog listeners, due to AM-HD hash. HD/
IBOC will just accelerate the death of terrestrial radio. I tuned to
our three AM-HD stations in Maryland, and just above and below the
main analog channel, were the sounds of a large waterfall - those
wonderful digital saddle-bags !

why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
 

On Mar 16, 11:41?am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message

...



The real problem is that you, Edweenie, don't realize that you are posting
in
what is ostensibly a *hobby* news group, where folks actually *do* listen
to
things that fall outside of the parameters of your little fantasy world.

The point is that the radio industry, both in the US and worldwide, is
changing. In the case of AM, it is trying to save itself... a task that may
not even be possible. DXers generally, in the past, have followed with
interest, the industry that produces the signals that are listened too. HD
is one of the changes that the industry has determined will help in the
future, and it is definitely here.

Next week, the FCC has the IBOC/HD issue on its agenda. They are expected to
remove the "experimental" STA for HD and authorize the system, and most
trade magazines and such believe night HD will also be authorized on the
theory of greatest good for the greatest number of people.

So it is obviously a hobby concern. And your R8B does not have HD!

What a joke - no one is listening in HD. This will just accelerate the
death of AM.

why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
 

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

I know what the problem is... you are stubborn and do not understand
that few listeners are even interested in non-local stations, and
when combined with signals that are not reliable day and nigh and
which can be subject to interference, they don't listen to them.

Along with not being interested in where your assumptions are incorrect
you don't seem to be as interested in reality as you are your own
special view of it.

I am making no assumptions, so such assumptions can not be incorrect.

The facts are very simple.

1. The FCC provides data by which the field strength of any station can be
caluculated in any location. This data and commercial software are so
accurate, the FCC is now considering the actual readings of field strength
on radials of each directional station or for non-DA proofs.
2. Arbitron provides down to the ZIP Code level information on every station
listened to for at least 5 minutes in a week in each ZIP code.
3. Looking at signal strength vs. listening shows that metro area stations
without a consistent, 10 mv/m or better day and night signal do not get any
significant listening. Stations in the high end of the 5 mv/m to 10 mv/m
will get occasional mentions, but not enough to "make the book" and be
statistically significant.

There are far more than 3 stations that are local to me.

"Local" is not a technical term in this context. This discussion is about
how "large" a signal has to be to register any listening, and in AM, that
level in metro areas is 10 mv/m or above

One station that is "local" to me in LA is KBLA... 50 kw at 1580. But I live
to the east of its site, and can barely hear it daytime and not at all at
night... yet the towers are less than 10 miles from me.

There are over
a dozen. You know this but will not acknowledge it. These local
stations put in strong signals so noise is not an issue. There is no
problem picking them up. You don't have to "try" for them.

If they don't have 10 mv/m in your ZIP, nobody listens, per Arbitron.

In most markets, you can pretty accurately trace the 10 mv/m contour of a
station via plotting diaries

Stations all over the US realize this, and generally do their audience
promotion inside the contour under the theory that elsewhere there is no
return on the investment.

Your statement that nobody has more than 3 strong signal stations is a
complete fabrication.

I did not say that. I said there are only 3 signals over 10 mv/m at your
location.

I did say that few markets have more than one or two viable AM stations that
cover day and night the metro. Some have none, like ashington, DC and
Ventura, others like LA and SF have a few more.

The fact that you will not acknowledge it when
called on your bad assumptions shows that you will continue to post
articles with fabricated information to the news group.




Sorted by distance from my location.

Call Freq Dist. in miles City Format dBm

KVEN 1450 AM 3.4 Ventura, CA Oldies -29
KKZZ 1590 AM 6.2 Ventura, CA Talk -32
KOXR 910 AM 9.3 Oxnard, CA Spanish -40
KUNX 1400 AM 11.6 Santa Paula, CA Spanish -65
KVTA 1520 AM 12.3 Port Hueneme, CA Talk -39
KZSB 1290 AM 24.4 Santa Barbara, CA News -55
KIST 1340 AM 24.4 Santa Barbara, CA Talk -55
KBKO 1490 AM 24.4 Santa Barbara, CA Simulcast of KTMS 990 -55
KZER 1250 AM 31.5 Santa Barbara, CA Spanish -56
KIRN 670 AM 32.8 Simi Valley, CA Ethnic -66
KSPN 710 AM 50.9 Los Angeles, CA Sports -60
KNX 1070 AM 61.5 Los Angeles, CA News -54
KRLA 870 AM 61.7 Glendale, CA News/Talk -65
KFI 640 AM 78.4 Los Angeles, CA Talk -68
KOGO 600 AM 168 San Diego, CA Talk -69

Sorted by daytime signal strength.

Call Freq Dist. in miles City Format dBm

KVEN 1450 AM 3.4 Ventura, CA Oldies -29
KKZZ 1590 AM 6.2 Ventura, CA Talk -32
KVTA 1520 AM 12.3 Port Hueneme, CA Talk -39
KOXR 910 AM 9.3 Oxnard, CA Spanish -40
KNX 1070 AM 61.5 Los Angeles, CA News -54
KZSB 1290 AM 24.4 Santa Barbara, CA News -55
KIST 1340 AM 24.4 Santa Barbara, CA Talk -55
KBKO 1490 AM 24.4 Santa Barbara, CA Simulcast of KTMS 990 -55
KZER 1250 AM 31.5 Santa Barbara, CA Spanish -56
KSPN 710 AM 50.9 Los Angeles, CA Sports -60
KUNX 1400 AM 11.6 Santa Paula, CA Spanish -65
KRLA 870 AM 61.7 Glendale, CA News/Talk -65
KIRN 670 AM 32.8 Simi Valley, CA Ethnic -66
KFI 640 AM 78.4 Los Angeles, CA Talk -68
KOGO 600 AM 168 San Diego, CA Talk -69

You can't really think anyone would use S-meter readings in place of
calculated contours or field strength readings with a calibrated, type
approved FIM, can you?

Of all these stations, only 3 get significant ratings in your ZIP code..

why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
 

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,

It's been proven in every market Arbitron measures... in urban zones,
there
is essentially no listening outside the 10 mv/m contour.


Pardon me for butting into this love-fest, but let's try to
establish an understanding of what really are the objections here. And
why this exchange can get as heated as it does.

Start with the presentation of Dismissal. David, 'essentially none'
is not the same as 'none.' Just as statistical zero is not zero.

And what's been bandied about here, is the relative merits of simply
dismissing those numbers which don't fit a profile of behaviour mated to
a sales curve.

No one on either side of this discussion has suggested that 1) there
is zero listening outside the contours, nor that 2) what listening does
exist outside the contours is in mainstream numbers.

Snip

David is making that assumption based on signal strength.

I am not making assumptions, as I said before. I am stating fact: stations
on AM in metro areas do not get listening of a statistically significant
nature outside the 10 mv/m contour. Listeners will not put up with weaker
signals, and most listeners don't care to listen to stations outside their
community.

People will
not tune into weak signals and there are no more than 3 in a large
market so AM is pretty much Dead.

I DID NOT SAY THAT. I said that, in your ZIP Code, there are only 3 stations
capable (depending on programming) of generating significaant ratings (which
means listening) because they have a decent enough signal to be listened to.

AM is dying, and that is because nearly nobody under 45 listens because the
sound sucks and there are so few listenable stations. In a few years, when
all AM listening is over 55 in age, there will be no revenue in the rated
metros, and the viable format will move to FM and that will be it except for
stations that are kept on the air with infomercials, brokered programming
and religious teaching formats.

I try to tell him that I live in the
northern part of one of the largest markets with many more choices and
he tells me according to some misconstrued data it is no so.

Ventura is not even a top 100 market. It is hardly "largest" in any sense.

You may go out of your way to find weaker AMs. 99.9999% of the population
does not.

why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
 

"AM-HDisDead" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 16, 11:37?am, D Peter Maus wrote:

That is exaclty what AM-HD will do - drive listeners away, in-droves,
to Satellite and Internet Radio, or just to abandon radio altogether.
What a joke - a few tens-of-thousands of HD Radio listeners, versus
alienating many more times analog listeners, due to AM-HD hash. HD/
IBOC will just accelerate the death of terrestrial radio. I tuned to
our three AM-HD stations in Maryland, and just above and below the
main analog channel, were the sounds of a large waterfall - those
wonderful digital saddle-bags !

You still miss the point. AM listening is now less than 20% of all radio
listening, and less than 10% of listening under age 45; it's around 5% under
35.

Night AM listening is only about 12% of all listening, and nearly all is
over 55.

In rated metros, stations can not sell the 55+ audience to advertisers. So
stations with 55+ audiences are already doomed in the very short term. AM is
doomed in the long term.

Anything that might improve AM's viability is worth trying. No service will
be lost, as AM is declining very fast anyway; to do nothing is to hasten the
demise of AM, and that serves nobody.

why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
 

"AM-HDisDead" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 16, 11:41?am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message

...



The real problem is that you, Edweenie, don't realize that you are
posting
in
what is ostensibly a *hobby* news group, where folks actually *do*
listen
to
things that fall outside of the parameters of your little fantasy
world.

The point is that the radio industry, both in the US and worldwide, is
changing. In the case of AM, it is trying to save itself... a task that
may
not even be possible. DXers generally, in the past, have followed with
interest, the industry that produces the signals that are listened too.
HD
is one of the changes that the industry has determined will help in the
future, and it is definitely here.

Next week, the FCC has the IBOC/HD issue on its agenda. They are expected
to
remove the "experimental" STA for HD and authorize the system, and most
trade magazines and such believe night HD will also be authorized on the
theory of greatest good for the greatest number of people.

So it is obviously a hobby concern. And your R8B does not have HD!

What a joke - no one is listening in HD. This will just accelerate the
death of AM.


Even the most skeptical projects over 10 million HD radios by 2010... 2 1/2
years from now. with decreasing prices, others see 15 to 2o million by that
time.

Satellite has 14 million, and is almost in no-growth... so this is a nice
opportunity for free terrestrial radio.

why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
 

He is like a whiney old widow woman,always has to get the last word in.
cuhulin

why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
 

Continuing with the info-mercial, David Frackelton Gleason, who poses as
'Eduardo', and whose employer, Univision, has an interest in HD/IBOC, wrote:

"AM-HDisDead" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 16, 11:37?am, D Peter Maus wrote:

That is exaclty what AM-HD will do - drive listeners away, in-droves,
to Satellite and Internet Radio, or just to abandon radio altogether.
What a joke - a few tens-of-thousands of HD Radio listeners, versus
alienating many more times analog listeners, due to AM-HD hash. HD/
IBOC will just accelerate the death of terrestrial radio. I tuned to
our three AM-HD stations in Maryland, and just above and below the
main analog channel, were the sounds of a large waterfall - those
wonderful digital saddle-bags !

You still miss the point. AM listening is now less than 20% of all radio
listening, and less than 10% of listening under age 45; it's around 5% under
35.

Night AM listening is only about 12% of all listening, and nearly all is
over 55.

In rated metros, stations can not sell the 55+ audience to advertisers. So
stations with 55+ audiences are already doomed in the very short term. AM is
doomed in the long term.

Anything that might improve AM's viability is worth trying. No service will
be lost, as AM is declining very fast anyway; to do nothing is to hasten the
demise of AM, and that serves nobody.

Yada, yada, yada. The info-mercial goes on, and on, and on.