|
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:54:05 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote: Radio Locator labels itself for amusement only. There is a reason... I use a professional broadcast mapping program and can see the signal strengths at any ZIP easily. There are 3 10 mv/m or better signals. That's all. That is such BS. Perhaps it works on the prairies but here in Cali, with undulating terra firma, the field strength can vary wildly over a given Zip Code. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:54:46 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote: ... based on FCC data which allowed the licensing and signal protection of each station. The fictional 50/50 charts? What about Longley Rice? |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
"RHF" wrote in message oups.com... There is the old 80% / 20% Rule which is most likely what you are talking about : You can spend 20% of the Cost and get 80% of the "Potential" Radio Listeners 'with-in' the Contours -or- You can spend 80% (4X) of the Cost and get the remaining 20% of the "Potential" Radio Listeners out-side' the Contours. * This does not mean that the 'other' 20% are not vailid "Potential" Radio Listeners 'out-side' the Contours. * Simply means that the 20% of "Potential" Radio Listeners 'out-side' the Contours are not Cost Effective as a Business Objective. * The Out-Side 20% are Too Costly of a Market to Sell. Actually, it is generally not more than a percent or two of in-home listening that takes place outside those contours. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
"David" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 04:43:33 GMT, "David Eduardo" wrote: "David" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:00:22 -0700, "David Eduardo" wrote: C. Commercial radio only exists in the US because stations make money. If they did not, you would have a choice of religious stations and NPR. Ma and Pa operations can make money on stations that big-ass corporations cannot. That was the beauty of Pre-Reagan broadcasting: diversity. BTW, I see your company ate a big **** sandwich today. I'm waiting for this lie to be retracted. News Update - Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Tough day for Spanish Broadcasting System. The stock's down about 10% as investors absorb the 9% drop in fourth quarter radio revenue and Raul Alarcon's first-quarter guidance for "a decrease in the mid-single digit range." COO Marko Radlovic says "the big disconnect" is in national revenues and they're working on it with Interep. Alarcon assures analysts SBS can weather recent morning-show defections in New York and Miami. Nice try, you liar. I don't work for, nor have ever worked for, that company. Before you claim people eat excrement, you might try checking the facts a little better. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
"David" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:54:05 GMT, "David Eduardo" wrote: Radio Locator labels itself for amusement only. There is a reason... I use a professional broadcast mapping program and can see the signal strengths at any ZIP easily. There are 3 10 mv/m or better signals. That's all. That is such BS. Perhaps it works on the prairies but here in Cali, with undulating terra firma, the field strength can vary wildly over a given Zip Code. Most populated ZIPs are quite small, and you can easily do averaging. In most cases, this is so close to the extremes as to be totally useful. Since radio ratings are done to the ZIP Code level, the exercise is eminently practical. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
"David" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:54:46 GMT, "David Eduardo" wrote: ... based on FCC data which allowed the licensing and signal protection of each station. The fictional 50/50 charts? No, just calculated (not measured) field strenght based on FCC ground conductivity charts and the distance form the transmitter What about Longley Rice? That is for FM. There is no terrain blockage on AM... Get your bands straight. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:08:04 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote: Nice try, you liar. I don't work for, nor have ever worked for, that company. Before you claim people eat excrement, you might try checking the facts a little better. You work for Walter? For the Liebermans? |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
"David" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:08:04 GMT, "David Eduardo" wrote: Nice try, you liar. I don't work for, nor have ever worked for, that company. Before you claim people eat excrement, you might try checking the facts a little better. You work for Walter? For the Liebermans? Keep trying. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
On Mar 14, 12:13�pm, David wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:08:04 GMT, "David Eduardo" wrote: Nice try, you liar. I don't work for, nor have ever worked for, that company. Before you claim people eat excrement, you might try checking the facts a little better. You work for Walter? *For the Liebermans? This ****ing IBOC shill works for Univision - they pay him to post on blogs 24/7: http://davidgleason.com/ |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
On Mar 14, 2:43�am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"David" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:00:22 -0700, "David Eduardo" wrote: C. Commercial radio only exists in the US because stations make money. If they did not, you would have a choice of religious stations and NPR. Ma and Pa operations can make money on stations that big-ass corporations cannot. *That was the beauty of Pre-Reagan broadcasting: diversity. BTW, I see your company ate a big **** sandwich today. I'm waiting for this lie to be retracted. WHO-AM News Talk Information 9.7 7.2 9.9 10.6 WLW-AM News Talk Information 8.9 9.9 11.2 9.8 WSB-AM News Talk Information 9.3 8.7 9.2 8.2 WGN-AM News Talk Information 5.3 5.5 5.8 5.4 WBBM-AM All News 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.6 WLS-AM News Talk Information 4.1 3.7 3.7 3.8 WTAM-AM News Talk Information 7.3 8.0 6.5 7.3 WJR-AM News Talk Information 4.8 4.9 5.3 5.3 KMOX-AM News Talk Information 8.4 7.7 8.2 8.4 KSL-AM News Talk Information 5.9 6.7 8.6 7.7 http://www.arbitron.com/radio_stations/home.htm Here are just a few, in the major-markets - many of these are ranked #1, and all are in the top-five. Now, go eat your **** sandwich, IBOC shill ! |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 14, 2:43?am, "David Eduardo" wrote: I'm waiting for this lie to be retracted. WHO-AM News Talk Information 9.7 7.2 9.9 10.6 WLW-AM News Talk Information 8.9 9.9 11.2 9.8 WSB-AM News Talk Information 9.3 8.7 9.2 8.2 WGN-AM News Talk Information 5.3 5.5 5.8 5.4 WBBM-AM All News 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.6 WLS-AM News Talk Information 4.1 3.7 3.7 3.8 WTAM-AM News Talk Information 7.3 8.0 6.5 7.3 WJR-AM News Talk Information 4.8 4.9 5.3 5.3 KMOX-AM News Talk Information 8.4 7.7 8.2 8.4 KSL-AM News Talk Information 5.9 6.7 8.6 7.7 Here are just a few, in the major-markets - many of these are ranked #1, and all are in the top-five. Now, go eat your **** sandwich, IBOC shill ! Being #1 in 12+ (everyone from pre-teen to death) is meaningless. That's why these numbers are given away for free. Advertisers don't even look at 12+ numbers. What is important for radio sales is the number of listeners in the ages advertisers care about, generally (about 85% of buys) in 25-54 and somewhat in 18-34 (plus all the subsets). You will find that all the stations you listed do nowhere nearly as well in 25-54, and do horribly in 18-34 and 18-44. WGN, for example, is not even in the top 15 stations in Chicago in 25-54 and the others fare similarly in the "sales demos." As said before, this is why stations like WTOP moved from AM to FM totally, and ones like KSL are simulcasting with FM to pick up younger listeners. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
"David" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:08:04 GMT, "David Eduardo" wrote: Nice try, you liar. I don't work for, nor have ever worked for, that company. Before you claim people eat excrement, you might try checking the facts a little better. You work for Walter? For the Liebermans? It's "Liberman" by the way. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
On Mar 14, 1:12�pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 14, 2:43?am, "David Eduardo" wrote: I'm waiting for this lie to be retracted. WHO-AM *News Talk Information 9.7 7.2 9.9 10.6 WLW-AM *News Talk Information 8.9 9.9 11.2 9.8 WSB-AM *News Talk Information 9.3 8.7 9.2 8.2 WGN-AM *News Talk Information 5.3 5.5 5.8 5.4 WBBM-AM *All News 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.6 WLS-AM *News Talk Information 4.1 3.7 3.7 3.8 WTAM-AM *News Talk Information 7.3 8.0 6.5 7.3 WJR-AM *News Talk Information 4.8 4.9 5.3 5.3 KMOX-AM *News Talk Information 8.4 7.7 8.2 8.4 KSL-AM *News Talk Information 5.9 6.7 8.6 7.7 Here are just a few, in the major-markets - many of these are ranked #1, and all are in the top-five. Now, go eat your **** sandwich, IBOC shill ! Being #1 in 12+ (everyone from pre-teen to death) is meaningless. That's why these numbers are given away for free. Advertisers don't even look at 12+ numbers. What is important for radio sales is the number of listeners in the ages advertisers care about, generally (about 85% of buys) in 25-54 and somewhat in 18-34 (plus all the subsets). You will find that all the stations you listed do nowhere nearly as well in 25-54, and do horribly in 18-34 and 18-44. WGN, for example, is not even in the top 15 stations in Chicago in 25-54 and the others fare similarly in the "sales demos." As said before, this is why stations like WTOP moved from AM to FM totally, and ones like KSL are simulcasting with FM to pick up younger listeners. As I said before - AM radio is not dying, and I'll let you know, when all AMs go dark. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
On Mar 14, 1:12�pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 14, 2:43?am, "David Eduardo" wrote: I'm waiting for this lie to be retracted. WHO-AM *News Talk Information 9.7 7.2 9.9 10.6 WLW-AM *News Talk Information 8.9 9.9 11.2 9.8 WSB-AM *News Talk Information 9.3 8.7 9.2 8.2 WGN-AM *News Talk Information 5.3 5.5 5.8 5.4 WBBM-AM *All News 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.6 WLS-AM *News Talk Information 4.1 3.7 3.7 3.8 WTAM-AM *News Talk Information 7.3 8.0 6.5 7.3 WJR-AM *News Talk Information 4.8 4.9 5.3 5.3 KMOX-AM *News Talk Information 8.4 7.7 8.2 8.4 KSL-AM *News Talk Information 5.9 6.7 8.6 7.7 Here are just a few, in the major-markets - many of these are ranked #1, and all are in the top-five. Now, go eat your **** sandwich, IBOC shill ! Being #1 in 12+ (everyone from pre-teen to death) is meaningless. That's why these numbers are given away for free. Advertisers don't even look at 12+ numbers. What is important for radio sales is the number of listeners in the ages advertisers care about, generally (about 85% of buys) in 25-54 and somewhat in 18-34 (plus all the subsets). You will find that all the stations you listed do nowhere nearly as well in 25-54, and do horribly in 18-34 and 18-44. WGN, for example, is not even in the top 15 stations in Chicago in 25-54 and the others fare similarly in the "sales demos." As said before, this is why stations like WTOP moved from AM to FM totally, and ones like KSL are simulcasting with FM to pick up younger listeners. BTW - there is no consumer interest for HD Radio. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... Yeah, now he is telling me what I can hear based on some imaginary contour maps. ... based on FCC data which allowed the licensing and signal protection of each station. Your information or how you are interpreting it is faulty. The information is composed of two parts. 1. Arbitron diary returns for in-home listening by ZIP code. 2. Signal strength by ZIP Code from professional engineering software, based on FCC licence values, ground condutivity, tc. Must be a piece of crap software you use. I have many stations, on the order of sixteen, that have very strong signals. But only 3 put a 10 mv/m signal over your ZIP. Analysis of AM staitons by listening location shows that below that level in populated metro areas, there is, for all practical purposes, no listening. Noise is not an issue at all. What does it take to get that through your skull? Take a drive up to Ventura and see for yourself. Why should I. Because your data is wrong and you base your conclusions of false facts. I am capable of looking at the field strengths of each station in your ZIP and knowing that no AM station with less than a 10 mv/m gets significant in-home listening in that ZIP, I conclude that the general rule about listening to weaker signals holds true, yet again. Bad data, incorrectly interpreting that data leads to wrong conclusions. The stations broadcast from Santa Barbara, Santa Paula, Ventura, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Simi Valley, LA, and at the very least KOGO in San Diego. Some in your ZIP have about 2 mv/m. As stated before, you may hear them if you try, but "normal" radio listeners do not listen to them as they are not stong enough to be usefully listenable. No trying need since they are strong signals. No problem getting them on the home radio, portable, or car radio. There is like 10 stations 30 miles or less away from me for Gods sake. Get a new line of crap to peddle. This one really stinks. But, in your ZIP, there are only 3 above 10 mv/m. And those are, buy no strange coincidence, the only ones that get any significant diary mentions in your ZIP. Something is wrong with your data or calculations. You got a real problem. Your view of reality is askew. I don't know where you are going wrong but you should find out. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: Your information or how you are interpreting it is faulty. The information is composed of two parts. 1. Arbitron diary returns for in-home listening by ZIP code. 2. Signal strength by ZIP Code from professional engineering software, based on FCC licence values, 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. Noise is not an issue at all. What does it take to get that through your skull? Take a drive up to Ventura and see for yourself. Why should I. Because your data is wrong and you base your conclusions of false facts. The data comes from the FCC... including the licensed operation (antenna efficiency, directional pattern, transmitter location) and the "official" FCC ground condutivity data to determine attenuation over a determined path I am capable of looking at the field strengths of each station in your ZIP and knowing that no AM station with less than a 10 mv/m gets significant in-home listening in that ZIP, I conclude that the general rule about listening to weaker signals holds true, yet again. Bad data, incorrectly interpreting that data leads to wrong conclusions. The fact is, whether it is in Ventura or Lares, Puerto Rico, listening to AMs below certain strong signal strengths is nearly non-existent and statistically close to zero. The stations broadcast from Santa Barbara, Santa Paula, Ventura, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Simi Valley, LA, and at the very least KOGO in San Diego. Some in your ZIP have about 2 mv/m. As stated before, you may hear them if you try, but "normal" radio listeners do not listen to them as they are not stong enough to be usefully listenable. No trying need since they are strong signals. No problem getting them on the home radio, portable, or car radio. Yet listeners do not listen to them when the signal is below 10 mv/m in your ZIP code. There is like 10 stations 30 miles or less away from me for Gods sake. Get a new line of crap to peddle. This one really stinks. But, in your ZIP, there are only 3 above 10 mv/m. And those are, buy no strange coincidence, the only ones that get any significant diary mentions in your ZIP. Something is wrong with your data or calculations. My listening data comes from the 4-book average for listening in your ZIP code, correlated with actual signal strength there. You got a real problem. Your view of reality is askew. I don't know where you are going wrong but you should find out. The simple fact is that in densely populated areas in the US, there is seldom any AM listening outside the 10 mv/m contour. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... "Telamon" wrote in message ... You got a real problem. Your view of reality is askew. I don't know where you are going wrong but you should find out. -- He really just doesn't care, and chooses instead to live in his little world of unreality. Maybe this is why radio is dying? The people in the industry don't want to listen to what real people have to say. That's pretty funny. I am in the "intermission" of a research project to find out what a sample of over 100 listeners to one of our LA stations thinks, likes, dislikes and wants. And, while the average listening per person in the US is around 19 hours a week, our listeners use about 24 hours of radio a week. And the time spent with our stations is as much as 50% higher than the time spent listening to general market stations. Anyone who has a brain knows that ratings are not real. And this would explain why the ad industry uses them to place about $21 billion dollars in radio advertising a year. Given the amount of money that can be spent on sales research (Arbitron, Tapscan, Scarborough, etc) the samples are sufficient to quite accurately detedrmine the number of listeners per station, per time period, etc. The test of any research is whether it can be replicated (the same results with a different sample of the same characteristics) and MRC supervised tests have shown Arbitron data has a high degree of replicability. People are creatures of habit.. they tend to leave the TV on the same channel most of the time, ditto the radio.. for most, radio is just background noise, something to keep the silence from making them crazy(ier). Of couse, this is not true. The average person listens to about 5 to 6 different stations a week, and knows which ones satisfy different needs or moods. Not all of us out here listen to your top 2 stations in a market. Have Arbitron send me or any of my friends (even the ones that are in major metros) a diary.. and you'll see that there is a significant portion of the public with very much different listening habits than your hand-picked and sorted ratings group. Actually, diaries are placed using a technique based on random digit dialers, with strict geographic controls within each market's metro. Participants are recruited based on quotas for age, sex, ethnicity, etc. based on Claritas quantifications of each market using root Census data and annual updates. In today's world, this is as close as you can get to a true random probability sample where there is no recruitment bias. There is nothing "hand picked" about the sample. Stations can not ask to have diaries sent to anyone. It's all random. And the diary method is going away, as the People Meter rolls out over the next few years. It's already in Philly and Houston, and does full electronic measurement of a perfectly balanced sample. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:46:13 -0700, "David Eduardo"
wrote: And, while the average listening per person in the US is around 19 hours a week, our listeners use about 24 hours of radio a week. And the time spent with our stations is as much as 50% higher than the time spent listening to general market stations. Anyone who has a brain knows that ratings are not real. And this would explain why the ad industry uses them to place about $21 billion dollars in radio advertising a year. Given the amount of money that can be spent on sales research (Arbitron, Tapscan, Scarborough, etc) the samples are sufficient to quite accurately detedrmine the number of listeners per station, per time period, etc. The test of any research is whether it can be replicated (the same results with a different sample of the same characteristics) and MRC supervised tests have shown Arbitron data has a high degree of replicability. People are creatures of habit.. they tend to leave the TV on the same channel most of the time, ditto the radio.. for most, radio is just background noise, something to keep the silence from making them crazy(ier). Of couse, this is not true. The average person listens to about 5 to 6 different stations a week, and knows which ones satisfy different needs or moods. Not all of us out here listen to your top 2 stations in a market. Have Arbitron send me or any of my friends (even the ones that are in major metros) a diary.. and you'll see that there is a significant portion of the public with very much different listening habits than your hand-picked and sorted ratings group. Actually, diaries are placed using a technique based on random digit dialers, with strict geographic controls within each market's metro. Participants are recruited based on quotas for age, sex, ethnicity, etc. based on Claritas quantifications of each market using root Census data and annual updates. In today's world, this is as close as you can get to a true random probability sample where there is no recruitment bias. There is nothing "hand picked" about the sample. Stations can not ask to have diaries sent to anyone. It's all random. And the diary method is going away, as the People Meter rolls out over the next few years. It's already in Philly and Houston, and does full electronic measurement of a perfectly balanced sample. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
"David" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:46:13 -0700, "David Eduardo" wrote: This is the best response you have ever posted. And, while the average listening per person in the US is around 19 hours a week, our listeners use about 24 hours of radio a week. And the time spent with our stations is as much as 50% higher than the time spent listening to general market stations. Anyone who has a brain knows that ratings are not real. And this would explain why the ad industry uses them to place about $21 billion dollars in radio advertising a year. Given the amount of money that can be spent on sales research (Arbitron, Tapscan, Scarborough, etc) the samples are sufficient to quite accurately detedrmine the number of listeners per station, per time period, etc. The test of any research is whether it can be replicated (the same results with a different sample of the same characteristics) and MRC supervised tests have shown Arbitron data has a high degree of replicability. People are creatures of habit.. they tend to leave the TV on the same channel most of the time, ditto the radio.. for most, radio is just background noise, something to keep the silence from making them crazy(ier). Of couse, this is not true. The average person listens to about 5 to 6 different stations a week, and knows which ones satisfy different needs or moods. Not all of us out here listen to your top 2 stations in a market. Have Arbitron send me or any of my friends (even the ones that are in major metros) a diary.. and you'll see that there is a significant portion of the public with very much different listening habits than your hand-picked and sorted ratings group. Actually, diaries are placed using a technique based on random digit dialers, with strict geographic controls within each market's metro. Participants are recruited based on quotas for age, sex, ethnicity, etc. based on Claritas quantifications of each market using root Census data and annual updates. In today's world, this is as close as you can get to a true random probability sample where there is no recruitment bias. There is nothing "hand picked" about the sample. Stations can not ask to have diaries sent to anyone. It's all random. And the diary method is going away, as the People Meter rolls out over the next few years. It's already in Philly and Houston, and does full electronic measurement of a perfectly balanced sample. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
"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. .. My listening data comes from the 4-book average for listening in your ZIP code, correlated with actual signal strength there. So what is wrong with your data then? Nothing. In urban zones, there is no listening to speak of outside the 10 mv/m contour... in very noisy places like NY and LA, there is very little outside the 15 mv/m curves. The simple fact is that in densely populated areas in the US, there is seldom any AM listening outside the 10 mv/m contour. Somehow you have misinterpreted the data. There is nothing to misinterpret. In your ZIP, no station with below a 10 mv/m get listening. Somehow you are going wrong here. What do you think the problem might be? 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. |
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: "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. . My listening data comes from the 4-book average for listening in your ZIP code, correlated with actual signal strength there. So what is wrong with your data then? Nothing. In urban zones, there is no listening to speak of outside the 10 mv/m contour... in very noisy places like NY and LA, there is very little outside the 15 mv/m curves. The simple fact is that in densely populated areas in the US, there is seldom any AM listening outside the 10 mv/m contour. Somehow you have misinterpreted the data. There is nothing to misinterpret. In your ZIP, no station with below a 10 mv/m get listening. Somehow you are going wrong here. What do you think the problem might be? 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. 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. dxAce Michigan USA |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
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. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
"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! |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message ... 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. Actually, Arbitron establishes what they call Minimum Reporting Standards, which is a requirement that any station to "be in the (ratings) book" must register enough listening to be of statistical significance. This is, in fact, a very tiny amount of listening, but it has to be by more than one person and for more than just a few minutes. The objective is to eliminate chance listening or listening _that occured while not even in the market_ that is not normal or replicable. A station that gets some listening but does not make the book did not meet the MRS; statistically it did not get listening because the MRS level was established to only show replicable listening (same survey, done again, gets equal results) as non-replicable listening is so minimal and so erratic as to be considered nonexistent statistically. 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. Out of the book listening is so far below salable numbers that it is irrelevant. Most of it is a small cume number and a 0.0 in share. In most markets, half the local staitons that do show up don't get any salable results. 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. You have boiled it down to the essence. Outside fairly strong contours, stations do not get listening that is regular, of any significant size, and of any value in serving because it is unpredictable, sporadic and mostly "accidental" in nature. 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. Since there are so very, very few listeners to AM outside the very strong signal contours, the collective operators of AM have a choice... which is to sacrifice this minimal and declining group of "outside" listeners for something that may benefit AM, which is dying in revenue, audience and commercial viabily. Station owners and operators, when faced with a degradation that affects few listeners and improvements that may add t the life and utility of AM go for the obvious alternative. 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. Of course, there were not 14,000 stations when skywave coverage was highly protected. And people actually listened to AM at night, something they hardly do today. 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. I spent time outside Traverse City, MI, in the late 50's and early 60's and listened to WLS. There was no local night AM service where I was, and no FM at all. Today, there are 60 mv/m signals from about 18 FMs over the same location. There is no need ot listen to distant stations, especially AMs with their lousy sound quality. 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. The problem is that you are describi ng a time when AM had 95% of all listening. Today, it has less than 20% and at night, less than about 10%. And under age 45, it has less than 10%. Why? It really sounds crappy to the most recent two generations, who do not use it. 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. Historically, correct. But today, it is constantly decreasing and limited, mostly to a few big AMs and to people over 55-. Radio can not sustain a model of serving 55+ as there is no revenue in it. 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. Well before IBOC, nobody much was listening to AM and no one under 45 was. As I said, AM is dying and there is only a small chance it can be saved. HD is one of the chances. 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. There are no "sales contours." What there are is contours below which there is no listening of significance, and where the staition is not a factor. 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. AM listening, itself, is shrinking horrendously and listening by the last two generations of Americans to AM is practically non-existent. For most people under 45, AM is irrelevant. In a few years, the band will not be economically sustainable unless something is done. 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. Trying to serve that tiny, tiny group will kill AM radio. 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. I know what listeners say about AM... that it sucks, quality wise, no matter what is on it. Unless, of course, they are in their 50's or more. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... He'd have to swing a LONG way the opposite direction to even get me to pay attention at this point. I have been a long-time viewer of Univision and Galavision television (until I moved here, where I have no access to them (and technically, they are one and the same at this point, IIRC)), but thanks to the intractible stubbornness of David Edurardo, their representative (at least of their radio group, but a corporate representative nonetheless), I will not bother to watch their television outlets any longer. I never have listened to any of their radio outlets, preferring instead to listen to small local Spanish outlets when I was in that particular listening mood. Since we do not have any radio stations in Oregon, that statement is absurd |
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: "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. DXers interested in QRM, hmmmmmm... Once again, the truth seems to elude you. dxAce Michigan USA |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
Cool Hand Luke will never reform.
What we have got here is a failure to communicate! cuhulin |
DE Proclaims - Night-Time AM-HD Radio Is Coming - The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number Of People -ergo- DXers Be Damned !
On Mar 16, 6:41 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! DE Says - "night HD will also be authorized on the theory of greatest good for the greatest number of people." DE Proclaims - Night-Time AM-HD Radio Is Coming The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number Of People -ergo- DXers Be Damned ! DE So in your world the 'little guy' [The Minority of Radio Listeners] HAS NO RIGHTS [.] Classical Liberal Thinking from the Champeon of Spanish Language {Minority} Broadcasting. it boggles the mind ~ RHF |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
On Mar 16, 6:37 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 - DPM - hear, Hear. HEAR ! ~ RHF http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhear.html Well Said {Well Written} |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
On Mar 16, 7:37 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... He'd have to swing a LONG way the opposite direction to even get me to pay attention at this point. I have been a long-time viewer of Univision and Galavision television (until I moved here, where I have no access to them (and technically, they are one and the same at this point, IIRC)), but thanks to the intractible stubbornness of David Edurardo, their representative (at least of their radio group, but a corporate representative nonetheless), I will not bother to watch their television outlets any longer. I never have listened to any of their radio outlets, preferring instead to listen to small local Spanish outlets when I was in that particular listening mood. Since we do not have any radio stations in Oregon, that statement is absurd - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - DE - You reply points out your Two Big Problem : # 1 - The Certainty of Your Knowledge {Elitism} # 2 - The Dismissive Attitude that you have for Anyone who is Not Ratable and Salable. Master D. Eduardo - Yours is a sad, Sad. SAD ! World ~ RHF |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
RHF wrote: On Mar 16, 7:37 am, "David Eduardo" wrote: "Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... He'd have to swing a LONG way the opposite direction to even get me to pay attention at this point. I have been a long-time viewer of Univision and Galavision television (until I moved here, where I have no access to them (and technically, they are one and the same at this point, IIRC)), but thanks to the intractible stubbornness of David Edurardo, their representative (at least of their radio group, but a corporate representative nonetheless), I will not bother to watch their television outlets any longer. I never have listened to any of their radio outlets, preferring instead to listen to small local Spanish outlets when I was in that particular listening mood. Since we do not have any radio stations in Oregon, that statement is absurd - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - DE - You reply points out your Two Big Problem : # 1 - The Certainty of Your Knowledge {Elitism} # 2 - The Dismissive Attitude that you have for Anyone who is Not Ratable and Salable. Master D. Eduardo - Yours is a sad, Sad. SAD ! World ~ RHF It's a fantasy world that he's been creating since he was 10 or so. 50 years of fantasy! Walt Disney would be proud. dxAce Michigan USA |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... David Eduardo presumed to know what stations I listen to, and where, when he wrote: Since we do not have any radio stations in Oregon, that statement is absurd And whom, might I ask, said anything at all about listening to a Univision station in Oregon? Remember sky wave? We here take advantage of it a lot. However, Portland has several Spanish language stations these days. I think they may even have on on FM now, but not sure about that one. There is no Univision AM that has any chance of providing listenable skywave to Oregon, either. There is no commercial Spanish FM in Portland. There are 7 AMs in Spanish. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
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? |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
David Eduardo wrote:
Actually, diaries are placed using a technique based on random digit dialers, with strict geographic controls within each market's metro. Participants are recruited based on quotas for age, sex, ethnicity, etc. based on Claritas quantifications of each market using root Census data and annual updates. In today's world, this is as close as you can get to a true random probability sample where there is no recruitment bias. There is nothing "hand picked" about the sample. Stations can not ask to have diaries sent to anyone. It's all random. And the diary method is going away, as the People Meter rolls out over the next few years. It's already in Philly and Houston, and does full electronic measurement of a perfectly balanced sample. I participated in an Arbitron radio survey many years ago. I was first contacted by phone and they asked if I would be interested in keeping a diary. I agreed and they sent the diary to me. The main problem I had was I often don't listen to a station for more than a few seconds to see if I like the music they're playing. If not, I move on to another station. I don't listen to most commercials either, so that's another reason for retuning. I do this a lot with FM. It's almost impossible to enter this kind of listening into a survey diary. There would be hundreds of entries in a day. Since I'm also an HF listener, I had to enter the shortwave stations in the diary. I imagine they threw mine out after they saw that. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
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. 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. It's not a fantasy world. It's just that we (here) don't fit into the demographics of the vast majority of AM listeners. If we had it our way, there would be no interference problems to prohibit us from listening to distant AM stations. But the consequence of that would be fewer AM stations in the future to listen too. You can't have the first without the second, given the state that AM radio is in now. Unfortunately for us, the numbers will win in the end and we really can't do anything about it. As he said, radio is all about the money. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
HFguy 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. 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. It's not a fantasy world. Yes, it is. |
DE Proclaims - Night-Time AM-HD Radio Is Coming - The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number Of People -ergo- DXers Be Damned !
On 16 Mar 2007 16:09:38 -0700, "RHF"
wrote: 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! DE Says - "night HD will also be authorized on the theory of greatest good for the greatest number of people." DE Proclaims - Night-Time AM-HD Radio Is Coming The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number Of People -ergo- DXers Be Damned ! DE So in your world the 'little guy' [The Minority of Radio Listeners] HAS NO RIGHTS [.] Classical Liberal Thinking from the Champeon of Spanish Language {Minority} Broadcasting. it boggles the mind ~ RHF . Night time IBOC will result in fewer listeners being able to receive AM radio. I don't see how this translates into ''good'' for any number of people. Half the people in the USA live beyond the suburbs. The ones who are left in the rotting cities are weirdos and poor people. |
DE Proclaims - Night-Time AM-HD Radio Is Coming - The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number Of People -ergo- DXers Be Damned !
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:01:21 -0700, "David Eduardo"
wrote: "RHF" wrote in message roups.com... DE So in your world the 'little guy' [The Minority of Radio Listeners] HAS NO RIGHTS [.] If AM does not survive (it IS dead for two generations of Americans) then it won't matter much if you can't hear every AM on the dial... there won't be any left. Classical Liberal Thinking from the Champeon of Spanish Language {Minority} Broadcasting. I am probably more conservative politically than Genghis Kahn. Funny how the niche programmers seem to do OK. If AM ends up like shortwave (patriots and religious broadcasters) so be it. Do not clutter up the airwaves with the hideous digital noise floor. It really makes a mess out of everything. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
"HFguy" wrote in message news:zRNKh.347$742.57@trndny07... 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? I have been reviewing diaries since 1970 (you have to go to Arbitron in suburban Maryland to see them) and have never seen an SW entry. More specifically, I saw the forms for the ratings in Quito and Guayaquil, Ecuador, in the late 60's when I operated stations there. Not once did I see a SW station mentioned there, either. |
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone
"HFguy" wrote in message news:mbOKh.3869$282.773@trndny04... David Eduardo wrote: Actually, diaries are placed using a technique based on random digit dialers, with strict geographic controls within each market's metro. Participants are recruited based on quotas for age, sex, ethnicity, etc. based on Claritas quantifications of each market using root Census data and annual updates. In today's world, this is as close as you can get to a true random probability sample where there is no recruitment bias. There is nothing "hand picked" about the sample. Stations can not ask to have diaries sent to anyone. It's all random. And the diary method is going away, as the People Meter rolls out over the next few years. It's already in Philly and Houston, and does full electronic measurement of a perfectly balanced sample. I participated in an Arbitron radio survey many years ago. I was first contacted by phone and they asked if I would be interested in keeping a diary. I agreed and they sent the diary to me. The main problem I had was I often don't listen to a station for more than a few seconds to see if I like the music they're playing. If not, I move on to another station. I don't listen to most commercials either, so that's another reason for retuning. I do this a lot with FM. It's almost impossible to enter this kind of listening into a survey diary. There would be hundreds of entries in a day. Since I'm also an HF listener, I had to enter the shortwave stations in the diary. I imagine they threw mine out after they saw that. No, your diary was not thrown out. Any diary that has been properly returned is processed, including those that show zero listening. Arbitron tabulates just two things... station and time listening to it. Credits are given by quarter hour. To get a quarter hour credit, a listener has to have been tuned in for a minimum of 5 minutes in each quarter hour. So dial scanning or seeking does not give credit. Today, with the Portable People Meter, all of this is done electronically... with every station in a measured market encoded. This means non-encoded signals, like, let's say, and Ecuadorian SW station, will not get detected. Again, nobody in the advertising or radio industry believes this is a defect. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com