RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Shortwave (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/)
-   -   why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! - Leave AM Radio Alone (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/116546-re-why-not-why-not-why-not-leave-am-radio-alone.html)

dxAce March 16th 07 10:31 AM

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



D Peter Maus March 16th 07 01:37 PM

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.





David Eduardo March 16th 07 01:41 PM

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!



David Eduardo March 16th 07 02:36 PM

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.



David Eduardo March 16th 07 02:37 PM

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




dxAce March 16th 07 06:21 PM

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



[email protected] March 16th 07 06:52 PM

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


RHF March 16th 07 11:09 PM

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

RHF March 16th 07 11:56 PM

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}

RHF March 17th 07 12:08 AM

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com