![]() |
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 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com