David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
Most of the debate has to do with politics and the status quo.
Politicians, who would have to initiate a change, do not want one as they
are going to be concerned about redistriting and changes in Federal
funds. The debate has very little to do with accuracy and a lot to do
with insuring reelection.
On BOTH sides.

Exactly! And it has very little to do with statistics, margins of error and
sample frames, none of which the average politician is likely to understand.

Yeah, the ability to poll did not really exist when that part of the
constitution was written... and a census was simpler with a population
that had limited mobility and lower population densities.

Not exactly the point I was trying to make, no.

Yes, but that is the reason we have the obligation to do a census... it was
the only thing available.
You can't do a head count more accurately by statistical sampling than
you can by counting heads. One has a margin of error, one does not. And
that's the point. Whether or not the ability to manipulate numbers was
advanced enough at the time of the Constitution is not the point. The
point is, you can't get more accurate than a direct count.

But there is no way to do an accurate census in the US today. It's a 6 month
process with follow up. In that time, a huge percentage of Americans move,
people become homeless, people become ex-pats and live abroad (which, by the
way, is an area filled with error... nobody really knows how many Americans
live abroad) and so on.

A poll can project bases on small samples, done quickly, and be far more
accurate than a census.


No, I don't believe that for a second. And even my statistics
professors, back then, or today, believe that's possible. A good
estimation, perhaps. But more accurate than a head count. Highly debatable.

As we appear to have proven today


Now, whether or not the count is actually taking place...that would be
a good discussion left for a time when the beer flows freely and neither
of us is sober enough to do any damage.

I can imagine that. Probably more fun than this discussion, too. ;-)


LOL! Apparently.


And you do understand that the Cenus is not without considerable error. Our
society is just too complex to count without embedding a chip in everyone
(just kidding, of course).


That's not a thought that's originated with you. You may be
joking. There are those who are discussing that point far more seriously.




The programming is the mixing of the songs. The frequency of play is in
proportion to popularity. There really is no other way. The music itself
is picked by the listeners. the way it is blended together is the
programming function.

Yes, I believe I just said that. Or am I in a different room.

LOL! David, there are times I believe you're on a different
planet.



But that does not change the implementation based purely on test score as
texturizing an hour does not change songs, just their position in the hour
next to other songs for a better blend.


But that's the definition of "Programming." And its something
the listeners do not do.


In the sense that listeners are involved, yes, you're point is valid.
But the statement is incomplete.
I don't think so. As long as play is in proportion to popularity (which
is the entire purpose of a test... to tell how much each song is wanted),
it is totally responsive to the listeners' picks. The programmer decides
how the songs should flow together...
Exactly my point.

But doing that is a question of moving songs by a few positions in an hour,
not changing the rotation. Rotations change not a wit by massaging each hour
a bit for the best flow from song to song. All that is is flipping position
on a few songs, not discarding them.


But moving the songs positions in the hour is part of the
programming process. Something the listeners do not do.

And determining rotations are also something the listeners do not
to. They may pick the songs, and they may help in determining rank, but
rotation, category...that's not what they do, that's what YOU do. And
that's the programming. They help pick the songs. YOU do the programming.



The only possible area of "incompleteness " would be sample size. But
testing has shown that doubling or tripling has not effect on the
results. Going any further would be beyond the economics of radio, so it
is not really incomplete but, rather, impossible.

Wow. You're amazing. You've debated every point that wasn't at issue,
here. Are you SURE you're not Michael Bryant?

I don't think so...


We may have to move to the DNA to verify that.


To review....the point I was trying to make, which apparently got lost
in a lot more things than I had intended to say....


Your original statement was that you don't program the music, the
listeners program the music.

My rebuttal, which need not be repeated here in it's detail for the
fifth time, is that, Your listeners DON"T program the music. But that
rather a sample of your listeners have influence in the songs you play.
But the Programming of the Music, is still based on decisions of PD's and
Consultants.

But it isn't. The music plays in exact proportion to how much it is liked.
There are no changes made there...


Again, they may pick the songs. They may even rank them, but
categories, mix, rotations...that's all PROGRAMMING, and they do not do
that. YOU do.



Or for those in Rio Linda....a group of your listeners pick songs, YOU
PROGRAM the music based on them.

No, we shcedule the music in strict adherence with the amount they like the
songs. Programming is the glue that sticks them together.


Programming in it's catholic sense, yes. Music,
imaging/stationality, jocks, jingles...But programming of the music
alone is the matter under discussion. And YOU do that based on what you
get from your sample.


Damn, David... I love you like a brother, but ****....sometimes,
you're such a Consultant.

Thanks for the first part... and the second part is not an insult. There are
many good consultants...


LOL! NOW you want a fight.

dxAce wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
A sample.

A sample, well designed.

Represents a stations entire listenership.


My statement stands. A sample influences your decisions. How the sample
is designed and how it represents are decisions based on assumptions
accepted by statistical science.
Statistics _is_ a science, and it accepts the fact that there is always a
margin of error in polling, The degree of error that is acceptable depends
on the use that will be made of the information. The data obtained is,
itself, accurate withing the margin of error. Radio ad sales is tolerant of
a degree of error, as there are more important variables involved in
advertising than just the the margin of error of a survey sample.
Assumptions that cannot be proven, nor demonstrated to be true in any
given instance.
Actually, if you look at margin of error, a properly designed poll...
whether for music to play or audience size, can be pretty much proven by
replication procedures.
The differentiation between statistical analysis and census. One is a
scientific extrapolation. The other is a headcount. One CAN result in the
same outcome as the other, within defined limits of acceptability. But
they are not the same. And can in significantly divergant results.
If there is divergence, it is due to not doing the poll correctly. In this
case, it is quality control. It's just like making a car... faults per 1000
vehicles, etc.
So, reiterating, music is not programmed by your listeners, it's
selection is influenced by a sample. But the decisions are made by
consultants and PD's.
Since replication can verify using a sample to determine the acceptability
of songs, then the issue is implementation... a separate matter. Neither PDs
nor consultants change test results. It is almost plug and play once you
have the results.
Selling the process to your listeners: "Music is programmed by the
listners."
I did a little experiment... in Argentina, we did a 100 person music test.
We also did the test on the air, and ran the test form in a large newspaper
(circulation 1.1 million) We got 40,000 forms back. The test matched the
newspaper results. Then we pulled 100 test forms at random from the 40,000.
The results were also the same.
Critical analysis asserts that cannot be the case.
Any effort I have seen (some done on purpose) to disprove a music test
results when the test itself follows standard techniques has failed.

That's because the axiomatic assumptions are the same in each case.
The statistical science is the same. Of course the results are going to
be the same

David, we're not arguing the test. Nor the science. But the
PD/Marketing claim that the music is programmed by the listeners.

It's not. It's programmed by the PD's and Consultants based on the
results of a sample of listeners.

The two statements are not the same. Your statement implies a sample
of 100%. Which is not the case.

As I said, the results may be, give or take, about the same. But they
are not the same. Anymore than a statistical extrapolation is the same
as a census.

One of the reasons you take as much **** here as you do, is because
of statements that sound more like marketing than discussion.

Which is precisely why he's worn out his welcome everywhere he goes.

He knows that, I know that, but his defence mechanism will never, ever, allow him
to admit it.

It's a mental illness.





May be. But it's an illness that's required for to be in upper
Manglement at Radio, today.

In article
,
D Peter Maus wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

A sample.

A sample, well designed.

Represents a stations entire listenership.


My statement stands. A sample influences your decisions. How the sample
is designed and how it represents are decisions based on assumptions
accepted by statistical science.

Statistics _is_ a science, and it accepts the fact that there is always a
margin of error in polling, The degree of error that is acceptable depends
on the use that will be made of the information. The data obtained is,
itself, accurate withing the margin of error. Radio ad sales is tolerant of
a degree of error, as there are more important variables involved in
advertising than just the the margin of error of a survey sample.
Assumptions that cannot be proven, nor demonstrated to be true in any
given instance.

Actually, if you look at margin of error, a properly designed poll...
whether for music to play or audience size, can be pretty much proven by
replication procedures.

The differentiation between statistical analysis and census. One is a
scientific extrapolation. The other is a headcount. One CAN result in the
same outcome as the other, within defined limits of acceptability. But
they are not the same. And can in significantly divergant results.

If there is divergence, it is due to not doing the poll correctly. In this
case, it is quality control. It's just like making a car... faults per 1000
vehicles, etc.

So, reiterating, music is not programmed by your listeners, it's
selection is influenced by a sample. But the decisions are made by
consultants and PD's.

Since replication can verify using a sample to determine the acceptability
of songs, then the issue is implementation... a separate matter. Neither
PDs
nor consultants change test results. It is almost plug and play once you
have the results.
Selling the process to your listeners: "Music is programmed by the
listners."

I did a little experiment... in Argentina, we did a 100 person music test.
We also did the test on the air, and ran the test form in a large newspaper
(circulation 1.1 million) We got 40,000 forms back. The test matched the
newspaper results. Then we pulled 100 test forms at random from the 40,000.
The results were also the same.
Critical analysis asserts that cannot be the case.

Any effort I have seen (some done on purpose) to disprove a music test
results when the test itself follows standard techniques has failed.



That's because the axiomatic assumptions are the same in each case.
The statistical science is the same. Of course the results are going to
be the same

David, we're not arguing the test. Nor the science. But the
PD/Marketing claim that the music is programmed by the listeners.


It's not. It's programmed by the PD's and Consultants based on the
results of a sample of listeners.

The two statements are not the same. Your statement implies a sample
of 100%. Which is not the case.

As I said, the results may be, give or take, about the same. But they
are not the same. Anymore than a statistical extrapolation is the same
as a census.

One of the reasons you take as much **** here as you do, is because
of statements that sound more like marketing than discussion.

The reason is he is full of crap. If he were right his statements would
stand on their own. No evidence to the contrary changes a thing with
this guy. David is a waste of time. Don't make the mistake I did
engaging him.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article
,
D Peter Maus wrote:

One of the reasons you take as much **** here as you do, is because
of statements that sound more like marketing than discussion.

The reason is he is full of crap. If he were right his statements would
stand on their own. No evidence to the contrary changes a thing with
this guy. David is a waste of time. Don't make the mistake I did
engaging him.

Of course, this does not explain, as has been mentioned, that following what
I describe is what has made the successful programmers in radio.

And, considering that the company I am with is the only one to get, not
once, but twice, the Lehman Bros "A" rating for ratings success in the third
and fourth quarters of 2006, we must be doing something right,
programming-wise.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

Of course, this does not explain, as has been mentioned, that following what
I describe is what has made the successful programmers in radio.

And, considering that the company I am with is the only one to get, not
once, but twice, the Lehman Bros "A" rating for ratings success in the third
and fourth quarters of 2006, we must be doing something right,
programming-wise.

From my reading of this group, you are doing fine defending yourself
against the luddite nut cases here. These are probably the same people
who complained about FM, FM stereo, Color TV, Stereo TV, CDs/digital
audio and HD TV. You know, the morons who think that technology and
progress stopped with AM radio in the 1920s.

HD radio is here to stay.

Mike

Mike wrote:
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

Of course, this does not explain, as has been mentioned, that following what
I describe is what has made the successful programmers in radio.

And, considering that the company I am with is the only one to get, not
once, but twice, the Lehman Bros "A" rating for ratings success in the third
and fourth quarters of 2006, we must be doing something right,
programming-wise.

From my reading of this group, you are doing fine defending yourself
against the luddite nut cases here. These are probably the same people
who complained about FM, FM stereo, Color TV, Stereo TV, CDs/digital
audio and HD TV. You know, the morons who think that technology and
progress stopped with AM radio in the 1920s.

HD radio is here to stay.

Mike


The fact that he's been rather reserved in his responses hasn't failed
to impress. Not even the foul mouthed cretins who regularly resort to
obscene name calling have managed to get him to sink to their level.

I may not like what he is saying, but compared to those who attack him,
he's generally been rather gentlemanly.

It may be just a coincidence, but most, if not all, of those attacking
him also seem to be supporters of the war on Iraq.




mike

wrote in message
ps.com...
On Mar 27, 11:14?pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in
...





David Eduardo wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message
...
As I said, fortunate. But for the listeners...
... who'd probably rebel if they knew their music was being programmed
by a 60+
has-been.

The listeners program the music, not the program directors.

No, a sample of the listeners influence music programming decisions.

But the decisions are made by Consultants and Program Directors.

Not really. Generally, a very large assortment of music is scored by
listeners, and the programmers simply implement the data based on ranking.
The only decisions are on rotations, based on how high the songs scores...
but the individual songs are listener selected.

Right now I am watching a test for a CHR that plays about 120 songs, but
we
are checking over 600 tunes against our heavier listeners.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

You get caught in one lie after another !

No lie there... just difference of opinion.

m II wrotf:

The fact that he's been rather reserved in his responses hasn't failed
to impress. Not even the foul mouthed cretins who regularly resort to
obscene name calling have managed to get him to sink to their level.

I may not like what he is saying, but compared to those who attack him,
he's generally been rather gentlemanly.

It may be just a coincidence, but most, if not all, of those attacking
him also seem to be supporters of the war on Iraq.

mike

I have also complimented D.E. on his implacablility in the face of the
ignorant taunts.

Your point about the war is interesting. David's take on broadcasting as a
business is coherent and acurately describes what happens to any industry
with the application of conservative, laissez-faire economic principals.

The noisy noodniks here would almost surely describe themselves as
conservatives. But they are know-nothings.

Norm

On Mar 31, 2:35 pm, norml wrote:
m II wrotf:

The fact that he's been rather reserved in his responses hasn't failed
to impress. Not even the foul mouthed cretins who regularly resort to
obscene name calling have managed to get him to sink to their level.

I may not like what he is saying, but compared to those who attack him,
he's generally been rather gentlemanly.

It may be just a coincidence, but most, if not all, of those attacking
him also seem to be supporters of the war on Iraq.

mike

I have also complimented D.E. on his implacablility in the face of the
ignorant taunts.

Your point about the war is interesting. David's take on broadcasting as a
business is coherent and acurately describes what happens to any industry
with the application of conservative, laissez-faire economic principals.

The noisy noodniks here would almost surely describe themselves as
conservatives. But they are know-nothings.

Norm

I don't care what he or anyone else says about HD radio. I just wish
they'd take the entire thread to a more appropriate newsgroup.

Steve

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

m II wrotf:

The fact that he's been rather reserved in his responses hasn't failed
to impress. Not even the foul mouthed cretins who regularly resort to
obscene name calling have managed to get him to sink to their level.

I may not like what he is saying, but compared to those who attack him,
he's generally been rather gentlemanly.

It may be just a coincidence, but most, if not all, of those attacking
him also seem to be supporters of the war on Iraq.

mike

I have also complimented D.E. on his implacablility in the face of the
ignorant taunts.

Snip

The guy is a con-artist that believes his own BS. Being Implacable is
not a test for truthfulness. I've caught him in a number of lies. A word
I could use for his responses is stonewalling.

You mean like your insistence that, in radio, $750 thousand is a "lot" of
money? I think not. You simply are a DXer who is delightfully oblivious to
the way the industry that produces the signals you listen to operates. And
you are just totally off track in the way you think average, everyday
listeners use radio.