David Eduardo wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 27, 10:01?pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

Yea Eduardo, your are on of those 55+ "fringe listeners" that don't
count - new ownership always "cleans house".


Our outgoing CEO is in his 70's... didn't he count?

Not according to you. As far as your model goes it should be 55 and out to the
pasture (the funny farm in your case).

"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.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 27, 10:01?pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

Yea Eduardo, your are on of those 55+ "fringe listeners" that don't
count - new ownership always "cleans house".


Our outgoing CEO is in his 70's... didn't he count?

Not according to you. As far as your model goes it should be 55 and out to
the
pasture (the funny farm in your case).


Totally different thing. One has to do with ability to run a business, and
the other with what ages advertisers wish to reach with their ad messages.

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 27, 10:01?pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

Yea Eduardo, your are on of those 55+ "fringe listeners" that don't
count - new ownership always "cleans house".


Our outgoing CEO is in his 70's... didn't he count?

Not according to you. As far as your model goes it should be 55 and out to
the
pasture (the funny farm in your case).


Totally different thing.

Nah, it's one and the same.

One has to do with ability to run a business, and
the other with what ages advertisers wish to reach with their ad messages.

Either way, you're way over-the-hill. You should tender your resignation for the
good of Univision's future.

Become a trend setter! The rest of the prancers will follow.

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.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
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.

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




I'm familiar with music testing, remember?

But if you're telling me your entire audience is involved in the
process, I"m going to have to challenge that assertion.

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

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.


I'm familiar with music testing, remember?

But if you're telling me your entire audience is involved in the
process, I"m going to have to challenge that assertion.

A well designed sample very accurately represents all a staiton's
listeners... the test is the ability to replicate over and over with the
same results, which is easily achievable.

"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.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...


From a sample of the listeners. The rest of the process is evaluation
and interpretation by Consultants and PD's.


While some perceptual research requires interpretation, a music test does
not. It is simply play the top songs more than the next group, and don't
play the bad ones.