Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

He does not understand the technical terms he uses either. He will not
answer a simple question on them.

I already gave you a definition of how field strength contours are employed
and how the FCC uses them.

SNIP

What does mV/m mean to YOU? What does 64 dBu mean to you? Just what do
these number represent?

If these number only are numbers on a map and if you can only convert
them with a calculator someone else made then they are nearly totally
meaningless to you.

It does not matter if someone at the FCC understands what these numbers
and units represent as YOU are the one using them to make a point.

If you do not know what these number represent then don't use them.
Don't use jargon you picked up from the FCC web site. Don't use the maps
that show radio station coverage.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

That's only a limitation if you believe it. I'm not saying it's
easy, David, but if a station can make an agency/client see a potential
that was not exploited in one vein, then the station has that ability in
other areas. It's only a matter of self limiting beliefs that keep one
from making the pitch.

The limitation has several factors. First, save a rare all radio campaign,
radio is 6% to 7% of all ad spending. It makes nearly no money for the
agency, except in commissions. It's hard to buy. Agencies don't spend a lot
of time on radio... and many shops do not buy radio at all, because they
would rather not have the hassle.

So much do agencies dislike buying radio that many farm out the buying
function to buying services. To sell to them, unless you talk rates, you are
shown the door... they have only one criteria and that is to bring in the
desired number of gross ratings points against the target demo at the lowest
price possible, because they share the commission and get a percentage of
any savings below the target CPP.

So to expect agencies to even listen to a request that requires client
consent to implement is simply a waste of time.

Add to that the fact that radio stations, save a few in very large markets,
don't sell directly to most agencies... we sell via representative firms who
offer dozens and up to hundreds of stations in many, many markets. The
buying funciton is one of price negotiation; a media buyer has no ability to
change buy specs. And most stations due to expense and distance can not call
on higer-ups at an agency because they are hundreds or thousands of miles
away.

But the main point is that agencies will not go back to a client to change
an approved media plan because they do not want to seem incompetent. And
they sure will not do it when the client asked for one demo and some station
in Des Moines or Detroit or Denver can't pull off the CPP goals without
asking for a change in demo.

I'm also not saying that the station should change the client's
target demographic, but rather that the station working through the
agency, can show the client how to expand their market and include a
richer element with more discretionary income.

Clients do millions, hundreds of millions, of dollars worth of research.
This is how they come up with demos to give to the agency. P&G, using them
again as an example, creates products, researches them with consumers,
develops packaging and the product name to appeal to a specific group that
will not only buy the product but will buy with the least marketing cost.

Such research shows over and over that the older the consumer is, the more
established brand preferences are. That means that to sell, the advertiser
has to overcome more resistence, and that means more ads... and if they are
going for a different demo, new creative (confusing) and a different
strategy for dealer incentives, point of purchase, and the campaigns on TV,
cable, Internet, outdoor, print and such. If the return on investment is
low, they will not do it because they can't make money... and that is the
reason why there are practically zero campaigns for 55+.

How many 55 year olds own iPods? BMW's? Chevrolets? How many 55
year olds buy soap? Toothpaste? How many 55 year olds listen to music? I
mean, it's more likely that a 55 year old can afford a home theatre system
from McIntosh Labs than a 24 year old.

The point is not about income, etc. The point is that to create a change in
brand preference costs too much and makes the sale undesirable.

Don't tell me we don't watch movies.

Nearly all film ads are targeted to 15 to 34 year olds. That's because that
group is the overwhelming box office customer. Similarly, 9% of consumers
account for about 90% of beer consumption. The beer companies focus on the
media that deliver the 9%. The rest they get by spillage or they don't even
care about them because they can not make a profit on the sale based on mass
media advertising.

The most important part of successful selling is not in knowing
what you can and cannot fight, but how to present to bring a new pitch to
a resistant target. One size doesn't fit all.

Radio stations do not generally get to pitch the client. If we have contact,
it is when working with the marketing department after the sale on a
promotion or some kind of support merchandising. Most agency clients have no
interest in talking to someone from a radio station.

You want to capture new sales, you change your pitch to new
targets.

There is no money in 55+. No single radio station, and no group can change a
client's attitude if the client is going to say, "I can not get a decent ROI
on that demo" or "my product was designed for 18-34 year olds and I hope we
don't get Oldsmobiled."

And as the population ages, finding a way to serve 55+ is going to
be the key to survival. For media, and for retail.

Radio, as it exists today, is not going to be around by the time advertisers
want 55+, if they ever do. They prefer to go after the Hispanic market and
other major new opportunities. For example, in my work we generally never
even research listeners over 40, because the median age of Hispanics in the
US is around 22 and there is not enough population to get ratings in the
over-45 and over 50 age groups.

In recent years, the bulk of broad agency buys has moved from being 25-54 to
18-49. And revenues for Black and Hispanic stations have increased by annual
double digits while general market has been low growth or no growth. This is
because advertisers are focusing on getting brand preferences formed as
early as possible, where the ROI is good and where future consumption can be
enormous.

I'm not a PD... although I have programmed on a few occasions. Most of my
career was as manager (and owner) and GSM.


Then you, more than anyone here, would know the resource
potential of a good sales force and how to make a sale 'outside the box.'

I also know what is a waste of time. In my last sales position, over 8 years
we had 28% average annual sales increases when the market was only
increasing in single digits. I knew where to focus my efforts, and did not
tilt windmills. And it's not just age... you have to know what non-radio
brands are appropriate for radio, and which need the "appetite appeal" of
visuals or product demonstrations to sell. This is why you don't hear
exercise equipment sold on the radio.

You also know that stations make pitches to agencies every day.
Station makes the pitch to the agency. The agency's job is to present to
the client. Expanding a market is never a relationship jeopardizing thing.

No, radio stations present rates to agencies. They may present the station
occasionally, like once or twice a year, to the media director or the media
planners. If this is through a rep firm, even that seldom happens.

When radio buys come out, the budget and the creative have already been
approved by the agency... and in most cases, the media plan by medium and by
market has been approved, Stations are invited to submit rates to get a part
of a pre-existing buy. They get a chance to make up for a high CPP by
supplementing with value added, but demos and cost goals are engraved in
stone.

Most Manglers, and owners, I've worked with, known or had contact
with hide behind walls of research, statistics and historical experiences,
the Third Circle, beyond which they can see, but refuse to look. They
quote figures as though they are immutable laws. Figures are only a
snapshot of what exists through the lens of a moment and a place and a
given set of circumstances. Change the time, the place, or the
circumstances, and the statistics may not apply.

This is really not about research. The agency uses audience data to
determine ratings points deliverys, and tells you how much they will pay per
point. The station either delivers that cost or beats it, or does not get
bought. And with so much radio advertising being placed by buying services,
there is no opportunity to sell much of anything else on most agency calls
for rates.

Where you and I have always disagreed, and where so much of the
furor in these groups exists, is that you seem unwilling to recognize that
what exists now, isn't all there is. And what works now isn't the only
viability. You may be right, and there may be no practical way to achieve
what's been suggested here. But that you refuse to acknowledge the
possibility is what's so maddening.

No radio station today has a sales plan for 2012. The business changes so
fast, the competitive array changes so fast, that there is no way to
forecast. But we do know there is no money for 55+ from agencies. So nobody
is going to program for 55+ in the hopes clients of agencies change their
marketing tactics.

The few instances of buys for 35-64 in the past few years were mostly for
home equity loans, mortgages and such. That market is totally dead, as are
the companies that were using some money in radio.

That you deflect questions with statistics rather than provide real
answers.

No, there are realities. Such as the buying service issue. Such as most
stations using rep firms, not their own sellers for all but local agency
sales. And the fact that agencies practically never change approved budgets
and media allocations. Many have tried... a good example being Cox' WDUV in
Tampa... #1 for over a decade, but 14th in sales because 90% of the audience
is 65+. They have spent nearly 15 years trying, and Cox is a very good
company, and they are billing about what a gospel AM daytimer does. They
have nearly no agency business. Most of the accounts are Senior Specials at
restaurants and such... at very low rates.

We know, from our own experiences that there are possibilities.
You deny this. Or worse, don't even acknowledge that this has been
presented.

I think I have given you a view of the buying reality. The fact is, staitons
don't have access to the clients as a general rule and changing demos
established by studies of consumer patterns, return on investment, etc., are
de facto impossible because to try is to tell a client that they do not know
what they are doing.

For someone in the business of bringing people to your radio
stations, that would seem to be a self defeating strategy.

Our business is to bring people in who will listen and then to sell the
station to advertisers based on the size of that audience. But first, the
advertiser has to like the composition of the audience. In my case, talking
about 55+ is also a waste of time as there is an insignificant percentage of
potential listeners and zero advertiser interest.

Like I said, try it without the numbers. Present a compelling
argument in English and explain why.

I"m not talking about CHANGING a demographic target. I'm talking
about exploiting a demographic that's being ignored, because i's not easy.

But first, if you want to sell 55+, you have to cater to 55+. Nobody is
going to sustain a station for years with low revenue to see if this can be
done. Cox has tried, and they got the station so cheap that it makes no
sense to change, but 15 years of effort have gotten no results for them...
and for many other stations that have aged out of the buy demos.

The reality is that 55+ listeners are a rich resource that isn't
being exploited because they're expensive to pursue. So are diamonds. But
the value of recovered diamonds offsets the cost of mining them. The value
of 55+ listeners is greater than younger, lesser expensive demographics.
More costly to pursue, but much greater value when harvested.

Nope. It's less. Because all studies show that it takes more impressions to
create a sale than among younger demos.

If you can sell a nation of radio listeners that institutional
interference that robs them of their choices is a good thing, you
certainly have the salesmanship to sell high end SUV's to a 55 year old.

.... choices they are not really exercising, anyway.

The question is, will you remain unwilling to find a way?

I can't try. There are so few 55+ Hispanics compared to the 18-34 and 18-49
group that there is no way to get even a significant audience. And there is
absolutely no buyer interest in the demo.

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

On Sep 7, 6:58 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in ...



When I was Production Director for CBS Radio, in Chicago, I went
with the sales mangler of the Country station, WUSN, to a meeting with the
head of the in-house agency at Pepsico to hopefully get them off their
hard'No Country' bias and buy the station. The meeting didn't go well. The
rep came out with figures, demographic breakdowns and perceptuals that
told us we were ****ing in the wind with Pepsi drinkers.

But that was a format decision, something the agency may have had control
over. Demos are seldom changable at the agency level.

I've frequently, when selling or assisting on sales calls, gotten "no
Spanish" dictates removed... these are usually in place because the agency
has no Hispanic creative staff. And in years before being in LA, I have
gotten "no talk" or "no salsa" dictates removed, sometimes by buying
questions on market omnibus studies that have major credibility at the
agency level. But I don't recall ever getting demos changed... nor can
anyone here in LA at a cluster with 3 stations int he top 10 25-54.

You also don't seem to recall where you've worked in the past, or what
your job title is. Interesting.

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

On Sep 7, 6:59 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message

...



No, he's not, he's merely nothing more than a sad little pathological SOB
who
will lie at the drop of a sombrero.

You can take that to the bank.

And, I invite him to prove me wrong. He can't do that.

You have never disproved anything I said. Take that to the bank.

You disprove yourself everytime you give conflicting reports about
your job or past work experience. Someone who can't keep his story
straight should avoid spinning yarns.

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

On Sep 7, 7:04 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in messagenews:dWcEi.503618$p47.409927@bgtnsc04-

What I've noticed in the last 48 hours...is that he's not
addressed a single point I've made. Only cut off discussion at a point
where he can fall back on 'the way things have always been.'

That is because your points involve changing the demographic dictate of a
client to an agency. If a client specifies Females 25-44, a station that is
predominantly male 45+ is not going to get on the buy. And the client has
very specific reasons for picking the target demos; they know more about the
consumption than a station does.

Part of successful selling is knowing what you can fight, such as your good
example of getting acceptance for country formats, and what you can not
fight. Changing a demographic target is nearly impossible, although it may
have been done a couple of times... and at smaller local agencies there is
some chance if the station can show the agency that they will make money on
the change. Otherwise, the agency is jeopardizing the client relationship
with absolutely no gain.

It's not uncommon for a PD to take that tack, though. It comes
with the office.

I'm not a PD... although I have programmed on a few occasions. Most of my
career was as manager (and owner) and GSM.

Yeah, well, your memory of your past career seems to fluctuate wildly.

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

On Sep 7, 7:06 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message

...



Except for the minor fact that dxAss has fabricated a post.

Hogwash, Mr. Gleason, I fabricated nothing. Those are your own words.

You are merely nothing more than a sad little pathological SOB who will
lie at
the drop of a sombrero.

Were I to have worked at WFAB, which in the 60's was generally Miami's #1
radio station, I would have it in my resume. It would have been an honor.
The fact is, I have the visit down as an anecdote about my early experiences
in Spanish language radio.

BUSTED! You've painted yourself into a corner again, Tardo.

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

On Sep 7, 7:45 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message

...







David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

No, he's not, he's merely nothing more than a sad little pathological
SOB
who
will lie at the drop of a sombrero.

You can take that to the bank.

And, I invite him to prove me wrong. He can't do that.

You have never disproved anything I said. Take that to the bank.

BS. You are a pathological liar!

As usual, you substitute invective for fact.



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

At least his invective is genuine. You make your facts up on the fly.

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

On Sep 7, 7:45 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...



He does not understand the technical terms he uses either. He will not
answer a simple question on them.

I already gave you a definition of how field strength contours are employed
and how the FCC uses them.

Keep in mind that the FCC's principal technical function is that of
regulating interference. Field strength, calculated or measured, is the
metric the FCC uses to determine if there is interference potential in an
application for a new station or in a change application. We are not
interested in the nature or physics of propagation... we are interested in
HOW MUCH signal there is at specific points removed by specific distances
from an antenna or antenna system.

Further, radio stations use coverage maps to show advertisers where the
signal reaches. Such maps are labeled in mV/m for AM and dBu for FM; these
are the standard measurement units for the radio broadcast industry.

In either case, the data for the FCC or the contours on a coverage map when
based on the measured free space electromagnetic field using a standard or
calibrated antenna to determine the field strength of a station. In many
cases, the AM coverage areas are determined by calculations based on power,
antenna efficiency and ground conductivity to determine contours of specific
and desired intensity. In the FM service few stations ever do measurements
or even have the equipment to do it... it's all calculated and the FCC does
not require measured field strength readings, although stations may submit
measured field strength readings to prove a specific application is viable.

An AM station, when first licensed or when making a significant change in
facility, will do field strength readings on a number of points on a number
of radials at specific distances from the transmitter. A directional AM will
have more radials, as the monitor points must show actual measured field
strength in the nulls, which are there to protect other stations from
interference, must be measured to the sides and at the center of each null.
The location of the directional monitor points are, in fact, part of the
station license.

Did you overdose on your human growth hormone this morning? You seem
disoriented.

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...

You also don't seem to recall where you've worked in the past, or what
your job title is. Interesting.


I recall perfectly well... and the information has been on my website for
more than a decade. As to the job title, I know what it is, too... an
industry association got it wrong in a convention program, and dxAss want's
to make this appear as some kind of major discovery; I did a panel along
with the heads of programming of Clear Channel, Entercom, Radio One and
Cumulus for about 3,000 attendees, all of whom knew who I was. It's a matter
of public record.

You really need to stop parroting the posts of dxAss,, especially on
weekends and the days before and after, when it is apparent that he is in
his cups.

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

On Sep 7, 10:14 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

oups.com...



You also don't seem to recall where you've worked in the past, or what
your job title is. Interesting.

I recall perfectly well... and the information has been on my website for
more than a decade. As to the job title, I know what it is, too... an
industry association got it wrong in a convention program, and dxAss want's
to make this appear as some kind of major discovery; I did a panel along
with the heads of programming of Clear Channel, Entercom, Radio One and
Cumulus for about 3,000 attendees, all of whom knew who I was. It's a matter
of public record.

You really need to stop parroting the posts of dxAss,, especially on
weekends and the days before and after, when it is apparent that he is in
his cups.

Tardo is taking a dump again.

Somebody light a match.