David "Even though it's a holiday, I'm gonna shill as though it were a regular
workday. I've no choice since I got into this 'Eduardo' bag", wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 3, 12:44 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

ps.com...



Sounds like you've finally matured a bit and now see the merits of FM
and the folly of HD-AM. Congratulations.

Quite the contrary. It has been known by broadcasters for some time that
there is no way to get any significant number of listeners under 55 to
tune
to AM, and the average age of AM listeners is increasing each year as a
consequence.

Some AMs have moved to FM. Others are simulcasting. Others have no FM to
move to, and are slowly losing revenue.

Those AMs have, perhaps, some chance to survive via HD. Otherwise, AM
will
be pretty much a thing of the past and only relevant or viable for very
niche formats or in some rural areas where there are no local FMs. Of
course, this is not an immediate do or die type thing; HD can develop
over
the next few years and AMs can attempt to restore some interest among
under-55s via the improved quality.

Lol. You are such a throw back. You will never lure young people away
their iPods, their cellphones and their myspace pages. I suggest you
quickly return your head to it's usual, sandy resting place. You're
fighting a battle that was lost twenty years ago.


In the case of AM news and talk programming, the potential audience is
almost entirely 35 and over; AM is losing the 35-50 year olds due to the
dreadful sound quality, ambient noise levels in big cities, directional AMs
that "go away" at night in many parts of metros, etc.

These listeners will use the news and talk formats if delivered in a better
quality... FM or HD.

As to youth, 96% of 12-24 year olds use radio. Less than before? Yes. But
radio is still a very viable means to reach young adult demographics.

Frackeltonian Thinking, yet again.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


As to youth, 96% of 12-24 year olds use radio. Less than before? Yes. But
radio is still a very viable means to reach young adult demographics.

Frackeltonian Thinking, yet again.


Nope, not any single person's thinking. It is the data from Arbitron in the
first two People Metered markets.

"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on
Mon, 3 Sep 2007 10:36:32 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin

Nope, not any single person's thinking. It is the data from Arbitron in
the
first two People Metered markets.

How can you be sure that Arbitron or Neil son or whomever,
actually does a survey, and how many respondents really are there,
and is their claimed demographic true or just wishful thinking?
That's the level of unsubstantiated faith
that packs 'em into the god houses every sunday
and drains their wallets.

Unlike communication with God, Arbitron and Nielsen are audited by a
committee of researchers and statisticians named by the advertising industry
which has a vested interest in the outcome of ratings. The methodology has
to be extensively proven (6 years of field tests for the People Meter) to
get approval, and every year an extensive audit of the sample,
themethodology and the processing is done.

For the diary-based survey, all subscribers can actually see the completed
diaries for each market and check every page. This has been true for 4
decades, and Arbitron has a suite of 10 offices where one can perform as
many checks as they want.

The fact that nobody in the ad business questions the surveys would indicate
that each person has satisfied all these "conspiracy" questions long ago.

"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on
Mon, 3 Sep 2007 11:52:30 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin

Unlike communication with God, Arbitron and Nielsen are audited by a
committee of researchers and statisticians named by the advertising
industry
which has a vested interest in the outcome of ratings.

So they get the results they want or they don't pay?

No, the agencies don't pay to begin with. Radio pays, as it is a sales tool.

That circular logic is like vodoun, only works if you believe it,
and even then failures are just written off as 'not enough faith'.

You don't understand the purpose of ratings. It is to sell advertising by
providing a metric. Radio or TV provide ratings, newspapers and magazines
provide audited circulation. This data is given to advertisers to facilitate
the evaluation of the media.

"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on
Mon, 3 Sep 2007 12:25:13 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin

You don't understand the purpose of ratings. It is to sell advertising by
providing a metric. Radio or TV provide ratings, newspapers and magazines
provide audited circulation. This data is given to advertisers to
facilitate
the evaluation of the media.

The very data accumulated by organizations subsidized by those with a
vested interest in certain results, you even admitted as much without
realizing that your emperor is buck nekid.

And, as I said before, the data, the methodology and the tabulations are
audited each year by a team of researchers named by the Media Research
Council, formed by the advertisers and agencies that use media research such
as Nielsen and Arbitron.

On Sep 4, 12:20 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Bart Bailey" wrote in message

...

In posted on
Mon, 3 Sep 2007 12:25:13 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin

You don't understand the purpose of ratings. It is to sell advertising by
providing a metric. Radio or TV provide ratings, newspapers and magazines
provide audited circulation. This data is given to advertisers to
facilitate
the evaluation of the media.

The very data accumulated by organizations subsidized by those with a
vested interest in certain results, you even admitted as much without
realizing that your emperor is buck nekid.

And, as I said before, the data, the methodology and the tabulations are
audited each year by a team of researchers named by the Media Research
Council, formed by the advertisers and agencies that use media research such
as Nielsen and Arbitron.

AM cannot continue as it has in the past. You had better face the
facts.