David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...
"David Eduardo" wrote in message
t...
Why should formats that are not stations now be added as additional HD
channels. Where is the logic in that?
Because many formats are excluded because, with the finite number of
FMs in any market, there is not room for the second tier of formats.
With HD 2 channels, there is.
Now, now, Eduardo... you know full well that the reason that a given
format is not available in a given market is because it's just not
profitable to program it.
That is absolutely untrue.

There are many profitable formats that could be done that are not being
done because there are even more profitable formats that "use up" all the
available FM channels in the market.

Now, weren't you the one that said that before consolidation, 50% of
all stations were not profitable?

Yes, most are the dogs that can not be profitable. A B or C FM in a rated
market has a tough time losing money.... a daytimer has a tough time making
any, and most metro AMs are not profitable.

The bulk of brake even stations are small market ones.... the owner gets a
salary, but no return on the investment. the station is guaranteed lifetime
employment, unless it is an AM, in which case it should be good for 5 or 6
years still.
Since there is only a 100 share in ratings and revenue, how does
doubling, or even trebling the number of channels in a market, even under
consolidation, make these additional number of channels profitable?

Most radio operators know that unless we offer the variety of more formats,
many people will leave radio or use it less. In this case, we talk
ratings... if we want to preserve the same rating base, called Persons Using
Radio, we have to keep the erosion down. Markets are highly fragmented
already; in Houston's PPM the difference between #1 and #15 is 0.2 ratings
points. So some additional fragmenting in the family is better than losing
listeners who want a specific format and can't get it on terrestrial radio.



You can't have it both ways, David. You can't insist that Radio is
healthier than ever, and then claim your worry is about the success of
terrestrial radio against alternatives.

You can't have it both ways, David. You can't claim that there are
too many signals to be profitable, and then solve the problem with more
options.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Like I said, now you really DO sound like a shill.

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

You can't have it both ways, David. You can't insist that Radio is
healthier than ever, and then claim your worry is about the success of
terrestrial radio against alternatives.

But I do not claim that. Radio is in slow revenue growth mode, and this year
may be no-growth (although due to automotive and mortgage / housing crisis
situations) so it is critical to keep the existing audience base, which the
PPPM shows to be a 96% reach of all 6+ Americans.

You can't have it both ways, David. You can't claim that there are too
many signals to be profitable, and then solve the problem with more
options.

It is rational to offer more formats on the good facilities via HD2,
although the losers will be the rimshots and AMs. This will allow the
listeners to pick free, terrestrial radio with more options.

It's the same reason stores open branches... when I have to drive 15 miles
to Bed Bath and Beyond, I pick the Linens and Things that is 3 miles away,
but if there is a new BBB at equal distance, I will remain loyal to that
chain. The total market sales of BBB will be divided, but they keep my
dollars...

On Sep 30, 1:43 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in ...

David Eduardo wrote:

You can't have it both ways, David. You can't insist that Radio is
healthier than ever, and then claim your worry is about the success of
terrestrial radio against alternatives.

But I do not claim that. Radio is in slow revenue growth mode, and this year
may be no-growth (although due to automotive and mortgage / housing crisis
situations) so it is critical to keep the existing audience base, which the
PPPM shows to be a 96% reach of all 6+ Americans.

No, radio isn't in slow growth mode. You're just in talk trash mode.




You can't have it both ways, David. You can't claim that there are too
many signals to be profitable, and then solve the problem with more
options.

It is rational to offer more formats on the good facilities via HD2,
although the losers will be the rimshots and AMs. This will allow the
listeners to pick free, terrestrial radio with more options.

It's the same reason stores open branches... when I have to drive 15 miles
to Bed Bath and Beyond, I pick the Linens and Things that is 3 miles away,
but if there is a new BBB at equal distance, I will remain loyal to that
chain. The total market sales of BBB will be divided, but they keep my
dollars...

Good luck stopping the internet, Don Quixote.

Steve wrote:
On Sep 30, 1:43 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in ...

David Eduardo wrote:

You can't have it both ways, David. You can't insist that Radio is
healthier than ever, and then claim your worry is about the success of
terrestrial radio against alternatives.

But I do not claim that. Radio is in slow revenue growth mode, and this year
may be no-growth (although due to automotive and mortgage / housing crisis
situations) so it is critical to keep the existing audience base, which the
PPPM shows to be a 96% reach of all 6+ Americans.

No, radio isn't in slow growth mode. You're just in talk trash mode.


I sense a lot of animosity against Eduardo, but I think he has a valid
point about the viability of multiple formats. The Baltimore AOR
station has added sub-channels for Classic Rock and Indie Rock, which
is just great for fans of the "rock" genre. Now they can hear music
that they might otherwise not be able to hear. They have more choice.

I know.

You're going to say, "But it's not profitable". Okay well apparently
the station manager disagree with you (which is why he's now
programming 3 channels for his station). BUT even if we assume you're
correct and it's not profitable..... so what?

A station can just as easily broadcast *1* channel at high-quality 300
kbps.

The HD Radio standard is flexible.

On Sep 30, 11:23 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
Steve wrote:
On Sep 30, 1:43 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in ...

David Eduardo wrote:

You can't have it both ways, David. You can't insist that Radio is
healthier than ever, and then claim your worry is about the success of
terrestrial radio against alternatives.

But I do not claim that. Radio is in slow revenue growth mode, and this year
may be no-growth (although due to automotive and mortgage / housing crisis
situations) so it is critical to keep the existing audience base, which the
PPPM shows to be a 96% reach of all 6+ Americans.

No, radio isn't in slow growth mode. You're just in talk trash mode.

I sense a lot of animosity against Eduardo, but I think he has a valid
point about the viability of multiple formats. The Baltimore AOR
station has added sub-channels for Classic Rock and Indie Rock, which
is just great for fans of the "rock" genre. Now they can hear music
that they might otherwise not be able to hear. They have more choice.

I know.

You're going to say, "But it's not profitable". Okay well apparently
the station manager disagree with you (which is why he's now
programming 3 channels for his station). BUT even if we assume you're
correct and it's not profitable..... so what?

A station can just as easily broadcast *1* channel at high-quality 300
kbps.

The HD Radio standard is flexible.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Three channels? Have you ever looked into what's available on the
internet. This isn't 1950 anymore.

In article . com,
SFTV_troy wrote:

Steve wrote:
On Sep 30, 1:43 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in
...

David Eduardo wrote:

You can't have it both ways, David. You can't insist that
Radio is
healthier than ever, and then claim your worry is about the
success of terrestrial radio against alternatives.

But I do not claim that. Radio is in slow revenue growth mode,
and this year may be no-growth (although due to automotive and
mortgage / housing crisis situations) so it is critical to keep
the existing audience base, which the PPPM shows to be a 96%
reach of all 6+ Americans.

No, radio isn't in slow growth mode. You're just in talk trash
mode.


I sense a lot of animosity against Eduardo, but I think he has a
valid point about

Snip

This is the guy that tells me what my reception is like based on
marketing statistics. This is the guy that calls me a lier when I post
about what I can hear, what programming I listen too, and that in any
even I'm not relevant to his work or life. This in a news group about
radio listening local or distant. The guy is a joke and is the only one
that does not realize it.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

This is the guy that tells me what my reception is like based on
marketing statistics.

You certainly twist things at your convenience. I have said many times that
radio is not interested in reception outside the primary market. Strike one.
Radio stations get essentially no listening outside, in the case of AMs, the
10 mvm contour... proven by looking at the behaviour of millions of diary
keeping listeners over the last decade or so. Strike 2. And reception can be
considered listenable only if many people listen to a station in an area.
Strike 3.

You listen to stations most people, if not all, in your area, consider
unlistenable, and they tell us this by the failure of the stations you have
metioned to show up with even minimal listening in your area.

This is the guy that calls me a lier when I post
about what I can hear,

You still do not get the difference between hearable and listenable.

what programming I listen too,

While it appears, from the fact you care about AM, that you like news talk,
I have not made any observation on your choice of that programming. Keep in
mind that news talk is migrating to FM in many places already, due to
demographic concerns.

and that in any
even I'm not relevant to his work or life.

No, yoiu are not. You have such strange listening patterns and choices
nobody can appeal to you. The out of market stations can not derive revenue
from you, as there is no out of market sales. You don't benefit the in
market stations, as you do not use them. Useless, then, to terrestrial
radio.

This in a news group about
radio listening local or distant. The guy is a joke and is the only one
that does not realize it.

The real joke is on the couple of guys like you who don't realize that they
are contributing to the end of AM.

"David Eduardo" wrote:


You listen to stations most people, if not all, in your area, consider
unlistenable, and they tell us this by the failure of the stations you have
metioned to show up with even minimal listening in your area.



He doesn't listen because Aribtron says they don't listen because
Arbitron doesn't count out of market listeners because they don't
listen.

Nice.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

This is the guy that tells me what my reception is like based on
marketing statistics.

You certainly twist things at your convenience. I have said many times that
radio is not interested in reception outside the primary market. Strike one.
Radio stations get essentially no listening outside, in the case of AMs, the
10 mvm contour... proven by looking at the behaviour of millions of diary
keeping listeners over the last decade or so. Strike 2. And reception can be
considered listenable only if many people listen to a station in an area.
Strike 3.

You listen to stations most people, if not all, in your area, consider
unlistenable, and they tell us this by the failure of the stations you have
metioned to show up with even minimal listening in your area.

More baloney from the master fabricator.

This is the guy that calls me a lier when I post
about what I can hear,

You still do not get the difference between hearable and listenable.

You still don't know the difference between some screw up ideas in your
head and reality.

what programming I listen too,

While it appears, from the fact you care about AM, that you like news talk,
I have not made any observation on your choice of that programming. Keep in
mind that news talk is migrating to FM in many places already, due to
demographic concerns.

Well that's just great. That means my reception will get worse than it
is now.

and that in any
even I'm not relevant to his work or life.

No, yoiu are not. You have such strange listening patterns and choices
nobody can appeal to you. The out of market stations can not derive revenue
from you, as there is no out of market sales. You don't benefit the in
market stations, as you do not use them. Useless, then, to terrestrial
radio.

This in a news group about
radio listening local or distant. The guy is a joke and is the only one
that does not realize it.

The real joke is on the couple of guys like you who don't realize that they
are contributing to the end of AM.

Well here is a news flash for you. The HD you promote is doing just that.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
t...

You still do not get the difference between hearable and listenable.


No, I believe the issue is that YOU don't seem to understand that there are
clear, listenable signals beyond your precious 10mV/m contours. Perhaps the
issue is that once you get outside of those contours, there are fewer
people, fewer homes, fewer sources of interference, and therefore, clearer
reception. Please do not tell people what is listenable, because YOU DO NOT
KNOW! PERIOD! Until you go to someone's home or office, and actually LISTEN
to what they are listening to, you are in no position whatsoever to tell
them what they can and cannot listen to. Even then, it becomes a subjective
matter. As it stands, your stats are BS, pure and simple.