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.

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
news
"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.

In each market area, all listening to any radio station is recorded by
listeners as is the instruction in the Arbitron diary. Commercial or
non-commercial, local or not, internet or off air, satellite or terrestrial.
All is recorded and processed. If there is any significant listening to out
of market stations it is recorded.

There are a couple of hundred stations that get out of market listening in
the US. Most are FMs, and the listening is in geographically adjacent or
embedded markets.

In the San Francisco market, San Jose is part of the total metro. But there
is also a separate San Jose rating, taken from the sample done in one county
only, so the SF stations show up in the San Jose Book. Similarly, Riverside
/San Berdoo are adjacent to LA, but not in the LA radio market (they are in
the TV market and thus in the DMA) and LA stations get about half the
listening in that market's ratings. But there is no market anymore where
skywave listening to AM consistently if ever "makes the book." The last
cases were the usage of KGO at night in Oregon.... but that does not happen
any more.

But if WWL has listening in Seattle, WWL will show up in the Seattle
ratings.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...
In each market area, all listening to any radio station is recorded by
listeners as is the instruction in the Arbitron diary. Commercial or
non-commercial, local or not, internet or off air, satellite or
terrestrial. All is recorded and processed. If there is any significant
listening to out of market stations it is recorded.

WRONG. Arbitron does NOT log "ALL LISTENING". They log a small percentage
of listening, and profess to know what all the rest are doing based upon
that. Statistics are crap. They are not, and really can never be, accurate.
They are mathematical sleight of hand. Smoke and mirrors. I doubt there is
any real scientific foundation for them at all, since it's highly unlikely
that anyone did a small sample, then went to six million people and asked
each of them the same questions to verify the numbers.

Brenda Ann wrote:
"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...
In each market area, all listening to any radio station is recorded by
listeners as is the instruction in the Arbitron diary. Commercial or
non-commercial, local or not, internet or off air, satellite or
terrestrial. All is recorded and processed. If there is any significant
listening to out of market stations it is recorded.

WRONG. Arbitron does NOT log "ALL LISTENING". They log a small
percentage of listening, and profess to know what all the rest are doing


Yes. Same way that TV Nielsen Ratings work. Statistics science has
shown you don't need to record everybody..... you can record a small
sample & still get an accurate result of how the group as a whole
thinks.

While it's true such a process won't record any amount below ~0.1
percent of the group, let's face it.... nobody cares about such small
tiny insignificant numbers.

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...
In each market area, all listening to any radio station is recorded by
listeners as is the instruction in the Arbitron diary. Commercial or
non-commercial, local or not, internet or off air, satellite or
terrestrial. All is recorded and processed. If there is any significant
listening to out of market stations it is recorded.



WRONG. Arbitron does NOT log "ALL LISTENING". They log a small percentage
of listening, and profess to know what all the rest are doing based upon
that.

You know what I meant: the Arbiytron diarykeeper logs all listening and all
that listening is processed.

Statistics are crap. They are not, and really can never be, accurate.

They are accurate within a margin of error that is easily calculated, and is
small enough for advertisers to spend $21 billion on radio this year.

Statistics is a science, and it has the unique quality that "error" is not a
dirty word. Speaking of samples, when you last had a blood test, did they
take all your blood, or just a small percentage? They took a sample, as they
know that it would faithfully represent all the rest of your blood. This is
exactly what a good poll does; a good sample can be tested, as Arbitron has
done, by a replication study where the same thing is done twice to see if
the reuslts are the same... and they are.

They are mathematical sleight of hand. Smoke and mirrors. I doubt there is
any real scientific foundation for them at all, since it's highly unlikely
that anyone did a small sample, then went to six million people and asked
each of them the same questions to verify the numbers.

That is not how you test a poll. It is done by a replication study. You do a
sample, then repeat it. If you get identical results, the sample size and
procedure is valid.

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