On Sep 27, 10:55 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

ups.com...

But then were will Tardo sell his colloidal silver?

When will you actually contribute to a thread? Stephanie posted some
excellent observations, worthy of discussion and consideration. But you
respond with a hackneyed and not-very-funny comeback that has nothing to do
with her well reasoned post.

At least I don't lie about my education. And let's face it, 99% of the
threads you "contribute" to are off-topic. So, you see, you should
dismount your high horse.

"Stephanie Weil" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 27, 9:23 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:

This is why, then that major markets like Houston now have only 12% of
total
listening going to AM stations, and in 18-34, it is less than 5%? AM is
dead under 45, and dying as its remaining listeners age out of the
desirable
sales demos.

It's all got to do with content. Nobody's going to waste their time
listening to the snake oil and bible thumper drivel that dominates
over the large majority of AM stations. Why do:

A) These stations remain on the air, if practically nobody is
listening.

Either they make money or someone thinks they can make money.

B) Why are people paying for time on these things. Do they not know
any better?

The evangelists and preachers judge media by the amount they get in
donations; if the show pays for itself and allows the "word" to be spread,
they continue to buy time. Most want not just the time cost but some extra
money for their church, though.

I keep saying it's time for the paid-programming peanut whistles to go
off the air, and open the band up to mega-powered stations doing a
contemporary general interest talk formats, no matter what the
language (English, Spanish, Korean, etc.).

The dominant stations on the band were licensed for population centers and
city sizes that existed in the 1930's... the basic plan goes back to 1928.
Cities have outgrown all but a few AMs in every market.... sometimes all of
them in markets like DC. The whole system is out of date, and a huge
cleansing and reallocation would be needed. The AM band and its technology
are approaching 100 years of age; the delivery system is defective by
today's standards and the allocations are such that in the top 100 markets
only about 250 stations are even competitively viable.

Music may be dead on AM, but I have a gut feeling that properly
programmed talk shows could bring back some attractive demos and
revitalize the band quite a bit.

AM just doesn't exist in the minds of most under-35 listeners. And
experiments like Air America have shown that there is not a deep talent pool
of entertaining liberal talk hosts.

Get RID of the paid programming. All that is doing is damaging the
long-term survival of the band in return for quick immediate profits.

I don't think there is a valid model for the bad technical facilities other
than brokered time or religion.

On Sep 27, 9:50 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Stephanie Weil" wrote in message

ps.com...

On Sep 27, 9:23 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:

This is why, then that major markets like Houston now have only 12% of
total
listening going to AM stations, and in 18-34, it is less than 5%? AM is
dead under 45, and dying as its remaining listeners age out of the
desirable
sales demos.

It's all got to do with content. Nobody's going to waste their time
listening to the snake oil and bible thumper drivel that dominates
over the large majority of AM stations. Why do:

A) These stations remain on the air, if practically nobody is
listening.

Either they make money or someone thinks they can make money.

B) Why are people paying for time on these things. Do they not know
any better?

The evangelists and preachers judge media by the amount they get in
donations; if the show pays for itself and allows the "word" to be spread,
they continue to buy time. Most want not just the time cost but some extra
money for their church, though.

AMEN!!!!!1



I keep saying it's time for the paid-programming peanut whistles to go
off the air, and open the band up to mega-powered stations doing a
contemporary general interest talk formats, no matter what the
language (English, Spanish, Korean, etc.).

The dominant stations on the band were licensed for population centers and
city sizes that existed in the 1930's... the basic plan goes back to 1928.
Cities have outgrown all but a few AMs in every market.... sometimes all of
them in markets like DC. The whole system is out of date, and a huge
cleansing and reallocation would be needed. The AM band and its technology
are approaching 100 years of age; the delivery system is defective by
today's standards and the allocations are such that in the top 100 markets
only about 250 stations are even competitively viable.

Music may be dead on AM, but I have a gut feeling that properly
programmed talk shows could bring back some attractive demos and
revitalize the band quite a bit.

AM just doesn't exist in the minds of most under-35 listeners. And
experiments like Air America have shown that there is not a deep talent pool
of entertaining liberal talk hosts.



Get RID of the paid programming. All that is doing is damaging the
long-term survival of the band in return for quick immediate profits.

I don't think there is a valid model for the bad technical facilities other
than brokered time or religion.

On Sep 27, 7:50 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Stephanie Weil" wrote in message

ps.com...

On Sep 27, 9:23 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:

This is why, then that major markets like Houston now have only 12% of
total
listening going to AM stations, and in 18-34, it is less than 5%? AM is
dead under 45, and dying as its remaining listeners age out of the
desirable
sales demos.

It's all got to do with content. Nobody's going to waste their time
listening to the snake oil and bible thumper drivel that dominates
over the large majority of AM stations. Why do:

A) These stations remain on the air, if practically nobody is
listening.

Either they make money or someone thinks they can make money.

B) Why are people paying for time on these things. Do they not know
any better?

The evangelists and preachers judge media by the amount they get in
donations; if the show pays for itself and allows the "word" to be spread,
they continue to buy time. Most want not just the time cost but some extra
money for their church, though.



I keep saying it's time for the paid-programming peanut whistles to go
off the air, and open the band up to mega-powered stations doing a
contemporary general interest talk formats, no matter what the
language (English, Spanish, Korean, etc.).

The dominant stations on the band were licensed for population centers and
city sizes that existed in the 1930's... the basic plan goes back to 1928.
Cities have outgrown all but a few AMs in every market.... sometimes all of
them in markets like DC. The whole system is out of date, and a huge
cleansing and reallocation would be needed. The AM band and its technology
are approaching 100 years of age; the delivery system is defective by
today's standards and the allocations are such that in the top 100 markets
only about 250 stations are even competitively viable.

Music may be dead on AM, but I have a gut feeling that properly
programmed talk shows could bring back some attractive demos and
revitalize the band quite a bit.

AM just doesn't exist in the minds of most under-35 listeners.

- And experiments like Air America have shown that there
- is not a deep talent pool of entertaining liberal talk hosts.

There is a Deep Cess-Pool of Non-Entertaining Liberal Talk Hosts [.]

The PBS and NPR TV-Radio Networks and Public Radio Stations
put forward more Hours of Liberal Talk Radio {Taxpayer Paid
Info-Mercials} then all the Commercial Radio Stations combined
put forward the Conservative Talk Radio Shows.

~ RHF

On Sep 27, 10:50 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:

And why should we believe anything you say, given your history of
deception and evasion in this group. You have the credibility of a 14
year old's myspace page.

On Sep 27, 9:01 am, Stephanie Weil wrote:
On Sep 27, 9:23 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:

This is why, then that major markets like Houston now have only 12% of total
listening going to AM stations, and in 18-34, it is less than 5%? AM is
dead under 45, and dying as its remaining listeners age out of the desirable
sales demos.

It's all got to do with content. Nobody's going to waste their time
listening to the snake oil and bible thumper drivel that dominates
over the large majority of AM stations. Why do:

A) These stations remain on the air, if practically nobody is
listening.

B) Why are people paying for time on these things. Do they not know
any better?

I keep saying it's time for the paid-programming peanut whistles to go
off the air, and open the band up to mega-powered stations doing a
contemporary general interest talk formats, no matter what the
language (English, Spanish, Korean, etc.).

Sports talk, when done locally and done well (see WFAN if you want to
know how it's done) is a good revenue getter in the "proper"
demographics.

Stop targeting news/talk stations exclusively to right wingers or left
wingers. Just make them compelling listening for EVERYONE across the
political spectrum. Emphasize LOCAL talk. People want to discuss
stuff that's going on in their own cities and talk radio is an
excellent forum for that. Especially big cities like New York, Dallas
or even Denver have plenty of material for people to talk about on
the air.

Music may be dead on AM, but I have a gut feeling that properly
programmed talk shows could bring back some attractive demos and
revitalize the band quite a bit.

Get RID of the paid programming. All that is doing is damaging the
long-term survival of the band in return for quick immediate profits.

Stephanie Weil
New York City, USA

EXCEPT THAT Paid - Programming brings in a lot of money to the people
paying for the programming. Religious organizatoins garner large sums
from their listeners. And that's who the programming targets - their
specific listeners. So, paid programming is an easy way for stations
to make money, plus the people paying for the programming are reaching
the audience they want because that's who listens to their program in
the first place. BUT that means that only certain people will listen
to a station at certian times. It doesn't build station loyalty or
help the other advertisers in other time slots. It does, however,
bring in revenue for the station, and for the paid programmers.

On Sep 27, 10:36 am, "
wrote:
On Sep 27, 9:01 am, Stephanie Weil wrote:





On Sep 27, 9:23 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:

This is why, then that major markets like Houston now have only 12% of total
listening going to AM stations, and in 18-34, it is less than 5%? AM is
dead under 45, and dying as its remaining listeners age out of the desirable
sales demos.

It's all got to do with content. Nobody's going to waste their time
listening to the snake oil and bible thumper drivel that dominates
over the large majority of AM stations. Why do:

A) These stations remain on the air, if practically nobody is
listening.

B) Why are people paying for time on these things. Do they not know
any better?

I keep saying it's time for the paid-programming peanut whistles to go
off the air, and open the band up to mega-powered stations doing a
contemporary general interest talk formats, no matter what the
language (English, Spanish, Korean, etc.).

Sports talk, when done locally and done well (see WFAN if you want to
know how it's done) is a good revenue getter in the "proper"
demographics.

Stop targeting news/talk stations exclusively to right wingers or left
wingers. Just make them compelling listening for EVERYONE across the
political spectrum. Emphasize LOCAL talk. People want to discuss
stuff that's going on in their own cities and talk radio is an
excellent forum for that. Especially big cities like New York, Dallas
or even Denver have plenty of material for people to talk about on
the air.

Music may be dead on AM, but I have a gut feeling that properly
programmed talk shows could bring back some attractive demos and
revitalize the band quite a bit.

Get RID of the paid programming. All that is doing is damaging the
long-term survival of the band in return for quick immediate profits.

Stephanie Weil
New York City, USA

EXCEPT THAT Paid - Programming brings in a lot of money to the people
paying for the programming. Religious organizatoins garner large sums
from their listeners. And that's who the programming targets - their
specific listeners. So, paid programming is an easy way for stations
to make money, plus the people paying for the programming are reaching
the audience they want because that's who listens to their program in
the first place. BUT that means that only certain people will listen
to a station at certian times. It doesn't build station loyalty or
help the other advertisers in other time slots. It does, however,
bring in revenue for the station, and for the paid programmers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

An lets not forget all those Vitamin and Herb {Nutrition}
Health and Wellness Paid Programming Radio Shows.
Half-Hour and One-Hour Non-Stop "Info-Mercials".

I like to watch Mrs.Bucket on the PMS Pre Men Strual tv channel on
Sunday evenings.
cuhulin