RHF wrote:


Like a Bull Services a Cow - d'Edurado Believes That
Radio Stations {Media Corportations} Have The Right
To Service The Public's Ears -and- Get Paid For It !

wass ~ RHF
.




No, it's a lot more self centered than that. Radio believes that it
has an entitlement to generate wealth by exploiting the public under a
smoke screen of circular, semi statistical arguments.

What Radio claims,...and I can speak with some clarity, here, having
been involved in the process for a good chunk of my career, even up to
this last spring,...is that what it does is dicated to by the public,
based on focus groups, perceptual research, and music tests in front of
listeners. And that advertisers and listeners respond positively.
What Radio doesn't tell you, is that the focus groups are highly
selected from 'desirable' listeners, as defined by advertiser
requirements and expectations, and those focus groups of highly selected
'desirable' listeners, go on to form, or define, the essential language
used in perceptuals that are used in determining the formatics,
playlists and production elements of the radio station to serve the
'desirable' listener.

Music tests, themselves are comprised of highly selected listeners
to respond to songs, for the purpose of determining playlists to serve
'desirable' listeners.

It's a closed loop. Created to meet the needs of advertisers first.
And then attract the advertisers 'desirable' listeners to the radio
station.

Formats are specifically chosen to meet an advertiser's need.

Nowhere in the process, is the concept of 'serving in the pubic
interest' apparent. Even ascertainment, at most of the stations I've
been involved with, has been done with a closed loop.

So, Roy, it's a lot more than just a Radio believing it has the
right to be paid for it's product. It's more like Radio believing the
public exists to serve Radio and Advertising. And to select what will be
and will not be acceptable for it's listeners, by manipulating its own
research.


Jim Collins, in "Good to Great" said the hallmark of good research
is that it produces something that you don't expect. The hallmark of
GREAT research is that it gives you something you don't like.

Radio has neither been surprised, nor disappointed, with its
research, since John Sebastian ruined KHJ.

Listen to how David Gleason presents his case...all based on numbers
that are highly selected, and highly interpreted. Numbers, which
themselves are based on responses of individuals that are highly selected.

Closed loop.

He hears nothing but what he wants to hear, and he responds with
canned statistical noise resulting from his closed loop research. Waht's
interesting, is if you watch, when he gets asked for something specific,
for which a canned semi-statistical response won't work, he just stops
participating in the discussion.

You can't get through to him.

Nor does he recognize when he's contradicted himself, and made your
own point for you.

Which is kind of amusing. Because where Radio has dared to open the
loop, risks have been high, but successes have been huge.