|
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected to serve beyond
their groundwave contours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Oct 1, 9:20 am, David wrote:
Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected to serve beyond their groundwave contours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel It doesn't say that. It says: "In 1980, the FCC voted to limit the protection for the twenty-five clear channel stations to a 750 mile radius around the transmitter." It says NOTHING about clearchannels *having* to send out that far. |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Oct 1, 7:20 am, David wrote:
- - Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected - to serve beyond their groundwave contours. - - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel 1 OCT 2007 2 AM PDT - Twain Harte, CA -USA- http://www.ac6v.com/clearam.htm KMJ 580 kHz - Fresno, CA @ S9+20dB KFI 640 kHz - Los Angeles, CA @ S9+20dB KTNN 660 kHz - Window Rock, AZ @ S9+10dB KNBR 680 kHz - San Francisco, CA @ S9+30dB XETRA 690 kHz - Tijuana, BNC @ S9+10dB KCBS 740 kHz - San Francisco, CA @ S9+40dB KKOH 780 kHz - Reno, NV @ S9+20dB KGO 810 kHz - San Francisco, CA @ S9+10dB 850 KOA 850 kHz - Denver, CO @ S9+10dB KOMO 1000 kHz - Seattle, WA @ S9+20dB KNX 1070 kHz - Los Angeles, CA @ S9+10dB KFAX 1100 kHz - San Francisco, CA @ S9+20dB KSL 1160 kHz - Salt Lake City, UT @ S9+20dB KEX 1190 kHz - Portland, OR @ S9+10dB KFBK 1530 kHz Sacramento, CA @ S9+30dB Note - "Radio Locator: gives the Day and Night Coverage Maps for most of these AM/MW Radio Stations. http://www.radio-locator.com/ More AM/MW and FM Radio Information -Sources- * Mondo Times™ - The Worldwide Media Guide http://www.mondotimes.com/ * RadioTime™ the RadioGuide™ http://radiotime.com/about-us.aspx * Find Radio™ Stations http://www.findradio.us/ RHF's Radio Shack in Twain Harte, California -USA- SHACK INFO = http://tinyurl.com/2skmxm Shortwave Radio / Receiver and SWL Antenna Info . enjoy listening to your radios ~ RHF . |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Oct 1, 10:21 am, wrote:
On Oct 1, 9:20 am, David wrote: Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected to serve beyond their groundwave contours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel It doesn't say that. It says: "In 1980, the FCC voted to limit the protection for the twenty-five clear channel stations to a 750 mile radius around the transmitter." It says NOTHING about clearchannels *having* to send out that far. Do you have a life? |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 09:46:53 -0700, IBOCcrock
wrote: On Oct 1, 10:21 am, wrote: On Oct 1, 9:20 am, David wrote: Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected to serve beyond their groundwave contours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel It doesn't say that. It says: "In 1980, the FCC voted to limit the protection for the twenty-five clear channel stations to a 750 mile radius around the transmitter." It says NOTHING about clearchannels *having* to send out that far. Do you have a life? it would seem he does why do you ask? "one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress" adams woger you are a Congress all in your own head http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/ and get ou the newly recovered KB9RQZ.blogspot.com as well G -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Oct 1, 9:46 am, IBOCcrock wrote:
On Oct 1, 10:21 am, wrote: On Oct 1, 9:20 am, David wrote: Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected to serve beyond their groundwave contours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel It doesn't say that. It says: "In 1980, the FCC voted to limit the protection for the twenty-five clear channel stations to a 750 mile radius around the transmitter." It says NOTHING about clearchannels *having* to send out that far. - Do you have a life? SFTV is our new 'superhero' "Hybrid Digital" Man. ~ RHF |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
-- William Smith Indiana IC-746, FRG-100 1500 foot longwire "IBOCcrock" wrote in message ups.com... On Oct 1, 10:21 am, wrote: On Oct 1, 9:20 am, David wrote: Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected to serve beyond their groundwave contours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel It doesn't say that. It says: "In 1980, the FCC voted to limit the protection for the twenty-five clear channel stations to a 750 mile radius around the transmitter." It says NOTHING about clearchannels *having* to send out that far. Do you have a life? Doubtful that he does, I hope he enjoys his over priced ****ty HD Radio |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
"David" wrote in message ... On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 06:20:01 -0800, David wrote: Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected to serve beyond their groundwave contours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel Dwardo has no comment on this? I don't have enough lives to correct everything I find wrong with Wikipedia. |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
"David" wrote in message ... On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 06:20:01 -0800, David wrote: Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected to serve beyond their groundwave contours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel Dwardo has no comment on this? There is nothing in part 73 of the rules about different service requirements for clear channel stations, In fact, they must conform to local ascertainment and interests requirements just like a 1 kw graveyarder. The article is very wrong on a number of things: many of the cities of license are wrong, like XEEP and XEB, for example (Both Mexico, DF, Mexico) and Clear Channel, the company, was not formed to buy a clear channel station... that was a later acquisition, and the com´pany then changed name to match it... the first one was an FM, in fact. They only bought WOAI when they had the money to take on the losses of WOAI, which was in dire straits then. |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
"David" wrote in message ... On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 07:21:54 -0700, wrote: On Oct 1, 9:20 am, David wrote: Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected to serve beyond their groundwave contours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel It doesn't say that. It says: "In 1980, the FCC voted to limit the protection for the twenty-five clear channel stations to a 750 mile radius around the transmitter." It says NOTHING about clearchannels *having* to send out that far. That's exactly what it says. And it calls it secondary SERVICE. That is the opposite of ignoring because they can't be monetized. The service defined here is referent to signal, not programming. There is no requirement to serve skywave listeners, or listeners in a secondary contour, however it is defined. |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 08:14:55 -0700, RHF
wrote: On Oct 1, 7:20 am, David wrote: - - Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected - to serve beyond their groundwave contours. - - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel 1 OCT 2007 2 AM PDT - Twain Harte, CA -USA- http://www.ac6v.com/clearam.htm KMJ 580 kHz - Fresno, CA @ S9+20dB KFI 640 kHz - Los Angeles, CA @ S9+20dB KTNN 660 kHz - Window Rock, AZ @ S9+10dB KNBR 680 kHz - San Francisco, CA @ S9+30dB XETRA 690 kHz - Tijuana, BNC @ S9+10dB KCBS 740 kHz - San Francisco, CA @ S9+40dB KKOH 780 kHz - Reno, NV @ S9+20dB KGO 810 kHz - San Francisco, CA @ S9+10dB 850 KOA 850 kHz - Denver, CO @ S9+10dB KOMO 1000 kHz - Seattle, WA @ S9+20dB KNX 1070 kHz - Los Angeles, CA @ S9+10dB KFAX 1100 kHz - San Francisco, CA @ S9+20dB KSL 1160 kHz - Salt Lake City, UT @ S9+20dB KEX 1190 kHz - Portland, OR @ S9+10dB KFBK 1530 kHz Sacramento, CA @ S9+30dB Note - "Radio Locator: gives the Day and Night Coverage Maps for most of these AM/MW Radio Stations. http://www.radio-locator.com/ More AM/MW and FM Radio Information -Sources- * Mondo Times™ - The Worldwide Media Guide http://www.mondotimes.com/ * RadioTime™ the RadioGuide™ http://radiotime.com/about-us.aspx * Find Radio™ Stations http://www.findradio.us/ RHF's Radio Shack in Twain Harte, California -USA- SHACK INFO = http://tinyurl.com/2skmxm Shortwave Radio / Receiver and SWL Antenna Info . enjoy listening to your radios ~ RHF . No 770 KKOB? |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 06:20:01 -0800, David wrote:
Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected to serve beyond their groundwave contours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel Dwardo has no comment on this? |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
David Eduardo wrote: "David" wrote in message ... On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 06:20:01 -0800, David wrote: Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected to serve beyond their groundwave contours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel Dwardo has no comment on this? I don't have enough lives to correct everything I find wrong with Wikipedia. Oh come on now. You can make them up, like you do with a whole host of other things. |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:04:32 -0700, "David Eduardo"
wrote: The service defined here is referent to signal, not programming. There is no requirement to serve skywave listeners, or listeners in a secondary contour, however it is defined. That is convoluted. No service is provided by a dead carrier. |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
"David" wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:04:32 -0700, "David Eduardo" wrote: The service defined here is referent to signal, not programming. There is no requirement to serve skywave listeners, or listeners in a secondary contour, however it is defined. That is convoluted. No service is provided by a dead carrier. A "service area" is a place where a signal is receivable. "Service" to listeners, per the FCC, is to the local community and the community of license. There is no requirement to give service to all the service area. |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Oct 2, 10:45 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"David" wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:04:32 -0700, "David Eduardo" wrote: The service defined here is referent to signal, not programming. There is no requirement to serve skywave listeners, or listeners in a secondary contour, however it is defined. - - That is convoluted. No service is provided by a dead carrier. - A "service area" is a place where a signal is receivable. "Service" to - listeners, per the FCC, is to the local community and the community of - license. There is no requirement to give service to all the service area. More d'Eduardo Thinking : Da Number Is Da Service -and- Da Service Is Da Number -and- U's Don't Count ! |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Oct 4, 7:15 am, David wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:45:01 -0700, "David Eduardo" wrote: "David" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:04:32 -0700, "David Eduardo" wrote: The service defined here is referent to signal, not programming. There is no requirement to serve skywave listeners, or listeners in a secondary contour, however it is defined. That is convoluted. No service is provided by a dead carrier. A "service area" is a place where a signal is receivable. "Service" to listeners, per the FCC, is to the local community and the community of license. There is no requirement to give service to all the service area. Then why do they call it a service area? You must be one of the current generation of "grownup" who twist words because you are bereft of substance.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - David, 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 |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:45:01 -0700, "David Eduardo"
wrote: "David" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:04:32 -0700, "David Eduardo" wrote: The service defined here is referent to signal, not programming. There is no requirement to serve skywave listeners, or listeners in a secondary contour, however it is defined. That is convoluted. No service is provided by a dead carrier. A "service area" is a place where a signal is receivable. "Service" to listeners, per the FCC, is to the local community and the community of license. There is no requirement to give service to all the service area. Then why do they call it a service area? You must be one of the current generation of "grownup" who twist words because you are bereft of substance. |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
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. |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message ... .. 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, Now that is a generalization that my fit one company, but in every experience I have, with a dozen research companies I have delt with, as well as our own, such a statement is, if not an exaggeration, a lie. Most listener research is done to best serve an existing format. So one picks mostly one's own listeners.... and generally, those who listen a lot (so they will know the music or format or hosts or whatever) and tries to find what will serve them better. Some secondary listeners are picked... those who may listen more to another station, but who also have enough interest in our station to know about the music or the programming. I have never heard the word "advertiser" mentionend in the recruit specs for a music test or a perceptual. The usual things a age (concentrated in the ages where aobut 75% to 80% of the station listeners are located) sex (in balance with Arbitron audience composition), ethnicity (a CHR in LA might do half and half Other and Hispanic), and a minimum usage of the P1 or P2 station under study to insure knowledge of the station music or format. Most radio researchers do not use focus groups. For music tests, most research on ongoing stations is several music tests a year, to determine what to play and what not to, and how often. Again, no advertiser involvement, and the sales department seldom even knows a test is done. 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. I have never seen this done this way. You may have. If you did, it was done wrong. Focus groups are ´perceptuals, and perceptual research is based generally on a combination of neutral questions with attention on low interviewer bias. Most radio perceptuals are done on the phone, and are a combination of open ended, scaled and fixed response questions. The secret is in the cross tabulation of the hard data, like demos, and the frequency in each cell of a particular verbatim from an open ended question. Format searches are the broadest, usually done by playing pods of many different kinde of music and doing a question set on like / intent / availability and canibalization questions. I've done ones with up to 17 different pods, and also done ones where a follow up with blends of pods were tested. Music tests, themselves are comprised of highly selected listeners to respond to songs, for the purpose of determining playlists to serve 'desirable' listeners. The only desirable listener is the one who will listen a long time. The only filters are age, sex (are they where most of the listeners are), ethnicity, and hours of listening to that "kind" of music on our station or a very similar competitor. For example, WLEY in Chicago is going to test 21-39 year olds (that is where over 80% of listeners already are), 100% mexican (that is the format... Mexican music), 60% men (that is the balance for the format, for them and everyone) and mostly those who listen a minimum of an hour a day to them, or maybe 5 hours a week to them and 5 minimum a week to music on WOJO. There is nothing desirable or undesirable there... just a snapshot of the listener and potential listener, eliminating those who do not listen enough to radio to know the music... because they could not score it appropriately if they do not know it. Crest does not do research with people who wear dentures... there is always selection based on who will be the heavy users of any service or goods. It's a closed loop. Created to meet the needs of advertisers first. And then attract the advertisers 'desirable' listeners to the radio station. No such thing. I have participated in well over 100 tests from vendors, and have done close to 1000 projects myself, as well as an equal or greater number of call out cycles and a few hundred perceptual projects. None has ever had the word "advertiser" attached or implied. Formats are specifically chosen to meet an advertiser's need. No, the only place this comes into play is in the knowing that there is no revenue in 12-17 or 55+ so we don't even look for that kind of format because it is not viable. 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. Finding out what songs the listeners want to hear is not serving? Finding out what topics and content morning and talk show listeners want is not serving? Finding out how often and what roads are important for traffic reports is not serving? 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. That's just plain BS. You started with a false premise that audience research is something that it is not, and took it from there. 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. The main purpose of music testing is to get rid of the stiffs. In talent testing, it is to get rid of negatives. In staiton testing, it is to find defects and correct them. That is the whole purpose of research... enhance the good, modify the bad. Radio has neither been surprised, nor disappointed, with its research, since John Sebastian ruined KHJ. I can take the best research and make a crappy station. Research is a tool. I can take carpentry tools and ruin a lot of fine wood too. It's also about the skills of the station staff. 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. No, they are not selected. If I say AM listening in LA is 17% of the total listening, 12+, how is that selected? The Arbitron universe is not selected, it is as close as possibly to a totally proportional sample, where everyone has the same weight Which is kind of amusing. Because where Radio has dared to open the loop, risks have been high, but successes have been huge. We do that all the time, with the aid of research. My overnight guy from KWIZ in Santa Ana now has about 3 million daily cume on 40 stations. Our "it won't work" Mexican adult hits is now on 12 stations and #1 or #2 Spanish language. My "it won't work here" 100% local artist rock station in Buenos Aires was #1 in a month, front page news in the press, and had never been done before in a market with over 250 stations (more than 100 LPFM equivalents, for example). We look outside the loop all the time. It is usually the listeners who tell us where to look. |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Oct 2, 9:57?am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"David" wrote in message ... On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 06:20:01 -0800, David wrote: Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected to serve beyond their groundwave contours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel Dwardo has no comment on this? I don't have enough lives to correct everything I find wrong with Wikipedia. But, you had time to add libelous comments to the HD Radio section that WYSL is a disgruntled AM - interesting, that you were stupid enough to use the same phrase that you used on radio-info.com's HD board. |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
David Frackelton Gleason, the pathetic, unaccredited fool who poses as 'Eduardo', wrote: "D Peter Maus" wrote in message ... . 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, Now that is a generalization that my fit one company, but in every experience I have, with a dozen research companies I have delt with, as well as our own, such a statement is, if not an exaggeration, a lie. You know about lies, do ya? |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Oct 4, 11:22 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in ... . 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, Now that is a generalization that my fit one company, but in every experience I have, with a dozen research companies I have delt with, as well as our own, such a statement is, if not an exaggeration, a lie. Most listener research is done to best serve an existing format. So one picks mostly one's own listeners.... and generally, those who listen a lot (so they will know the music or format or hosts or whatever) and tries to find what will serve them better. Some secondary listeners are picked... those who may listen more to another station, but who also have enough interest in our station to know about the music or the programming. I have never heard the word "advertiser" mentionend in the recruit specs for a music test or a perceptual. The usual things a age (concentrated in the ages where aobut 75% to 80% of the station listeners are located) sex (in balance with Arbitron audience composition), ethnicity (a CHR in LA might do half and half Other and Hispanic), and a minimum usage of the P1 or P2 station under study to insure knowledge of the station music or format. Most radio researchers do not use focus groups. For music tests, most research on ongoing stations is several music tests a year, to determine what to play and what not to, and how often. Again, no advertiser involvement, and the sales department seldom even knows a test is done. 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. I have never seen this done this way. You may have. If you did, it was done wrong. Focus groups are ´perceptuals, and perceptual research is based generally on a combination of neutral questions with attention on low interviewer bias. Most radio perceptuals are done on the phone, and are a combination of open ended, scaled and fixed response questions. The secret is in the cross tabulation of the hard data, like demos, and the frequency in each cell of a particular verbatim from an open ended question. Format searches are the broadest, usually done by playing pods of many different kinde of music and doing a question set on like / intent / availability and canibalization questions. I've done ones with up to 17 different pods, and also done ones where a follow up with blends of pods were tested. Music tests, themselves are comprised of highly selected listeners to respond to songs, for the purpose of determining playlists to serve 'desirable' listeners. The only desirable listener is the one who will listen a long time. The only filters are age, sex (are they where most of the listeners are), ethnicity, and hours of listening to that "kind" of music on our station or a very similar competitor. For example, WLEY in Chicago is going to test 21-39 year olds (that is where over 80% of listeners already are), 100% mexican (that is the format... Mexican music), 60% men (that is the balance for the format, for them and everyone) and mostly those who listen a minimum of an hour a day to them, or maybe 5 hours a week to them and 5 minimum a week to music on WOJO. There is nothing desirable or undesirable there... just a snapshot of the listener and potential listener, eliminating those who do not listen enough to radio to know the music... because they could not score it appropriately if they do not know it. Crest does not do research with people who wear dentures... there is always selection based on who will be the heavy users of any service or goods. It's a closed loop. Created to meet the needs of advertisers first. And then attract the advertisers 'desirable' listeners to the radio station. No such thing. I have participated in well over 100 tests from vendors, and have done close to 1000 projects myself, as well as an equal or greater number of call out cycles and a few hundred perceptual projects. None has ever had the word "advertiser" attached or implied. Formats are specifically chosen to meet an advertiser's need. No, the only place this comes into play is in the knowing that there is no revenue in 12-17 or 55+ so we don't even look for that kind of format because it is not viable. 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. Finding out what songs the listeners want to hear is not serving? Finding out what topics and content morning and talk show listeners want is not serving? Finding out how often and what roads are important for traffic reports is not serving? 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. That's just plain BS. You started with a false premise that audience research is something that it is not, and took it from there. 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. The main purpose of music testing is to get rid of the stiffs. In talent testing, it is to get rid of negatives. In staiton testing, it is to find defects and correct them. That is the whole purpose of research... enhance the good, modify the bad. Radio has neither been surprised, nor disappointed, with its research, since John Sebastian ruined KHJ. I can take the best research and make a crappy station. Research is a tool. I can take carpentry tools and ruin a lot of fine wood too. It's also about the skills of the station staff. 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. No, they are not selected. If I say AM listening in LA is 17% of the total listening, 12+, how is that selected? The Arbitron universe is not selected, it is as close as possibly to a totally proportional sample, where everyone has the same weight Which is kind of amusing. Because where Radio has dared to open the loop, risks have been high, but successes have been huge. We do that all the time, with the aid of research. My overnight guy from KWIZ in Santa Ana now has about 3 million daily cume on 40 stations. Our "it won't work" Mexican adult hits is now on 12 stations and #1 or #2 Spanish language. My "it won't work here" 100% local artist rock station in Buenos Aires was #1 in a month, front page news in the press, and had never been done before in a market with over 250 stations (more than 100 LPFM equivalents, for example). We look outside the loop all the time. It is usually the listeners who tell us where to look. d'Eduardo - I Like DPM's Analysis and Reasoning Better. ~ RHF Your 'analysis' and 'reasoning' are Irrelevant. Your 'research' is Flawed and It will NOT be Incorporated. Your 'perceptuals' are in Error and They will NOT be Assimilated. Your 'logic-and-argument' are Futile. d'Eduardo - You are a BORG of Radio Media Marketing Collective Think. i am not a sample - my ears are not sellable - i am not borg ~ RHF . |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
"IBOCcrock" wrote in message ups.com... On Oct 2, 9:57?am, "David Eduardo" wrote: "David" wrote in message ... On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 06:20:01 -0800, David wrote: Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected to serve beyond their groundwave contours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel Dwardo has no comment on this? I don't have enough lives to correct everything I find wrong with Wikipedia. But, you had time to add libelous comments to the HD Radio section that WYSL is a disgruntled AM - interesting, that you were stupid enough to use the same phrase that you used on radio-info.com's HD board. WYSL is a disgruntled AM. It is typical of why the AM band is increasingly useless. |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "D Peter Maus" wrote in message ... . 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, Now that is a generalization that my fit one company, but in every experience I have, with a dozen research companies I have delt with, as well as our own, such a statement is, if not an exaggeration, a lie. Most listener research is done to best serve an existing format. So one picks mostly one's own listeners.... and generally, those who listen a lot (so they will know the music or format or hosts or whatever) and tries to find what will serve them better. Some secondary listeners are picked... those who may listen more to another station, but who also have enough interest in our station to know about the music or the programming. Snip Well I must admit that sure does sound like you to pick a small group of people that will reinforce your own thinking. Since it serves your purpose I don't expect you to see the incestuous nature of what you promote. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "IBOCcrock" wrote in message ups.com... On Oct 2, 9:57?am, "David Eduardo" wrote: "David" wrote in message ... On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 06:20:01 -0800, David wrote: Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected to serve beyond their groundwave contours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel Dwardo has no comment on this? I don't have enough lives to correct everything I find wrong with Wikipedia. But, you had time to add libelous comments to the HD Radio section that WYSL is a disgruntled AM - interesting, that you were stupid enough to use the same phrase that you used on radio-info.com's HD board. WYSL is a disgruntled AM. It is typical of why the AM band is increasingly useless. Maybe if you stopped badgering WYSL it would not be disgruntled. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "D Peter Maus" wrote in message ... . 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, Now that is a generalization that my fit one company, but in every experience I have, with a dozen research companies I have delt with, as well as our own, such a statement is, if not an exaggeration, a lie. Most listener research is done to best serve an existing format. So one picks mostly one's own listeners.... and generally, those who listen a lot (so they will know the music or format or hosts or whatever) and tries to find what will serve them better. Some secondary listeners are picked... those who may listen more to another station, but who also have enough interest in our station to know about the music or the programming. Snip Well I must admit that sure does sound like you to pick a small group of people that will reinforce your own thinking. Since it serves your purpose I don't expect you to see the incestuous nature of what you promote. Of course, your rabid statement does not explain why we have the top two radio stations in Los Angeles, and have for nearly all of the last 10 years or why we have a limited coverage class A FM that does so well it is in the top 5 or 6 in 25-53 in LA among over 60 local stations. Of course, a fool like you who even questions Bob Orban and then is nasty to him can be expected to be oblivious to reality. |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "D Peter Maus" wrote in message ... . 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, Now that is a generalization that my fit one company, but in every experience I have, with a dozen research companies I have delt with, as well as our own, such a statement is, if not an exaggeration, a lie. Most listener research is done to best serve an existing format. So one picks mostly one's own listeners.... and generally, those who listen a lot (so they will know the music or format or hosts or whatever) and tries to find what will serve them better. Some secondary listeners are picked... those who may listen more to another station, but who also have enough interest in our station to know about the music or the programming. Snip Well I must admit that sure does sound like you to pick a small group of people that will reinforce your own thinking. Since it serves your purpose I don't expect you to see the incestuous nature of what you promote. Of course, your rabid statement does not explain why we have the top two radio stations in Los Angeles, and have for nearly all of the last 10 years or why we have a limited coverage class A FM that does so well it is in the top 5 or 6 in 25-53 in LA among over 60 local stations. Of course it does, you just made that crap up. Of course, a fool like you who even questions Bob Orban and then is nasty to him can be expected to be oblivious to reality. Of course a fool like you would expect Bob Orban to just show up in the news group all of a sudden. What a clown. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
David Eduardo wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "D Peter Maus" wrote in message ... . 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, Now that is a generalization that my fit one company, but in every experience I have, with a dozen research companies I have delt with, as well as our own, such a statement is, if not an exaggeration, a lie. Most listener research is done to best serve an existing format. So one picks mostly one's own listeners.... and generally, those who listen a lot (so they will know the music or format or hosts or whatever) and tries to find what will serve them better. Some secondary listeners are picked... those who may listen more to another station, but who also have enough interest in our station to know about the music or the programming. Snip Well I must admit that sure does sound like you to pick a small group of people that will reinforce your own thinking. Since it serves your purpose I don't expect you to see the incestuous nature of what you promote. Of course, your rabid statement does not explain why we have the top two radio stations in Los Angeles, and have for nearly all of the last 10 years or why we have a limited coverage class A FM that does so well it is in the top 5 or 6 in 25-53 in LA among over 60 local stations. Of course, a fool like you who even questions Bob Orban and then is nasty to him can be expected to be oblivious to reality. What do you know about 'reality', 'Eduardo'? |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: Of course, your rabid statement does not explain why we have the top two radio stations in Los Angeles, and have for nearly all of the last 10 years or why we have a limited coverage class A FM that does so well it is in the top 5 or 6 in 25-53 in LA among over 60 local stations. Of course it does, you just made that crap up. KSCA #1 LA, has been #1 or #2 12+ and 25-54 since Spring, 1997. KLVE #2 in LA, has been #1 or #2 in 25-54 (all that matters) 90% of books from 1995 till today. KRCD (simulcast) Top 10 in 26-54 most of last 8 years. Of course, a fool like you who even questions Bob Orban and then is nasty to him can be expected to be oblivious to reality. Of course a fool like you would expect Bob Orban to just show up in the news group all of a sudden. He is a regular, if not frequent, poster to ba.broadcast over the years, and always has something interesting or positive to post about. The reason he has showed up in the shortwave group is because of crossposting, not a sudden interest in shortwave. |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
David Frackelton Gleason, who poses as the faux Hispanic, 'Eduardo', wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: Of course, your rabid statement does not explain why we have the top two radio stations in Los Angeles, and have for nearly all of the last 10 years or why we have a limited coverage class A FM that does so well it is in the top 5 or 6 in 25-53 in LA among over 60 local stations. Of course it does, you just made that crap up. KSCA #1 LA, has been #1 or #2 12+ and 25-54 since Spring, 1997. KLVE #2 in LA, has been #1 or #2 in 25-54 (all that matters) 90% of books from 1995 till today. KRCD (simulcast) Top 10 in 26-54 most of last 8 years. Of course, a fool like you who even questions Bob Orban and then is nasty to him can be expected to be oblivious to reality. Of course a fool like you would expect Bob Orban to just show up in the news group all of a sudden. He is a regular, if not frequent, poster to ba.broadcast over the years, and always has something interesting or positive to post about. The reason he has showed up in the shortwave group is because of crossposting, not a sudden interest in shortwave. As if you really have any interest in shortwave, oh faux one! |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: Of course, your rabid statement does not explain why we have the top two radio stations in Los Angeles, and have for nearly all of the last 10 years or why we have a limited coverage class A FM that does so well it is in the top 5 or 6 in 25-53 in LA among over 60 local stations. Of course it does, you just made that crap up. KSCA #1 LA, has been #1 or #2 12+ and 25-54 since Spring, 1997. KLVE #2 in LA, has been #1 or #2 in 25-54 (all that matters) 90% of books from 1995 till today. KRCD (simulcast) Top 10 in 26-54 most of last 8 years. Well , I'm in that age group and don't listen to those stations so there must be something wrong with your numbers. Of course, a fool like you who even questions Bob Orban and then is nasty to him can be expected to be oblivious to reality. Of course a fool like you would expect Bob Orban to just show up in the news group all of a sudden. He is a regular, if not frequent, poster to ba.broadcast over the years, and always has something interesting or positive to post about. The reason he has showed up in the shortwave group is because of crossposting, not a sudden interest in shortwave. You and Bob seem to share the same reading comprehension problems. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: KSCA #1 LA, has been #1 or #2 12+ and 25-54 since Spring, 1997. KLVE #2 in LA, has been #1 or #2 in 25-54 (all that matters) 90% of books from 1995 till today. KRCD (simulcast) Top 10 in 26-54 most of last 8 years. Well , I'm in that age group and don't listen to those stations so there must be something wrong with your numbers. You are not in the LA radio market, either. The numbers come right from Arbitron; the 12+ top line numbers are on the Arbitron website. Or at www.rr.com under "ratings. " He is a regular, if not frequent, poster to ba.broadcast over the years, and always has something interesting or positive to post about. The reason he has showed up in the shortwave group is because of crossposting, not a sudden interest in shortwave. You and Bob seem to share the same reading comprehension problems. You obviously have no idea who you are talking about when you refer to Bob Orban that way. |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: KSCA #1 LA, has been #1 or #2 12+ and 25-54 since Spring, 1997. KLVE #2 in LA, has been #1 or #2 in 25-54 (all that matters) 90% of books from 1995 till today. KRCD (simulcast) Top 10 in 26-54 most of last 8 years. Well , I'm in that age group and don't listen to those stations so there must be something wrong with your numbers. You are not in the LA radio market, either. The numbers come right from Arbitron; the 12+ top line numbers are on the Arbitron website. Or at www.rr.com under "ratings. " Arbitron may not consider that I am in the LA market but I am. I buy stuff in LA from cars, computers, ect. He is a regular, if not frequent, poster to ba.broadcast over the years, and always has something interesting or positive to post about. The reason he has showed up in the shortwave group is because of crossposting, not a sudden interest in shortwave. You and Bob seem to share the same reading comprehension problems. You obviously have no idea who you are talking about when you refer to Bob Orban that way. I know the name. I just don't believe the poster boy using his name is Orban. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: I know the name. I just don't believe the poster boy using his name is Orban. Go ask on ba.broadcast if it is really him. |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
David Eduardo wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: I know the name. I just don't believe the poster boy using his name is Orban. Go ask on ba.broadcast if it is really him. Well, we know that you're a pathological liar... |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Oct 6, 12:51 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: KSCA #1 LA, has been #1 or #2 12+ and 25-54 since Spring, 1997. KLVE #2 in LA, has been #1 or #2 in 25-54 (all that matters) 90% of books from 1995 till today. KRCD (simulcast) Top 10 in 26-54 most of last 8 years. Well , I'm in that age group and don't listen to those stations so there must be something wrong with your numbers. You are not in the LA radio market, either. The numbers come right from Arbitron; the 12+ top line numbers are on the Arbitron website. Or atwww.rr.comunder "ratings. " Why should we believe you when you say this? You've lied about everything a person can lie about in this group, and then you act surprised when no one believes you. Please note that, as I've said before, you now have the credibility of a 13 year old's myspace page. No one is going to believe you (except perhaps a 13 year old or two). He is a regular, if not frequent, poster to ba.broadcast over the years, and always has something interesting or positive to post about. The reason he has showed up in the shortwave group is because of crossposting, not a sudden interest in shortwave. You and Bob seem to share the same reading comprehension problems. You obviously have no idea who you are talking about when you refer to Bob Orban that way. Did you and Bob attend Harvard together? |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
Steve wrote: On Oct 6, 12:51 am, "David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: KSCA #1 LA, has been #1 or #2 12+ and 25-54 since Spring, 1997. KLVE #2 in LA, has been #1 or #2 in 25-54 (all that matters) 90% of books from 1995 till today. KRCD (simulcast) Top 10 in 26-54 most of last 8 years. Well , I'm in that age group and don't listen to those stations so there must be something wrong with your numbers. You are not in the LA radio market, either. The numbers come right from Arbitron; the 12+ top line numbers are on the Arbitron website. Or atwww.rr.comunder "ratings. " Why should we believe you when you say this? You've lied about everything a person can lie about in this group, and then you act surprised when no one believes you. Please note that, as I've said before, you now have the credibility of a 13 year old's myspace page. No one is going to believe you (except perhaps a 13 year old or two). He is a regular, if not frequent, poster to ba.broadcast over the years, and always has something interesting or positive to post about. The reason he has showed up in the shortwave group is because of crossposting, not a sudden interest in shortwave. You and Bob seem to share the same reading comprehension problems. You obviously have no idea who you are talking about when you refer to Bob Orban that way. Did you and Bob attend Harvard together? I'm wondering if Bob had an amateur license just like Edweenie's! |
Nightime Secondary Service Protected to 750 Miles
On Oct 4, 4:04 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"IBOCcrock" wrote in message ups.com... On Oct 2, 9:57?am, "David Eduardo" wrote: "David" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 06:20:01 -0800, David wrote: Apparently the FCC says flamethrowers are expected to serve beyond their groundwave contours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel Dwardo has no comment on this? I don't have enough lives to correct everything I find wrong with Wikipedia. But, you had time to add libelous comments to the HD Radio section that WYSL is a disgruntled AM - interesting, that you were stupid enough to use the same phrase that you used on radio-info.com's HD board. WYSL is a disgruntled AM. It is typical of why the AM band is increasingly useless.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And you are a disgruntled broadcaster. You are typical of why commercial broadcasting is increasingly useless. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com