"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

wrote in message
...

Group owners attack the ratings technology that it will eventually
have to embrace causing everyone including agencies and buyers to
question its viability. I see several radio groups taking credit for
derailing the Arbitron People Meter (PPM) rollout in many of the top
markets. I've said it before and I'll say it again, they have some
legitimate methodology and response concerns. But once you've
destroyed the very instrument that you're asking advertisers to rely
upon -- what kind of victory is that? It's stupid -- like a lot of
other strategical blunders in radio.

Group owners said they were not receiving what they paid for because the
PPM
sample is not complete and not proportional.

But the main reason the start dates were rolled back is that the
accreditation board, representing ADVERTISERS, found enormous problems
and
would not certify the methodology or the implementation.

Since it was advertisers who originally asked for the faster and more
precise electronic measurement, the agency that mostly represents
advertisers was responsible for insuring it was correctly done.

It's always a problem when empirical evidence does not reflect what you
want.

True, but in this case we simply have a bad sample.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

wrote in message
...

Group owners attack the ratings technology that it will eventually
have to embrace causing everyone including agencies and buyers to
question its viability. I see several radio groups taking credit for
derailing the Arbitron People Meter (PPM) rollout in many of the top
markets. I've said it before and I'll say it again, they have some
legitimate methodology and response concerns. But once you've
destroyed the very instrument that you're asking advertisers to rely
upon -- what kind of victory is that? It's stupid -- like a lot of
other strategical blunders in radio.

Group owners said they were not receiving what they paid for because the
PPM
sample is not complete and not proportional.

But the main reason the start dates were rolled back is that the
accreditation board, representing ADVERTISERS, found enormous problems
and
would not certify the methodology or the implementation.

Since it was advertisers who originally asked for the faster and more
precise electronic measurement, the agency that mostly represents
advertisers was responsible for insuring it was correctly done.

It's always a problem when empirical evidence does not reflect what you
want.

True, but in this case we simply have a bad sample.

My understanding is that there is more than one "bad sample" but in time
this will be straightened out I guess.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

True, but in this case we simply have a bad sample.

My understanding is that there is more than one "bad sample" but in time
this will be straightened out I guess.

The only market that was suspended was New York. The survey is panel based,
so there is only one sample. The diary survey uses a new sample every week.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

True, but in this case we simply have a bad sample.

My understanding is that there is more than one "bad sample" but in time
this will be straightened out I guess.

The only market that was suspended was New York. The survey is panel based,
so there is only one sample. The diary survey uses a new sample every week.

What about Texas?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

True, but in this case we simply have a bad sample.

My understanding is that there is more than one "bad sample" but in
time
this will be straightened out I guess.

The only market that was suspended was New York. The survey is panel
based,
so there is only one sample. The diary survey uses a new sample every
week.

What about Texas?

Houston remains, as does Philadelphia for the moment; there are no
state-wide surveys. There is only one sample, with panelists replaced at the
end of two years on the panel, or if they do not comply. One sample.

David, HD receivers are not selling because the public has no interest. Most
people already own 5 radios that work just fine. And judging by the lack of
sales they see no reason to upgrade. It's not like all analog radio
transmissions are going dark in 2009. And it's not like HD stations provide
content that's so compelling listeners can't live without their HD radio
fix. And it doesn't really sound that much better anyway. So far a few radio
hobbyist have invested in HD radio. Why does this feel like Am stereo all
over again. Another technology that listeners never asked for but could have
been great.. but because of no interest and competing ideas simply died.


And the next generation kids, 12-34 have very little interest in anything
radio. Ipods, cell phones, the Internet and social networking groups are far
more important and interesting to them.

David ask any 12 year old kid if they listen to radio. you won't like the
answer.

wrote:
David, HD receivers are not selling because the public has no interest. Most
people already own 5 radios that work just fine. And judging by the lack of
sales they see no reason to upgrade. It's not like all analog radio
transmissions are going dark in 2009. And it's not like HD stations provide
content that's so compelling listeners can't live without their HD radio
fix. And it doesn't really sound that much better anyway. So far a few radio
hobbyist have invested in HD radio. Why does this feel like Am stereo all
over again. Another technology that listeners never asked for but could have
been great.. but because of no interest and competing ideas simply died.


And the next generation kids, 12-34 have very little interest in anything
radio. Ipods, cell phones, the Internet and social networking groups are far
more important and interesting to them.

David ask any 12 year old kid if they listen to radio. you won't like the
answer.




A 13 year old who cuts my lawn has no radio in his possession. He
listens to mp3's on his cell phone. Or music on his PC. I asked him what
stations he's familiar with, and he could name Mix, B96, and The
Drive...but couldn't tell me what they actually played.

He claims never to have heard AM radio and didn't know what WLS nor
WGN was.

wrote in message
...
David, HD receivers are not selling because the public has no interest.
Most
people already own 5 radios that work just fine. And judging by the lack
of
sales they see no reason to upgrade.

It could take 10 years for most radios to contain HD technology...but that's
OK.

HD isn't going anywhere.

Why does this feel like Am stereo all
over again. Another technology that listeners never asked for but could
have
been great.. but because of no interest and competing ideas simply died.

Why does this feel like FM all over again? (Lots of naysayers, but given
time it becomes the accepted standard.)

It's not like AM stereo at all.

The FCC refused to endorse a standard for AM Stereo. Therefore car and
radio manufacturers, radio station owners/operator and listeners were in
charge of picking the technology standard.

With that conundrum, no one did anything...and it took too long, and all
music was gone from the band shortly.

The HD radio technology is different.

The FCC has set a standard, radio station owners/operators have endorsed one
standard, and listeners do not have to make a choice of "which one?" when
buying a radio. Cars are coming off the assembly line now with the one
standard.

Again, people who expected or thought that this technology has to take hold
in 18 months are misinformed.

"A Brown" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
David, HD receivers are not selling because the public has no interest.
Most
people already own 5 radios that work just fine. And judging by the lack
of
sales they see no reason to upgrade.

It could take 10 years for most radios to contain HD technology...but
that's OK.

HD isn't going anywhere.

Why does this feel like Am stereo all
over again. Another technology that listeners never asked for but could
have
been great.. but because of no interest and competing ideas simply died.

Why does this feel like FM all over again? (Lots of naysayers, but given
time it becomes the accepted standard.)

FM didn't take over the majority of listening until FM stations approached
the same penetration as existing AM's. In many areas, this wasn't until
large numbers of translators were installed to allow reception in distant
and/or shadow areas (many of these are even within the stations' COL). IBOC
does not have anywhere near the useful coverage area of existing analog.
This is one of it's largest problems. The other big problems are that the
upcoming and a lot of the current target market don't give a damn about
radio in general, commercial radio in particular, and, for those that do,
they are quite happy enough with the signal and quality they already have.
FM offered a sharp increase in fidelity over AM. IBOC does not. It offers
practically nothing on FM as far as increase in quality, and the tradeoff on
AM is that IBOC, when you can use it at all, does decrease noise, but the
sound is poor like a low bitrate mp3.

It will be interesting to hear the wailing from the TV broadcast industry
and its advertisers after a huge audience is eliminated by forcing the
insane HDTV nonsense down our throats in 2009.

I for one am telling every advertiser I do business with that I will not see
any of their ads after that date.

Jeez, Louise...hundreds of thousands of homes in foreclosure, the ****tiest
economy in my life, $4 for a lousy gallon of gas, a trip to the grocery
store is a painfully expensive process and every one I know has been layed
off.

AND THESE PRICKS THINK WE'RE GOING TO RUSH OUT A BUY EQUIPMENT TO RECEIVE
THEIR ASSININE DIGITAL SYSTEM?

The ones to blame are those in Washington but equally culpable are the
sycophants in the TV industry to sat by and allowed it to happen.

I'm glad I'm not spending any money on TV advertising that few people will
see after 2009.