Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

m II wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

Always comes down to money and status with you.
What ARE you compensating for?


Probably the same thing that the guy who keeps advertising his Rolex is.

You know the one. Every time he gets a tax refund, it's posted here.
Every time he gets a 'royalty' cheque, it's posted here. Whenever he
makes money on the stock market, he posts it here. He even posted about
his last insurance claim settlement. Let's not forget the money he made
on the sale of a guitar some time back. He posted about that too. Oh,
there is also the matter of huge amount the government pays him yearly
for being 'sick'. He posts about that too.

Now, if what Eduardo is doing seems like compensation to you, how does
Lare look in comparison?


mike




Like someone you're jealous of.

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Always comes down to money and status with you.

The general measurements of success in radio _are_ money, ratings, market
size, community service, good engineering practice, etc. There is nothing
wrong with that.
What ARE you compensating for?


I'm having fun with people in a hobby that used to love radio and now does
everything possible to denigrate it.




Then why are you still here? With as much responsibility as you
claim, you spend a lot of time arguing with people whom you don't respect.

Which calls into question a number of things.

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

D Peter Maus wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Always comes down to money and status with you.

The general measurements of success in radio _are_ money, ratings, market
size, community service, good engineering practice, etc. There is nothing
wrong with that.
What ARE you compensating for?


I'm having fun with people in a hobby that used to love radio and now does
everything possible to denigrate it.



Then why are you still here? With as much responsibility as you
claim, you spend a lot of time arguing with people whom you don't respect.

Which calls into question a number of things.

Indeed!

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:


Which I used to spend several years on the Dean's list at ASU, a slightly
better known university and from which I was plucked by the most
respected
headhunter in the broadcast business to rebuild a broadcast subsidiary
for a
NYSE listed company which made me an officer and division VP.

Yet, you do not have a degree.


I don't need a degree.

Others can claim the same.

That's ok of course, but how many radio stations do you now own here in the USA?

You have claimed to own numerous ones in Ecuador in the past.

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Always comes down to money and status with you.

The general measurements of success in radio _are_ money, ratings, market
size, community service, good engineering practice, etc. There is nothing
wrong with that.
What ARE you compensating for?


I'm having fun with people in a hobby that used to love radio and now
does everything possible to denigrate it.


Then why are you still here? With as much responsibility as you claim,
you spend a lot of time arguing with people whom you don't respect.

Most people have more free time than work time.

Which calls into question a number of things.

Like?

d'Eduardo : We Be Knowing Our KABCs and WXYZs . . .
 

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 14:35:40 -0700, "David Eduardo"
wrote:

It's really very simple. Ask anyone with access to ratings data to do a run
on 12+ cume share for a combo created out of the three mentioned AMs in SF.
They reach about 1 in ten persons, no more.

Oh, come on now! I've pretty much stayed out of this so far but the
broadcasting industry has far less of a clue with respect to the
demographics and numbers of its listeners than it and you would have
us believe - and this applies to television as well as radio.

To begin with, ratings are based on paper surveys, which of course are
kept by only a small percentile of the total number of listeners in
any given area, who are participating in the ratings "sweep" (Arbitron
typically passes out between one and four thousand paper surveys in a
given market) - and then, of course, the results are tabulated from
the surveys that listeners return (How many listeners simply toss them
into the nearest waste basket as soon as they receive them?).

Whast this means is that you are getting data from only a fragment of
a fragment of the total potential audience. This may fool broadcasters
(who could really care less what the listeners want and are only
interested in selling advertising), and it may fool advertisers (who
could really care less what the listeners want and are only interested
in how many listeners their ads will reach), but it doesn't fool
listeners - many of whom change the station the instant the
commercials come on anyway, so when a survey asks them if they heard
the Burger King commercial on WWTF at 8:45 PM on Saturday night, the
answer is no, not because they weren't listening to WWTF at 8:44, but
because they STOPPED listening to WWTF at 8:45 when the commercials
came on.

Of course, the surveys also rely on the listeners remembering
everything they listened to during the period. This from people who
generally have no idea who the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
is and can't remember what they had for lunch yesterday.

And don't bother to tell me about the new PPMs, either. It's already
known that they have problems measuring stations with niche audiences,
and their sample size is even smaller than that of survey-based sweeps
(and anybody who knows Jack Schmidt about statistics can tell you that
a good way to make bad decisions is to base them on numbers that are
the result of too small a sample size). Also, like the paper surveys,
these devices measure exposure, not attention.

Here's how a typical commercial broadcast radio listener behaves
today: Turns on the radio. Whatever station the radio happens to be
tuned to when it is powered up is what the listener hears first. If
the listener is looking for a particular program (maybe the broadcast
of that day's baseball game), and it's on that station at that time,
fine, otherwise ZAP the station gets changed.

Let's say the listener tunes into...Rush Limbaugh for example. At the
top of the hour when they take time out for the commercials, guess
what? ZAP the station gets changed, listeners know EXACTLY how long it
will be before Rush comes back on, and they don't bother listening to
the crap that's on in between.

If the listener wants to listen to rock music and the station's
playing rap instead, ZAP the station gets changed, and keeps getting
changed until the listener finds music that's acceptable to him/her.
If the station's playing rock, and the listener wants to hear rock,
the listener stays...until the first commercial or a rap song comes on
and then ZAP the station gets changed.

That's the problerm with your ratings - you have no numbers that
matter. As Thom Mocarsky, the vice president of communications at
Arbitron, stated in Media Life Magazine, "Neither the diary nor the
PPM measures attentiveness."

JK

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:


Which I used to spend several years on the Dean's list at ASU, a
slightly
better known university and from which I was plucked by the most
respected
headhunter in the broadcast business to rebuild a broadcast subsidiary
for a
NYSE listed company which made me an officer and division VP.

Yet, you do not have a degree.


I don't need a degree.

Others can claim the same.

Others have not had the degree of success I have had in radio. As I said, I
do not need a degree... particularly since most classes are ultra boring.

That's ok of course, but how many radio stations do you now own here in
the USA?

None. The kind of station I want to work at, in major markets, costs upwards
of $50 million each.

You have claimed to own numerous ones in Ecuador in the past.

Not claim, fact.

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:


Which I used to spend several years on the Dean's list at ASU, a
slightly
better known university and from which I was plucked by the most
respected
headhunter in the broadcast business to rebuild a broadcast subsidiary
for a
NYSE listed company which made me an officer and division VP.

Yet, you do not have a degree.


I don't need a degree.

Others can claim the same.

Others have not had the degree of success I have had in radio. As I said, I
do not need a degree... particularly since most classes are ultra boring.

For someone who has ADHD.. yes I can understand



That's ok of course, but how many radio stations do you now own here in
the USA?

None.

And of course you've never owned one.

The kind of station I want to work at, in major markets, costs upwards
of $50 million each.

You have claimed to own numerous ones in Ecuador in the past.

Not claim, fact.

No.

D'Oh ! - d'Eduardo : Are You So Totally Lacking in Knowledge* About All-Things Social Security ?
 

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 21:11:49 -0700, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
RHF wrote:
On Jun 7, 6:11 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

- Pensions are a product of company policies and
- union demands and threats.

Those are not 'company' programs. They're directly administered by the
Union for workers in good standing. They do not apply to members who have
declared 'financial core.'

I think that is why RHF distinguised between company pensions and union
ones. Many company pensions, such as those in the auto industry, are being
moved to the unions as the auto companies and related suppliers can not pay
them. They were created in the days when autos were so profitable (and fell
apart in 3 years or less) and so immune from foreign competion that the car
companies promised anything to avoid strikes. Wow, nobody can pay for any of
it.


And they're in addition to any programs by the company, and/or SS.

Pensions can be part employee financed, or totally enployer financed. SS is
an entitlement, and is based on, if I recall, the earned and taxed income
from the last 15 years of work prior to retirement.

Someone working for/with the larger companies, especially in a state
like California, would know all this.

California has few unionized workers by comparison to rust belt areas, and
is a right to work state. That's why unions often have to fund their own
pensions from dues, such as AFTRA and related film and entertainment unions
do.

That's some whacky world you live in. Are you wrong about most things?
The law of chance would give you 50% but you seem off base much more
often than that.

Probability is not linear...........at some point he may have a run
in which he is right. Scary - huh?

Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Always comes down to money and status with you.

The general measurements of success in radio _are_ money, ratings, market
size, community service, good engineering practice, etc. There is nothing
wrong with that.
What ARE you compensating for?


I'm having fun with people in a hobby that used to love radio and now does
everything possible to denigrate it.




So, you're not here to participate...you're here to stir up noise.
Got it.

Your employer must be SO proud.