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

"John Kasupski" wrote in message
...
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.

Both industries use sampling techniques used in every other facet of
American business to measure consumer response. The methods and sample sizes
are perfectly adequate for the intended purpose.

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"

There are no sweeps in radio in about the top 100 markets... measurement is
constant. In the new electronic PPM, still being perfected, measurement is
instantaneous.

Again, the samples are adequate for the purpose. Replication testing shows
little if any gain if the sample is increased, in fact.

(Arbitron
typically passes out between one and four thousand paper surveys in a
given market) -

Actually, they are weekly diaries and there are between 500 (market 298) and
7500 diaries per survey (4 times a year in most pf the top 100 markets)

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?).

Some do, but Arbitron anticipates this. They know the non-return rate and
recruit enough extra diary households to compensate for the unreturned ones.

Whast this means is that you are getting data from only a fragment of
a fragment of the total potential audience.

Wrong. People are recruited in excess, so there is no "fragment of a
fragment." If they need 7500 diaries back for New York City MSA, they may
send out 10,000. They know so well who returns and who doesn't that they may
send out 50% more diaries to 18-24 year old men, but only 5% extra for 45-54
year old non-Hispanic white women. After all, Arbitron has been doing this
for 43 years.

And a "fragment" is called a sample. Just as they don't drain all your blood
for a blood test, they take a sample of a cross section that is totally
proportional on age, sex, ethnicity, geography of the market, etc., and
project it into the universe of listeners. This is the same sort of thing
Proctor & Gamble does when developing new products or finding ot why a
competitor is gaining market share.

This may fool broadcasters
(who could really care less what the listeners want and are only
interested in selling advertising),

We can only sell advertising if listeners are interested in our stations and
listen a lot. Radio is sold "by the listener" so those listeners are awfully
important.

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,

Actually, listeners are much more likely to tune out due to a bad song than
commercials. Listeners know radio is ad supported, so most put up with the
ads but not with bad programming.

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.

No survey asks that anyway. Nice try.

Of course, the surveys also rely on the listeners remembering
everything they listened to during the period.

Listeners only have to remember what station (by calls, frequency or program
or DJ name) they listened to, not the details. And the new PPM does not need
anyone to remeber anything.

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.

If you listen to a station many hours a week (8 to 10 hours being typical
for one's favorite station) it is likely you remember their frequecy at
least. Otherwise, how would you find them.

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.

Advertisers only want a measure of exposure. And the PPM measures niche
audiences fine. In Houston, the only accredited market with the PPM (there
are only two total markets running, so you are generalizing on scant data)
the top 2 stations in February and March were niche: Majic and The Box.

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.

70% of listening is in the home or office. Most people are not close to the
radio or attentive enough to it to change station each time commercials come
on. Only in the car, with the convenience of buttons, is there station
hopping, but it is nowhere near as extreme as you would immagine. People
tend to have a coiuple of favorite stations, and do not do much other
seeking or switching.

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.

This hardly ever happens. It's not seen in minute to minute PPM results nor
in diary based results over the last 18 or 19 years.

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.

That would only happen if you moved to a new city. Listeners know what
stations they like and what ones have the music or features they prefer.
They seldom listen to any other, unless encouraged by advertising or
recommendations. In fact, the average person only has between 2 aqnd 3
stations they listen to for more than an hour a week... they just don't go
wandering around looking for other things once they have decided on the few
they like.

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.

I don't know of any stations that play rock and rap; those are separate
formats.

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."

They are not supposed to. ABC does not measure readership of a paper,
either. All advertisers expect is an indication of how many chances they get
to make an impression.

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.


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

Your employer must be SO proud.

I doubt anyone's employer is very concerned about hobby or sports or any
leisure time activities folks engage in, unless they find the gun club
member is also sticking up 7-11's.

I think they would be more likely to object to someone like you with your
"Pancho" routine and way-out-there ways of expressing their feelings about
immigration topics.

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

David Eduardo wrote:
"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.

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

Your employer must be SO proud.

I doubt anyone's employer is very concerned about hobby or sports or any
leisure time activities folks engage in, unless they find the gun club
member is also sticking up 7-11's.

I think they would be more likely to object to someone like you with your
"Pancho" routine and way-out-there ways of expressing their feelings about
immigration topics.

\

Good. Let them object. Let them ask my why.

As for my thoughts on immigration...not so far out there as you'd
have us believe.

I'm far from alone, here.

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

David Eduardo wrote:

"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.


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

Your employer must be SO proud.

I doubt anyone's employer is very concerned about hobby or sports or any
leisure time activities folks engage in, unless they find the gun club
member is also sticking up 7-11's.

I think they would be more likely to object to someone like you with your
"Pancho" routine and way-out-there ways of expressing their feelings about
immigration topics.

How about we just call you the Pedantic Retard Boy and be done with it?

You have to be one of the most ****ed up *******s that I've ever met in the
radio hobby. You've certainly worn out your welcome in most every venue that
you've appeared in, yet you come back, again and again with the same old worn
out ****.

d'Eduardo -speaks-out-on- The Path To Legal Residence - Not Amnesty
 

On Jun 7, 7:59*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in ...

- - - David Eduardo wrote:
- - - I do not believe in illegal immigration, and believe
- - - there should be controls as well as enforcement.
- - - However, those here with no criminal record should
- - - have a path to residency, particularly if they have
- - - children born or naturalized here.

- - So, you believe in amnesty for illegal immigration.
- - Thanks for clearing that up.

- I believe in a path to legal residence, not amnesty.

d"Eduardo,

Hey We Can Agree -Provided- The Path Leads Straight
Back To Mexico -Where- They Can Wait-in-Line To
Legally Enter The USA As A Legal Resident.

dang that was simple ~ RHF

- Those with a criminal record (criminal, not misdemeanors)
- should not be eligible. All others should be considered,
- perhaps made to pay a fine and some costs, but if they
- have family and children here, allowed to become a resident
- and, eventually, a citizen.
-
- In other words, pretty much the plan of the Democrats
- and that of organizations such as the NCLR.
-

d'Eduardo -speaks-out-on- The Path To Legal Residence - Not Amnesty
 

RHF wrote:

On Jun 7, 7:59 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in ...

- - - David Eduardo wrote:
- - - I do not believe in illegal immigration, and believe
- - - there should be controls as well as enforcement.
- - - However, those here with no criminal record should
- - - have a path to residency, particularly if they have
- - - children born or naturalized here.

- - So, you believe in amnesty for illegal immigration.
- - Thanks for clearing that up.

- I believe in a path to legal residence, not amnesty.

d"Eduardo,

Hey We Can Agree -Provided- The Path Leads Straight
Back To Mexico -Where- They Can Wait-in-Line To
Legally Enter The USA As A Legal Resident.

dang that was simple ~ RHF

- Those with a criminal record (criminal, not misdemeanors)
- should not be eligible. All others should be considered,
- perhaps made to pay a fine and some costs, but if they
- have family and children here, allowed to become a resident
- and, eventually, a citizen.
-
- In other words, pretty much the plan of the Democrats
- and that of organizations such as the NCLR.

Sorry, they need to go back home and wait in line like anyone else.

What part of the word 'illegal' doesn't register in your pea sized brain?

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

On Jun 7, 8:33*pm, D Peter Maus wrote:
dxAce wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
* Perhaps we should send a packet of your postings to your corporate
headquarters for their evaluation.
When you don't have a valid argument, you always resort to threats. You have
done this several times before.
* *And when you don't have a valid argument, you resort to evasion,
change of subject, semantics, and/or pedantry. You do this alot.

* *There. Feel better, now?

The fact is that I do not condone illegal immigration, but do believe in a
program to convert long term illegal residents into legal ones.
* *So, the ones who have been illegal the longest, should be rewarded
with citizenship?

* *Got it.

I also
believe that new regulations and enforcement should be put in place for the
future.
* *And what would you like to see embraced by those regulations and
enforcements.....

In other jobs, the restrictions from union work rules has made
competitiveness, innovation and technical advancement suffer. I have seen
the same in many US industries, which have fled out of necessity to other
nations.
* *And there we have change-of-suject. *What's the matter, uncomfortable
admitting that Steve may actually have paid into the programs he claims?

* *Or do you just get bored easily, and decide to take the discussion to
a different subject where your ready rants are drop-in fits.

As to Mr. Lare, his comments to others and to me convinces me that he is a
subsistence level misanthrope who tries to divert attention from himself by
insulting others. And that's without analyzing his overt homophobia, which
surely masks an even darker side to his personality.
* *I've been in this group as long as Steve Lare. Perhaps longer. What
I've not seen is him diverting attention by resorting to insults. He
resorts to insults in response to insults.

* *Historically, you and the others on Steve's ****list had been more
than graciously insulting before he fired his first response.

* *You can't claim the high ground in the insult game. You've been more
than insulting, not only to Steve, but to all of us, since your first
appearance. You can't cry foul when your argument is 'He hit me back first."

* *As for Steve's homophobia....well, I'm reasonably certain that he's
not afraid of anything. Let along homosexuals. Not believing in their
lifestyle is not a phobia. Not liking them as individuals is not a phobia.

Actually, I know quite a few homosexuals. They respect me. I respect them. The
ones I have a problem with, and frankly, they themselves have a problem with the
'shove it in your face' folks.

I interact on at least a weekly basis with them, and surprisingly enough, they
themselves utter the words 'damn faggots' with those who tend to step out of line.

Heard it last week.

* *I worked with a guy at CBS, who was quite 'in your face,' about it.
It got pretty old. At the same time, both the continuity director and
the PD at one station in the group were both gay. Neither of them tried
to hide it. But they didn't put up billboards on Michigan Avenue, either.

* *Well, one day this kid was going on and on and on....and got right up
in my face about it....and did this at an appearance. And I said
something really tasteless. That he found mortifyingly embarrassing.

* *Of course there was a 'meeting' about it on Monday morning, and this
kid was on about homophobia-this and gay-bashing-that...and he ended his
diatribe with 'now how the hell do you expect me to work in such a
personally hostile environment as that.

* *The PD was there, of course, and he asked a few questions. I never
had a problem working with either he, or the continuity director, and in
fact, I was the one responsible for the continuity director being hired.
I recommended he be hired from the station I'd previously worked at in
Louisiana...where I'd worked with him for a couple of years. So, this
case wasn't really going to go anywhere.

* *I was asked to make my own statement....and I looked right at this
kid and asked him if he knew who I was sleeping with. He said, 'no.'

* *I asked if he knew who the afternoon guy was sleeping with. Again, 'no.'

* *The overnighter? 'no.' The weekenders?

* *Hmmmm...

* *He saw where this was going.

* *I said, "If I'm not sleeping with you, I don't need to know who
you're sleeping with. It's nobody's business. If you're gay, who cares?
Nobody here. *The only one who seems to be making this an issue is YOU."

* *That didn't sit real well.

* *"Nobody's saying you need to keep this under wraps. Neither the PD,
or the continuity director do. No closets here. *But if you don't want
it to BE and issue, don't MAKE IT an issue. I don't need to know who
you're sleeping with. That doesn't rise to the level of a phobia."

* *Pretty much ended the meeting.

* *Gay-Lib has been real effective at getting 'homophobia' dropped into
the vernacular. Trouble is that a phobia is an extreme and irrational
reaction. *There's very little about the Gay struggle that's based in
phobia.

* *Not needing to know who someone is sleeping with is neither extreme,
nor is it irrational.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

DPM,

Sort of like a persons Religion : It's a 'personal' thing and
OK by Me -provided- They Don Not Preach To Me About
It 24/7 and Try To Convert Me from My Own Religion.

god help us all - all humans big and small - amen ~ RHF

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

On Jun 7, 9:19*pm, m II wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
* Perhaps we should send a packet of your postings to your corporate
headquarters for their evaluation.

Like the time Lare pretended to be from homeland security when he was
trying to get Mike fired from the university?

You are really disgusting.

mike

--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter
blocks all postings from Gmail, Google Mail and Google Groups.

http://improve-usenet.org/

Mike,

DX Ace never 'claimed' to be from Home-Landed In-Security

He clearly in his best Broadcast Voice stated that he was :
Dudley Do-Right of the Mounties {RCMP} !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91PCxlTKfII
http://www.toonopedia.com/dudley.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6BlHvNGMVA
http://www.rcmpwatch.com/category/dudley-do-right/

just for the chow-funny of it ~ RHF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRH4_YcSwKo

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

Telamon wrote:

Why do you think he stayed out of Washington?

There are more criminals where he lives in LA.


Perhaps in total, but you have to look at the per capita numbers.


mike

--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter
blocks all postings from Gmail, Google Mail and Google Groups.

http://improve-usenet.org/

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

m II wrote:

Telamon wrote:

Why do you think he stayed out of Washington?

There are more criminals where he lives in LA.


Perhaps in total, but you have to look at the per capita numbers.

Per capita, there are more dumbasses in CanaDuh than anyplace else in the world.

Now go grab your shine box and join 'Eduardo'.