Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Bart Bailey" wrote in message ... In posted on Thu, 5 Jun 2008 14:24:32 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin Most of SD county does not receive a listenable signal from KNX based on what signal level is required to get ratings. I get them just fine, maybe you're thinking of the Anza Borrego desert communities No, I am thinking of the fact, verified by dozens of ratings periods in many, many markets that shows that AMs get over 95% of their in home and at work listening (70% lof the total listening on average is in home or at work where ZIPs are tracable) is in areas where the signal is 10 mv/m or greater. Since only a tiny amount of shoreline has that intensity from KNX, there is pretty much nowhere that the signal is usable by the average, non-hobbyist, listener. Which is part of why they have essentially no in home or at work listening at all in SD County (the county is the metro for Arbitron). SNIP You are so full of crap. You don't know what you are talking about at all. Yeah, you are right and the measured behaviour of millions of persons over the period of a decade or more is wrong. San Diego is one of the markets where listening location vs. signal strength has been analyzed, going back to 1998 and covering 39 survey periods and nearly 100,000 listener diaries. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
David Eduardo wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Bart Bailey" wrote in message ... In posted on Thu, 5 Jun 2008 14:24:32 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin Most of SD county does not receive a listenable signal from KNX based on what signal level is required to get ratings. I get them just fine, maybe you're thinking of the Anza Borrego desert communities No, I am thinking of the fact, verified by dozens of ratings periods in many, many markets that shows that AMs get over 95% of their in home and at work listening (70% lof the total listening on average is in home or at work where ZIPs are tracable) is in areas where the signal is 10 mv/m or greater. Since only a tiny amount of shoreline has that intensity from KNX, there is pretty much nowhere that the signal is usable by the average, non-hobbyist, listener. Which is part of why they have essentially no in home or at work listening at all in SD County (the county is the metro for Arbitron). SNIP You are so full of crap. You don't know what you are talking about at all. Yeah, you are right and the measured behaviour of millions of persons over the period of a decade or more is wrong. San Diego is one of the markets where listening location vs. signal strength has been analyzed, going back to 1998 and covering 39 survey periods and nearly 100,000 listener diaries. Pure pedant. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
dxAce, full time Bozo, wrote:
Pure pedant. You really should learn the usage of nouns. The correct form of the word in this case is 'pedantry', making it 'Pure pedantry'. Another correct variation of your attempted slur is: 'purely pedantic' A 'pedant' is a person, so your attempt at literacy, 'pure pedant', actually means 'saintly male teacher'. 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/ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
m II wrote: dxAce, full time Bozo, wrote: Pure pedant. You really should learn the usage of nouns. The correct form of the word in this case is 'pedantry', making it 'Pure pedantry'. Another correct variation of your attempted slur is: 'purely pedantic' A 'pedant' is a person, so your attempt at literacy, 'pure pedant', actually means 'saintly male teacher'. Thanks, now all you need to do is take that and your shine box on the road and you might just accomplish something. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
dxAce wrote:
m II wrote: dxAce, full time Bozo, wrote: Pure pedant. You really should learn the usage of nouns. The correct form of the word in this case is 'pedantry', making it 'Pure pedantry'. Another correct variation of your attempted slur is: 'purely pedantic' A 'pedant' is a person, so your attempt at literacy, 'pure pedant', actually means 'saintly male teacher'. Thanks, now all you need to do is take that and your shine box on the road and you might just accomplish something. Actually, 'pedant' is defined as: n., A person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules, or with displaying academic learning. Given his academic credentials, I'd say David is definitely overcompensating for some perceived defiency. "That's our Eduardo!" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Bart Bailey" wrote in message ... In posted on Thu, 5 Jun 2008 14:24:32 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin Most of SD county does not receive a listenable signal from KNX based on what signal level is required to get ratings. I get them just fine, maybe you're thinking of the Anza Borrego desert communities No, I am thinking of the fact, verified by dozens of ratings periods in many, many markets that shows that AMs get over 95% of their in home and at work listening (70% lof the total listening on average is in home or at work where ZIPs are tracable) is in areas where the signal is 10 mv/m or greater. Since only a tiny amount of shoreline has that intensity from KNX, there is pretty much nowhere that the signal is usable by the average, non-hobbyist, listener. Which is part of why they have essentially no in home or at work listening at all in SD County (the county is the metro for Arbitron). SNIP You are so full of crap. You don't know what you are talking about at all. Yeah, you are right and the measured behaviour of millions of persons over the period of a decade or more is wrong. San Diego is one of the markets where listening location vs. signal strength has been analyzed, going back to 1998 and covering 39 survey periods and nearly 100,000 listener diaries. You are full of it Eduardo. I don't care where you get your data from it's either wrong, you have misinterpreted it or made incorrect extrapolations. In any event you don't know up from down. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
"Telamon" wrote in message ... San Diego is one of the markets where listening location vs. signal strength has been analyzed, going back to 1998 and covering 39 survey periods and nearly 100,000 listener diaries. You are full of it Eduardo. I don't care where you get your data from it's either wrong, you have misinterpreted it or made incorrect extrapolations. In any event you don't know up from down. The listening data is from over 100,000 Arbitron diaries over the last 10 years. listening locations taken from Arbiton's Maximiser and plotted on MapMaker, another Arbitron application. Then, contours of stations are laid over the maps, using one of the engineering applications to create multiple contours. The data is accurate... it is the Arbitron ratings. There is no interpretation... just a view of where listening takes place either for home or work listening... and a determination of where it occurs vs. signal strength. Several broadcasters have done this, as well as Arbitron itself to determine how to do ascription which in many cases is totally signal based. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... San Diego is one of the markets where listening location vs. signal strength has been analyzed, going back to 1998 and covering 39 survey periods and nearly 100,000 listener diaries. You are full of it Eduardo. I don't care where you get your data from it's either wrong, you have misinterpreted it or made incorrect extrapolations. In any event you don't know up from down. The listening data is from over 100,000 Arbitron diaries over the last 10 years. listening locations taken from Arbiton's Maximiser and plotted on MapMaker, another Arbitron application. Then, contours of stations are laid over the maps, using one of the engineering applications to create multiple contours. The data is accurate... it is the Arbitron ratings. There is no interpretation... just a view of where listening takes place either for home or work listening... and a determination of where it occurs vs. signal strength. Several broadcasters have done this, as well as Arbitron itself to determine how to do ascription which in many cases is totally signal based. Let me explain to you what you have done. You had preconceived notions and manipulated data to get what you wanted. Then you forget the process you went through to pervert the data and declare it supports your position. This is pathetic at best. Like I said you could continue to fool yourself but nobody else is going to be fooled. This mental method is very evident in most of your posts. You look like a complete charlatan and a fake. Nobody is buying what you are selling. I hope this explanation is clear to you but I expect you will not be able to except it. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... San Diego is one of the markets where listening location vs. signal strength has been analyzed, going back to 1998 and covering 39 survey periods and nearly 100,000 listener diaries. You are full of it Eduardo. I don't care where you get your data from it's either wrong, you have misinterpreted it or made incorrect extrapolations. In any event you don't know up from down. The listening data is from over 100,000 Arbitron diaries over the last 10 years. listening locations taken from Arbiton's Maximiser and plotted on MapMaker, another Arbitron application. Then, contours of stations are laid over the maps, using one of the engineering applications to create multiple contours. The data is accurate... it is the Arbitron ratings. There is no interpretation... just a view of where listening takes place either for home or work listening... and a determination of where it occurs vs. signal strength. Several broadcasters have done this, as well as Arbitron itself to determine how to do ascription which in many cases is totally signal based. Let me explain to you what you have done. You had preconceived notions and manipulated data to get what you wanted. Then you forget the process you went through to pervert the data and declare it supports your position. This is pathetic at best. Like I said you could continue to fool yourself but nobody else is going to be fooled. This mental method is very evident in most of your posts. You look like a complete charlatan and a fake. Nobody is buying what you are selling. I hope this explanation is clear to you but I expect you will not be able to except it. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Eduardo - fellow IBOC-shill diputes your claims about AM ratings.
"Telamon" wrote in message ... The data is accurate... it is the Arbitron ratings. There is no interpretation... just a view of where listening takes place either for home or work listening... and a determination of where it occurs vs. signal strength. Several broadcasters have done this, as well as Arbitron itself to determine how to do ascription which in many cases is totally signal based. Let me explain to you what you have done. You had preconceived notions and manipulated data to get what you wanted. Then you forget the process you went through to pervert the data and declare it supports your position. This is pathetic at best. Like I said you could continue to fool yourself but nobody else is going to be fooled. This mental method is very evident in most of your posts. You look like a complete charlatan and a fake. Nobody is buying what you are selling. I hope this explanation is clear to you but I expect you will not be able to except it. Such studies of listening areas are done by broadcasters to determine where to do promotional activities. That includes van hits, street events, location of billboards, In the case of an LA radio station, budgets for this type of promotion might be in the millions of dollars a year. That's why it is important to plot where the listening occurs, and in the case of forward-looking growth situations, where there is a potential for growth. A key issue in all of this is "where can I expect to pick up listening?" as opposed to areas where it would be next to impossible to do so. As part of this, we study how much signal is needed to support efforts to increase listening. If nearly nobody will listen below a certain signal level, chances are that we could throw hundreds of thousands of dollars at a low signal area and get no listening from it. That is why all broadcasters look at the useful coverage areas (about 10 mv/m or greater on AM for metros and 64 dbu for FM) and don't attempt to get listeners outside such areas as it is not going to happen. Contrary to what YOU believe, about every broadcaster in the US uses the same criteria. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why haven't we heard from Eduardo, the master IBOC-shill? | Shortwave | |||
Doug Myrland: man-woman IBOC-shill | Shortwave | |||
Eduardo - Arbitron ratings are a farce, too! | Shortwave | |||
Eduardo - Arbitron ratings are a farce, too! | Shortwave | |||
NEW IBOC THREAD...Is Eduardo a profit? | Shortwave |