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

"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.

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

"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

"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.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"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.

The issue here is what YOU believe as opposed to reality.

I'm pointing out to YOU that YOU are the only only one that believes
what YOU spew.

I don't buy YOUR spin and neither does ANYONE else.

So go ahead and post YOUR crap again as none believe YOU faker.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

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.

The issue here is what YOU believe as opposed to reality.

I'm pointing out to YOU that YOU are the only only one that believes
what YOU spew.

I don't buy YOUR spin and neither does ANYONE else.

So go ahead and post YOUR crap again as none believe YOU faker.

Everyone in the radio industry not only believes this, but uses it to guide
promotional and marketing and even sales activities.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

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.

The issue here is what YOU believe as opposed to reality.

I'm pointing out to YOU that YOU are the only only one that believes
what YOU spew.

I don't buy YOUR spin and neither does ANYONE else.

So go ahead and post YOUR crap again as none believe YOU faker.

Everyone in the radio industry not only believes this, but uses it to guide
promotional and marketing and even sales activities.

I that explains why things are not working so well in radio these days.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California