"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Don't give any of Eduardo's posts the benefit of the doubt. All that guy
does is spread BS in the news group. He does not know what he is talking
about. Nothing stops this guy from spewing his BS. He even has the
audacity to tell you what you can hear on your radio. Just ask him.


You still don't get it, do you.

If you take hundreds of thousands of listeners and millions of listening
incidents and plot the listening ZIP code on a map, and find that 95% of
them occur within the contour demarcating a particular signal strength, you
could then conclude that stations require a certain strength to get
listenership irrespective of the quality or appeal of the programming.

The contour within which nearly 95% of AM at home or at work listening
occurs is the 10 mv/m signal in urbanized areas. This is confirmed by
running the same study in multiple markets in the US.

Over time, the finite strength requirement is increasing, probably due to
increased man made interference such as more computers, CFLs and such. This
change is unrelated to the general decline in AM listening, which is a
separate issue.

While you are correct that many more stations can be heard at a location,
the fact that they have less than the accepted signal level for being
actually listened to is the key factor.

Many radio groups have studied this, and it is a key factor in establishing
a price for broadcast facilities. Personally, my department has looked at a
sample of 5 of the top 10 markets, 4 of the top 20 markets and an assortment
of markets outside the top 25 as a "control point" and verified this is true
using what amounts to a sample of several million diarykeepers over the last
10 years.

This is the way listeners behave in the real world. And this is the way
stations determine where to do promotions and place billboards and such.

"Bob Dobbs" wrote in message
news:4876a649.816954@chupacabra...
David Eduardo wrote:

This is the way listeners behave in the real world.

Only in the distorted world of people
with the time to waste keeping a diary


Irrespective of what you may think, the fact is that most of the $20 billion
spent on radio is based on the Arbitron ratings.

In any case, in nearly all the top 10 markers, the diary is not used anyway.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Don't give any of Eduardo's posts the benefit of the doubt. All that guy
does is spread BS in the news group. He does not know what he is talking
about. Nothing stops this guy from spewing his BS. He even has the
audacity to tell you what you can hear on your radio. Just ask him.


You still don't get it, do you.

SNIP

The BS meter is reading 40 over S9.

Believe me I get it Eduardo. I get that you are the BS master of this
news group.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Don't give any of Eduardo's posts the benefit of the doubt. All that
guy
does is spread BS in the news group. He does not know what he is
talking
about. Nothing stops this guy from spewing his BS. He even has the
audacity to tell you what you can hear on your radio. Just ask him.


You still don't get it, do you.

SNIP

The BS meter is reading 40 over S9.

Believe me I get it Eduardo. I get that you are the BS master of this
news group.

Actually, you are in total and irrational denial. The fact that signals can
be picked up does not mean, unless they are very strong, they will be
listened to.

That's a fact. A provable one. Drive to Glendale and I will quickly show you
how we can compare coverage with ZIP code listening for any market and prove
this fact that you want to deny.

Analysis by all the major broadcast companies shows that outside of the very
intense signal areas, on both AM and FM, there is essentially no urban area
listening.

Yet you deny the facts.

The database for this consists of a sample size several thousand times that
of the typical political poll, and has been proven over and over.

And you deny the facts.

The prices for hundred-million dollar radio stations are in part determined
by the number of people in the "listenable signal" contours.

But you deny it.

And your only defense is to call a basic rule of the radio industry BS.

On Jul 10, 6:00*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...





In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Don't give any of Eduardo's posts the benefit of the doubt. All that
guy
does is spread BS in the news group. He does not know what he is
talking
about. Nothing stops this guy from spewing his BS. He even has the
audacity to tell you what you can hear on your radio. Just ask him.

You still don't get it, do you.

SNIP

The BS meter is reading 40 over S9.

Believe me I get it Eduardo. I get that you are the BS master of this
news group.

Actually, you are in total and irrational denial. The fact that signals can
be picked up does not mean, unless they are very strong, they will be
listened to.

That's a fact. A provable one.

- Drive to Glendale and I will quickly show you how we can
- compare coverage with ZIP code listening for any market
- and prove this fact that you want to deny.

Drive to Glendale and the "BS" Meter will be Pegged at S9 +60dB.


Analysis by all the major broadcast companies shows that outside of the very
intense signal areas, on both AM and FM, there is essentially no urban area
listening.

Yet you deny the facts.

The database for this consists of a sample size several thousand times that
of the typical political poll, and has been proven over and over.

And you deny the facts.

The prices for hundred-million dollar radio stations are in part determined
by the number of people in the "listenable signal" contours.

But you deny it.

And your only defense is to call a basic rule of the radio industry BS.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 10, 4:53*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...



Don't give any of Eduardo's posts the benefit of the doubt. All that guy
does is spread BS in the news group. He does not know what he is talking
about. Nothing stops this guy from spewing his BS. He even has the
audacity to tell you what you can hear on your radio. Just ask him.

You still don't get it, do you.

If you take hundreds of thousands of listeners and millions of listening
incidents and plot the listening ZIP code on a map, and find that 95% of
them occur within the contour demarcating a particular signal strength, you
could then conclude that stations require a certain strength to get
listenership irrespective of the quality or appeal of the programming.

The contour within which nearly 95% of AM at home or at work listening
occurs is the 10 mv/m signal in urbanized areas. This is confirmed by
running the same study in multiple markets in the US.

Over time, the finite strength requirement is increasing, probably due to
increased man made interference such as more computers, CFLs and such. This
change is unrelated to the general decline in AM listening, which is a
separate issue.

While you are correct that many more stations can be heard at a location,
the fact that they have less than the accepted signal level for being
actually listened to is the key factor.

Many radio groups have studied this, and it is a key factor in establishing
a price for broadcast facilities. Personally, my department has looked at a
sample of 5 of the top 10 markets, 4 of the top 20 markets and an assortment
of markets outside the top 25 as a "control point" and verified this is true
using what amounts to a sample of several million diarykeepers over the last
10 years.

This is the way listeners behave in the real world. And this is the way
stations determine where to do promotions and place billboards and such.

d'Eduardo,

The 95% that you claim to Count and Serve : Clearly
implies that there is 5% that you clearly ignore and
'choose' not to serve.
-IF- this was any other form of Service to the Public :
The Courts would Mandate that you Serve that 'other'
5% as a significant Minority : d'Eduardo I think that
you have written enough here to prove a clear and
consistent pattern of Age Discrimination Against
Radio Listener's Over the Age of 55 Years and a
Willful intent Not to Serve that portion of the Public
Age 55 and Over.

BUT - The Percentage of US Population that is Over
the Age of 55 Years is really 20.4% and that is Bigger
than the 12.7% of the US that is Hispanic and 13%
that is Black.

Equal Radio Programming and Listening Rights for
Seniors Age 55 Years and Older !


can i get a class action suit - please ~ RHF

"RHF" wrote in message
...

Actually, you are in total and irrational denial. The fact that signals
can
be picked up does not mean, unless they are very strong, they will be
listened to.

That's a fact. A provable one.

- Drive to Glendale and I will quickly show you how we can
- compare coverage with ZIP code listening for any market
- and prove this fact that you want to deny.

Drive to Glendale and the "BS" Meter will be Pegged at S9 +60dB.

Actually, what you will find is the home of the #1, #2 and #6 stations in
25-54 audience in the 87 station LA market, a feat achieved by knowing and
reacting to facts like the ones I cited. In fact, two of those stations have
been in the top couple of stations in the market going back a decade.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
RHF wrote:

- Drive to Glendale and I will quickly show you how we can
- compare coverage with ZIP code listening for any market
- and prove this fact that you want to deny.

Glendale, eh? That explains a lot.

Glendale, like Burbank, is a media friendly location which is why so many
radio operations are in these two cities. We get things like nearly
guaranteed microwave paths and lots of other advantages.

Stations here include all the Salem, Clear Channel, Liberman, Univision
operations as well as some independents like XEWW too.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Actually, you live in your own self created universe where you dictate
what people hear on their radios based on some imaginary or
misconstrued information.

Nope... every major broadcaster does the same analysis, generally to
determine where to do promotion and where not to. The source data comes from
Arbitron, so every significant broadcaster in the nation has it.

All subscribed stations do ZIP code analysis to determine where listeners
are... and where they are not. From that, we can form general rules based on
necessary signal strength to get ratings.

As I said, it's part of the formula everyone uses to optimize ratings. Some
do it better than others, but the base fact is the constant on minimum AM
and FM signal strength. Just a few weeks ago, for a limited signal FM, we
used this data to determine where inside a market to place billboards...
even which way on highways and freeways the boards should face... based on
the borders of the usable signal.

Arbitron ZIP code mapping of listenership is quite real, and has been for
over a decade. And there is no way of misconstruing the signal strength in
ZIPs with listenership and those without.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...

Actually, you are in total and irrational denial. The fact that signals
can be picked up does not mean, unless they are very strong, they will be
listened to.

That's a fact. A provable one. Drive to Glendale and I will quickly show
you how we can compare coverage with ZIP code listening for any market and
prove this fact that you want to deny.

Analysis by all the major broadcast companies shows that outside of the
very intense signal areas, on both AM and FM, there is essentially no
urban area listening.

Yet you deny the facts.


No, Eduardo, YOU deny the facts. In the REAL WORLD, people DO listen to
radio stations, daily, at all hours, outside your precious city grade
contours. It really doesn't matter that you say 95% of all listening happens
within those contours.. if you do the math, that still means that 15 MILLION
people do not listen inside those contours. That is NOT an insignificant
number, as you and the rest of your increasingly irrelevant industry seem to
believe.