"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.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:


"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.

Nope, you are not a broadcaster just a master fabricator.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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


"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.

Nope, you are not a broadcaster just a master fabricator.

Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by? Instead
of examining the facts, you hurl insults.

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

"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.
Nope, you are not a broadcaster just a master fabricator.

Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by? Instead
of examining the facts, you hurl insults.




Because he, like the rest of us, doesn't accept the premise that an
industry licensed "to serve in the public interest as a public trustee"
may unilaterally make performance commitments based exclusively on a
bottom line.

Because he, like the rest of us, doesn't accept the premise that an
industry licensed "to serve in the public interest as a public trustee,"
has an entitlement to a license based on investment in physical plant
and stockholders' expectations.

Because he, like the rest of us, believes an industry licensed "to
serve in the public interest as a public trustee" doesn't get to dismiss
complaints of active listeners as destructive and contemptous when
they're told as listeners they are immaterial and irrelevant.

Because he, like the rest of us, believes your industry's facts are
manufactured pursuant to goals that have nothing to do with the license
requirement that you "serve in the public interest as a public trustee."


That should provide the answer to your inquiry. The question is,
why do you refuse to listen to the the complaints of an entire body of
active and participating radio listeners who believe they have every
right to be heard?


You see...refusing seems to work both ways.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
news
David Eduardo wrote:

Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by?
Instead of examining the facts, you hurl insults.


Because he, like the rest of us, doesn't accept the premise that an
industry licensed "to serve in the public interest as a public trustee"
may unilaterally make performance commitments based exclusively on a
bottom line.

We are discussing where listening takes place. Not profitability.

The fact is that knowing where we might be able to get listeners, based on
acceptable signal strength (and thus clarity and ease of reception) is key
to being able to provide the people within that area which some kind of
format or programming that a group of listeners would actually like.

Only if we appeal to a group of listeners can we make the money needed to
sustain any kind of format.

Because he, like the rest of us, doesn't accept the premise that an
industry licensed "to serve in the public interest as a public trustee,"
has an entitlement to a license based on investment in physical plant and
stockholders' expectations.

And where does discussing the signal needed for listeners to be able to
satisfactorily receive a station have any relationship with serving the
listners who can receive us well enough to actually listen?

Because he, like the rest of us, believes an industry licensed "to
serve in the public interest as a public trustee" doesn't get to dismiss
complaints of active listeners as destructive and contemptous when they're
told as listeners they are immaterial and irrelevant.

Aside from fruitcakes, who are most of the complainers to radio stations
(people who object to callers saying "ain't" for example), stations as a
rule pay attention to valid complaints. But that does not have anything to
do with the subject, either.

Posters to Usenet and forums are an exception... they are radio hobbyists or
groupies (not said negatively... as I was such at 12 or 13 myself) who have
more than the average listener's interest in the radio business.

Again, nothing to do with the subject of what signal strength is necessary
for over 95% of listening at home and at work takes place.

Because he, like the rest of us, believes your industry's facts are
manufactured pursuant to goals that have nothing to do with the license
requirement that you "serve in the public interest as a public trustee."

This case is exactly the opposite. We have a great deal of data on where
listening takes place, and we can use it to determine, at the individual
station level, where a station's listening is located so we can concentrate
our efforts on providing appealing programming to some of the people inside
the real listening area.

Since service can be of many kinds, ranging from a pleasant music blend to
get through the day by to active news coverage to being part of ethinc
communities. So knowing who is in the area we can serve is important... and
knowing what that area is is a combination of how far our useful signal goes
and who lives inside that signal.

The facts in this case are not manufactured. You map your listening, book
after book, and then look at what the signal contour is that encompasses
most of them. The contour is pure math (on AM, frequency, power, antenna
efficiency and conductivity) and the listenership comes out of (using LA as
an example) 30,000 annual diaries with several hundred thousand at home and
at work ZIP coded listening instances.

Again, knowing where we can be used determines a large part of how we can be
of service and use to listeners.

That should provide the answer to your inquiry. The question is, why
do you refuse to listen to the the complaints of an entire body of active
and participating radio listeners who believe they have every right to be
heard?

At stations I am involved with, we answer valid listener concerns.
Obviously, the kind of people on this Usenet group are not listeners to any
station I deal with, so this statement of yours is hardly appropriate.


You see...refusing seems to work both ways.

Not really, since your comments have nothing to do with the subject or are
just wrong.

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
news
David Eduardo wrote:
Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by?
Instead of examining the facts, you hurl insults.

Because he, like the rest of us, doesn't accept the premise that an
industry licensed "to serve in the public interest as a public trustee"
may unilaterally make performance commitments based exclusively on a
bottom line.

We are discussing where listening takes place. Not profitability.


Go back and read carefully, you asked why. I told you why.


And this is where we fundamentally differ. You don't listen.

Read it again, Pancho. See if you can find the hidden meaning. I'll
give you a hint...it's right in front of your face.


You want to know why he refuses to accept your 'facts?' Because he's
not sure you listened to him enough to really understand what his gripe
is.

So far, in the last two years, you've only quoted margins, stock
prices, statistics and agendae. You've argued with everything that's
been put before you, even when it agrees with what you've said.

What you've not done....not one time, is simply listen. And then
address what's been said. Instead of returning to script and quoting
your manufactured facts.

It's like I said a year ago, if you came down and actually
participate in a discussion as a member of the group, instead of
spitting pedantry every time you open your keyboard, you'd probably get
a lot more of your message heard.

But you don't seem to be able to discuss without the pedantic
reliance on corporate speak and what Eric Richards called (with some
accuracy) pseudo-statistical double talk.

Drop the pedantry and oblique insults and see if you don't get
somewhere.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

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


"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.

Nope, you are not a broadcaster just a master fabricator.

Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by? Instead
of examining the facts, you hurl insults.

Because it is twisted by marketing hacks like you.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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

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


"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.

Nope, you are not a broadcaster just a master fabricator.

Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by?
Instead
of examining the facts, you hurl insults.

Because it is twisted by marketing hacks like you.

I don't work in marketing.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

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

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


"Telamon" wrote in message

om.
..

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.

Nope, you are not a broadcaster just a master fabricator.

Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by?
Instead
of examining the facts, you hurl insults.

Because it is twisted by marketing hacks like you.

I don't work in marketing.

Good thing as you can't sell anytime here.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

David Eduardo wrote:

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


"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.

Nope, you are not a broadcaster just a master fabricator.

Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by? Instead
of examining the facts, you hurl insults.

'Eduardo', as the other poster stated, quite correctly in fact, you are not a
broadcaster just a master fabricator.