"KaitoWRX911" wrote in message
...
On Aug 9, 10:53?pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"KaitoWRX911" wrote in message

...



The clear channels don't generally cover much that is not covered by
dozens
of FMs in and around each market the 25 original 1 A clears today. At
night,
the AM channels have so much interference that they don't cover much
that
is
not covered by FMs, too. And in any case, night radio listening is very
low... about 10% of all radio listening. So saying people are dependent
on
the clear channel stations when, in fact, there is scant listening to
stations outside their metro areas, is exaggeration. There is some, but
it
is almost statistically insignificant today.

Almost 50% of radio listening is done in cars - almost zero at home.

The truth is that in-car averages about 30%, with the low being around 24%
in New York City and the highs in long-commute markets like LA where it is
around 32%. At work and in home account for a bit over a third each.

Bridge Ratings Industry Study : In-Car Media Use

A company that is no longer around vs. 43 years of Arbitron studies in,
currently, over 280 markets? Bridge had a sample of about 1000. Arbitron
surveys three or 4 million a year.

On Aug 9, 3:36*am, wrote:
On Aug 7, 1:53*pm, RHF wrote:





On Aug 7, 7:39*am, m II wrote:

Dave wrote:
What about places where FM doesn't work? *AM radio is all we got.

I should have been clearer in my posting. If they move anything out of
the AM band, it should be only the IBOC noise makers. All the normal AM
stations stay exactly where they are.

In my own case, I listen to more AM than FM. I can't help but think that
moving the whole of the AM band to another venue will be nothing more
than a money grab, with pay as you go subscription cards.

mike
--

The AM/MW Radio Band in the USA needs to have the
number of Radio Stations reduced by Half to 2/3rds or
even down to 1/4th.

Move the excess AM/MW Radio Stations to an expanded
FM Radio Band that is All Digital.

~ RHF
*

I think everyone would agree that medium wave is badly overcrowded,
especially if you listen to the jumbled mess you can often hear at
night.

However, given the MASSIVE duplication of programming content on AM
radio -- especially at night when you can't swing a dead cat without
hearing "Coast to Coast AM" on about a zillion different stations, but
even during the daytime with syndicated shows being found on multiple
places on the dial almost anywhere you go, why not just get rid of the
excess stations?

- If a station doesn't carry some minimum of locally-produced
- content, why not just cancel their license? *

Right-On !

It's hard to argue that being the
third or fourth station in a market to carry Sean Hannity or Doctor
Laura is in the public interest in any significant way. *It's just
wasting spectrum. *If the stations can't come up with their own
content, they should go dark and leave room for stations that can.

Problem solved. *And better programming results when the remaining
stations serve their communities.

Simple!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Aug 9, 9:44*am, Drifter wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 7, 1:53 pm, RHF wrote:
On Aug 7, 7:39 am, m II wrote:

Dave wrote:
What about places where FM doesn't work? *AM radio is all we got.
I should have been clearer in my posting. If they move anything out of
the AM band, it should be only the IBOC noise makers. All the normal AM
stations stay exactly where they are.
In my own case, I listen to more AM than FM. I can't help but think that
moving the whole of the AM band to another venue will be nothing more
than a money grab, with pay as you go subscription cards.
mike
--
The AM/MW Radio Band in the USA needs to have the
number of Radio Stations reduced by Half to 2/3rds or
even down to 1/4th.

Move the excess AM/MW Radio Stations to an expanded
FM Radio Band that is All Digital.

~ RHF

I think everyone would agree that medium wave is badly overcrowded,
especially if you listen to the jumbled mess you can often hear at
night.

I wouldn't say overcrowded, it more conditions. 30 years ago, night-
time was all about the clears, and most local were low power at night.



However, given the MASSIVE duplication of programming content on AM
radio -- especially at night when you can't swing a dead cat without
hearing "Coast to Coast AM" on about a zillion different stations, but
even during the daytime with syndicated shows being found on multiple
places on the dial almost anywhere you go, why not just get rid of the
excess stations?

Duplication is the main trouble today. the only difference with the
locals is news and sponsor spots. my fav local is a little 5Kw daylight
and 500w night. it can be a bit hard to pull in, but programing is
about 80% local. mom and pop style station.



If a station doesn't carry some minimum of locally-produced content,
why not just cancel their license? *It's hard to argue that being the
third or fourth station in a market to carry Sean Hannity or Doctor
Laura is in the public interest in any significant way. *It's just
wasting spectrum. *If the stations can't come up with their own
content, they should go dark and leave room for stations that can.

you right and i'm all for that.

- i get so tired of the hate and lies on talk radio.

I am getting so tired of the Hate and Lies about Talk Radio.

Can't Stand Someone Else's Opinion {View-Point}
- - - Call It Hate !

Disagree with the 'other' Half of the Facts {Full-Picture}
- - - Call Them Lies !



Problem solved. *And better programming results when the remaining
stations serve their communities.

Simple!

Drifter...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Aug 9, 10:23*am, m II wrote:
Drifter wrote:
you right and i'm all for that. i get so tired of the hate and lies
on talk radio.

And it comes from both sides of the political scene. The Hosts on those
shows are just entertainers. It is in their own interest to get the
audience worked up. If that takes mis-representation or sensationalism
to do, that is what they do.

- It's junk information.

- Talk radio is to Truth as Pro wrestling is to Sport.
-
- mike

Can't Stand Someone Else's Opinion {View-Point}
- - - Call It Hate !

Disagree with the 'other' Half of the Facts {Full-Picture}
- - - Call Them Lies !

RHF wrote:

Can't Stand Someone Else's Opinion {View-Point}
- - - Call It Hate !

Disagree with the 'other' Half of the Facts {Full-Picture}
- - - Call Them Lies !


That is exactly what they do. You have a keen eye. That sort of talk
gets the listening audience all worked up. They tell their friends. The
Talk Show host prays that he gets a bigger audience. No audience, no
talk show host.



mike


--
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /
/ /\ \/ /\ \/This space for rent/\ \/ /\ \/ /
/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/

Densa International©
'Think tanks cleaned cheap'

Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage,
I block all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail,
Google Groups or HOTMAIL address.
I also filter everything from a .cn server.

http://improve-usenet.org/

On Aug 9, 4:44*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...





In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Art Harris" wrote in message
....
wrote:
*A group made up primarily of broadcast
consulting engineers proposes a new use for TV Channels 5 and 6 in the
United States once their occupants migrate to digital. It recommends
the
reallocation of part of that spectrum for the use of the country's AM
stations.

Many rural areas of the country are dependent on 50kw clear channel AM
stations for basic news and entertainment. 75MHz AM stations aren't
going to cut it.

The clear channels don't generally cover much that is not covered by
dozens
of FMs in and around each market the 25 original 1 A clears today. At
night,
the AM channels have so much interference that they don't cover much that
is
not covered by FMs, too. And in any case, night radio listening is very
low... about 10% of all radio listening. So saying people are dependent
on
the clear channel stations when, in fact, there is scant listening to
stations outside their metro areas, is exaggeration. There is some, but
it
is almost statistically insignificant today.

You are so full of it Eduardo.

I invite you to talk to any group manager in radio. I can't imagine any of
them saying anything different,

- because we all live by the same metrics
- and information and sales realities.

Sales Reaities are NOT Listener Realities.

the only 'metric' i need is my ears ~ RHF

David Eduardo wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message
...
I can't imagine any of them saying anything different, because we all
live by the same metrics and information and sales realities.
You live in a reality of your own making.

It's the reality of our entire industry.
The "reality" of your "industry" is that when you try to run it like a
factory you ruin the product. You make crap because you have no idea what
you're doing. You forget the intangibles and let the number crunchers
pick the songs. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

Huh? In markets like LA, the one you are in, all the significant stations
let the listeners pick the music. And there is an incredible amount of
talent on the air, doing spontaneous, live and entertaining radio.


Letting the listeners pick the music insures a "closed system" that
never takes chances or breaks new ground. Radio should "lead" not "follow".

RHF wrote:
On Aug 9, 10:23 am, m II wrote:
Drifter wrote:
you right and i'm all for that. i get so tired of the hate and lies
on talk radio.
And it comes from both sides of the political scene. The Hosts on those
shows are just entertainers. It is in their own interest to get the
audience worked up. If that takes mis-representation or sensationalism
to do, that is what they do.

- It's junk information.

- Talk radio is to Truth as Pro wrestling is to Sport.
-
- mike

Can't Stand Someone Else's Opinion {View-Point}
- - - Call It Hate !

Disagree with the 'other' Half of the Facts {Full-Picture}
- - - Call Them Lies !
.
one man's junk information . . .
is another man's treasured truth ~ RHF
.
-ps- radio just listen and you will hear
.


If a visceral contempt for government (i. e. "the people") and an
unchecked willingness to sell off the commons to the highest bidder
doesn't equal "hate", what does?

David Eduardo wrote:

If a station doesn't carry some minimum of locally-produced content,
why not just cancel their license?

In a multi-station market, why is this necessary? If there is a need for it,
some station will fulfill it. Otherwise, there is no need.

Radio should foster a sense of "community". The NAB is always claiming
AM/FM have (has?) a "local" advantage vs. satellite and web radio; put
up or shut-up.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message
...
I can't imagine any of them saying anything different, because we all
live by the same metrics and information and sales realities.
You live in a reality of your own making.

It's the reality of our entire industry.
The "reality" of your "industry" is that when you try to run it like a
factory you ruin the product. You make crap because you have no idea
what you're doing. You forget the intangibles and let the number
crunchers pick the songs. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

Huh? In markets like LA, the one you are in, all the significant stations
let the listeners pick the music. And there is an incredible amount of
talent on the air, doing spontaneous, live and entertaining radio.
Letting the listeners pick the music insures a "closed system" that never
takes chances or breaks new ground. Radio should "lead" not "follow".

On new songs, the programmers pick, and then follow up very soon with
inquiries to the listeners. If they don't like the new songs, they are
eliminated.

In today's moment by moment audience measurement, there is no way to play
unfamiliar or unusual music.