The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

wrote in message
...

I haven't had any booze since last February.
cuhulin


Congratulations. That's a significant achievement. How's the dog?

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

Doggy is sleepin with her head on my right leg.Night of the Hunter movie
just now finished up on the TCM channel.Next up, The First Auto.

U.S.prezes Murdered By the Rothschild Banking Cartel.
www.rense.com/general86/pres.htm

www.devilfinder.com
Lyndon Baines Johnson's involvement in the murder of John F.Kennedy

www.devilfinder.com
George H.W.Bush's involvement in the murder of John F.Kennedy

Heh, politicians Murdering politicians.

The More the Better, I always say.
cuhulin

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

David Eduardo wrote:
The reason there are no more is that
listeners as a group don't like any more songs, no matter how deep the
research goes.

People don't listen in groups. Your research is flawed.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"dave" wrote in message
m...
David Eduardo wrote:
The reason there are no more is that
listeners as a group don't like any more songs, no matter how deep the
research goes.

People don't listen in groups. Your research is flawed.

Radio audience is a group. To form a group, you have to attract listeners
with common likes and dislikes, and satisfy each of them.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On 07/13/09 08:51, David Eduardo wrote:

"dave" wrote in message
m...
David Eduardo wrote:
The reason there are no more is that
listeners as a group don't like any more songs, no matter how deep
the research goes.

People don't listen in groups. Your research is flawed.

Radio audience is a group. To form a group, you have to attract
listeners with common likes and dislikes, and satisfy each of them.

No, Radio listening is done by individuals. It's done by
individuals, mostly in separate locations, under separate
conditions, with individual intent, tastes and needs of the moment.
Radio listening is an individual experience. Not a group marketing
construct.

As R. L. Larkin liked to say..."The Map is not the Territory."
There are vast differences between the individuals needs and
individual experience, and the constructs used to measure, evaluate,
and attempt to grasp these experiences, and then direct mass
listening.


"Radio audience" is an artificial construct to group individuals
into a single manageable entity, by averaging, rounding off, and
statistically creating a model from carefully chosen sample. To
create the 'average' listener to whom the product is marketed, and
for whom the advertising is targeted. But it is not the actual
individual listener. Who often selects a radio station because it's
the lesser of multiple dislikes.

Radio audience is not like a theatre audience. A theatre audience
is a group of individuals gathered at a common time, into a single
place, with a single intent, and a single environment, with common
expectations on product that are driven by the common environment
the common experience. An audience shares contained commonality.
Even to changing dress for the experience.

Radio is individual. It's been a long time since people grouped
around their radios for the common experience. Radio listening,
today, is 'at will.' Seeking psychographic satisfaction at the
moment as an individual. Usually singly, usually personally. With
expectations of the product that are driven by the
needs/wants/tastes/satisfactions of the moment.

But Radio is presented by a carefully constructed formula based
on a carefully constructed model of the listeners that comprise the
construct called audience. And listeners choose what's available.
Even if it may not be to their precise tastes/needs/wants of the
moment. Radio works to convince listeners that what Radio presents
is precisely what the listener wants.

So Radio doesn't attract bodies of listeners by satisfying each
of them. They attract individual listeners by doing what's easy,
convenient and graspable for RADIO, and satisfying the needs of the
artificial construct, not the individual. And then selling the
individual on the idea that he/she/it is actually being satisfied as
an individual.

And it's all nonsense.

If Radio was so successful at satisfying the needs of each of
it's listeners, there would be many fewer alternative choices to
Radio. Because there would be no viable market for them.

Radio does what's good for Radio.

The fact that Radio is successful at meeting Radio's goal is not
an indication that Radio has satisfied each listener's needs. It's
only an indication that Radio has met the goals of its marketing
construct. And satisfied the construct of the 'average' listener,
with average content, presented in an average way, until the numbers
match the target.

Actual listeners are only tools to Radio's commercial end.

Listeners are not served by Radio. Radio lures listeners so that
listeners may serve Radio's needs.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 07/13/09 08:51, David Eduardo wrote:

"dave" wrote in message
m...
David Eduardo wrote:
The reason there are no more is that
listeners as a group don't like any more songs, no matter how deep
the research goes.

People don't listen in groups. Your research is flawed.

Radio audience is a group. To form a group, you have to attract
listeners with common likes and dislikes, and satisfy each of them.

No, Radio listening is done by individuals. It's done by individuals,
mostly in separate locations, under separate conditions, with individual
intent, tastes and needs of the moment. Radio listening is an individual
experience. Not a group marketing construct.

No disagreement. But from the persective of a radio staiton, one can only
form an audience, which is a group, by finding common appeal among many,
many individuals. The process consists in finding the common thread among
large groups of listeners, and providing it. The listener wo thinks, "I like
this music" or "I like this show" must be joined by thousands if not tens of
thousands of other people all at once for a station to be successful.

The first step has to be that identification of broad likes. Then, the
content is delivered as if it were directed at each listener individually.
That is where one on one comes in... in the delivery, not the design.

In airchecking, I often suggest that jocks put a picture of a loved one or
family menber over the mike so they talk to a person, not a crowd. But,
again, this only works if the program content is selected to appeal to a
bunch of listeners, a group.

Reread my statement... "Radio Audience is a Group." Each listener is an
individual, but the audience is a group.

A good resstaurant may have a few customers who like beets. But maybe 80% of
the customers hate them. So they would never serve beets as a standard side.
That's because they know most of the clients would not enjoy their dining
experience as much as were they to serve potatoes and mixed veggies. The
restaurant knows the base offerings must have broad appeal to a group of
clients. Otherwise, they fail.

The rest of your post was clipped, as you are harping on the idea that we as
an industry don't get that listening happens person by person. We get that,
but a station has to appeal to each person who belongs to a group with
common music likes and dislikes and which is large enough to make the
station successful (by whatever metric that is measured). And that is where
the concept of a group, a collection, an assembly enters in. The key part of
"broadcasting" today is "broad."

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On 07/13/09 10:31, David Eduardo wrote:

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 07/13/09 08:51, David Eduardo wrote:

"dave" wrote in message
m...
David Eduardo wrote:
The reason there are no more is that
listeners as a group don't like any more songs, no matter how deep
the research goes.

People don't listen in groups. Your research is flawed.

Radio audience is a group. To form a group, you have to attract
listeners with common likes and dislikes, and satisfy each of them.

No, Radio listening is done by individuals. It's done by individuals,
mostly in separate locations, under separate conditions, with
individual intent, tastes and needs of the moment. Radio listening is
an individual experience. Not a group marketing construct.

No disagreement. But from the persective of a radio staiton, one can
only form an audience, which is a group, by finding common appeal among
many, many individuals. The process consists in finding the common
thread among large groups of listeners, and providing it. The listener
wo thinks, "I like this music" or "I like this show" must be joined by
thousands if not tens of thousands of other people all at once for a
station to be successful.

The first step has to be that identification of broad likes. Then, the
content is delivered as if it were directed at each listener
individually. That is where one on one comes in... in the delivery, not
the design.

In airchecking, I often suggest that jocks put a picture of a loved one
or family menber over the mike so they talk to a person, not a crowd.
But, again, this only works if the program content is selected to appeal
to a bunch of listeners, a group.

Reread my statement... "Radio Audience is a Group." Each listener is an
individual, but the audience is a group.


I read it the first time, David. Or I wouldn't have had a response.

The 'audience' doesn't exist. It's an artificial construct to
gather together the numbers into a manageable device. But it's an
artificial construct, nothing more.



A good resstaurant may have a few customers who like beets. But maybe
80% of the customers hate them. So they would never serve beets as a
standard side. That's because they know most of the clients would not
enjoy their dining experience as much as were they to serve potatoes and
mixed veggies. The restaurant knows the base offerings must have broad
appeal to a group of clients. Otherwise, they fail.


Every restaurant I frequent will serve an alternate, if I ask.
They understand that general offerings don't get it, even for
patrons who seek out their restaurant based on genre.

Interesting you should mention beets. I get beets frequently.



The rest of your post was clipped, as you are harping on the idea that
we as an industry don't get that listening happens person by person. We
get that, but a station has to appeal to each person who belongs to a
group with common music likes and dislikes and which is large enough to
make the station successful (by whatever metric that is measured). And
that is where the concept of a group, a collection, an assembly enters
in. The key part of "broadcasting" today is "broad."


I"m sure that you get that listening happens person by person.
The fact you clipped the rest and reduced it to 'harping'
underscores my point that Radio isn't about the listeners. It's
about Radio. And for the bigger groups, the stock price.

The listeners are only a tool to a commercial end. Your job is to
sell us on the idea that we want what you offer.

Radio does what's good for Radio.

The listeners serve that end.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"dave" wrote in message
m...
David Eduardo wrote:
The reason there are no more is that
listeners as a group don't like any more songs, no matter how deep
the research goes.

People don't listen in groups. Your research is flawed.

Radio audience is a group. To form a group, you have to attract
listeners with common likes and dislikes, and satisfy each of them.

You cannot interview them in groups. People express their likes and
dislikes more honestly when they are not with other people.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

The listeners are only a tool to a commercial end. Your job is to sell
us on the idea that we want what you offer.


No, our job is to identify what individual listeners want, and then find the
commonality that has a base in a large group of people with similar likes.
Then we serve each individual. Unlike the internet, or the restaurant
example, we can't customize content for each listener, but we can find
common elements many listeners have... which ends up being the same thing.

Audience is the only thing radio sells. Audience is created by putting
together, one by one, listeners who like a station and come to it with a
certain frequency.

"Selling what we want you to offer..." is an old concept. It's, from the
radio point of view, about "us." It's the "50,000 watt voice of the Great
Southwest." Who cares? Good radio today is about "you," the individual
listener. It's the difference between "La Nueva, the concert station, where
you can win tickets to the Vicente Fernandez concert..." and "Imagine
yourself in the front row at the Vicente Fernandez concert... it may not be
a dream...."

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"dave" wrote in message
. ..
David Eduardo wrote:

"dave" wrote in message
m...
David Eduardo wrote:
The reason there are no more is that
listeners as a group don't like any more songs, no matter how deep the
research goes.

People don't listen in groups. Your research is flawed.

Radio audience is a group. To form a group, you have to attract listeners
with common likes and dislikes, and satisfy each of them.

You cannot interview them in groups. People express their likes and
dislikes more honestly when they are not with other people.

That's why most radio research today is done individually. And a music test
is not a discussion, so whether there is one person or one hundred present,
each person scores each song individually, and many stations have moved to
on-line testing (one person) or "by invitation" individual testing in an
office or even mall meeting room. Perceptuals are most often done by one on
one phone interviews or one on one personal interviews. Callout music
research is done via one on one phone interviews.