On Aug 6, 5:15*pm, "Brenda Ann"
wrote:
"David Kaye" wrote in message

... He cares about ratings, which are made of
whole cloth and based upon a model that is non-sequitur in the real world..
We've all seen what the true meaning of polls is during the past four
election cycles. There's just no way you can legitimately, despite what some
would have you believe, base the opinions of 1,000,000 people on the dubious
reporting of a few hundred or so.

Elections can be won with a single vote. In ratings, averages are what
allow advertisers to attach value to campaigns. It is, in fact, the
larger advertisers who demand ratings and do not make decisions
without some form of quantitative analysis. In recent years,
advertisers have their agency ad buys audited to make sure that there
is measurable efficiency in them.

The industry, and he in particular, choose to dismiss the opinions, tastes,
and needs of a significant segment of the population (and getting MORE
significant over the next 20 years or so) with the totally inapt reasoning
that they "don't contribute significantly to sales figures" and "are not
swayed to try new products", both of which are patently and demonstrably
untrue, if you actually LISTEN to your public rather than to allow yourself
to be lead around like an animal at a petting zoo.

And you, again, fail to understand that advertisers determine the age
group´s they wish their campigns to reach. If there are essentially no
advertisers asking for audiences over the age of 55, then there is no
way for commercial radio to serve that group as there is no way to pay
the bills. Despite what some have "claimed" radio station sellers have
little or no contact with those who make marketing decisions at the
client level.

Blaming radio for what advertisers choose to do with their money is
naive.

FWIW, I have a good friend that has known David for many years, and who
agrees 100% with my opinions of him.

I doubt that, since I have spent most of my career where English is
not spoken. In any case, no person in broadcast management is running
a popularity contest among their competitors. Being disliked is often
a sign that you are winning.

On Aug 6, 5:45*pm, (David Kaye) wrote:
Thus, I'd be inclined to think the ratings systems aren't as flawed
as people contend they are. *

An old friend at Arbitron once said,

"There are three kinds of clients. Those who just went up in the
ratings think they are programming geniuses to have done that. THose
that stayed the same are thankful they did not go down, and are
pleased with their programming and management skills. And then there
are those who went down, who know it is all because Arbitron surveys
are defective."

On Aug 6, 7:52*pm, wrote:
Po, po auld henpecked Eduardo.Y'all oughts not be pickin on him when he
isn't here to defend himself.
cuhulin

Heeee's baaaaack!!!!!

On Aug 6, 10:52*am, DigitalRadioScams
wrote:
From Radio-Info:
July 2005


July 2005 is relevant? Have I fallen into a time warp? Well, I'll play
along:

Say, who do you think will replace Sandra Day O'Connor? And do you
think the Dems have a shot at retaking Congress next fall?

On Aug 6, 11:22*pm, "
wrote:
On Aug 6, 5:45*pm, (David Kaye) wrote:





"Brenda Ann" wrote:
While I may not have some of the expertise he claims to have, [....]

It's not a matter of "claims." *He's known in the industry and he has a
website detailing all his accomplishments over the years, complete with photos
and other documents. *

He cares about ratings, which are made of
whole cloth and based upon a model that is non-sequitur in the real world.

Huh? *Without ratings it's very hard to make income. *Sure, it's possible to
sell time on stations with no ratings, but it's extremely difficult. *Stations
such as KEST and KPIG(AM) do it, but they have a tough go of it. *KPIG(AM) is
advertising for salespeople every couple months because it's so hard to keep
salespeople who can't make any money selling time. *

Regardless of whether you think the ratings system is flawed or not, the PPMs
and the diaries of Arbitron are fairly close for the most part, and the
differences between Neilsen and Arbitron ratings aren't much different,
either. *Thus, I'd be inclined to think the ratings systems aren't as flawed
as people contend they are. *

We've all seen what the true meaning of polls is during the past four
election cycles. There's just no way you can legitimately, despite what some
would have you believe, base the opinions of 1,000,000 people on the dubious
reporting of a few hundred or so.

None of this matters in radio and TV ratings. *The ratings come in and the
stations sell based on those ratings. *The advertisers buy based on the
assumption that they are correct. *If they're so far off as to be bogus, the
advertisers would have left long ago and the ratings systems would have been
thrown out. *Companies do not spend money capriciously, especially they're
trying to bring in business. *

I agree Eduardo is pretty sharp, but let me try to explain Brenda's
point, or perhaps put my spin on it. There are two ways to market a
product. One is to do research, focus groups, etc. This produces a
product that the market probably wants to some degree, but also a
product for which the market is familiar. Now the way to make a
killing is to come up with a product that the customer doesn't know he
needs. You understand the product, not the market per se because the
market isn't built yet. Basically if you focus on surveys, you can
only provide something that the customer already knows about. You
probably won't screw up, but you won't make a killing either.

The purpose of focus groups is to try out on real people things for
which there is no current market. You get a cross-section of humanity
in a room and expose them to your new product.


Eduardo has no passion for radio. He surveys the market and tries to
adjust stations to meet what his survey indicates is marketable.

Like Piolin en la Manana?

On Aug 7, 7:20*pm, "Brenda Ann"
wrote:

Reality has changed, the radio industry is not changing with it. The people
with the most disposable income are all over 50 (boomers), and, at least
until this recent downturn, which has affected ALL sales, they spent quite a
lot of it. I myself am always buying new tech, and I still try new fast
foods when they come out, ad inf.. Boomers are a huge market that is being
largely ignored.

Again, it's the advertisers who don't want to pay to have their
messages heard by people over 55 or so. Over and over and over the
reason is that the cost of making a sale with an older, more skeptical
consumer, is greater than the profit on the sale because it takes many
more repetitons of the ad message to create a sale. In other words,
there is no return on investment.

Radio has as high a usage by those over 55 as in any of the so-called
sales demographics between 18 and 54. There are plenty of stations and
formats that appeal to seniors, including AC, country, news, talk,
etc., but they don't get much revenue from that and can't effectively
use audience ratings as nobody is buying.

Ratings are bogus. I, and most people, really don't care to have my
decisions on what to listen to or watch or whatever decided by a small
sample pool. Imagine if 2500 especially picked individuals decided who would
be POTUS?

Two little differences (although for someone who has made their mind
up already, this won't make any difference):

First, a presidential election is one time every four years. Radio
ratings are for every moment, hour by hour, every day, every week,
every month. And a reasonable approximation of audience size is
adequate for pricing, the whole purpose of ratings where there are
many, many winners.

Second, the samples are not 2,500 but hundreds of thousands. Just in
Los Angeles, the daily sample is around 3,000. That's 1,000,000 daily
listening samples a year.

On Aug 8, 1:26*pm, "
wrote:
On Aug 7, 7:13*pm, (David Kaye) wrote:

RHF wrote:
Yes - I have been Packaged and am Ready for Delivery

-but- according to D'Eduardo : I Don't Count ~ RHF

Well, you may not count. *People over age 50 don't count to most advertisers,
thus most of the KGO listenership is a group few companies want to reach. *
That's because people over 50 don't buy much, and those who do tend not to be
swayed much by advertising. *

That's just the reality of the ratings game.

I believe you have it half right. People over 50 spend plenty of
money, but their purchasing habits are well established. You can't
make them change brands. So the theory is you indoctrinate the
younguns and they will buy your crap for life. Apple is a prime
example. The young liked the ipod, so they think Apple makes good
phones too.

True. An old fuddy-duddy like Obama was still wedded to his
BlackBerry.

The reality is that people change because products change and
suppliers go out of business. If brand names continue to exist, they
are names only.

I admit my mother in law finds it hard to use her DVD player, but
she's over 90, and she's used to playing tapes over Ch. 3.

I've said this before -- my uncle was 65 when he dropped his lifetime
habit of buying Chryslers for a Toyota. He was the first guy on his
block to get color TV, and had he lived long enough I'm sure he'd be
the first one with a plasma widescreen.

On Aug 8, 3:18*pm, RHF wrote:

- I believe you have it half right. People over 50 spend plenty of
- money, but their purchasing habits are well established. You can't
- make them change brands. So the theory is you indoctrinate the
- younguns and they will buy your crap for life. Apple is a prime
- example. The young liked the ipod, so they think Apple makes good
- phones too.

Advertising & Marketing & Brand Loyalty :
Happy Meals = Develop Customer Brand Loyalty
at an early age; and continue to build on it until
they are hooked for life {around Age 50} ~ RHF
*.

True, I'm still eating Spaghetti-O's and Cap'n Crunch cereal.

On Aug 8, 10:26*am, John Higdon wrote:
In article
,

*RHF wrote:
Maybe in this here Recession the Radio Advertisers
should re-think their Prime Demographics and try
and Target those still with Money in this Multi-Year
[Great Obama] Recession (2009~2016).

You must be joking. Thinking out of the box is not practiced in
corporate radio.


Of course, the demographics of radio advertising are determined by
advertisers, not stations. But why let facts get in the way of another
remark about evil station owners...

On Aug 9, 9:34*pm, spamtrap1888 wrote:
On Aug 6, 11:22*pm, "





wrote:
On Aug 6, 5:45*pm, (David Kaye) wrote:

"Brenda Ann" wrote:
While I may not have some of the expertise he claims to have, [....]

It's not a matter of "claims." *He's known in the industry and he has a
website detailing all his accomplishments over the years, complete with photos
and other documents. *

He cares about ratings, which are made of
whole cloth and based upon a model that is non-sequitur in the real world.

Huh? *Without ratings it's very hard to make income. *Sure, it's possible to
sell time on stations with no ratings, but it's extremely difficult. *Stations
such as KEST and KPIG(AM) do it, but they have a tough go of it. *KPIG(AM) is
advertising for salespeople every couple months because it's so hard to keep
salespeople who can't make any money selling time. *

Regardless of whether you think the ratings system is flawed or not, the PPMs
and the diaries of Arbitron are fairly close for the most part, and the
differences between Neilsen and Arbitron ratings aren't much different,
either. *Thus, I'd be inclined to think the ratings systems aren't as flawed
as people contend they are. *

We've all seen what the true meaning of polls is during the past four
election cycles. There's just no way you can legitimately, despite what some
would have you believe, base the opinions of 1,000,000 people on the dubious
reporting of a few hundred or so.

None of this matters in radio and TV ratings. *The ratings come in and the
stations sell based on those ratings. *The advertisers buy based on the
assumption that they are correct. *If they're so far off as to be bogus, the
advertisers would have left long ago and the ratings systems would have been
thrown out. *Companies do not spend money capriciously, especially they're
trying to bring in business. *

I agree Eduardo is pretty sharp, but let me try to explain Brenda's
point, or perhaps put my spin on it. There are two ways to market a
product. One is to do research, focus groups, etc. This produces a
product that the market probably wants to some degree, but also a
product for which the market is familiar. Now the way to make a
killing is to come up with a product that the customer doesn't know he
needs. You understand the product, not the market per se because the
market isn't built yet. Basically if you focus on surveys, you can
only provide something that the customer already knows about. You
probably won't screw up, but you won't make a killing either.

The purpose of focus groups is to try out on real people things for
which there is no current market. You get a cross-section of humanity
in a room and expose them to your new product.



Eduardo has no passion for radio. He surveys the market and tries to
adjust stations to meet what his survey indicates is marketable.

Like Piolin en la Manana?- Hide quoted text -


Yeah, the guy who I put on overnights for me at a suburban LA station
when I first met him in 1992.