On 1/23/12 13:30 , FarsWatch4 wrote:

If you were involved with EIGHT...maybe more? Then there was something
wrong with the mthodology of this survey


Not at all. 6 were in other markets. 2 were followup studies.

Then the methodology is flawed....and as a reesult, I would be suspect of
any conclusions.


The methodology is flawed? Because the survey was conducted in
multiple markets? Hardly. That's like saying Arbitron's PPM is flawed
because it's used in more than Chicago. Nonsense.

You're suspect of any conclusions because they don't agree with your
pre packaged claims.


You're not familiar with the way this kind of survey is done. Rarely
just one. Never in a single location. And about 1/3 of the time with a
current followup to note trends in response, or changes in perceptuals.

You're correct. In all my years in broadcasting, I have never heard of such
a silly way to do a "survey".

Which, then, says a lot about your experience.


You should do some, sometime. It's pretty fascinating stuff. At CBS,
we did perceptuals at least once a year. Sometimes twice. Just to keep
track of trends, and to see how tastes were evolving.


And music surveys are done with greater frequency. In different
locations. I worked at one station that did callout music research every
night.

My company prepares music clips for callout surveys almost constantly
for stations in markets across the country.

What's interesting is the variation is responses, by market, to a
given song.

When taken in context with the wider picture, the local snapshot
reveals even more about local tastes, public expectations, and public
perceptions based on cultural norms all of which are locally shaped.

In every market where 'HD radio listening test' surveys were
conducted in which I was involved, the tests were conducted according to
iBiquity's requirements, the participants selected according to
iBiquity's criteria, and the results tabulated and interpreted by
iBiquity's specifications.

As was posted here...the tests were rigged in iBiquity's favor,
sonically, and those with experience, trained ears, or musical abiltiy
were eliminated from participation, and the results weighted in favor of
HD radio.

There is a reason that engineers at HD stations are contractually
prohibited from criticizing HD radio, and HD radio performance. There is
a reason why stations who discontinue HD broadcasting are pursued by
iBiquity's legal department to force them to return to participating in
the HD radio scam.

And there is a reason why criticism of such an obviously flawed
system produces this blizzard of fanboi responses quoting iBiquity
pamphlets, memoes and newsletters.

The truth requires none of these things. Only a promotional scam
requires such tactics. In the same way only the Tobacco industry
required an industry run Tobacco Institute to protect industry interests
against the mountains of evidence against it.

IBiquity's tactics amount to a kind of strongarming for which Sarnoff
has been excoriated in this group for his treatment of inventions of
other men, like Armstrong and Farnsworth.

In time, there will be an accounting. Sadly, it will take too much
time. And both the broadcasting industry and the FCC has too much
invested here to see, or hear the truth about this system. But just like
even the Tobacco industry, the truth will out, and there will be an
accounting.

What damage is wrought in the interim, will remain to be seen.

But, as you, yourself have admitted, there is a waning of public
interest in all things Radio....not just shortwave, that has not rallied
even with DRM, but with AM and FM broadcasting...and the public has an
eery ability to find, or create alternatives to things that they don't
like, or things that they once loved, that have been screwed with until
they no longer serve the needs of the pubic, or things that they've lost
interest in. And Radio will be no different. Radio will find that it's
relevance is reduced, as lighter, more responsive, and more personally
customized sources for entertainment and information become available.

And, in time, Radio will find that it's no longer the dominant
medium. And that no one but Radio cares about that fact.

Even today station content is available from multiple sources, all
producing less than survivable revenue. Even as I write this, I'm
listening to a station in Louisiana, while my wife, at her office
listens to a station in Indianapolis. Neither of us are using radios.
And we both can take these stations with us on our cell phones. With
unlimited plans, or even the new larger data plans by AT&T and Verizon,
there's no reason to fear streaming your favorite stations, now. And the
stations themselves?

Well, they'd better find ways to either monetize their streams, OR
find a way to provide compelling listening content to draw listeners to
their terrestrial transmitters.

Or, like two stations here in Chicago....Radio will be moved to the
internet, or another alternative, as an interim step to being moved out
of the public ear entirely.

And in none of these scenarios does HD radio play a part. It's just
another one of all things Radio that even you agree, the public is
losing interest in.


D. Peter Maus.

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 1/23/12 13:30 , FarsWatch4 wrote:

If you were involved with EIGHT...maybe more? Then there was something
wrong with the mthodology of this survey


Not at all. 6 were in other markets. 2 were followup studies.

Then the methodology is flawed....and as a reesult, I would be suspect of
any conclusions.


The methodology is flawed? Because the survey was conducted in multiple
markets? Hardly. That's like saying Arbitron's PPM is flawed because it's
used in more than Chicago. Nonsense.

No, the fact that you were invited to participate in 6 (or more) surveys.

That's like saying you are registered to vote in additional palces other
than CHicago.



You're suspect of any conclusions because they don't agree with your pre
packaged claims.

No, I am suspect of any concluysions when I see flawed methodology.

You're not familiar with the way this kind of survey is done. Rarely
just one. Never in a single location. And about 1/3 of the time with a
current followup to note trends in response, or changes in perceptuals.

You're correct. In all my years in broadcasting, I have never heard of
such
a silly way to do a "survey".

Which, then, says a lot about your experience.

No, it says a lot about the "surveys" that you tout.

You should do some, sometime. It's pretty fascinating stuff. At CBS, we
did perceptuals at least once a year. Sometimes twice. Just to keep track
of trends, and to see how tastes were evolving.

I am involved with every perceptual survey done by every station in our
chain.

And music surveys are done with greater frequency. In different
locations. I worked at one station that did callout music research every
night.

Did they call the same person 6 (or more times)?

My company prepares music clips for callout surveys almost constantly
for stations in markets across the country.

Wow...making music clips? That makes you an expert?

When taken in context with the wider picture, the local snapshot reveals
even more about local tastes, public expectations, and public perceptions
based on cultural norms all of which are locally shaped.

Not when the methodology is flawed.

In every market where 'HD radio listening test' surveys were conducted
in which I was involved

You mean the 6 (or more) that you were invited to participate in?

And there is a reason why criticism of such an obviously flawed system
produces this blizzard of fanboi responses quoting iBiquity pamphlets,
memoes and newsletters.

There is a reason for an army of HD Haterz. Most are old timers who have
latched onto the past.

I recall people who didn't want us to use Stereo....because "stereo degrades
the signal".

They are all gone now. ;-)

The truth requires non of these things.

The truth requires that people don't get shouted down by the HD Radio
Haters" and their posse of hobbysists and DX-ers.

IBiquity's tactics amount to a kind of strongarming for which Sarnoff
has been excoriated in this group for his treatment of inventions of other
men, like Armstrong and Farnsworth.

No storngarming involved. DOn't like it? Don't use it. Like it? GO
ahead. SImple as that.


In time, there will be an accounting.

Just ,like those guys who railed against FM and Stereo.

But, as you, yourself have admitted, there is a waning of public
interest in all things Radio....not just shortwave, that has not rallied
even with DRM, but with AM and FM broadcasting...and the public has an
eery ability to find, or create alternatives to things that they don't
like, or things that they once loved, that have been screwed with until
they no longer serve the needs of the pubic, or things that they've lost
interest in. And Radio will be no different. Radio will find that it's
relevance is reduced, as lighter, more responsive, and more personally
customized sources for entertainment and information become available.

I agree.

And, in time, Radio will find that it's no longer the dominant medium.
And that no one but Radio cares about that fact.

Agreed.

Even today station content is available from multiple sources, all
producing less than survivable revenue. Even as I write this, I'm
listening to a station in Louisiana, while my wife, at her office listens
to a station in Indianapolis. Neither of us are using radios. And we both
can take these stations with us on our cell phones. With unlimited plans,
or even the new larger data plans by AT&T and Verizon, there's no reason
to fear streaming your favorite stations, now.

Agreed, this is the "new now"...with multiple platforms competing.

Well, they'd better find ways to either monetize their streams, OR find
a way to provide compelling listening content to draw listeners to their
terrestrial transmitters.

Agreed.

And in none of these scenarios does HD radio play a part.

HD is not a miracle. It simply adds some functuionality to the radio.

It's not enough to turn back the disinterest in the AM band...

On 1/23/12 15:50 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 1/23/12 13:30 , FarsWatch4 wrote:

If you were involved with EIGHT...maybe more? Then there was something
wrong with the mthodology of this survey


Not at all. 6 were in other markets. 2 were followup studies.

Then the methodology is flawed....and as a reesult, I would be suspect of
any conclusions.


The methodology is flawed? Because the survey was conducted in multiple
markets? Hardly. That's like saying Arbitron's PPM is flawed because it's
used in more than Chicago. Nonsense.

No, the fact that you were invited to participate in 6 (or more) surveys.

That's like saying you are registered to vote in additional palces other
than CHicago.



You're suspect of any conclusions because they don't agree with your pre
packaged claims.

No, I am suspect of any concluysions when I see flawed methodology.

You're not familiar with the way this kind of survey is done. Rarely
just one. Never in a single location. And about 1/3 of the time with a
current followup to note trends in response, or changes in perceptuals.

You're correct. In all my years in broadcasting, I have never heard of
such
a silly way to do a "survey".

Which, then, says a lot about your experience.

No, it says a lot about the "surveys" that you tout.

You should do some, sometime. It's pretty fascinating stuff. At CBS, we
did perceptuals at least once a year. Sometimes twice. Just to keep track
of trends, and to see how tastes were evolving.

I am involved with every perceptual survey done by every station in our
chain.

And music surveys are done with greater frequency. In different
locations. I worked at one station that did callout music research every
night.

Did they call the same person 6 (or more times)?

You misunderstand...I was helping with the execution of the surveys.
Like you, I don't participate as a respondent, but as one conducting the
tests, or managing the results. (But never both, btw.)



My company prepares music clips for callout surveys almost constantly
for stations in markets across the country.

Wow...making music clips? That makes you an expert?

LOL! That's only part of the involvement. We're also instrumental in
the execution strategy of the survey process, itself. Again, not as a
respondent. But the company has a lot of involvement in callout research.

And the reason I got involved in research, is because, as a disc
jockey, I was forever being told that 'research tells us...' usually why
we COULDN't do something that was creative, or innovative. Or why we had
to do something that made no sense, or conflicted with some other tenet
of the format. Like going on 20 seconds every time we opened a mic about
how we were the 'less talk leader.'

So, I wanted to see for myself, how this 'research' was conducted and
how the results were interpreted, and used. Probably a holdover from the
form the interest I developed during the research I did in college. In
the process, then and since, I got involved in a LOT of research. And
watched a lot of methodolgies developed and executed. And got involved
in a lot more.

To date, I've not been invited, nor have I offered, to be a
respondent in any research. I don't even answer callout surveys when
they buzz my house, or answer exit poll questions on Election Day.

Where I'm involved, like you, is in the execution of the research
survey. And I've got a huge interest in watching how surveys, like the
iBiquity sponsored HD surveys, were influenced, and managed to outcome.