Eric F. Richards wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:


Single owners are down. They do still exist, though. But usually in
smaller markets, and nearly always with signals not desireable by
heavier investors.

The number of stations, however, is still quite high. And some will
be going dark because there are just too many of them for them all to be
profitable. And in the US radio is and always has been about the money.

13,500 is a LOT of signals.

It doesn't matter if they all are piled on top of each other,
interfering with each other, and programmed 12 at a time out of a
single building playing the same boring pap.

It's a lot of *signals* but not a lot of *content*. Remember the
song, "57 channels and nothing's on?" Now it's radio that is that
way.





2) 3500 is much less than half of 13,500, implying that the majority
of owners own more than one station. "Most" are small? NO.


Small stations are not defined by their ownership, but by the
installation,

Eduardo's response, and my response to it, were based on Mr. Lawson's
comment about a small station in the Cincy market. I suspect he
wasn't referring to a 100 Watt flea-power station but rather a strong
local *indepenent* station. In that sense, it is small.


The industry may be influenced by CCU and CBS, but it's not owned by
them. The largest company owns less than 11% of the properties. The
next, a fraction of that. Everything else is smaller by definition.


1450 stations based on perhaps 6 formats, all playing the same
computerized lists, with "DJ"'s (in name only) handling a dozen
different stations with a canned set of remarks.

That's domination.

And the other large owners do exactly the same thing. It's those with
the shallow pockets who can't afford to run 100 lights-out operations
from one building who are "forced" to give real programming.


I deal in the Census, proprietary data and talking with listeners. Market
research is simply speaking, one by one, with real listeners. Your
contentions are simply stuff you blow out of your butt.
Tell it to the WSJ.


WSJ is in the business of serving investors. Not in the business of
encouraging creativity, or manufacturing innovative products. They serve
investors. And investors are interested only by dividends. WSJ serves
that interest, nothing else.

Except that this thread was started by Carter on March 2 in

Message-ID: m

where he referred to a WSJ article about the *listener
dissatisfaction* with IBOC. No listeners, no ad revenues, no matter
what the crappy model shows. WSJ picked up on that. The "experts"
didn't.


Complaining in a USENET newsgroup is not likely to make a big
difference. Because there's no easy money in it.


No, but I'm not letting Eduardo off the hook just because I can't
change it alone.


Don't try to tell a statistician about the infallibility of
statistics. You have improper assumptions about your listener market,
your station reach, and how to measure the power of that reach. You
don't even consider much of your listener base to even exist. You,
sir, are full of ****.


That's really unnecessary, Eric. And beneath you.

Why? Seriously, why?

Some station is fulfilling a niche market and making a good steady
profit, but wants to stretch a little. Eduardo's "services" are
brought in, and he tells them, nonono, you don't have listeners 22
miles away, but you do 21 miles away -- this chart proves it. And
you'll never make any *real* money in your niche; you have to sell the
same bland pap as the other 15 stations that can be heard on your boom
box but don't really exist here, but the listeners 22 miles away hear
perfectly. Switch to the pap and you'll be rich, Rich, RICH!!! Here's
my bill -- cash, small bills, nonsequential only.

That's bull****. And he peddles it. And radio is poorer for it.


For that you look at what's under the bell curve.

STOP RIGHT THERE!!!!

Who the **** says that a bell curve -- a normal distribution --
applies to the model? Prove that the assumption is valid before
continuing at all.

The mean plus one
standard deviation, if that.

Which picks up a big chunk of non-normal distributions even though
sigma may not apply. Because they pick up *some* people, they assume
they got most of them.

They are wrong.


Strictly commodity thinking.

Yup, going for the lowest hanging fruit because it's easy. 13,500
stations fighting for them, while the rest of the tree is ignored.

Does this orphan real listeners? Yes. Are there numbers of them? Yes.
Do they matter? No, because expressed as a percentage of the defined
target, they're statically insignificant, AND they are more likely to be
wasted impressions.

Only based on the model. The model must be validated, first, and I
don't believe it is remotely close.

It's cold. But this is how the agencies actually spend money. And
advertisers call the shots.

But they get their info from people like Eduardo, with a broken model.
It doesn't matter if everyone tells you the sky is green -- it isn't.
No amount of marketing will change that.

The earth isn't flat; the sky isn't green; and the model is wrong.


And again, it's not radio stations that create these models. It's
advertisers. Do radio stations adopt them? Sure they do. There's money
in it.

Sure, everyone goes for the least effort. But they aren't maximizing
their reach.

But they don't create them. They get them from resources serving
the people with the money.

That's Eduardo. And he still is full of ****.


So, while I don't really have any use for consultancies in Radio,
what David does is show the Radio Station how to maximize it's
profitability. So the station may serve it's investors/stockholders.

At the expense of listeners, the ultimate source of revenue. The
listeners have other choices now, and will go away. The points I made
to Mr. Lawson about why anyone wants to listen now are valid, but that
isn't the music biz -- that's the news junkies. They're only a
moderate amount of the market, and the other formats will slowly
shrink.


I"m not defending it. But it is what it is.

I disagree. You are defending it -- passively -- by being fatalistic:
"I can't change it so it will be that way forever and ever, amen."

Actually, it's more simple than that. I'm among those no longer
being served. So I, too, have largely abandoned Radio as a member of the
audience. I listen far less than I used to. They don't care, they won't
miss me.

And I can't change the way Radio does business. My influence, even
from the inside, was minimal. Why? Because the issue isn't coming from
within Radio. It comes from the outside through advertisers and
investors. I actually have more influence now, by directly consulting
advertisers, than I ever had on the inside at Radio.

But the effect is still minimal. Because the mechanics of how money
is spent on advertising works. There's little motivation to change it.






But it won't be -- the rest of the world is changing and more
entertainment options are out there and that number will increase.


Yes, it will. And Radio will adapt. In the car I listen to my iPod.
At home, other than shortwave (what's left of it), there are a couple of
stations I listen to occasionally for music. WFMT, WDRV are two. And
WLS when I'm in the mood for talk. And some WBEZ on weekends. The AM
dial is trashed by IBOC hash, here...even WGN is tough to read cleanly.
So, my listening options are getting slim, but of what's there, little
interests me. The bulk of what I listen to are Radio alternatives: XM,
CD's. A bit of occasional vinyl. Or just sitting out on the banks of
the lake with a Dr Pepper and the dog listening to the birds, the waves
and the boats. Which saves a lot on batteries.

D Peter Maus wrote:



But it won't be -- the rest of the world is changing and more
entertainment options are out there and that number will increase.


Yes, it will. And Radio will adapt.

Radio will adapt, but it will be in spite of people like Eduardo and
not because of them.

The AM
dial is trashed by IBOC hash, here...even WGN is tough to read cleanly.

Butbutbut Eduardo says everyone loves IBOC! How can that possibly be?


--
Eric F. Richards

"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940

"D. Peter Maus" wrote:



You addressed nothing of the real point. David consults radio. But
the data are created, modeled and excecuted by ADVERTISERS. David
doesn't create the model...Advertisers do. David only tells the stations
how to maximize their performance within the model created by
advertisers and those who serve them. That's not David. He doesn't
create the tool. He only shows how to use it.


His interest is in maintaining the status quo as defined by...
whomever. Advertisers don't care about radio; they care about
selling. They have specialists they turn to for information about how
to sell to rado. They have different specialists for information
about selling to TV, or newspapers, or direct marketing, or whatever.

His interest is in supporting the model. But it's more than an
interest to him; it's a slavish devotion to the model: His words!
"The numbers are the facts." Numbers only represent something. If he
clung to that belief in MY field, he'd be unemployed.

But you're not paying attention to tha that point. And that, too, is
beneath you, Eric.

No, I am paying attention to that fact. But I don't accept the idea
that Eduardo is "just doing what the advertisers want." He is part of
the problem and is part of perpetuating the problem. He is NOT part
of the solution.

Oh, his stations will make money over the next 3-5 years, and for a
corporate holding company, that's all that matters. All they really
care about is the quarterly statement for THIS quarter, after all.

But in the long run, it will decline. The holding companies will
eventually sell off or close down the stations, and radio will change.

But that change will come about because of his NEGATIVE impact on
radio.

--
Eric F. Richards,
"It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser

"David Eduardo" wrote:



Eduardo's response, and my response to it, were based on Mr. Lawson's
comment about a small station in the Cincy market. I suspect he
wasn't referring to a 100 Watt flea-power station but rather a strong
local *indepenent* station. In that sense, it is small.

A small station is one with low power and limited coverage. Period. It is
not a term ever used to describe a big station with local ownership.


But Mr. Lawson doesn't speak your jargon, and I was interested in
communicating with him -- not perpetuating your jargon.

1450 stations based on perhaps 6 formats, all playing the same
computerized lists, with "DJ"'s (in name only) handling a dozen
different stations with a canned set of remarks.

Actually, it is currently 1180 stations for Clear Channel, with nobody else
having over 400, and the 10th largest company not even havingg 70.

I was using the 11% figure from Peter, who has far more credibility
with me than you do.


The most you can have "in one building" are 8 in the US.

So Clear Channel's complex doesn't exist? Hmm.


Three are very few "lights off" operations except in small markets, where
automation has allowed stations to remain on 24/7 where they used to sign
off overnight.

where he referred to a WSJ article about the *listener
dissatisfaction* with IBOC. No listeners, no ad revenues, no matter
what the crappy model shows. WSJ picked up on that. The "experts"
didn't.

The article is a classic "jump the gun" publication.

Oh, yeah, the WSJ is well known for getting waaay ahead of the curve.

Get real. They saw what you refuse to.

Maybe you should read Peter's post where he refers to the IBOC hash
decreasing the number of listeners he has. Clearly he's suffering
from delusions, too, then?

Get real.


Eveyone I know who has listend to HD or an HD 2 channel loves it.

I bet "nobody you know voted for Nixon," either. Or Bush. But that
famous statement is just as wrong as yours. When you look only at a
scewed sample, you will see a scewed result.

At the expense of listeners, the ultimate source of revenue. The
listeners have other choices now, and will go away.

No, the source of revenue is advertisers for radio. To get them, the station
must provide ears. More ears, more revenue. Better programming, more ears.


No listeners, no advertisers. The advertisers don't bring the
listeners; it's the other way around.

--
Eric F. Richards

"The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed."
- Dilbert

Eric F. Richards wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:


But it won't be -- the rest of the world is changing and more
entertainment options are out there and that number will increase.

Yes, it will. And Radio will adapt.

Radio will adapt, but it will be in spite of people like Eduardo and
not because of them.


No, Radio will adapt in spite of changing conditions, tastes,
technologies, or competitive alternatives. Program Directors, Sales
Manglers and guys like David will be the precisely the reasons Radio
will make the changes necessary to remain profitable.




The AM
dial is trashed by IBOC hash, here...even WGN is tough to read cleanly.

Butbutbut Eduardo says everyone loves IBOC! How can that possibly be?



Gremlins.

"Michael Lawson" wrote in message
...

So Clear Channel's complex doesn't exist? Hmm.

AFAIK, it does exist. They used to have occasional
pieces in the paper about how they run 10 or so MIX
stations out of one location, and the DJ has to
constantly read up on newspapers on all the localities
to keep up and sound local.

There is no such facility. Never has been. When out of market talent is used
to voice track specific shifts, the only thing sent to the station are the
voice "clips" which are sent over a WAN from one digital workstation to
another. The clips are played, along with music, local commercials, and
whatever else the local station does, in each market.

Then again, the agressive nature of Clear Channel
is kind of inherited from Jacor, who as memory
serves, back in the mid-80's bought the competing
album oriented rock station, and then was forced
by the FCC to sell it.

They had to sell it when Jacor and Clear merged, as it put them over the
maximum locl market cap. This happened in about 20 markets, in fact.

Of course, they sold it after
they converted the format to country, so they
wouldn't have any competition.

What prevented the owner from flipping back? Or another station form
changing? There are no restrictions on format changes in the USA:

And they took
the best DJs, too.

Maybe they _wanted_ to continue to work for the company. If they didn't,
they could have resigned and been hired elsewhere. There are no slaves in US
radio.

D Peter Maus wrote:
But consider this: As competitive alternatives present themselves,
and Radio adapts to survive, the negative impact of current advertiser
policies and practices will have to change as well. This is the impetus
behind CCU's "Less is More" policy. Its the reason, the VERY reason, why
XM changed their own advertising availablities while they still had
control over them, shifting primary revenue focus from advertising to
subscription.

As soon as they think they have a critical mass of subscribers,
they'll see the profit in advertising. They don't want to stop
attracting users who want the commercial-free broadcasts until
critical mass, but as soon as they believe they'll retain a
sizeable enough subscribership while advertising they'll start
commercials.

People laughed at me when The Stain first started on television,
and I predicted that it wouldn't stay a tiny, translucent
broadcaster logo but would evolve into full-color, obtrusive,
animated advertising. People laugh at me now when I predict
that TV will eventually reserve a significant part of the
screen (probably the bottom 15%) for advertising during the
programming. Just watch and see what happens.

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

Brenda Ann,you still lookin for another Spice Cabinet Radio? I saw a
website a few days ago where a radio like that is for sale for forty
five dollars.
cuhulin

A few years ago,I once counted no less than thirteen Stupid tv
commercials,one right after the other,non stop on a movie I was trying
to watch on tv.I am the World's Worst Hater of ALL kinds of
advertisements and commercials,PERIOD!
cuhulin

"Michael Lawson" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...

There is no such facility. Never has been. When out of market talent
is used
to voice track specific shifts, the only thing sent to the station
are the
voice "clips" which are sent over a WAN from one digital workstation
to
another. The clips are played, along with music, local commercials,
and
whatever else the local station does, in each market.

Sounds to me like you described the scenario
perfectly. It's all run remotely, only minimal
staff is needed at the site to keep things running.

No, the stations are run locally. they play thier own locally researched
music lists, their own commercials done by thier own local traffic director,
and are usually live in most dayparts, using voice tracking to do
non-critical dayparts, like overnghts and weekends. One shift may be done by
a fulltimer in one bigger market, and another by someoen in a totally
different market. There is no central place wehre formats are assembled
(except for satellite delivered formats, which run in very small markets
mostly)

The local station is significantly staffed in every case, with a manager,
engineering, sales management, traffic, jocks for most shifts accounting,
promotion and street team, office staff, lots of sellers, etc. Al most all
commercial production in smaller markets is done locally (in LA, for 4
formats, we have 150 employees... in McAllen, for 2 fomrats, we have over
40.

Here's a story on their recent move to a newer
studio around town:

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...iz1aclear.html

With 40 studios, one would assume they have lots of live and local shows,
and lots of local production and imaging to do. This article dis-prooves
your point. Because Cincy is a large market, they can have each of thier
talents do voice tracking for another station or two, and send them out of
that facility. Howeve, to do 4 stations in LA, we have 18 studios and
production bays, and are building more. we do not do any voice tracking at
all.

More stations were voice traced in the 70's than today, as a percentage of
total stations... we just called it by a different name then.

They had to sell it when Jacor and Clear merged, as it put them over
the
maximum locl market cap. This happened in about 20 markets, in fact.

No, it was before then, back when you were
allowed to only own one FM and one AM
station in a market.

So, what is the difference. If two companies combien, and are over the
limits, they have to sell the excess. That is normal.

Of course, they sold it after
they converted the format to country, so they
wouldn't have any competition.

What prevented the owner from flipping back? Or another station form
changing? There are no restrictions on format changes in the USA:

The new owners changed it back 3 years later
when the country format wasn't selling. Jacor
tried to buy it then, but was rebuffed. Jacor
then signed a deal to program a small third station
with that station's owners, and programmed
a similar format two the first two stations. The
attrition between the three competing stations
caused the owners of the station that Jacor wanted
gone to change formats and sell the station. Then,
the third station changed format to keep from
drawing listeners from their big rock station.

So? That is competition. Normal. I did the same sort of thing in the 60's
when I would pick up an extra station and use it as a competive tool to
protect my other stations. There is nothing new about this. It is like Time
Magazien seeing there was a market for gossip news and not wanting anyone
else to take the major share, thus launching People.


And they took
the best DJs, too.

Maybe they _wanted_ to continue to work for the company. If they
didn't,
they could have resigned and been hired elsewhere. There are no
slaves in US
radio.

Tsk tsk. There are no slaves anywhere, last
I checked. I presume that like anywhere else
there's a merger, there is a "Black Monday"
when heads roll and some few people are
allowed to keep their job if they join the
new company.

I have been through 3 mergers at one company over the last 12 years. There
were ZERO firings at the closing. In fact, in each case, the stated reason
for the merger was to gain access to our people, talent and experience...
and revenue generating abilities The ones that occasionally get fired are
the top, top management which is sometimes duplicated. But that is not that
common either.

In a merger, the old company IS hte new company. The two unite; that is what
"merger" means. Generally, there are no extra people. If both companies had
stations in the same market, only duplicated positions are sometimes
eliminated, but usually the work load can not be reduced.

Otherwise, the new owners
might decide to "go in a different direction"
and can the lot of them. Having survived
several Black Mondays myself, you're just
relieved to have a job.

I have never seen a merger or major acquisition in radio where there was a
wholesale dismissal of people on closing. In fact, most of what is paid for
a radio staiton is for the intellectual property and billing, and only about
5% is for plant and facilities. Only when a very bad station is bought to
totally reformat it would there be a house cleaning, but to have it happen
at multiple staitons is nearly unheard of. These turnarounds are exceptions,
where the buyer is only interested in the frequency, not the billing. An
example would be HBC's LMA/purchase of KSCA in LA, in 1997. The AAA format
could barely get a 1 share, and the station had been a losing dog for
decades. It was sold, and went Spanish. All the air staff was let go, as
well as promotions and copy and such, but that was because the station was
doing so badly. In most cases, staitons are bought for thier ongoing value.