"Michael Lawson" wrote:


WAIF is small enough; it's hard to be heard beyond
the I-275 loop (about a 15 mile radius or so). WOBO
way out on the east side of the loop is hard to hear
on the western edge of the loop without an outside
antenna. The same thing goes with some of the other
stations I mentioned. The big one range-wise of the
stations is WGUC (no longer affiliated with UC, btw),
which can reach about 50-60 mile radius. I don't know
the wattage off the top of my head, but I could
hear it in Dayton and I could hear it in Carrolton, KY.

Fair enough -- call it "small" in terms of market and ownership.


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

That's not the only instance in which that behavior was used to crush
a competing station. I still resent how WWWM, Cleveland was taken off
the air -- it was the #2 station in its format, and was known for
their careful attention to a clean signal. It was also the favorite
among my circles of friends -- WMMS was simply hot air and distortion.



--Mike L.


--
Eric F. Richards

"Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product."
-Ferenc Mantfeld

TCM needs to Fire that fat sloypy goofy looking robert osborne .That fat
goofy lookin freak doesn't know Jack Shyte about how to pick good movies
to watch on tv.My little doggy,she can do better than that.Sometimes,she
will watch (for a few minutes) the same kinds of old,old black and white
movies I like to watch on tv.I am sort of but not really watching The
Man From Snowy River on tv on the FMC channel,but the color hurts my
eyes.I am fixin to turn that crap off.
cuhulin

"David Eduardo" wrote:



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.


Of course. Because everyone knows how easy it is to start a new
career in mid-life.

Idiot.

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

clifto wrote:
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.


No question. But that was not the point. The point is that Radio is
responding the the age old complaint about commercial load. Radio does
this frequently, btw. Then returns to maximizing profits through load as
soon as the heat is off again.


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.

Mel Karmazin, current head of Sirius, said in a meeting at CBS when I
was there, that if a station isn't running at least 16 units an hour,
that they're wasting their time. This in the face of recent (at the
time) research presented the Radio division that said that listener
fatigue began to produce drop off after 12 units.

Karmazin's position was then that there is a tipping point of ratings
lost versus revenue gained. And that it makes better business sense to
push the unit count to THAT point, than lose potential revenue by
running minimum effective spot load.

There is no reason to suggest that this thinking will affect
decisions at Satellite, as well.




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.



There's more than that. Karmazin also announced, virtually jointly
with other companies, as NBC and Time Warner made the same announcement
vitually simultaneously, that as HD TV catches on, that full bandwidth
HD TV will disappear, and bandwidth will be stolen from the HD stream to
create secondary, and subscription based, programming on the same
channel. That his goal was to use the digital buzzword, but not actually
broadcast much more resolution that NTSC does now, to carry his
broadcasts. That much resolution was unnecessary, and that most viewers
can't tell the difference between full HD and ED Tv anyway. That the
future of all media are in multiple revenue streams from each property.

Radio will do the same.

"David Eduardo" wrote:


In this case, I defer to the M Street data. M Street's Directory has the
credibility today that the Boradcasting Yearbook had from 938 to the early
90's.


Frankly, no matter what reference you quoted, if you said the sky was
blue I'd go outside to double-check.

They were so far ahead of the curve that there were no consumer targeted
radios on the market when they did hte article.

On March 1 of this year?

Really? How times have changed -- it seems like just a month ago.


I bet "nobody you know voted for Nixon," either.

[...]

So, your suppositions are crazy and wrong and, of course, irrelevant.


Learn some history and something beyond your calculator. That phrase
was a famous one among the Hollywood Left as they contemplated
McGovern's landslide defeat.

But that
famous statement is just as wrong as yours. When you look only at a
scewed sample, you will see a scewed result.

A "screwed sample" consisted of a random sample who was given a blind taste
test. Every listener liked HD better than the same station in analog.

That's "scewed," properly spelled "skewed." I misspelled it because I
use an open-source software package called SCEW. What's your excuse?


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

Programming brings listeners. That is what have done since 1964... or all
but 4 years of my career. Better programming = more listeners. More
listeners = more revenue.

No, you bring numbers, not listeners. They aren't the same thing.
The WSJ can see the difference.

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

Eric F. Richards wrote:
"David Eduardo" wrote:


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.


Of course. Because everyone knows how easy it is to start a new
career in mid-life.

Idiot.



Actually, I highly recommend it.

I did it. So have most of my colleagues.

D Peter Maus wrote:

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.

It will be people called Program Directors, Sales Managers and
conultants who make the change, but it will NOT be the current crop
and it CERTAINLY won't be Eduardo. Not unless the lot of them have a
collective earth-shattering epiphany, and my money is against it.

No, he'll have lined his pockets well by trashing radio and won't need
to pick up the carnage left behind.


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



Gremlins.


Of course. That's one of them thar radio technical terms, right?

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

D Peter Maus wrote:


Advertisers do not sell to Radio, TV, newspapers, etc, they BUY from
them. Advertisers buy media. And they do it based on their data, their
numbers and their own wants or needs.


Sorry, poor choice of words on my part caused by typing faster than I
think. You are, of course, correct.

But their wants or needs aren't necessarily what is good for radio in
the long term. They are interested in making money today, this hour,
this minute. If that kills off the goose that laid the golden egg,
well, that's the price of doing business.


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

Eric F. Richards wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

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.

It will be people called Program Directors, Sales Managers and
conultants who make the change, but it will NOT be the current crop
and it CERTAINLY won't be Eduardo.


You may be surprised. Radio, on the business side, hasn't really
changed much in it's focus since the 30's. It's only gotten more sharply
defined, and, in many cases, more aggressive.

Advertisers are advertisers. They'll continue to call the same shots,
until it can be shown that they can make more money than they're making
now by doing something different.

Many of the same names, and same faces will be involved.

Most, in fact. Just wearing different titles.





Not unless the lot of them have a
collective earth-shattering epiphany, and my money is against it.


I'll write that down.



No, he'll have lined his pockets well by trashing radio and won't need
to pick up the carnage left behind.


David didn't create the tool...he only shows them how to use it. The
tool was created by Advertisers. Place your anger there.





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


Gremlins.


Of course. That's one of them thar radio technical terms, right?



Yewbetcha.

Eric F. Richards wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

Advertisers do not sell to Radio, TV, newspapers, etc, they BUY from
them. Advertisers buy media. And they do it based on their data, their
numbers and their own wants or needs.


Sorry, poor choice of words on my part caused by typing faster than I
think. You are, of course, correct.

But their wants or needs aren't necessarily what is good for radio in
the long term.


Nor have the ever been.



They are interested in making money today, this hour,
this minute. If that kills off the goose that laid the golden egg,
well, that's the price of doing business.

I'd say you pretty much have that correct. The purpose of David and
his like and his kind, are to show the goose how to survive, if not
thrive, while laying golden eggs at the highest possible rate.