Know your listener/market
 

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


"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...


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.

What was WWWM?



Your reference books don't tell you? Or can't you see past your
calculator?

I don't have time to look it up, since my radio hisotry colleciton is in LA
and I am in Puerto Rico.

WWWM, a.k.a. M-105, 105.7. AOR. Broadcast in Dolby-FM. Turned into
WMJI, oatmeal pop.

Oh, that failure of a station. replaced with what may be among the very,
absolutely best oldies stations in the US... originally designed by Kevin
Gorman of WMS fame (about the most legendary AOR station in US history,
too). M 105 was truly a dismal episode in Cleveland radio.

Know your listener/market
 

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


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

Yep. I find I can not usually go more than 8 years max with one company.

He didn't change *jobs* -- he changed *careers.*

So have I. I have been board op, announcer, general manager, chief engineer,
general sales manager, Beautiful music format syndicator, record producer,
night club owner, station group owner, CEO, group program director,
consultant in Latin America and elsewhere (Al aboard for Karachi) and a
number of other things. That covers about a dozen careers.

Know your listener/market
 

Eric F. Richards wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

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.

No surprise there. That's as plain to see as the sunrise. And as
predictable.

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.

That, sadly, is no surprise either.

What is surprising is that, even after you got out of radio as a
business, that you *endorse* this way of thinking.


No, I don't. But for those, like yourself, who really don't like the
way things are going, I offer an explanation why things are the way they
are. IF you'll recall....I began my foray into this thread by explaining
why, if you're going to complain about IBOC interference, you need to do
so on the basis of LOCAL interference. That interference out of the
market is simply not on the radar.

I don't like it. But then Radio no longer serves me. So I don't use
it as much as I once did.



Not actively, of course, you deplore it in your statements. But you
say that it is the way it is, and that it'll never change.


No it will change. But it won't change the way you like it to. If you
want to change things in a different direction, which gets back to my
original point, you need to make some noise based on the way things
really are. Not the way you perceived them to be long ago in a galaxy
far away.

FCC will only hear complaints based on issues which they can embrace
based on the current mission they have for Radio.




But it will. Like the degraded HD signals, there will always be
another source of material. Podcasts with better fidelity than
digital radio. DVDs with full HDTV capability. Renegades like Marc
Cuban -- did you see his HDTV channel? Stunning! What passes for
HDTV from the major networks is, even now, substandard even compared
to analog NTSC! Europeans must laugh at that!

No, people will go elsewhere. The monopoly on care-free audio
entertainment held by radio is over -- it's now podcasts, satellite,
MP3/OggVorbis and the unkillable Hydra of file sharing.

Radio will go the way of the movie theatre -- a slowly dying
anachronism.

And we, the consumers -- the *customers* -- are poorer for it.


Poorer we will be, yes. But Radio will adapt. It's not likely to go
away. It will adapt as it has for 80 years, to changing markets,
changing competitive forces. We may not recognize it in a new form, but
it will still be there. It will survive.

Know your listener/market
 

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

Changing station is not changing career.

Idiiot.


Of course. You could go from your old position at an Infinity station
to leave as it's purchased by Clear Channel, or take a job at an...
Infinity station.

I have never worked for either of those. I have worked for United
Broadcasting, Núcleo Radión, E-Z Communications, San Juan Broadcasting,
Lotus Communications, Pueblo communications, Pan caribbean Broadcasting,
Arso radio Corp, UnoRadio Group, Heftel Broadcasting, U.S. Information
Service, Música en Flor, Organización Radio Centro, Radiio Fórmula, S.a. de
C.V, Hispanic Broadcasting Corp, Univsion Radio, Emmis Communications, and
quite a few more.

At Wal-Mart wages.

Yes, at wages enough to buy a Wal Mart or two.

Or you could live in Clear Channel's dungeon in Texas, juggling 12
cities you've never been to.

There is no such place, you are making this up. The Clear channel corporate
headquarters produce no programming for other markets, and the San Antonio
cluster programs for San Antonio alone. Thi sis just the perpetuation of a
downright lie.



You jus know nothing about how radio works and has always worked.


I know that the business of radio is broken, and you are part of the
problem. You are also making it worse.

It is not broken. It has future challenges, and we are going to continue to
provide programming for the listener and value for the customer.

Know your listener/market
 

Eric F. Richards wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:


There is always some one like Eric who knows everything is wrong, but who
can not come up with anything better, either. Of course, the world is full
of bitchers.


Without them, there'd be nothing for manglement to do. :)


I think manglement will have plenty to do without worrying about my
complaints. Whether I point them out to you or not, events will
unfold to the detriment of radio.

And, of course, I've posted what I think you should do better: Throw
away the model.



Ok...I understand what you're saying. But, you see...it's not
Radio's model to throw away. It comes TO Radio FROM the advertisers. If
you want that to change, it has to start with the advertisers.

That's the point.

The numbers, the listener profiles, the bell curves, the demographic
and psychographic research...it's all done for the benefit of
advertisers, based on THEIR needs, Radio's. Ratings are not for Radio
Stations...they're for advertisers, and the statistical considerations
that define relevant numbers do NOT come from Radio stations...they come
from advertisers.

So, as easy as it is to say that radio should do things better and
throw away the model, things just don't work that way. Because the model
comes from the advertisers. Not within Radio.






Start over. Step one is, what is the density
relationship between listeners and radius/*accurate* coverage maps?
Then, what is the relationship between close-in listeners, further out
listeners, and fringe listeners? What are the percentages of each?
Not per unit area -- that's a different question, stated above -- but
overall.
Final question would be how do I sell to each geographic area? Your
so-called "fringe" listener may commute 30 miles one way across
multiple current marketing ranges, but never changes the dail. How do
you sell to him?

...but you keep ignoring that, with going on with, "butbutbut the
*model* sez..." The model is obsolete. Actually it is worse than
obsolete -- it never had an applicable time.

YOU, Eduardo, are the one who insists the model is right.
Advertisers may "call the shots," but they depend on your model for
their metrics, and you are too myopic to see that it doesn't fit. You
optimize your marketing to the model, and, if your lucky, you'll hit
what we mathemeticians call a "local maximum." But it isn't the
maximum, it's a minor peak.

The rest of the people out there are left wanting. And they'll move
on.

And they'll move on whether I squawk about it or not -- I'm just
telling you what's gonna happen.

Know your listener/market
 

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


"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
"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.

Please double check all my facts. You will find that they are totally
verifiable, except those I label sepcifically as coming from proprietary
research.

"Facts" like IBOC is great and doesn't cause interference, or no one
ever ever listens outside of your arbitrary lines on a map?

HD does not interefere with listened to signals. It interferes with signals
that are below the accepted listenability threshold.

There _are_ listeners outside the metro areas of some stations. they are
very few in all but a few dozen cases. That listenership is so small as to
be more an exception to the rule, and in most cases, it is to very big
signals that will continue to be big signals, HD or no HD. The signals that
HD is covering are not being listened to in any significant number, but the
gain from HD is perceived to be a far better proposition than saving a
handful of listeners... it is a trade-off to move radio into digital, where
it has to be.

Do you know -- oh, never mind, of *course* you don't. Anyway, most
innovations are made by kids in their twenties who simply haven't
learned that what they are attempting is impossible? Innovations and
discoveries ranging from General Relativity to FedEx.

I know of plenty of innovations in radio and related fields by people way
beyond thier 20's. In advertising, david Ogilvy did some of his best work in
this 50's. we are not taking about inventing stuff. Radio is invented
already. we are changing the business model ever so slightly to adapt to the
times, not reinventing it.

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?

Correct.

And 31 days later the whole world is different? And IBOC is now
exciting and available and everyone loves it? All in 31 days? Wow.

No, we are still int he first phase of the top markets, which is to get HD 2
programming on the air. The radios will not come until that is done. The
less expensive radios are still in design phase, as the design specs were
not released to manufacturers until November of last year.


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.

Never heard it.

That's because you are a soulless mercenary who can't see anything but
his calculator.

That is because I do not pay much attention to the Hollywood left. I
probably see more non-US films than ones made in the US.

There's a whole world out there. You ought to investigate it some
time. It is an amazing place, and none of your beliefs, rules and
"facts" apply there.

Actually, they do because I get my data on radio listening by sitting down
with listeners and talking to them. In every market, over and over every
year. from Argentina to McAllen, and from San Juan to Karachi. I've flown
over 2 million miles in the last 10 years alone. Getting out? I don't know
where home is half the time.


No, you bring numbers, not listeners. They aren't the same thing.

Advertisers require metrics.

Yes, they do. But the metrics they get are based on a flawed model
that doesn't fit the world. It only allows you to maximize the number
produced by the model.

Whatever that means. That is gibberish. Yabba dabba doo makes more sense.

The advertisers demanded Arbitron, they regulate it and they buy by it. Just
as green means go on a stoplight, these are the rules of radio sales. They
get to set the model because they have the money and drive what radio
offers. They tell us what ages to program to, and what types of programming
are of use to them. they also tell us they do not buy local radio staitons
outside thier own markets, and we base our business on thier requirements,
just as car makers in the US put the steering wheel on only one side of the
car.

Know your listener/market
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:


What is being missed is tha tthe model, at launch, of XM was to have 6
minutes of commercials on all channels. After about 28 months, they
changed this and the music channels were made commercial free.

I remember when they made the change. I can't believe that when the
subscriber base is significant enough, and the measurements have been
refined, that there won't be a reversal of the policy, though.


Personally, I do not think so. they severed all ties with the content
providers they had who were to be compensated with sales rights on a
percentage of inventory. I was programming 5 of the XM channels, Aguila,
Caricia, Caliente, Tejano and Vibra from launch to the January when they
made the change, and we had over 25 people working on the 5 channels. I
think they poisoned the well when they did that.

Know your listener/market
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

There is always some one like Eric who knows everything is wrong, but who
can not come up with anything better, either. Of course, the world is
full of bitchers.

Without them, there'd be nothing for manglement to do. :)

As another associate and I said the other day, "Thank God for the morons,
for to them we owe our jobs."

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:

What is being missed is tha tthe model, at launch, of XM was to have 6
minutes of commercials on all channels. After about 28 months, they
changed this and the music channels were made commercial free.
I remember when they made the change. I can't believe that when the
subscriber base is significant enough, and the measurements have been
refined, that there won't be a reversal of the policy, though.


Personally, I do not think so. they severed all ties with the content
providers they had who were to be compensated with sales rights on a
percentage of inventory. I was programming 5 of the XM channels, Aguila,
Caricia, Caliente, Tejano and Vibra from launch to the January when they
made the change, and we had over 25 people working on the 5 channels. I
think they poisoned the well when they did that.



Interesting point. I can't help but think, though, especially with
Karmazin across the street, and his multiple revenue stream mentality,
that when the base gets large enough to be attractive, that advertising
based revenue streams won't appear. It would be nice if it didn't. But I
can't see the corner offices letting that happen. It just makes no
business sense to leave that kind of money on the table. Especially,
with Wall Street looking over everyone's shoulder.

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
There is always some one like Eric who knows everything is wrong, but who
can not come up with anything better, either. Of course, the world is
full of bitchers.
Without them, there'd be nothing for manglement to do. :)

As another associate and I said the other day, "Thank God for the morons,
for to them we owe our jobs."




Boy, ain't that the truth.