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

And, of course, I've posted what I think you should do better: Throw
away the model. Start over. Step one is, what is the density
relationship between listeners and radius/*accurate* coverage maps?

Arbitron, many other broadcasters, and I have spent thousands of hours and
much computer time to show a very simple thing.

FM. 85% of listening in the 70 dbu contour. Over 99% in the 64 dbu contour.

AM, in major metos where there is lots of noise, anywhere from the 10 to
even the 15 mv/m contuour determines where 90% of listening will come from.
The decline is a straignt line down after that, ending around the 5 mv/m for
nearly 100% of daytime listening.

Nights on AM are determined first by the staiton's interference free
contour, per FCC, and then the field strenght for comfortable listening.
Skywave, which is no onger consistent, is not a factor and all these night
issues for AM are limited by the fact that night AM listening is very, very
low (less than 3% of population) and not salable in most situations
(exceptions are llocal brokered programs and sports).

Then, what is the relationship between close-in listeners, further out
listeners, and fringe listeners? What are the percentages of each?

It does not matter if the advertisers are not interested in anything but the
metro. they play the fiddle, we dance for them. We are a service provider to
advertisers. That is 100% of our business model.

Not per unit area -- that's a different question, stated above -- but
overall.

Who cares? We can not sell what nobody buys. The model for radio today was
set sometime in the 50's after network radio died and TV took over night
usage overwhelmingly. It owrks for advertisers, and as long as it does, they
will continue to use it.

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?

There is no cost effectiveness in selling advertising outside a metro. There
is no demand for listeners outside each staiton's metro. There is,
therefore, no money to be made and the point is moot. Advertisers, if I did
not say it, set the rules. We provide services.

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.

the model is totally set by advertisers.
1. Buy local radio stations for the local metro.
2. Buy nearly all spots in the 6 AM to 7 PM slots.
3. Set a metric for each market based on taret population and ad rates to
get CPP.
4. Hammer stations on the CPP.
5. Ignore any effort by staiton to try to distract from CPP hammering.
6. Demand local services, such as local talent on spots, remotes, van hits,
concert sponsorships, contests, etc, in thelocal market.
7. Hammer the CPP some more.
8. Demand more loclaized "value added."
9. Go back and hammer the CPP some more.

You shoudl see that distracting with an argument about liteners way outside
th emetro they are buying would produce laughter.

And, anyway, very few of America's commercial staitons even get a signal
outside thier metro. As I mentioned, less than 300 total staitons out of
13,500 even get ratings outside thier own market.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...


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.

I think this is kind of a standoff. If one blinks, the other will shoot. But
XM dropped the commercial avails when Sirius went all-music on the music
channels, so this one will probably not work out for a long time. As it is,
except for maybe the Stern channel and play by play, none of the XM or
Sirius channels cume more than an average station in Huntsville, so an
advertiser would have to buy nearly all the channels to get any impact.

Somebody mentioned HDTV. www.google.com Watch HDTV on your PC

Do you own a good flat screen computer monitor? (CRT computer monitors
and tv sets are the best,they always will be.Mine is a 22 inch flat
screen CRT Multisync computer monitor) Scroll down to the Popular
Mechanics article.Yerra,and yesterday at gizmodo.com I saw an article
about some new visors you can plug into your computer,same effect of a
30 screen size.
cuhulin

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
m...

"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.

Begging your pardon, Eduardo.. but you're full of yourself and of something
else that decorum doesn't allow me to mention. I don't live in the middle of
cities, and most places I HAVE lived, the so called "city contour" doesn't
reach where I live.. and some of those places have even been within city
limits. IBOC DOES INTERFERE WITH LISTENED TO SIGNALS. Not everyone lives in
your perfect radio world. And the FCC, Ibiquity, and station engineers that
run stations with IBOC shouldn't be arbitrarily deciding that I or anyone
else is not important. It's a very good way to get a portion of their
anatomy handed to them financially.

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

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.

I think this is kind of a standoff. If one blinks, the other will shoot. But
XM dropped the commercial avails when Sirius went all-music on the music
channels, so this one will probably not work out for a long time. As it is,
except for maybe the Stern channel and play by play, none of the XM or
Sirius channels cume more than an average station in Huntsville, so an
advertiser would have to buy nearly all the channels to get any impact.




Shades of the Chicago radio wars.

Satellite Radio should be very exciting to watch in the coming years.
If it survives long term, it should be quite a show.

"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote:



Begging your pardon, Eduardo.. but you're full of yourself and of something
else that decorum doesn't allow me to mention. I don't live in the middle of
cities, and most places I HAVE lived, the so called "city contour" doesn't
reach where I live.. and some of those places have even been within city
limits. IBOC DOES INTERFERE WITH LISTENED TO SIGNALS. Not everyone lives in
your perfect radio world. And the FCC, Ibiquity, and station engineers that
run stations with IBOC shouldn't be arbitrarily deciding that I or anyone
else is not important. It's a very good way to get a portion of their
anatomy handed to them financially.



Careful, Brenda Ann, you'll get tagged as a moron for not
understanding basic marketing. After all, a 70dBu signal is the
minimum listenable, according to Eduardo. Right... I'm trying to
listen to a signal, not light a fluorescent lamp with it!


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

"David Eduardo" wrote:

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.


Another statement showing how full of **** you are. You can sell that
to people who don't know the station, but I was *there*.

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

D Peter Maus wrote:

Eric F. Richards wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

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.



...because life as a DJ/"on air talent" had become miserable, right?



Actually, no.


Care to rephrase that?

You have quite a bit of writing on usenet about leaving CBS and
Chicago radio, about boards designed by you and personal equipmentleft
behind that you don't even want to go back to retrieve.

So, please explain Peter: What, exactly, drove you out of radio,
consistent with your past writings?

--
Eric F. Richards

"This book reads like a headache on paper."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/readi...one/index.html

Brenda Ann isn't a moron.She has a pretty sharp head sitting on top of
her shoulders.
cuhulin

"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message
...

Begging your pardon, Eduardo.. but you're full of yourself and of
something else that decorum doesn't allow me to mention. I don't live in
the middle of cities, and most places I HAVE lived, the so called "city
contour" doesn't reach where I live.. and some of those places have even
been within city limits. IBOC DOES INTERFERE WITH LISTENED TO SIGNALS.
Not everyone lives in your perfect radio world. And the FCC, Ibiquity, and
station engineers that run stations with IBOC shouldn't be arbitrarily
deciding that I or anyone else is not important. It's a very good way to
get a portion of their anatomy handed to them financially.

The FCC in the HD review mad a reasond decision that the small amount of
interference to secondary signals was overwhelmed by the need to give radio
some form of digital capability. The loss of fringe signal reception was
deemed to be a similar situation to the decison to break down the 1-A clear
channels back in the 70's, thereby reducing the service areas of the (few)
1-A's in the US as there was evidence that their night skywave reception was
on the wane and the public would benefit from more stations.

In the present situation, the FCC considered the stability of the broadcast
industry in not creating a new band for digital, and decided that some
interference was acceptable in exchange for an in-band system that created a
digital broadcast capability. There are now several more countires adopting
HD, starting with Brazil and several in Asia. Mexico has stations on
already, although the system is deemed "experimental."