Know your listener/market
 

"Michael Lawson" wrote in message
...

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

Fewer and fewer each year.

There are 13,500 radio stations in the US and some 3,500 owners.
Most are
small.

1) Your statement doesn't address the trend towards fewer and fewer
stations each year. How many owners were there 10 years ago? 20
years ago?

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.

I don't have the data, but I'd take a guess and
say that the top 5 owners of radio stations
probably account for over half of the 13,500.

The top 5 owners account for 14.7% of the total. By the time you get to the
top 10, you still do not have 20% of the total. The #10 company only owns 68
stations. #20 owns 35. #30 owns 22. So there are less than 30 companies that
own more than the pre-consolidation 14/14 limits.

Know your listener/market
 

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

Radio and its myopic model is killing itself. It will doubtless
change as the problems become increasingly difficult to ignore, but by
then much damage will be done. The WSJ, home of the capitalist, will
have been one of the first in the business world to notice.

I suspect that IBOC will be a casualty of radio's decline and change
of direction. A poorly thought out solution to a problem that doesn't
exist.

Eduardo can sit, fat and happy with pockets full of wads of cash, but
radio itself will suffer because of what he does to it.
--
Eric F. Richards,
"It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser

Know your listener/market
 

"David Eduardo" wrote:

Actually, there are more stations every year.

But less content. Every one of them using the same playlist, put
together by "marketing research," run out of a skyscraper by a DJ
handling several stations at a time, all in cities he's never been to.


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.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. The WSJ is about
investments, not about the local market operation of radio stations.

See the first article in this thread:

Message-ID: m



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

Know your listener/market
 

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?


Because, you're smarter than that.



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.


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.

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

Don't get me wrong, I understand your frustration. I'm no less
frustrated than you are. But the business doesn't work to serve the
likes of you and me. It works to serve itself. And we're not the ones
being servered today. There are, however MILLIONS who do believe they're
being served by Radio today (whether or not they really are), and as
long as they continue to use radio as they are, advertisers will
continue to use Radio as THEY are.

That's not David's fault. He doesn't create the tool, he only shows
the stations how to use it to meet advertisers wants. It's the
advertisers who create the tool. If you want to be angry at someone,
start there.

Affect the bottom line, you creat change.

Know your listener/market
 

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

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.

They are all in accordance with the FCC's technical rules. They do not
interfere in areas where, per the FCC's tables, the signals are usable. In
fact, signals are protected to far greater extremes in the USA than in any
other country in the world that has commercial radio in it.

For example, Mexico allows stations in the same city to be only 20 kHz apart
on AM, and only separated by one channel on FM. And they allow far higher
powers, yet allocate other stations on the same or adjacent channels far
closer together.

As to the content, radio programs what will get audiences large enough for
advertisers to be interested (with the exception of brokered and religious
staitons, which program whatever is paid for generally). That reduces the
chances of having a reggae station in Minneapolis or a Jazz station in
Cleveland. Since the US has realtively unregionalized taste, the same
formats are going to be available in every city in the country.


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.

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.

Voice tracking has been used since the late 60's, and is not that common
today compared with the 70's and 80's.

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.

The most you can have "in one building" are 8 in the US. Compare thaat to
groups with up to 14 in Mexico, where radio is economically far better off
than in the US.

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. there are very few HD
radios out there, and until a few months ago, the only ones were targeted at
station engineers who were installing HD. The timetable for HD is to get
more HD-2 channels on in the top 50 markets this year, and roll out
advertising and new radios around the holidays and at CES 2007. This is a
multi-year project.

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

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.

You don't get it. One, I work for one company in the US and no one else. I
am not "brought in" for anything.

Second, markets are defined by a combination of the OMB and Arbitron's own
clients. Advertisers budget by market, and the market budget is spent on
local staitons, whether there are any non-locals being heard there or not.
To do any other thing is too much pain for no gain by the advertising
agency, so they do not do it.

Individual radio stations do not define markets.

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.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Stations program for local
markets. This is because on air advertising is only one of the services they
provide. the most importent part of the services is the client servicing,
including commercial preparation, client consultation, remotes, in-store
promotions, marketing events, concerts, street appearnaces and dozens of
other things. None of this can be done for listeners outside the metro as
the costs vs. benefits do not have a favorable balance. And, mostly, because
the advertisers DON't WANT OUT OF MARKET STATIONS:

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.

Know your listener/market
 

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

Actually, there are more stations every year.

But less content. Every one of them using the same playlist, put
together by "marketing research," run out of a skyscraper by a DJ
handling several stations at a time, all in cities he's never been to.


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.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. The WSJ is about
investments, not about the local market operation of radio stations.

See the first article in this thread:

Message-ID: m

That is not about local radio sales and programming. It is about HD radio by
someone who does not understand radio written well before the new HD content
started to become available. Poppycock, in other words.

Know your listener/market
 

You addressed nothing of the real point. David consults radio.

Actually, I work fulltime for the 9th largest radio company in the US. I
only do consulting in Latin America when the time permits... which with the
present 70 hour weeks, it does not permit much of.

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.

Exactly. well stated, too.

Know your listener/market
 

Be yourself ready for the big EMF. www.lessemf.com/personal.html
cuhulin

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:
You addressed nothing of the real point. David consults radio.

Actually, I work fulltime for the 9th largest radio company in the US. I
only do consulting in Latin America when the time permits... which with the
present 70 hour weeks, it does not permit much of.


Thanks for the clarification.

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.

Exactly. well stated, too.


Yeah, well...45 years behind microphones, I should know SOMEthing.

Know your listener/market
 

Radio is an ART, accountants and advertisers do not, and never will
understand art. You can't sweep water up a hill, and you can't make a
pig sing. The money radio makes is not plowed back into the art, but
skimmed off for the business. Corporations are like sharks and only
notice whether the wallet is getting fatter or thinner, and will do
ANYTHING to keep it getting fatter. They also look down at their feet
while they are walking, which means they aren't looking where they're
going. This ensures that they will walk into walls or other
obstructions, this is why radio has been shooting itself in the feet
every step they take. Vampires ought pull out at least once in a while
to let the host recuperate. Go ahead, keep sucking, watch radio die.
The din of Ibiquity IS the sound of the last few drops of life blood
being suctioned out.

Know your listener/market
 

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.

Know your listener/market
 

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

Know your listener/market
 

"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

Know your listener/market
 

"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

Know your listener/market
 

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.

Know your listener/market
 

"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.

Know your listener/market
 

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

Know your listener/market
 

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

Know your listener/market
 

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

Know your listener/market
 

"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.

Know your listener/market
 

"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

Know your listener/market
 

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

Know your listener/market
 

"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

Know your listener/market
 

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.

Know your listener/market
 

"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

Know your listener/market
 

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.

Know your listener/market
 

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

Know your listener/market
 

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

Know your listener/market
 

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. :)

Know your listener/market
 

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.

Know your listener/market
 

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?


Your new career is very very closely related to the old one.
Voice-over talent for ads, club remotes, etc., all involve the same
skills you used in your old career: audio mixing, proper mic
technique, "The Voice," and so on. You simply aren't doing it
directly for broadcasting -- you tape a spot, or do your show to a
live audience instead.


It's not like you became an actuary and had to acquire an entirely new
set of skills.



--
Eric F. Richards

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

Know your listener/market
 

Listerner/market,,,,, as pertains to me,here in Jackson,as pertains to
local Jackson area radio stations.FM 96.3 and FM 102.9.Look them up.
cuhulin

Know your listener/market
 

"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?

Know your listener/market
 

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

Changing station is not changing career.

Idiiot.

Radio people who are on air, in production and in promotions are vey prone
to changing stations The jokes about U-Hauls are legion among us. I have
lived and worked in 4 countries and 8 states. I have worked for over 200
stations. But the moving is less these days, as consolidation gives new
no-move career paths. Before, to get a raise, you had to move in most cases.

Idiot.

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

Know your listener/market
 

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

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.

Know your listener/market
 

"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.

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.

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

I am dyslexic. Next question.

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.

Advertisers require metrics. that means a cost vs. delivery index, called
cost per point. We do not talk about "listeners" on sales calls. We talk
about the cost to deliver one impression to one percent of the universe in
each metro, called CPP. Advertisers require this... in fact, since they buy
Arbitron (ratings are done for advertisers, not for stations) they already
know what the CPP is and any meeting of a face to face kind is generally to
hammer the CPP lower.

Numbers are the base for most judgments in America. A baseball player is
judged by RBI, ERI, etc. An employee by productivity per person. A car by
MPG or horse power. Advertising is based on cost of delivery.

Know your listener/market
 

"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.
Now, I am in my 12th year with one, but I have gone from PD of a talk
station to multiple FM music stations, to national AM PD, to natioanl FM PD
to overseer of research and programming. So I have had 4 or 5 "new jobs" in
12 years. Before that, I worked in Ohio, Ecuador, DC, VA, AL, Puerto Rico (4
tours), Argentina, Mexico, AZ, and CA. And did work in 17 other Latin
American countries and Europe. If I do not move and change jobs, it gets
horribly boring.

I did it. So have most of my colleagues.

Mine too. That is what we talk about when we catch up at meetings and
conventions.

Know your listener/market
 

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

It's funny, but true. I collect old Broadcasting Magazines, going back to
the late 30's and have over 1000 of them up to the early 70's. I often grab
a stack and just read them. It is amazing that the issues of 1946 are those
of today.

Example: concerned parents and teachers in 1946 complaining about the bad
influence of Tom Mix and the Lone ranger on youth, and how such shows foment
laziness and lack of attention to school and teach bad habits. Fast forward.
Protests against stations in the mid 50's for playing rock 'n' roll. Fast
forward. Protests in the last few years about hip hop.

The back and forth on ratings is a constant. The protests against "too many
stations on the dial for clear reception" are a constant In fact, the first
in my collection is from a 1929 RaDex magazine, complaining that now that
there were several hundred active stations, the dial was too crowded and
something should be done to get it in order.

I particularly prize an article, also from Radex, about how radio is going
to be ruined and become a relic of the past due to those awful long (one
minute) commercials which will surely doom radio.

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.

Know your listener/market
 

Bad influence of Tom Mix and the Lone Ranger?,,, What!? You couldn't
find a better influence back then than Tom Mix and the Lone Ranger.Shave
and a haircut,four bits,,,, Who is the barber? Tom Mix.
Kemo Savy,Lone Ranger.
www.krud.com
cuhulin

Know your listener/market
 

"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?

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

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