Know your listener/market
 

"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.*


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

Know your listener/market
 

"David Eduardo" wrote:


"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.


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.

At Wal-Mart wages.

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



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.

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

Know your listener/market
 

"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?

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.

Again, it's because they haven't learned that what they are trying is
impossible. They haven't listened to "experts" like you. "Experts"
deluded by their so-called "facts" that have no connection to reality.


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.


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.

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.


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.

But, the emperor is wearing no clothes. Anyone willing to see it CAN
see it, but in your little world, no one is willing to speak up.

Eventually the emperor will catch cold and die.

But it'll be no surprise to us non-experts, the naive little children,
who aren't blessed with the wisdom of the insider -- we just saw a
naked emperor.


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

Know your listener/market
 

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.

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.

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.

--
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
 

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.




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.



Oh...Then I must have picked up the aerial photography by osmosis.
Thanks. I was wondering about that.

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"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.


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.

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"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.



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

Know your listener/market
 

D Peter Maus wrote:



Oh...Then I must have picked up the aerial photography by osmosis.
Thanks. I was wondering about that.


That's one I didn't know about.

Beats the living hell out of taking the actuarial exam... I speak from
experience -- my undergrad final was a subset of that exam and even
straight out of school it was utter murder.

--
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:


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. 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.

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

Know your listener/market
 

Eric F. Richards wrote:
s" apply there.


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.



Eric...you seem to be missing the essential point. The advertisers
don't GET the metrics based on a model, the advertisers CREATE the
model, they create the metrics. They create the tool. Not the stations.
Not the consultants. The stations do what they do to make money with
the advertiser's tool.

So to speak.

The advertisers call the shots. Not the stations.

Any appearance to the contrary is show biz. It's why I say that King
Kong is only 3' 6" (with apologies to Eli Cross). What you hear on the
radio is the magic. The bigger than life sound that conveys the
indomitable spirit, the sense that the station is in control, and that
service is personal and directly aimed at the listener. And to a
degree, that's true. But only to a degree. Reality is that programming
is a means to hold an audience between commercials. And that bigger than
life sound...is an illusion. King Kong is only 3' 6".

The only thing the station has real control over is the creation of
the illusion, and even that must meet advertisers' wants.

The advertisers create the metrics. They create the model. They call
the shots.

Reality is very different on each side of the grille cloth. But the
truth is that it's the advertisers who call the shots. Program
directors, Sales Manglers, General Manglers, Disk Jockeys...even and
especially production folk are there to facilitate the needs of the
advertisers. And the advertisers are ONLY interested in numbers that
fit their own model.

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.

Know your listener/market
 

"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.

Know your listener/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.

Know your listener/market
 

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

Know your listener/market
 

"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.

Know your listener/market
 

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.

Know your listener/market
 

"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

Know your listener/market
 

"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

Know your listener/market
 

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

Know your listener/market
 

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

Know your listener/market
 

"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."

Know your listener/market
 

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

When 85% of the actual listening occurs in the 70, and nearly all the
remainder in the 64, it is tough to defend protection beyond the 54, which
is both 10 db down and where essentially no listening of consequence takes
place.

Know your listener/market
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"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."

Yeah, it's "experimental" QRM.

Take your IBOC and put it where the sun don't shine, boy.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Know your listener/market
 

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

I found the station so lacking in memorability I could not "click" on the
call letters alone. When you posted the on air name, I did remember it as
being atrocious and well worth changing to WMJI, which has a multi decade
history of being a fine, personality, fun radio station.

I know Cleveland... from Bill Randall on WERE and Mad Daddy and Alan Freed
on WJW to Color Radio 14 to Big Wilson on WJW and NormBob's creation of WIXY
on to the artful WMMS, General Cinema's and Nationwide's efforts at FM CHR
in the 70's, etc., etc. Part of my family has been in local media for a
number of generations. And I know that what apparently is your favorite
station was low in the rating, a sales failure, and soon forgotten.

Know your listener/market
 

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
D Peter Maus wrote:

Eric...you seem to be missing the essential point. The advertisers
don't GET the metrics based on a model, the advertisers CREATE the
model, they create the metrics. They create the tool. Not the stations.
Not the consultants. The stations do what they do to make money with
the advertiser's tool.


Oh, I hear what you're saying -- I just don't believe my ears.

An advertiser wants to sell product -- nothing more. He doesn't care
about the media used to do that. He hires someone to do that work for
him, and this is where your so-called "radio expert" like Eduardo
comes in.

An advertiser does not hire me. An advertiser either hires an advertising
manager, who is thier employee, if htey are small. If they are big, they
have a marketing department who hires an ad agency. The Ad manager or the ad
agency simply looks at the audience data, selects the stations that reach
the age and sex targets they have at the best rate, and buys them.

And the media used, whether radio, TV, cable, outdoor, print, magazines,
direct mail or skywriting is determined at the highest levels of the
marketing department of a company, not by radio or other media sales people.
The ad campaign is designed for specific media, and each medium is selected
based on its effectiveness in the specific campaign. the advertiser cares
vitally about which medium or media is used.

You are blaming radio people for what is a marketing issue at the client end
and an ad agency issue in the intermediary stage for larger clients.

At RAB convention after RAB convention, it is stressed that radio has to be
easy to buy, or advertisers will not use it. The easiest way to buy raido is
the way it is done... a calculation of cost to reach each listener in the
local market.

That is it. No magic, no myster, no Oija board. Just a cuantification of
cost per listener and the exchange of money for a service.

Advertisers didn't create Arbitron -- so called "marketing experts"
did.

Advertisers created the need for Arbitron. the founders of Arbitron, which
began to measure radio in 1965, saw a need for what they were doing in
television in the radio business, consulted with many ad agencies, and
launched the service. Arbitron became the standard by selling itself to
advertisers, thus forcing radio to have to subscribe as it had become the
accepted currency. Radio had practically nothing to do with Arbitron
starting a radio service... advertisers did.

Fine. Radio *stations* didn't create the model, but the radio
*industry* -- which includes these so-called experts -- did.

Nope, we wer ehappy with Pulse and Hooper, which were much cheaper. Both
folded because staitons had to switch to Arbitron as that is what the
customers were buying from.

If Ace Hardware wants to buy time on the local station, the manager of
Ace doesn't go look up Arbitron figures -- he (rightfully) calls a
specialist -- an agency that deals with radio in the (wrongful)
expectation that they'll know what they are talking about.

The ACE account is handled by ACE's national agency, which subscribes to
Arbitron for radio buys. Funds are paid part by the corporation and part by
a pool of local Ace operators. (Ace is, essentially, a franchise or
coopperative)

In the small, unmeasured markets, coop money allows the Ace owner to buy
local radio within restrictions and be reimbursed for part of it.

Know your listener/market
 

It used to be,I could use any old radio of mine,whether tube type radio
or even a cheap little shirt pocket transistor radio,and I could DX
radio stations from here in Jackson,Mississippi to New York City and
California and Seattle and wayyyyy down South [[South is always best]]
to the most Southron corner in Florida,,, all corners of Contintetal
U.S.A.and a hell of a lot of places in betwixt the t..t and between.But
nowdays,,, every since those (excuse me language) damn MORONS in the fcc
started screwing around with things,,, its tough!
y'all want to give ME some ''facts n figures''!?
I Say Fire everybody in the effin U.S.fed govt!
cuhulin

Know your listener/market
 

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


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.


Perhaps you need to brush up on (among other things) the concept of a
career.

If you'd worked in radio, insurance and chemical engineering, that
could be considered three different careers. When you graduated from
fry man to burger flipper, that's not a change in career.

Those are very different careers, all applied in radio. Engineering (EE
degree) and sales and programming are totally different careers.

Know your listener/market
 

Cleveland,Ohio,the Monster on the Lake.There is a little town by the
name of Cleveland,Mississippi too.(look it up) I dont know if its a
Monster or on a Lake though.
cuhulin

Know your listener/market
 

"David Eduardo" wrote:


I found the station so lacking in memorability I could not "click" on the
call letters alone.

It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that they never used
their call letters for anything other than the required station ID?

When you posted the on air name, I did remember it as
being atrocious and well worth changing to WMJI, which has a multi decade
history of being a fine, personality, fun radio station.

M-105 was always in a tight race with WMMS for listeners. It was such
a bitter rivalry that whenever WMMS won the ratings war they sent a
dead mouse to the M-105 offices. (...which goes to show what a class
act WMMS was, but I digress...)

They were very popular especially among the people who cared about
their audio quality. I have a 45 minute air check from back in the
day that I'll drop in just as a reminder of "what once was" in
Cleveland radio.

WMJI was a hack. Corporate music of the worst kind. Inspired by a
vending machine, just like you.

Again, you are absolutely full of ****. How Peter can find anything
respectable about you is beyond me.

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

Know your listener/market
 

I looked it up in my Rand McNalley Road Atlas in my bathroom library
when I went to take a leak just now.Cleveland,Mississippi,,, population
about 15,384 thousand.(I didn't know it was that big a town,having never
been there before.Cleveland,Ohio,,,,, ohhhhh,,,,,, forget about it.
cuhulin

Know your listener/market
 

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


I found the station so lacking in memorability I could not "click" on the
call letters alone.

It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that they never used
their call letters for anything other than the required station ID?

When you posted the on air name, I did remember it as
being atrocious and well worth changing to WMJI, which has a multi decade
history of being a fine, personality, fun radio station.

M-105 was always in a tight race with WMMS for listeners.

So, suddenly, when it is convenient, you believe in ratings.

WWWM never came close to WMMS in ratings. Not even close.

It was such
a bitter rivalry that whenever WMMS won the ratings war they sent a
dead mouse to the M-105 offices. (...which goes to show what a class
act WMMS was, but I digress...)

That is typical radio mind-gaming. When I beat Rick Dees in Birmingham, we
sent a funeral wreath up in the elevator. In Phoenix, I heard of a PD being
sent a live ewe. wind up chickens, vegetables (especially big carrots) and
such are frequently exchanged between rival stations. This is fun rivalry,
and is part of what makes radio entertaining. You obviously do not have a
sense of humor.

They were very popular especially among the people who cared about
their audio quality. I have a 45 minute air check from back in the
day that I'll drop in just as a reminder of "what once was" in
Cleveland radio.

Who cares? It was a losing station. It had to change format, it lost so bad.
Radio is flexible that way... a format that does not work can be change,
literally, in hours.

WMJI was a hack. Corporate music of the worst kind. Inspired by a
vending machine, just like you.

And even now, #1 in Cleveland. It is giving what may people want to hear.
WWWM did not do this, even if you liked it. See the difference?

I am starting to understand you. You are an elitist, believing your taste is
sooooo good it should be emulated by others, while the taste of the masses
is inherently evil. You despise things, not because they are bad, but
because you don't like them and think anyone who does is wrong.

WMJI is Cleveland's great radio station, and has been for some time. You are
simply unable to accept that it is doing what a lot of people want.

To you, success (WMMS, WMJI) are bad. Failure is to be put on a pedestal,
such as WWWM. You are like don Quixote... except that you joust with great
radio stations instead of windmills.

Again, you are absolutely full of ****. How Peter can find anything
respectable about you is beyond me.

I got you pegged. You want things your way, even if you are the only one in
the country who wants it that way.