"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...


As far as I know, the advertising heard on WWCR is bought by the people
who
buy airtime from WWCR.

Well, I what I meant was:

As far as I know, the advertising heard on WWCR is SOLD by the people who
buy airtime from WWCR.

D Peter Maus wrote:

[...]
So, yeah, even then, credit is local. What happens on WWCR, the way
advertising is sold , is different than the way advertising is sold on
the broadcast bands. WWCR would be selling PI's and the station would
receive a commission on every contact made to the advertiser's telephone
number. Or the numbers in a spot buy would be estimated, like the early
days of cable tv. There the sales were based on estimated households
connected to cable that may be accessible to the
program/channel/timeslot purchased. But actual viewership could be zero.
WWCR would be selling the total population within their coverage area,
and that figure broken down by demographics, or potential listenership
figures estimated by what may actually be an arbitrary yardstick. Since
no one knows how many are actually listening, such estimates are based
on assumptions that have not been relevant for decades. It's not
impossible for AMBCB to sell this way. But in today's over researched
markets, no agency would make such a purchase. And no station would
attempt to sell it, because no factual ratings information would be
available. In that case, the only reasonable choice would be a PI. Many
stations don't accept PI's anymore. Mostly because of the snake oil
salesmen who sell them, and the fact that they tend to produce marginal
results at best. Mostly, they're a waste of time.




But what I missed apparently is how the market is determined, which
according to you is only the local population in the strong signal area
combined with a market share number so the number of people listening to
the commercial can be determined. I guess you cannot have the marketing
department making a million long distance calls to figure out how many
people are listening to a distant signal. I guess relying on the people
buying the advertising on the station giving the station their sales
figures would be out of the question and so AMBCB stations rely on an
independent market share survey method.


Phone out research is a common practice. It's not cheap, but many
stations do it. What they don't do is make long distance calls to do it.
It's expensive, and the return is statistacally zero. Ratings companies
like Arbitron and Nielsen measure listening habits by station, time of
day, time spent listening, and break the numbers down by demographics,
with hour by hour breakouts. If the sample is accurate, the numbers tell
quite a story. And sales then sells advertising based on the rating,
share, TSL, and what the market will bear. When Karmazin was at CBS, he
wanted to see a conversion rate of 200%, that is, sales producing
revenue share of twice ratings share. The station I was at, we often
went higher than that. Agencies want to buy cost per point. A dollar
figure for each share point in target.

Where the diaries go is determined by zipcode, ethnic distribution,
economic status, hat size and price of recycled lawn furniture within
the Area of Dominant Influence.

ADI is deterimined by geographic size of the potential market,
population distribution, and signal strength of the station in question.

Now there are multiple factors that are involved in each of these
considerations...I'm only hitting highlights here.

So advertising is targeted by desired demographic, within the Area of
Dominant Influence and which stations deliver the desired bodies at the
best cost. When advertising is sold like this, and bought on a cost per
point basis, there is no value to the station or the advertiser to the
DX signal. If it stops at the end of fringe coverage, they could care less.

Which gets us back to the whole issue of this thread: IBOC and it's
effect on what is left of the DXing hobby.

No one cares. DXers are not statistically relevant to the business
of broadcasting. They produce no revenue. They amount to no demographic
group. They cannot be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed,
de-briefed or numbered.

They're like Dr Pepper drinkers...they defy marketing science.


So that IBOC creates interference to DXing is of no consequence to
anyone who has a financial interest in a broadcast station. And, like it
or not....and make no mistake, I do NOT like it, and am NOT a fan of
IBOC or where Broadcasting as an industry has gone in the last 15 years,
but it is what it is.....Radio in the United States is always, and has
always been, about money. Even NPR and CPB. It's always about the money.

So, to get back to my original point...if you're going to fight
IBOC, it must be done on the grounds of LOCAL interference. Because
LOCAL interference affects LOCAL revenue. And it's always about the
money. Always.



p

I wonder how this fits with the business models of the old REGIONAL
powerhouses of the 70s such as CKLW and WABC. WABC always
acknowledged their long distance listeners who called in, and CKLW
certainly was NOT targeting only Windsor, ON.


--
Eric F. Richards

"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940

Eric F. Richards wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

[...]
So, yeah, even then, credit is local. What happens on WWCR, the way
advertising is sold , is different than the way advertising is sold on
the broadcast bands. WWCR would be selling PI's and the station would
receive a commission on every contact made to the advertiser's telephone
number. Or the numbers in a spot buy would be estimated, like the early
days of cable tv. There the sales were based on estimated households
connected to cable that may be accessible to the
program/channel/timeslot purchased. But actual viewership could be zero.
WWCR would be selling the total population within their coverage area,
and that figure broken down by demographics, or potential listenership
figures estimated by what may actually be an arbitrary yardstick. Since
no one knows how many are actually listening, such estimates are based
on assumptions that have not been relevant for decades. It's not
impossible for AMBCB to sell this way. But in today's over researched
markets, no agency would make such a purchase. And no station would
attempt to sell it, because no factual ratings information would be
available. In that case, the only reasonable choice would be a PI. Many
stations don't accept PI's anymore. Mostly because of the snake oil
salesmen who sell them, and the fact that they tend to produce marginal
results at best. Mostly, they're a waste of time.



But what I missed apparently is how the market is determined, which
according to you is only the local population in the strong signal area
combined with a market share number so the number of people listening to
the commercial can be determined. I guess you cannot have the marketing
department making a million long distance calls to figure out how many
people are listening to a distant signal. I guess relying on the people
buying the advertising on the station giving the station their sales
figures would be out of the question and so AMBCB stations rely on an
independent market share survey method.

Phone out research is a common practice. It's not cheap, but many
stations do it. What they don't do is make long distance calls to do it.
It's expensive, and the return is statistacally zero. Ratings companies
like Arbitron and Nielsen measure listening habits by station, time of
day, time spent listening, and break the numbers down by demographics,
with hour by hour breakouts. If the sample is accurate, the numbers tell
quite a story. And sales then sells advertising based on the rating,
share, TSL, and what the market will bear. When Karmazin was at CBS, he
wanted to see a conversion rate of 200%, that is, sales producing
revenue share of twice ratings share. The station I was at, we often
went higher than that. Agencies want to buy cost per point. A dollar
figure for each share point in target.

Where the diaries go is determined by zipcode, ethnic distribution,
economic status, hat size and price of recycled lawn furniture within
the Area of Dominant Influence.

ADI is deterimined by geographic size of the potential market,
population distribution, and signal strength of the station in question.

Now there are multiple factors that are involved in each of these
considerations...I'm only hitting highlights here.

So advertising is targeted by desired demographic, within the Area of
Dominant Influence and which stations deliver the desired bodies at the
best cost. When advertising is sold like this, and bought on a cost per
point basis, there is no value to the station or the advertiser to the
DX signal. If it stops at the end of fringe coverage, they could care less.

Which gets us back to the whole issue of this thread: IBOC and it's
effect on what is left of the DXing hobby.

No one cares. DXers are not statistically relevant to the business
of broadcasting. They produce no revenue. They amount to no demographic
group. They cannot be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed,
de-briefed or numbered.

They're like Dr Pepper drinkers...they defy marketing science.


So that IBOC creates interference to DXing is of no consequence to
anyone who has a financial interest in a broadcast station. And, like it
or not....and make no mistake, I do NOT like it, and am NOT a fan of
IBOC or where Broadcasting as an industry has gone in the last 15 years,
but it is what it is.....Radio in the United States is always, and has
always been, about money. Even NPR and CPB. It's always about the money.

So, to get back to my original point...if you're going to fight
IBOC, it must be done on the grounds of LOCAL interference. Because
LOCAL interference affects LOCAL revenue. And it's always about the
money. Always.



p

I wonder how this fits with the business models of the old REGIONAL
powerhouses of the 70s such as CKLW and WABC. WABC always
acknowledged their long distance listeners who called in, and CKLW
certainly was NOT targeting only Windsor, ON.





Those days are long gone. But remember, a jock acknowledging a long
distance listener on the air, is and was even then, largely a novelty.
It doesn't reflect what's happening in the PD's office with the Arbitron
book, or how they compute rates for the Sales department.

Working in Chicago, having listeners in South Fox Crotch, Tennesee is
good for the ego. Hell, I sat in for the night jock one evening at KWKH
and took a request from Crayford, south of London. A great stroke. But
hardly saleable. And in the US, Radio is always about the money.

Now, CKLW is not representative of what happens in radio in the US.
At time to which you refer, radio stations in Canada were licenses to
print money. There were more radio stations in Illinois than the whole
of Canada, and the Canadian model for broadcast is vastly different than
it is in the US, specifically because of the large unserved areas
between radio stations. Not so much anymore, especially with all the
AM's going away, migrating to FM or going dark. That kind of seals the
deal on local vs. DX listener bases. But even in the 70's the Canadian
model was not the same as in the US.

D Peter Maus wrote:


Those days are long gone. But remember, a jock acknowledging a long
distance listener on the air, is and was even then, largely a novelty.
It doesn't reflect what's happening in the PD's office with the Arbitron
book, or how they compute rates for the Sales department.

Working in Chicago, having listeners in South Fox Crotch, Tennesee is
good for the ego. Hell, I sat in for the night jock one evening at KWKH
and took a request from Crayford, south of London. A great stroke. But
hardly saleable. And in the US, Radio is always about the money.

Actually, my favorite acknowledgement was from a college party in
Miami. I personally listened because I was a geek and thought it was
cool, and it became VERY interesting listening during the blackout of
77.


Now, CKLW is not representative of what happens in radio in the US.
At time to which you refer, radio stations in Canada were licenses to
print money. There were more radio stations in Illinois than the whole
of Canada, and the Canadian model for broadcast is vastly different than
it is in the US, specifically because of the large unserved areas
between radio stations.

But CKLW's target was the US, not Canada at all, and they made no
bones about it. I'm sure they were in Windsor rather than Detroit
because of costs, but their target audience was south of the border.

For that matter, last time I was in San Diego (quite some time ago,
actually), the dial was packed with stations in Mexico targeting SD.

--
Eric F. Richards

"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940

Eric F. Richards wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

Those days are long gone. But remember, a jock acknowledging a long
distance listener on the air, is and was even then, largely a novelty.
It doesn't reflect what's happening in the PD's office with the Arbitron
book, or how they compute rates for the Sales department.

Working in Chicago, having listeners in South Fox Crotch, Tennesee is
good for the ego. Hell, I sat in for the night jock one evening at KWKH
and took a request from Crayford, south of London. A great stroke. But
hardly saleable. And in the US, Radio is always about the money.

Actually, my favorite acknowledgement was from a college party in
Miami. I personally listened because I was a geek and thought it was
cool, and it became VERY interesting listening during the blackout of
77.

Now, CKLW is not representative of what happens in radio in the US.
At time to which you refer, radio stations in Canada were licenses to
print money. There were more radio stations in Illinois than the whole
of Canada, and the Canadian model for broadcast is vastly different than
it is in the US, specifically because of the large unserved areas
between radio stations.

But CKLW's target was the US, not Canada at all, and they made no
bones about it. I'm sure they were in Windsor rather than Detroit
because of costs, but their target audience was south of the border.


For that matter, last time I was in San Diego (quite some time ago,
actually), the dial was packed with stations in Mexico targeting SD.



You make my point for me. Again, the target audience is of limited
size. Because there's no practical sales value beyond a certain point.
Audience for CKLW is for practical purposes outside of the ADI,
unmeasurable. Where there is a measured audience, it's small compared to
the locals, and not saleable. But even if it were comparatively large,
and I've worked in markets downstate where WLS and WGN were rated and
contenders against the locals, there still wasn't a practical sales
value. So, for all intents that matter, that audience isn't a
consideration. Hence IBOC interference issues outside of the ADI are not
a consideration. If you're going to argue objectionable interference, it
has to be within the ADI.

As for the CKLW target. Practically speaking, the were a Detroit
station. And they sold the Detroit market. Nonetheless, they were a
Canadian station, and different rules, different business models apply
than those for US stations. Targets are one thing. Rules are another.
And location determines the rules. Not targets.

One of the things that's easily forgotten, is that Radio is an
entertainment business. (loose definitions apply.) What you hear is
often not really what it seems. There's a lot behind the curtain that is
intentionally not on display before the listening audience. Meaning that
what you hear is often not what you get.

A long distance dedication is a great ego boost to the jocks at the
station and the PD running the show. It's great to have your name
smeared across multiple states.

But as a practical business tool, it's only an imaginary benefit. The
business model is something quite different. And practical realities far
more limited than what's implied to those on your side of the grille cloth.

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

But CKLW's target was the US, not Canada at all, and they made no
bones about it. I'm sure they were in Windsor rather than Detroit
because of costs, but their target audience was south of the border.

They were in Windsor because they are a Canadian station, not a US one. And
the costs of operating from Canada were supposedly higher, due to the taxes,
goverment regulations and such in Canada.

For that matter, last time I was in San Diego (quite some time ago,
actually), the dial was packed with stations in Mexico targeting SD.

There are only a handful of stations in Tijuana targeting SD in English, and
one or two more in Spanish. Most are content to serve one of Mexico's ten
largest cities.

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

IMHO, the IBOC debacle will be as harmful to AM radio as the
elimination of clear channel designations.

The clear channels continue to exist. The Roman numerals used to designate
them changed to letters, but other than that WABC and WGN and KFI et. al.
are still 50 kw non directional clears.

The change is that few listen to the clears outside the local groundwave
coverage area any more. There are FM signals in all but the most barren
parts of the US, and there is little listening to AM at night anyway.

Some bureaucrat with the
heart of a calculator is going to wonder why ad revenue is dropping,
all the while looking at unchanging numbers massaged to fit his faulty
model his coverage area.

Radio revenue is increasing faster than inflation. The former I-A and big
1-B clears without exception are billing leaders in their markets and are
increasing in revenue because their local signals are strong, not much
affected by interference and they have good talk based programming. WBZ,
WTIC, WGY, WHAM, WSB, WBT, WSM, WGN, WBBM, WSCR, WHAM, WLW, KDKA, KYW, WABC,
WFAN, WCBS, KMOX, WWL, WOAI, WBAP, KRLD, KOA, KSL, KOB, WFAB, KFI, KNBR,
KGO, KNX, KIRO, WHO, WCCO, etc. are all among the nation's highest billers.

Eric F. Richards wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

You make my point for me.

What, with my mention of the mexican stations targeting SD? That was
just an aside on cross-border stations.

IIRC, CKLW and WABC were well aware of their wide coverage area.

Again, the target audience is of limited
size. Because there's no practical sales value beyond a certain point.
Audience for CKLW is for practical purposes outside of the ADI,
unmeasurable. Where there is a measured audience, it's small compared to
the locals, and not saleable. But even if it were comparatively large,
and I've worked in markets downstate where WLS and WGN were rated and
contenders against the locals, there still wasn't a practical sales
value. So, for all intents that matter, that audience isn't a
consideration.

Actually, what I've gotten from this discussion is that even if the
tracking methods -- 800 numbers, "Mention you heard it here on...,"
etc. have all shown that there are listeners all beyond the target
areas. What happens is that the sales department doesn't like data
that doesn't fit their assumptions, and dismisses it out of hand.


Actually, it's a lot less sinister than that. It's that there are not
sufficient numbers of them to be saleable to advertisers. The fact is
that few people actually listen to any given station out of the local
coverage area. Skywave listening is still going on, but not in saleable
numbers. There is no mechanism for selling a widely scattered irregular,
unmeasured audience. For an audience to be saleable, it needs to be
measured, and fall in to the correct demographic, psychographic, and
geographic areas. A zip code with less than 100 listeners, is
statistically zero. A zip code with an unreliable signal is of no value.
Believe me, if the numbers supported it, WLS would have a sales
office in Shreveport, Louisiana. But the only one regularly listening
to WLS in Shreveport, was me, in 1984. There were a half dozen of my
friend in St Louis, who listened to WLS. Most of them were in Radio.
Most would prefer to listen to KXOK. The signal was stronger, clearer,
and more reliable. Even in the 60's there only pockets of listeners to
skywave activity. Widely scattered, occasional listeners are of no
statistical presence. And not saleable.

The bottom line is that there's a bottom line. And anything that
can't materially affect it is not considered.

That's the nature of Radio in the US. It's always about the money.



Hence IBOC interference issues outside of the ADI are not
a consideration. If you're going to argue objectionable interference, it
has to be within the ADI.

I don't think anyone is arguing against that point now. I think,
however, there is a lot of dismay among readers and posters that the
sales people are working with a model that doen't fit reality.


Actually, the sales people are working the ONLY reality: That the
only listeners that matter are the ones that are saleable. In the US,
Radio is always, and has always been about the money


They
then target their sales in exactly that way -- the local pizza joint
is of no use to a Miami listener, but J&R Music World certainly would
be.


It seems to be a self-perpetuating... myth, for lack of a better word.
Especially today, when people are more than willing to do commerce
cross-country for normally local items such as used cars.


People are willing to do business cross country. And advertisers buy
national radio. But radio is SOLD according to local numbers. Skywave
numbers are not statistically present, nor practically operable.
Literally, to few, to far between to be useful.

Look at it this way: Radio has two customers, listeners and
advertisers. The job of the guy on the air is to sell the listeners to
the advertisers. To set the price, the guy on the air needs to have hard
numbers...how many are listening, in which zipcodes, at what times, in
what demographic groups, and for how long. And then those numbers are
compared to the advertiser's target customer in the zip codes in which
the advertiser does the bulk of his/her business. There are other
factors, for the purpose of this illustration, these are the important
ones.

Now, say you have listeners 400 miles away, well out of the
groundwave, and well into skywave. How many do you expect there to be in
any give zip code? 10? 100? If the conversion ratio of sales to
impressions is 1 in 10, that means to buy that station, one could expect
between 1 and 10 sales to result from a given period's advertising. 1 in
10 is very optimistic. So,the cost/benefit ratio is too high for that
buy. Now in the case of a mail order business such as, taking your
example, J&R, yes a clear channel station could produce a few sales here
and there though skywave listening, but consider, that the numbers,
again, are small compared to the local audience. And it's the size and
listening frequency of the local audience that sets the rate for the J&R
buy. Again, there is no statistical benefit to including the skywave
listener. Making any measurement of the skywave audience prohibitively
expensive.

Either way, they don't matter in the real world of Radio. Because
they produce no revenue enhancement.



...and back in the 70s, certainly there was absolutely no excuse for
not knowing your coverage pattern. WABC was a clear channel station,
back when there were clear channels. Why have the clear channel
status if not for the coverage area?

Clears were established when radio was in it's infancy. When audience
measurements were clumsy, and before the psychographic nature or
listening was understood. Those were also different times. Like the 60's
and 70's when Radio was in its adolescence, Radio use was not the same.
Programming was done through much different means, often by people who
did not really understand the potential of the medium. Today, Radio is
a mature product. And it's programmed and sold in a much different way
than it was then. With unjustifiable expenses cut (and some justifiable
ones as well) and among those, are the catering to the skywave audience.

And a lot of what was going on when you were hearing long distance
dedications on CKLW was show biz. It may or may not correspond to the
reality of the business model. A definite perception was catered to,
there. But that's all it was: a perception. Get a listener from South
Fox Crotch, stroke them a little on the air, send a post card, and a
t-shirt. Play up the strength of the station as a national powerhouse.
While what really mattered, What ONLY mattered was the local ratings.
LOCAL. Because they were saleable.

What you hear on the air is showbiz. Bigger than life. More important
than God. But that's just the show.

King Kong is still only 3 foot 6.



As for the CKLW target. Practically speaking, the were a Detroit
station. And they sold the Detroit market. Nonetheless, they were a
Canadian station, and different rules, different business models apply
than those for US stations. Targets are one thing. Rules are another.
And location determines the rules. Not targets.

One of the things that's easily forgotten, is that Radio is an
entertainment business. (loose definitions apply.) What you hear is
often not really what it seems. There's a lot behind the curtain that is
intentionally not on display before the listening audience. Meaning that
what you hear is often not what you get.

A long distance dedication is a great ego boost to the jocks at the
station and the PD running the show. It's great to have your name
smeared across multiple states.

But as a practical business tool, it's only an imaginary benefit. The
business model is something quite different. And practical realities far
more limited than what's implied to those on your side of the grille cloth.

IMHO, the IBOC debacle will be as harmful to AM radio as the
elimination of clear channel designations. Some bureaucrat with the
heart of a calculator is going to wonder why ad revenue is dropping,
all the while looking at unchanging numbers massaged to fit his faulty
model his coverage area.

Actually, his model gets more accurate every day. What changes is the
amount of effort he's willing to put forth to serve it. Truth is that
few Radio Executives recognize any benefit to doing things the hard
way...or the expensive way. When cheap and simple sells just as well....

And it's always about the money.

When I was in the Army (ARADCOM) at Scott Air Force Base,Illinois in
1963 and at Fort Knox,Kentucky in 1963,everybody listened to WHAS out of
Louisville,Kentucky and so did I.Sometimes I would tune my transistor
shirt pocket to KXOK and KWK out of St.Louis,Missouri.Years later,when
Jim White got his own radio talk show out of KMOX in St.Louis,I used to
listen to his radio talk show on up untill he retired.
cuhulin

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
You realize if they ever turn on HD at night, DXing will be history.

And the couple of hundred AM DXers left, most of whom are anti-radio and
luddites, will just be SOL.

Overly harsh assessment. I listen to stations out of the area for
content. Other people also fall into this group. Some advertising is
regional and national not just local so distant advertising does work.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

************************************************** **************************
The explanation of profit maximization is rather depressing. Three
items of note a (1) CKLW was ordered by the CRTC to cease and
desist in its whoring of the Detroit market and to follow Canadian
broadcast regulations. It complied and is now serving Windsor as a
less profitable operation. (2) CFRB (Canada's First Rogers Batteryless)
is a private station but has operated CFRX (6070) to serve the
boondocks
for at least half a century. As the skip lengthens out at night, it is
heard
all over the world. How does this fit the business model of maximum
profits?
(3) More and more stations are simulcasting on the internet. Why are
they
doing this if it doesn't maximize profits in their trading area?
It is amusimg that so many listerers who jeered at the BBC method
of financing the radio service are now rushing to pay the satellite
broadcasters $10 to get commercial-free programs. I am afraid that
quality programming will get lost in all this maximum profit drive.
Will the vast wasteland sound any better in digital?