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

D Peter Maus wrote:

Eric F. Richards wrote:
[...]

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.


But that still misses the point. The idea is not to target
Shreveport, but to sell to a company that can target Shreveport,
Montgomery, Pensacola, Ft. Walton Beach, Huntsville, Birmingham, and,
yes, those of us like me in East Overshoe that just *might* be looking
for a reliable mail-order company in a large city that has the SLR I'm
looking for, because there are no local places to go.

Again, the idea isn't to sell pizza from Chicago to Huntsville. Or,
to sell Huntsville pizza on a Chicago radio station. The idea is that
there are advertisers who appeal to any location in a large geographic
area, such as J&R -- or any other business that sells mail-order --
and put their ads on the air.

I wouldn't be surprised if the 100 here and the 50 there over ALL of
the skywave coverage area added up to between 5 and 10% of your
listener area. Would *you* want to tell the PD that the latest
Arbitrons showed a 5% drop in listenership in the evening?

But that is what you are doing -- assuming that the 5% is
statistically insignificant because you are looking at it in terms of
listener density per geographical unit.

....and its not like those listeners are costing you extra, in terms of
station expenses -- you aren't increasing power for the benefit of
those 5% -- you would, however, be selling to them an ad that is not
targeted to a geographic area.

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

But your model is flawed. It assumes that a low geographic listener
density cannot be sold to, but that's only true for
greographic-sensitive products, like pizza and the local bar or Olive
Garden.

If that model was used on network television, there'd be no network TV
ads, but there are. And somehow, network TV muddles on.


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


In this case, there's money to be made, even money being made, and it
is ignored. You said yourself, earlier, that if I call in from East
Overshoe and buy, say, that $1500 SLR, and say, "I heard it on WABC,"
they'll throw the data out rather than count it, because, *by itself*,
it's statistically insignificant.

....except that there are 100 sales thrown out that way, and they are
as an aggregate, statistically significant. All the East Overshoes
don't get their own pie slice, but put into the "Other -- Skywave"
slice, they are pretty big.



People are willing to do business cross country. And advertisers buy
national radio. But radio is SOLD according to local numbers.

And that is where the model is flawed.

Skywave
numbers are not statistically present, nor practically operable.
Literally, to few, to far between to be useful.

....and I'm saying they are, but you'll never know selling pizza. But
if you sell to a company that can take advantage of those distant
areas, they will.

How many Hallicrafters radios would have been sold if they only
advertised in Chicago newspapers?


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?

You don't. But if the local survivalist is the one with the program,
you sell the emergency preparedness web sites, Honda generators, and
enough colloidal silver to turn 'em all blue. Survivalists don't like
the city much, anyway.

Substitute "local survivalist" with "Art Bell" if you need a more
believable scenereo.

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.


....that your model will measure. If it doesn't fit the model it's
thrown out, because the model doesn't reflect it.

You aren't spending extra dollars to get the signal to East Overshoe,
it's just there. Now that it is there, put something out there that
will be available and useful to any and all the East Overshoes out
there, no matter where they happen to be. Leave the zipcodes out of
it, unless you start binning all the zipcodes from your skywave
listeners according to the demographics they represent. You have one,
here, two there, five here, one over thar, all of which happen to be
middle class males 18-45 and add up to 100 sales. Not saleable?


--
Eric F. Richards

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

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

I wouldn't be surprised if the 100 here and the 50 there over ALL of
the skywave coverage area added up to between 5 and 10% of your
listener area. Would *you* want to tell the PD that the latest
Arbitrons showed a 5% drop in listenership in the evening?

Arbitron does not measure the skywave coverage area of the few AMs that get
any extended skywave coverage. It measures market by market the Metropolitan
Statistical Area or a similar definition adapted to the radio market. Any
station from outside the market area that gets listening could show up in a
distant market's Arbitron... but they don't. Out of home market Am listening
in the US is almost always in a contiguous market... like Riverside
listening to LA staitons or Flint listening to Detroit stations.

Radio listening at night is very low. Less than a third of the daytime
listening levels, and more like a quarter for AM. So 5% of nothing is
nothing. Advertisers seldom ask for spots after 7 PM, so most of what you
hear is bonus or freebe spots.

But that is what you are doing -- assuming that the 5% is
statistically insignificant because you are looking at it in terms of
listener density per geographical unit.

We are looking for listening in our home market. I am with a station that is
#1 in LA, and is top 5 in Riverside. Riverside is a separate market, and we
do not make a cent off it. So we do not care, do not promote in Riverside,
do remotes in Riverside or pay attention to Riverside, even though we are a
top 5 station out there. And this is with an FM... AMs care even less.

...and its not like those listeners are costing you extra, in terms of
station expenses -- you aren't increasing power for the benefit of
those 5% -- you would, however, be selling to them an ad that is not
targeted to a geographic area.

Nobody cares. If an advertiser wants listeners in Shreeveport, there are 25
stations to pick from that actually have ratings there. Why pay Chicago
rates to reach Shreeveport when the city has its own successful media?

If that model was used on network television, there'd be no network TV
ads, but there are. And somehow, network TV muddles on.

It is the same as cable. They are sold natinally based on reach and cost per
national point. Radio is sold by the market, not by the country.

People are willing to do business cross country. And advertisers buy
national radio. But radio is SOLD according to local numbers.

And that is where the model is flawed.

There is no model as AM stations do not get any significant listening
outside their gvroundwave coverage area, and night radio is low listening
level at best and not bought by most advertisers. Mainly, distant stations
do not have listeners outside thier groundwave areas in significant
quantities for an advertiser to justify paying to reach them.

How many Hallicrafters radios would have been sold if they only
advertised in Chicago newspapers?

Hallicrafters went broke. this is because long distance reception is not of
interest any more, especially on AM medium wave.

"David Eduardo" wrote:

We are looking for listening in our home market. I am with a station that is
#1 in LA, and is top 5 in Riverside. Riverside is a separate market, and we
do not make a cent off it.

I'm sure that if you cared to track it, you would find that you made
quite a bit of money there. But you don't because your model tells
you that the world ends at the edge of LA. It doesn't, though, and a
smart advertiser would take advantage of that even if you are
stubbornly unwilling to accept that radio waves go beyond LA and that
people beyond LA -- in your own words,

even though we are a
top 5 station out there

they just might spend money on products you advertise.

How many Hallicrafters radios would have been sold if they only
advertised in Chicago newspapers?

Hallicrafters went broke. this is because long distance reception is not of
interest any more, especially on AM medium wave.

Hallicrafters went broke because Japan out-thought and outsold the
U.S. in the 70s when it came to shortwave markets. Perhaps you'll
tell me that ICOM, Sony, Kenwood, Yaesu, Degen, et. al. all don't
exist now?

However, that's beside the point. The point is that if Halli only
sold locally in Chicago, neither you nor I would have ever heard of
them.

....for that matter, had Japan's electronics companies not targeted the
U.S., we would never have heard of them, nor would they have become
the giants they are today. THEY certainly saw that the world didn't
end beyond their shores. (And Japanese culture is almost synonymous
with insular.)

Your view of your listening community will do more to destroy american
radio than anything else. You and Peter can insist that "that's the
way it is," but the truth is "that's the way your model sees it."
Fine. Ignore your real customers. Insult them even and tell them
they don't exist. It's *your* career path, not mine. Enjoy the ride
all the way into the ground.

--
Eric F. Richards

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

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

We are looking for listening in our home market. I am with a station that
is
#1 in LA, and is top 5 in Riverside. Riverside is a separate market, and
we
do not make a cent off it.

I'm sure that if you cared to track it, you would find that you made
quite a bit of money there. But you don't because your model tells
you that the world ends at the edge of LA.

We make no money and never have. The Inland Empire is bought as a separate
market. As such, advertisers buy in-market stations at a tiny fraction
(about 10% to 15%) of LA rates to target the IE specifically. They do not
buy LA stations to cover the IE as nearly all have imperfect coverage of the
area, and do not offer support, like remotes, promotions and other in-market
marketing.

The ad world does end at the edges of the LA MSA, whch consists of LA and
Orange Counties. You get a nice, "yes, sure2 when you point out that they
are getting the IE for "free" with the buy, but advertisers till want
promotions and presence int he LA market and will not pay extra for IE
coverage.

By the way, we have had at least 2 staitons in the top 3 25-54 (the sales
demo) in LA for the last 11 years, and currently have three of the top 5.
We get no money from fringe markets, never have, never will.

It doesn't, though, and a
smart advertiser would take advantage of that even if you are
stubbornly unwilling to accept that radio waves go beyond LA and that
people beyond LA -- in your own words,

Advertisers buy "by the market" and the IE is a separate market from LA.
There are no "smart advertisers" as the customers know that out of market
stations, even with ratings, are seldom as effective as in market stations
that offer value added in the market. And an LA station is not going to go
into the Inland Empire to sell at $120 a spot when they sell at $2,000 in
LA.

even though we are a
top 5 station out there

they just might spend money on products you advertise.

I don't advertise any products. We run ads for other people with products.
None of whom care an iota abut out of metro coverage as it comes with no
promotional and in-market support.

Hallicrafters went broke. this is because long distance reception is not
of
interest any more, especially on AM medium wave.

Hallicrafters went broke because Japan out-thought and outsold the
U.S. in the 70s when it came to shortwave markets. Perhaps you'll
tell me that ICOM, Sony, Kenwood, Yaesu, Degen, et. al. all don't
exist now?

Drake abandoned general coverage receivers, and there has been an on-again,
off agian chatter about ICOM leaving the GC sector.

In any case, we are discussing distant MW reception, and the main reason the
Hallicrafters and Hammarlunds and Drakes and Galaxys of the US left the
market is that there is low demand... partly because there is limited
interest in distant MW reception compared with the 50's and 60's.

Your view of your listening community will do more to destroy american
radio than anything else. You and Peter can insist that "that's the
way it is," but the truth is "that's the way your model sees it."

The biggest fact you are ignoring, among many, is that radio listening in
daytime is on average about 22% of all people at any given time. In
evenings, after 7 PM, it drops by 11 PM to about 2%. Advertisers
specifically exclude nights and overnights from ad buys. So out of market
coverage is irrelevant. Most Ams do not have any our of market coverage, as
they are daytimers or directional or lower powered and on congested
channels.

The few AMs that do have fairly borad night signals do not get listening in
enough quantity out of market to make anything of. Advertisers do not buy at
night, and stations generally have no ratings outside of the groundwave
area. Add to that the fact that most of the former 1 A stations are very
localized, with lots of city-specific traffic reports and local news and
local events that they are of no interest 500 miles away. They win big in
the metro by being local and relevant. There is no money for out of metro
advertising and such big stations are not going to sacrifice local for a
couple of C.C. Crane PI spots.

Fine. Ignore your real customers. Insult them even and tell them
they don't exist. It's *your* career path, not mine. Enjoy the ride
all the way into the ground.

My ride is just fine, based on localism. Having 3 of the top 5 in the
largest ad market in America is hardly riding into the ground. And we are
doing fine in our other 16 markets, too, with the same model. And we have a
number of 50 kw AMs. They serve the local community, well, and only.

"David Eduardo" wrote:


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

We are looking for listening in our home market. I am with a station that
is
#1 in LA, and is top 5 in Riverside. Riverside is a separate market, and
we
do not make a cent off it.

I'm sure that if you cared to track it, you would find that you made
quite a bit of money there. But you don't because your model tells
you that the world ends at the edge of LA.

We make no money and never have. The Inland Empire is bought as a separate
market.

I'm sure that your advertisers, if they measure where their customers
come from, would find that the world doesn't end at LA.

By the way, we have had at least 2 staitons in the top 3 25-54 (the sales
demo) in LA for the last 11 years, and currently have three of the top 5.
We get no money from fringe markets, never have, never will.

Sure, if you don't sell to advertisers who ignore their customer base
outside of LA. All those ignorant yokels out in the boonies, though,
they might want to buy things too, and if those ignorant yokels happen
to have quite a bit of money, they might want the finer things that LA
can offer but the local stores don't.

I guarantee you that within a 10 mile radius of where I live, the
median and mean incomes are far, FAR above the Denver metro area,
where advertisers following your model will target.

For that matter, I guarantee you that if you swept a ring 10 miles
wide with its inner edge 50 miles outside of Denver around denver,
that median and mean income collection would also be higher than the
Metro area.

In any case, we are discussing distant MW reception, and the main reason the
Hallicrafters and Hammarlunds and Drakes and Galaxys of the US left the
market is that there is low demand... partly because there is limited
interest in distant MW reception compared with the 50's and 60's.

Disagree. I think in fact your view is utterly inaccurate. The
market for inexpensive MW reception will go on until you kill it, and
you appear to be working very hard at it.


Your view of your listening community will do more to destroy american
radio than anything else. You and Peter can insist that "that's the
way it is," but the truth is "that's the way your model sees it."

The biggest fact you are ignoring, among many, is that radio listening in
daytime is on average about 22% of all people at any given time. In
evenings, after 7 PM, it drops by 11 PM to about 2%. Advertisers
specifically exclude nights and overnights from ad buys. So out of market
coverage is irrelevant. Most Ams do not have any our of market coverage, as
they are daytimers or directional or lower powered and on congested
channels.

After 11 PM, yes, to 2%. What's your 7-9 PM numbers?

Yet you still manage to sell ads at night. I've never heard a station
that went consistently commercial-free from 11 PM to 6 AM.


The few AMs that do have fairly borad night signals do not get listening in
enough quantity out of market to make anything of.

Again, if you don't sell to advertisers who can 1) utilize that market
and 2) measure it, I think you'd find differently.

But, you'll never know if Arbitron throws away any numbers that don't
fit the market. Hell, even the local NPR outlet knows better, based
in Greeley, CO and pitching themselves from Wyoming to Denver. I
wonder what their pledge numbers look like -- they certainly don't
throw away pledges from outside of their coverage area. (As an
aside, I wonder what Arbitron does with their numbers?)

Advertisers do not buy at
night,

None? Never? I'll just ignore the ads I hear at night, then.

and stations generally have no ratings outside of the groundwave
area.

Hmmm. I'll have to go read up on the Minn. Twins debacle to see about
that. It was covered in this thread... someone went by the numbers
(and the dollars they believed they had) and killed off their market.

Fine. Ignore your real customers. Insult them even and tell them
they don't exist. It's *your* career path, not mine. Enjoy the ride
all the way into the ground.

My ride is just fine, based on localism. Having 3 of the top 5 in the
largest ad market in America is hardly riding into the ground. And we are
doing fine in our other 16 markets, too, with the same model. And we have a
number of 50 kw AMs. They serve the local community, well, and only.

There are really only a couple reasons to listen to AM radio today.
1) low cost of receivers. 2) long-range reception for whatever
reason that listener may have. 3) talk radio -- AM is never going to
challenge FM on fidelity, IBOC or not. I wonder how many classical
and jazz AMs there are out there? That's an answer I'd trust you to
have.

But I think your ride is going into the ground. In fact, this thread
has depressed me into thinking that XM and/or Sirius may just succeed,
because they aren't foolish enough to accept an arbitrary boundary on
their footprint. (okay, national boundaries, but things get really
complicated on that one.) Their coverage area is the continental U.S.
and they'll go ahead and sell their ads to anyone willing to put them
on the air. (Commercial free? ha. I doubt one channel of the
satellite services will be commercial free in 10 years.)

It would be very, very interesting to see the raw, unmassaged data
that Arbitron (and the other one) collect and see what happens when
they start putting together demographics and quantity (but NOT
geography) of all the out-of-market listeners. Obviously that's
closely held, but probably someone like you or Peter could have seen
it in some job somewhere along the line.

--
Eric F. Richards

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