"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
...so I spent some time here arguing with a rock, er, an, um, "radio
consultant," who is convinced that by the flawed methodology used by
his clients and the ratings service that all radio listening is local,
and he uses those same flawed methodologies to show that his stations
are now number 1.

All radio listening is not local. But nearly all of it is. The main point
YOU do not get is that advertisers do not care about out of market
listening. They will not look at it and will defininately not pay for it.

In the case of AM, sykywave listening only happens at night, and advertisers
buy very little night advertising on AMs unless it is local sports.

Int he case of FM, out of market listening is generally from adjacent
markets, and the out of market signals generally do not cover all the
geography of the peripheral market, so advertisers buy local stations that
cover the entire local market, not just one area of it that is next to
another market.

The out of market listening on AM skywave is so small as to be unmeasurable.
It is unwanted by advertisers, so the whole argument is moot.

The phrase that is important here is "flawed methodology."

...and so it goes with radio. As long as the methodology is skewed to
deliver the wanted results, it is as meaningless as AmEx's absurd
"market research."

Radio ratings diaries do not ask questions. They record day by day, hour by
hour listening in blanks the diarykeeper fills in. The only instruction is
to fill in each day what you listened to and when you listened. There is no
questionnaire bias as there is no questionnaire.

So they will go on, with IBOC and so-called "HD" radio with all its
artifacts and dropouts, to the detriment of people who actually
listen.

IBOC and HD are the same thing. One is the technical term, the other is the
marketing term. And it sounds great.

David Eduardo wrote:

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
...so I spent some time here arguing with a rock, er, an, um, "radio
consultant," who is convinced that by the flawed methodology used by
his clients and the ratings service that all radio listening is local,
and he uses those same flawed methodologies to show that his stations
are now number 1.

All radio listening is not local. But nearly all of it is. The main point
YOU do not get is that advertisers do not care about out of market
listening. They will not look at it and will defininately not pay for it.

In the case of AM, sykywave listening only happens at night, and advertisers
buy very little night advertising on AMs unless it is local sports.

Int he case of FM, out of market listening is generally from adjacent
markets, and the out of market signals generally do not cover all the
geography of the peripheral market, so advertisers buy local stations that
cover the entire local market, not just one area of it that is next to
another market.

The out of market listening on AM skywave is so small as to be unmeasurable.
It is unwanted by advertisers, so the whole argument is moot.

The phrase that is important here is "flawed methodology."

...and so it goes with radio. As long as the methodology is skewed to
deliver the wanted results, it is as meaningless as AmEx's absurd
"market research."

Radio ratings diaries do not ask questions. They record day by day, hour by
hour listening in blanks the diarykeeper fills in. The only instruction is
to fill in each day what you listened to and when you listened. There is no
questionnaire bias as there is no questionnaire.

So they will go on, with IBOC and so-called "HD" radio with all its
artifacts and dropouts, to the detriment of people who actually
listen.

IBOC and HD are the same thing. One is the technical term, the other is the
marketing term. And it sounds great.

Really? It sure sounds like QRM here.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
...so I spent some time here arguing with a rock, er, an, um, "radio
consultant," who is convinced that by the flawed methodology used by
his clients and the ratings service that all radio listening is local,
and he uses those same flawed methodologies to show that his stations
are now number 1.

All radio listening is not local. But nearly all of it is. The main point
YOU do not get is that advertisers do not care about out of market
listening. They will not look at it and will defininately not pay for it.

In the case of AM, sykywave listening only happens at night, and
advertisers
buy very little night advertising on AMs unless it is local sports.

Int he case of FM, out of market listening is generally from adjacent
markets, and the out of market signals generally do not cover all the
geography of the peripheral market, so advertisers buy local stations
that
cover the entire local market, not just one area of it that is next to
another market.

The out of market listening on AM skywave is so small as to be
unmeasurable.
It is unwanted by advertisers, so the whole argument is moot.

The phrase that is important here is "flawed methodology."

...and so it goes with radio. As long as the methodology is skewed to
deliver the wanted results, it is as meaningless as AmEx's absurd
"market research."

Radio ratings diaries do not ask questions. They record day by day, hour
by
hour listening in blanks the diarykeeper fills in. The only instruction
is
to fill in each day what you listened to and when you listened. There is
no
questionnaire bias as there is no questionnaire.

So they will go on, with IBOC and so-called "HD" radio with all its
artifacts and dropouts, to the detriment of people who actually
listen.

IBOC and HD are the same thing. One is the technical term, the other is
the
marketing term. And it sounds great.

Really? It sure sounds like QRM here.

In LA, there are nearly a dozen HD-2 channels already active, all with
previously uncovered niche formats. Serving listener groups is not QRM.

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
...so I spent some time here arguing with a rock, er, an, um, "radio
consultant," who is convinced that by the flawed methodology used by
his clients and the ratings service that all radio listening is local,
and he uses those same flawed methodologies to show that his stations
are now number 1.

All radio listening is not local. But nearly all of it is. The main point
YOU do not get is that advertisers do not care about out of market
listening. They will not look at it and will defininately not pay for it.

In the case of AM, sykywave listening only happens at night, and
advertisers
buy very little night advertising on AMs unless it is local sports.

Int he case of FM, out of market listening is generally from adjacent
markets, and the out of market signals generally do not cover all the
geography of the peripheral market, so advertisers buy local stations
that
cover the entire local market, not just one area of it that is next to
another market.

The out of market listening on AM skywave is so small as to be
unmeasurable.
It is unwanted by advertisers, so the whole argument is moot.

The phrase that is important here is "flawed methodology."

...and so it goes with radio. As long as the methodology is skewed to
deliver the wanted results, it is as meaningless as AmEx's absurd
"market research."

Radio ratings diaries do not ask questions. They record day by day, hour
by
hour listening in blanks the diarykeeper fills in. The only instruction
is
to fill in each day what you listened to and when you listened. There is
no
questionnaire bias as there is no questionnaire.

So they will go on, with IBOC and so-called "HD" radio with all its
artifacts and dropouts, to the detriment of people who actually
listen.

IBOC and HD are the same thing. One is the technical term, the other is
the
marketing term. And it sounds great.

Really? It sure sounds like QRM here.

In LA, there are nearly a dozen HD-2 channels already active, all with
previously uncovered niche formats. Serving listener groups is not QRM.

Wiping out adjacent channels is.

IBOC = QRM

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:15:40 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
...so I spent some time here arguing with a rock, er, an, um, "radio
consultant," who is convinced that by the flawed methodology used by
his clients and the ratings service that all radio listening is local,
and he uses those same flawed methodologies to show that his stations
are now number 1.

All radio listening is not local. But nearly all of it is. The main point
YOU do not get is that advertisers do not care about out of market
listening. They will not look at it and will defininately not pay for it.

In the case of AM, sykywave listening only happens at night, and
advertisers
buy very little night advertising on AMs unless it is local sports.

Int he case of FM, out of market listening is generally from adjacent
markets, and the out of market signals generally do not cover all the
geography of the peripheral market, so advertisers buy local stations
that
cover the entire local market, not just one area of it that is next to
another market.

The out of market listening on AM skywave is so small as to be
unmeasurable.
It is unwanted by advertisers, so the whole argument is moot.

The phrase that is important here is "flawed methodology."

...and so it goes with radio. As long as the methodology is skewed to
deliver the wanted results, it is as meaningless as AmEx's absurd
"market research."

Radio ratings diaries do not ask questions. They record day by day, hour
by
hour listening in blanks the diarykeeper fills in. The only instruction
is
to fill in each day what you listened to and when you listened. There is
no
questionnaire bias as there is no questionnaire.

So they will go on, with IBOC and so-called "HD" radio with all its
artifacts and dropouts, to the detriment of people who actually
listen.

IBOC and HD are the same thing. One is the technical term, the other is
the
marketing term. And it sounds great.

Really? It sure sounds like QRM here.

In LA, there are nearly a dozen HD-2 channels already active, all with
previously uncovered niche formats. Serving listener groups is not QRM.

Which LA stations?

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:18:14 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:15:40 GMT, "David Eduardo"

Which LA stations?

I like the AM 1260 gang on 105.1's HD2. Gary Owens, etc.

Star 98.7 has an all '80s stream. 92.3 plays soul classics. Those
are the ones I can get up here in Duckburg. Oh yeah, KROQ is just
mirroring their main channel.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
m...


In LA, there are nearly a dozen HD-2 channels already active, all with
previously uncovered niche formats. Serving listener groups is not QRM.



Are these niche formats expected to get people listening to the radio when
they otherwise would not be listening? If IBOC significantly expands the
audience, I can see an advantage for both the audience and the advertisers.

However, my Inner Conspiracy Theorist keeps telling me that IBOC won't
expand the total radio audience much, if at all, and multicasting's biggest
effect will be in drawing advertising revenue away from from the smaller,
non-IBOC stations.

Frank Dresser

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:08:04 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:


"David Eduardo" wrote in message
om...


In LA, there are nearly a dozen HD-2 channels already active, all with
previously uncovered niche formats. Serving listener groups is not QRM.



Are these niche formats expected to get people listening to the radio when
they otherwise would not be listening? If IBOC significantly expands the
audience, I can see an advantage for both the audience and the advertisers.

However, my Inner Conspiracy Theorist keeps telling me that IBOC won't
expand the total radio audience much, if at all, and multicasting's biggest
effect will be in drawing advertising revenue away from from the smaller,
non-IBOC stations.

Frank Dresser

It's only purpose is to slow the permanent loss of audience to SDARS,
Cell Phones and MP-3 players.

"David Eduardo" wrote:

IBOC and HD are the same thing.

Yes, I know that. But it is neather in-band, nor high definition. It
is sanctioned splatter that everyone in your circle pretends isn't
there, and the "content" is monkey-chatter, dropouts and compression
artifacts.

One is the technical term, the other is the
marketing term. And it sounds great.


Sounds like ****, no matter what you call it. You'd know that if you
listened using something with better frequency response than a
telephone handset. To many people, those artifacts *hurt*.


--
Eric F. Richards

"...there are moments (as when Gore speaks... slowly... and... heavily....
to... grown... men... and... women... so... that... you'd... swear... he...
was... trying... to... explain... Wittgenstein... to... three... year...
olds) when you have the disconcerting thought that the vice president may
come from Mars."
Lance Morrow, http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/...rrow7_21.a.tm/