| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Help finding QST 1995 article please | Equipment | |||
| Help finding QST 1995 article please | Equipment | |||
| IBOC interference complaint - advice? | Broadcasting | |||
| Why I Like The ARRL | Policy | |||
| LQQKing for Construction Article | Antenna | |||