"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.

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.

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 "scewed," properly spelled "skewed." I misspelled it because I
use an open-source software package called SCEW. What's your excuse?

I am dyslexic. Next question.

Programming brings listeners. That is what have done since 1964... or
all
but 4 years of my career. Better programming = more listeners. More
listeners = more revenue.

No, you bring numbers, not listeners. They aren't the same thing.

Advertisers require metrics. that means a cost vs. delivery index, called
cost per point. We do not talk about "listeners" on sales calls. We talk
about the cost to deliver one impression to one percent of the universe in
each metro, called CPP. Advertisers require this... in fact, since they buy
Arbitron (ratings are done for advertisers, not for stations) they already
know what the CPP is and any meeting of a face to face kind is generally to
hammer the CPP lower.

Numbers are the base for most judgments in America. A baseball player is
judged by RBI, ERI, etc. An employee by productivity per person. A car by
MPG or horse power. Advertising is based on cost of delivery.

"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

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.

"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.

"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.

"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

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

"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.

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

"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."