David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Eric F. Richards wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

Advertisers do not sell to Radio, TV, newspapers, etc, they BUY from
them. Advertisers buy media. And they do it based on their data, their
numbers and their own wants or needs.

Sorry, poor choice of words on my part caused by typing faster than I
think. You are, of course, correct.

But their wants or needs aren't necessarily what is good for radio in
the long term.

Nor have the ever been.

It's funny, but true. I collect old Broadcasting Magazines, going back to
the late 30's and have over 1000 of them up to the early 70's. I often grab
a stack and just read them. It is amazing that the issues of 1946 are those
of today.

Example: concerned parents and teachers in 1946 complaining about the bad
influence of Tom Mix and the Lone ranger on youth, and how such shows foment
laziness and lack of attention to school and teach bad habits. Fast forward.
Protests against stations in the mid 50's for playing rock 'n' roll. Fast
forward. Protests in the last few years about hip hop.

The back and forth on ratings is a constant. The protests against "too many
stations on the dial for clear reception" are a constant In fact, the first
in my collection is from a 1929 RaDex magazine, complaining that now that
there were several hundred active stations, the dial was too crowded and
something should be done to get it in order.

I particularly prize an article, also from Radex, about how radio is going
to be ruined and become a relic of the past due to those awful long (one
minute) commercials which will surely doom radio.

There is always some one like Eric who knows everything is wrong, but who
can not come up with anything better, either. Of course, the world is full
of bitchers.



Without them, there'd be nothing for manglement to do.

D Peter Maus wrote:


There is always some one like Eric who knows everything is wrong, but who
can not come up with anything better, either. Of course, the world is full
of bitchers.



Without them, there'd be nothing for manglement to do.


I think manglement will have plenty to do without worrying about my
complaints. Whether I point them out to you or not, events will
unfold to the detriment of radio.

And, of course, I've posted what I think you should do better: Throw
away the model. Start over. Step one is, what is the density
relationship between listeners and radius/*accurate* coverage maps?
Then, what is the relationship between close-in listeners, further out
listeners, and fringe listeners? What are the percentages of each?
Not per unit area -- that's a different question, stated above -- but
overall.
Final question would be how do I sell to each geographic area? Your
so-called "fringe" listener may commute 30 miles one way across
multiple current marketing ranges, but never changes the dail. How do
you sell to him?

....but you keep ignoring that, with going on with, "butbutbut the
*model* sez..." The model is obsolete. Actually it is worse than
obsolete -- it never had an applicable time.

YOU, Eduardo, are the one who insists the model is right.
Advertisers may "call the shots," but they depend on your model for
their metrics, and you are too myopic to see that it doesn't fit. You
optimize your marketing to the model, and, if your lucky, you'll hit
what we mathemeticians call a "local maximum." But it isn't the
maximum, it's a minor peak.

The rest of the people out there are left wanting. And they'll move
on.

And they'll move on whether I squawk about it or not -- I'm just
telling you what's gonna happen.

--
Eric F. Richards,
"It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser

Eric F. Richards wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:


There is always some one like Eric who knows everything is wrong, but who
can not come up with anything better, either. Of course, the world is full
of bitchers.


Without them, there'd be nothing for manglement to do.


I think manglement will have plenty to do without worrying about my
complaints. Whether I point them out to you or not, events will
unfold to the detriment of radio.

And, of course, I've posted what I think you should do better: Throw
away the model.



Ok...I understand what you're saying. But, you see...it's not
Radio's model to throw away. It comes TO Radio FROM the advertisers. If
you want that to change, it has to start with the advertisers.

That's the point.

The numbers, the listener profiles, the bell curves, the demographic
and psychographic research...it's all done for the benefit of
advertisers, based on THEIR needs, Radio's. Ratings are not for Radio
Stations...they're for advertisers, and the statistical considerations
that define relevant numbers do NOT come from Radio stations...they come
from advertisers.

So, as easy as it is to say that radio should do things better and
throw away the model, things just don't work that way. Because the model
comes from the advertisers. Not within Radio.






Start over. Step one is, what is the density
relationship between listeners and radius/*accurate* coverage maps?
Then, what is the relationship between close-in listeners, further out
listeners, and fringe listeners? What are the percentages of each?
Not per unit area -- that's a different question, stated above -- but
overall.
Final question would be how do I sell to each geographic area? Your
so-called "fringe" listener may commute 30 miles one way across
multiple current marketing ranges, but never changes the dail. How do
you sell to him?

...but you keep ignoring that, with going on with, "butbutbut the
*model* sez..." The model is obsolete. Actually it is worse than
obsolete -- it never had an applicable time.

YOU, Eduardo, are the one who insists the model is right.
Advertisers may "call the shots," but they depend on your model for
their metrics, and you are too myopic to see that it doesn't fit. You
optimize your marketing to the model, and, if your lucky, you'll hit
what we mathemeticians call a "local maximum." But it isn't the
maximum, it's a minor peak.

The rest of the people out there are left wanting. And they'll move
on.

And they'll move on whether I squawk about it or not -- I'm just
telling you what's gonna happen.

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

And, of course, I've posted what I think you should do better: Throw
away the model. Start over. Step one is, what is the density
relationship between listeners and radius/*accurate* coverage maps?

Arbitron, many other broadcasters, and I have spent thousands of hours and
much computer time to show a very simple thing.

FM. 85% of listening in the 70 dbu contour. Over 99% in the 64 dbu contour.

AM, in major metos where there is lots of noise, anywhere from the 10 to
even the 15 mv/m contuour determines where 90% of listening will come from.
The decline is a straignt line down after that, ending around the 5 mv/m for
nearly 100% of daytime listening.

Nights on AM are determined first by the staiton's interference free
contour, per FCC, and then the field strenght for comfortable listening.
Skywave, which is no onger consistent, is not a factor and all these night
issues for AM are limited by the fact that night AM listening is very, very
low (less than 3% of population) and not salable in most situations
(exceptions are llocal brokered programs and sports).

Then, what is the relationship between close-in listeners, further out
listeners, and fringe listeners? What are the percentages of each?

It does not matter if the advertisers are not interested in anything but the
metro. they play the fiddle, we dance for them. We are a service provider to
advertisers. That is 100% of our business model.

Not per unit area -- that's a different question, stated above -- but
overall.

Who cares? We can not sell what nobody buys. The model for radio today was
set sometime in the 50's after network radio died and TV took over night
usage overwhelmingly. It owrks for advertisers, and as long as it does, they
will continue to use it.

Final question would be how do I sell to each geographic area? Your
so-called "fringe" listener may commute 30 miles one way across
multiple current marketing ranges, but never changes the dail. How do
you sell to him?

There is no cost effectiveness in selling advertising outside a metro. There
is no demand for listeners outside each staiton's metro. There is,
therefore, no money to be made and the point is moot. Advertisers, if I did
not say it, set the rules. We provide services.

YOU, Eduardo, are the one who insists the model is right.
Advertisers may "call the shots," but they depend on your model for
their metrics, and you are too myopic to see that it doesn't fit.

the model is totally set by advertisers.
1. Buy local radio stations for the local metro.
2. Buy nearly all spots in the 6 AM to 7 PM slots.
3. Set a metric for each market based on taret population and ad rates to
get CPP.
4. Hammer stations on the CPP.
5. Ignore any effort by staiton to try to distract from CPP hammering.
6. Demand local services, such as local talent on spots, remotes, van hits,
concert sponsorships, contests, etc, in thelocal market.
7. Hammer the CPP some more.
8. Demand more loclaized "value added."
9. Go back and hammer the CPP some more.

You shoudl see that distracting with an argument about liteners way outside
th emetro they are buying would produce laughter.

And, anyway, very few of America's commercial staitons even get a signal
outside thier metro. As I mentioned, less than 300 total staitons out of
13,500 even get ratings outside thier own market.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

There is always some one like Eric who knows everything is wrong, but who
can not come up with anything better, either. Of course, the world is
full of bitchers.

Without them, there'd be nothing for manglement to do.

As another associate and I said the other day, "Thank God for the morons,
for to them we owe our jobs."

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
There is always some one like Eric who knows everything is wrong, but who
can not come up with anything better, either. Of course, the world is
full of bitchers.
Without them, there'd be nothing for manglement to do.

As another associate and I said the other day, "Thank God for the morons,
for to them we owe our jobs."




Boy, ain't that the truth.