IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

For One and All,

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio As We Know It :

To properly implement IBOC in the AM Radio Band
both Day and Night would require that AM Radio
Station Service in the USA be reclassified as a
"Local Voice Media Service".

Reduced - The Power of all Major Market AM Radio
Stations down to 25 KW Day and 10 KW Night

Fix - Regional AM Radio Stations at 10 KW Day
and 5 KW Nights

Allow - Local AM Radio Stations to be rated at
2.5 KW Day and 1 KW Nights.

Low Power - Educational, Community and Translator
AM Radio Stations limited to 250 Watts Day and
100 Watts Night.

ok - so it's another stupid idea ~ RHF

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

"RHF" wrote in message
oups.com...
For One and All,

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio As We Know It :

To properly implement IBOC in the AM Radio Band
both Day and Night would require that AM Radio
Station Service in the USA be reclassified as a
"Local Voice Media Service".

Which, for all practical purposes, it is. Night listening to AM is less than
2% of the population to start with. Night listening beyond the groundwave
contour is restricted to a handful of stations as most US AMs have vastly
reduced night coverage compared ot day coverage. So, there are very few
listening to AM at night and very few stations capable of getting a skywave
outside the local coverage area that is consistently listenable.

The FCC has considered stations to be exclusively local for nearly 5
decades.

Reduced - The Power of all Major Market AM Radio
Stations down to 25 KW Day and 10 KW Night

Wrong. In many larger cities, 50 kw is a minimu on anything but the lowest
frequencies to cover the market and overcome the interference level of
computers, dimmers, flourescents, and all manner of other man made
interference.

Your idea neglects the fact that different parts of the AM band have
different coverage for the same power: 50 kw on 1600 covers less than 1 kw
on 540. And it neglects the fact that different parts of the US have vastly
different ground conductivity. 500 watts in Iowa covers better than 50 kw on
Long Island.

Fix - Regional AM Radio Stations at 10 KW Day
and 5 KW Nights

In LA, all but one 5 kw station (KLAC) does not cover the entire market day
or night.

Allow - Local AM Radio Stations to be rated at
2.5 KW Day and 1 KW Nights.

Not enough to cover much of anything at the high end of the dial.

Low Power - Educational, Community and Translator
AM Radio Stations limited to 250 Watts Day and
100 Watts Night.

100 watts today is not usable 2 miles from the transmitter in, let's say,
Florida, above 1200 on the dial.

ok - so it's another stupid idea ~ RHF

Agreed.

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

IBOC will be just another failed attempt to "save" AM radio. AM radio died
decades ago as a viable medium.
In 1985 I was in the industry and at that time CQUAM AM Stereo was gonna
save AM Radio. It didn't and IBOC won't.

In about five years we'll be listening to WIFI on our walkmans and car
radio's.


"RHF" wrote in message
oups.com...
For One and All,

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio As We Know It :

To properly implement IBOC in the AM Radio Band
both Day and Night would require that AM Radio
Station Service in the USA be reclassified as a
"Local Voice Media Service".

Reduced - The Power of all Major Market AM Radio
Stations down to 25 KW Day and 10 KW Night

Fix - Regional AM Radio Stations at 10 KW Day
and 5 KW Nights

Allow - Local AM Radio Stations to be rated at
2.5 KW Day and 1 KW Nights.

Low Power - Educational, Community and Translator
AM Radio Stations limited to 250 Watts Day and
100 Watts Night.

ok - so it's another stupid idea ~ RHF
.
.
. .

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

On Sat, 27 May 2006 11:59:34 GMT, "IonSpot" wrote:

IBOC will be just another failed attempt to "save" AM radio. AM radio died
decades ago as a viable medium.
In 1985 I was in the industry and at that time CQUAM AM Stereo was gonna
save AM Radio. It didn't and IBOC won't.

In about five years we'll be listening to WIFI on our walkmans and car
radio's.


Rush Limbaugh and ethnic saved AM.

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

"IonSpot" wrote in message
...
IBOC will be just another failed attempt to "save" AM radio. AM radio
died decades ago as a viable medium.

I see. then why are two of the top 3 billing stations in San Francisco AM?
In fact, a quarter of the top 100 billing stations in the USA are AM.

In 1985 I was in the industry and at that time CQUAM AM Stereo was gonna
save AM Radio. It didn't and IBOC won't.

AM swtereo was supposed to launch in 1978. A nasty old man, Leonard Kahn,
sued to try to get his system approved, and it was 1983 before a decision
was made. By that time, AM had gone form 60% of all listening to 40%, and
there was no chance to revive it. Plus, the early C Quam was not a
particularly good system, especially in cars.

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

"David" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 11:59:34 GMT, "IonSpot" wrote:

IBOC will be just another failed attempt to "save" AM radio. AM radio
died
decades ago as a viable medium.
In 1985 I was in the industry and at that time CQUAM AM Stereo was gonna
save AM Radio. It didn't and IBOC won't.

In about five years we'll be listening to WIFI on our walkmans and car
radio's.


Rush Limbaugh and ethnic saved AM.

Urban legend.

Rush did not start generating big numbers until the early 90's. What saved
AM was a combination of factors....

1. Repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, allowing more agressive talk radio.
2. Several big companies, like Jacor, Clear Channel, ABC and Infinity
supported news and talk on AM.
3. Most FMs, after programming deregulation in the 80's, dropped most news
and content for music and entertainment. This allowed AMs to be unique in
offering news and content.

By the late 70's, the big Black stations were on FM. So this sector did not
help AM. And Spanish language stations started moving to FM in the very
early 90's, to the point that, as an example, today there are less than 2
shares of Spanish listening on AM in LA and 27 shares on FM. Hispanics don't
use AM much at all, unless ther eis no alternative.

Religious broadcasting did help make marginal AMs viable, though.

The real issue is that a huge percentage of urban located AMs do not cover
the entire market. Some were licensed before the suburban growth of the US
after W.W. II, and others are just bad facilites. In washington DC, there is
not one station that fully covers the entire metro on AM, for example.

Interestingly the AMs with good signals have always been successful.

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

On 26 May 2006 19:59:14 -0700, "RHF"
wrote:

What's an IBOC?

bob
k5qwg

For One and All,

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio As We Know It :

To properly implement IBOC in the AM Radio Band
both Day and Night would require that AM Radio
Station Service in the USA be reclassified as a
"Local Voice Media Service".

Reduced - The Power of all Major Market AM Radio
Stations down to 25 KW Day and 10 KW Night

Fix - Regional AM Radio Stations at 10 KW Day
and 5 KW Nights

Allow - Local AM Radio Stations to be rated at
2.5 KW Day and 1 KW Nights.

Low Power - Educational, Community and Translator
AM Radio Stations limited to 250 Watts Day and
100 Watts Night.

ok - so it's another stupid idea ~ RHF
.
.
. .

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...
On 26 May 2006 19:59:14 -0700, "RHF"
wrote:

What's an IBOC?

In Band On Channel digital AM and FM, where a digital audio signal is
transmitted on the same frequency as the analog one, receivable on a radio
equipped to receive the IBOC signal. IBOC was the develpmental name. Google
HD radio and iBiquity, the developer, to read more. There are aboutr 1200 HD
staitons on the air already, covering most of the population of the US
(nearly 80%)

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...
On 26 May 2006 19:59:14 -0700, "RHF"
wrote:

What's an IBOC?

In Band On Channel digital AM and FM, where a digital audio signal is
transmitted on the same frequency as the analog one, receivable on a radio
equipped to receive the IBOC signal. IBOC was the develpmental name. Google
HD radio and iBiquity, the developer, to read more. There are aboutr 1200 HD
staitons on the air already, covering most of the population of the US
(nearly 80%)

Are any car manufactures putting IBOC or HD radios in their cars?

I think you mat have already mentioned a brand but what would you
recommend for a home radio.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...
On 26 May 2006 19:59:14 -0700, "RHF"
wrote:

What's an IBOC?

In Band On Channel digital AM and FM, where a digital audio signal is
transmitted on the same frequency as the analog one, receivable on a
radio
equipped to receive the IBOC signal. IBOC was the develpmental name.
Google
HD radio and iBiquity, the developer, to read more. There are aboutr 1200
HD
staitons on the air already, covering most of the population of the US
(nearly 80%)

Are any car manufactures putting IBOC or HD radios in their cars?

Yep, BMW starting next year is the first. Ut till a few months (11/05) ago,
there was no design spec for receivers, so that is why there are few today
ant it will grow as we now have the second version of the spec, and furhter
development is being done.

I think you mat have already mentioned a brand but what would you
recommend for a home radio.

None. Wait 90 days for the spec. #2 receivers.

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

David,

OK - So I have heard of Rush Limbaugh.
But who is this Mister Ethnic ?:o) ~ RHF

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

"RHF" wrote in message
oups.com...
David,

OK - So I have heard of Rush Limbaugh.
But who is this Mister Ethnic ?:o) ~ RHF
.

,-)

Interestingly, the first ethnic AMs go back to the late 40's, with ones like
WDIA (then self-described as "Memphis' race station") and WOV (with a remote
studio en Rome) being among the early ones. As FM became viable in the very
late 60's and early 70's, nobody at first thought that the ethnic audiences
would be FM users... many thought Hispanics and Blacks would not listen
because the radios were too expensive. Today, 5 of the top 10 LA stations
are Hispanic, so I guess they saved up for the radios.

In-Band-On-Channel (IBOC) = High Definition "HD" Radio - What Can We Listen To ? and Listen On ?
 

DE,

In-Band-On-Channel (IBOC) = High Definition "HD" Radio
- What Can We Listen To ? and Listen On ?

IBOC "HD" RADIO - WHAT CAN WE LISTEN TO :
Is there a specific website that Lists the current
In-Band-On-Channel (IBOC) now being called
High Definition "HD" Radio - AM and FM Radio
Stations by Location, Region, State, etc ?

IBOC "HD" RADIO - WHAT CAN WE LISTEN ON :
What-Is-Out-There IBOC {HD} Radio Wise ?
? Automobile HD {IBOC} AM/FM Stereo Radios ?
- - - Any Warning Don't Buy This One for the Car ?
? Home HD {IBOC} AM/FM Stereo Radios ?
- - - Any Warning Don't Buy This One for the Home ?

When ? - If Ever ? -Is Analog AM Radio mandated
to go away - Year ?

When ? - If Ever ? -Is Analog FM Radio mandated
to go away - Year ?

-OR- Are AM and FM Radio Stations required to
'always' Broadcast in both Analog and IBOC ?

i want to know ~ RHF

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"IonSpot" wrote in message
...
IBOC will be just another failed attempt to "save" AM radio. AM radio
died decades ago as a viable medium.

I see. then why are two of the top 3 billing stations in San Francisco AM?
In fact, a quarter of the top 100 billing stations in the USA are AM.

Without a survey at hand, I assume you are referring to KQED-FM, KGO,
and KCBS.

The bay area has terrible traffic. There are people who drive with KCBS
on the radio all the time. Makes no sense to me as arely does a traffic
report save my arse. The same goes for KGO, though at least they have
talk also.

Due to the terrain of the bay area, AM stations can be heard in more
places. [It's not the LA basin.] Only KFOG comes to mind with a SF and
south bay simulcast, and the number of boosters is quite small.

Most of the San Franciso FMs can't hit the south bay, but the south bay
is part of the the SF region in the Arbitron, right. Even KSFO can
reach south San Jose.


In 1985 I was in the industry and at that time CQUAM AM Stereo was gonna
save AM Radio. It didn't and IBOC won't.

AM swtereo was supposed to launch in 1978. A nasty old man, Leonard Kahn,
sued to try to get his system approved, and it was 1983 before a decision
was made. By that time, AM had gone form 60% of all listening to 40%, and
there was no chance to revive it. Plus, the early C Quam was not a
particularly good system, especially in cars.

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"RHF" wrote in message
oups.com...
For One and All,

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio As We Know It :

To properly implement IBOC in the AM Radio Band
both Day and Night would require that AM Radio
Station Service in the USA be reclassified as a
"Local Voice Media Service".

Which, for all practical purposes, it is. Night listening to AM is less than
2% of the population to start with. Night listening beyond the groundwave
contour is restricted to a handful of stations as most US AMs have vastly
reduced night coverage compared ot day coverage. So, there are very few
listening to AM at night and very few stations capable of getting a skywave
outside the local coverage area that is consistently listenable.

I think you should define this "2% of the population" statistic a bit.
Many people have clock radios by their beds and tune into AM at night.
Ever hear of "Coast to Coast AM?".




The FCC has considered stations to be exclusively local for nearly 5
decades.

Reduced - The Power of all Major Market AM Radio
Stations down to 25 KW Day and 10 KW Night

Wrong. In many larger cities, 50 kw is a minimu on anything but the lowest
frequencies to cover the market and overcome the interference level of
computers, dimmers, flourescents, and all manner of other man made
interference.

Your idea neglects the fact that different parts of the AM band have
different coverage for the same power: 50 kw on 1600 covers less than 1 kw
on 540. And it neglects the fact that different parts of the US have vastly
different ground conductivity. 500 watts in Iowa covers better than 50 kw on
Long Island.

Fix - Regional AM Radio Stations at 10 KW Day
and 5 KW Nights

In LA, all but one 5 kw station (KLAC) does not cover the entire market day
or night.

Allow - Local AM Radio Stations to be rated at
2.5 KW Day and 1 KW Nights.

Not enough to cover much of anything at the high end of the dial.

Low Power - Educational, Community and Translator
AM Radio Stations limited to 250 Watts Day and
100 Watts Night.

100 watts today is not usable 2 miles from the transmitter in, let's say,
Florida, above 1200 on the dial.

ok - so it's another stupid idea ~ RHF

Agreed.

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

On Sat, 27 May 2006 22:37:33 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...
On 26 May 2006 19:59:14 -0700, "RHF"
wrote:

What's an IBOC?

In Band On Channel digital AM and FM, where a digital audio signal is
transmitted on the same frequency as the analog one, receivable on a
radio
equipped to receive the IBOC signal. IBOC was the develpmental name.
Google
HD radio and iBiquity, the developer, to read more. There are aboutr 1200
HD
staitons on the air already, covering most of the population of the US
(nearly 80%)

Are any car manufactures putting IBOC or HD radios in their cars?

Yep, BMW starting next year is the first. Ut till a few months (11/05) ago,
there was no design spec for receivers, so that is why there are few today
ant it will grow as we now have the second version of the spec, and furhter
development is being done.

I think you mat have already mentioned a brand but what would you
recommend for a home radio.

None. Wait 90 days for the spec. #2 receivers.


I notice C.Crane has a Boston Acoustics HD radio, was $499, reduced to
$299.

bob
k5qwg

In-Band-On-Channel (IBOC) = High Definition "HD" Radio - What Can We Listen To ? and Listen On ?
 

"RHF" wrote in message
oups.com...
DE,

In-Band-On-Channel (IBOC) = High Definition "HD" Radio
- What Can We Listen To ? and Listen On ?

IBOC "HD" RADIO - WHAT CAN WE LISTEN TO :
Is there a specific website that Lists the current
In-Band-On-Channel (IBOC) now being called
High Definition "HD" Radio - AM and FM Radio
Stations by Location, Region, State, etc ?

iBiquitey site has a pretty good list.

IBOC "HD" RADIO - WHAT CAN WE LISTEN ON :
What-Is-Out-There IBOC {HD} Radio Wise ?
? Automobile HD {IBOC} AM/FM Stereo Radios ?
- - - Any Warning Don't Buy This One for the Car ?
? Home HD {IBOC} AM/FM Stereo Radios ?
- - - Any Warning Don't Buy This One for the Home ?

When ? - If Ever ? -Is Analog AM Radio mandated
to go away - Year ?

No mandate. that was the whole idea of IN BAND ON CHANNEL... it is like FM
stereo, and backwards compatible.

When ? - If Ever ? -Is Analog FM Radio mandated
to go away - Year ?

Same


-OR- Are AM and FM Radio Stations required to
'always' Broadcast in both Analog and IBOC ?

There is no requirement to broadcast in HD. Many stations will not. time
will tell who is right. Since it is compatible, I see no reason not to.

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
"IonSpot" wrote in message
...
IBOC will be just another failed attempt to "save" AM radio. AM radio
died decades ago as a viable medium.

I see. then why are two of the top 3 billing stations in San Francisco
AM?
In fact, a quarter of the top 100 billing stations in the USA are AM.

Without a survey at hand, I assume you are referring to KQED-FM, KGO,
and KCBS.

KQED is not AM, and it does not bill ad revenues (they are non-com). KGO,
KCBS and KNBR are top 10 billers (in fact, they ARE the top 3), and KSFO is
very close to being top 10.

The bay area has terrible traffic. There are people who drive with KCBS
on the radio all the time. Makes no sense to me as arely does a traffic
report save my arse. The same goes for KGO, though at least they have
talk also.

In car listening is only 30% of all radio listening in the market.

Due to the terrain of the bay area, AM stations can be heard in more
places. [It's not the LA basin.] Only KFOG comes to mind with a SF and
south bay simulcast, and the number of boosters is quite small.

SF is a better than average AM market, but so is Chicago... WSCR, WLS, WGN
and WBBM are all top 10 billers. No hills, either. It is about being big
signal stations, not about AM vs. FM.

Most of the San Franciso FMs can't hit the south bay, but the south bay
is part of the the SF region in the Arbitron, right. Even KSFO can
reach south San Jose.

SF metro is Santa Rosa to Campbell.

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

wrote in message
ps.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
"RHF" wrote in message
oups.com...
For One and All,

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio As We Know It :

To properly implement IBOC in the AM Radio Band
both Day and Night would require that AM Radio
Station Service in the USA be reclassified as a
"Local Voice Media Service".

Which, for all practical purposes, it is. Night listening to AM is less
than
2% of the population to start with. Night listening beyond the groundwave
contour is restricted to a handful of stations as most US AMs have vastly
reduced night coverage compared ot day coverage. So, there are very few
listening to AM at night and very few stations capable of getting a
skywave
outside the local coverage area that is consistently listenable.

I think you should define this "2% of the population" statistic a bit.
Many people have clock radios by their beds and tune into AM at night.
Ever hear of "Coast to Coast AM?".

Coast to coast gets a big share of nothing. In overnights, less than 1% of
the population is listening to the radio, and they get, in most markets,
about 10% or less of that.

AM at night gets around a 2 rating. Radio overall about a 7 (7 to Midnight)
A rating point is 1% of the universe. In overnights, the rating is below a 2
for all radio, and below a 0.3 rating for AM.

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ps.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
"RHF" wrote in message
oups.com...
For One and All,

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio As We Know It :

To properly implement IBOC in the AM Radio Band
both Day and Night would require that AM Radio
Station Service in the USA be reclassified as a
"Local Voice Media Service".

Which, for all practical purposes, it is. Night listening to AM is less
than
2% of the population to start with. Night listening beyond the
groundwave
contour is restricted to a handful of stations as most US AMs have
vastly
reduced night coverage compared ot day coverage. So, there are very few
listening to AM at night and very few stations capable of getting a
skywave
outside the local coverage area that is consistently listenable.

I think you should define this "2% of the population" statistic a bit.
Many people have clock radios by their beds and tune into AM at night.
Ever hear of "Coast to Coast AM?".

David Eduardo doesn't want to hear about anything or anyone that doesn't
fit into his little world of Arbitron ratings and IBOC hash generators..
he doesn't realize that 2% of the population is still 4,000,000 people and
that we have buying power, too.

You have mis-read. Again. 2% (a 2 rating) is the percent of all 12+ persons
who use AM radio at night. Most of radio night listening (over 80%) is to FM
stations, and nearly 100% of the night (7 to Midnight) AM listening is
inside the city grade groundwave contour of a local station.

Glad you guys think you can throw away 4,000,000 customers nationwide.

Oh, but these are people we DO have. They listen to AM at night, and to
their local stations. Again, there is a barely detectable number of
listeners to AM stations outside the local market in the evening.

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 22:37:33 GMT, "David Eduardo"

None. Wait 90 days for the spec. #2 receivers.


I notice C.Crane has a Boston Acoustics HD radio, was $499, reduced to
$299.

And it sucks big time. Wait for the next generation if you are considering
one.

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

"Steve Stone" wrote in message
...

As FM became viable in the very
late 60's and early 70's, ...........

By viable do you mean profitable ?

That is what "viable" in a business means. Very, very few FMs made money
from the first ones pre-W.W. II through the very late 60's. In fact, from
1950 to 1960, total FM count declined by nearly a third.

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

David Eduardo wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
"IonSpot" wrote in message
...
IBOC will be just another failed attempt to "save" AM radio. AM radio
died decades ago as a viable medium.

I see. then why are two of the top 3 billing stations in San Francisco
AM?
In fact, a quarter of the top 100 billing stations in the USA are AM.

Without a survey at hand, I assume you are referring to KQED-FM, KGO,
and KCBS.

KQED is not AM, and it does not bill ad revenues (they are non-com). KGO,
KCBS and KNBR are top 10 billers (in fact, they ARE the top 3), and KSFO is
very close to being top 10.

AH, maybe that's why I said KQED-FM. Anyway, I missed the AM in your
original post.

The bay area has terrible traffic. There are people who drive with KCBS
on the radio all the time. Makes no sense to me as arely does a traffic
report save my arse. The same goes for KGO, though at least they have
talk also.

In car listening is only 30% of all radio listening in the market.

Again, you play with stats. What is the in-car listening AM market?
After all, it is AM HD everyone on this list wants to stop. It is QRM!

Due to the terrain of the bay area, AM stations can be heard in more
places. [It's not the LA basin.] Only KFOG comes to mind with a SF and
south bay simulcast, and the number of boosters is quite small.

SF is a better than average AM market, but so is Chicago... WSCR, WLS, WGN
and WBBM are all top 10 billers. No hills, either. It is about being big
signal stations, not about AM vs. FM.

Most of the San Franciso FMs can't hit the south bay, but the south bay
is part of the the SF region in the Arbitron, right. Even KSFO can
reach south San Jose.

SF metro is Santa Rosa to Campbell.

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...



Now there's someone who has hit the nail on the head. This is also the
reason (primary one anyway) why I won't bother buying a DTV.. no matter
how you dress up a pig, all you're gonna get out of it is pig ****.

Of course, don't let it bother your that Steve is simply unhappy that 95% of
the folks are being served nicely and for free, while he is waiting for some
station to serve him personally (although he does not say what is lacking...
he just strikes out at other formats)

Never mind that there are more different formats in every market than there
ever were. He says the opposite.
Never mind that less radio is automated or syndicated than 20 or 30 years
ago.
Never mind that the model for TV is national... yet Steve wants bad local
radio over the best talent America can offer done nationally.
Never mind that Steve says there is no local content. What he means is that
there is content he does not agree with, so it is all bad.

And if you have not watched "old" DVDs on a DTV monitor, you have no idea
what you are missing. Even analog cable looks stunning, and the amount of
HDTV production is increasing rapidly. I've bought 3 HDTV monitors already,
and will eventually replace all of the old ones with HDTV.

Brenda, you are sounding like a Luddite.

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:

The bay area has terrible traffic. There are people who drive with KCBS
on the radio all the time. Makes no sense to me as arely does a traffic
report save my arse. The same goes for KGO, though at least they have
talk also.

In car listening is only 30% of all radio listening in the market.

Again, you play with stats. What is the in-car listening AM market?
After all, it is AM HD everyone on this list wants to stop. It is QRM!

In San Francisco, the AM stations have a 24 share nof in car listening 6 AM
to Midnight. In Morning drive, they have a 25.4% share of all persons
listening to the radio in the car. So SF is actually below the national
average of a 30% share. LA is 31%, NY with lots of public transportaiton,
has a 25% share.

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

David Frackelton Gleason aka Eduardo once again tried to sell snake oil when he
wrote:

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...



Now there's someone who has hit the nail on the head. This is also the
reason (primary one anyway) why I won't bother buying a DTV.. no matter
how you dress up a pig, all you're gonna get out of it is pig ****.

Of course, don't let it bother your that Steve is simply unhappy that 95% of
the folks are being served nicely and for free, while he is waiting for some
station to serve him personally (although he does not say what is lacking...
he just strikes out at other formats)

Never mind that there are more different formats in every market than there
ever were. He says the opposite.
Never mind that less radio is automated or syndicated than 20 or 30 years
ago.
Never mind that the model for TV is national... yet Steve wants bad local
radio over the best talent America can offer done nationally.
Never mind that Steve says there is no local content. What he means is that
there is content he does not agree with, so it is all bad.

And if you have not watched "old" DVDs on a DTV monitor, you have no idea
what you are missing. Even analog cable looks stunning, and the amount of
HDTV production is increasing rapidly. I've bought 3 HDTV monitors already,
and will eventually replace all of the old ones with HDTV.

Brenda, you are sounding like a Luddite.

Actually, she sounds like someone who just isn't buying your bull****, no matter
how nicely you dress up the bull.

Perhaps you should pack up your stand and try to sell your wares in another
forum.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


Now there's someone who has hit the nail on the head. This is also the
reason (primary one anyway) why I won't bother buying a DTV.. no matter
how you dress up a pig, all you're gonna get out of it is pig ****.

Of course, don't let it bother your that Steve is simply unhappy that 95% of
the folks are being served nicely and for free, while he is waiting for some
station to serve him personally (although he does not say what is lacking...
he just strikes out at other formats)

Never mind that there are more different formats in every market than there
ever were. He says the opposite.
Never mind that less radio is automated or syndicated than 20 or 30 years
ago.
Never mind that the model for TV is national... yet Steve wants bad local
radio over the best talent America can offer done nationally.
Never mind that Steve says there is no local content. What he means is that
there is content he does not agree with, so it is all bad.

And if you have not watched "old" DVDs on a DTV monitor, you have no idea
what you are missing. Even analog cable looks stunning, and the amount of
HDTV production is increasing rapidly. I've bought 3 HDTV monitors already,
and will eventually replace all of the old ones with HDTV.

Brenda, you are sounding like a Luddite.

David, people are sick and tired of radio for money's sake. I dream of
engaging and interesting programming. In other words, programming to
say something, make real art, or an original point of view without focus
groups, or polling data. Do that and the advertisers will start a
bidding war to get a spot on your station.

The most insipid example I can give you of "giving the people what they
want" is the American Idol show. Don't get me wrong, these artists are
talented. But they're highly unoriginal. In other words, they're "safe".

Would Louis Armstrong have a chance in today's radio market? Would Bix
Beiderbeck? How about Jimi Hendrix? Pete Seeger? George Gershwin? I
have to wonder. Many artists believe that they have hit the big time
despite the recording and broadcast industry, not because of it.

The problem is one I've outlined years ago. It's basically a version of
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applied to marketing. When the
measuring technique affects the thing you measure, you really don't know
what you have. Using polling data and focus groups to determine your
music programming is a self fulfilling process that will guarantee
mediocrity.

As for whether IBOC is a good or a bad thing, I'll say this: AM could
sound good. However, nobody sees fit to purchase a quality receiver to
listen to a better sound. Thus it has been relegated to a secondary
status. And so you can walk away making the point that gosh, the noise
from IBOC doesn't make things that much worse because it already sounds
like crap to most people.

Broadcast AM wouldn't sound like crap if the programming was there to
support the demand for fidelity. It wouldn't sound like crap if people
actually complained about the crummy audio at night from all those lower
power stations. They don't complain, because station owners pay program
directors to generate bland mediocrity that will sell commercials, not
inspire and engage listeners. Nobody cares because there is nothing to
care about.

Having vented my spleen, let me say this to all you folk who think that
nothing can sound better than AM: Get over it. The biggest problem with
MW and SW AM broadcasting is that we don't have a capture effect of any
sort. AM can not have such an effect. But digital modes can clean up
the act considerably. Sorry, Telemon, some bright folks on a few
industry committees will find a reasonable suite of digital standards
some day, and when they do, AM will go the way of morse code. It can't
happen soon enough in my not so humble opinion. You will never convince
me that digital artifacts are worse than heterodyne whistles and
opposite sideband artifacts from a station 10 kHz away.

However, even if such digital standards take hold, nobody will give a
damn as long as the programming sucks. Is it any wonder that both XM
and Sirius are still having difficulties making a profit? Think about it...

Jake Brodsky
AB3A

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

iboc will kill Radio.y'all can thank them suckers at the fcc for that.
cuhulin

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

I'm a database analyst by day and I know statistics can be made to say
anything you want them to say, especially if you ask the wrong questions
that reflect what the reviewer wants to hear and not what the public wants
to tell them.

As a typical listener with the typical radio found in Wal-Mart I could get a
single AM station with local sourced programming and as you can tell I am
not fond of that daytimers programming. There are currently no local FM
outlets in my immediate area that are not lights out satellite or microwave
feeds from remote studios.

When I moved to this area 25 years ago there were multiple AM and FM
stations with local sourced programming that served the public interest with
decent local news programs, local interest call in talk shows, lots of
different types of music programming and they alerted the public to local
emergencies and disasters that might impact their listeners. I did not like
all of what I heard but at least I had a choice.

Today the programming in my area is stale. The programming is repetitive and
redundant. The programming does not serve the public interest.

I know I am not going to get you to understand or respect my observations.
I do not expect anyone to agree with me.
The numbers you throw up do not reflect my areas reality.

So what is my solution ?
For AM I throw up a 150 foot wire antenna attached to my Kenwood TS-430S
to catch a few stations with programming I appreciate.
For FM its a deep fringe VHF/UHF roof antenna, mast mount preamp and rotor
to pull worthwhile stations out of the mud, or the XM radio feed provided
with my DirecTV subscription, or if I wish to go back in history I have
converted my entire record and tape collection to CD-R and MP3. This gives
me a collection of popular music that includes my Great Grandfathers Jazz
78's from the 1920's (lateral and vertical cut), my Grandfathers Swing
record collection, my Fathers 1950's record collection and early reel to
reel tapes of variety TV shows of the late 1950s and early 60s, tapes of
early FM Stereo programming, and my own 60's thru 80's record and tape
collection. So I have other choices. Probably more than most of the general
public.

73
Steve
N2UBP

..

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

"Steve Stone" wrote:

I'm a database analyst by day and I know statistics can be made to say
anything you want them to say, especially if you ask the wrong questions
that reflect what the reviewer wants to hear and not what the public wants
to tell them.

I tried making that point a couple months ago, with no affect.
Everyone thinks that any collection of data can be analyzed with a
normal distribution... and it just ain't so.

Likewise, like you say, surveys are often -- perhaps usually --
slanted to return the results they want. My personal experience with
Arbitron left me unimpressed.

The whole radio ratings game is a self-serving, narrow minded exercise
in mutual masturbation. Eventually the listeners will abandon radio
for podcasts, MP3s, email lists to discuss the latest bands, and so
on. Radio can no longer count on its captive audience.

--
Eric F. Richards,
"It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the purpose of a
business is to make money. But the real purpose of a business is to
create value. While it’s possible to make money in the short run
without creating much value, in the long run it’s unsustainable.
Even criminal organizations have to create value for someone."
- Steve Pavlina, April 10, 2006

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

"Steve Stone" wrote in message
...
I'm a database analyst by day and I know statistics can be made to say
anything you want them to say, especially if you ask the wrong questions
that reflect what the reviewer wants to hear and not what the public wants
to tell them.

In most radio station testing, you do not even use questions. You have
people score songs and program content, using a dial.

In any case, why, for gosh sakes, would a radio station do testing or
perceptual research which yields wrong results? I have never heard of a
staiton or statrion staff that wanted ratings to go down. So weeks and weeks
are spent working with professional researchers and statisticians to make
sure that there is no question wording bias, no interviewer bias and that
the qustions are clear. Further time is spent in setting a recruit
specification that reflects the core audience or an audience segment that
you wish to bring into the project.

There are several dozen very professional companies that do research for
radio stations. A couple of companies have hired very good people and do
projects in house with thier own research divsion. Some even operate
permanent call centers with 20 to 40 seats, rotating projects and markets
where the company operates.

All this is beyond Arbitron, which is a sales tool and excruciatingly well
audited by researchers and statisticions in a committee appointed by
advertisers, not radio, to make sure rating reflect the real size and
composition of audience that stations are charging for.

As a typical listener with the typical radio found in Wal-Mart I could get
a single AM station with local sourced programming and as you can tell I
am not fond of that daytimers programming. There are currently no local FM
outlets in my immediate area that are not lights out satellite or
microwave feeds from remote studios.

That sounds like a small market. Very small. The FCC in its infinite wisdom
, allowed a t0ousand or so new staitons, mostly in small markets, about 15
years ago. It made profitability nearly impossible in some places.

To discuss this intelligently, it would be nice if you revealed the name of
the city.

Just FYI, nearly no FMs today broadcast from their transmitter. They use
microwave or T1s to send the signal form the studios to the transmitter.
What you call "microwave feeds" are the usual way of linking studios and
transmitter for the last 30 years or more. T1s are replacing them, as they
are more robust and have two way data capabilities. But, having the
transmitter remote fromt he studio is nothing odd, and does nothing for or
against the quality of programming.

When I moved to this area 25 years ago there were multiple AM and FM
stations with local sourced programming that served the public interest
with decent local news programs, local interest call in talk shows, lots
of different types of music programming and they alerted the public to
local emergencies and disasters that might impact their listeners. I did
not like all of what I heard but at least I had a choice.

What city, please. Otherwise, it souds like you are making a straw market
(the city equivalent of a straw man) to support your argument with no real
facts.

Today the programming in my area is stale. The programming is repetitive
and redundant. The programming does not serve the public interest.

How do you know? Have you surveyed th epublic? I would bet the statins have,
and I would bet they are doing exactly what the listeners want.

The numbers you throw up do not reflect my areas reality.

For all I know, you are talking about Durban, South Africa. Until you
"reveal" the city, your points are without value.

So what is my solution ?
For AM I throw up a 150 foot wire antenna attached to my Kenwood TS-430S
to catch a few stations with programming I appreciate.
For FM its a deep fringe VHF/UHF roof antenna, mast mount preamp and rotor
to pull worthwhile stations out of the mud, or the XM radio feed provided
with my DirecTV subscription, or if I wish to go back in history I have
converted my entire record and tape collection to CD-R and MP3. This gives
me a collection of popular music that includes my Great Grandfathers Jazz
78's from the 1920's (lateral and vertical cut), my Grandfathers Swing
record collection, my Fathers 1950's record collection and early reel to
reel tapes of variety TV shows of the late 1950s and early 60s, tapes of
early FM Stereo programming, and my own 60's thru 80's record and tape
collection. So I have other choices. Probably more than most of the
general public.

This proves you have broad and very eclectic tastes. That is nice. Most
people don't.

A few years ago, a station went on in San Antonio, playing 57 hip hop songs.
In 90 days, it was #1 in the market. It had only changed about 12 of the
songs in the 90 days. Today, it is in its 5th year at #1 and stronger now
than before. It plays about 100 songs in total. It changes a couple in and
out each week. It beats the #2 station by about 30%. Its listeners, when
interviewed, love the station and think it has the absolute best variety of
music on the planet. that is because the 100 songs are what the listeners
say they want to hear. that is how it works.

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
"Steve Stone" wrote:

I'm a database analyst by day and I know statistics can be made to say
anything you want them to say, especially if you ask the wrong questions
that reflect what the reviewer wants to hear and not what the public
wants
to tell them.

I tried making that point a couple months ago, with no affect.
Everyone thinks that any collection of data can be analyzed with a
normal distribution... and it just ain't so.

You and steve miss the point . Radio staitons have no reason to order bad
research. Jobs depend on increasing or holding ratings. Very good companies
are used, and they spend lots of time avoiding the pitfalls you mention.

Likewise, like you say, surveys are often -- perhaps usually --
slanted to return the results they want. My personal experience with
Arbitron left me unimpressed.

Advertisers have a committe that audits them. That is adequate for them to
spend about $21 billion on radio advertising. Advertisers seem to believe
the nature of Arbitron ratings far more than your rather distorted and
inaccurate to the Nth degree analysis of thier function and methodolgy (you
do not even get the terms of the trade right).

The whole radio ratings game is a self-serving, narrow minded exercise
in mutual masturbation. Eventually the listeners will abandon radio
for podcasts, MP3s, email lists to discuss the latest bands, and so
on. Radio can no longer count on its captive audience.

It never could. 45's, TV, cassettes, CDs cable, satellite TV, satellite
radio, 8-Tracks, video games, etc., etc. all compete or have tried. Radio is
pretty resilient and still reaches 93% to 94% of Americans weekly for about
the same amount of time as in 1950. There are and always have been people,
like you and Steve., who expect something else... sort of like asking for
the New Yorker to publish a Fargo edition... that is actually of interest to
nearly nobody.

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve Stone" wrote in message
...
I'm a database analyst by day and I know statistics can be made to say
anything you want them to say, especially if you ask the wrong questions
that reflect what the reviewer wants to hear and not what the public wants
to tell them.

In most radio station testing, you do not even use questions. You have
people score songs and program content, using a dial.

In his book, Get Back In The Box (http://www.rushkoff.com/box.html),
Douglas Rushkoff describes what happens when marketing gets too obsessed
with drawing people in to buy. It becomes dreary and painful.

Rushkoff also debunks the value of focus groups by showing that the
choices of who listens aren't really as random as those nice folks at
those research firms would have you believe.

What you are hearing from this crowd is that many are sick and tired of
the efforts to market stations so tightly. Owners have to loosen up or
people will pretty much ignore the marketing.

It's like stores which are calculated and studied to provide the maximum
number of cues to get people to want to buy Buy BUY! The stress of such
environments from keeping your guard up all the time against subliminal
marketing is not small.

People are tired of the mentality of those who would play the sound of
roaring chainsaws if there was a buck in it. You're in the business of
engaging and attracting listeners. If you think that is best done by
statistics, then you must have one of those pictures of Elvis on black
velvet in your office. It's been selected by a focus group...

In any case, why, for gosh sakes, would a radio station do testing or
perceptual research which yields wrong results? I have never heard of a
staiton or statrion staff that wanted ratings to go down. So weeks and weeks
are spent working with professional researchers and statisticians to make
sure that there is no question wording bias, no interviewer bias and that
the qustions are clear. Further time is spent in setting a recruit
specification that reflects the core audience or an audience segment that
you wish to bring into the project.

Why would a radio station do this? Because of a herd mentality which
says this works. And as such it does work --sort of. If you only have
a choice of bland, drab, same, and similar in highly formatted stations,
guess what happens? People lose their taste for the unusual.

As you say, it's been going on since the 1950s. How would you know
what's different from this?

There are several dozen very professional companies that do research for
radio stations. A couple of companies have hired very good people and do
projects in house with thier own research divsion. Some even operate
permanent call centers with 20 to 40 seats, rotating projects and markets
where the company operates.

All this is beyond Arbitron, which is a sales tool and excruciatingly well
audited by researchers and statisticions in a committee appointed by
advertisers, not radio, to make sure rating reflect the real size and
composition of audience that stations are charging for.

Let's do art by statistics. I'd like to see what the average painting
would look like after you have sent it through a few focus groups.
Would you hang it up on your wall? How about a picture of Elvis on
black velvet?

This proves you have broad and very eclectic tastes. That is nice. Most
people don't.

Yes, but is that because they choose to be that way, or because they've
been living in a bland environment since 1950?

How did most new formats get started? By listening to stuff THAT WASN'T
ON THE RADIO. Did Rap music get its start on radio or in clubs? Did
early Rock and Roll get it's start in the formatted, conformist radio of
the day? Or did it get a big boost from people listening to Mexican
Radio stations?

I could go on like this. Most new "formats" got their start from
somewhere else. The latest contribution from formatted radio? The
"Jack" format. Nothing but a bunch of canned wisecracks in between a
mashup of all the Rock from 1970 to the present. Gee. That's supposed
to be original?

A few years ago, a station went on in San Antonio, playing 57 hip hop songs.
In 90 days, it was #1 in the market. It had only changed about 12 of the
songs in the 90 days. Today, it is in its 5th year at #1 and stronger now
than before. It plays about 100 songs in total. It changes a couple in and
out each week. It beats the #2 station by about 30%. Its listeners, when
interviewed, love the station and think it has the absolute best variety of
music on the planet. that is because the 100 songs are what the listeners
say they want to hear. that is how it works.

Yuck! Most people have more CDs than that.

David, people are saying that the choice of music is an art, not a
statistical science. Near my market, there is a radio station that
actually advertises +the fact that they do not use focus groups, program
directors, or their ilk. It's WRNR. They rely on their DJ's judgment.
What a concept!

Sometimes it's unlistenable. Others, you simply can't bring yourself to
turn off the radio. But there is never a dull moment, and it has a spot
on the station buttons in my truck even though I can only hear them
toward the end of my 45 minute commute.

One thing I want to point out to you about the artists I mentioned in my
previous post, ALL of them were highly controversial. Many things they
did weren't popular right away. Most focus groups would have trashed
these artists. You would never have seen these folks on the air before
they gathered a following outside the medium.

This is why we say that radio is a vast wasteland. You are talking
about marketing, not art. Now, in the scheme of things, I'm saying
there isn't anything wrong with non-stop marketing. But they have to
draw their ideas from SOMEWHERE. Radio today is saturated with bland,
simple, uber-happy talk, and a very limited selection of statistics
driven music tracks --what make you think that it hasn't affected
listening patterns?

If there is so little R&D done in this business, then where do the
marketeers get their ideas from? Oh that's right. Someone takes a
risk. No wonder everyone thinks the same as you do...


Jake Brodsky
AB3A

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

"Jake Brodsky" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve Stone" wrote in message
...
I'm a database analyst by day and I know statistics can be made to say
anything you want them to say, especially if you ask the wrong questions
that reflect what the reviewer wants to hear and not what the public
wants to tell them.

In most radio station testing, you do not even use questions. You have
people score songs and program content, using a dial.

In his book, Get Back In The Box (http://www.rushkoff.com/box.html),
Douglas Rushkoff describes what happens when marketing gets too obsessed
with drawing people in to buy. It becomes dreary and painful.

This is one person's opinion, vs. the empirical evidence of ratings
improvements after testing music.

Rushkoff also debunks the value of focus groups by showing that the
choices of who listens aren't really as random as those nice folks at
those research firms would have you believe.

Radio hardly ever uses focus groups.

Music testing is done by gathering information just as Arbitron does on
potential recruits, and then selecting those that either use your staitons
enough or use comparable stations enough to be of value in evaluating music
selections one by one.

What you are hearing from this crowd is that many are sick and tired of
the efforts to market stations so tightly. Owners have to loosen up or
people will pretty much ignore the marketing.

Sorry, but stations have used music research since the 50's, none of it
based on your supposition that they are conducting focus groups, and there
are very few cases of stations improving ratings by not doing research vs.
many that do by doing it. I have many times competed with unresearched "gut
feel" staitons and the whupping they have received has been as big as a 10
to 1 margin (it is more usual for it to be in the 1.5 to 1 to 2.5 to 1
range, though)

It's like stores which are calculated and studied to provide the maximum
number of cues to get people to want to buy Buy BUY! The stress of such
environments from keeping your guard up all the time against subliminal
marketing is not small.

You are confusing getting people into the strore with the merchandise
assortment. Retal first seeks to get people in, but they use merchandise
"hooks" such as selection, price, sales, etc., to get folks there. Radio
uses marketing, separately conceived, to get folks to "cume" a station and
then they use "merchandise assortment" which means the number and selection
of songs (or topics on talsk) to get them to stay (like buying in retail).

You have confused cume driven marketing with the actual programming. Your
error is fatal to your argument, showing you do not understand the dynamic
of cume and TSL, the only tow things ratings measure. Cume is considered a
"usage" of a station in the survey period, while TSL is how much listening
to the station was given. Cume is getting to the store, and Time Spent
Listening is how much they consumer "buys." You need a range of both to win.

People are tired of the mentality of those who would play the sound of
roaring chainsaws if there was a buck in it. You're in the business of
engaging and attracting listeners. If you think that is best done by
statistics, then you must have one of those pictures of Elvis on black
velvet in your office. It's been selected by a focus group...

We are in the business of keeping listeners, much more than attracting them.
Each format will have a potential partisan base. A country listener will
seldom use an R&B or Spanish station, so we can, with fairly simple
procedures, know in each market the potential of one genre of programming
based on demographics and prior experinece in other markets. So the big job
is to tell people they have the option, and then do as good a job in playing
the right songs in the right atmosphere that we can.

In any case, why, for gosh sakes, would a radio station do testing or
perceptual research which yields wrong results? I have never heard of a
staiton or statrion staff that wanted ratings to go down. So weeks and
weeks are spent working with professional researchers and statisticians
to make sure that there is no question wording bias, no interviewer bias
and that the qustions are clear. Further time is spent in setting a
recruit specification that reflects the core audience or an audience
segment that you wish to bring into the project.

Why would a radio station do this? Because of a herd mentality which says
this works. And as such it does work --sort of. If you only have a
choice of bland, drab, same, and similar in highly formatted stations,
guess what happens? People lose their taste for the unusual.

There never was a taste for the unusuall. When AM radio was first supposed
to die, right after the TV freeze was lifted, we had only two formats in the
US... MOR (Gogi Grant to Perry Como and the bands) and the emerging Top 40
(first one in August 1952). Top 40 beame mostly rock 'n' roll, and MOR was
older adult oriented. Then, in some markets, we had country (only limited
viability in the 50's) and Spanish (just a handful of markets). And a few
"race" stations in deep south Black markets Nothing else.

As radio developed as a music medium, we found that Top 40 was 3 formats,
AC, CHR and Rock. And Rock became multiple formats. And old Top 40 became
oldies. And country became viable, as did R&B and Spanish and religion and
talk and other formats.

The "narrowness" you descibre always existed. Listeners settled for liking
every other song on Toop 40 because there was nothing else. Once the AC
songs were dropped and only rock was played, some were more happy with the
AC and others with the rock. They became superserved compared to being
settlers. Most folks do not want a variety on the same station. They want
predictability. If they are of a mood for something else, they go to a
different station.

As you say, it's been going on since the 1950s. How would you know what's
different from this?

By watching stations that DON'T do it I work a lot outside the US, and often
have the opportunity to kill competitors dead when they think that variety
is MORE songs and that asking the listener what they like and dislike is not
necessary. I also know by having tried the opposite and failed miserably.

All this is beyond Arbitron, which is a sales tool and excruciatingly
well audited by researchers and statisticions in a committee appointed by
advertisers, not radio, to make sure rating reflect the real size and
composition of audience that stations are charging for.

Let's do art by statistics. I'd like to see what the average painting
would look like after you have sent it through a few focus groups. Would
you hang it up on your wall? How about a picture of Elvis on black
velvet?

We are not creating a painting. we are providing a museum. The paintings are
the songs or the talk topics. They are pre-created and gallery attendees
know what they like or don't in art, and go based on whether our gallery
shows good stuff or not.

Your analogy fails terribly, again.

This proves you have broad and very eclectic tastes. That is nice. Most
people don't.

Yes, but is that because they choose to be that way, or because they've
been living in a bland environment since 1950?

It has been proven by analyzing successes and failures that stations with
cohesive playlists of researched songs do better than any of the
alternatives. Plenty of staitons have tried the other ways, and there is a
reason they have not survived.

How did most new formats get started? By listening to stuff THAT WASN'T
ON THE RADIO. Did Rap music get its start on radio or in clubs?

radio reflects taste, and does not usually create it. Radio picks up on
change and adopts it. Hip hop (which was a progression from rap) just eased
in on the Urban and CHR staitons. Rap broke into radio, as often happens,
when one artist has a big, crossover hit.

Did early Rock and Roll get it's start in the formatted, conformist radio
of the day?

Rock 'n' roll broke out of race stations, which was the name Black staitons
were called in the 50's. Then, several DJs in Cleveland, Alan Freed and Pete
"Mad Daddy" Myers and Bill Randall started playing the tunes on Top 40
stations, especially at night. It then spread.

Or did it get a big boost from people listening to Mexican Radio stations?

Nope. It got its bigest boost form Todd Storz and Gordon McLendon.

I could go on like this. Most new "formats" got their start from
somewhere else.

That is correct. If you take a new music form and build a staiton around it,
it is usually too much of a new thing One station about two years ago tried
an all Chill format. It died. Nobody liked chill enough to listen all the
time.

The latest contribution from formatted radio? The "Jack" format.
Nothing but a bunch of canned wisecracks in between a mashup of all the
Rock from 1970 to the present. Gee. That's supposed to be original?

It is a relief and a broad wampling of the biggest hits from multiple genres
all on one staiton, with no jocks. The biggest sell is the jocklessness, as
many listeners in the target group hate all jocks.

Anyway, most formats don't "happen" but, rather, they evolve from other
formats. Jack is an evolutionary format, mixing CHR and Rock and creating an
oldies format for boomers.

A few years ago, a station went on in San Antonio, playing 57 hip hop
songs. In 90 days, it was #1 in the market. It had only changed about 12
of the songs in the 90 days. Today, it is in its 5th year at #1 and
stronger now than before. It plays about 100 songs in total. It changes a
couple in and out each week. It beats the #2 station by about 30%. Its
listeners, when interviewed, love the station and think it has the
absolute best variety of music on the planet. that is because the 100
songs are what the listeners say they want to hear. that is how it works.

Yuck! Most people have more CDs than that.

So? It works! If they wanted to listen to the CDs, they would and could. The
fact is, they like the blend and the jocks and the events the statin does
and so on. they are after the concotion, not the ingredients.

David, people are saying that the choice of music is an art, not a
statistical science. Near my market, there is a radio station that
actually advertises +the fact that they do not use focus groups, program
directors, or their ilk. It's WRNR. They rely on their DJ's judgment.
What a concept!

Yeah, it is 31st in the ratings, very near the point where it will not even
qualify for listing. What a wonderful concept. Totally ignore the listener
and what they want to hear, and say to them, "I don't care if you don't like
brocolli... eat it!" Listeners do the obvious... they don't listen in
droves. That is a horrible concept, certainly the kind of think an
inexperieced owner at the fringe of a metro would do. the owner, by the way,
is a guy who was one of the most research driven programmers in the US...
and I would bet that every cut in the library is pre-approved from a safe
list. No research (probably can't afford it) so they use a compendium of the
songs AAA staitons in the US play, and the jocks can play any of them they
want. That is simply using someone elses research in a different market.

One thing I want to point out to you about the artists I mentioned in my
previous post, ALL of them were highly controversial. Many things they
did weren't popular right away. Most focus groups would have trashed
these artists. You would never have seen these folks on the air before
they gathered a following outside the medium.

Again, again, again, again. We do not use focus groups to test music.

We only test familiar music. All new songs are judgement calls, and we test
them after the listeners have heard them enough to judge emotionally, not
analitically. we don't test artists, we test songs. Stations add plenty of
new songs, often by unknown artists. Using the #1 AC station in LA as an
example, more than half the artists in the current categories were unknown 5
years ago. So that station must have, at some point, been the first radio
station in the market to play them. And they gathered a following because
the station played them, as where else would they be heard?

This is why we say that radio is a vast wasteland. You are talking about
marketing, not art.

It is a blend of marketing to get folks in, science and art to get them to
stay, and sales to make it profitable to keep doing it.

Now, in the scheme of things, I'm saying there isn't anything wrong with
non-stop marketing. But they have to draw their ideas from SOMEWHERE.
Radio today is saturated with bland, simple, uber-happy talk, and a very
limited selection of statistics driven music tracks --what make you think
that it hasn't affected listening patterns?

If there is so little R&D done in this business, then where do the
marketeers get their ideas from? Oh that's right. Someone takes a risk.
No wonder everyone thinks the same as you do...

We test new format blend all the time. We look at ways of combining music in
different ways, balancing in different ways, etc. We add now songs by new
artists on every format that plays new music every week. we know too much
new music kills us, and we know that not enough makes us stale. We have an
intuitive idea of how a station should sound (good PDs can hear a station in
their head long before it is on the air), and most listeners are very happy.

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

In article ,
Jake Brodsky wrote:

Snip

Having vented my spleen, let me say this to all you folk who think that
nothing can sound better than AM: Get over it. The biggest problem with
MW and SW AM broadcasting is that we don't have a capture effect of any
sort. AM can not have such an effect. But digital modes can clean up
the act considerably. Sorry, Telemon, some bright folks on a few
industry committees will find a reasonable suite of digital standards
some day, and when they do, AM will go the way of morse code. It can't
happen soon enough in my not so humble opinion. You will never convince
me that digital artifacts are worse than heterodyne whistles and
opposite sideband artifacts from a station 10 kHz away.

Snip

There are two issues he
1. What is actually operating to the current DRM standards.
2. What can be engineered.

Regarding #1

I fail to see how replacing "heterodyne whistles" that I can normally
adjust my receiver to mitigate anyway and replace that with "digital
artifacts" as an improvement. In other words replacing one type of
noise with another. I rationally can not accept this trade of one type
of noise for another type of noise as "better."

The problem I have with DRM is that it currently is not an improvement
and just provides a different listening experience not better in
general.

They (the DRM consortium) claim the "possible" while providing the
"actual" like it is the same thing. This is a bait and switch tactic
and I'm not buying it.

Regarding #2

Can DRM be better than current analog? You bet it can!

Can you stuff more information into the same bandwidth? No!

So in order to offer "better" sound quality the signal will have to
occupy more bandwidth not the same. Compression algorithms trade an
increase in information rate for an amount of distortion or artifacts.
I don't see any research to change this trade where you can have your
cake and eat it too.

There is the theoretical rule that a numerical sized bandwidth can
support a numerical value of information rate. For a DRM signal to
"sound better" it would have to overcome this rule. Compression
algorithms can not violate this rule without other consequences such as
sound quality.

The result is that DRM will have to use larger bandwidth than the
current analog scheme to it to actually be "better." Where "better" is
defined as good sounding audio without the artifacts and manage this
with a weaker signal whether that weakness is due to propagation, the
transmitter using less power, or both.

If broadcasters and listeners want to accept fewer available channels
then this can be an eventuality but listeners must in addition accept
that broadcasters will have control over who can listen and that over
time broadcasters can change the rules.

*******************************

I take the long view. The long view is freedom of information, which is
a fundamental right in this country. If broadcasters are going to
implement a scheme where by they control who can receive the
information for whatever reason then we will have an information cast
system.

This debate is just starting and it will be an issue in every delivery
system be it Internet, AM/FM BCB or short wave. From the beginning to
now if you bought any kind of service from an ISP you got the whole
Internet. From the beginning until now if you bought a radio you got
the whole of all programming it was capable of receiving. This is going
to change in the future if we accept what the industries are pushing,
which is a subscription model in addition to the equipment cost.

The USA understands and accepts money for access to "premium" content
but there has to be a broader availability of the free content
guaranteed or we will lose a part of what we are as a nation.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
 

Brenda Ann wrote:

no matter how
you dress up a pig, all you're gonna get out of it is pig ****.

I thought you ended up with a really nice-looking roast in a
three-piece suit.... ;)

--
steph