The key words to his post were "at night." He said he visited people's home at night and they were watching TV. Night time radio listening is a fraction of what it is during the day. But you can't generalize that because one person didn't see any radio usage at night to mean that no one listens to radio at home at all.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
The Great Houston translator invasion
- Thread starter Mediafrog+
- Start date
The key words to his post were "at night." He said he visited people's home at night and they were watching TV. Night time radio listening is a fraction of what it is during the day. But you can't generalize that because one person didn't see any radio usage at night to mean that no one listens to radio at home at all.
Is that the one licensed to The Tooth Fairy, LLC., a subsidiary of Easter Bunny Enterprises?
Please tell me what analog Channel 6 authorization is there in Houston?
Last edited:
So your response to 75,000 members of the PPM panels nationally and hundreds of thousands of diaries every year from Nielsen as well as similar findings by Eastlan in the US and Numeris in Canada against... your personal anecdotal observations.
The entire ad agency world, backed by their clients, put enough faith in the radio ratings to invest countless billions of dollars in radio advertising each year.
R
robertsez
Guest
And David Eduardo somehow manages to turn nearly every thread into a series of ad hominem attacks on Joe Donalson. Your point?
Joe tends to make statements that are patently false with no evidence beyond "I think" on subjects where there is ample evidence refuting his statements. His total disregard for facts does not inspire ad hominem attacks; they inspire corrections that show that Joe is just consistently wrong. As is the case in regards to radio listening locations.
So it is not a radio station. And the name "JoeFM" is a bit weird since DTV channel 39 does not employ frequency modulation.
I don't have "a" market.
Some of the ones I am involved with just have a few, like Miami or LA, and others, ranging from Houston to Albuquerque, have way too many. In Houston, they can't cover the huge geography of the market. In Albuquerque, they can cover most of the market and the result is more stations than the local advertising dollars can support.
In retrospect, the FCC should have allowed them principally to retain smaller market local service by moving limited or daytime AMs to translators while giving permanence to the assignments.
And in some of the markets I deal with, the whole concept of translators is deemed absurd. So there are none.
Today I was interviewed on the air on a station in Quito, Ecuador, which was doing a feature on the 50th anniversary of FM in that nation. When I signed the first station on, there was nothing on the dial for 1000 miles in any direction. The station made money in its first year on the air. Today, that one city has over 40 full power FMs all located on the same little mountain and all at the same power; most of them don't make any money.
The problem with translators is the fact that the FCC will do nothing to bring radio technology forward in the same way that was done with TV. AM radio and their need for FM translators just to be heard effectively is an outcome from this.
There needs to be a solution such as what is being done in much of the rest of the world - go digital.
https://www.worlddab.org
There needs to be a solution such as what is being done in much of the rest of the world - go digital.
https://www.worlddab.org
Last edited:
That idea seems to work best in countries where the media is government owned. It isn't being done in countries like the US. The problem with this idea, as we've discussed many times before, is it makes existing radios obsolete. That wasn't an issue with TV because the digital conversion happened at the same time that tube TVs were going away. So for many people, buying a new TV wasn't an issue because there was an obvious improvement. Not the case with radio. Digital radio isn't a substantial improvement from FM. There is a quality difference with AM, but that's why the FCC is suggesting FM translators. The problem there is the over-crowding of FM. The FCC doesn't seem to think that's a problem.
Joe, I, myself, only hear Monikers instead of "Legal IDs" here in Houston, TX......SAVVY!!!!
"Much" is quite an exaggeration.
In the Western Hemisphere, there was an attempt in Canada. The rest of the nations, from Argentina right up to the US, has shown no interest in DAB.
India is implementing a huge, national DRM project on AM.
As BigA has stated, most of the nations which are adopting DRM, have significant state controlled radio and were generally very late to the commercial radio world... England, Sweden, Germany, etc. China, of course, has no real commercial radio.
This leaves only Australia as a DAB adopter with a history of commercial radio as well as very strong state radio. But Australian commercial radio was long limited to much less power than the ABC stations, and there were relatively few stations relative to the population. A somewhat unique situation.
So DAB is by no means an international standard and there is no world-wide trend.
Where commercial radio dominates, there is a recognition that over-the-air broadcasting is gradually being replaced with the use of mobile and streaming devices and that nearly nobody would buy new "radios" in this era.
Maybe not, but I believe you have an agenda to promote an idea that the majority of terrestrial listening occurs outside the car, which is absolutely wrong.
Also, why attack Joe FM just because he isn't supporting your aforementioned agenda?
Again, you have prepared metrics that are skewed to make things look as if it is still 1985 and people listen to terrestrial radio at home, which is completely false.
If you were to tell me that folks stream Sunny 99.1 (just using a generic radio station as an example) from home or at work, I have no problem with that.
However, if you're telling me that the majority of Sunny 99.1's "terrestrial radio" listeners come from the home or at work, and not from the car, well, I do have a problem with that because it is completely false. If Arbitron ratings are saying that the majority of terrestrial radio listeners are not made up of folks listening in the car, but they are made up from home or work, then those Arbitron ratings are false or skewed to promote an agenda.
Sometimes you have to process information, question the source, and use common sense. I can't think of a better example than the one posed here.
R
robertsez
Guest
I'm sorry, David, you are not merely "correcting" what you perceive to be factual inaccuracies in Joe's part. You are attacking him, ridiculing him, and leading him back into the direction of what Frank views as self-promotion. There is "ample evidence" of this.
For some reason, you are focusing on Joe and not the multitude of Hispanic broadcasters that are not in compliance. Such as 87.7 in Beaumont, who identifies as KIPS-LD, yet transmits in analog despite the revocation of their analog STA. Or the multitude of Hispanic "churches" who applied for 66% of the available LPFM frequencies during the last filing window, and have now set their sights on FM translators. What about the LPFM in Friendswood, who lists three of the five directors as residing out-of-state, as far away as California, and 100% of their programming originates hundreds of miles away?
Yet, your focus is on Joe. I find that very odd.
All the data accepted by both broadcasters and advertisers indicates that at-home and at-work have the listening majority.
Because he is a notorious pirate and agitator whose statements about most things radio are ill-informed.
I have skewed nothing. I have presented the data on listening locations from several major markets and indicated that the rest of the nation fits right into those ranges. This is based on quarterly diary samples of about a quarter-million people, and a weekly PPM sample of around 75,000 as well as information from other providers of usage data.
Streaming of OTA radio stations shows up in ratings separately for each station. We know how the listening is divided.
Arbitron has been gone for several years. It's Nielsen now.
The Nielsen numbers are audited by the MRC, an entity founded principally to protect advertisers and data integrity. Their only goal is to provide an accurate representation of the listening universe.
And, yes, the majority of Sunny's listening is in the combination of at-home and at-work listening. That is where most quarter hours are racked up. Like most AC stations, at work listening is the primary source of AQH persons, as AC's have traditionally not done as well in the home and in the car. We can see the exact divisions for comparable stations outside the Top 50 markets. Further, much of the listening to AC stations happens in 10 AM to 3 PM, not drive time.
It's a terrible example, using a station that lives off of at-work listening.
Sources: Nielsen (formerly Arbitron), Numeris, and loads of proprietary research.
So, we need to talk about the Hispanic broadcasters? What's the beef with the LPFM in Friendswood? You don't have to have just local board members,, you just need to have a 'campus' within the required distance. See KPUP, Patagonia, AZ, as an example. And what is the deal on programming? Should we talk all the EWTN, 3ABN, Radio74International, etc. These affiliates hook up a satellite and local is basically the legal ID. Nothing in the FCC rules to disallow this.
Are we being selective in our complaints? Why should anyone be protected? It seems the previous poster chooses to select certain broadcasters but not all those doing what the poster finds an issue with. I'm not defending or supporting any dog in this race, just making an observation.
Are we being selective in our complaints? Why should anyone be protected? It seems the previous poster chooses to select certain broadcasters but not all those doing what the poster finds an issue with. I'm not defending or supporting any dog in this race, just making an observation.
Joe is here and posting, while the others are not. And Joe posts inaccurate information, such as the very ill-informed recent statements about listening locations.
While there may be an LPFM or two that violate the rules, nearly all of those translators are totally legal, so there is nothing to protest.
So where are your metrics? Other than one anecdotal example of visiting homes at night, I see no quantitative information. You can't make a statement that accepted metrics are "completely false" when you have no metrics to counter the ones that are universally accepted. Just because you don't like those metrics or don't agree with those metrics doesn't make them false.
That is a good question. It seems each time research says one thing but the opinion of a person is opposite, yet they provide no basis for their thinking. If we utilize a reference (RAB, Neilsen, etc) it's wrong but yet the person cannot give any independent source for their opposing research. I'm all for looking at research. If you dispute, provide those third party sources you base your reasoning on. I for one, would love to see all the research I can.
I didn't mean "Sunny 99.1" as an example, silly billy, I meant an example of "proprietary research" vs "common sense."
You can quote a source, but if you ACTUALLY believe that the majority of folks listen to "terrestrial radio" via a box radio, you are about as gullible as they come.
I would go even further to say that the majority (50 percent plus one) do not even own a box that would access terrestrial radio stations at home.
I did a poll here at work, and no one here actually owns a radio at home. It's a small sample of about 20 people, but it is one that features all age segments and ethnic backgrounds.
My sister has a boombox in her barn that the horses listen to. It is locked into KKYX 24 hours a day. Maybe she is a part of the "Nielsen Family" and has no idea
Do you know what the margin of error is using a sample of 20 people in a city the size of Houston?
Look, you can believe whatever you want to believe. We're all used to seeing that kind of opinion pass for knowledge. But until you do real verifiable polling, it's all just a lot of hot air.
In addition, if no one is listening to OTA radio, why are SO MANY people spending money to move translators (as is the topic of this thread) or start their own stations on the fringe of the FM dial? Are they complete gullible morons?
Last edited:
- Status