A POST FOR BOTH THOSE WHO LIKE HD RADIO AND THOSE WHO DON'T.

[Savage]

First of all, the term is ad hominem, not "ad homonym." It appears you haven't spent any of your untold millions on literacy. And second: just because you demand an apology doesn't mean you're going to get one. (And you're not.) So go back to being wealthy and fabulous and have a nice day.

Could we please get this thread back on-topic? Which is, I hope we can all recall, "HD Radio."

Let's please not let AM-baiters continually derail the discussions - which is, of course, their aim.

AM radio is what it is. There are many success stories which interestingly, bear a direct relationship to how much management interest and innovation are invested in their operation. Yes, the results are predictable if you stick the AM in a closet and put the programming on the bird. If you sufficiently relate to your key constituencies of listeners and advertisers, you'll make money with your AM. Ignore it and it will become a black hole - which is true of any business.

I would much rather invest in a quality AM signal than pounding money worthlessly into some HD experiment. Nobody cares about HD. At least people own AM radios and know how to use them.

 

[Carmine5]

Bill Norman posted a Jan. 2010 aircheck of his station using a Sony SRF A-100 at a distance of 20 miles from the TX site.

http://www.wnmb900.com/sounds_of_wnmb.htm

I've heard many FM stations that didn't have nearly the fidelity of WNMB's AM stereo signal.

c5

 

[Don Juan]

I've noticed an increasing incidence of nasty posts from the pro-HD faction lately on this board. The usual infantile tactics of ad hominem attacks on HD critics and provocative personal comments are being trotted out once again, generally from The Usual Suspects.

Oh puh-leese. For the longest time you anti-HD people have had the bulletin boards to yourself, posting all your crap...and basically shouting down anyone who disagrees with you. Now that people are actually challenging what you have to say, and calling you for what you are, now you're complaining.

 

[Savage]

Not complaining at all - just trying to keep the thread on-topic, which - check it if you like - is "HD Radio." This is as opposed to attacking people who disagree that HD is (a) even remotely successful, (b) the answer to radio's ills, (c) a technically workable and practicable system, (d) doesn't create unacceptable interference, or (e) is a concept anyone in the world outside of a handful of radio engineers gives a flying whoop about. Kindly refer to what's going on in the marketplace to buttress these propositions. Or, to be more precise - what's NOT going on.

The board consists of either talking about HD - or attacking the livelihoods and belittling the accomplishments of others, the default mode of HD proponents who over and over and over find themselves unable to defend HD Radio on whatever merits it's supposed to have. During the discussions these seem to be the prevalent editorial and rhetorical positions found here.

For reference re-read the recent posts of Carmine5, Tom Wells, radeoengineer, and TR1992. Compare and contrast those of The Usual Suspects.

Including you. (Oh, BTW - not quite sure what you mean by "shouting down." You got to post your opinion here; nobody stopped YOU. Unless you mean you're upset because you're losing the argument on HD. If that's the case I'll agree we seem to have the upper hand.)

 

[Don Juan]

- or attacking the livelihoods and belittling the accomplishments of others, the default mode of HD proponents who over and over and over find themselves unable to defend HD Radio on whatever merits it's supposed to have.

Pot, meet kettle. I think the exact opposite has been true. You have attacked me personally in the past (not just here, but in other venues), questoned my motives, my employ...done everything except to respectfully disagree, or accept that people come to differing conclusions faced with the same facts.

Including you. (Oh, BTW - not quite sure what you mean by "shouting down." You got to post your opinion here; nobody stopped YOU.
unable to defend HD Radio on whatever merits it's supposed to have.

The last post I recall on a local message board by an enthusiast about HD, immediately someone from that message board posted a link on THIS board inviting everyone to go to the local message board in an attempt to overwhelm or subdue the original poster. This is what we mean by "shout down". Get loud, post outrageous stuff, overpost, etc...in order to belittle the original opinion.

We understand that hobbyists don't like HD. (Some hobbyists would like to have seen Morse code continue.)

The problem with boards such as this is they are loaded with hobbyists. Most of the people that comment on HD here are just that.

But hobbyist don't make broadcast policy.

Unless you mean you're upset because you're losing the argument on HD. If that's the case I'll agree we seem to have the upper hand.)

Who's upset? I just dont want to see you accusing HD enthusiasts of doing the very thing HD detractors are doing.

And I dont think we're losing the argument on HD. (Not that anyone expects a fair discussion here.)

Unless you mean you're upset that your little AM facility is going to drop off into oblivion. If that's the case, I'll agree it's a possibility! ;-)

 

[davideduardo]

I've heard many FM stations that didn't have nearly the fidelity of WNMB's AM stereo signal.

And let's ask "how is that working for him?"

The station has had a 0.0 share going back as far as I cared to look, which was Spring of '04.

 

[Savage]

Mr. Juan, I refuse to respond to your various characterizations of my posts, my motives or my station, because they have nothing to do with HD Radio. Anyone visiting here can read your previous comments and mine and draw their own conclusions.

Far from shouting you down: let's have a good, open debate about HD Radio, right here. That's the topic of this board. I promise I won't do anything to prevent your expressing your opinion nor will I obstruct your ability to advance factual argument. (That does NOT mean I won't disagree with you, but you and I can argue both sides of the issue.)

I'll start: what do you propose to do about the interference problems posed by HD Radio? It's been discussed here at length, and has been the subject of deliberation at the FCC and even by members of the Alliance.

Go ahead. You have the floor.

 

[Savage]

And, Mr. Juan, if you don't like the proposition on which I just opened debate, pick any one of the ones I listed as (a) through (e) in Reply #43. C'mon. Leave all the who-struck-John (or, I guess, in this case "Don") stuff behind and let's debate HD Radio.

 

[Savage]

David, what do WNMB's Arbitron numbers have to do with HD Radio? Carmine was advancing an argument about how good AM radio can sound. Being listed in Arbitron is not necessarily a prerequisite for success. The premise is that much-maligned analog AM radio can generate revenue just fine as-is and thus does not "need" HD in order to survive, which is the position strenuously advanced by IBOC proponents.

Can we please stay on-topic and refrain from denigrating the accomplishments of other broadcasters?

And, not to speak for Bill and his crew at WNMB, but in answer to your question about "how that's working out for him," it apparently is working out for him just fine.

Have a little class, already.

 

[Don Juan]

I'll start: what do you propose to do about the interference problems posed by HD Radio?

While I understand your perspective of interference, especially on AM radio, I dont agree that it is a pressing issue. Very few stations have claimed interference. Some may be special cases. I have not seen any evidence the public is complaining about interference, in audience sampling or research.

Like I said, while there may be some special cases, in most cases it is not an issue. In any event, it will be a trade off in the extra functionality available thru HD and the minor interference.

 

[Savage]

Well, an anonymous source inside the FCC Mass Media Bureau has reported that it is not true that "very few stations" have complained about interference, but since I can't divulge the source I feel certain you'll be skeptical about it. He says there are scores of cases, most of which are credible and not nuisance complaints. I can, however, document numerous others. Of course there's WYSL vs. WBZ. There is the Greater Media FM in Boston whose calls escape me vs. the NPR station on Naragansett Pier in RI. There are the three Clear Channel 1130s in Detroit, Milwaukee and Minneapolis who turned off HD at night to avoid interference with WRVA. There's KFMB vs. KBRT. There was WFIL vs. WHP (second adjacent.) The chief engineer of WNTP was complaining on the Philly board of radio-info about WMVP Chicago within his protected contour. On the Pittsburgh board here there are many complaints of WBZ seriously impacting KDKA at night. And of course Citadel turned off HD at night on WABC, WSB and WJR after only a week because of skywave problems. I could go on, but that should suffice.

And if, as you state, there are "special cases," what do you think should be done about them? Thus far the Commission's approach is to ignore all interference issues. There hasn't been a single case in the history of HD of the Enforcement Bureau ordering interfering stations to reduce digital power or turn it off. Do you think that's right?

What's the "extra functionality" of HD on AM? Multicasting isn't offered in HD-AM.

 

[Savage]

I forgot: of course there have been no complaints from the public about interference. Listeners aren't engineers; they can't identify annoying COFDM noise as "HD." If a station doesn't come in clearly they just change stations or stop listening. The effects of electronic interference are insidious, and adding noise to the AM and FM bands is only going to generally have the collective effect of chasing people away from radio. "It's just too staticky," is the civilian complaint.

People don't complain about pirate stations either, but we (at least theoretically) enforce the rules against them.

 

[davideduardo]

David, what do WNMB's Arbitron numbers have to do with HD Radio? Carmine was advancing an argument about how good AM radio can sound.

It obviously does not sound good enough for anyone to be listening.

Being listed in Arbitron is not necessarily a prerequisite for success.

Not if you are brokered or religious. But otherwise, if you don't have audience it generally means you will not do well for advertisers.

Can we please stay on-topic and refrain from denigrating the accomplishments of other broadcasters?

Having an AM stereo station with no measurable audience does not seem to be an accomplichment to me.

Have a little class, already.

What is classy about hiding the truth? The problem with AM is not HD, it is AM itself.

 

[Savage]

Anybody who has been in radio five minutes knows having a 0.0 in Arbitron does not literally mean there "are no listeners." The numbers depend on the defined market, the coverage of the station in question, geographic distribution of sampling and other variables. Every agency knows that Arbitron is flawed and approximate at best. It's just that they're the only ratings game in town and they're only as good as they need to be. Agencies love Arbitron because it's cheap and convenient for them and the radio operators mainly pay for the service.

Your comment about "brokered" and "religious" programming is immaterial. WNMB isn't brokered or religious. The guy is playing oldies and is presumably making money doing it. Or he would be out of business and off the air.

Your individual - and, it must be said, arrogant dismissal of Bill's efforts with WNMB as "not much of an accomplishment" is typical of the kind of sentiment which has endeared you to so many participants here.

"Truth" lives in the perceptions of the beholder. Your truth can be someone else's utter fantasy. Truth is admittedly a more fluid concept than are respect for others, tolerance, generosity, and giving credit where credit is due.

Go wallow in your arbitrary and mean-spirited "truths," David. We're on to your game.

 

[Play Freebird]

Anybody who has been in radio five minutes knows having a 0.0 in Arbitron does not literally mean there "are no listeners." The numbers depend on the defined market, the coverage of the station in question, geographic distribution of sampling and other variables. Every agency knows that Arbitron is flawed and approximate at best. It's just that they're the only ratings game in town and they're only as good as they need to be. Agencies love Arbitron because it's cheap and convenient for them and the radio operators mainly pay for the service.

And it's also important to remember that WNMB serves North Myrtle Beach, with a largely seasonal/second home population that isn't sampled by Arbitron. Yet these people do listen to the radio, respond to radio advertising, and put lots of money into the local economy.

 

[davideduardo]

Anybody who has been in radio five minutes knows having a 0.0 in Arbitron does not literally mean there "are no listeners."

Correct. It means it does not have enough listeners to produce statistically reliable results. Nearly every station has some listeners, and we'd swear from our phone lines and email and such that we are the most popular station in town, and that Arbitron is just whacked.

The numbers depend on the defined market, the coverage of the station in question, geographic distribution of sampling and other variables. Every agency knows that Arbitron is flawed and approximate at best.

Any time you use a sample instead of a census, you get estimates. As my first statistics professor said, "statistics is the only science where "error" is not a dirty word." But to be MRC accredited, there is decent proportionality on all the stratification variables, including age, gender, ethnicity, geography, etc.

Only stations with very little audience have wild variations, because the margin of error increases in inverse proportion to the share of listening a station has.

It's just that they're the only ratings game in town and they're only as good as they need to be. Agencies love Arbitron because it's cheap and convenient for them and the radio operators mainly pay for the service.

Agencies only pay for what amounts to delivery charges; the media provides advertisers and agencies the data needed to quantify buys... ABC data for print, Nielsen for TV, etc. Radio decides how big the sample is since Arbitron will gladly increase sample if all subscribers will pay for the increase.

As to Arbitron being "cheap" when Arbitron vanquished The Pulse and Hooper to the memory heap, it was more expensive than either of the others. And it was more expensive than the other contenders, such as Birch, that came later.

As to how good radio ratings have to be, the answer is, "they have to be good enough to get MRC accreditation." And that is neither cheap nor easy.

Your comment about "brokered" and "religious" programming is immaterial. WNMB isn't brokered or religious. The guy is playing oldies and is presumably making money doing it. Or he would be out of business and off the air.

From the available industry data, what he has is basically a paying hobby.

Your individual - and, it must be said, arrogant dismissal of Bill's efforts with WNMB as "not much of an accomplishment" is typical of the kind of sentiment which has endeared you to so many participants here.

To an extent, a measure of a commercial station is its ability to be self-sustaining. That means getting an audience that is attractive to (some) advertisers and being able to sell it to them. While there is definitely an element of community service (or whatever term you like best) none of that is possible if the station is not self-sustaining unless it is non-commercial and depends on funding from other sources.

To be honest about the fact that radio is a business is the first step in separating the BS from the reality. A station that has no measurable/discernable listeners is neither serving nor is it an example to be followed.

 

[Don Juan]

Well, an anonymous source inside the FCC Mass Media Bureau has reported that it is not true that "very few stations" have complained about interference, but since I can't divulge the source I feel certain you'll be skeptical about it.

You are right. I will be skeptical of anything we can't put a name and number behind.

I can, however, document numerous others. Of course there's WYSL vs. WBZ.

Of course.

There is the Greater Media FM in Boston whose calls escape me vs. the NPR station on Naragansett Pier in RI.

Of which, there are two side of the story. Most of the interference complaints have been outside of the RI NPR stations protected contours. The one complaint within their contours couldn't be duplicated.

There are the three Clear Channel 1130s in Detroit, Milwaukee and Minneapolis who turned off HD at night to avoid interference with WRVA.

In DX-land? Where is the data (and rebuttle) of this complaint?

There's KFMB vs. KBRT.

Of which one is a station that has been operating under an interference waiver for god knows how long.

There was WFIL vs. WHP (second adjacent.) The chief engineer of WNTP was complaining on the Philly board of radio-info about WMVP Chicago within his protected contour. On the Pittsburgh board here there are many complaints of WBZ seriously impacting KDKA at night.

Again, where is the data on these...and the rebuttle?

And of course Citadel turned off HD at night on WABC, WSB and WJR after only a week because of skywave problems.

Skywave is a different issue.

Is your only complaint about HD on AM? Then I will grant you that there are some issues with AM HD...and the question before broadcasters, does (or will) the benefit outweigh any downside?

And if, as you state, there are "special cases," what do you think should be done about them?

Same thing that happens when a neighbors tree hangs into your yard, you find a resolution. Sometimes the resolution is in your favor, sometimes it is not.

Thus far the Commission's approach is to ignore all interference issues. There hasn't been a single case in the history of HD of the Enforcement Bureau ordering interfering stations to reduce digital power or turn it off. Do you think that's right?

Could it be they see no merit in an of the cases presented?

I forgot: of course there have been no complaints from the public about interference. Listeners aren't engineers; they can't identify annoying COFDM noise as "HD."

One of the first questions we ask in audience research, whether strategic or focus groups is: "Are there any stations you are listening to more...or less...lately?"

Followed by "Why?"

Followed by: "Are you having trouble listening to any stations that you used to listen to previously?"

While listeners cannot identify the cause, they are not shy of saying that they have had a bad experience trying to hear their station.

They will certainly speak up when they are ticked off that something they WANT to listen to, they cannot anymore. Most of the time, I've heard that they can't listen to AM when they are on their computer, in the basement, lots of complaints about household noise, microwaves, etc. I have yet to hear anything anywhere near a complaint about IBOC whoosh, etc.

If a station doesn't come in clearly they just change stations or stop listening. "It's just too staticky," is the civilian complaint.

In major markets we would not let a trend in "changing stations" or "stopping listening" to happen without finding why. While I don't' run any AM's, I know that my colleagues who do would not let IBOC get on the air without being very careful to watch ratings, complaints, (and in the past) Arbitron comments...and incorporate the HD effect into our research whether for P1's or P2's

 

[Carmine5]

From the available industry data, what he has is basically a paying hobby.

That's right, Eduardo. Bill Norman's station is just a hobby. So much so that, according to Bill, he is in the process of buying his 2nd "hobby." AM, of course.

Since you've begun quoting Mark Ramsey, let's see what he has to say about Arbitron and the overall importance of ratings.

"The post-Arbitron world is a place where what works and how well it works is vastly more important than how many ears you reach with a flaccid "impression."

The post-Arbitron world is a place where direct business and trust and relationships and commitment and common cause and marketing partnership is elevated in importance. (This is why WNMB is so successful. Bill has built such relationships with local businesses).

The post-Arbitron world is a place where rankers are diminishing in importance, because being popular is easy - being effective is much more difficult."

http://www.hear2.com/2009/12/here-comes-the-postarbitron-world.html

"Arbitron may be the currency of choice with old school buyers, but it is less than worthless to their digital peers, and neither the world nor the agencies which populate it are moving in the old school direction."

http://www.hear2.com/2009/10/goodbye-arbitron-hello-consumer-connections.html

There are dozens of blogs by Mark in which proclaims that Arbitron and the importance of ratings is just about over. Looks like the old pontificating padre along with his precious "book" is heading for the La Brea Tar Pits. Good Riddance.

c5

 

[davideduardo]

There are dozens of blogs by Mark in which proclaims that Arbitron and the importance of ratings is just about over. Looks like the old pontificating padre along with his precious "book" is heading for the La Brea Tar Pits. Good Riddance.

You assume that because I quote one cogent thought by Mr. Ramsey that I blindly follow everyting he writes?

The fact is that agency clients are requiring more accountability, and even require audits to make sure the memtrics on each buy show a justification for each station, in the case of radio. That means that ratings are going to be more important, not less.

Of course, the metrics may change from things like AQH persons to the "Engagement Metric" now being developed with a team of agency, research and radio experts... but whatever is measured, advertisers need a metric to determine the quality of each buy.

From Inside Radio this week: Affinity task force defines engagement metric. The concept of PPM critics, supporters and Arbitron working together in harmony may sound like a pipe dream but it’s become a reality for the Affinity Metric Task Force. First convened in September, the 17-member panel of broadcasters, advertisers, agencies and researchers has identified a proposed metric intended to define the level of commitment — or affinity — that listeners have for a station. The measurement would allow advertisers to plan and buy from it.

So ratings will definitely remain, but those at the forefront of the use of audience measurement are creating new expressions for the nature of audiences.

 

[davideduardo]

That's right, Eduardo. Bill Norman's station is just a hobby. So much so that, according to Bill, he is in the process of buying his 2nd "hobby." AM, of course.

Myrtle Beach was an $11.9 million dollar market in 2008; the top 10 stations billed $9.7 million, leaving the other 18 commercial stations to divide about $2.2 million, with #11 to #14 taking $1.5 million of that. So there is $700 thousand, less than the gross of a normal-sized Mickey D's, for the other 14 stations.... including WNMB.