• 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

SD Radio Board Going To The Dogs?

I

ibezdechi

Guest
You know folks, this board is getting really stale.

Anytime now if something starts to get interesting we get a slough of "Deleted" mesages. What's the point anymore of trying to discuss anything. The time has come for the owners of the board clarify with Arbitron -- and I'm truly talking ClARIFY with the the behemoth rather than acting on heresay on whether ratings can be discussed. Personally I believe it would be fair use, as I believe the general rule with Arbitron is that you can only use their derived numbers in your sales efforts if you are a subscriber. Furthermore, if ratings are such a hush hush thing, then why are the 12+ numbers being released everyplace else? Being a bona fide newsgroup where the interest is local radio is fair game, in my opinion.

I hate to be a heavy (I'm losing weight!) but seeing all of the posts about KLSD being deleted really flies in my and others face...and it needs to be resolved.
 
> You know folks, this board is getting really stale.
>
> Anytime now if something starts to get interesting we get a
> slough of "Deleted" mesages. What's the point anymore of
> trying to discuss anything. The time has come for the
> owners of the board clarify with Arbitron -- and I'm truly
> talking ClARIFY with the the behemoth rather than acting on
> heresay on whether ratings can be discussed. Personally I
> believe it would be fair use, as I believe the general rule
> with Arbitron is that you can only use their derived numbers
> in your sales efforts if you are a subscriber. Furthermore,
> if ratings are such a hush hush thing, then why are the 12+
> numbers being released everyplace else? Being a bona fide
> newsgroup where the interest is local radio is fair game, in
> my opinion.
>
> I hate to be a heavy (I'm losing weight!) but seeing all of
> the posts about KLSD being deleted really flies in my and
> others face...and it needs to be resolved.

I agree, and I would say that if the paranoia here gets too extreme, a new radio forum for San Diego will be in the works.
 
If you don't like deletions, I think you should go back and read rule Number 5. It's classic, one of my favoirtes!

Love them classic hits...

> You know folks, this board is getting really stale.
>
> Anytime now if something starts to get interesting we get a
> slough of "Deleted" mesages. What's the point anymore of
> trying to discuss anything. The time has come for the
> owners of the board clarify with Arbitron -- and I'm truly
> talking ClARIFY with the the behemoth rather than acting on
> heresay on whether ratings can be discussed. Personally I
> believe it would be fair use, as I believe the general rule
> with Arbitron is that you can only use their derived numbers
> in your sales efforts if you are a subscriber. Furthermore,
> if ratings are such a hush hush thing, then why are the 12+
> numbers being released everyplace else? Being a bona fide
> newsgroup where the interest is local radio is fair game, in
> my opinion.
>
> I hate to be a heavy (I'm losing weight!) but seeing all of
> the posts about KLSD being deleted really flies in my and
> others face...and it needs to be resolved.
>
 
There already is a new radio forum for San Diego in the works!

Stay Tuned
 
A (hopefully) clear answer from a Moderator

> Anytime now if something starts to get interesting we get a
> slough of "Deleted" mesages. What's the point anymore of
> trying to discuss anything. The time has come for the
> owners of the board clarify with Arbitron -- and I'm truly
> talking ClARIFY with the the behemoth rather than acting on
> heresay on whether ratings can be discussed. Personally I
> believe it would be fair use, as I believe the general rule
> with Arbitron is that you can only use their derived numbers
> in your sales efforts if you are a subscriber. Furthermore,
> if ratings are such a hush hush thing, then why are the 12+
> numbers being released everyplace else? Being a bona fide
> newsgroup where the interest is local radio is fair game, in
> my opinion.

Here is the problem with your rant. This is not a Usenet newsgroup, where no one "owns" the space and has any legal responsibility for what is posted. This is a privately owned website, and the owners have every right to make rules based on where they perceive their liability may be. I don't wish to sound callous, but what you "believe" about fair use isn't relevant to the people who pay the bills.

You cannot refer to "the owners of the board" in one sentence and then use the phrase "bona fide newsgroup" in another. The two are legally inconsistent.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
> There already is a new radio forum for San Diego in the
> works!

If it's privately owned, hire good lawyers.

If it's on one of those "forums for hire" sites, check the terms and conditions. They likely have a clause that could be interpreted as the right to make the forum disappear the instant Arbitron's attorneys even hint at legal action.

You all think this is so easy.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
>
> I agree, and I would say that if the paranoia here gets too
> extreme, a new radio forum for San Diego will be in the
> works.
>

Arbitron has a very specific rule which is that ratings may only be published or listed in a news medium, whether electronic or printed. A news medium has a significant amount of space dedicated to news and informational content, not chat and messages.

Sites like AllAcess and R&R are news sites. Publications like Inside Radio and R&R are newspapers or newsletters.

radio Info is not a news site. It does not qualify for publishing ratings, and allowing people to post them other than by reference, would cause Arbitron to talke legal action.
 
> >
> > I agree, and I would say that if the paranoia here gets
> too
> > extreme, a new radio forum for San Diego will be in the
> > works.
> >
>
> Arbitron has a very specific rule which is that ratings may
> only be published or listed in a news medium, whether
> electronic or printed. A news medium has a significant
> amount of space dedicated to news and informational content,
> not chat and messages.
>
> Sites like AllAcess and R&R are news sites. Publications
> like Inside Radio and R&R are newspapers or newsletters.
>
> radio Info is not a news site. It does not qualify for
> publishing ratings, and allowing people to post them other
> than by reference, would cause Arbitron to talke legal
> action.
>


How can you say that Radio-Info is not a news site? News is posted on Radio-Info on a regular basis (http://www.radio-info.com/index.phtml) and further I would say that many of the posts are news worthy, albiet many more posts are simply opinion. That ought to qualify for their "very specific rule".

As far a liability is concerned, does Arbitron even know Radio-Info exists? I can't imagine they would care if someone mentioned a rating number for a station in a post. If somebody took all of the arbitron data for a period in San Diego and posted it, then they would have something to send a warning letter about. A warning letter is about as far as they need to go, Radio-Info isn't worth enough to sue for.

Maybe someone did post a large amount of data and Arbitron threatened the board operators?
 
> How can you say that Radio-Info is not a news site? News is
> posted on Radio-Info on a regular basis
> (http://www.radio-info.com/index.phtml) and further I would
> say that many of the posts are news worthy, albiet many more
> posts are simply opinion. That ought to qualify for their
> "very specific rule".
>
> As far a liability is concerned, does Arbitron even know
> Radio-Info exists? I can't imagine they would care if
> someone mentioned a rating number for a station in a post.
> If somebody took all of the arbitron data for a period in
> San Diego and posted it, then they would have something to
> send a warning letter about. A warning letter is about as
> far as they need to go, Radio-Info isn't worth enough to sue
> for.
>
> Maybe someone did post a large amount of data and Arbitron
> threatened the board operators?

Dude, it's not about what qualifies as a "news site" in Arbitron's eyes. R&R and All Access pay Arbitron in order to become a licensed outlet for their ratings and are bound to only print 12+ numbers under their contracts. Even then, they're not allowed to publish numbers from embargoed markets. Arbitron provides a proprietary service that costs money, and it's their right to decide who gets to use their information and how they use it.

If you want to be able to post 12+ numbers here, feel free to volunteer your vast amounts of cash and time to buy a license and negotiate a contract for Radio-Info.com.
 
>
> How can you say that Radio-Info is not a news site?

I am not a board aministrator, but it appears that Arbitron does not consider message boards to be news sites unless there is significant news content.

Arbitron owns the data, and sells it to radio stations and advertisers. Any other use is totally up to them as the copyright holder. Copyright law requires an earnest effort to protect material under copyright, or it can revert to public domain or not be defendable with ease.

Since all Arbitron has is data, they guard it jealously.


> News is
> posted on Radio-Info on a regular basis
> (http://www.radio-info.com/index.phtml)


But this is not a newsw site. It is a message board with tidbits. In any case, what you and I think is irrelevant to what Arbitron thinks. And, it appeaars, the board managers have inquiired and been told they must make an effort to avoide data being published under threat of infringement liability.

> and further I would
> say that many of the posts are news worthy, albiet many more
> posts are simply opinion. That ought to qualify for their
> "very specific rule".

Since
 
?
>
> Dude, it's not about what qualifies as a "news site" in
> Arbitron's eyes. R&R and All Access pay Arbitron in order
> to become a licensed outlet for their ratings and are bound
> to only print 12+ numbers under their contracts.

I do not believe this is true. I believe they get the data from Arbitron as part of the press program Arbitron has. See the details on the web page.
 
David, this is the exact attitude that I saw at the NAB Radio Conference last year in San Diego which wanted me to mow down the people who have corporatized and screwed up radio where everything is researched to death to the point of making everybody want to turn off their radio.


> >
> > How can you say that Radio-Info is not a news site?
>
> I am not a board aministrator, but it appears that Arbitron
> does not consider message boards to be news sites unless
> there is significant news content.
>
> Arbitron owns the data, and sells it to radio stations and
> advertisers. Any other use is totally up to them as the
> copyright holder. Copyright law requires an earnest effort
> to protect material under copyright, or it can revert to
> public domain or not be defendable with ease.
>
> Since all Arbitron has is data, they guard it jealously.
>
>
> > News is
> > posted on Radio-Info on a regular basis
> > (http://www.radio-info.com/index.phtml)
>
>
> But this is not a newsw site. It is a message board with
> tidbits. In any case, what you and I think is irrelevant to
> what Arbitron thinks. And, it appeaars, the board managers
> have inquiired and been told they must make an effort to
> avoide data being published under threat of infringement
> liability.
>
> > and further I would
> > say that many of the posts are news worthy, albiet many
> more
> > posts are simply opinion. That ought to qualify for their
> > "very specific rule".
>
> Since
>
 
> David, this is the exact attitude that I saw at the NAB
> Radio Conference last year in San Diego which wanted me to
> mow down the people who have corporatized and screwed up
> radio where everything is researched to death to the point
> of making everybody want to turn off their radio.

Huh?

Arbitron is doing what, no doubt, its law firm has told them to do: defend every unauthorized use, or you will not be able to defend the ones that really matter, such as stations using data without being subscribed.

This has nothing to do with radio stations, nor has it anything to do with whether they are researched or not. It has to do with Arbitron protecting its intellectual property against all infringements.

As to research, remember that the term is just a single-worded-way of saying, "talking to the lsitener." I can not see what could be deemed wrong with actually asking the listener what they want to hear... and what they don't want to hear. Why do you find talking to the listeners bad?
 
> David, this is the exact attitude that I saw at the NAB
> Radio Conference last year in San Diego which wanted me to
> mow down the people who have corporatized and screwed up
> radio where everything is researched to death to the point
> of making everybody want to turn off their radio.

Here is Arbitron's statement of policy, in part, about newsgroups

These are the electronic equivalent of a public bul¬letin board where anyone can post a message and anyone can read those messages. Talk all you want about your station, but don’t post any rankers ex¬cept 12+, with estimates. Rankers without estimates are okay. Remind the employees of your station that Internet usenet groups are not the same as a con¬versation among friends at the local watering hole.

Important tip: If you haven’t seen rec.radio.broadcasting, you might want to have someone show you around. Aside from Arbitron rankers, we’ve seen discussions of a station’s programming and marketing strategies in the kind of detail reserved for confidential internal docu¬ments—that’s why we believe a lot of the “loose lips” exchanges we see are the work of overzealous and misguided station employees. But remember, as management you are responsible for actions of your employees.
 
Think of it this way. If you have a lawn that goes over the to the curb without a sidewalk, and continue to let people walk through it anyway, you lose that property, and it becomes public domain.

This is the same thing with ratings!

> > David, this is the exact attitude that I saw at the NAB
> > Radio Conference last year in San Diego which wanted me to
>
> > mow down the people who have corporatized and screwed up
> > radio where everything is researched to death to the point
>
> > of making everybody want to turn off their radio.
>
> Huh?
>
> Arbitron is doing what, no doubt, its law firm has told them
> to do: defend every unauthorized use, or you will not be
> able to defend the ones that really matter, such as stations
> using data without being subscribed.
>
> This has nothing to do with radio stations, nor has it
> anything to do with whether they are researched or not. It
> has to do with Arbitron protecting its intellectual property
> against all infringements.

>
> As to research, remember that the term is just a
> single-worded-way of saying, "talking to the lsitener." I
> can not see what could be deemed wrong with actually asking
> the listener what they want to hear... and what they don't
> want to hear. Why do you find talking to the listeners bad?
>
 
If I may...

David, allow me to interpret.

Research per se is not evil. But its overuse contributes to a certain "dumbing down" of the subject matter. Managers always want to be safe - risk taking is not in their nature. So reasearch is done, and the high returns and low returns are always thrown out, and the median kept. Doesn't matter whether you're researching music, TV shows or soda pop - that's the formula. And when the highs and lows are thrown out, the range of results are naturally narrower.

Now, having thrown out the peaks and valleys of the research, the core is researched again. And again the peaks and valleys are thrown out. And the cycle repeats until the response graph is more like a straight line than a heartbeat.

This is where research can be bad - when risk-paranoid folks over-use it. Yeah, the crap gets weeded out - but so does a lot of really brilliant stuff. And that's just the position radio's in now: a steady line of mediocrity.

So to reiterate: Research: good. Hyper-research: bad.

At least, that's my take.

- Doc

> As to research, remember that the term is just a
> single-worded-way of saying, "talking to the lsitener." I
> can not see what could be deemed wrong with actually asking
> the listener what they want to hear... and what they don't
> want to hear. Why do you find talking to the listeners bad?
>
 
> There already is a new radio forum for San Diego in the
> works!
>
> Stay Tuned
>

Well let us know when it's up and running!
 
Re: Privately Owned Gossip and Speculation Board.

Look what crawled out from under its rock!

- Doc

> > You know folks, this board is getting really stale.
> >
> > Anytime now if something starts to get interesting we get
> a
> > slough of "Deleted" mesages. What's the point anymore of
> > trying to discuss anything.
>
>
>
> On radio-info you cannot talk about facts. If I owned
> Arbitron Ratings I would not let them be disscussed in a
> forum that is basically nothing more then a Liz Smith column
> either. Gossip and totally unbased speculation run wild. The
> moderators are like catty little girls who will, if they
> feel like it, delete at the drop of the thread anything they
> don't agree with. (But then they post some of the most
> outlandish speculation.) It is privately owned, is run with
> an agenda. This is not any type of valid news source. You
> know how your kid goes to 'Lizzie McGuire' messageboards?
> Radio-info.com is the same thing. Except the guys that run
> it aren't really fans, they are dis-gruntled ex-employees,
> guys that aren't good enough to make the cut and 'haters'
> They have their 1 or 2 'old radio guys' they dig, but
> overall...all they need is those big needles, some yarn and
> a rocking chair. No need to worry about it though.
> Eventually they will die lonely and angry.
>
>
>
> My current new favorite baloney is 91X is in trouble, which
> just isn't the case. 91X numbers are solid in their target
> demos. The whole Roy, Ivey, Seamonster, and KISS FM doom
> thing on the LA board WAS my favorite radio-info.com
> 'fact'...but I guess we don't have to worry about them
> anymore after that last book. So yea, speculate that 91X is
> going Hurban or whatever floats in and out of your brain.
> The Indie is doomed is kinda funny too. To hear it from day
> one over the course of 2 years is amusing, especially when
> they just keep plugging along. Im not a fan ot the station,
> Im a fan of them making these guys look silly.
>
> You thought you would get an unbiased news and opinions at a
> privately owned site, run by angry little men who need a
> power trip? Too funny. Im gonna laugh about that one for
> awhile. This board always cracks me up.
>
> Poke around, there are alot better sources for news. But if
> you wanna gossip like a yenta, you came to the right place.
>
>
> Radio-info.com, Give us your Angry, Disgruntled,
> Unemployable, Talentless, Radio Egomaniacs...yearning to be
> 'the man'.
>
>
>
>
> And obviously, this post does not apply to all...you know
> who you are and which side of the fence you sit.
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom