Re: Jim Cramer Why Radio is dead.

dxAce wrote:
> 
> David Frackelton Gleason, Univisions retard boy who poses as 'Eduardo'
wrote:
> 
>> "Telamon" <telamon_spam****eld@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
news:telamon_spam****eld-DA133E.21512422032008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> In article <u6lFj.4247$qT6.3453@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> "David Eduardo" <david@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Right, and that's another lie. You infer from data you supposedly use
>>> professionally to dictate what signal levels I get, which according to
>>> you are so weak nobody will listen to them but the truth is otherwise.
>>> Since you fabricate the whole thing what does it matter, right?
>> We have been over this before, but here it is again.
>>
>> We take indivisual stations, and we use Arbitron's MapMaker(tm) program
and
>> have it plot the diary mentions (mention is the term of the trade for a
>> single entry indicating listening to a station in a single diary
>> representing one person) for at work and at home listening. Car
listening,
>> which is the lesser of the three locations, is not identifiable by
location
>> and excluded. This can be done in the Arbitron software down to the ZIP
Code
>> level. We then superimpose over the map a set of contours... let's say
25
>> mV/m, and then 20, 15., 10, 5, 2.5 and 1 mV/M per FCC data, for the
station.
>>
>> We see within which of the contours there is listening, and between
which of
>> them the listening ceases to be significant. We do this over for every
AM in
>> a market. Then we do it for previous ratings periods, with special
attention
>> to daytime vs. night by season
>>
>> After we have done this for multiple significant stations in a number
of
>> different stations, we see that in the daytime, anywhere from 90% to
95% of
>> listening on average occurs inside the 10 mV/m contour of AMs. At
night, we
>> have to realize some stations have very high interference, so we have
to
>> look at the interference free contour of some stations. In addition,
AM's
>> have such low listening, as a class, at night, that very often there is
>> little data in any contour for a station... but it appears that an even
>> stronger signal is needed to garner listener****p at night than by day.
>>
>> Since such a project covers many formats in many markets on all kinds
of
>> technical facilities. When the result is so uniformly indicitive of the
>> statement, "there is essentially no local listening outside the 10 mV/M
>> contour of any AM that we can conclude that this is a fact for in home
and
>> at work AM listening.
>>
>> The contours come right out of FCC data, taking into account ground
>> condutivity, etc. There is no presumption, just FCC data that is the
basis
>> for each station's licenced operation.
>>>
>>> Another lie. Plenty of stations have very good signal levels outside
the
>>> made up contours you come up with. I gave you a list of stations 11 or
>>> 13 long but that does not matter. Your lies or errors trump any
>>> objective evidence.
>> Yes, but they do not have 10 mV/m signals in the ZIP you gave me, and,
>> coincidentally, have no listening either.
>>
>> Your standard for "good signal level" is not the one 99% or more of
>> listeners use. Quite simply, the statoins you mentioned do not have the
>> necessary signal level to be listenable based on hundereds of thousands
of
>> diaries over the last 10 years. Listenability requires a set signal
>> threshold... listening requires both signal strength and desirable
>> programming. For this reason, many stations over many years over many
>> markets were analyzed.
>>>> Again, those ones outside a certain coverage are are not getting
>>>> listening no matter where you go in the US. So there is nearly no
>>>> lost listening.
>>> That's right make up more lies to frame the argument.
>> If the data over 10 years and over 15 sample markets, including
peripheral
>> markets as well, shows that there is essentially no listening outside
the 10
>> mv/m contour today, then there is no lost listening in fringe areas and
>> there is no lie in this as such listening does not exist.
>>>> What sounds perfectly fine to you has been show to be vastly beyond
>>>> the signal intensity where normal people with everyday radios will
>>>> listen.
>>> See more lies. I look at this as objectively as possible but it makes
no
>>> difference to you Mr. Lier.
>> If you have hundreds of AM stations in many markets in over a decade of
>> audience ratings in over 40 surveys and you find essentially no
listening
>> outside a particular contour, and all the listening inside it, then you
can
>> say that there is essentially no listening outside the 10 mV/m contour.
This
>> is irrespective if the signal is there at a lesser level, because
millions
>> of listeners have indicated that such a level is not appealing since
the
>> don't listen.
>>
>> This is sort of like a batter who consistently hits just inside the
>> outfield, sometimes hits in the middle of the outfield and never hits
into
>> the far outfield. Saying, then, that for all practical purposes, this
batter
>> will essentially never hit a home run is verified by analyzing all his
>> previous hits; a homer would be a freak occurrence. Similarly, any AM
>> listening by metro area station outside the 10 is abnormal and
statistically
>> not predictable since usually all the listening happens inside the
contour.
> 
> All your talk comes from within the contours of your ass.
> 
> 


   And he wonders why DXers don't like him.

   Broadcasters fired the first shot, in dismissing DXers.

   Even demonstrating this thinking in a previous post by saying:


> Interest in DX re****ts waned as the im****tance of 
> non-local coverage waned, while at the same time most non-Metro stations

> used outside contract engineers who were not paid to answer reception 
> re****ts. Today, nearly nobody at a station will know what DX even is.

   Again, DXers are fans. Fans don't turn on you. You have to run them
off.

   Broadcasters fired the first shot, here.

   And the repeating of the cor****ate line, as clinical number above, 
only reinforces this.

   I don't believe he's so stupid as to not see this. But I do believe 
he's so invested in his position that he can't acknowledge it.

   Which only underscores the accusation made some months ago that he's 
a ****ll.