🚀 go-pugleaf

<SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191182953.407475.148410@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 30, 9:15 am, SFTVratings_t...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Frank Dresser wrote:
> >
> > > In my market, Chicago, the top 2 stations account for about 10% of the
> > > listeners.  The bottom 15 on the Arbitron list draw 1% or less.  And
there
> > > are a number of stations which don't even make the list.
> >
> > Actually, I just looked at the Chicago market.  The ratings don't
> > support your claim.  Even in Chicago, the listeners are fairly evenly
> > divided amongst the top 20 stations.  (ranging from approximately 2 to
> > 5% of the listeners, per station).
> >
> > That seems to suggest listeners do what I do:
> > - jump from station to station
> > - looking for variety across multiple channels
> > - they would LOVE having 3-4 times more options on the FM dial.
>
>
> SILENCE?

Hey, I've got a life.  I spend hours -- even days away from usenet.

It's pretty common.  Get used to it.  This isn't a chatroom.


>
> Guess I caught you in a lie.  The Arbitron ratings don't support your
> claim, but you're not willing to admit you got caught in alie.

I overstated my arguement when I said:

"In most markets, most listeners are listening to a few stations."


 I'm sure we can agree on:

"Many people listen to a few top rated stations, and a few people listen to
many bottom rated stations."

Is there really an important difference between the two statements?


>
> Typical grandpa.
>

Oh, yeah I'm quite the old timer.  Why, I remember when that Armstrong kid
was telling me about the high fidelity radio system he was working on which
would quickly obselete the old AM system.

Ah, the optimism of youth.

Frank Dresser