On Jun 25, 7:14=A0am, Clay <clayonl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 6:53=A0pm, the stupidest poster on USENET,milt.shook,
> continues his unbroken string =A0<LOL>:
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 24, 2:43=A0pm, "Brian Carey" <car...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > "Clay" <ClaysRi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> >
>news:33179f88-6169-443c-9860-76757e0c4547@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > >> I'm sorry that you don't understand that ratings don't have to be
> > > >> confined
> > > >> to a particular demographic. =A0They can describe all viewers for
=
a given
> > > >> time
> > > >> slot.
>
> > > >> Let me know if you need more explanation.
>
> > > > I just readmilt.shook'sreply to this post.
>
> > > > Be easy on him... remember, he's pretty stupid.
>
> > > Fortunately, it's curable. =A0And I will try to help him. =A0That's
h=
ow good I
> > > am. ;)
>
> > Oh, Brian. I have never NOT kicked your ass, and this is no
> > exception.
>
> > Go to your local radio station, and ask to see an Arbitron book.
>
> God, you're so stupid.
>
> Arbitrons rate RADIO audiences. =A0Nielsens rate TELEVISION audiences.
Actually BOTH track cable, dumbass.
And both use demographics to sell 95% of ads. No one in their right
mind is going to spend several thousand dollars on a 30-second ad that
doesn't reach its target audience. The demo matters, is my point, you
****ing ignorant troll.
>
> This is a bad start for you,milt.shook.
>
> <LOL>
>
> > Careful, though, because it's quite large. Why, you ask? because no
> > one gives a flying **** that your station attracts 50,000 people. They
> > want to know if they can sell their **** to your audience. ***e
>
> This is total and utter bull****. =A0I've studied radio Arbitrons and
> Arbitrends for more than 20 years. =A0"Lite-FM", here in NYC is always
> in the top 5... many times #1 and this is TOTAL audience... not just
> the ***es, stupid.
No, the above is total bull****. Know how I know? You don't even know
what a ***e is. You just demonstrated it.
I was in the radio business, ****tard. If a salesperson goes to the
local Lexus dealer****p and says, "we're the number one station in the
market," the ad guy at the dealer****p will ask to see several demo
numbers. It doesn't matter how many people listen; how many people
listening can afford to buy a Lexus? That's the question.
>
> > numbers don't tell anyone that. Nike doesn't give a **** that Orally
> > gets twice as many viewers overall as Olbermann. They care that
> > Olbermann gets their target demo, and that his audience skews richer,
> > more educated and more urban.
>
> Again, this is total and utter bull****. =A0First of all, there are no
> numbers that indicate that Froth's numbers are higher than O'Reilly's
> when it comes to wealth. =A0Secondly, O'Reilly kicks Froth's ass when it
> comes to the demo you're yapping about, stupid...
There ARE numbers like that, you stupid ****! Are you ****ing me? You
STUDIED this **** and you don't know this? Coca Cola wants to
advertise on stations and channels with a lot of young people without
a ton of money, and Nordstrom wants to advertise on stations that
attract a lot of wealthy people. You can't be serious with this ****.
>
> Monday June 23, 2008
> 25-54 Demographic (the "money" demo)
>
> "The O'Reilly Factor" - 524,000
> "Leftist Echo Chamber w/ Froth" - 454,000
Hmmm... first of all, that's a little more than 80% of O'Reilly's
audience, which is what I'm saying. Second of all, ratings services
charge a lot of money for the demographic information, and it is very
proprietary.
>
> > That's why NBC gets more money for a
> > Countdown commercial than Fixed Noise gets for a Factor commercial.
>
> This, again, is total and utter bull****... from a proven and
> do***ented liar.
It's not bull****. A 30-second spot on Countdown costs more than a 30-
second spot on the "Factor." That's a fact.
<snip>
|
