On Jun 25, 9:42=A0am, milt.shook is a desperate liar (and the stupidest
poster on USENET today) <LOL>:
...
> 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
b=
e
> > > > >> confined
> > > > >> to a particular demographic. =A0They can describe all viewers
fo=
r 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=
how 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.
But, dumb****, a cable television station or network would only get
data for their ratings from Nielsen.
God, you are stupid.
> 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.
And that target audience can be reached with the overall numbers, you
stupid piece of ****.
Here is where you go down, asshole.
> > 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.
The=
y
> > > 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.
Of course I know what a ***e is... and I didn't describe it. I was
very clear... I decribed 12+ asshole.
God, you're so stupid.
> I was in the radio business, ****tard.
You are a ****ing liar, milt.shook. Just like all of your other
fantasies, this one only occured in that pinhead of yours.
> 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.
You are completely confused, ****-for-brains. It DOES matter how many
people are listening to a radio show or watching a television show.
The demo is something to be considered but if someone from the old "K-
Rock" went down to a Lexus dealer****p and simply said "Howard Stern",
that dealer would be a fool not to jump on an offer to advertise on
his show.
Same is true for "American Idol" (lots of young'uns there) and CSI (or
three brands).
You're simply making **** up, stupidest poster on USENET.
<LOL>
> > > 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
i=
t
> > 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?
I'm not saying that the numbers don't exist, stupid. I'm saying that
what your dumbass is saying doesn't exist.
Because it's not true, ****-for-brains.
> 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 ****.
Uhhh... let's see who's bull****ing who now.
> > 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.
You just contradicted your dumbass, stupidest poster on USENET. I
just gave you the DEMO you were yapping about... and you just did an
about face.
Secondly... the numbers I posted aren't exact, but it does show that
O'Reilly kicks Froth's ass in the "money demo"... stupidest poster on
USENET.
<LOL>
> > > 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.
This is lie from a do***ented leftist liar. And you continue to be
THE stupidest poster on USENET today.
Watch !!!
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
<http://tinyurl.com/63o4h6>
Five major economic trends stand out for 2006:
Fox News was expected to overtake CNN as the profit leader in cable
for the first time, with only more growth projected for the future.
The reason, in part, is that Fox News began to sign new contracts that
tripled the license fees it received from cable providers. The new
contracts, replacing the 10-year deals it signed when it launched in
1996, put the cable news channel into the highest levels of
subscription fees for the first time.
Meanwhile, the other cable channels also expected to see profits
jump.
For all Fox News=92s momentum, CNN, whose financial figures are combined
with Headline News, still had the largest revenues.
MSNBC, meanwhile, was projected to generate meaningful profits for the
first time.
-----------------
While MSNBC isn=92t anywhere near the level of the other two channels,
its estimates continue to be optimistic. Kagan expected profits at
MSNBC to rise to $64 million in 2006 =97 a leap of almost 400% from the
$13 million it made the previous year, and a sign that the news
channel will, at long last, become a contributor of some value to NBC
television=92s bottom line. One caveat is that MSNBC has fallen short of
projections before.
-----------------
MSNBC, meanwhile, continued to lag well behind the other two channels
in financial performance. Kagan Research projected MSNBC would take in
$269 million in revenues in 2006, a 7% jump over the previous year.
(In 2005, incidentally, its revenues fell short of projections: $251
million against a projection of $261 million).
One can also get a sense of the accuracy of projections for revenues
from the actual results of 2005.
-----------------
Right below this quote is a chart of revenues for each of the three
cable news networks.
God, you're so stupid, milt.shook.
Read it and weep.
Too ****ing funny.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
|
