h a l f b a k e r yI heartily endorse this product and/or service.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
What commercials, songs, or other things make people "hit the button" on the dial of their radio? This information being invaluable for radio stations (another statistic for them to sell by). This could be done on a busy stretch of highway - in big markets, as one song stops and an ad or another starts
- the detectors mounted along side the road would "count" how many changes were made (by measuring the FM Absorption Rate in general) - each radio station could then decipher the information based on the times they switched songs compared to "changes in the FM field (absorption)" This is to give a GENERAL idea to the stations about there song or ad spots, not intended for specific information, (I think that would be virtually impossible to discern - who changed to what station from what station) but the FM absorption rate could prove useful statistically?
~Is any of this sinking in?~
RMS
http://www.mobiltra...c=materials/rms.cfm
Same thing - different measurement [Shz, Jan 18 2005]
He's got a website and a new album.....
http://www.frampton.com/flash.html
[normzone, Jan 18 2005]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
If everyone changes stations in the same manner I do, then can we expect to have the average commercial spot shortened to 5 seconds? |
|
| |
Could we expect DJ's to be limited to sounding like they have an idea of what class is? |
|
| |
Could they please stop playing Peter Frampton? |
|
| |
I've not heard his new album yet....[link] |
|
| |
Oh no, Frampton is on the scene, well I know this is fish. But - to retort, the RMS link is good, and close to what I am saying, but it doesn’t detect the station "change" although they probably could configure it to do that? |
|
| |
Sorry I brought up Frampton. I would vote for this if someone could verify that the science behind the idea is plausible. I must admit I need schoolin' in the principles involved. |
|
| |
Would be a lot easier for internet radio. You could measure it all at source. |
|
| |
I talked to an electronics professor, he said it would be possible with a small enough sampling area and the right equipment. like I said - it is very statistical in nature - most of my stuff is lightly researched and I will say so if not (if is completely off the cuff, unless I am drinking then I might just make the whole thing right up and you'll have to guess). :) |
|
| |
David - Internet radio is a ways out there for the mainstream - plus I'm sure they would have an invasion of privacy (or worse, if they did not) act against it. This collection, and the RMS one mentioned above allows for NO specific info about a particular car, or radio. |
|
| |
Listening to BBC Radio 1 over the internet at the moment... it's not so far off as you might think. I recognise that it's not especially relevant to the discussion, though. |
|
| |
I often thought that they might be able to do this, (measure signal absorption to track listening patterns), but once you start USING the data for anything (like advertising rates), then it could be too easily "gamed". |
|
| |
For example, if I worked for local radio company WXYZ, and our profits are determined by absorption rates, then I could place some "programmable major absorbers", perhaps buried in the ground on the side of major freeway intersections. The ROI's too good to pass up. |
|
| |
Anti "spoofing" measures like changing the location of the sampling comes to mind quickly. Also, I thought of this in more statistical terms, so things like anomalies and fake signals would be factored in. It wouldn't be the basis for programming or profit; it would just be one more thing that an advertising exec could pull out of his or her hat to prove their radio station is better then wxyz's. |
|
| |
It seems to me that raw rating would still be the major basis for selling air time. But the statistical benefit of having, say, one commercial at a time, as compared to a block of five, could be compared. I think spoofing your absorption rate would be counterproductive because as a station manager I want to know what encourages people to switch channels. Of course this would cause anything even remotely bothersome, like real conversation, to be taken off of the radio and something similar to white noise would eventually come into being.
That said. I'm always a fan of more and better satistical studies of factors. so [+] |
|
| |
If I were the one setting up the spoofing, then I could easily subtract out the false data that I knowingly fed the system to get the real data to make my programming decisions.... |
|
| |
Looking back on this just now - you sir (sophocles) are diabolical! |
|
| |
Diabolical; It's one of those words I've always assumed the meaning of from context. |
|
| |
Just to be sure, I've looked it up just now & was not very much surprised to find: "4.Clear Channel Communications Executive" as a definition. |
|
| |