Our/Your Top500

This all seems strangely familiar. Will "Imagine" be
#1 again? Am I allowed to vote for something old, crap
and yet strangely comforting for people confounded by
the choice and originality available in the 21st
century?

--- Eric Wiltsher <(Address removed)> wrote:
RTI Listeners decide what is played, daytimes, during
the Easter Weekend. From the votes cast, RTI will
compile the top 500 tracks voted for by its listeners.

In article <673.69061.(Address removed)>, (Address removed) (Nicholas Mead) wrote:

This all seems strangely familiar. Will "Imagine" be
#1 again? Am I allowed to vote for something old, crap
and yet strangely comforting for people confounded by
the choice and originality available in the 21st
century?

I don't disagree that there have been Top500's before, that said we are broadcasting to audiences that haven't been approached in such a way for over 10 years or more.
As you asked specifically, yes people can vote for what ever they view to be their number one in the RTI Top500.
Whilst I won't mention tracks, it is interesting, unlike Eurovision, to see people from a range of countries already voting for tracks some pundits wouldn't expect. That may have something, of course, to do with the age, demographics, geographical areas of the audience – that I can't answer.
But we'll just have to see what the final results are, won't we.

Eric

How shall I put this? NO!
--- Eric Wiltsher <(Address removed)> wrote:

But we'll just have to see what the final results are,
won't we.
Eric

In article <951703.43985.(Address removed)>, (Address removed) (Nicholas Mead) wrote:

Sorry Nicholas, don't follow – are you saying that you personally aren't interested, which is naturally your right, or are you saying "NO!" to everything proposed.

Eric

broadcasting to audiences that haven't been approached in such a way for over 10 years or more. As you asked specifically, yes people can vote for what ever they view

In article <1640fcc2c06668c99f07621d38800f04@com-wc.kinomi.com>, (Address removed) (dimitri konstantine) wrote:

I know you're proud of what you do Eric but is it really necessary to
report on here everytime you do anything from scratching your nose to
picking your a*se (or a mix of the two)? A top 500 that's to be
broadcast in Slovakia is hardly of any great interest to anyone here
anymore than the fact I'm about to give away a million in another
piece of old Russia, it's only of interest to those in our respective
transmission area. Please avoid coming back with the 'but we're a Pan
European broadcaster' because that's crap as well.

Fact is we are pan-European, even broadcasting on the Eurobird satellite which of course nicely hooks up with the Sky digital platform broadcasting to Great Britain and Europe – as it goes I can't see what the problem is.
Where we differ is that we are what we say on the can – we do air on FM, on satellite and on the web as that nice Mr V/O says.
Maybe satellite isn't you cup of tea, but for consumers who listen via the TV it is – same goes for the nice people in Germany who listen via the Eurobird free-to-air satellite, not to mention the nice people who listen on-line.

But hey you are perfectly entitled to you view and with that I'm sure you respect the views of others. If it is that a station broadcast on the Sky platform to the UK, then it is broadcasting to the UK.

Eric

Fact is we are pan-European, even broadcasting on the Eurobird satellite
which of course nicely hooks up with the Sky digital platform
broadcasting to Great Britain and Europe – as it goes I can't see what
the problem is.
Where we differ is that we are what we say on the can – we do air on FM,
on satellite and on the web as that nice Mr V/O says.
Maybe satellite isn't you cup of tea, but for consumers who listen via
the TV it is – same goes for the nice people in Germany who listen via the Eurobird free-to-air satellite, not to mention the nice people who
listen on-line.

But hey you are perfectly entitled to you view and with that I'm sure
you respect the views of others. If it is that a station broadcast on
the Sky platform to the UK, then it is broadcasting to the UK.

Eric

Pan European stations in my eyes (and others) are those which broadcast across borders with conventional transmitters, not some satellite delivered effort with a handful of listeners. The other point you didn't answer is why, every time you have an on-air jumble sale or change your sweepers, do you have to tell us about it ?

In article <(Address removed)>, (Address removed) (dimitri konstantine) wrote:

Eric

Pan European stations in my eyes (and others) are those which
broadcast across borders with conventional transmitters, not some
satellite delivered effort with a handful of listeners. The other
point you didn't answer is why, every time you have an on-air jumble
sale or change your sweepers, do you have to tell us about it ?

I recall C.E. saying here that the danger with media people is they only tend to speak with people who are like minded.
Therefore, whilst you may have some support for your theory, which is great for you, I am pleased to share that others don't agree with your view.

I do agree that satellite, currently, does not have the portable attraction of FM or DRM. However, it does have huge audiences. If it is a station supplies an audience for the client(s) that works then, surely that is a professional job done?

Sorry we haven't had a jumble sale on-air, but not a bad idea, thanks Sorry we don't have sweepers, electricity allows us the benefit of vacuum cleaners.

Seriously, I don't know who you chat with and if you are happy with your views, collectively, then that is fine with me – they are your views and again you are perfectly entitled to hold those views. However, it doesn't mean that others hold the same view and it is a very dangerous business man that closes his/her eyes to the future.

I know, in terms of research commissioned by radio sponsors independently of the older measuring systems, that what you are saying isn't exactly right – so if the sponsors, who I should add take evidence from a range of stations, think differently are they right to do that? And in response to the next question, I don't know why they won't have communicated that with everyone – I don't have the rights to release the data so I can't. I do know that within the last 48 hours an agency wrote saying X,Y,Z about radio which, based on a further set of research, again disputes your views.

There was a very interesting point in that letter which Richard posted here from the RC Yahoo Group.
It suggested the reason for the story being brandished around was purely PR-hype. I have to say I agree. The problem for some in the radio business these days is they haven't worked out that media buyers no longer buy purely on hype and/or station ads on other media. In the future the possible of hyping to get adverts will become even harder with more accurate digital measuring of audiences.

Free consultation over
Eric

I recall C.E. saying here that the danger with media people is they only
tend to speak with people who are like minded.
Therefore, whilst you may have some support for your theory, which is
great for you, I am pleased to share that others don't agree with your
view.

I do agree that satellite, currently, does not have the portable
attraction of FM or DRM. However, it does have huge audiences. If it is
a station supplies an audience for the client(s) that works then, surely
that is a professional job done?

Sorry we haven't had a jumble sale on-air, but not a bad idea, thanks
Sorry we don't have sweepers, electricity allows us the benefit of
vacuum cleaners.

Seriously, I don't know who you chat with and if you are happy with your
views, collectively, then that is fine with me – they are your views and
again you are perfectly entitled to hold those views. However, it
doesn't mean that others hold the same view and it is a very dangerous
business man that closes his/her eyes to the future.

I know, in terms of research commissioned by radio sponsors
independently of the older measuring systems, that what you are saying
isn't exactly right – so if the sponsors, who I should add take evidence
from a range of stations, think differently are they right to do that?
And in response to the next question, I don't know why they won't have
communicated that with everyone – I don't have the rights to release the
data so I can't. I do know that within the last 48 hours an agency wrote
saying X,Y,Z about radio which, based on a further set of research,
again disputes your views.

There was a very interesting point in that letter which Richard posted
here from the RC Yahoo Group.
It suggested the reason for the story being brandished around was purely
PR-hype. I have to say I agree. The problem for some in the radio
business these days is they haven't worked out that media buyers no
longer buy purely on hype and/or station ads on other media. In the
future the possible of hyping to get adverts will become even harder
with more accurate digital measuring of audiences.

Free consultation over

Thanks for that Eric, not sure if it was a consultation or lecture but why do I read your postings and come away not knowing what it is you're trying to say?

Incidentally, your research seems to differ greatly from mine but then I have more resources at my disposal but I guess if you're happy with your lot and so are your Lords and Masters then all well and good. My only query is that if you shun anoraks (as you have in the past) why do you regularly post on an Anorak website?
Eric

In article <26ced877290c4f9e33929ea780a0784e@com-wc.kinomi.com>, (Address removed) (dimitri konstantine) wrote:

Thanks for that Eric, not sure if it was a consultation or lecture
but why do I read your postings and come away not knowing what it is
you're trying to say?

No idea, sorry.

Incidentally, your research seems to differ greatly from mine but
then I have more resources at my disposal but I guess if you're happy
with your lot and so are your Lords and Masters then all well and
good. My only query is that if you shun anoraks (as you have in the
past) why do you regularly post on an Anorak website?

What is an anorak? Some are into programming, some into the media, some into collecting QSL cards. Listening anoraks who actually listen are great people. Listeners who have an interest in the media are great. Anoraks into QSL cards are best suited contacting stations who think sending out QSL cards are great.

As to resources at your disposal, if you think they're good for you – fine.

Eric

Quoting a previous dimitri konstantine contribution:-

~

The other point you didn't
answer is why, every time you have an on-air jumble sale or change your
sweepers, do you have to tell us about it ?

Ah. Isn't that called "anoraking"?

~—
* Christopher England just said that *

What is an anorak? Some are into programming, some into the media, some into collecting QSL cards. Listening anoraks who actually listen are
great people. Listeners who have an interest in the media are great.
Anoraks into QSL cards are best suited contacting stations who think
sending out QSL cards are great.

Eric

Ah yes but anoraks are, in most cases, the only listeners some stations have and that's a terrible indictment of the station itself

In article <(Address removed)>, (Address removed) (Christopher England) wrote:

The other point you didn't
answer is why, every time you have an on-air jumble sale or change
your
sweepers, do you have to tell us about it ?

Ah. Isn't that called "anoraking"?

GOSH, really?

In article <(Address removed)>, (Address removed) (dimitri konstantine) wrote:

Ah yes but anoraks are, in most cases, the only listeners some
stations have and that's a terrible indictment of the station itself

I'm thinking of Radio Fax which was possibly the biggest Anorak station I can think of and I would say that was a great station – it did tech for tech people on the radio – nothing wrong with that is there?

Don't think there's much you can tell me about Radio Fax but if you're honest it was a minority listen and unlicensed so didn't have to make money to survive. Stations the anoraks congregate to soon get a stigma attached to them and find it very difficult to be taken seriously by anyone in the industry.

In article <0f1c510ab6e7e9e164245fe270327a46@com-wc.kinomi.com>, (Address removed) (dimitri konstantine) wrote:

Don't think there's much you can tell me about Radio Fax but if
you're honest it was a minority listen and unlicensed so didn't have
to make money to survive. Stations the anoraks congregate to soon get
a stigma attached to them and find it very difficult to be taken
seriously by anyone in the industry.

I would agree that in years past things that didn't fall into the 'industry norm' were often laughed at. However, times change. Although I guess there are some folks stuck in a time-warp.

If we look at the impact of internet anoraks and music anoraks they are achieving a lot of things that the industry dissed.
Down loading music from the web, 'never catch on – it's only for anoraks'. My comment was and still is "really".

As the term is now fixed in the dictionary and used by many it could be said that someone is a painting anorak – maybe that's why painting anoraks now have there own TV service.
Same goes for Caravan Anoraks although I have doubts about why anyone would want to be a caravan anorak – still they have a channel now.

The danger is, today, assuming that an anorak is purely a DXing radio person :-)

Eric

I would agree that in years past things that didn't fall into the
'industry norm' were often laughed at. However, times change. The danger is, today, assuming that an anorak is purely a DXing radio
person :-)

Let's take BigL as an example, it allegedly had a budget of over a million, pays 'name' presenters large amounts of money and shoves it's programmes out on a large-ish AM tx, via the internet and on your beloved satellite and how many listen  . . .? A previous sales manager resigned when he realised it was unsellable. The reason given to me by a London agency recently was that 'it's only listened to by spotty, radio types.' Doesn't matter what you call 'em, attract that type of listener in sufficient numbers and it's the kiss of death.

In article <(Address removed)>, (Address removed) (dimitri konstantine) wrote:

Let's take BigL as an example, it allegedly had a budget of over a
million, pays 'name' presenters large amounts of money and shoves
it's programmes out on a large-ish AM tx, via the internet and on
your beloved satellite and how many listen . . .? A previous sales
manager resigned when he realised it was unsellable. The reason given
to me by a London agency recently was that 'it's only listened to by
spotty, radio types.' Doesn't matter what you call 'em, attract that
type of listener in sufficient numbers and it's the kiss of death.

Nope, not being drawn into specifics – stations are getting considerably more than 5,000 listeners on satellite and if it is the agencies don't believe the RAJAR figures then that is there call. If it is a client of an agency does its own research and decides the agency is wrong that is also there call. The client is, after all, the most important thing in this chain, or is that view wrong?

Eric

Nope, not being drawn into specifics – stations are getting considerably
more than 5,000 listeners on satellite and if it is the agencies don't
believe the RAJAR figures then that is there call. If it is a client of
an agency does its own research and decides the agency is wrong that is
also there call. The client is, after all, the most important thing in
this chain, or is that view wrong?

Most Big clients leave it to their agencies to do the graft for them, might not work that way in your small corner of the allotment