[BC] DST vs Daytimers

[Cowboy]

On Sunday 20 August 2006 05:31 pm, WFIFeng at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 08/20/2006 3:14:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> curt at spam-o-matic.net writes:
> 
> >  Therefore, I fail to see a "fiasco" of any kind.
> >   You'll still sign on when the sun is at the same relative position it's 
> > always been !
> >   Nothing changes.
> >   Your license still specifies the same times, in the same non-advanced time
> >   it's always been.
> >   It was a condition of the license when it was granted, and accepted.
> >  
> 
> Sigh... I KNOW that... I am *not* stupid, and resent the implication!

 Not implying stupidity at all.

 I am implying that you are complaining about a condition on your stations
 license that is not changing, but has now ( or might ) become "unacceptable" in your
 point of view, even though it was accepted as granted for many years.
 You've been making it work, but now appear to be choosing not to.

> With our sign-on at 6:45 NON-advanced time, all of our *listeners* are seeing 
> 7:45 *advanced time* on *their* clocks. IOW, already well on their way to 
> work/school/life/whatever... 
> 
> Read: Middle of AM Drive.

 So, it's a revenue/ratings argument ?
 Buggy whips.
 You work at a daytimer, and are complaining about it being a daytimer,
 subject to daytime conditions.
 Things change.
 ( please understand that I'm no fan of DST at all, but it seems that when
 congresscritters get involved and an idea is a bad one, their fix is almost
 always to have MUCH more of it )

 I personally know of at least one daytimer that serves it's clientele and 
 produces nearly as much revenue when it's off the air as when it's on.
 Why not you ? 
 Lemonaid !

> They'd have been looking for us since *their* clocks read 6:45, (our November 
> sign-on time) and we're not there, not until 7:45 on *their* clocks. *That* 
> is the fiasco of which I speak. Someone else said that this doesn't go into 
> effect until March of '07. Ok, great, that only postpones the inevitable. Instead 
> of signing-on (on our *listeners' clocks*) at 6am, we won't be there until 7.

 No, that's a good thing for you.
 Gives you time to lobby your own congresscritter. ( among other things )

 You have a weather forcast that the wind of change may blow.
 Rather than trim your sails, you are choosing to complain about the wind.
 C'mon, Willie ! You are MUCH better than that, and many of us know it.

 Your question appears to be how to stop the wind.
 It should be how to trim the sail.

> Now have I made myself clear? I hope so.
> 
> Willie...

 You always were clear.

 Your basic argument is that you are at a disadvantage, business wise, to full
 time stations. That isn't changing. They've always been on when you are not.
 They always will be. That's part of being a daytimer.
 TWO things might change, and I know something about your type of listener.
 1. What people are doing at your sign-on may change a bit, which YOU perceive
 as a disadvantage, though it may not be such.
 2. You will be on in the evening ! The time block is shifted from morning to evening.
 You're losing no air time at all.

 Your type of listener tends to be VERY loyal. I suspect that they will tolerate change
 much better than it appears you are intending to do yourself.
 You have some SERIOUS advantages over the typical commercial station in that regard. 

 This is neither a fiasco, nor a disaster.
 It is simple change. Some will change with it, adapt, and prosper.
 Some won't.
 Which you will be is your choice.
 Perhaps this is just the wake-up call for you to figure out how to serve your listeners
 without a transmitter. Something that could have been done years ago......

-- 
Cowboy