[BC] DST vs Daytimers

[WFIFeng@aol.com]

In a message dated 08/21/2006 07:27:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
curt at spam-o-matic.net writes:

>  Not implying stupidity at all.

I am glad... because I have perceived a "condescending tone" toward me in 
some of your past posts. I hope that that perception is wrong. That last post, 
especially, came across as very condescending, thus my reaction.

>   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.

That perception is wrong. From the perspective of *our listeners*, our 
schedule is, in fact, changing. Instead of hearing us at 6:45, they won't be able to 
do so until 7:45. Our latest sign-on is 7:15, in Dec & Jan. This will make it 
a half-hour later than that for those two weeks in November. IOW, making it 
more confusing as our schedule "jumps back and forth" from 7am in October, to 
7:45 for 1/2 of November, then 6:45 for the 2'nd half, then 7:15.

It has less to do with our license, than it has to do with tripping-up the 
listeners and confusing them. (Not a difficult thing to do, sometimes, as I'm 
sure you know.)

>   So, it's a revenue/ratings argument ?

Partially, yes. The airtime from 7:15-8am is sold. (We are a talk formatted 
station, selling 1 hour, 1/2 hour, and 1/4 hour blocks.) A 7:45 sign-on means 
that the 1/2 hour program that starts at 7:30 is lost for those two weeks. 
Those loyal listeners you mentioned will suddenly be without a rather popular 
program for the first time in over 24 years.

>   Buggy whips.

How so? Nothing's becoming obsolete, here.

>   You work at a daytimer, and are complaining about it being a daytimer,
>   subject to daytime conditions.

The daytimer conditions are a hamstring issue... but we've been making it 
work for over 24 years. Now, we're getting thrown a real nasty curveball that 
will dramatically affect our listeners. I am just looking for answers, not 
criticisms.

>   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.

Now that's a new one on me!

>   Why not you ? 
>   Lemonaid !

Well, if I had *any clue* how to pull-off a miracle like that... It can't be 
WEBcasting... too limited, too hamstrung by the Music Mafia, and too much 
competition. Care to elaborate? I know that we're not the only Daytimer 
represented on this Forum... so if such a wonderous plan exists, I'm sure others are 
salivating about now. Type-up! 

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

Been there, done that. (Several e-mails to several different ones, including 
the clown who proposed it, before it went for a vote.)

>   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.

Well... what can I do? I don't have the authority to change *anything* this 
station does.

Have you ever seen or heard the poem about the Train Engineer; "...nor even 
clang the bell, but let the [darn] thing jump the track, and see who catches 
[h-e-hockysticks]..." Well, that's me. ;) All I can do is offer suggestions to 
Management, nothing more. If you have some, I'm all ears... and I will pass 
them on.

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

Well, if I had the authority to "trim the sail", it might mean something. All 
I can do is keep 'er on the course that has already been plotted, keep the 
engines running, etc.

>   You always were clear.

It didn't seem that way from the previous reply.

>   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.

Right.. but now that disadvantage has just been *increased*, and in the most 
critical part of the day.

>   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.

Well, I cannot see how losing an *hour* of Morning Drive can possibly be 
anything BUT a severe disadvantage.

>   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.

We *are* losing airtime during the most critical part of the day. Te evening 
hours are non-saleable, because they are not permanent. They are "PI" (Per 
Inquiry) programming, which, naturally, brings in far less than paid 
programming... and naturally, brings-in zero when off-the-air.

>   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.

I've been with this station, interacting with these listeners for more than 
19 years. *Every year*, we get phone calls from people asking why we have to go 
off the air so early in the winter. This tells me that they are most likely 
*new* listeners. Many of them express deep frustration at the loss of airtime. 
Take another hour away from their peak listening time, (and take away one of 
their long-term favorite programs for half of every November) and I'm sure 
they'll complain all the more.

>   You have some SERIOUS advantages over the typical commercial station in 
> that regard. 

Only to a point. If we were 24 hours, that advantage would be even greater. 
Part of our market is covered by a 24 hour non-comm FM with a similar format. 
It's very easy to see those lost listeners jumping over to that station, come 
November, when we're not there when they turn their radios on in the morning. 

>   This is neither a fiasco, nor a disaster.
>   It is simple change. Some will change with it, adapt, and prosper.
>   Some won't.

Yes... and it's those "won'ts" that concern us the most. It's very hard to 
get a "lost listener" back, when you're *not there* when they want you.

>   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......

A radio station without a transmitter... that's like a power plant without a 
generator (or other means to generate power). That's a feat I'd like to see. 
Other than the tangled WEB of WEBcasting, I cannot even fathom how one could 
pull this off. (Are there any *prosperous* WEBcasters out there?)

Willie...