[BC] DST vs Daytimers

[WFIFeng@aol.com]

In a message dated 08/21/2006 08:33:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
curt at spam-o-matic.net writes:

>  OK. I'll go with that.
>   That takes it to from YOUR point of view, it's just a condition of the 
> license
>   that you chose to accept, but now congress ( I use a lower case c out of 
>   dis-respect ) is changing the behaviour of your listeners.

Right. As you are aware, we humans are creatures of habit. It's already two 
strikes against us (Daytimers in general) that we are *not* operating with a 
*consistent* schedule year-round. People can't just set their clock radio for 
6am, and leave it... they have to change it, and most people are loathe to do 
so! Plus you have the fact that work schedules don't change... so either they 
wake up to "beep beep" during the winter months, or they find another station. 
It's rough enough signing-on as late as 7:15 in winter, now this bone-headed 
plan is going to make that 7:45 for two weeks in November!

Thus, our schedule will do this:

October, sign on at 7am. 
First two weeks of Novemeber, 7:45. Last two weeks, 6:45.
Then 7:15 in Dec & Jan and 6:45 in Feb.
March, 6am for two weeks, then 7am for the other two. April, 6:15am. (6-6:15a 
at low power in April)

This is, of course, all based on what all of our *listeners'* clocks (and 
schedules) say.

Can you see how this is going to confuse people? That's why it's a problem. 
Sure, we can (and will) promote the dickens out of it, but good grief... it's 
*still* going to confuse & inconvenience people. Some will just find another 
station, and we may as well kiss them goodbye. Remember the "What's in it for 
me?" mentality of the majority of consumers. They want things easy. "Why bother 
with that station that keeps playing with it's schedule, when I can tune to 
this 24 hour FM, and it's always there at 6am when I wake up?"

>  > Care to elaborate? 
>  
>   Sadly, I can not, for two reasons.
>   #1.    I don't know exactly. It's none of my business, so I'm not 
directly 
> involved.
>   #2 Unintended disclosure.
>         I've not been explicitly told it's OK to say what I know, so I 
won't.

Well, then that's that, then. It would have been better to have never even 
brought it up. (IMHO.)

>   Might sound like a cop-out, but they're both true.

I understand. It's not your fault... that's why it would have been better to 
have never even brought it up.

>   Well, until you can see it otherwise, or change that, I suspect it will 
be !

Honestly... seriously... losing an hour of AM Drive for a total of a month 
each year because of a *stupid* Act of Congress **IS** a disadvantage, no matter 
how you slice it. I really can't even fathom how it could be otherwise.

>   All I'm trying to do, is to grab your attention.

It has been grabbed. Ouch.

> Think outside the box.

Easy for you to say. ;)

>   It's been done.

Yes. This wonderful, mysterious plan... "It's been done, it works, but sorry, 
I can't tell you how or even give you a hint. Sorry." Sigh. Talk about 
teasing a kid with a lolipop, then throwing it down a sewer drain.

>   Rather than lament the "problem" find a solution.

I wish I could! If the NAB proposal ever goes through, and we can get an FM 
translator (or two) **that** would be a viable solution for at least a 
*portion* of our listening area! Then we could program our sign-on at 6am year 'round, 
and serve at least *some* people with a consistant schedule. That would be 
good.

>  
>   At least one group owner ( different client ) told me across the dinner 
> table, that he'd studied his 40+ years in this business, and that 90% of 
all of 
> his revenue came from 6A to 6P and so he wasn't concerned about night
>   coverage except in passing.

Right, and that makes perfect sense. We're limited by the shortest days, 
7:15am to 5pm. (soon to become 7:45am.)

>   It seems reasonable to believe that an alternative solution exists.

Yes. It does. but you can't even give me a clue, so we may as well drop that 
topic altogether.

Willie...