Re: [spiers] Key How To
Just so... if you define as "value" as the overall offer... and know some
categories they can, and
some they cannot...
John
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:04:10 -0500, "Jason Carrion"
wrote :
>
> So are we talking more about created value vs price? A unique design vs a
> commodity? So even with price increasing.... as long as value also
> increases... then price isn't an issue?
>
> As long as China can create value better than the rest of the world,
> regardless of the wage increase or managment cost, they will be competitive.
> Does that sound right?
>
> Jason
>
> On 18 Oct 2006 19:25:42 -0000, John Spiers
> >
> > Pete,
> >
> > I guess you are assuming with wage rates increasing, and products getting
> > more expensive,
> > that less will sell, bad for China, contrary to my argument. If so, there
> > is the error... when
> > wage rates increase, and products get more expensive, they sell more. See
> > Japan, Inc, and
> > the history of mankind.
> >
> > Indeed. . since the above is working, since free market management is
> > proven superior to
> > communist management, they want to improve more. Beating USA management is
> > not hard,
> > and since that is true, proven with real life results, then, they wish to
> > do more.
> >
> > My objection is USA wage rates are not increasing, USA exports are not
> > getting more
> > expensive (what exports we have are heavily subsidized) , USA is not doing
> > better. I agree we
> > have to improve USA management level, but nothing is being done...(except
> > of course on this
> > website...)
> >
> > We can beat anyone, I am all for U S A #1, it's just that neither of the
> > parties with monopoly
> > on USA elections has anyone they can field who can lead USA to prosperity.
> > Better they cut
> > back and let USA business take on the task. No more subsidies, no more
> > regulations. We'll
> > take it from there.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:40:16 -0400, "Pete Holt" peteholt@cox.net peteholt%
40cox.net>>
> > wrote :
> >
> > >
> > > Well, first you repeatedly claim that wages and wage rates have no
> > effect on pricing or
> > competitiveness. But they say they "face rising wages at the same time the
> > country's currency
> > is gradually appreciating, making Chinese exports more expensive abroad".
> > Second, they are
> > saying that "We have to improve our ... management level" while you claim
> > that the one
> > major deficiency in US business is our management and that Chinese
> > management is one of
> > their major competitive advantages.
> > >
> > > It looks to me like they are saying two things that would seem to
> > contradict your positions
> > on international trade.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: John Spiers
> > > To: spiers@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 12:06 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [spiers] Key How To
> > >
> > >
> > > Pete,
> > >
> > > I am not sure why this woould appall me, it is exactly how it works, and
> > is exhibit A as to
> > why
> > > US govt policy is so backwards. China wants to get rich like Japan, so
> > they are doing it the
> > > exact same way. That NYT headline could be straight out of 1975, and
> > read : "Japan's
> > > automakers also face rising wages at the same time the country's
> > currency is gradually
> > > appreciating, making Japanese exports more expensive abroad. " The
> > Japanese goods cost
> > > us, the more we bought. I am delighted both aspects are true... a
> > wealthy China is all the
> > > better trading partner for a USA. I just regret the communists are
> > fielding a better team
> > than
> > > USA in the competition for free trade world wide.
> > >
> > > JOhn
> > > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:11:43 -0400, "Pete Holt"
peteholt@cox.net
> > wrote :
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi John,
> > > > I thought the following quote from an article in the NY Times
> > concerning Chinese auto
> > > manufacturers( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/automobiles/
> > > 18chinacars.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th ) would appall you
> > suitably:
> > > > China's automakers also face rising wages at the same time the
> > country's currency is
> > > gradually appreciating, making Chinese exports more expensive abroad.
> > > >
> > > > "It is a message for us," said Jiang Lei, the executive vice chairman
> > of the China
> > Association
> > > of Automobile Manufacturers, a government agency that guides the
> > industry. "We cannot
> > rely
> > > on cost alone. We have to improve our technology and management level."
> > > >
> > > > Pete Holt
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Key How To
Key How To
Re: [spiers] Key How To
So are we talking more about created value vs price? A unique design vs a
commodity? So even with price increasing.... as long as value also
increases... then price isn't an issue?
As long as China can create value better than the rest of the world,
regardless of the wage increase or managment cost, they will be competitive.
Does that sound right?
Jason
On 18 Oct 2006 19:25:42 -0000, John Spiers
>
> Pete,
>
> I guess you are assuming with wage rates increasing, and products getting
> more expensive,
> that less will sell, bad for China, contrary to my argument. If so, there
> is the error... when
> wage rates increase, and products get more expensive, they sell more. See
> Japan, Inc, and
> the history of mankind.
>
> Indeed. . since the above is working, since free market management is
> proven superior to
> communist management, they want to improve more. Beating USA management is
> not hard,
> and since that is true, proven with real life results, then, they wish to
> do more.
>
> My objection is USA wage rates are not increasing, USA exports are not
> getting more
> expensive (what exports we have are heavily subsidized) , USA is not doing
> better. I agree we
> have to improve USA management level, but nothing is being done...(except
> of course on this
> website...)
>
> We can beat anyone, I am all for U S A #1, it's just that neither of the
> parties with monopoly
> on USA elections has anyone they can field who can lead USA to prosperity.
> Better they cut
> back and let USA business take on the task. No more subsidies, no more
> regulations. We'll
> take it from there.
>
> John
>
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:40:16 -0400, "Pete Holt"
peteholt@cox.net
> wrote :
>
> >
> > Well, first you repeatedly claim that wages and wage rates have no
> effect on pricing or
> competitiveness. But they say they "face rising wages at the same time the
> country's currency
> is gradually appreciating, making Chinese exports more expensive abroad".
> Second, they are
> saying that "We have to improve our ... management level" while you claim
> that the one
> major deficiency in US business is our management and that Chinese
> management is one of
> their major competitive advantages.
> >
> > It looks to me like they are saying two things that would seem to
> contradict your positions
> on international trade.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: John Spiers
> > To: spiers@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 12:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: [spiers] Key How To
> >
> >
> > Pete,
> >
> > I am not sure why this woould appall me, it is exactly how it works, and
> is exhibit A as to
> why
> > US govt policy is so backwards. China wants to get rich like Japan, so
> they are doing it the
> > exact same way. That NYT headline could be straight out of 1975, and
> read : "Japan's
> > automakers also face rising wages at the same time the country's
> currency is gradually
> > appreciating, making Japanese exports more expensive abroad. " The
> Japanese goods cost
> > us, the more we bought. I am delighted both aspects are true... a
> wealthy China is all the
> > better trading partner for a USA. I just regret the communists are
> fielding a better team
> than
> > USA in the competition for free trade world wide.
> >
> > JOhn
> > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:11:43 -0400, "Pete Holt"
peteholt@cox.net
> wrote :
> >
> > >
> > > Hi John,
> > > I thought the following quote from an article in the NY Times
> concerning Chinese auto
> > manufacturers( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/automobiles/
> > 18chinacars.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th ) would appall you
> suitably:
> > > China's automakers also face rising wages at the same time the
> country's currency is
> > gradually appreciating, making Chinese exports more expensive abroad.
> > >
> > > "It is a message for us," said Jiang Lei, the executive vice chairman
> of the China
> Association
> > of Automobile Manufacturers, a government agency that guides the
> industry. "We cannot
> rely
> > on cost alone. We have to improve our technology and management level."
> > >
> > > Pete Holt
Key How To
Re: [spiers] Key How To
Pete,
I guess you are assuming with wage rates increasing, and products getting more
expensive,
that less will sell, bad for China, contrary to my argument. If so, there is
the error... when
wage rates increase, and products get more expensive, they sell more. See
Japan, Inc, and
the history of mankind.
Indeed. . since the above is working, since free market management is proven
superior to
communist management, they want to improve more. Beating USA management is not
hard,
and since that is true, proven with real life results, then, they wish to do
more.
My objection is USA wage rates are not increasing, USA exports are not getting
more
expensive (what exports we have are heavily subsidized) , USA is not doing
better. I agree we
have to improve USA management level, but nothing is being done...(except of
course on this
website...)
We can beat anyone, I am all for U S A #1, it's just that neither of the parties
with monopoly
on USA elections has anyone they can field who can lead USA to prosperity.
Better they cut
back and let USA business take on the task. No more subsidies, no more
regulations. We'll
take it from there.
John
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:40:16 -0400, "Pete Holt"
>
> Well, first you repeatedly claim that wages and wage rates have no effect on
pricing or
competitiveness. But they say they "face rising wages at the same time the
country's currency
is gradually appreciating, making Chinese exports more expensive abroad".
Second, they are
saying that "We have to improve our ... management level" while you claim that
the one
major deficiency in US business is our management and that Chinese management is
one of
their major competitive advantages.
>
> It looks to me like they are saying two things that would seem to contradict
your positions
on international trade.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Spiers
> To: spiers@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 12:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [spiers] Key How To
>
>
> Pete,
>
> I am not sure why this woould appall me, it is exactly how it works, and is
exhibit A as to
why
> US govt policy is so backwards. China wants to get rich like Japan, so they
are doing it the
> exact same way. That NYT headline could be straight out of 1975, and read :
"Japan's
> automakers also face rising wages at the same time the country's currency is
gradually
> appreciating, making Japanese exports more expensive abroad. " The Japanese
goods cost
> us, the more we bought. I am delighted both aspects are true... a wealthy
China is all the
> better trading partner for a USA. I just regret the communists are fielding
a better team
than
> USA in the competition for free trade world wide.
>
> JOhn
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:11:43 -0400, "Pete Holt"
>
> >
> > Hi John,
> > I thought the following quote from an article in the NY Times concerning
Chinese auto
> manufacturers( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/automobiles/
> 18chinacars.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th ) would appall you suitably:
> > China's automakers also face rising wages at the same time the country's
currency is
> gradually appreciating, making Chinese exports more expensive abroad.
> >
> > "It is a message for us," said Jiang Lei, the executive vice chairman of
the China
Association
> of Automobile Manufacturers, a government agency that guides the industry.
"We cannot
rely
> on cost alone. We have to improve our technology and management level."
> >
> > Pete Holt
Key How To
Re: [spiers] Key How To
Well, first you repeatedly claim that wages and wage rates have no effect on
pricing or competitiveness. But they say they "face rising wages at the same
time the country's currency is gradually appreciating, making Chinese exports
more expensive abroad". Second, they are saying that "We have to improve our
... management level" while you claim that the one major deficiency in US
business is our management and that Chinese management is one of their major
competitive advantages.
It looks to me like they are saying two things that would seem to contradict
your positions on international trade.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Spiers
To: spiers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [spiers] Key How To
Pete,
I am not sure why this woould appall me, it is exactly how it works, and is
exhibit A as to why
US govt policy is so backwards. China wants to get rich like Japan, so they
are doing it the
exact same way. That NYT headline could be straight out of 1975, and read :
"Japan's
automakers also face rising wages at the same time the country's currency is
gradually
appreciating, making Japanese exports more expensive abroad. " The Japanese
goods cost
us, the more we bought. I am delighted both aspects are true... a wealthy
China is all the
better trading partner for a USA. I just regret the communists are fielding a
better team than
USA in the competition for free trade world wide.
JOhn
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:11:43 -0400, "Pete Holt"
>
> Hi John,
> I thought the following quote from an article in the NY Times concerning
Chinese auto
manufacturers( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/automobiles/
18chinacars.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th ) would appall you suitably:
> China's automakers also face rising wages at the same time the country's
currency is
gradually appreciating, making Chinese exports more expensive abroad.
>
> "It is a message for us," said Jiang Lei, the executive vice chairman of the
China Association
of Automobile Manufacturers, a government agency that guides the industry. "We
cannot rely
on cost alone. We have to improve our technology and management level."
>
> Pete Holt
Key How To
Re: [spiers] Key How To
Pete,
I am not sure why this woould appall me, it is exactly how it works, and is
exhibit A as to why
US govt policy is so backwards. China wants to get rich like Japan, so they are
doing it the
exact same way. That NYT headline could be straight out of 1975, and read :
"Japan's
automakers also face rising wages at the same time the country's currency is
gradually
appreciating, making Japanese exports more expensive abroad. " The Japanese
goods cost
us, the more we bought. I am delighted both aspects are true... a wealthy China
is all the
better trading partner for a USA. I just regret the communists are fielding a
better team than
USA in the competition for free trade world wide.
JOhn
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:11:43 -0400, "Pete Holt"
>
> Hi John,
> I thought the following quote from an article in the NY Times concerning
Chinese auto
manufacturers( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/automobiles/
18chinacars.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th ) would appall you suitably:
> China's automakers also face rising wages at the same time the country's
currency is
gradually appreciating, making Chinese exports more expensive abroad.
>
> "It is a message for us," said Jiang Lei, the executive vice chairman of the
China Association
of Automobile Manufacturers, a government agency that guides the industry. "We
cannot rely
on cost alone. We have to improve our technology and management level."
>
> Pete Holt
Key How To
Re: [spiers] Key How To
Hi John,
I thought the following quote from an article in the NY Times concerning Chinese
auto manufacturers(
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/automobiles/18chinacars.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1\
&th&emc=th ) would appall you suitably:
China's automakers also face rising wages at the same time the country's
currency is gradually appreciating, making Chinese exports more expensive
abroad.
"It is a message for us," said Jiang Lei, the executive vice chairman of the
China Association of Automobile Manufacturers, a government agency that guides
the industry. "We cannot rely on cost alone. We have to improve our technology
and management level."
Pete Holt
Monday, October 16, 2006
cell phones with large keys and muffled earpiece for seniors
John,
A while ago you lamented about wanting just a simple cell phone, and there
was a lively discussion about this for a bit on your
e-mail group. Here is a product line that seems to directly address your
desires...
http://www.info4cellphones.com/cell-phones-for-seniors.html
alan
Cinese Labor Laws
I read this article in the International Herald Tribune...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/12/business/sweat.php
China is adopting laws and giving Unions more power to get rid of
sweatshops. Who do you think is objecting to such a law...?
The US Chamber of Commerce!
Key How To
RE: [spiers] Key How To
Hello everyone,
Just to add a comment: In the paper last week the Chinese agreed to
legalize labor unions. Their goal was to eliminate sweat shops and to
prevent corruption. I think this will have a great impact on importers of
the future.
Linda
Key How To
Folks,
I believe the following to be true, and seek correction if not:
I think what I offer is unique, that is to say no one else offers it, and not to
say
1. How dissatisfaction in a field you love is the best place to start.
2. How to design a product, service or agricultural item...medicine,
machine...anything. How
to design what you offer. (Designers, and IPR implications)
3. How to get customers, and more customer: go in to your target market as a
customer, or
if trapped by a product already, how to go in merely to learn.
4. How to find the best place in the world to have your product made.
5. How to run a business. Respond thru redesign. Organize operations around
only what
matters.
6. How your work IS your lifestyle, as opposed to getting rich to buy a
lifestyle, or working to
pay for a lifestyle after giving up your best hours. You decide, but the point
is the work is the
lifestyle.
7. How to work with suppliers.
8. How to deal with the complexities of int'l trade.
9. The only reasonable sources of finance.
10 . Follow up possibilities, such as it is.
I believe I am unique not only in the parts, but presenting them as a integrated
whole.
Certainly, everyone covers #8, but I am unique in advising to farm all that out,
whereas other
advise "become expert."
So if you would point out where I may be delusional, or perhaps not fully
explicatory, I'd be
happy to expouind further on any topic...
John
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Air America Bankrupt
Re: [spiers] Re: Air America Bankrupt
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:53:14 -0500, "Jason Carrion"
wrote :
> 3. Their beliefs ideas and thoughts were rejected.
>
Surely business failure and content rejection is not the same thing when one is
on a subsidized
business model.
John
Air America Bankrupt
Re: [spiers] Re: Air America Bankrupt
> In the late 1980's there was an estimated 200 AM
> stations broadcasting all
> day talk radio. Today there are over 1200 stations >
broadcasting talk radio. Radio isn't dying...
Maybe I should have said "over the air" radio is
dying. The Internet is the new media king. How about
looking at the last 3 years as compared to the 80s and
90s? I bet the growth has slowed dramatically. In
the 1980s, there was no Internet(as we know it today),
no ipods, no pod casts, so yes radio stations grew.
Now, Feedburner.com distributes more podcasts than
there are radio stations on the planet. Here is an
article from eweek.com
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1950380,00.asp
> Radio will always be around.
Yes, in some way it will. I should rephrase my
point... "Over the air" radio's influence is waning.
It's getting watered down. I wouldn't throw my
Advertising money towards it.
> Try reading a blog
> while doing your work. It's
> not convenient. Especially for many of the blue
> collar type jobs.
Well, the point I was trying to make was that liberals
are not interested in shrill talk radio. Of course I'm
speculating, but I think liberals are on the Internet
in droves. And blue collar folks can podcast too.
> Podcasting will be a very powerful format I believe.
> While it will be more
> prevalent in the future, one can see the convenience
> and abilities it
> provides.
Where I work(A large west coast university), the
future is now. I think I'm one of the few staff in
our 100+ person Health Sciences Dept that does not
have an ipod.
> Why did Air America fail? Well to be honest I think
> that there were three
> large reasons.
>
> 1. They didn't provide a product that was any
> differrent than what is
> already provided through other media.
I can accept this...
> 2. They knew plainly knew nothing about the business
> of radio. They tried to
> run the station as a 527 using donor money to prop
> up the station instead of
> running it as a business startup... getting
> customers first.
Yes, I can accept this too...
> 3. Their beliefs ideas and thoughts were rejected.
I know plenty of liberals who share the beliefs and
thoughts of Air America, but DID NOT listen to Air
America.... They surf the net instead. Anecdotal
sure, but I have a hunch the pattern is widespread.
Liberals don't listen to the shrill kind of talk
radio. The conservatives can crow, but I think they
may be eating crow when they realize they have been
dominating the wrong media.
> Jason
>
>
> On 10/15/06, M A Granich
> >
> > It has nothing to do with being "on the right
> side of
> > a political situation." Liberals don't listen to
> talk
> > radio, they surf the net. Conservatives are just
> > that... conservative so they'll stay with old
> > technology... the radio. Meanwhile, progressive
> > liberals have moved to the Internet blogosphere
> like
> > gangbusters. The number of liberal blogs on world
> > wide web DWARFS the conservative blogs. The top
> > Progressive blog, The Daily KOS, has a readership
> of
> > 3.8 million/day, three times that of the NY times
> and
> > I bet more than many FOX News shows. So, the
> argument
> > "liberal/socialistic/communistic drivel must not
> have
> > as much following as a very vocal minority would
> have
> > us believing." is wrong. You'll find such drivel
> on
> > the Internet. If you want to listen to
> > conservative/right wing/fascist drivel while
> having
> > your ability to think subjugated, turn on the
> radio.
> >
> > I think radio is dying. And newspapers are not far
> > behind. Several of my work colleagues download
> > pod-casts of their favorite commercial free
> programs
> > and get their news from blogs. I've recently read
> a
> > couple of articles about the plummeting radio
> > listenership especially in the all important 25 to
> 54
> > year old demographic. This is just my
> unprofessional
> > opinion, but I would dump your radio and newspaper
> > stock ASAP.
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> > --- "deaneaslick@sbcglobal.net
>
> >
> >
> > > --- In spiers@yahoogroups.com
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll have to say I disagree with the line of
> > > thinking that the
> > > liberal talk radio bankruptcy was a result of
> not
> > > being on the right
> > > side of the present political situation. Many of
> the
> > > conservative
> > > shows have been through numerous changes of
> > > political parties and are
> > > surviving. Some very nicely. This fact alone
> > > disproves that
> > > hypothesis. The major key to radio success is
> still
> > > advertising money
> > > no matter what the format. Advertising money
> follows
> > > listenership.
> > > Unfortunately, the listenership numbers must not
> > > have been there for
> > > the advertising money. Gov't money alone
> couldn't
> > > entirely support a
> > > liberal format with the hugh numbers necessary
> for
> > > the needed impact.
> > > Perhaps shows proclaiming the liberal message as
> > > their main topic are
> > > not worth hearing. As an aside, Imus and Stern
> both
> > > seem to proclaim
> > > liberal leanings, and are very successful. Their
> > > main thrust though
> > > is more of a bawdy /sexual nature. Not much in
> the
> > > way of left
> > > leaning politics. Again liberal/socialistic/
> > > communistic drivel must
> > > not have as much following as a very vocal
> minority
> > > would have us
> > > believing.
> > >
> > > Also, to rub our hands in glee when the $ starts
> > > flowing to a group
> > > of people (the libs/socialist/communists)that
> the
> > > general public does
> > > not want to hear/ give listenership support is
> > > ridiculous and
> > > downright scary.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > Conservative Talkradio is crowing that liberal
> > > talkradio is
> > > literally bankrupt
> > > >
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/ylbblv
> > > >
> > > > but not so fast...
> > > >
> > > > with the government in control of the media,
> > > massive funds flow
> > > here they want it to flow...
> > > > one of the largest advertisers out there is he
> > > military, obviously
> > > not buying time at Air
> > > > America.
> > > >
> > > > Let's see what happens when the dems take
> control
> > > and Air America
> > > starts gettiing ad
> > > > contracts from Housing and Urban Development,
> the
> > > Ag dept and the
> > > TSA. Radio stations
> > > > will clammer to carry Air America for the
> money,
> > > and the drivel
Air America Bankrupt
Re: [spiers] Re: Air America Bankrupt
Anthony,
You've fairly convinced me, but could it be that the misallocated funds are
being directed by
the left to the blogosphere... my objection is not to anyones ideas, just to the
danger of ideas
being subsidized by the govt.
John
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 01:01:55 -0700 (PDT), M A Granich
:
>
> It has nothing to do with being "on the right side of
> a political situation." Liberals don't listen to talk
> radio, they surf the net. Conservatives are just
> that... conservative so they'll stay with old
> technology... the radio. Meanwhile, progressive
> liberals have moved to the Internet blogosphere like
> gangbusters. The number of liberal blogs on world
> wide web DWARFS the conservative blogs. The top
> Progressive blog, The Daily KOS, has a readership of
> 3.8 million/day, three times that of the NY times and
> I bet more than many FOX News shows. So, the argument
> "liberal/socialistic/communistic drivel must not have
> as much following as a very vocal minority would have
> us believing." is wrong. You'll find such drivel on
> the Internet. If you want to listen to
> conservative/right wing/fascist drivel while having
> your ability to think subjugated, turn on the radio.
>
> I think radio is dying. And newspapers are not far
> behind. Several of my work colleagues download
> pod-casts of their favorite commercial free programs
> and get their news from blogs. I've recently read a
> couple of articles about the plummeting radio
> listenership especially in the all important 25 to 54
> year old demographic. This is just my unprofessional
> opinion, but I would dump your radio and newspaper
> stock ASAP.
>
> Anthony
>
> --- "deaneaslick@sbcglobal.net"
>
>
> > --- In spiers@yahoogroups.com, "John Spiers"
> >
> >
> >
> > I'll have to say I disagree with the line of
> > thinking that the
> > liberal talk radio bankruptcy was a result of not
> > being on the right
> > side of the present political situation. Many of the
> > conservative
> > shows have been through numerous changes of
> > political parties and are
> > surviving. Some very nicely. This fact alone
> > disproves that
> > hypothesis. The major key to radio success is still
> > advertising money
> > no matter what the format. Advertising money follows
> > listenership.
> > Unfortunately, the listenership numbers must not
> > have been there for
> > the advertising money. Gov't money alone couldn't
> > entirely support a
> > liberal format with the hugh numbers necessary for
> > the needed impact.
> > Perhaps shows proclaiming the liberal message as
> > their main topic are
> > not worth hearing. As an aside, Imus and Stern both
> > seem to proclaim
> > liberal leanings, and are very successful. Their
> > main thrust though
> > is more of a bawdy /sexual nature. Not much in the
> > way of left
> > leaning politics. Again liberal/socialistic/
> > communistic drivel must
> > not have as much following as a very vocal minority
> > would have us
> > believing.
> >
> > Also, to rub our hands in glee when the $ starts
> > flowing to a group
> > of people (the libs/socialist/communists)that the
> > general public does
> > not want to hear/ give listenership support is
> > ridiculous and
> > downright scary.
> >
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> > >
> > > Conservative Talkradio is crowing that liberal
> > talkradio is
> > literally bankrupt
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/ylbblv
> > >
> > > but not so fast...
> > >
> > > with the government in control of the media,
> > massive funds flow
> > here they want it to flow...
> > > one of the largest advertisers out there is he
> > military, obviously
> > not buying time at Air
> > > America.
> > >
> > > Let's see what happens when the dems take control
> > and Air America
> > starts gettiing ad
> > > contracts from Housing and Urban Development, the
> > Ag dept and the
> > TSA. Radio stations
> > > will clammer to carry Air America for the money,
> > and the drivel
> > will flow left rather than right.
> > >
> > > John
Air America Bankrupt
Re: [spiers] Re: Air America Bankrupt
In the late 1980's there was an estimated 200 AM stations broadcasting all
day talk radio.
Today there are over 1200 stations broadcasting talk radio.
Radio isn't dying... it was revived just in the last 20 years. Conservatives
took a medium that wasn't being utilized and designed a service to fill a
need that wasn't being filled by the mainstream media.
Radio will always be around. Try reading a blog while doing your work. It's
not convenient. Especially for many of the blue collar type jobs.
Podcasting will be a very powerful format I believe. While it will be more
prevalent in the future, one can see the convenience and abilities it
provides. But it will not replace radio. It will definately enhance it. That
can already be seen with a few of the top talk shows already providing
podcasts of their shows.
Newspapers are definately losing readership. Why should I pick up a paper
when I can easily locate any news I want about any subject online. The
problem with newspapers are that they haven't enhanced their product in any
way nor have they embraced the internet as a new medium. (not merily paste
their tired stories)
On any given day I can pick up a largely circulated paper and read the exact
same article with the exact same opinions and bias. The problem largely is a
wide spread "groupthink" with the mainstream media.
Why did Air America fail? Well to be honest I think that there were three
large reasons.
1. They didn't provide a product that was any differrent than what is
already provided through other media.
2. They knew plainly knew nothing about the business of radio. They tried to
run the station as a 527 using donor money to prop up the station instead of
running it as a business startup... getting customers first.
3. Their beliefs ideas and thoughts were rejected.
Jason
On 10/15/06, M A Granich
>
> It has nothing to do with being "on the right side of
> a political situation." Liberals don't listen to talk
> radio, they surf the net. Conservatives are just
> that... conservative so they'll stay with old
> technology... the radio. Meanwhile, progressive
> liberals have moved to the Internet blogosphere like
> gangbusters. The number of liberal blogs on world
> wide web DWARFS the conservative blogs. The top
> Progressive blog, The Daily KOS, has a readership of
> 3.8 million/day, three times that of the NY times and
> I bet more than many FOX News shows. So, the argument
> "liberal/socialistic/communistic drivel must not have
> as much following as a very vocal minority would have
> us believing." is wrong. You'll find such drivel on
> the Internet. If you want to listen to
> conservative/right wing/fascist drivel while having
> your ability to think subjugated, turn on the radio.
>
> I think radio is dying. And newspapers are not far
> behind. Several of my work colleagues download
> pod-casts of their favorite commercial free programs
> and get their news from blogs. I've recently read a
> couple of articles about the plummeting radio
> listenership especially in the all important 25 to 54
> year old demographic. This is just my unprofessional
> opinion, but I would dump your radio and newspaper
> stock ASAP.
>
> Anthony
>
> --- "deaneaslick@sbcglobal.net
> deaneaslick@sbcglobal.net
>
> > --- In spiers@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > I'll have to say I disagree with the line of
> > thinking that the
> > liberal talk radio bankruptcy was a result of not
> > being on the right
> > side of the present political situation. Many of the
> > conservative
> > shows have been through numerous changes of
> > political parties and are
> > surviving. Some very nicely. This fact alone
> > disproves that
> > hypothesis. The major key to radio success is still
> > advertising money
> > no matter what the format. Advertising money follows
> > listenership.
> > Unfortunately, the listenership numbers must not
> > have been there for
> > the advertising money. Gov't money alone couldn't
> > entirely support a
> > liberal format with the hugh numbers necessary for
> > the needed impact.
> > Perhaps shows proclaiming the liberal message as
> > their main topic are
> > not worth hearing. As an aside, Imus and Stern both
> > seem to proclaim
> > liberal leanings, and are very successful. Their
> > main thrust though
> > is more of a bawdy /sexual nature. Not much in the
> > way of left
> > leaning politics. Again liberal/socialistic/
> > communistic drivel must
> > not have as much following as a very vocal minority
> > would have us
> > believing.
> >
> > Also, to rub our hands in glee when the $ starts
> > flowing to a group
> > of people (the libs/socialist/communists)that the
> > general public does
> > not want to hear/ give listenership support is
> > ridiculous and
> > downright scary.
> >
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> > >
> > > Conservative Talkradio is crowing that liberal
> > talkradio is
> > literally bankrupt
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/ylbblv
> > >
> > > but not so fast...
> > >
> > > with the government in control of the media,
> > massive funds flow
> > here they want it to flow...
> > > one of the largest advertisers out there is he
> > military, obviously
> > not buying time at Air
> > > America.
> > >
> > > Let's see what happens when the dems take control
> > and Air America
> > starts gettiing ad
> > > contracts from Housing and Urban Development, the
> > Ag dept and the
> > TSA. Radio stations
> > > will clammer to carry Air America for the money,
> > and the drivel
> > will flow left rather than right.
> > >
> > > John
Air America Bankrupt
Re: [spiers] Re: Air America Bankrupt
It has nothing to do with being "on the right side of
a political situation." Liberals don't listen to talk
radio, they surf the net. Conservatives are just
that... conservative so they'll stay with old
technology... the radio. Meanwhile, progressive
liberals have moved to the Internet blogosphere like
gangbusters. The number of liberal blogs on world
wide web DWARFS the conservative blogs. The top
Progressive blog, The Daily KOS, has a readership of
3.8 million/day, three times that of the NY times and
I bet more than many FOX News shows. So, the argument
"liberal/socialistic/communistic drivel must not have
as much following as a very vocal minority would have
us believing." is wrong. You'll find such drivel on
the Internet. If you want to listen to
conservative/right wing/fascist drivel while having
your ability to think subjugated, turn on the radio.
I think radio is dying. And newspapers are not far
behind. Several of my work colleagues download
pod-casts of their favorite commercial free programs
and get their news from blogs. I've recently read a
couple of articles about the plummeting radio
listenership especially in the all important 25 to 54
year old demographic. This is just my unprofessional
opinion, but I would dump your radio and newspaper
stock ASAP.
Anthony
--- "deaneaslick@sbcglobal.net"
> --- In spiers@yahoogroups.com, "John Spiers"
>
>
>
> I'll have to say I disagree with the line of
> thinking that the
> liberal talk radio bankruptcy was a result of not
> being on the right
> side of the present political situation. Many of the
> conservative
> shows have been through numerous changes of
> political parties and are
> surviving. Some very nicely. This fact alone
> disproves that
> hypothesis. The major key to radio success is still
> advertising money
> no matter what the format. Advertising money follows
> listenership.
> Unfortunately, the listenership numbers must not
> have been there for
> the advertising money. Gov't money alone couldn't
> entirely support a
> liberal format with the hugh numbers necessary for
> the needed impact.
> Perhaps shows proclaiming the liberal message as
> their main topic are
> not worth hearing. As an aside, Imus and Stern both
> seem to proclaim
> liberal leanings, and are very successful. Their
> main thrust though
> is more of a bawdy /sexual nature. Not much in the
> way of left
> leaning politics. Again liberal/socialistic/
> communistic drivel must
> not have as much following as a very vocal minority
> would have us
> believing.
>
> Also, to rub our hands in glee when the $ starts
> flowing to a group
> of people (the libs/socialist/communists)that the
> general public does
> not want to hear/ give listenership support is
> ridiculous and
> downright scary.
>
>
>
> Folks,
> >
> > Conservative Talkradio is crowing that liberal
> talkradio is
> literally bankrupt
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/ylbblv
> >
> > but not so fast...
> >
> > with the government in control of the media,
> massive funds flow
> here they want it to flow...
> > one of the largest advertisers out there is he
> military, obviously
> not buying time at Air
> > America.
> >
> > Let's see what happens when the dems take control
> and Air America
> starts gettiing ad
> > contracts from Housing and Urban Development, the
> Ag dept and the
> TSA. Radio stations
> > will clammer to carry Air America for the money,
> and the drivel
> will flow left rather than right.
> >
> > John