AlexL Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 because we're right time after time? just because you say it doesnt make it so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 just because you say it doesnt make it so. it's logic...if you focus on covering territory, as opposed to covering population, you LOSE the chance to play for people. in these economic times, people aren't going to drive 150 miles to see a show unless you have all 23 WC corps there. However, if you run say a 10 corps show in an area with over a million people living in a 45 minute drive, you will see a better return on your investment. it's like cell service...in areas where there aren't a lot of people, you don't see a lot of towers. in a metro area, you see a tower every 1/3 mile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexL Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 You keep phrasing it as 'either or', when its not. When you remove areas that are not feasible to hold WC shows (such as the alaska example), you cover the most population by covering the most area. To keep from turning away people at the gates in areas with higher population density, you can up the stadium size. Think of it as a map with each show site. Extending out from every show site is a radius of whatever's 'drivable'. The combination of all those circles you'd create is your coverage map. Your cell tower example doesnt work as well. In this case you can effectively build a bigger tower (higher capacity stadium) in that area that will serve the demand from more people. Its more like TV\Radio broadcast coverage since its one-way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 You keep phrasing it as 'either or', when its not. When you remove areas that are not feasible to hold WC shows (such as the alaska example), you cover the most population by covering the most area. To keep from turning away people at the gates in areas with higher population density, you can up the stadium size. Think of it as a map with each show site. Extending out from every show site is a radius of whatever's 'drivable'. The combination of all those circles you'd create is your coverage map. Your cell tower example doesnt work as well. In this case you can effectively build a bigger tower (higher capacity stadium) in that area that will serve the demand from more people. Its more like TV\Radio broadcast coverage since its one-way you up the stadium size, you up the expenses.....and you dont have enough corps to justify running supersized stadiums unless you make every show the entire WC. and with a cell tower, you can only build so high...it's the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajwdad Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 you up the stadium size, you up the expenses.....and you dont have enough corps to justify running supersized stadiums unless you make every show the entire WC.and with a cell tower, you can only build so high...it's the law. Jeff, we have to quit arguing with this guy. He thinks that cell service is only one way, and decided to change from covering the most land to covering the most land that has the right population as long as it is easy for those east of the rockies to get to the shows. Just claim victory as you have... Logic is not going to work... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 nah. I like arguing with him. especially since I know the cell game and know how that works too Jeff,we have to quit arguing with this guy. He thinks that cell service is only one way, and decided to change from covering the most land to covering the most land that has the right population as long as it is easy for those east of the rockies to get to the shows. Just claim victory as you have... Logic is not going to work... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexL Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 (edited) He thinks that cell service is only one way, i never said cell service was one way. i said that drum corps was more like tv\radio, which is one-way. from what i know cell needs additional towers not just to cover additional areas but to cover additional demands introduced by it being a 2-way communications system. Edited August 27, 2010 by AlexL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajwdad Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 i never said cell service was one way. i said that drum corps was more like tv\radio, which is one-way. from what i know cell needs additional towers not just to cover additional areas but to cover additional demands introduced by it being a 2-way communications system. no problem. Just did not understand your english. Not sure what "its" refers to in the sentence. "Your cell tower example doesnt work as well. In this case you can effectively build a bigger tower (higher capacity stadium) in that area that will serve the demand from more people. Its more like TV\Radio broadcast coverage since its one-way " But, this argument is pointless. We contend that population matters and did so from the start. Your contention was that covering land mattered, and then you changed it later to say that covering the right land matters, which is close enough to what I was saying earlier. Defining that land / population is where the argument really lies. My marketing background tells me, along with my common sense, that the most populous state in the country, which is home to several corps, deserves a lot better than what it gets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexL Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 (edited) Youre contending that some people should be *better* covered than others for no other reason than the fact that they live near more people. Its like saying a city should have 10 ABC affiliates if 1 will cover the area. Im contending you cover as much land area as is feasible, and you will provide 'coverage' to the most people. I didnt really change, more clarified. To keep this on the wireless signal analogy, the goal of most systems like that, whether cell or broadcast, is to cover everywhere.. but there are holes in most networks where it is not feasible to fill those holes in. Edited August 27, 2010 by AlexL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
84BDsop Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 Youre contending that some people should be *better* covered than others for no other reason than the fact that they live near more people. Its like saying a city should have 10 ABC affiliates if 1 will cover the area. Im contending you cover as much land area as is feasible, and you will provide 'coverage' to the most people. I didnt really change, more clarified. To keep this on the wireless signal analogy, the goal of most systems like that, whether cell or broadcast, is to cover everywhere.. but there are holes in most networks where it is not feasible to fill those holes in. Great....awesome.....so how does that connect to the question of BD and SCV having performances in California??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.