Lunchtime Live with Ciara Kelly [Mod warning post #1]

ButtersSuki

Ahwell wrote: »

I have highlighted the relevant part this time.

It’s actually not relevant, but you clearly can’t see it.

Just ignore all the facts and evidence I presented for you.
Have you ever seen a full JNLR book?
Did you look at any of the links I sent you?
Do you book/buy radio advertising?
Do you know what a rate card is?
Do you know that no one pays the rate card rate?

I could go on.


Or just show me one monetary advertising rate figure from any of the hundreds of JNLR books that exist. Most (if not all) are online.

ButtersSuki

southstar wrote: »

The irony here is that you gleefully participate in a daily auto da fe which routinely is petty, personalised and repetitive bordering on obsessional.. I found your recent revelations hard to take in the light of this...almost suggested you call Ciara Kelly. Liveline is not rocket science but considerably more measured than similar offerings on commercial radio.

Firstly, I don’t actually think I’ve listened this year.

Secondly, if I were listening thinking this is quality radio and commenting negatively on it then yes, I agree that would be ironic. I do no such thing. On the occasions I do listen to it, it is to take the proverbial.....which is not ironic.

Ah the personal comments (“bordering on obsessional”, and doubting my honesty. It didn’t take long.

ButtersSuki

ButtersSuki wrote: »

It’s actually not relevant, but you clearly can’t see it.

Just ignore all the facts and evidence I presented for you.
Have you ever seen a full JNLR book?
Did you look at any of the links I sent you?
Do you book/buy radio advertising?
Do you know what a rate card is?
Do you know that no one pays the rate card rate?

I could go on.


Or just show me one monetary advertising rate figure from any of the hundreds of JNLR books that exist. Most (if not all) are online.

I'm ignoring "facts" the have absolutely nothing to do with anything I have posted. Where have I claimed "monetary advertising rate figure" are on the actual JNLR surveys? That is coming from you. The data in the surveys is a key factor in determining the price of advertising. That is why the surveys are carried out. So what I originally said about "JNLR's are primarily to do with advertising" is correct.

southstar

Uncharted wrote: »

:pac: :pac:
BAAHHHHHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!!!

Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep

ButtersSuki

Ahwell wrote: »

I'm ignoring "facts" the have absolutely nothing to do with anything I have posted. Where have I claimed "monetary advertising rate figure" are on the actual JNLR surveys? That is coming from you. The data in the surveys is a key factor in determining the price of advertising. That is why the surveys are carried out. So what I originally said about "JNLR's are primarily to do with advertising" is correct.

You’re not. It’s primarily to do with audience numbers; any advertising rates based on those audience numbers is a secondary outcome.

ButtersSuki

ButtersSuki wrote: »

You’re not. It’s primarily to do with audience numbers; any advertising rates based on those audience numbers is a secondary outcome.

Which comes first the chicken or the egg?

southstar

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Firstly, I don’t actually think I’ve listened this year.

Secondly, if I were listening thinking this is quality radio and commenting negatively on it then yes, I agree that would be ironic. I do no such thing. On the occasions I do listen to it, it is to take the proverbial.....which is not ironic.

Ah the personal comments (“bordering on obsessional”, and doubting my honesty. It didn’t take long.

You comment liberally on a show you rarely listen to...?? I guess if the substantive nature of these comments is snide and personalised you don't really need to listen but please don't refer to the moderator when you feel victimised.. Its quite pathetic and manipulative.

ButtersSuki

Ahwell wrote: »

I'm ignoring "facts" the have absolutely nothing to do with anything I have posted. Where have I claimed "monetary advertising rate figure" are on the actual JNLR surveys? That is coming from you. The data in the surveys is a key factor in determining the price of advertising. That is why the surveys are carried out. So what I originally said about "JNLR's are primarily to do with advertising" is correct.

The introductory blurb from the latest JNLR - not a single mention of advertising in it. It's somewhat odd given that it's according to you the primary reason for such research. "Listenership" and "audience" feature prominently though funnily enough.


"The latest JNLR/Ipsos MRBI report into radio listening is published today (25th October 2018). It covers the 12-month period from October 2017 to September 2018... .

( MOD: That pointless wall of text, which nobody is going to read, has been deleted. Refer to the Report if anyone is interested. Please do not needlessly embolden or underline your text here. I'm doing it because I'm pointing out that it's disruptive to other users )


One might think a report commissioned quarterly where the primary focus was on advertising would mention trends in that industry, or increases or decreases in spend as a minimum perhaps? But alas, there is no mention of same. Isn't that bizarre? This from the BAI, who commission the JNLR.

But hey, just ignore my 20+ years of working in the industry and using these figures weekly and believe what you like if you prefer.

Here's another link for you that discusses measurement - and this is focused on advertising:
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/irish-radio-needs-radical-overhaul-to-counter-revenue-decline-say-media-agencies-1.3403203

It's a few years old at this stage but there are some interesting points in it.

As here:
http://purcellmasterson.com/people-still-listening-radio/

ButtersSuki

southstar wrote: »

You comment liberally on a show you rarely listen to...?? I guess if the substantive nature of these comments is snide and personalised you don't really need to listen but please don't refer to the moderator when you feel victimised.. Its quite pathetic and manipulative.

This started on a segment I listened to last Friday (actually listened to). It has morphed into a conversation about JNLRs.

Now I'm pathetic and manipulative? Classy.

ButtersSuki

Ahwell wrote: »

Which comes first the chicken or the egg?

The audience numbers.

Two things

Please stop getting personal, this includes people demanding that they be taken seriously because of real-world experience, which cannot be corroborated because this is an Internet forum, as well as people throwing around insults. If this continues, there will be cards.

Secondly, if anyone missed it, you are asked not to embolden or underline your posts without sufficient reason. It is disruptive when navigating threads, and we'd probably all prefer if people made their points calmly and constructively. The same goes for ctrl+v'ing walls of texts

FreudianSlippers

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Firstly, I don’t actually think I’ve listened this year.

Secondly, if I were listening thinking this is quality radio and commenting negatively on it then yes, I agree that would be ironic. I do no such thing. On the occasions I do listen to it, it is to take the proverbial.....which is not ironic.

Ah the personal comments (“bordering on obsessional”, and doubting my honesty. It didn’t take long.

ButtersSuki wrote: »

This started on a segment I listened to last Friday (actually listened to). It has morphed into a conversation about JNLRs.

Now I'm pathetic and manipulative? Classy.

I'm not a horologist, but I'm pretty sure last Friday was this year.

Uncharted

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not a horologist, but I'm pretty sure last Friday was this year.

For clarity....

In my opinion,I think the first quotation refers to liveline.

The second refers to lunchtime live.

ButtersSuki

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not a horologist, but I'm pretty sure last Friday was this year.

Oh dear.

You are correct that last Friday was this year. And last Friday I listened to the Ciara Kelly Show.

The show I was referring to that I hadn’t listened to this year however was Liveline.

FreudianSlippers

Uncharted wrote: »

For clarity....

In my opinion,I think the first quotation refers to liveline.

The second refers to lunchtime live.

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Oh dear.

You are correct that last Friday was this year. And last Friday I listened to the Ciara Kelly Show.

The show I was referring to that I hadn’t listened to this year however was Liveline.

One would have to be forgiven for thinking that posters were discussing Lunchtime Live in the Lunchtime Live thread. :rolleyes:
I have zero clue what Liveline has to do with this thread. They're not even on at the same time.

Uncharted

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

One would have to be forgiven for thinking that posters were discussing Lunchtime Live in the Lunchtime Live thread. :rolleyes:
I have zero clue what Liveline has to do with this thread. They're not even on at the same time.

Not wishing to take this further off topic, but if you read back through the last 2 to 3 pages,you will see how it veered off to liveline being discussed.

Is that clear enough now ?

FreudianSlippers

Uncharted wrote: »

Not wishing to take this further off topic, but if you read back through the last 2 to 3 pages,you will see how it veered off to liveline being discussed.

Is that clear enough now ?

I've read the thread. It's not clear how that discussion is in any way relevant to this thread.

Is that clear enough now?

FreudianSlippers

I think the newsreader just died.

False alarm: she's back.

Uncharted

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I've read the thread. It's not clear how that discussion is in any way relevant to this thread.

Is that clear enough now?

Really??? That's your input?

You and I both know that this thread is on the brink of being closed.

I made an honest attempt to be civil to you,as you obviously didn't know what was going on.

I don't know how you are capable of drawing"offense" from that.


Fair enough.

meeeeh

Do we have to listen to another whingfest about how hard nurses have it and how badly they are paid? There are not the only group that have it hard and it seems half of the country thinks they are some unpaid volunteers on the breadline.

As for the Liveline comment it was not clear to me it was about that and frankly I think someone is actively trying to get this thread locked with his posting.

FreudianSlippers

Uncharted wrote: »

Really??? That's your input?

You and I both know that this thread is on the brink of being closed.

I made an honest attempt to be civil to you,as you obviously didn't know what was going on.

I don't know how you are capable of drawing"offense" from that.


Fair enough.

I know perfectly well what's going on (and if you think repeatedly stating that I haven't read the thread and don't know what's going on is being "civil" then I'm not sure what you think being uncivil is?) - about 10+ posts talking about nonsense about JNLR and ratings of Liveline, whether people listen to Liveline, whether Liveline is good or not. It's all totally irrelevant to this thread and yet, for some unknown reason, you feel the need to defend the merits of this discussion to the thread.

I'm not sure how you continuing to drag this thread off topic by defending a discussion about Liveline and whether someone has listened to it is helping keep this thread open?

Uncharted

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I know perfectly well what's going on (and if you think repeatedly stating that I haven't read the thread and don't know what's going on is being "civil" then I'm not sure what you think being uncivil is?) - about 10+ posts talking about nonsense about JNLR and ratings of Liveline, whether people listen to Liveline, whether Liveline is good or not. It's all totally irrelevant to this thread and yet, for some unknown reason, you feel the need to defend the merits of this discussion to the thread.

I'm not sure how you continuing to drag this thread off topic by defending a discussion about Liveline and whether someone has listened to it is helping keep this thread open?

As you were....... i have no interest in jousting with you.

I'm here to participate in the thread. You should try to do the same.

tretorn

I read that the nurses want parity with physiotherapists and Radiographers and I cant see this happening.

If physios have always been paid more than nurses they will strike too if nurses pay catches up with theirs.

I would think physios courses are much more difficult than nurses courses the same way trainee dieticians courses are much more demanding than nurses courses.

Are we now to decide that everyone who goes to college and completes a four year degree course is to be paid the same. This means an Arts graduate should expect to start on the same salary as a trainee accountant, thats never going to happen.

Tell me how

tretorn wrote: »

I read that the nurses want parity with physiotherapists and Radiographers and I cant see this happening.

If physios have always been paid more than nurses they will strike too if nurses pay catches up with theirs.

I would think physios courses are much more difficult than nurses courses the same way trainee dieticians courses are much more demanding than nurses courses.

Are we now to decide that everyone who goes to college and completes a four year degree course is to be paid the same. This means an Arts graduate should expect to start on the same salary as a trainee accountant, thats never going to happen.

Claims seem to be made on a number of points

Parity with other degree courses
Unsociable hours
The difference their compassion and care makes to people at a vulnerable time
The fact that young nurses are leaving

I would like to see nurses on the wards earn more but I also don't think we can ignore the following.

They do not have the same level of decision making responsibility (ownership) as some of the degree professions they are seeking parity with.
Many people work unsociable hours and this was known before they selected this career.
Young people will often leave to have a trip, gain life experiences after college.
They work long days but short weeks.
Job security and pension benefits much greater than many workers
They signed up to a national pay deal and agreed that they would not make a claim for pay rises outside of the terms of the deal
Average earnings are 57K

This last point I cannot get away from. I know it seems there is a disparity and that many on the wards are not earning this but the money is in the nurses pot and there is something wrong if this is an average for all those who are classed as nurses and yet we still need to pay them more. If we do, this increase demand is for across the board rises, not just for new starters so it will increase the average to nearly 64K a year.

southstar

tretorn wrote: »

I read that the nurses want parity with physiotherapists and Radiographers and I cant see this happening.

If physios have always been paid more than nurses they will strike too if nurses pay catches up with theirs.

I would think physios courses are much more difficult than nurses courses the same way trainee dieticians courses are much more demanding than nurses courses.

Are we now to decide that everyone who goes to college and completes a four year degree course is to be paid the same. This means an Arts graduate should expect to start on the same salary as a trainee accountant, thats never going to happen.

I'm not sure that a trainee dietician/accountant could have a moral claim for higher wages than an arts graduate.. certainly for a qualified one of course.. and wages are generally set by the market rather than some notional worth attributed to the job. . hence the exodus of nurses to sunnier climes. By the way what is it that dieticians do that requires a lengthy course of study.. genuine question

meeeeh

southstar wrote: »

I'm not sure that a trainee dietician/accountant could have a moral claim for higher wages than an arts graduate.. certainly for a qualified one of course.. and wages are generally set by the market rather than some notional worth attributed to the job. . hence the exodus of nurses to sunnier climes. By the way what is it that dieticians do that requires a lengthy course of study.. genuine question

Just because Emirates are prepared to trample any vulnerable workers so the rest can live comfortable lifestyle I don't think Ireland should follow suit and get worse of private sector workers to cover more and more publuc sector demands. Especially before Brexit.

Anyway my problem with the phone ins is that it will be usually someone who was well treated by hospital nurses and will think they are underpaid no matter what. It's very emotional debate without any hard numbers.

Tell me how

meeeeh wrote: »

Just because Emirates are prepared to trample any vulnerable workers so the rest can live comfortable lifestyle I don't think Ireland should follow suit and get worse of private sector workers to cover more and more publuc sector demands. Especially before Brexit.

Anyway my problem with the phone ins is that it will be usually someone who was well treated by hospital nurses and will think they are underpaid no matter what. It's very emotional debate without any hard numbers.

I suppose the argument is that anyone is free to phone in.
Someone who disagrees with the nurses pay claim could do so but probably is less likely to.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

I suppose the argument is that anyone is free to phone in.
Someone who disagrees with the nurses pay claim could do so but probably is less likely to.

The only poll I can find on the issue suggests the majority of people are actually in favour of the nurses action.

A Claire Byrne Live/ TheJournal.ie poll of 1,000 adults by Amárach Research found huge support for the nurses' action, with 74 percent of participants expressing agreement with the 24-hour strike.

Only 17 percent said no, while 9 percent were unsure.

meeeeh

There will always be a majority in favour of nurses. Anyway even if you are against of strike as I am, most of us are not informed enough to comment on dispute with any authority. I want to clarify UEA comment I just don't think they are something we should strive to. I know some type of workers are able to earn huge money there and I don't blame them but as a society I don't think it's something we should strive to. We can't and shouldn't compete with them.

ButtersSuki

It really depends on how the question is asked.

If one were to ask:

"Do you support the nurses in their decision to strike?", then you'd get the large % of positive answers confirming same.

However, if you were to ask:

"Do you support the nurses in their decision to strike knowing that should they be successful in their claim will ultimately result in similar strike action across other branches of the public service, with the net result being widespread disruption across other services and ultimately an increase in taxes to fund same?", then I would posit you'd get a very different response.