• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

A question about Arbitron

S

Spindoctor

Guest
Radio Folks,
Someone please talk to me like I am 4 years old.
Why is it that Arbitron charges a butt load for the
book to stations and yet my local paper can get their
permission to print the results for nada.
No, the dayparts are not printed; but doesn't this
cause anyone else to say hmmmmmm?
The Spindoctor
 
> Someone please talk to me like I am 4 years old.

Okay.

First, please get your toys up out of the living room floor, somebody is going to trip & break their neck if you don't.

It's because Arbitron is a for-profit business, their primary objective is to make money.

It's also because allowing the media access gives them free publicity, theoretically enhancing their return rate (among other things). Every time those things are in the newspaper, they get a nice chunk of free advertising which works toward branding the company. Less obvious perhaps is the way it works on the people in the radio business, especially non-subscribers. Arbitron's profile with the public goes up, the importance of the numbers goes up with the general public, increasing the pressue on those non-subscribers to pay to get the details that might give them a better shot at increasing their own numbers.

Bottom line, it's all about the money.
 
> > Someone please talk to me like I am 4 years old.
>
> Okay.
>
> First, please get your toys up out of the living room floor,
> somebody is going to trip & break their neck if you don't.
>
> It's because Arbitron is a for-profit business, their
> primary objective is to make money.
>
> It's also because allowing the media access gives them free
> publicity, theoretically enhancing their return rate (among
> other things). Every time those things are in the
> newspaper, they get a nice chunk of free advertising which
> works toward branding the company. Less obvious perhaps is
> the way it works on the people in the radio business,
> especially non-subscribers. Arbitron's profile with the
> public goes up, the importance of the numbers goes up with
> the general public, increasing the pressue on those
> non-subscribers to pay to get the details that might give
> them a better shot at increasing their own numbers.
>
> Bottom line, it's all about the money.
>

Then I guess Arbitron doesn't see any advantages to also making the County by County books public. It's not like stations can take those numbers out on the street without paying for the privilege. Even though this annual method is somewhat unreliable, the ratings can at least provide some sort of picture for small market situations.
 
> Then I guess Arbitron doesn't see any advantages to also
> making the County by County books public.

I'd say you're exactly right ... because those numbers aren't capable of generating the benefits mentioned above on the same scale as the generic-but-larger Metro numbers.

> the ratings can at least provide some sort of picture for small market
> situations.

Agreed, but Arbitron is not a non-profit/public service business, so that's really not their problem (nor should it be). And that's coming from someone who seriously HATES writing them a check on a regular basis.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by middlega on 08/12/05 01:10 PM.</FONT></P>
 
It amazes me that since they are basically the only game in town (SO TO SPEAK)
they inflate the price of their service.
If I were to do a 2 day phone poll on a generic line, I guarantee the numbers
would come up differently. It's a shame that Arbitron could only get 1300 dairies in this market when the norm is 2000. The lack of participation shows me that the system is flawed.
Wait, wait, wait, is this sour grapes? No not really since the only conglomerate in my market that buys Arb is Clear Channel. The numbers here are so damn skewed it's not even funny. Daytimers are given higher numbers and so on and so forth blah, blah, blah. Personally, the system needs an overhaul.
Where's my sippy cup, it's time for Barney.
The Spindoctor

Middlega, did you get my email?


> > Then I guess Arbitron doesn't see any advantages to also
> > making the County by County books public.
>
> I'd say you're exactly right ... because those numbers
> aren't capable of generating the benefits mentioned above on
> the same scale as the generic-but-larger Metro numbers.
>
> > the ratings can at least provide some sort of picture for
> small market
> > situations.
>
> Agreed, but Arbitron is not a non-profit/public service
> business, so that's really not their problem (nor should it
> be). And that's coming from someone who seriously HATES
> writing them a check on a regular basis.
>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Spindoctor on 08/12/05 02:11 PM.</FONT></P>
 
> It amazes me that since they are basically the only game in
> town (SO TO SPEAK) they inflate the price of their service.

Umm ... I don't know why that should "amaze" you, that's business.
I can certainly understand "frustrate" you, but not "amaze".

> If I were to do a 2 day phone poll on a generic line, I
> guarantee the numbers would come up differently.

Maybe so, but even having the tiniest bit of experience with private surveys like that tells me that you aren't assured of being happier with those results.

> No not really since the only conglomerate in my market that buys Arb is Clear
> Channel.

Typically that sort of statement suggests a belief that those who buy the book get the numbers (heck, I often believe that myself), but I'm not really sure if that's what you're trying to say or not.

Either way, in the case of the Asheville Metro, I'm not sure that's going to be the case, since 3 of the top 10 12+ are non-profits. It's also the first market I've ever looked at (I normally see about 10-20 markets a year) where the "XLP-FM" actually shows up in the book too.

Honestly, thinking about the market demographics, looking at the available stations in the market, looking at the performance of various formats, considering what I've seen over about 20 years worth of books ... my impression is that the Asheville Metro numbers are probably about as close to accurate as anywhere I've seen (possibly damning with faint praise) -- bottom line is that they come pretty close to passing the "sniff test", I don't see much in them that doesn't make sense.

> Middlega, did you get my email?

And yes, I did get it, just been running back & forth around here lately ... and trying to figure out the best way to phrase a reply that probably isn't the one you wanted to hear ;)
 
Picture this business plan. I pay well into six figures every year for Arbitron to survey my market. Other clusters do likewise.

My customers (agencies) pay a couple of hundred bucks for exactly the same information.

My customers then take what is by all rights my information (I subsidized it), then take this information I paid for and beat me over the head with it to lower my rates and get all kind of value added.

Then I pay them fifteen percent for the privilege of having them beat me up.

On the other hand the newspapers pay a company once a year to come count how many papers they print. They then multiply that by 2.3 based on some twenty year old research on how many people read a single paper. Agencies accept this figure gladly and get no agency commission.

Are we a screwed up business or what?
 
> My customers (agencies) pay a couple of hundred bucks for
> exactly the same information.

True enough ... IF it's an agency dealing with a single market.
The disparity isn't nearly as stark if you consider how many markets agencies deal with. (Don't get me wrong, I've been on both sides & the current model sticks the stations while the agencies get off _much_ more lightly ... but it isn't quite the way you painted it either).

> Agencies accept this figure gladly and get no agency commission.

Umm, there's always commission, it's just figured differently (added on at the agency side). Don't like the 15%? Then adjust your rates accordingly, if your CPM's can handle it. Problem is, many stations are already overpriced per impression.
 
> True enough ... IF it's an agency dealing with a single
> market.
> The disparity isn't nearly as stark if you consider how many
> markets agencies deal with.

OK, so an agency buying 30 markets is paying a few thousand dollars for research that radio stations ponied up millions of dollars for. It's still a scam.


> Umm, there's always commission, it's just figured
> differently (added on at the agency side).

The difference is that when you buy newspaper, the client pays the agency commission. When they buy radio (or magazines, billboards, TV...we're not alone) the media pays the agency commission.

Again, we pay them fifteen percent to use our research to beat us up.

And then they nag, nag, nag because our research isn't good enough for them. See the people meter. Agencies are clamoring for it. But who's gonna pay more for it?
 
> The difference is that when you buy newspaper, the client
> pays the agency commission. When they buy radio (or
> magazines, billboards, TV...we're not alone) the media pays
> the agency commission.

Only because of the way the rates are set up by the two different types of media. The cost to the client is what ultimately what matters. And any station who has a problem with the commission is welcome to simply turn down the agency money or just do what a few stations out there still do -- who quote their rates net.

> Again, we pay them fifteen percent to use our research to beat us up.

Having been on both sides of that particular fence, I'd suggest that it's less about "beating you up" than it is about "settling on what's true".
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom