That Arbitron is - and always has been - a flawed process of collecting data.Elephant said:What's wrong here?
Oldies Cat said:A little reminder to my radio brethren that stations don't really "go up" and "go down". Each ratings period is a separate, independent measurement of listening in a given market. They don't take the same X number of people and poll them continuously. While Arbitron isn't close to being perfect, they almost never give the same people diaries for consectutive books, much less in consecutive years.
So, a station can appear that it's lost 40% of it's 25-54 men when, in truth, one measurement had them at a 10 share, the next a 6- the next one after that might be an 8. It's why smart sellers often use four book averages vs. living/dying book to book.
WyllyWylly said:You can't seriously be comparing political opinion polls to Arbitron ratings. Are you? It's not the same ballgame - it's not even the same sport. Arbitron's ratings methods are poor at best... send a diary and a dollar out to a small group of randomly chosen folks, hope that they fill it out correctly... and then hope that they send it back. If they don't, fudge the numbers based on previous ratings periods. And stations pay top dollar for this crap because they have to.
Arbitron numbers are kind of like going to a shopping mall, looking around, and saying "there's sure a lot of people here. I bet there's 300 walking around." The PPM may help that, but it's going to bring its own set of problems, and it's a long way off in this market.
What I don't understand is why there's no competition for Arbitron. They're a lot like ASCAP... a market bully, and you pay for the product because you have no alternative.
titoisradio said:Oldies Cat said:A little reminder to my radio brethren that stations don't really "go up" and "go down". Each ratings period is a separate, independent measurement of listening in a given market. They don't take the same X number of people and poll them continuously. While Arbitron isn't close to being perfect, they almost never give the same people diaries for consectutive books, much less in consecutive years.
So, a station can appear that it's lost 40% of it's 25-54 men when, in truth, one measurement had them at a 10 share, the next a 6- the next one after that might be an 8. It's why smart sellers often use four book averages vs. living/dying book to book.
That's a good spin on things, though the sample should match the universe thus you should be able to accurately say that the audience went up/down compared to the last ratings period.
Your philosophy would mean that Bush's popularity really hasn't gone down since they don't take the same number of people and poll them continuously. When I had access to the book I don't remember seeing it published but does anyone know what Arbitron's margin of error is?
Oldies Cat said:titoisradio said:Oldies Cat said:A little reminder to my radio brethren that stations don't really "go up" and "go down". Each ratings period is a separate, independent measurement of listening in a given market. They don't take the same X number of people and poll them continuously. While Arbitron isn't close to being perfect, they almost never give the same people diaries for consectutive books, much less in consecutive years.
So, a station can appear that it's lost 40% of it's 25-54 men when, in truth, one measurement had them at a 10 share, the next a 6- the next one after that might be an 8. It's why smart sellers often use four book averages vs. living/dying book to book.
That's a good spin on things, though the sample should match the universe thus you should be able to accurately say that the audience went up/down compared to the last ratings period.
Your philosophy would mean that Bush's popularity really hasn't gone down since they don't take the same number of people and poll them continuously. When I had access to the book I don't remember seeing it published but does anyone know what Arbitron's margin of error is?
It's not spin- if you use the President as an example, his "4-book average" has been pretty low for most of the past 3-4 years. My point is the book-to-book overreaction we often see; if you see big gains or big losses over a number of books/years, you can draw tons of conclusions.
titoisradio said:WyllyWylly said:You can't seriously be comparing political opinion polls to Arbitron ratings. Are you? It's not the same ballgame - it's not even the same sport. Arbitron's ratings methods are poor at best... send a diary and a dollar out to a small group of randomly chosen folks, hope that they fill it out correctly... and then hope that they send it back. If they don't, fudge the numbers based on previous ratings periods. And stations pay top dollar for this crap because they have to.
Arbitron numbers are kind of like going to a shopping mall, looking around, and saying "there's sure a lot of people here. I bet there's 300 walking around." The PPM may help that, but it's going to bring its own set of problems, and it's a long way off in this market.
What I don't understand is why there's no competition for Arbitron. They're a lot like ASCAP... a market bully, and you pay for the product because you have no alternative.
Point taken.
Sounds about like political polls, call a small group of randomly chosen folks asking them questions that the pollster hopes they understand or in automated polls, hope they meant to press 2 and not one.
Plus my point wasn't to applaud arbitron for the great scientific research, it was just to disagree with your statement you can't compare book to book because it was different people in the sample. Every poll does statistical sampling, including political polls.
watchingcincinnati said:Always excuses.
titoisradio said:Oldies Cat said:A little reminder to my radio brethren that stations don't really "go up" and "go down". Each ratings period is a separate, independent measurement of listening in a given market. They don't take the same X number of people and poll them continuously. While Arbitron isn't close to being perfect, they almost never give the same people diaries for consectutive books, much less in consecutive years.
So, a station can appear that it's lost 40% of it's 25-54 men when, in truth, one measurement had them at a 10 share, the next a 6- the next one after that might be an 8. It's why smart sellers often use four book averages vs. living/dying book to book.
That's a good spin on things, though the sample should match the universe thus you should be able to accurately say that the audience went up/down compared to the last ratings period.
Your philosophy would mean that Bush's popularity really hasn't gone down since they don't take the same number of people and poll them continuously. When I had access to the book I don't remember seeing it published but does anyone know what Arbitron's margin of error is?
Have fun working for free.
DJJack1 said:Oh I might be kidding....but really nobody knows for sure, do they? Certainly not Arbitron.
Since I started my show one year ago, I've knocked Jim LaBarbara off the air and forced Gary Burbank into retirement. I had NO idea our tiny little station had such power. It sometimes frightens me.
on what station?
and for the humor-impaired amongst us, I am kidding about LaBarbara and Burbank.
DJJack1 said:Oh I might be kidding....but really nobody knows for sure, do they? Certainly not Arbitron.
Since I started my show one year ago, I've knocked Jim LaBarbara off the air and forced Gary Burbank into retirement. I had NO idea our tiny little station had such power. It sometimes frightens me.
Have fun working for free.
I'm having a blast....thanks!!!
No...but we KNOW...from reading the book that men. in general were way undersampled and that can cause such a problem.
Dream on...
and for the humor-impaired amongst us, I am kidding about LaBarbara and Burbank.
KevinFodor said:titoisradio said:Oldies Cat said:A little reminder to my radio brethren that stations don't really "go up" and "go down". Each ratings period is a separate, independent measurement of listening in a given market. They don't take the same X number of people and poll them continuously. While Arbitron isn't close to being perfect, they almost never give the same people diaries for consectutive books, much less in consecutive years.
So, a station can appear that it's lost 40% of it's 25-54 men when, in truth, one measurement had them at a 10 share, the next a 6- the next one after that might be an 8. It's why smart sellers often use four book averages vs. living/dying book to book.
That's a good spin on things, though the sample should match the universe thus you should be able to accurately say that the audience went up/down compared to the last ratings period.
Your philosophy would mean that Bush's popularity really hasn't gone down since they don't take the same number of people and poll them continuously. When I had access to the book I don't remember seeing it published but does anyone know what Arbitron's margin of error is?
Yes, Tito:
But the problem with the hypothetical poll you suggest is that the survey company is talking to "actual" people.
They don't take one person who says "Bush sucks"...and count them as 10, because they can't find enough people to survey.
That's the problem with Arbitron today. Response rates are plummeting and the "weighting" being given to the remaining diaries is causing wild swings in what's tabulated in the book.
And it ain't just in Dayton...or Cincy...or Columbus. It's everywhere these days. And, I happen to be aware that just about every major broadcasting company in America is watching this very closely.