Arbirton's HD audience numbers

[diymedia]

From the March 2013 RADAR report news release:

"A new feature in the RADAR 116 March 2013 report is the inclusion of listening metrics for HD multicasts and AM/FM/HD streaming stations. The data shows that radio is using new platforms effectively to reach more listeners. According to the RADAR March 2012 report [think this is a typo], HD multicasts reach nearly 3.6 million persons aged 12 and older. Streams of AM/FM/HD radio also reach a broad audience. More than 5.4 million persons aged 12 and older tune into AM/FM/HD streams during an average week. Adults aged 18 to 49 make up the majority of this audience, with more than 3.5 million people in this demographic accessing streaming AM/FM/HD stations in an average week."

Not sure what they mean by "streams," but the multicast number caught my eye. Question is, how many of those listeners are directly sampling the HD2 or 3 versus listening to it online or via an analog translator?

 

[KB1OKL]

From the March 2013 RADAR report news release:
HD multicasts reach nearly 3.6 million persons aged 12 and older.

When they say "HD multicasts reach nearly 3.6 million persons" do they mean people are actually listening or that the waves are passing over their heads in the air? I find it incredible that 3.6 million people are listening to HD radio.

 

[spunker88]

Is the reach number based on number of HD Radios sold? As far as people actually tuning into the HD channels I wonder if people in the survey see the HD logo on their radio or hear the HD callsign used in the station identification and assume they are listening in HD even though its still analog.

 

[davideduardo]

in an average week."

Question is, how many of those listeners are directly sampling the HD2 or 3 versus listening to it online or via an analog translator?

An analog translator for an HD2 (HD3 or HD4) is treated as an automatic single line reported simulcast since FCC rules do not allow separate translator programming. So, as with all SLR reported multicasts, there is no breakout of listening to the HD signal or the translator.

Logic says that most of the listening is to the analog translator. I do not believe an HD that does not have a translator has ever showed in a local market report, so my conclusion is that very, very little listening is to the HD signals.

 

[local oscillator]

diy - great question, and David - great answer. The RADAR Report is disingenuous, misleading, or both. "HD multicasts reach nearly 3.6 million persons aged 12 and older" may indeed be true, but those persons were reached via analog translator or internet stream. It's amazing the lengths to which some organizations will go to continue propping up the HD Radio corpse. We could start calling HD Radio "Bernie" for short! ;D

 

[Kmagrill]

Probably, the answer is skewed to some degree by analog translators, but most HD signals do not have acompanying analog translators (though some certainly do). In our market there are seven HD channels besides the HD-1 channels. None are on translators and only the two NPR signals are available as Internet streams.

There are 300 million people in the US, so 3 million is about a 1% penetration for all HD formats combined. That seems pretty believable, and not really great penetration for a medium that's now more than 10 years in the field.

 

[davideduardo]

diy - great question, and David - great answer. The RADAR Report is disingenuous, misleading, or both. "HD multicasts reach nearly 3.6 million persons aged 12 and older" may indeed be true, but those persons were reached via analog translator or internet stream. It's amazing the lengths to which some organizations will go to continue propping up the HD Radio corpse. We could start calling HD Radio "Bernie" for short! ;D

Arbitron is just applying the FCC's terminology. Since an HD subchannel's translator can not originate programming, then the HD "station" itself is the originator of the multicast (or simulcast) is the "lead station" and thus the one listed in any ratings report.

The 3.6 million figure would be the unduplicated cume for all the multicasts, combined.

 

[tomservo]

Frankly, I would find it surprising that all the translators fed by HD stations together would equal 3.6 million listeners. That just seems a little high. I would be surprised if there were more than 100 regular listeners to pure HD streams off the air in the entire country.

 

[Savage]

In any case, the issue is not how many HD stations have analog translators - it's how many people are listening, and specifically to which outlets they are listening, whether it's the translator, the originating HD signal (AM or FM) or web stream. If there are 3.5 million people listening to HD "streams" or "formats" that utterly fails to make the case that 3.5 million people are actually listening to "HD Radio."

I personally find the argument that HD Radio has 3.5 million actual listeners, laughable... :

 

[Kmagrill]

Well, the test would be pretty simple. Find some HD2 or 3 formats that show up in the ratings somewhere and see what shares they are getting.

Does anyone know how many HD table radios, walkmans and aftermarket car tuners have been sold? That number give an idea of how many people were willing to invest in the receiving the technology.

 

[Kmagrill]

Well, the test would be pretty simple. Find some HD2 or 3 formats that show up in the ratings somewhere and see what shares they are getting.

Correction: That should have said: Find some HD2 or 3 formats that show up in the ratings somewhere, that have no auxiliary outlets like translators, and see what shares they are getting. Internet streams don't impress me much because it's difficult to aggregate enough local listeners and the cost per listener is just too expensive to have a significant ratings effect.

 

[Savage]

No, sorry, Kmagrill - those are both false conclusions. We've already seen that the ratings fail to allocate listening to the actual source for the audience estimates* - listening to the originating HD station and analog translators are lumped together. If the HD station streams and claims Arbitron credit for a 100% duplicating stream, that audience gets added as well. There is no way to determine the actual audience to "HD Radio," e.g., the original digital broadcast via IBOC.

Similarly, tabulation of the number of HD Radios sold proves nothing. It just proves how many people went into a store about bought one of them (in many cases at steeply discounted prices.) Nobody knows if those radios are ever powered up.

* - a synonym for "estimate" is......"guess."

 

[Savage]

In point of fact: I would be willing to wager anyone a nice steak dinner on this proposition.

With the exception of the very largest markets - we're talking NYC, LA, Chicago et al - when you take radio station personnel such as engineers out of the calculation, I would bet that for long stretches of the broadcast day, the audience for HD Radio's actual digital on-air signals is precisely...zero.

 

[K6JHU]

I assume here we are talking about HD2 and HD3. HD1 is impossible to separate out (especially if the digital and analog are synchronized properly).

And it wouldn't surprise me to find that there is a higher HD2 listening rate in smaller markets where NPR has put the classical and jazz on HD2.

 

[diymedia]

Does anyone know how many HD table radios, walkmans and aftermarket car tuners have been sold? That number give an idea of how many people were willing to invest in the receiving the technology.

According to iBiquity, "more than 10 million" HD receivers have been sold, with the majority of those sales occurring in the last three or so years.

 

[Savage]

Yeah. I'm sure that includes HD-capable car receivers which happen to have the HD chip. And most people drive around either (a) clueless that they have HD capability and/or (b) drive around with HD defeated to obviate reception problems, or both.

 

[local oscillator]

Have you noticed that iBiquity's dog-and-pony-show endlessly touts numbers for receivers, car models, stations, side-channels, etc. -- all on the "transmission" side of the equation; but never users, listeners, ratings, etc, -- on the "reception" side of the equation? Why? Because there are so few. The store shelves may be well-stocked, but the consumers just aren't buying. I think that the only ones left believing in Struble's smoke and mirrors are the brass at CBS and, well, Struble. And perhaps not even Struble. He may be just trying to keep a paycheck coming in for a while, until he can find another gig.

 

[davideduardo]

Frankly, I would find it surprising that all the translators fed by HD stations together would equal 3.6 million listeners. That just seems a little high.

To put this in perspective, the total cume for HD / Translator multicasts is about 1,000,000 persons less than the cume for WLTW, New York.

There are quite a few multicasts that are getting very decent ratings in large markets, so an aggregate cume of 3.6 million is not hard to believe.

 

[davideduardo]

Have you noticed that iBiquity's dog-and-pony-show endlessly touts numbers for receivers, car models, stations, side-channels, etc. -- all on the "transmission" side of the equation; but never users, listeners, ratings, etc, -- on the "reception" side of the equation? Why?

Why? Because equipment and technology providers don't guarantee listening. That is mostly the responsibility of programming and promotion.

You don't see Harris or Nautel saying "All these #1 station use our transmitters..."

 

[Kmagrill]

No, sorry, Kmagrill - those are both false conclusions. We've already seen that the ratings fail to allocate listening to the actual source for the audience estimates* - listening to the originating HD station and analog translators are lumped together.

That's why I specifically proposed checking the ratings for stations that have no other outlets than HD. In our top 100 market, four of the seven HD streams have no Internet or translator presence. Also, even for stations with Internet streams, I'd be willing to bet that for the majority of stations, Internet streaming numbers are insignificant, even compared to potential numbers for received HD broadcasts. Internet streams are typically measured in the hundreds, or less, for most stations at any given moment. Huge numbers are a few thousand, and many of those listeners will not be local and therefore not measured in the ratings. This is because there's no such thing as a true Internet broadcast. Each stream is a home run to a server and each takes up a slice of available bandwidth. When all the bandwidth is used, there is no more room for more clients, or the server has to add more bandwidth at a greater cost to the station. Because Internet broadcasting's cost model is bandwidth based, the cost goes up as the listener count does. For this reason streams are self limiting. They have to be or else they would drive the owners broke. This is also one reason why many stations have moved away from 'netcasting in recent years.