ARBITRON LOSES ALL CREDIBILITY - TIME TO UNSUBSCRIBE

[joshzz]

If you have checked out the latest ratings in Atlantic City and some other markets, you will note that any company that didn't pay to Arbitron is not listed. This means (in Atlantic City, NJ) all Longport stations, the WIBG group and Coastal broadcasting, are not listed in the public information chart.

For ratings go to : http://www.******************


Basically what it means is that Arbitron ratings are now absolutely meaningless. At least half of the stations that are listed are fringe signal, Philly stations.

This is definitely a game changer. Arbitron may think they are going to effectively pressure stations into become subscribers by this action but it's going to backfire. Non-subscribing stations would do well to broadcast public service announcements warning listeners that it would not be worth their time to fill out Arbitron diaries because this station is not a subscriber and the data does not count. In fact half the stations inthe market are now excluded so instead of wasting one's time it would be best to throw out the diary. These stations should also inform the public that the reason they are not subscribers is because the cost of subscribing would cost the job of at least one or more employees. The PSA should state that the owner of this station has chosen to provide you the listener the best, quality programming at all times and will not sacrifice quality for a fee service that is obviously flawed.

Unbelievable! Arbitron's behavior is utterly disgraceful..

 

[Casey]

Hasn't this practice been going on for a while now?

 

[TomT]

Yes, and it is irrelevant. Arbitron caters to the agencies. The agencies want age & gender (and in certain markets, minority) demographics. The 12+ horse race is of little importance.

 

[borderblaster]

The agencies have the info. The non-subscribing stations don't get to publish it or use it. They aren't able to use Arbitron's tools like Maximizer. Of course, I worked for a rimshot non-subscriber before and that's what we told local clients, that we couldn't justify the expense and we'd rather use the money for programming.

 

[joshzz]

This practice has not occurred until now. As a radio station owner in the market, I was extremely disappointed that Arbitron has taken a position that it is really all about money.

This means in all markets throughout the country, Arbitron will be enforcing a new policy of pay or you won't get the general market info which until now was public information.

I expect a lawsuit or as I mentioned backlash from non-subscribing stations.

If you are an owner in an Arbitron rated market and a non-subscriber would especially like to hear your input.

 

[Chuck]

Not many of the stations in my market (including mine) are subscribers. It simply isn't worth the high cost of the information. Most of our sponsors actually listen to our station and assume that other like-minded people do as well. The best news is our sponsors tell us that their spots actually produce results, so ratings, especially for my format (standards and oldies), are largely irrelevant.

 

[borderblaster]

Again, the agencies have all the info on every station in the market. Do you expect Arbitron to allow unlimited use of its data by everyone for free?

 

[joshzz]

borderblaster you wrote:"Again, the agencies have all the info on every station in the market. Do you expect Arbitron to allow unlimited use of its data by everyone for free?"


That's not the point. The general rating information for a particular market was always available for as long as Arbitron has existed. Whether or not a particular radio station subscribed to Arbitron the information was available on sites like ****************** Remember, we are talking about general market information not the specific break down information as per hour or day.

Also agencies weren't the only groups looking at the general info. Station owners including myself, potential station buyers/sellers, brokers, etc., all used the general info.

 

[davideduardo]

Unbelievable! Arbitron's behavior is utterly disgraceful..

The ratings are Arbitron's property. If they find that stations that are not subscribed are making use of ratings information or even using printouts of published reports they can do whatever they want to protect the interests of the stations that subscribe to the surveys.

What you are seeing is the absence of data for unsubscribed stations in the 12+ data released to the press. 12+ data is of nearly zero value for the sale of advertising, as advertisers who buy based on ratings generally buy nothing under 18 and nothing over 55.

Potential buyers and such can get information through subscriptions to BIA that will guide them in evaluating a station. The general public just won't get full data because stations that are not subscribed have been increasingly prone to stealing copyright data. Arbitron long has had the procedure of putting a total embargo on markets where data is being misused... this is just another way of dealing with those who want costly data without paying for it.

The principal users of Arbitron data are ad agencies and more sophisticated in-house agencies at large clients. Those companies get the full data for a very low cost, and Arbitron gets most of its revenue from radio stations that subscribe. It's unfair that the subscribers take on the burden of non-subscribed stations beyond the fact that those stations are listed in the agency "tapes" (old term still used) that go to the buyers.

 

[quadraphonic]

Hey Josh can I rebroadcast LIFT FM in my neighborhood, but take out all the announcements and times where yall talk and replace it with profanity-laced tirades about, say, your mom?

If you want Arbitron information, then you have to subscribe to Arbitron.
Arbitron is largely irrelevant in the big scheme of most markets, as has been said.
Why give value to something, if it's so clear to you that they do not value you (as a non-subscriber)?

 

[TomT]

However, there is a potential legal issue where Arbitron releases 12+ information to the public/press but redacts any information about non-subscribing stations. Gives the false impression that those non-subscribing stations have no audience.

 

[joshzz]

quadraphonic, No offense but you don't seem to get point of the argument.

 

[tophour]

This practice has not occurred until now.

It's been happening in various markets for the past several years.

As a radio station owner in the market, I was extremely disappointed that Arbitron has taken a position that it is really all about money.

You thought Arbitron, a for-profit business, was doing this for something other than money?

This means in all markets throughout the country, Arbitron will be enforcing a new policy of pay or you won't get the general market info which until now was public information.

Demonstrably false. Just today, Radio-Info and other sites published the market ratings for Appleton-Oshkosh and Green Bay, Wisconsin. In both of those markets, the only subscriber is Midwest Communications, yet you'll notice that their main competitors -- Cumulus and Woodward Communications -- are listed, despite not being subscribers.

I expect a lawsuit or as I mentioned backlash from non-subscribing stations.

On what grounds?

 

[davideduardo]

However, there is a potential legal issue where Arbitron releases 12+ information to the public/press but redacts any information about non-subscribing stations. Gives the false impression that those non-subscribing stations have no audience.

If they say "this is a list of the subscribing stations only" how would they be at fault?

 

[davideduardo]

I expect a lawsuit or as I mentioned backlash from non-subscribing stations.

On what grounds?

The nonsubscribing stations will boycott Arbitron.

Oh, I forgot, they already are.

 

[TomT]

The argument that could be made is that Arbitron has damaged the business prospects of the non-subscribing stations by releasing just the ratings for the subscribing stations. Thereby inferring that those non-subscribing stations have no audience.

If all stations 12+ are listed, then little argument. If the report is only released to subscribers, again no argument.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Embargoing markets has been practice for at least a decade now.

Josh, its exactly your attitude that Arbitron is trying to counter by embargoing the ratings in your market. It might even be because of your sales staff, if they use the published ratings in their flyers.

Tom, if your newspaper prints every quarter that your station has no audience, and your sales staff couldn't prove otherwise, it would be one good reason to subscribe, wouldn't it?

 

[quadraphonic]

quadraphonic, No offense but you don't seem to get point of the argument.

Arbitron long ago set some rules for the product they are providing, that you don't pay for, but want to use.
I was just asking you to set some rules when I go to using your free content in the future.
Just so I don't say that you've lost credibility because you're following the rules you established....

 

[TomT]

Have three stations, two in a rated market. Newspaper ignores radio, so not a problem.

We do have one station in an unrated market that shows up in the surrounding counties, but not county of market, in the county by county book. Despite being right on top of the county seat. Just game playing by Arbitron--not enough business there to be worth paying them off; no-one really takes the county by county seriously in the agencies that are actually interested in this particular small market.

 

[SirRoxalot]

I don't understand why anyone thinks that they have a "right" to any information that they didn't create, was created by a private company who copyrights the information, and that the "offended" party refuses to pay for. You want it? You buy it. Arbitron chooses to release overall numbers for people who pay for ratings, and not for people who don't. That's pretty simple, isn't it?