-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Arbitron PPM at college radio?
- Thread starter aaronread
- Start date
Pretty sure they did, seeing as the little WGAO in Franklin has made appearances in the books. As far as I understand, Arbitron is very helpful in the process; I'm working to get one coordinated for a college station I'm involved with in a market that's going PPM later this year - though that station is a 10,000 watt signal.
The ones with enough listeners (err, listeners with meters) are in there....
http://www.radio-info.com/site/markets/grid/boston
http://www.radio-info.com/site/markets/grid/boston
WMBR does not yet have PPM. They say they may get it someday, but since they are really not concerned about Arbitron ratings, it hasn't seemed worth it for them to invest in the equipment so far.
I don't know for sure, but I don't think that WZBC, WMFO, WMWM, WBRS or WRBB have it either, and I'm guessing that those stations probably feel the same way.
Under the old diary system, WMBR and WZBC used to average about a 0.1 share. The stations with signals that only covered a portion of the market such as WMFO, WMWM, WBRS, WRBB were always below 0.1. Why should these stations invest in buying and then maintaining the equipment just to see these small numbers?
As a longtime staff member of WMBR, I can say that they feel no need to attempt to maximize their ratings. They do very well with their annual on-air fundraiser, it more than covers their expenses, maintenance, and upkeep as an all-volunteer operation. Their programming is all niche and specialty shows, and the station often completely changes format every two hours. That produces a number of different "cult followings" who tune in for, and passionately support, their favorite shows, but it's not favorable to overall Arbitron ratings, which take TSL (Time Spent Listening) into account, etc... Unlike majorly "single-format" college stations that actually pursue Arbitron ratings with the same or similar programming all day (such as WERS), only a small amount of listeners are multi-genre adventurous enough to leave a station like WMBR on all day long outside of their favorite specialty shows. And, that's the way they choose to program it, to give as many MIT students and community volunteers as possible the chance to present unique and truly diverse programming, which always yields more than sufficient fundraising support for them as the modest operation that they are.
WZBC has more of their weekday schedule devoted to "block" programming than WMBR, but that programming is intentionally extremely eclectic in the alt-rock and experimental avant-garde music veins, and is also not intended to draw Arbitron ratings. Again, they seem to get by just fine, only needing to fundraise on-air one week every other year.
WGAO actually covers a good chunk of ground in the Boston outer metro southwest suburbs and south central MA, and they are largely formatted like an aspiring commercial station. Like WERS, they sound like they are concerned with pursuing Arbitron ratings, and they are showing up. I wish them luck and more power to them, but stations like WMBR, WZBC, WMFO, WBRS, etc... choose to march to a different drummer that is not necessarily mass appeal and ratings-friendly even in the non-comm realm, and in my opinion (and in those of their supportive "cult followings" of listeners), thank goodness that they do!
I don't know for sure, but I don't think that WZBC, WMFO, WMWM, WBRS or WRBB have it either, and I'm guessing that those stations probably feel the same way.
Under the old diary system, WMBR and WZBC used to average about a 0.1 share. The stations with signals that only covered a portion of the market such as WMFO, WMWM, WBRS, WRBB were always below 0.1. Why should these stations invest in buying and then maintaining the equipment just to see these small numbers?
As a longtime staff member of WMBR, I can say that they feel no need to attempt to maximize their ratings. They do very well with their annual on-air fundraiser, it more than covers their expenses, maintenance, and upkeep as an all-volunteer operation. Their programming is all niche and specialty shows, and the station often completely changes format every two hours. That produces a number of different "cult followings" who tune in for, and passionately support, their favorite shows, but it's not favorable to overall Arbitron ratings, which take TSL (Time Spent Listening) into account, etc... Unlike majorly "single-format" college stations that actually pursue Arbitron ratings with the same or similar programming all day (such as WERS), only a small amount of listeners are multi-genre adventurous enough to leave a station like WMBR on all day long outside of their favorite specialty shows. And, that's the way they choose to program it, to give as many MIT students and community volunteers as possible the chance to present unique and truly diverse programming, which always yields more than sufficient fundraising support for them as the modest operation that they are.
WZBC has more of their weekday schedule devoted to "block" programming than WMBR, but that programming is intentionally extremely eclectic in the alt-rock and experimental avant-garde music veins, and is also not intended to draw Arbitron ratings. Again, they seem to get by just fine, only needing to fundraise on-air one week every other year.
WGAO actually covers a good chunk of ground in the Boston outer metro southwest suburbs and south central MA, and they are largely formatted like an aspiring commercial station. Like WERS, they sound like they are concerned with pursuing Arbitron ratings, and they are showing up. I wish them luck and more power to them, but stations like WMBR, WZBC, WMFO, WBRS, etc... choose to march to a different drummer that is not necessarily mass appeal and ratings-friendly even in the non-comm realm, and in my opinion (and in those of their supportive "cult followings" of listeners), thank goodness that they do!
First, I think WMBR and WZBC in particular might do better in the ratings under PPM than most people realize. Diaries measure loyalty better than actual listening, so if by sheer luck you managed to get enough fans of the station get diaries, you were golden. But that was such a rare occurrence that they always had 0.0 or 0.1 ratings. But since PPM tracks the presence of audio, period, I would think it'd be more kind to the block-format-ish style of WMBR and WZBC.
However, you make a good point - these stations don't really care about ratings, I suppose. Although if WZBC put in an encoder and suddenly was pulling a 1.0 share or better....one wonders if suddenly they would start caring a lot more. That could be quite good or bad, depending on your perspective I suppose.
However, you make a good point - these stations don't really care about ratings, I suppose. Although if WZBC put in an encoder and suddenly was pulling a 1.0 share or better....one wonders if suddenly they would start caring a lot more. That could be quite good or bad, depending on your perspective I suppose.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.