-
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
Arbitron
- Thread starter pmack
- Start date
> An article in Thursday's (Aug. 11) Dallas Morning News
> states that Whites are no longer the majority in Texas.
The term should be "non Hispanic whites." Up until the '80 Census, all Hispanics were considered white.
> So
> does that mean Arbitron will have to
> re-configure how they do ratings and start counting Whites'
> diairies as double entries and offer Whites more money to
> fill out diaries?
Arbitron only increases incentives for hard to get groups. In fact, the longest standing one is 18-24 white males. All other non-Hispanic withe groups are realatively easy to recruit, vs. the harder ones.
Weighting is only done if the sample is not proportional. In most markets, weighting seldom exceeds +/- 6%
> states that Whites are no longer the majority in Texas.
The term should be "non Hispanic whites." Up until the '80 Census, all Hispanics were considered white.
> So
> does that mean Arbitron will have to
> re-configure how they do ratings and start counting Whites'
> diairies as double entries and offer Whites more money to
> fill out diaries?
Arbitron only increases incentives for hard to get groups. In fact, the longest standing one is 18-24 white males. All other non-Hispanic withe groups are realatively easy to recruit, vs. the harder ones.
Weighting is only done if the sample is not proportional. In most markets, weighting seldom exceeds +/- 6%
N
nuzer
Guest
> > An article in Thursday's (Aug. 11) Dallas Morning News
> > states that Whites are no longer the majority in Texas.
>
> The term should be "non Hispanic whites." Up until the '80
> Census, all Hispanics were considered white.
>
> > So
> > does that mean Arbitron will have to
> > re-configure how they do ratings and start counting
> Whites'
> > diairies as double entries and offer Whites more money to
> > fill out diaries?
>
> Arbitron only increases incentives for hard to get groups.
> In fact, the longest standing one is 18-24 white males. All
> other non-Hispanic withe groups are realatively easy to
> recruit, vs. the harder ones.
>
> Weighting is only done if the sample is not proportional. In
> most markets, weighting seldom exceeds +/- 6%
>
So there.
> > states that Whites are no longer the majority in Texas.
>
> The term should be "non Hispanic whites." Up until the '80
> Census, all Hispanics were considered white.
>
> > So
> > does that mean Arbitron will have to
> > re-configure how they do ratings and start counting
> Whites'
> > diairies as double entries and offer Whites more money to
> > fill out diaries?
>
> Arbitron only increases incentives for hard to get groups.
> In fact, the longest standing one is 18-24 white males. All
> other non-Hispanic withe groups are realatively easy to
> recruit, vs. the harder ones.
>
> Weighting is only done if the sample is not proportional. In
> most markets, weighting seldom exceeds +/- 6%
>
So there.
> > > An article in Thursday's (Aug. 11) Dallas Morning News
> > > states that Whites are no longer the majority in Texas.
> >
> > The term should be "non Hispanic whites." Up until the '80
>
> > Census, all Hispanics were considered white.
> >
> > > So
> > > does that mean Arbitron will have to
> > > re-configure how they do ratings and start counting
> > Whites'
> > > diairies as double entries and offer Whites more money
> to
> > > fill out diaries?
> >
> > Arbitron only increases incentives for hard to get groups.
>
> > In fact, the longest standing one is 18-24 white males.
> All
> > other non-Hispanic withe groups are realatively easy to
> > recruit, vs. the harder ones.
> >
> > Weighting is only done if the sample is not proportional.
> In
> > most markets, weighting seldom exceeds +/- 6%
> >
> So there.
>
"Sur-priiize, sur-priiize"
> > > states that Whites are no longer the majority in Texas.
> >
> > The term should be "non Hispanic whites." Up until the '80
>
> > Census, all Hispanics were considered white.
> >
> > > So
> > > does that mean Arbitron will have to
> > > re-configure how they do ratings and start counting
> > Whites'
> > > diairies as double entries and offer Whites more money
> to
> > > fill out diaries?
> >
> > Arbitron only increases incentives for hard to get groups.
>
> > In fact, the longest standing one is 18-24 white males.
> All
> > other non-Hispanic withe groups are realatively easy to
> > recruit, vs. the harder ones.
> >
> > Weighting is only done if the sample is not proportional.
> In
> > most markets, weighting seldom exceeds +/- 6%
> >
> So there.
>
"Sur-priiize, sur-priiize"
E
edwardrmurrow
Guest
> > > > An article in Thursday's (Aug. 11) Dallas Morning News
>
> > > > states that Whites are no longer the majority in
> Texas.
> > >
> > > The term should be "non Hispanic whites." Up until the
> '80
> >
> > > Census, all Hispanics were considered white.
> > >
> > > > So
> > > > does that mean Arbitron will have to
> > > > re-configure how they do ratings and start counting
> > > Whites'
> > > > diairies as double entries and offer Whites more money
>
> > to
> > > > fill out diaries?
> > >
> > > Arbitron only increases incentives for hard to get
> groups.
> >
> > > In fact, the longest standing one is 18-24 white males.
> > All
> > > other non-Hispanic withe groups are realatively easy to
> > > recruit, vs. the harder ones.
> > >
> > > Weighting is only done if the sample is not
> proportional.
> > In
> > > most markets, weighting seldom exceeds +/- 6%
> > >
> > So there.
> >
> "Sur-priiize, sur-priiize"
>
And a couple of countryboy shazaaams!
>
> > > > states that Whites are no longer the majority in
> Texas.
> > >
> > > The term should be "non Hispanic whites." Up until the
> '80
> >
> > > Census, all Hispanics were considered white.
> > >
> > > > So
> > > > does that mean Arbitron will have to
> > > > re-configure how they do ratings and start counting
> > > Whites'
> > > > diairies as double entries and offer Whites more money
>
> > to
> > > > fill out diaries?
> > >
> > > Arbitron only increases incentives for hard to get
> groups.
> >
> > > In fact, the longest standing one is 18-24 white males.
> > All
> > > other non-Hispanic withe groups are realatively easy to
> > > recruit, vs. the harder ones.
> > >
> > > Weighting is only done if the sample is not
> proportional.
> > In
> > > most markets, weighting seldom exceeds +/- 6%
> > >
> > So there.
> >
> "Sur-priiize, sur-priiize"
>
And a couple of countryboy shazaaams!
> > > > > An article in Thursday's (Aug. 11) Dallas Morning
> News
> >
> > > > > states that Whites are no longer the majority in
> > Texas.
> > > >
> > > > The term should be "non Hispanic whites." Up until the
>
> > '80
> > >
> > > > Census, all Hispanics were considered white.
> > > >
> > > > > So
> > > > > does that mean Arbitron will have to
> > > > > re-configure how they do ratings and start counting
> > > > Whites'
> > > > > diairies as double entries and offer Whites more
> money
> >
> > > to
> > > > > fill out diaries?
> > > >
> > > > Arbitron only increases incentives for hard to get
> > groups.
>
>
>
> > >
> > > > In fact, the longest standing one is 18-24 white
> males.
> > > All
> > > > other non-Hispanic withe groups are realatively easy
> to
> > > > recruit, vs. the harder ones.
> > > >
> > > > Weighting is only done if the sample is not
> > proportional.
> > > In
> > > > most markets, weighting seldom exceeds +/- 6%
> > > >
> > > So there.
> > >
> > "Sur-priiize, sur-priiize"
> >
> And a couple of countryboy shazaaams!
>
Love it! Love it! Love it! Hell, why do we even need Arbitron with David Eduardo around?
> News
> >
> > > > > states that Whites are no longer the majority in
> > Texas.
> > > >
> > > > The term should be "non Hispanic whites." Up until the
>
> > '80
> > >
> > > > Census, all Hispanics were considered white.
> > > >
> > > > > So
> > > > > does that mean Arbitron will have to
> > > > > re-configure how they do ratings and start counting
> > > > Whites'
> > > > > diairies as double entries and offer Whites more
> money
> >
> > > to
> > > > > fill out diaries?
> > > >
> > > > Arbitron only increases incentives for hard to get
> > groups.
>
>
>
> > >
> > > > In fact, the longest standing one is 18-24 white
> males.
> > > All
> > > > other non-Hispanic withe groups are realatively easy
> to
> > > > recruit, vs. the harder ones.
> > > >
> > > > Weighting is only done if the sample is not
> > proportional.
> > > In
> > > > most markets, weighting seldom exceeds +/- 6%
> > > >
> > > So there.
> > >
> > "Sur-priiize, sur-priiize"
> >
> And a couple of countryboy shazaaams!
>
Love it! Love it! Love it! Hell, why do we even need Arbitron with David Eduardo around?
> >
> And a couple of countryboy shazaaams!
>
Always quick with the ad-hominems, aren't you. Do you ever actually post any information that may help a person understand radio better, or do you sepcialize in the niche format of detraction?
> And a couple of countryboy shazaaams!
>
Always quick with the ad-hominems, aren't you. Do you ever actually post any information that may help a person understand radio better, or do you sepcialize in the niche format of detraction?
Your question was, originally,
> > > > >
> > > > > > So
> > > > > > does that mean Arbitron will have to
> > > > > > re-configure how they do ratings and start
> counting
> > > > > Whites'
> > > > > > diairies as double entries and offer Whites more
> > money
> > >
> > > > to
> > > > > > fill out diaries?
> >
Which question I answered with facts you can verify. And your intelligent response was...
> Love it! Love it! Love it! Hell, why do we even need
> Arbitron with David Eduardo around?
>
If you did not want to know the answer, why did you post a question?
> > > > >
> > > > > > So
> > > > > > does that mean Arbitron will have to
> > > > > > re-configure how they do ratings and start
> counting
> > > > > Whites'
> > > > > > diairies as double entries and offer Whites more
> > money
> > >
> > > > to
> > > > > > fill out diaries?
> >
Which question I answered with facts you can verify. And your intelligent response was...
> Love it! Love it! Love it! Hell, why do we even need
> Arbitron with David Eduardo around?
>
If you did not want to know the answer, why did you post a question?
R
radiodial
Guest
> > >
> > And a couple of countryboy shazaaams!
> >
>
> Always quick with the ad-hominems, aren't you. Do you ever
> actually post any information that may help a person
> understand radio better, or do you sepcialize in the niche
> format of detraction?
>
I bet you're a real hoot to have at a party... David my boy.
The only thing that I have seen you contribute is that "all music formats are meeting the needs of all people all the time and that everyone is happy with radio."
You know, the ol'head in the sand trick!
> > And a couple of countryboy shazaaams!
> >
>
> Always quick with the ad-hominems, aren't you. Do you ever
> actually post any information that may help a person
> understand radio better, or do you sepcialize in the niche
> format of detraction?
>
I bet you're a real hoot to have at a party... David my boy.
The only thing that I have seen you contribute is that "all music formats are meeting the needs of all people all the time and that everyone is happy with radio."
You know, the ol'head in the sand trick!
E
edwardrmurrow
Guest
Well pmack
Now you know some are above reproach.
Now you know some are above reproach.
M
Musicradio
Guest
Re: Arbitron *DELETED*
> Post deleted by Safford
>
Shame on you...P boy.
> Post deleted by Safford
>
Shame on you...P boy.
> > > >
> > > And a couple of countryboy shazaaams!
> > >
> >
> > Always quick with the ad-hominems, aren't you. Do you ever
>
> > actually post any information that may help a person
> > understand radio better, or do you sepcialize in the niche
>
> > format of detraction?
> >
>
>
> I bet you're a real hoot to have at a party... David my boy.
No, I simply posted a response about Arbitron methodology that included specific references to weighting and incentives, and received razzberries.
>
>
> The only thing that I have seen you contribute is that "all
> music formats are meeting the needs of all people all the
> time and that everyone is happy with radio."
See above.
The fact is I _do_ object to the "radio is dead" posts because they contain false data. I will continue to object to such posts as it is necessary to keep radio vital, but not by looking at incorrect data.
>
> You know, the ol'head in the sand trick!
This should just get the "sez you" response but I will expand: in the 70's, 94 to 95 percent of Americans listened to radio weekly. Today, the figure in most markets is between 94 and 95%. So saying that fewer people are listening is not true. And the erosion in TSL per person is nowhere near as severe wen compared with history.
There have always been theings in radio that need fixing. Focusing on the wrong things... ones that don't need fixing... hurts radio faar more than a few iPods or XM radios.
>
> > > And a couple of countryboy shazaaams!
> > >
> >
> > Always quick with the ad-hominems, aren't you. Do you ever
>
> > actually post any information that may help a person
> > understand radio better, or do you sepcialize in the niche
>
> > format of detraction?
> >
>
>
> I bet you're a real hoot to have at a party... David my boy.
No, I simply posted a response about Arbitron methodology that included specific references to weighting and incentives, and received razzberries.
>
>
> The only thing that I have seen you contribute is that "all
> music formats are meeting the needs of all people all the
> time and that everyone is happy with radio."
See above.
The fact is I _do_ object to the "radio is dead" posts because they contain false data. I will continue to object to such posts as it is necessary to keep radio vital, but not by looking at incorrect data.
>
> You know, the ol'head in the sand trick!
This should just get the "sez you" response but I will expand: in the 70's, 94 to 95 percent of Americans listened to radio weekly. Today, the figure in most markets is between 94 and 95%. So saying that fewer people are listening is not true. And the erosion in TSL per person is nowhere near as severe wen compared with history.
There have always been theings in radio that need fixing. Focusing on the wrong things... ones that don't need fixing... hurts radio faar more than a few iPods or XM radios.
>
R
rbrucecarter
Guest
Forget Arbitron - can I now use affirmative action to my advantage when seeking employment because I am now a minority? Maybe the shoe is on the other foot for once!!!
E
edwardrmurrow
Guest
Re: Well pmack
> > Now you know some are above reproach.
> >
> Guess it depends on what color you are
OHOH another deletion is forth coming
Nope it's a "who ya know and an above criticism" method.
>
> > Now you know some are above reproach.
> >
> Guess it depends on what color you are
OHOH another deletion is forth coming
Nope it's a "who ya know and an above criticism" method.>
E
edwardrmurrow
Guest
> Forget Arbitron - can I now use affirmative action to my
> advantage when seeking employment because I am now a
> minority? Maybe the shoe is on the other foot for once!!!
>
Only if you areutch-Irish_German-Russian-Czech_Polish-Belgian-Italian-French-Scandanavian-Swiss-Austria-Serb-Croat
-Greek fair complexion and answer to Jose'
> advantage when seeking employment because I am now a
> minority? Maybe the shoe is on the other foot for once!!!
>
Only if you are
utch-Irish_German-Russian-Czech_Polish-Belgian-Italian-French-Scandanavian-Swiss-Austria-Serb-Croat-Greek fair complexion and answer to Jose'
E
edwardrmurrow
Guest
> > Forget Arbitron - can I now use affirmative action to my
> > advantage when seeking employment because I am now a
> > minority? Maybe the shoe is on the other foot for once!!!
>
> >
> That's a very good question - maybe David has the answer!
>
red level ozone alertPmack.
> > advantage when seeking employment because I am now a
> > minority? Maybe the shoe is on the other foot for once!!!
>
> >
> That's a very good question - maybe David has the answer!
>
red level ozone alert
Pmack.
B
bluescreen
Guest
> Forget Arbitron - can I now use affirmative action to my
> advantage when seeking employment because I am now a
> minority? Maybe the shoe is on the other foot for once!!!
>
I was thinkin the same thing, myself. I could be the lowest rated, highest bidder and get the gig!
> advantage when seeking employment because I am now a
> minority? Maybe the shoe is on the other foot for once!!!
>
I was thinkin the same thing, myself. I could be the lowest rated, highest bidder and get the gig!
- Status