Arbitron

[oldmanradio]

Does anyone really trust Arbitron?

Really?

After all, it is the only game in town for ratings?

Is that bad?

Good?

If you are totally indifferent, please raise your hand.

With all sincereity, I am sincerely yours ....

Tony

 

[outlaw2448]

Arbitron drives me as crazy as the Nielsen Ratings system for TV. I mean how can 1 family really decide what is the best thing for 1000 people?

There should be at least more than Arbitron to determine the ratings. You have 3 different credit scores to determine how great your credit is, why not have 3 different ratings systems?

 

[arnoldevns]

I don't really trust the numbers, but we don't really have much choice. I would like all rating services in either radio or TV to increase their sample to at least 1/10th of 1 percent of the entire market they measure.

 

[oldmanradio]

Was Birch the last to challenge Arbitron?

Tony

 

[DFW_Radio_2000]

Cornerstone research is a service that is comparable to Arbitron. Xtrends is the program, and the numbers are not much different than Arbitron, either...

If both have basically the same number, then there is no reason not to trust Arbitron.

 

[Huff]

Cornerstone research is a service that is comparable to Arbitron. Xtrends is the program, and the numbers are not much different than Arbitron, either...

If both have basically the same number, then there is no reason not to trust Arbitron.

Xtrends is a program produced by Cornerstone that is licensed to use Arbitron's data. Cornerstone does not do separate research to produce the numbers you see in Xtrends. Any variation between what you may see in an Xtrends report and what you see from one of Arbitron's reports is simply due to a difference in rounding techniques.

The only current challenge to Arbitron is Nielsen's 2x/year diary report for smaller markets.
AccuRatings was the last major challenger to Arbitron, it lasted a few years in the mid-90s after Birch's demise.

 

[davideduardo]

Was Birch the last to challenge Arbitron?

In the 80's we also had Burke, which produced some reports, and Audits & Surveys but I don't recall if they got to the point of doing an actual survey. Of course, Kurt Hansen's Accuratings tried for many years. And

Media Audits does 80 markets, but the reports don't have the granularity and AQH data of Arbitron (they show use of different media) and you can see their page at http://www.themediaaudit.com/

North Central Willamette Research (www.ncwr.com) provides radio surveys under Jim Willhite.

http://www.eastlanratings.com/ does ratings in about 100 markets.

MobilTrack did a ratings in several markets based on detection of the FM dial position of cars that drove by... it did not measure AM, nor did it measure at home or at work. I believe they now specialize in surveys of what stations people driving by retail locations are tuned to.

The key element is what agencies and advertisers use to buy. Arbitron became the agency tool of preference early in the 70's (they began in radio in '65) and stations found that they had to use Arbitron to sell in most cases.

And Arbitron had to overcome the preference for The Pulse and Hooper and even the MediaTrends ratings done by Arbitron founder Jim Seiler. And Pulse and Hooper had to contend with Trendex and Nielsen (who got out of radio I believe in the late 50's or early 60's). We can go back to around 1930 and find many different ratings companies and even more proposals for methods and practices.

 

[davideduardo]

I don't really trust the numbers, but we don't really have much choice. I would like all rating services in either radio or TV to increase their sample to at least 1/10th of 1 percent of the entire market they measure.

Dallas has about 5.3 million persons 12+ and there are an average of 1500 meters in the daily in-tab.

A tenth of a percent would be 5,300 meters.

As it is, the PPM cost stations about 60% more than the diary service. A 350% increase in sample is somthing even the better billing stations could afford. There is no indication that simply addimg sample would "fix" any perceived inaccuracies. Insuring the proportionality of the sample across all stratification variables is key to a panel based metodology, not pure sample size.

 

[davideduardo]

A 350% increase in sample is somthing even the better billing stations could afford. There is no indication that simply addimg sample would "fix" any perceived inaccuracies. Insuring the proportionality of the sample across all stratification variables is key to a panel based metodology, not pure sample size.

sorry, I meant to say that such a sample increase is something no station could possibly afford...it would be prohibitively costly.

 

[oldmanradio]

The question of whether a monopoly in the radio ratings game can be trusted has yet to be answered.

When I worked for Southwestern Bell in 1980s, the employees joked that "Southwestern Bell was the only phone company in town, and we darned well acted like it."

Tony

 

[davideduardo]

The question of whether a monopoly in the radio ratings game can be trusted has yet to be answered.

The answer to that is the MRC. As long as it is valuable to get MRC accreditation and as long as ratings companies seek accreditation, the research will be about as good as you can get within the limits of affordable sample sizes and practical sampling techniques.

We have Nielsen doing radio ratings, Eastlan doing radio ratings, and others who haved tried and failed.