Buffalo Radio Ratings

[Rusty Bridges]

'Bolt... I am genuinely (and without malice) curious...

What would 'your' radio station sound like?
What demographic would you target?
Your choice of PD, or type of PD?
What kind of music would you play?
What kind of rotations would you set up in order to maximize music/artist exposure to appeal to your listeners?
How would you position your format to attract listeners?
What kind of promotions would you do to enhance listening and tie in with advertisers?
How much of your cash flow would you set aside for promotions?
How would you use social media?
How would you pitch your station to agencies?
Would you buy the book?
What kind of DJs/Curators would you hire? Voice-tracked? Local? How many voice positions per hour?
Would you employ jingles? Sweepers and bumpers?
What kind of oral presentation would you set for your DJs/Curators?
Would you do newscasts? How many? How long? In what dayparts?
How many commercial units per hour would you air?
What would your morning show sound like?

Yes, lots of questions. All in good will.
They're a result of reading your posts over the years which kinda indicate that there's not much of anything on the air in Buffalo that you like, save for maybe the old Lake... or maybe the even older WUWU. Both, ironically, were on the 107.7 frequency... which at this point may just qualify as Buffalo's death star frequency.

 

[davideduardo]

Hmmmm. I'm curious. How exactly is "listening time" determined? What exactly does that mean?

Ratings are created by getting individual listeners to record (either writing in a diary or via a meter) the times they listen and to which station.

When all the data is assembled from the sample of a market's listeners, it is projected into the "universe" which is the total population. Let's say that we sample 1000 persons in a market of 500,000. Each person represents 499 other people and the assumption is that a good sample adequately reflects the behavior of the full market.

When that is done, we can see what the average listening time to each station is as well as the total listening for all the stations heard by the sample of listeners.

We end up with a reasonably accurate estimate of how many people listen to radio, how long they listen and to which stations. We can also subdivide the data by age, gender, ethnicity, income, education level and zones in a market.

 

[davideduardo]

They're a result of reading your posts over the years which kinda indicate that there's not much of anything on the air in Buffalo that you like, save for maybe the old Lake... or maybe the even older WUWU. Both, ironically, were on the 107.7 frequency... which at this point may just qualify as Buffalo's death star frequency.

I'm used to finding an occasional 'Bolt in music tests. You see them instantly when looking at individual respondent graphs because they score the recurrents badly, tank the best liked gold and have much more positive scores on many of the very newest songs that others don't still recognize. When "dummy" songs are put in, they score them higher than others, apparently just because they are "new".

When we see one of those, called an "outlier", we knock them out of the sample. Nothing will make them happy, and trying to do that will offend the other 99% of the listeners. They are musical cynics, march to a different drum, etc.

 

[tbolt909]

I'm used to finding an occasional 'Bolt in music tests. You see them instantly when looking at individual respondent graphs because they score the recurrents badly, tank the best liked gold and have much more positive scores on many of the very newest songs that others don't still recognize. When "dummy" songs are put in, they score them higher than others, apparently just because they are "new".

When we see one of those, called an "outlier", we knock them out of the sample. Nothing will make them happy, and trying to do that will offend the other 99% of the listeners. They are musical cynics, march to a different drum, etc.

What a bunch of gibberish. Based on this statement, you do not want listener feedback (unless it fits your narrative). What is a "Dummy" song? Is it one that the station doesn't play? Maybe the example you site is a "spy" from a rival station trying to skew your test.

As this relates to Classic Rock, Hits or Oldies formats, music testing is a waste of time. The same 300 songs have been tested to death for 40 years. There's nothing left to learn about these songs. The people who are still listening to these formats are satisfied. Others moved on long ago...

 

[TheBigA]

What a bunch of gibberish. Based on this statement, you do not want listener feedback (unless it fits your narrative).

Back at you. You don't want to hear reality unless it fits your narrative.

No one's requiring you to subscribe or give your credit card number.

You at an at-will listener. You either listen or you don't. If you don't, go enjoy something else.

 

[davideduardo]

What a bunch of gibberish. Based on this statement, you do not want listener feedback (unless it fits your narrative). What is a "Dummy" song? Is it one that the station doesn't play? Maybe the example you site is a "spy" from a rival station trying to skew your test.

I’ve done over a thousand music tests, and learned much of the technique from the developer of dial-based testing. with so much collective experience one learns that there are certain norms and rules.

I started buying music tests in the 80’s and began actually managing them in the later 90’s.

What a station is looking for is consensus opinion. If you do a 100 person music test, generally everyone or all but one or two will “match” within a fairly narrow range of scores. The few who don’t match are outliers and, while they may have met the broad recruiting gate questions, they are people who only listen to you because there. is nothing they like better.

A “dummy” song is intended to verify the recruit by playing a stiff from another format or a burnt out novelty song. If we see a high score on one of those we look at all the responses…this may indicate a person we did not recruit who, perhaps, came for the money when the real recruit could not come.

A single person can’t skew a test. They are, generally, less than 1% of the sample. And usually recruiters use pre-established lists of verified persons, inviting those that meet the station recruit standards in age, gender, station usage, hours of radio per week, etc. A recruit questionnaire can take up to 10 minutes and even include music pods.

As this relates to Classic Rock, Hits or Oldies formats, music testing is a waste of time. The same 300 songs have been tested to death for 40 years. There's nothing left to learn about these songs. The people who are still listening to these formats are satisfied. Others moved on long ago...

As I said, one of my projects was a group of Jack-like formatted stations in markets like LA, SF, San Diego, Chicago, Houston, Dallas and others. We would test over 1200 songs four to six times a year rotating markets. No song was newer than about 15 years old an some went back over 40 years.

Lots of the songs were “what if” ones that we tried in several tests to see if they might work, since tastes ebb and flow constantly.

Every test was different. Some songs needed rest. Some needed change in rotation, and some artists needed to be played less often. We might, each year, find songs to drop and songs to add. Even an occasional use of a song in a movie or TV show would make it playable. Even artists touring our markets might influence playability.

And after each test, I’d work with the National PD for about a week to find the right rotations and category counts to make the test work.

In every test we found hundreds of changes that needed to be done. And we would also test “pods” that were sets with different blends of styles and tempo So we had the right balance. That changed, too.

 

[four4rock]

Ratings are created by getting individual listeners to record (either writing in a diary or via a meter) the times they listen and to which station.

When all the data is assembled from the sample of a market's listeners, it is projected into the "universe" which is the total population. Let's say that we sample 1000 persons in a market of 500,000. Each person represents 499 other people and the assumption is that a good sample adequately reflects the behavior of the full market.

When that is done, we can see what the average listening time to each station is as well as the total listening for all the stations heard by the sample of listeners.

We end up with a reasonably accurate estimate of how many people listen to radio, how long they listen and to which stations. We can also subdivide the data by age, gender, ethnicity, income, education level and zones in a market.

While that may be an explanation of the data collection process, it does not define "listening time." Are the survey participants provided with precisely what is meant be "listening" or "listening time"... or is it simply left to each individual's self-characterization(s)? As a participant, must I be immersed in the programming content? Are there allowed some degree of diversions within the so-called listening space? Must the program material simply be within some specified proximity? Must the participant be cognitively processing the program material? Critical listening? I could go on. Exactly what is "listening time"?

And, somewhat related, how are those with intellectual & developmental disabilities accounted for in what is alleged t be a fair/representative sample?

 

[Rusty Bridges]

While that may be an explanation of the data collection process, it does not define "listening time." Are the survey participants provided with precisely what is meant be "listening" or "listening time"... or is it simply left to each individual's self-characterization(s)? As a participant, must I be immersed in the programming content? Are there allowed some degree of diversions within the so-called listening space? Must the program material simply be within some specified proximity? Must the participant be cognitively processing the program material? Critical listening? I could go on. Exactly what is "listening time"?

DE offered a good overview of the process. As I have read over the years, (correct me if I'm wrong) in diary markets, five minutes of listening within a quarter hour notated by a diary keeper constitutes an entire quarter hour. Remember the five minutes metric. (This metric may or may not apply to PPM.)

So, under the 'rules' established years ago by Arbitron (and presumably carried over by Nielsen), if a diary keeper notes that he/she listened to Wicked 105 from 10:03 a.m. to 10:08 a.m., Wicked 105 will receive credit for one entire quarter hour (15 minute duration, as if the person listened from 10:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m.) of listening. This then is reflected in the station's performance as Average Quarter Hour Persons ("AQH Persons") often reflected in hundreds of listeners.

If a diary keeper notes that he/she listened from 7:02 a.m. to 8:58 a.m., the total listening would equal eight quarter hours. There are four quarter hours in an hour (not trying to be Captain Obvious), and the number of quarter hours from 7:02 through and including 8:58 a.m. is equal to eight. So that's how time spent listening is accounted for. Again, derived from what I've read and heard.*

*Subject to change. Your mileage may vary. Tax, title and tags extra. This is not an offering, which can be made by prospectus only. Tag not to be removed under penalty of law. Close cover before striking.

 

[Lake Country Radio]

Back at you. You don't want to hear reality unless it fits your narrative.

No one's requiring you to subscribe or give your credit card number.

You at an at-will listener. You either listen or you don't. If you don't, go enjoy something else.

What does this have to do with expressing disappointment in what radio has become?
Are we not allowed to point out the fact that it has become so laborious and predictable that the art of radio in and of itself has been hijacked by corporations from skillfully passionate radio enthusiasts?
To touch on Rusty Bridges comment from earlier... when listening to a radio station or reading an advertisement for a vehicle... the DJ or author is trying to communicate to his/her listener or reader to attract that type of individual to what they're offering. When I write a listing for a sophisticated vehicle let's say for example a 2010 Prevost H3-45 Luxury Coach, my vocabulary and use of diction is contoured specifically to someone most likely with an Bachelor's degree or higher and are generally in their 50's or 60's.
Why?
Because in my opinion, it is the highest probable demographic to purchase such asset.
My point in all of this is that why can't we be critical in what radio has become? It's an absolute joke and for certain people to highlight that is totally correct. 107.7 The Lake effectively communicated to a certain niche audience that could resonate with the station and could audibly see what the program director or DJ was trying to say just as the artist intended by playing certain songs at specific times of the day to generate a certain sentiment within it's listener.
The art of radio is essentially dead.

 

[TheBigA]

What does this have to do with expressing disappointment in what radio has become?

Was I speaking to you? No. Put my comment in context.

The art of radio is essentially dead.

It depends on what you mean by "art of radio." It was essentially dead in the 1940s. Commercial radio is by definition commerce, not art. It's always been that way. It was created as commerce, and was regulated originally under the commerce department in the 1920s. Nielsen ratings are about counting listeners for the purpose of sales. That's what this is all about.

On the other hand, the reason non-commercial radio was created in 1967 was because traditional broadcasting had become too commercial. So if you want to hear the art of radio, I'd suggest you start with non-commercial radio.

Are we not allowed to point out the fact that it has become so laborious and predictable that the art of radio in and of itself has been hijacked by corporations from skillfully passionate radio enthusiasts?

All this happened in the 1920s, when The Westinghouse Corporation and the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) pushed amateur radio enthusiasts off the radio dial and replaced them with radio run by companies for the purpose of making money. You think today's radio companies are big? Not compared to the original radio companies.

 

[Lake Country Radio]

Was I speaking to you? No. Put my comment in context.



It depends on what you mean by "art of radio." It was essentially dead in the 1940s. Commercial radio is by definition commerce, not art. It's always been that way. It was created as commerce, and was regulated originally under the commerce department in the 1920s. Nielsen ratings are about counting listeners for the purpose of sales. That's what this is all about.

On the other hand, the reason non-commercial radio was created in 1967 was because traditional broadcasting had become too commercial. So if you want to hear the art of radio, I'd suggest you start with non-commercial radio.



All this happened in the 1920s, when The Westinghouse Corporation and the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) pushed amateur radio enthusiasts off the radio dial and replaced them with radio run by companies for the purpose of making money. You think today's radio companies are big? Not compared to the original radio companies.

What does this have to do with the price of lettuce.
You told tbolt, "You at an at-will listener. You either listen or you don't. If you don't, go enjoy something else."
Whatever happened to having pride in producing a decent product or being an artisan of your craft whether it be a movie, music, literature, arts, architecture, etc? Much to the demise of this society, we have been cultivated into thinking that Marvel movies are real movies and Banquet meals are home cooking.
Forget about radio in general or this forum with the same people saying the same thing for 15 years with nothing ever getting accomplished. Can't someone make an opinion about the quality of radio without being judged for making such a statement?
Of course corporations have owned radio stations since time immemorial, but at least in the days of yesteryear, the DJ's had more free reign as Tom Petty would say, "Who plays what he wants to play"

 

[TheBigA]

Whatever happened to having pride in producing a decent product or being an artisan of your craft whether it be a movie, music, literature, arts, architecture, etc?

What does that have to do with what I said? I was speaking to his role as a listener. That has nothing to do with my role as a broadcaster. We each do what we do for our own reasons.

Of course corporations have owned radio stations since time immemorial, but at least in the days of yesteryear, the DJ's had more free reign as Tom Petty would say, "Who plays what he wants to play"

Once the payola scandal rocked radio in the 50s, where DJs were found to be taking money for airplay, the role of the DJ in music decisions was minimized. Tom Petty's song is a romantic view that is biased by the fact that he was once a beneficiary of radio airplay. But his era of rock radio was largely shaped by major national consultants. DJs had more free reign in small markets or non-commercial stations. But not at the big stations in Buffalo.

 

[davideduardo]

Here are several failed points in your argument:

Much to the demise of this society, we have been cultivated into thinking that Marvel movies are real movies and Banquet meals are home cooking.

For many, fantasy-based movies are the best that the motion picture industry can offer because they combine imagination, imagery and creativity into a respite from everyday life. Whether it is a Star Wars, Harry Potter, Fast & Furious or a Lord of the Rings film, those you cite as "Marvel movies" are fun and entertaining for more people than the deep, often troubling films that filmmakers themselves give most of the awards to.

Of course corporations have owned radio stations since time immemorial, but at least in the days of yesteryear, the DJ's had more free reign as Tom Petty would say, "Who plays what he wants to play"

Going back to the 50's and the birth 69 years ago of Top 40, most radio stations... and nearly all successful ones... had programmed playlists and did not allow much liberty in the playing of individual songs.

 

[Lake Country Radio]

Here are several failed points in your argument:

For many, fantasy-based movies are the best that the motion picture industry can offer because they combine imagination, imagery and creativity into a respite from everyday life. Whether it is a Star Wars, Harry Potter, Fast & Furious or a Lord of the Rings film, those you cite as "Marvel movies" are fun and entertaining for more people than the deep, often troubling films that filmmakers themselves give most of the awards to.

Going back to the 50's and the birth 69 years ago of Top 40, most radio stations... and nearly all successful ones... had programmed playlists and did not allow much liberty in the playing of individual songs.

And 2001: A Space Odyssey may be the greatest Sci-Fi film if not the greatest film ever made. What is the difference between the movies you mentioned and Marvel movies is very simple... the power they have to make us feel and think? It doesn't matter what the genre is.... It could be comedy, horror, non-fiction, science fiction, etc. What impact do they have and how does it rate in terms of being culturally and historically relevant? I now presume that box office earnings are being used as a metric to determine this. If not me then take it from Director Martin Scorsese who said Marvel movies isn't cinema.

 

[davideduardo]

And 2001: A Space Odyssey may be the greatest Sci-Fi film if not the greatest film ever made. What is the difference between the movies you mentioned and Marvel movies is very simple... the power they have to make us feel and think? It doesn't matter what the genre is.... It could be comedy, horror, non-fiction, science fiction, etc. What impact do they have and how does it rate in terms of being culturally and historically relevant? I now presume that box office earnings are being used as a metric to determine this. If not me then take it from Director Martin Scorsese who said Marvel movies isn't cinema.

During my years in Ecuador, my first independent FM sponsored "film weeks" where five movies were presented, one a day, in 3 showings. They were all of the Fellini, Bergman and Godard school, and at the time were innovative and provocatively entertaining, and I made money doing four or five such single-ticket weeks. But in '63 we also got the first James Bond movie, and it was a fascinating trip into real world fantasy and away from the troubling screen adaptations of Kafka and the like.

I've had a sixty-some year career of thinking. My favorite movies tend to star Vin Diesel and not Brad Pitt.

Some of us do not always... or ever... seek edification from entertainment. We want thrills, amusement and fun. In general, that is what most radio stations do; simply being entertaining is a noble goal. Not every station has to be in the shadow of NPR.

In radio, the winners are, generally, the stations with the highest ratings. Why shouldn't one element of movie industry awards be the number of people that actually go to or pay to view each film?

I've always wondered who actually goes to see those "short films" that get awards each year and which essentially nobody has heard of or seen.

 

[davideduardo]

DE offered a good overview of the process. As I have read over the years, (correct me if I'm wrong) in diary markets, five minutes of listening within a quarter hour notated by a diary keeper constitutes an entire quarter hour. Remember the five minutes metric. (This metric may or may not apply to PPM.)

PPM is different, but only slightly. A quarter hour credit is given for listening in 5 discreet minutes in the hour, even if they are not sequential. Also, 3 minutes separated each by one minute of no detection, will earn credit... this being a concession to stations with content that does not constantly allow for encription.

So, under the 'rules' established years ago by Arbitron (and presumably carried over by Nielsen), if a diary keeper notes that he/she listened to Wicked 105 from 10:03 a.m. to 10:08 a.m., Wicked 105 will receive credit for one entire quarter hour (15 minute duration, as if the person listened from 10:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m.) of listening. This then is reflected in the station's performance as Average Quarter Hour Persons ("AQH Persons") often reflected in hundreds of listeners.

Yep, and well explained.

The "unit" in TV is the hour and half hour. In radio, it is the quarter hour. This smaller base unit evolved from the fact that there were, from the earliest days, radio shows that were less than a full half hour in length as well as stations playing music that did not have real "start to finish" shows.

If a diary keeper notes that he/she listened from 7:02 a.m. to 8:58 a.m., the total listening would equal eight quarter hours. There are four quarter hours in an hour (not trying to be Captain Obvious), and the number of quarter hours from 7:02 through and including 8:58 a.m. is equal to eight. So that's how time spent listening is accounted for. Again, derived from what I've read and heard.*

Correct, and even more... if they listened from 7:10 to 8:50 they would still get the 8 quarter hours. And if they took ten minute coffee breaks at work or a bathroom break... they'd still likely get all 8 quarter hour credits.

*Subject to change. Your mileage may vary. Tax, title and tags extra. This is not an offering, which can be made by prospectus only. Tag not to be removed under penalty of law. Close cover before striking.

Add to the qualifications: this stuff is designed for advertisers, and mostly not for programming decisions. The system is designed for advertisers to be able to "price" radio ads appropriately and to decide which stations in a market reach their principal consumers.

Because Americans seem to love lists, ratings companies agreed long ago to release to trades and newspapers the overviews of popularity. Mostly, that goes back to the days of network radio in The Golden Age when listeners liked hearing which of the three or four network shows "won" in each evening time slot.

 

[davideduardo]

All this happened in the 1920s, when The Westinghouse Corporation and the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) pushed amateur radio enthusiasts off the radio dial and replaced them with radio run by companies for the purpose of making money. You think today's radio companies are big? Not compared to the original radio companies.

It was not as simple as that.

The Federal Radio Commission, which took over from the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Navigation, did so because the use of radio, begun to cross oceans and to contact ships at sea, had evolved in ways not imagined in the early 1910's when regulation became necessary.

The FRC began to organize the AM radio band. Stations had been owned by a mish-mash of community groups, hobbyists, companies self-promoting, newspapers afraid of being left behind, set manufacturers and even car dealers and insurance companies. Many share frequencies and there was interference and confusion.

For the most part, the hobbyist stations were very low power and only operated during limited hours and days of the week. They were an outgrowth of very early audio hobby stations starting in the 1910's where an occasional broadcast of a song, a poem, a speech and the like would be tried. Hobbyists, for the most part, became ham radio operators when amateur radio was given its own spectrum and regulation. Making them get off of the 550 to 1500 kilocycle band cleaned up the dial so that more fulls service stations could operate.

The FRC began the process which its successor, the FCC, in the early 30's, would complete under considerable pressure from influential congressmen to limit power to low levels and ownership to few stations in order to avoid the creation of new political forces more powerful than local city newspapers.

Prior to the FRC, most stations had discovered that advertising could finance operations, and by the end of the 20's the purpose of most stations was profitability through ad sales, not promotion of brands. But the limits on the number of stations a company could own limited any one operator to just a few stations.

It was not until network radio developed at the very end of the 20's that there were powerful national voices, but that was mostly due to affiliations with local, independent or small group stations. An example would be the Cleveland Plain Dealer's affiliation of its several stations in NW and central Ohio with one of the webs: besides self-promotion of the paper, the ad sales was profitable and they kept the stations well into the late 50's.

And when one network organization, RCA's Red and Blue NBC webs, became too big, the FCC under pressure from our national legislators, eliminated both duopoly ownership in a market and required NBC to spin of a network which became ABC.

There were some big companies that owned a few radio stations or one or two big ones... RCA, Westinghouse, CBS, a few radio set manufacturers (WLW for example), a couple of insurance companies (WSM and WLAC) and many newspapers. But, other than the rather lightly regulated networks, radio was highly restricted in everything from power and coverage to ownership limitations.

 

[davideduardo]

While that may be an explanation of the data collection process, it does not define "listening time."

"Listening time" is the number of quarter hours when an individual has the radio on and tuned to a specific station. It is called TSL or "time spent listening". In ratings, it is averaged among all of the sample for each station and for radio's total listening.

Are the survey participants provided with precisely what is meant be "listening" or "listening time"...

Listeners with the meter have no discretion. If the meter "hears" a station, listening is credited. In the diary, the listener has to write down what they listen to, usually by remembering at some point in the day and transcribing what they heard.

or is it simply left to each individual's self-characterization(s)? As a participant, must I be immersed in the programming content?

No. Advertisers care about their message being heard. Period. They don't care if you picked the station, or you heard it with a friend or in a store.

Are there allowed some degree of diversions within the so-called listening space? Must the program material simply be within some specified proximity?

I don't understand those questions. Rating measure "hearing" of stations, not how much listeners are engaged with the content. We do private, confidential research to determine perceptions of our own stations.

Must the participant be cognitively processing the program material? Critical listening? I could go on. Exactly what is "listening time"?

It's when a person is hearing a station... and its commercials. That may be the 15 minutes you heard a station on in a Bodega in NYC or hours when you had it on in the background at work and all the other options.

And, somewhat related, how are those with intellectual & developmental disabilities accounted for in what is alleged t be a fair/representative sample?

This has never been discussed in any "official" manner. It's a natural assumption that persons with disabilities that don't allow them to be contacted by recruiters won't be in the sample. But lots of people are not able to be contacted, and advertisers realize that a well balanced sample based on age distribution, gender, ethnicity, language preference, income, education, county and zone of residence and the like will represent well enough each market and provide useful information to advertisers.

Oh, the sample has to be "representative". "Fair" is not part of statistics, as fairness is judgemental. A representative sample is like a blood test. Get enough blood to be sure that the results are accurate enough for your doctor to evaluate. They don't drain every milliliter of blood to do that.

 

[four4rock]

"Listening time" is the number of quarter hours when an individual has the radio on and tuned to a specific station. It is called TSL or "time spent listening". In ratings, it is averaged among all of the sample for each station and for radio's total listening.

Listeners with the meter have no discretion. If the meter "hears" a station, listening is credited. In the diary, the listener has to write down what they listen to, usually by remembering at some point in the day and transcribing what they heard.

No. Advertisers care about their message being heard. Period. They don't care if you picked the station, or you heard it with a friend or in a store.

I don't understand those questions. Rating measure "hearing" of stations, not how much listeners are engaged with the content. We do private, confidential research to determine perceptions of our own stations.

It's when a person is hearing a station... and its commercials. That may be the 15 minutes you heard a station on in a Bodega in NYC or hours when you had it on in the background at work and all the other options.

This has never been discussed in any "official" manner. It's a natural assumption that persons with disabilities that don't allow them to be contacted by recruiters won't be in the sample. But lots of people are not able to be contacted, and advertisers realize that a well balanced sample based on age distribution, gender, ethnicity, language preference, income, education, county and zone of residence and the like will represent well enough each market and provide useful information to advertisers.

Oh, the sample has to be "representative". "Fair" is not part of statistics, as fairness is judgemental. A representative sample is like a blood test. Get enough blood to be sure that the results are accurate enough for your doctor to evaluate. They don't drain every milliliter of blood to do that.

OK. Thanks. Sincerely appreciate the explanation. I realize this is simply an casual explanation on an internet message board... so the obvious latitude for poor/misleading results may be the result of understandable incompleteness.

However, I cannot pass by your apparent dismissal of 'fair sampling'. "Fair Sampling" is a well recognized process. That's not to say radio sampling is required to recognize or use it... and, frankly, it *sounds* as if it is not.

Again, thanks for the explanation.

 

[ckg279]

Back to ratings: Since at least a couple of stations in the Niagara Region land in the Buffalo book regularly(at least one of them, CFLZ(101.1 More FM)has a sales relationship with WECK), it's only fair to see how they're doing.

In short: Neither station is listened to all that much on EITHER side of the border.

More details here: Radio Diary Topline - Numeris

(and then page down to the St. Catharines/Niagara section in the June 3rd link; it's a PDF file.)