Can a NYC focused Country webcaster make it with proper promotion like KRTY.com in the Bay area???

[JoeBenjamin]

Think about it.People and businesses can listen to an online station these days.

 

[TheBigA]

KRTY.com got attention by leaving its PPM encoding on when it switched to internet-only. That's the only reason we know about this. The "proper promotion" KRTY had was an FM station directing its audience to its web stream. How many other internet radio stations can do that?

 

[victorres43]

And WNSH did not beget loyalty as much as heritage KRTY.

 

[Least]

There's a difference between moving a legacy station to online only, while keeping all the air staff employed, versus starting an all country station. Then add that it's New York that you question, which hasn't been a successful market for country music.

Even moving the station to online only, the radio insight article states that there was a dip ratings from May (when the station was on FM) to June (when the FM signal flipped to K-Love).

 

[PTBoardOp94]

No. KRTY's web stream will fail and fail quickly.

 

[nd2023]

We had the same thing with 94.7. They moved the country format to the HD2 and stream.

 

[Marcos_C]

We had the same thing with 94.7. They moved the country format to the HD2 and stream.

Not quite the same thing. All of the staff members of New York's Country 94.7 were let go after its last day on analog FM, which was October 22, 2021. If I recall correctly, on the last day, well actually, the last morning and that was it, the staff members were focused on the memories that they made during the FM station's time as a country music station. There was very little mention of country music's future on HD2 and streaming.

 

[TheBigA]

Not quite the same thing. All of the staff members of New York's Country 94.7 were let go after its last day on analog FM,

The only reason that didn't happen with KRTY is the money from the sale of the radio station is being used to pay for the online station. There's a time limit on that money. It will run out at some point. Perhaps they can transition some advertisers from FM to online, but not at the same rate. This little trick of feeding PPM encoding online was discovered, and they won't have Nielsen data anymore.

 

[Least]

The only reason that didn't happen with KRTY is the money from the sale of the radio station is being used to pay for the online station. There's a time limit on that money. It will run out at some point. Perhaps they can transition some advertisers from FM to online, but not at the same rate. This little trick of feeding PPM encoding online was discovered, and they won't have Nielsen data anymore.

I'm nowhere in the full understanding of Nielson. I read the numbers, and have seen that streams of stations do show up from time to time, but they are just that (a stream of a station that broadcasts on FM or AM radio). I didn't know that internet only stations can't be included. I (wrongfully or rightfully) assumed that internet stations just didn't sign up because either they have their own means of measuring by knowing how many people are on the stations website or app.

 

[Marcos_C]

I didn't know that internet only stations can't be included. I (wrongfully or rightfully) assumed that internet stations just didn't sign up because either they have their own means of measuring by knowing how many people are on the stations website or app.

I think that Internet-only stations are excluded from the Nielsen ratings for practical reasons. I, too, have seen the radio ratings charts of various cities, and I have noticed that all of the Internet stations (those with the suffix STR) on those charts are streamers of terrestrial radio stations. Also, the audience numbers of Internet-only stations that are not tied to terrestrial radio stations are generally too small to measure in any given market.

 

[CTListener]

I think that Internet-only stations are excluded from the Nielsen ratings for practical reasons. I, too, have seen the radio ratings charts of various cities, and I have noticed that all of the Internet stations (those with the suffix STR) on those charts are streamers of terrestrial radio stations. Also, the audience numbers of Internet-only stations that are not tied to terrestrial radio stations are generally too small to measure in any given market.

The big problem would be what to do with the internet stations that do show up. The way I understand it, if one Nielsen panelist listens to any over-the-air station for more than 15 minutes during one day of the rating period, that station will get a "participation trophy" 0.1 in the ratings available to all Nielsen subscribers, even if the station in question is a non-subscriber. Imagine the headache Nielsen would face (and its subscribers would suffer) if every book in every market contained hundreds, maybe even thousands, of internet-only stations, all with 0.1s!

The owner of a British internet station I frequently listen to tells me his measured audience at any given time ranges from single digits to 200+, scattered across the UK, US, and a few European nations. (That's what he can afford to be allowed to stream to under the current British fee/royalty scale for stations like his.) He considers his operation to be a "community station" for his local area, but through word-of-mouth, the station has built up a decent following elsewhere, including this country. I know for sure that the station would get that 0.1 in the Tampa book for sure, because that's where a guy who listens even more than I do lives. Since there are thousands of internet-only broadcasters with far greater listenership, you can see what a logistical nightmare including them in the ratings would be.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

There would be no logistical problem with including internet-only stations in Nielsen Audio ratings. It's just a computer doing math. Making it do more math means the tabulation will take a few seconds longer, and the resulting table will be marginally harder to read, especially if you're searching for WXBK-HD2 at the bottom of the pile.

There would not be thousands of entries, because that would imply everyone who is in the panel listened to at least one such station, and that all such stations elected to use PPM encoding. (Assuming that Nielsen were open to rating such services)

Really, the "internet-only station" is endangered because so few people listen to them and the royalties are high.
And the internet-only stations that exist have no use for local ratings because they are not locally targeted. If your British station were to appear in the "radio" ratings in Tampa, that provides no value to anyone.

 

[Least]

There would be no logistical problem with including internet-only stations in Nielsen Audio ratings. It's just a computer doing math. Making it do more math means the tabulation will take a few seconds longer, and the resulting table will be marginally harder to read, especially if you're searching for WXBK-HD2 at the bottom of the pile.

There would not be thousands of entries, because that would imply everyone who is in the panel listened to at least one such station, and that all such stations elected to use PPM encoding. (Assuming that Nielsen were open to rating such services)

Really, the "internet-only station" is endangered because so few people listen to them and the royalties are high.
And the internet-only stations that exist have no use for local ratings because they are not locally targeted. If your British station were to appear in the "radio" ratings in Tampa, that provides no value to anyone.

There are some that are targeted at specific cities. KRTY still aims at San Jose and San Francisco. Boston has Indie617 (formerly Radio BDC). I think low listenership is more applicable in those situations. With Indie617, they went from having airstaff and trying to continue where a former FM alternative station left off, to only playing independent music without any airstaff.

 

[DaveBayArea]

For stations that use streams there's really no need for Nielsen. Nielsen's methods are by definition inaccurate - using PPM devices to extrapolate what they think will be total listenership. In contrast, streams make a 1-for-1 connection to the server for each listener. You want to know how many listeners you have? Count the number of TCP connections to your streaming server. This might change if ipv6 multicast ever gets rolling, but it works fine today.

Dave B.

 

[davideduardo]

The big problem would be what to do with the internet stations that do show up. The way I understand it, if one Nielsen panelist listens to any over-the-air station for more than 15 minutes during one day of the rating period, that station will get a "participation trophy" 0.1 in the ratings available to all Nielsen subscribers, even if the station in question is a non-subscriber.

No, non-subscribers don't show under the "thanks for participating" subscriber benefit. Non subscribers have to meet a minimum listening level to show in the reports given to subscribers, and they don't show at all in the free 12+ beauty contest public numbers.

Imagine the headache Nielsen would face (and its subscribers would suffer) if every book in every market contained hundreds, maybe even thousands, of internet-only stations, all with 0.1s!

Only streams of subscribers that significantly duplicate a broadcast signal are listed.

The owner of a British internet station I frequently listen to tells me his measured audience at any given time ranges from single digits to 200+, scattered across the UK, US, and a few European nations. (That's what he can afford to be allowed to stream to under the current British fee/royalty scale for stations like his.) He considers his operation to be a "community station" for his local area, but through word-of-mouth, the station has built up a decent following elsewhere, including this country. I know for sure that the station would get that 0.1 in the Tampa book for sure, because that's where a guy who listens even more than I do lives. Since there are thousands of internet-only broadcasters with far greater listenership, you can see what a logistical nightmare including them in the ratings would be.

Again, Internet only streams don't get included. If you want to simplify, if it is not sharing US, Canadian or Mexican call letters with a station that is eligible, it won't be qualified. Best example: Sirius/XM which gets, obviously, plenty of listening, but is not part of a "radio station".

 

[davideduardo]

For stations that use streams there's really no need for Nielsen. Nielsen's methods are by definition inaccurate - using PPM devices to extrapolate what they think will be total listenership. In contrast, streams make a 1-for-1 connection to the server for each listener. You want to know how many listeners you have? Count the number of TCP connections to your streaming server. This might change if ipv6 multicast ever gets rolling, but it works fine today.

There is nothing wrong with a random probability sample (diary) or a stratified panel (PPM) and they have much greater accuracy in identifying age, gender, ethnicity, income level, education, etc.

All samples have a margin of error, but they provide such deep information that users trust them vastly more than "connections" which do not accurately identify anything except a device but not the specifics of the user.

 

[davideduardo]

There would not be thousands of entries, because that would imply everyone who is in the panel listened to at least one such station, and that all such stations elected to use PPM encoding. (Assuming that Nielsen were open to rating such services)

PPM does not require "one such" station as only subscribers for the specific market that get a single quarter hour get that "mention".

A non-subscriber has to meet minimum reporting standards, which means that the sum of all reported quarter hours is equal to a true 0.1% of all listening, 6 AM to Midnight, Monday to Sunday.

And even then, that data does not show in the free public release, which only shows subscribers.

 

[DaveBayArea]

There is nothing wrong with a random probability sample (diary) or a stratified panel (PPM) and they have much greater accuracy in identifying age, gender, ethnicity, income level, education, etc.

All samples have a margin of error, but they provide such deep information that users trust them vastly more than "connections" which do not accurately identify anything except a device but not the specifics of the user.

Good point. A simple connection to a stream tells you nothing about who is actually listening, although someone has probably tried to figure that out (via cookies) or will in the near future. Nielsen obviously has the edge there.

Dave B.