CAN NON-SUBSCRIBING STATIONS SUE ARBITRON?

[Radiofornia]

Arbitron has sued non-subscribing radio stations in the past for mentioning the name "Arbitron" over the air or on sales materials, and in some cases, even for saying "we're number one" (Google Arbitron's lawsuit against WKMX / Dothan, AL).

If Arbitron wants to play that game, can non-subscribing stations sue them for including the station's call letters on the ratings that will only be useful to competitors? For example, if my station is KXXX and I don't subscribe to Arbitron, now I don't even have access to the 12+ 6am-mid numbers that were useful even if only for bragging rights.

In PPM markets, non-subscribing stations might want to continue encoding because they might still get agency buys (if they stop encoding they will disappear completely), but in small diary markets I don't see the benefit of cooperating with Arbitron at all.

Non-subscribing stations can't even say the "A' word without threats of being sued, but Arbitron can use that station's call letters to make money by selling the data to competitors?

If non-subscribing station owners demand that Arbitron not use their call letters and other information, eventually the ratings data will be rendered useless, because even though subscribing stations will still show up in the rankers, down the road media buyers will start wondering about why this station or that station is not included.

And as powerful as Arbitron claims to be, they can't simply wipe out a radio station from existence. Local listeners will still listen, and local businesses will still want to advertise on that station, hence the station still has value....value that I don't want Arbitron exploiting for financial gain.

Thoughts?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Maybe the better way to ask your questions is: Can a non=subscribing station WIN a suit against Arbitron.

I am going to assume that most non-subscribing stations that might be candidates to believe they have been damaged do not have the financial resources to file a suit and gamble on losing. In that case they will pay their own legal expenses, and if you lawyer frames the czses carelessly, then Arbitron may have success in asking the court to have the station pay Arbitron legal expenses defending the suit.

It will be interesting to see if anyone comes up with an example where a station had success in such a case.

 

[TheBigA]

The information belongs to Arbitron. It's their property. You can't sue them for publishing the facts.

Here's an example: Newspapers publish health reports about restaurants. It's a popular feature. The Health Department went to Bucky's House of Beef and found roaches and food left at room temperature. The local paper prints that information. That kills Bucky's business, but it was the truth. Bucky can't sue.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

No publisher can be held liable for printing the call letters of a station because call letters are the property of the government. I'm not sure what other information Arbitron publishes that could be considered property of the stations.

 

[davideduardo]

Arbitron has sued non-subscribing radio stations in the past for mentioning the name "Arbitron" over the air or on sales materials, and in some cases, even for saying "we're number one" (Google Arbitron's lawsuit against WKMX / Dothan, AL).

Arbitron will take action when a station says something over the air that encourages listeners to report or listen to a station in an untrue manner. The classic exampleis running a contest based on "writing down" listening where the obvious intent is to get people to write a lot more listening in an Arbitron diary. But, as far as I know, Arbitron has never sued over this.

Arbitron will, though, send a cease and desist to non-subscribing stations that use Arbitron data without having rights to use it. If they persist, they will sue. After all, the data is copyright and it is unfair to paying clients for someone to use the data for free.

I've been with stations in markets as big as LA that a) were subscribers and b) had a jingle that said "#1 in Arbitron and in your heart."

If Arbitron wants to play that game,

That is not a game. It is no different than making illegal copies of movies or music or stealing any other copyright material.

Arbitron puts as much expense into making its product as a car company does in making vehicles. Saying that this is a "game" is like saying it is OK to go to the lot behind the car factory and stealing a few.

can non-subscribing stations sue them for including the station's call letters on the ratings that will only be useful to competitors?

No. Just like there is a limitation on libel/slander for public figures, call letters are "public knowledge" and stations using them broadcast them to anyone with a radio. Plus, if a station wants use of the numbers, they are free to subscribe if they want; no station is prevented from subscribing.

For example, if my station is KXXX and I don't subscribe to Arbitron, now I don't even have access to the 12+ 6am-mid numbers that were useful even if only for bragging rights.

Stations did not have "bragging rights" to the 12+ numbers. While they could see them in the press, they could not, ever, use them to sell as that was a strict condition of the release of the public data.

In PPM markets, non-subscribing stations might want to continue encoding because they might still get agency buys (if they stop encoding they will disappear completely), but in small diary markets I don't see the benefit of cooperating with Arbitron at all.

So Fresno or Rochester or Buffalo are "small markets." Interesting.

In any case, agencies use diary based data to buy just as they use PPM data. While there is less national business in markets outside the top 50, being listed even if a station can't directly use the numbers has some value.

Non-subscribing stations can't even say the "A' word without threats of being sued, but Arbitron can use that station's call letters to make money by selling the data to competitors?

Stations broadcast publicly. Trying to prevent Arbitron from measuring the behavior of the public is not going to be successful.

If non-subscribing station owners demand that Arbitron not use their call letters and other information, eventually the ratings data will be rendered useless, because even though subscribing stations will still show up in the rankers, down the road media buyers will start wondering about why this station or that station is not included.

Media buyers could care less if a station is not included; they use ratings as a metric for pricing. If a station does not want to be listed, then agency people will assume they are not interested in being on buys, and that is that.

In a considerable number of countries, ratings only include subscribers... even agencies and station clients don't see the non-subscribing station numbers. The purpose of ratings is to facilitate the setting of pricing, and leaving out stations does not affect the pricing of those that do appear.

And as powerful as Arbitron claims to be, they can't simply wipe out a radio station from existence. Local listeners will still listen, and local businesses will still want to advertise on that station, hence the station still has value....value that I don't want Arbitron exploiting for financial gain

This sounds kind of like the kid who is losing at a basketball one on one, and grabs his ball and goes home.