• 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

Clear Channel, Cox, Cumulus, Inner City, Radio One, and Saga Letter to Arbitron

Clear Channel, Cox, Cumulus, Inner City, Radio One, and Saga Letter to Arbitron

June 20, 2008
Mr. Steve Morris
Mr. Pierre Bouvard
Mr. Owen Charlebois
The Arbitron Company
142 West 57th Street
New York, NY 10019

Gentlemen,


On November 26th of last year you decided to delay commercialization of the PPM radio ratings service in nine markets. Steve Morris’ comment at the time was “We remain confident in the audience estimates that the Portable People Meter ™ service is producing. However, over the past three weeks, feedback from our customers, the Media Rating Council and other constituencies has led us to conclude that the radio industry would be better served if we were to delay further commercialization of the PPM in order to address their issues.”

Last week you announced the PPM currency rollout will resume as of the September 2008 - along with a strategy of continuous improvement. As paying customers and those who rely upon the credibility of the information to transact billions of dollars worth of business we feel an obligation to provide you this industry confidence update. Speaking as the vast majority of the industry our confidence in the system has not been fully restored as of this writing. This letter provides detail on what is required for us to move towards having the same confidence in the data that you expressed in November.

We understand the need for and remain ardent supporters of having a high quality electronic ratings measurement tool for the radio industry. But, what Arbitron has produced to date does not meet our expectations of a high quality measurement tool. Therefore, we anticipate your expedient resolution of the items.outlined on the following pages.


Clear Channel Radio Cox Radio Cumulus Media

Inner City Broadcast Holdings Radio One Inc. Saga Communications Inc.


1. 18-54 sample size /sample size guarantee

Status:
Your providing a “sample guarantee” at 80% of the markets sample target effective with the third month of currency, backed by a financial rebate. There’s also a plan to move some of the current 55+ sample into 18-54 – no hard date for implementation.

Industry expectation:
100% delivery of 18-54 target beginning with the first month of currency, including the sample guarantee with a financial rebate.

Justification:
18-54 age cells are used for the vast majority of radio’s buy/sell transactions. We expected to get 100% of the sample size when we bought PPM; as more markets roll-out this issue will become even more critical in smaller markets since Arbitron’s starting sample targets decrease.


2. 18-34 sample sizes (All demos including ethnic)

Status:
You’ve set benchmarks (not financially backed guarantees) for sample target delivery. These include 70% in a market’s first year of measurement and 80% in year two. Adults, Men and Women are covered – as well as Black and Hispanics in markets where they exceed 10% of the population. “Other” 18-34 is also covered if Black or Hispanic exceeds 10%.

Industry expectation:
A much steeper improvement ramp; leading to 100% delivery in the form of sample guarantees backed by financial rebates, not benchmarks. This would include all demographic groups as described above. The following sample target guarantees make more sense to the industry:
6 months 80%
1 year 85%
18 months 90%
2 years 100%

Justification:
We expected full sample size delivery when we signed up for PPM – and had a right to. Getting 80% of that number two years into the deal is unacceptable. Failure to fully meet these targets makes it difficult, if not impossible to evaluate a stations success or use the data to transact business.


3. Childrens (age 6-11) measurement

Status:

Children 6-11 comprise approximately 10% of the meters in the PPM sample. We have repeatedly requested these meters be re-allocated to persons over the age of 12. Arbitron has been steadfast in its reluctance to do so citing “cost considerations, IT issues, and interest from a number of customers in 6-11 year old data.”

Industry expectation:

All PPM markets that commercialize (ie first month of currency) after January 1, 2009 will have panels that 1) consist only of Persons 12+ 2) are no smaller than the currently scheduled sample target. In addition beginning January 1, 2009 6-11 year old measurement will be phased out in existing PPM markets through panel turnover. As households leave the panel in these markets they will be replaced by those that provide meters only to persons 12+.

Justification:

When PPM sample size targets were calculated at approximately 33% of the markets diary level, you converted a 12+ diary figure to a 6+ base in PPM – meaning we didn’t get a full 33% conversion into 12+ PPM meters. Adding the 6-11 year old meters back into a 12+ base will correct this, and expedite the building of 18-34 and 18-54 sample sizes. Children 6-11 measurement is a remnant of your proposed joint venture with Nielsen; the vast majority of the radio industry never asked for, never wanted and still has no need for it.


4. MRC Accreditation for Radio First methodology prior to commercialization

Current status:

You’ve been consistent and resolute; no waiting for accreditation before making PPM currency in all markets beyond Houston. We recognize this aligns with the MRC’s Voluntary Code of Conduct.

Industry expectation:

Our expectation is that you will achieve MRC accreditation for the Radio First PPM methodology on or before June 30, 2009. If accreditation is not received by the deadline, the Houston “best practices” methodology will be installed in all markets rolled out going forward. In addition, Arbitron will take the steps necessary to put the current Houston methodology in all existing PPM markets at no additional cost to all existing PPM subscribers.

Justification:

The industry is not asking for every market to gain accreditation prior to currency – only that the Radio First PPM system gains accreditation ONE TIME before currency implementation. Also, the diary and Houston PPM methodologies have accreditation; all radio markets should be using an accredited product. This is a reasonable expectation given the critical importance of the data to our underlying business and the substantial increases in rates that accompanied the rollout of PPM. Finally, the MRC code of conduct doesn’t require accreditation prior to currency, but does prefer it - “The MRC prefers that a Participating Measurement Service seeking to replace an accredited currency measurement product with a new currency measurement product (both products provided by the same Participating Measurement Service) uses best efforts to obtain accreditation of the new product prior to its commercialization.”

cc: Ed Christian
Lew Dickey
John Hogan
Alfred Liggins
Bob Neil
Charles Warfield
 
Re: Clear Channel, Cox, Cumulus, Inner City, Radio One, and Saga Letter to Arbitron

Yawn. More crap from Cox. Why won't Bob Niel just come out and say he's scared of WSB going down? Radio is affraid to post but they want Arbitron to hit research targets 100%? I work in TV much and you should see what Nielsen research can look like sometimes with age cells. You people in radio need to really wake up and try to fix the erosion (for real) than to blame the research company.
 
Re: Clear Channel, Cox, Cumulus, Inner City, Radio One, and Saga Letter to Arbitron

Shadow said:
Yawn. More crap from Cox. Why won't Bob Niel just come out and say he's scared of WSB going down? Radio is affraid to post but they want Arbitron to hit research targets 100%? I work in TV much and you should see what Nielsen research can look like sometimes with age cells. You people in radio need to really wake up and try to fix the erosion (for real) than to blame the research company.

This is not "crap from Cox." The group that produced the letter represent some of the biggest radio companies in the US, and is far more than Cox.

The issue is that the guaranteed targets are only 80% of the sample goal as promised, and at present they are at the 70% of 80% point... in other words, closer to half than to the whole. And the individual cells are not balanced and proportional.

The issue has nothing to do with erosion... there are always 100 shares. The issue is that there is no MRC accreditation, meaning the methodology and the implementation do not follow what the MRC requires to certify. Proportionality is just a first step.

Nielsen provides a weekly sample report; Arbitron provides nothing.
 
Re: Clear Channel, Cox, Cumulus, Inner City, Radio One, and Saga Letter to Arbitron

Shadow said:
Yawn. More crap from Cox. Why won't Bob Niel just come out and say he's scared of WSB going down? Radio is affraid to post but they want Arbitron to hit research targets 100%? I work in TV much and you should see what Nielsen research can look like sometimes with age cells. You people in radio need to really wake up and try to fix the erosion (for real) than to blame the research company.

Spoken like a truly ignorant person.

Yet slightly over 2 years ago, you yourself stated ""The only reason you find pea-sized in-tabs is because only idiots run reports of Men 25-34 in one zip code on a Sunday afternoon and expect the best statistical report on earth. "

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,28861.msg207923.html#msg207923

Here you push for pea-sized in-tabs in PPM yet bash them 28 months ago.

Today, in Nassau-Suffolk, a market that was supposed to be live with PPM at the end of December 2007, 35% of the reports Women 18-24 cannot be run from PPM Data Monday-Sunday 6A - 12 Midnight as the sample is too small.

And this is what broadcasting will hang it's future on?

This post goes well with all your posts about how well Air America was succeeding. ;)

At least you are consistent with Obama and the rest of your pals with your flipflops.
 
Re: Clear Channel, Cox, Cumulus, Inner City, Radio One, and Saga Letter to Arbitron

I was thrilled to hear that Arbitron was finally pregnant. I’d been wanting kids for years. Here was our opportunity to show the advertising world that we can sell product to kids for them. Now this latest effort (tympani: “The Letter”) of certain of the groups to pressure Arbitron to drop ‘em in return for sample improvement in other demos. Oy!

Children listen to the radio, whether forced by mom/dad/big brother or sister, or, more often than you may think - on their own. Check the radio section under Entertainment & Media on Yahoo Answers for proof. They hate the commercials, but still listen to radio in droves, especially for the contests. I understand the concern that a PPM might go to a kid rather than an adult who will flesh out the sample, but to eliminate the kids completely is throwing the baby out with the… well whatever – you catch my drift, bad analogy or not.

Since I was a wee-lad jock & PD and through my days in sales and management I have often wished for the ability to sell kids and tweens to advertisers – especially on a national basis from which most of those buys originate. Admittedly, I was always better at national sales than local and, numbers rather than cold calls at strip malls being my thing, damn good at it. Right now, TV, Cellular the Internet and other new media get those dollars – and there are a lot of them. Ever watch “Carly” and follow along on the website?

Arbitron says they have customers who want kids and will pay for those numbers, which would presumably lower the rates for all. I can only guess that The Mouse is involved but probably not the only one.

It would take some time to ramp-up, get the reps in front of the right buyers, get the agencies to add radio to the budgets and buyers’ responsibilities and a host of other things. But with radio in the toilet right now, wouldn’t it make sense to go where the fish are, or at least throw another line in the water (sorry, another questionable analogy)?

Let me speak more clearly: you guys are making cuts left and right to please yourselves and your stockholders because your revenue is down. Your revenue is down because you have new competition from the Internet, iPods, downloads, cell phones, ad nauseum. In addition you have made your stations less interesting to listen to in a mistaken purge of your programming and marketing budgets. The former is inevitable, but adaptable. The latter can be fixed if you will open your eyes – or at least shift them from the P/L to real life.

You are losing men and teens hand over fist. Yes, I understand that today’s radio buyer wants 25-54 (what else is new – that was true 25 years ago when I was actively hustling both national and local spot sales). But being the greedy lot that you are, I would think you would welcome an opportunity for more dollars regardless of the source – and here’s your opportunity to get them from a new, untapped (by radio) legitimate source with big wallets. Wouldn’t Mattel or General Mills be better than Head-On, Viagra and Cialis by mail? Listen to any hard-to-sell station (including XM & Sirius) and that’s what you hear.

Sorry about the length, one other observation: in the last five years Arbitron’s stock is up 36%; CXR is down 42%; CCU is off 17%; CMLS is down 79%; Radio One 91%; ICBC – who knows? I don’t know if this is germane or not, but someone is doing something right and others…

I could be dead wrong, this is just one man’s opinion (well, maybe not, note the luminaries who did not sign “The Letter”); I would welcome any response, especially from any of the half-dozen signatories.

NOTE: I am not, nor have ever been associated with, nor employed by Arbitron. I am acquainted with several of the big guys at Arbitron, but we do not socialize. As a station-side programmer and manager, I have paid the price (which is admittedly high), used their products and, as a marketing consultant, still do. I find them invaluable. I have no vested interest with regard to these comments except that my clients might be able to open new revenue streams with the addition of hard numbers on 6-11 year-olds, which might benefit them and me.
 
Re: Clear Channel, Cox, Cumulus, Inner City, Radio One, and Saga Letter to Arbitron

NamJock said:
Children listen to the radio, whether forced by mom/dad/big brother or sister, or, more often than you may think - on their own.

But, ratings or no ratings, ad agencies don't buy 6-11 any more than they buy 12-17 or 55+. Spending the subscribers' money on researching 6-11 which will not bring any revenue in is absurd when the sample for markets like LA has gone from nearly 8000 to around 2000.

Since I was a wee-lad jock & PD and through my days in sales and management I have often wished for the ability to sell kids and tweens to advertisers – especially on a national basis from which most of those buys originate.

But the national agencies don't buy radio for kids, any more than they buy radio for teens. The 6-12 came from the original idea that the PPM might be the new multimedia measurement device, covering radio and TV in all forms. That did not happen, and radio can not afford to pay for a useless demo on top of a 60% rate increase for the PPM itself.

Arbitron says they have customers who want kids and will pay for those numbers, which would presumably lower the rates for all. I can only guess that The Mouse is involved but probably not the only one.

Radio Disney has paid for proprietary research for some time, so that is not new. However, Arbitron does not lower rates if they get more subscribers.

It would take some time to ramp-up, get the reps in front of the right buyers, get the agencies to add radio to the budgets and buyers’ responsibilities and a host of other things.

Buyers don't change demos or media mix. That comes from the client.

You are losing men and teens hand over fist.

Teen cume is fairly stable, it's TSL that is off. Men 18+ is reasonably flat in cume (around 95% in PPM markets) and only the young demos are off in TSL. In fact, in PPM the loss is in women, not men.
 
Re: Clear Channel, Cox, Cumulus, Inner City, Radio One, and Saga Letter to Arbitron

the national agencies don't buy radio for kids, any more than they buy radio for teens

I've said my piece, stand by it in context (even though you nit-picked a couple of points which seem reasonable at first glance) and I'll watch for responses such as yours for which I am grateful. Sorry about the LA sample, take it up with your Arbitron rep to manufacture and distribute more PPMs, but be prepared for him or her to tell you the sample size is pretty close to satisfactory with PPM as opposed to the paper diary. On another point: obviously Disney does research, so does Lame Duck Broadcasting in Boise, I'm not an idiot.

Why don't they buy teens - for which we do have numbers? Nobody pitches it. They try to position their teen (or 55+) station as 25-54. The buyers aren't idiots either. I have clients who's base is obviously 45-64, I can see it in the book, but they insist it's a 25-54 station. Same-same with the 12-24 stations.

Teen cume is fairly stable, it's TSL that is off. Men 18+ is reasonably flat in cume (around 95% in PPM markets) and only the young demos are off in TSL. In fact, in PPM the loss is in women, not men.

The problem here is that what, 90%-95% of US markets are still on paper diaries, not PPM - and it's a ways off. Last time I looked, agencies and clients cared about AQH, not Cume. Doesn't Arbitron still have to pay a premium to men, esp. AA and Hispanics to get participants? And TSL - same ol' complaint: too many commercials (and long blocks of them), same songs over and again, boring jox. Heard it all before.

So what we have is Occam's razor. We don't have the numbers to pitch, so we don't pitch the numbers. Sounds like a bunch of lazy, set-in-their ways salespeople, buyers AND clients. And I believe I did mention a ramp-up time table.

Of course clients don't buy radio for kids, we don't have the numbers. That's my point. But ask yourself when was the last time anyone pitched an agency or client on teens or kids for radio? Even though there's money being spent (just watch your TV on Saturday morning or during Prime weeknights on Comedy Central, Nick The Cartoon Network and others).

Everyone's so centered on 25-54 that we don't even try. There are advertisers spending money on these demos in other media, we just don't chase them anymore. I hate to date myself, but there was a time when we'd say, "Screw it, we're not getting anything from this agency, let's go around them, put something together for the client and see if we can move some product." It didn't always work, but sometimes it did. And sometimes is better than never. Yes, I know it jeapordizes future buys with other clients from the same shop - so what? If they need you, they'll buy you. We usually paid the agency their commission anyway (though not always if they were especially pissy about it).

If we had the 6-11 numbers to back us up, you might be surprised what a skilled numbers cruncher at the station level might be able to do. Then again, I might be surprised at how complacent radio sales people have become. Because, even though I mentioned it, stock prices really don't have anything to do with billing and I strongly suspect billing is way up since I did this stuff everyday. But stock prices do seem to drive management. Hmmm? Options anyone?

I'm sorta playing devil's advocate here and though your pull-quotes bear some consideration, I'd still like to see us measure kids.
 
Re: Clear Channel, Cox, Cumulus, Inner City, Radio One, and Saga Letter to Arbitron

NamJock said:
Sorry about the LA sample, take it up with your Arbitron rep to manufacture and distribute more PPMs, but be prepared for him or her to tell you the sample size is pretty close to satisfactory with PPM as opposed to the paper diary.

Actually, the sample size is inadequate to even run most of the reports I want normally. The issue is that Arbitron upped the cost of the service by 60% and decreased the sample by about 70%. For the more granular report, there are not enough meters behand the desired data to produce them.

Why don't they buy teens - for which we do have numbers? Nobody pitches it.

You can pitch a demo the agency clients don't ask for til the Grips come home, and you will not sell anything. Stations don't pitc demos to agencies. Agencies ask for quotes against the demos the client asks for per the client't consumer research. In radio, there are no kiddie buys, essentially no teen buys and nearly no 55+ buys. If a station can not present for the target demo, they might as well stay home.

They try to position their teen (or 55+) station as 25-54. The buyers aren't idiots either. I have clients who's base is obviously 45-64, I can see it in the book, but they insist it's a 25-54 station. Same-same with the 12-24 stations.

There are not more than a handful of 12-24 stations... if that many. CHRs are 18-34 female targeted, as are CHurbans and such.

Anyway, stations that may have a piece of their audience in an agency client's target will pitch it if they want it. For example, a 35-54 male rock format may have enough spillage in 21-34 to compete for beer buys, but at a lower rate to get the buy. The agency just figures the over-35 is a bonus, but they don't pay for it.

Teen cume is fairly stable, it's TSL that is off. Men 18+ is reasonably flat in cume (around 95% in PPM markets) and only the young demos are off in TSL. In fact, in PPM the loss is in women, not men.

[/quote]The problem here is that what, 90%-95% of US markets are still on paper diaries, not PPM - and it's a ways off.[/quote]

PPM is in 1% of markets, and will be in 3% by the end of the year. But those markets account for 30% of the ad revenues in the US and nearly 25% of the population of the US.

In any case, your figures are wrong... they are just more wrong in the PPM.

Last time I looked, agencies and clients cared about AQH, not Cume.

Cost is measured by the number of listeners. But reach and frequency, usually used to measure a campaign consisting of multiple stations, requres cume and AQH persons data.

Doesn't Arbitron still have to pay a premium to men,

Only young men, because they are hard to get to fill in a diary as their lifestyle is active... but they get picked up as part of a family / household, since diaries are not individually placed.

esp. AA and Hispanics to get participants?

With Hispanics and Blacks, incentives overcome household resistence to participating. The Ethnic DST has to do with cultural issues, etc., not male participation issues.

And TSL - same ol' complaint: too many commercials (and long blocks of them),

Commercials have been on the radio for 8 decades or more, and listeners expect them. On the other hand, bad songs are a major problem.

same songs over and again,

Actually only a complaint you hear because some ignorant PD increased the playlist and is now playing lots of weak songs.

So what we have is Occam's razor. We don't have the numbers to pitch, so we don't pitch the numbers. Sounds like a bunch of lazy, set-in-their ways salespeople, buyers AND clients. And I believe I did mention a ramp-up time table.

The razor you describe is not even a rusted Gillette. Stations program for and offer to advertisers the demos most advertisers want. We do not program for demos that have no sales interes, under 18 and over 55. Nobody asks for them, so there is nothing to gain there..

Of course clients don't buy radio for kids, we don't have the numbers. That's my point. But ask yourself when was the last time anyone pitched an agency or client on teens or kids for radio? Even though there's money being spent (just watch your TV on Saturday morning or during Prime weeknights on Comedy Central, Nick The Cartoon Network and others).

Agencies and the clients specify which members of the media they want to buy. Radio is not used for younger people as it lacks the visuals agencies want for the demo.

Everyone's so centered on 25-54 that we don't even try.

Nearly 100% of all buys are for 18-54 or some segment or slice of this broad demo. Hispanic English dominant 25-44 females, for example. Or men 21-34 for nearly all beer campaigns in radio.

There are advertisers spending money on these demos in other media, we just don't chase them anymore.

Nothing to chase.

I hate to date myself, but there was a time when we'd say, "Screw it, we're not getting anything from this agency, let's go around them, put something together for the client and see if we can move some product." It didn't always work, but sometimes it did. And sometimes is better than never. Yes, I know it jeapordizes future buys with other clients from the same shop - so what? If they need you, they'll buy you. We usually paid the agency their commission anyway (though not always if they were especially pissy about it).

That is a lack of ethics, and is intererring with the agency client relationship. Today, you might get, rightfully, slapped with a tortuous interference suit. And clients don't change the media mix and demos for one station in one market. May have happened decades ago, but, fortunately, I never did it in decades of managing and selling.

Then again, I might be surprised at how complacent radio sales people have become.

We are in a recession, and people are hustling like mad to stay even... people are anything but complacent. But we still respect our agencies and don't try to pitch things they don't want.

I'm sorta playing devil's advocate here and though your pull-quotes bear some consideration, I'd still like to see us measure kids.

The folks in radio would like the sample to be larger and more proportional in the 18-54 sales demos and the sub-cells and breaks. Today, it isn't.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom