Effect of PPM rating system in Houston?

[davideduardo]

I don't believe there was ever such a thing as a good diary sample, at least not in the last 20 years. Flaws in the PPM? A quantum leap over diaries? YES! No question about it warts and all.

The diary sample was near-perfect in proportionality in every top 100 to 150 market. The PPM samples do not even approach proportionality, and that is why Arbitron is not willing to even guarantee the specific cells, just the overall 18-54 sample for size.

In addition, we have serious issues with the line Arbitron is feeding us that women listen to radio less than men; anyone who has done some perceptuals and a few AMTs knows that women listen as much or more than men... yet the PPM shows less. Maybe it is the ugly PPM itself and the way women dress? Ya think?

 

[jd]

Maybe it is the ugly PPM itself and the way women dress? Ya think?

That may be one of the keenest observations in this entire thread.

 

[InTIMadate]

Arbitron was denied PPM accreditation by the Media Rating Council in both New York and Philly in January and hid the facts until they were required to report to the SEC last week. It's time to tell Arbitron to take their little expensive black box back. Philly has been a test market for 10 years and they still can't get their methodology correct.

Bob Neil is looking smarter. Arbitron is a company of smiling crooks.
How is radio paying for their 65% hike in fees to pay for PPM?
Programming jobs, there's no place else to cut!

The tail is wagging the big radio dog. It's time to bite back.


Read this article, know the facts: http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003717930

 

[davideduardo]

Arbitron was denied PPM accreditation by the Media Rating Council in both New York and Philly in January and hid the facts until they were required to report to the SEC last week.

Akbitron is reporting every month in a conference call the status of the PPM rollout, including the MRC issues. They have been doing this regularly and reliably. The SEC requirement on disclusure is a separate issue.

It's time to tell Arbitron to take their little expensive black box back. Philly has been a test market for 10 years and they still can't get their methodology correct.

That's not correct. Philly was a test market for two years, and the test concluded. Following that, we had about 2 years of Houston testing, and then both Philly and Houston went to currency status.

Prior to Philly, there was a limited Wilmington test, but that was principally to test encoding, detection and data transfer.

There are many defects in the PPM so far. But contributing, as you have, inaccurate data, does not aid in understanding what is going on.

 

[walter1]

I don't believe there was ever such a thing as a good diary sample, at least not in the last 20 years. Flaws in the PPM? A quantum leap over diaries? YES! No question about it warts and all.

The diary sample was near-perfect in proportionality in every top 100 to 150 market. The PPM samples do not even approach proportionality, and that is why Arbitron is not willing to even guarantee the specific cells, just the overall 18-54 sample for size.

In addition, we have serious issues with the line Arbitron is feeding us that women listen to radio less than men; anyone who has done some perceptuals and a few AMTs knows that women listen as much or more than men... yet the PPM shows less. Maybe it is the ugly PPM itself and the way women dress? Ya think?

Let me see if I get this straight, in a market with as many stations as we have you TRULY believe that a system that relies 100% on RECALL is better than a passive measurement system? You are not really saying that are you? I'm sure most people will take the time to write down EVERY time they push a button, sure they will, of course I believe in fairy tales too!

 

[davideduardo]

Let me see if I get this straight, in a market with as many stations as we have you TRULY believe that a system that relies 100% on RECALL is better than a passive measurement system? You are not really saying that are you? I'm sure most people will take the time to write down EVERY time they push a button, sure they will, of course I believe in fairy tales too!

Let me see if I got you right: you prefer a sample that is nowhere near proporitonal, and under-represents many groups to the point of being unreliable as a sample, over a method that essentially gets the same results when compared to cells that are sampled correctly?

 

[walter1]

Let me see if I get this straight, in a market with as many stations as we have you TRULY believe that a system that relies 100% on RECALL is better than a passive measurement system? You are not really saying that are you? I'm sure most people will take the time to write down EVERY time they push a button, sure they will, of course I believe in fairy tales too!

Let me see if I got you right: you prefer a sample that is nowhere near proporitonal, and under-represents many groups to the point of being unreliable as a sample, over a method that essentially gets the same results when compared to cells that are sampled correctly? "

Key word there "when sampled correctly" and if what you say were true then how is it that PPM showed the playing floor to be so much more even? PPM's have some warts but they will get fixed and anyone who is truthful with themslves will admit that a passive system is far superior to a person attempting recall. Can you honestly tell me you can remember everything you did yesterday, particularly as to your media consumption? C'mon, get real. I surfed so many channels on TV, listened to Sirius, blew thru the am/fm dial, there's just no way ANYONE is going to take the time to fill out a diary truthfully and honestly. Can't happen. No matter how much you protest time will not go backward on this one. PPM's are considerably better and will be better yet when the kinks are ironed out.
As someone who uses these numbers to determine the best place to put their adv. dollars I'm much more comfortable with the PPM's than the diary system. The saddest thing is that didn't roll this out 10 years ago, the technology has been there forever. Had they done that the kinks we would been worked out by now and we would not be having this conversation. Yea I hear those new fangled cars are a mess, let's go back to the horse and buggy, that is what you are suggesting. Because there are issues we should take a potentially near perfect measuring system and trash it to go back to an un-scientific piece of garbage?

 

[davideduardo]

Key word there "when sampled correctly" and if what you say were true then how is it that PPM showed the playing floor to be so much more even?[/quote]

There has still to be a good sample in the PPM anywhere. Even the Houston sample is wobbly and waaaaaaaaaay under in groups like Spanish dominant Hispanic Females, etc., etc.

No research is usable if it has a defective sample. So far, Houston comes closer than NY and Philly, but that is like asking which flat tire is flatter on an abandoned car.

PPM's have some warts but they will get fixed and anyone who is truthful with themslves will admit that a passive system is far superior to a person attempting recall.

The PPM system is fine, with a few exceptions. However, the sample is dreadful so far, and Arbitron, which never did a panel research project, is slowly learning how to do this. Until the sample is right, the data will be wrong.

Can you honestly tell me you can remember everything you did yesterday, particularly as to your media consumption?

Most people do their diary keeping each evening, and the recall is fresh. That is why Arbitron calls, over and over, during the process. And remember, the diary is good enough to work in the 250 markets that will not get the PPM, most of them ever.

C'mon, get real. I surfed so many channels on TV, listened to Sirius, blew thru the am/fm dial, there's just no way ANYONE is going to take the time to fill out a diary truthfully and honestly. Can't happen. No matter how much you protest time will not go backward on this one. PPM's are considerably better and will be better yet when the kinks are ironed out.

The fact is that diary keepers write down the significant listening. What the PPM gets is the hearing, the listening to very low priority stations, etc. This build useless cume... cume that no reach and frequency goal that is economical to advertisers can ever deliver. It is meaningless listening. Less than half the listeners provide over 92% of the PPM listening time. The others are useless to stations or advertisers and make buying worse, not easier.

As someone who uses these numbers to determine the best place to put their adv. dollars I'm much more comfortable with the PPM's than the diary system. The saddest thing is that didn't roll this out 10 years ago, the technology has been there forever.

No, the technology started development in about 1995 for "real" and the issues of battery life and size could only truly be resolved int he last few years. The system is still clunky, and is no doubt the cause of listening by women, traditionally equal to or greater than that of women (even in in-house studies) showing 20% lower than men. Why? Women have trouble wearing the device or find it unattractive.

Had they done that the kinks we would been worked out by now and we would not be having this conversation.

The battery life is still too short for reliability, and the device is too big and too ugly. Lots of problems to work out still... but the main one is if the sample is wrong, you have garbage in and garbage out.

Because there are issues we should take a potentially near perfect measuring system and trash it to go back to an un-scientific piece of garbage?

It will be the end of 2010 before we have the top 50 markets. The remaining 250 rated markets will be diary based for the forseeable future. Oh, the diary is MRC accredited. The PPM is only accredited in one market, and that one is up for review next month.

 

[walter1]

Key word there "when sampled correctly" and if what you say were true then how is it that PPM showed the playing floor to be so much more even?

There has still to be a good sample in the PPM anywhere. Even the Houston sample is wobbly and waaaaaaaaaay under in groups like Spanish dominant Hispanic Females, etc., etc.

No research is usable if it has a defective sample. So far, Houston comes closer than NY and Philly, but that is like asking which flat tire is flatter on an abandoned car.

PPM's have some warts but they will get fixed and anyone who is truthful with themslves will admit that a passive system is far superior to a person attempting recall.

The PPM system is fine, with a few exceptions. However, the sample is dreadful so far, and Arbitron, which never did a panel research project, is slowly learning how to do this. Until the sample is right, the data will be wrong.

Can you honestly tell me you can remember everything you did yesterday, particularly as to your media consumption?

Most people do their diary keeping each evening, and the recall is fresh. That is why Arbitron calls, over and over, during the process. And remember, the diary is good enough to work in the 250 markets that will not get the PPM, most of them ever.

C'mon, get real. I surfed so many channels on TV, listened to Sirius, blew thru the am/fm dial, there's just no way ANYONE is going to take the time to fill out a diary truthfully and honestly. Can't happen. No matter how much you protest time will not go backward on this one. PPM's are considerably better and will be better yet when the kinks are ironed out.

The fact is that diary keepers write down the significant listening. What the PPM gets is the hearing, the listening to very low priority stations, etc. This build useless cume... cume that no reach and frequency goal that is economical to advertisers can ever deliver. It is meaningless listening. Less than half the listeners provide over 92% of the PPM listening time. The others are useless to stations or advertisers and make buying worse, not easier.

As someone who uses these numbers to determine the best place to put their adv. dollars I'm much more comfortable with the PPM's than the diary system. The saddest thing is that didn't roll this out 10 years ago, the technology has been there forever.

No, the technology started development in about 1995 for "real" and the issues of battery life and size could only truly be resolved int he last few years. The system is still clunky, and is no doubt the cause of listening by women, traditionally equal to or greater than that of women (even in in-house studies) showing 20% lower than men. Why? Women have trouble wearing the device or find it unattractive.

Had they done that the kinks we would been worked out by now and we would not be having this conversation.

The battery life is still too short for reliability, and the device is too big and too ugly. Lots of problems to work out still... but the main one is if the sample is wrong, you have garbage in and garbage out.

Because there are issues we should take a potentially near perfect measuring system and trash it to go back to an un-scientific piece of garbage?

It will be the end of 2010 before we have the top 50 markets. The remaining 250 rated markets will be diary based for the forseeable future. Oh, the diary is MRC accredited. The PPM is only accredited in one market, and that one is up for review next month.
[/quote] So tell me how it is you have such intimate knowledge of these "most people" and how FRESH their memories are? I'm sorry that is absolute BS. Arbitron was trotting around when I was still in radio that was a good 15 years ago.

 

[davideduardo]

So tell me how it is you have such intimate knowledge of these "most people" and how FRESH their memories are? I'm sorry that is absolute BS. Arbitron was trotting around when I was still in radio that was a good 15 years ago.

The diary process is very transparent. One can see the individual diaries, and from very simple things like handwriting differences or different kind of pen, etc., you can see that most diarykeepers fill them in daily... I have seen hundreds of thousands of diaries since my first diary review in 1970 in Beltsville.

But beyond that, many of us have researched the ability of listeners to rebuild based on recall their listening from the last 24 hours by means of our own in-house research. Other than rounding (a human trait in any kind of research) and forgetting the "hearing" of stations others were listening to and short interludes of insignificant length, the diary does a very good job... as witnessed by the fact that, in proportionally sampled cells, the diary and the PPM are very, very close.

Example: The last diary survey in Houston and the PPM sample 6 months later were within 0.5 share points of each other on the total Spanish language share in the market. 0.5 is way inside the margin of error of either methodology.

The PPM has a number of issues, and some can be resolved quickly, like sample balance... but Arbitron is apparently finding the cost of maintaining a panel is very high and more than they estimated. Other issues, like carrying by women, are going to be harder to fix. If you think remebering to write in a diary for 7 days is hard, remembering to carry your meter everywhere for over 1500 days is even harder.

 

[walter1]

So tell me how it is you have such intimate knowledge of these "most people" and how FRESH their memories are? I'm sorry that is absolute BS. Arbitron was trotting around when I was still in radio that was a good 15 years ago.

The diary process is very transparent. One can see the individual diaries, and from very simple things like handwriting differences or different kind of pen, etc., you can see that most diarykeepers fill them in daily... I have seen hundreds of thousands of diaries since my first diary review in 1970 in Beltsville.

But beyond that, many of us have researched the ability of listeners to rebuild based on recall their listening from the last 24 hours by means of our own in-house research. Other than rounding (a human trait in any kind of research) and forgetting the "hearing" of stations others were listening to and short interludes of insignificant length, the diary does a very good job... as witnessed by the fact that, in proportionally sampled cells, the diary and the PPM are very, very close.

Example: The last diary survey in Houston and the PPM sample 6 months later were within 0.5 share points of each other on the total Spanish language share in the market. 0.5 is way inside the margin of error of either methodology.

The PPM has a number of issues, and some can be resolved quickly, like sample balance... but Arbitron is apparently finding the cost of maintaining a panel is very high and more than they estimated. Other issues, like carrying by women, are going to be harder to fix. If you think remebering to write in a diary for 7 days is hard, remembering to carry your meter everywhere for over 1500 days is even harder.

Yea it is really difficult to wear a pager, take it off at night and plug it in. SO much more difficult than taking the time EVERY day to sit down and write down everything you listened to that day. I'm going to ask you again as you've dodged this one already, if the PPM's and Diary's are soooooo close, how did this level playing floor we see now come about? What happened to the dominant AM's? I'm afraid on this subject we will just have to agree to disagree. To my mind it is no contest betweens the two methods. PPM wins hands down. I'll take passive and accurate over someone's "memories" everytime.

 

[ericspin]

I agree with you, Walter.

Back when I was 14, our family was chosen to do a Neilsen diary for a period. I was excited about it, and I was the one in the family that filled it out on behalf of everyone. Now that I'm a grown man, I don't have time for that. If I was asked to keep a radio diary, I wouldn't do it. My time is too precious to spend like that. Most people I know who have busy lives would probably agree. This is one reason why PPM makes more sense.

On a similar note, about 7-8 years ago, I was "randomly picked" to do music surveys for a local radio station (they wouldn't say what station, but by the music samples they played, it was The Buzz). At the time, I thought it was cool. Then, for about 4 months, they called me weekly to play samples of 30 songs and I had to rate them. By the end of the 4 months, I was tired of it, and kept telling them that I don't have time. So, they finally stopped calling.

The point I'm trying to make is that these old rating and research practices are not accurate. If it was truly random, they wouldn't keep calling me every week. They knew I'd do it, so they kept calling. That's not a good research practice (even though it was cool to hear them play a song a week later that I rated high!)

I'm in the Marketing business these days, so you'd think I'd welcome these practices. In this case, I don't.

 

[davideduardo]

Back when I was 14, our family was chosen to do a Neilsen diary for a period. I was excited about it, and I was the one in the family that filled it out on behalf of everyone. Now that I'm a grown man, I don't have time for that. If I was asked to keep a radio diary, I wouldn't do it. My time is too precious to spend like that. Most people I know who have busy lives would probably agree. This is one reason why PPM makes more sense.

This is why Arbitron overrecruits. They know some of those who accept diaries will not return them, and that some of the returned ones will not be properly filled in. Since the survey is a statistical sample, they only need a certain quantity of people who will respond, and those who do not are taken into account when recruiting.

On a similar note, about 7-8 years ago, I was "randomly picked" to do music surveys for a local radio station (they wouldn't say what station, but by the music samples they played, it was The Buzz). At the time, I thought it was cool. Then, for about 4 months, they called me weekly to play samples of 30 songs and I had to rate them. By the end of the 4 months, I was tired of it, and kept telling them that I don't have time. So, they finally stopped calling.

The station was using a panel... the same person over and over. Some stations use a percentage of panel calls and a percentage of fresh respondents. And others use 100% fresh calls. Still others use a combination of web research and callout, depending on the demographic target. Since it is easier to get panelists to participate a secondo or third or fourth time than to get new people, many stations save money by using a lot of panelists till those persons refuse to participate.

The point I'm trying to make is that these old rating and research practices are not accurate.

Why? If they get responses from a representative sample, the research is valid.

If it was truly random, they wouldn't keep calling me every week. They knew I'd do it, so they kept calling. That's not a good research practice (even though it was cool to hear them play a song a week later that I rated high!)

Callout is not intended to be a random sample. What is desired is a user of a station or a partisan of a particular kind of music. Calling back in this type of research is highly valid, as it allows same-listener tracking.

The PPM is very similar, as it is also a panel. The same people, hopefully, will carry the meter for two years, day in and day out. You complain about a couple of repeat calls for music testing, while Arbitron seeks to use the same people for 730 days, 104 weeks.

 

[davideduardo]

Yea it is really difficult to wear a pager, take it off at night and plug it in. SO much more difficult than taking the time EVERY day to sit down and write down everything you listened to that day.

Yes, it is very much more difficult. More on that in a moment.

The real issue is that a diary is a 7-day proposition. Once done, you are not likely to be asked again in your lifetime. The People Meter, on the other hand, must be carried by every family or living unit member for two years, 104 weeks, 730 days.

The meter is supposed to be carried around, even in the home or at play. An adapter is to be worn if you use headphones. If you are at work, it has to be carried everywhere. This is why the biggest issue beyond a horrible sample is that nearly nobody carries it every day, and Arbitron has to call over and over to get people back on the wagon.

The issues in Houston last year from April to July had to do with the elimination of panelists who did not carry for even 4 days a week, and the inability to recruit new panel households fast enough. People were just not carrying the meter.

I'm going to ask you again as you've dodged this one already, if the PPM's and Diary's are soooooo close, how did this level playing floor we see now come about?

Individual station shares are very close to where they used to be. What comes up with the meter is that the increased cume from P4 listeners and below brings down average TSL, so the spread from #1 to #15 is very gradual and the range between them is less than the diary method. But the P4s and below are valuless as listeners, as they contribute hardly any listening time, and distort all the metrics we use and advertisers use to compute efficiency.

What happened to the dominant AM's?

In Houston, KTRH and KPRC have been going through cuts and changes, so comparing pre-PPM to today is unreal. Still, the total AM share in the market on 12+ is about the same as in the diary, 12% to 13%.

In Philly, unaccredited, KYW and WPHT are about the same. No other AM there is a factor. NY data was withdrawn as the sample was so bad the data was deemed unusable.

I'm afraid on this subject we will just have to agree to disagree. To my mind it is no contest betweens the two methods. PPM wins hands down. I'll take passive and accurate over someone's "memories" everytime.

The diary is reasonably accurate, because it is a practiced and tested technique. The PPM samples and carry rates are inadequate for MRC accreditation in Philly and NY. In Houston, they only got within reach (about 70% to 80%) of the sample goals when they employed recruiting via in home visits... a practice so expensive that Arbitron has stated they will not use in any other market.

Keep in mind that the meter was developed to deliver more data faster, not because the diary had any defects in gathering data. Users wanted reports faster than the mail-back hand-tabulated diary system could produce. The solution is a panel using electronic data transfer. Faster? Yes. Better? Not yet.

 

[walter1]

Dave you act like the MRC are god's are something...there's just as much politics involved in their decisions as not. I appreciate your fervent desire to cling to yesterday. I hope for the future and measurement systems that make PPM's look antiquated. If you wish to go back to the horse and buggy days of radio listening measurement well good for you. As I said we will just have to disagree. I can't see anyway a passive system can be beaten by something relying on recall. The older I get the more I realize how "recall" ain't so hot!
IF the written diary were so perfect why then are ARB and N getting away from it? Do you think it might have to do with pressure from the advertising community for data that is truly helpful and not just an educated guess? We've seen Cable ratings under-reported for a decade or so, all to the detriment of the advertiser, who as I recall, is the primary person that keeps radio and TV stations on the air. Advertisers and their agents are calling for accountability from their vendors, as well they should! Over the past three years I've seen more big accounts shift from agency to agency than ever before in my lifetime and I believe it all comes down to bad media buying based on faulty research. PPM's and LPM's are a major step in the right direction and just the beginning of new measurement techniques. Cling to the diarys, use them as your lifeboat.
Regardless of who you are or what you think, it IS all about the money. Now you may be a shill for one of the stations that has gotten stiffed by the PPM's. If that is the case you are doing a great job. As for your points about KTRH and KPRC there's was very little going on in the way of format change on KTRH prior to the PPM's coming along, certainly nothing to cause them to drop like a rock from top 10 to Johnny come lately.
As for KPRC I really wasn't listening to them at the time much so I don't know what was going on programming wise.

 

[davideduardo]

Dave you act like the MRC are god's are something...there's just as much politics involved in their decisions as not.

The MRC is pretty dominantly made up of qualified research and polling experts and fends for the interests of advertisers to guarantee that any electronic measurement meets statistical and research standards, is consistently applied and is adequately monitored. An audit of each provider or service is done each year, and, in the case of Arbitron's diary method, takes about a month.

I appreciate your fervent desire to cling to yesterday.

I cling to accurate results. I have yet to see any from the PPM. When they get it right, it will be great. They don't have it right yet.

I can't see anyway a passive system can be beaten by something relying on recall. The older I get the more I realize how "recall" ain't so hot!

The passive system is not yet using a valid and proportional sample. Until such time, the defects of the diary are fewer than the defects of the PPM.

IF the written diary were so perfect why then are ARB and N getting away from it?

Arbitron makes lots more money. PPM is the only way to do that.

Agencies get faster data. If Arbitron could have turned diary data around in 2 weeks, they would have accepted that. Speed, not methodology, was the main concern.

PPM's and LPM's are a major step in the right direction and just the beginning of new measurement techniques. Cling to the diarys, use them as your lifeboat.

In most markets, we will never see PPM in our career lifetime. There is not enough transactional business written in these markets to justify the expense which increments as a percentage of market revenue the smaller you go in market.

Regardless of who you are or what you think, it IS all about the money. Now you may be a shill for one of the stations that has gotten stiffed by the PPM's.

No, not at all. However, we find that the results in the markets where PPM is running or failed-while-running were based on inaccurate and inadequate samples.

If that is the case you are doing a great job. As for your points about KTRH and KPRC there's was very little going on in the way of format change on KTRH prior to the PPM's coming along, certainly nothing to cause them to drop like a rock from top 10 to Johnny come lately.

I have been following KTRH and KPRC and AM in general in the PPM since June of 2005. The changes in KTRH were reflected, bad sample or not, since the beginning of the PPM test and from that point on.

 

[rhumbo]

David, Have you ever been to Maryland and actually looked at a completed radio diary? During my radio days, I visited Maryland over 20 times to study diaries for the various stations and markets in which I managed. I left Maryland every time thinking the same thing. There has to be a better way to measure radio. ARB is a great direct mail and telemarketing operation. That is what they do. Back in the 70's, when they competed with Pulse, they proved to be great businessmen as well. They spent all their time selling to the agency community, how great their service was. Pulse spent its time servicing its radio customers. We know who won the war, ARB. They now operate a monopoly in the radio measurement business. They do not want to change from a diary based system. It's much cheaper for them. What's sad for the radio industry is this technology was developed in the early 90's. I attended an Arbitron presentation in Maryland to learn about this in 1992. It took over 15 years to get it in the marketplace! Pricing was always the issue. Every GM I know wanted the pager method but the cost was out of sight. At the time, my station paid over $250,000 a year to ARB. They wanted slightly over $800,000 a year for the new system from our station in Houston. I have no idea what they charge now for their service, but I bet it's less than that on a per station basis. What is really sad, is that The Media Audit has a cell phone based system that everyone would use. Think about it, a free cell phone for you and a great rating system for the stations. Everyone carries cells these days, so there would be no problem getting people to use them. My prediction is the folks in Maryland are doing a Texas Two Step because of the problems of the pager system and they can continue to use a system developed in the late 40's and print massive amounts of money for the next 15 years while they study the problem. And radio falls farther behind in the advertisers eyes.

 

[davideduardo]

David, Have you ever been to Maryland and actually looked at a completed radio diary?

I first viewed diaries in 1970 in Beltsville and have probably done well over a hundred trecks to that town, Laurel and Columbia since then. I am responsible for two books being reissued based on diary reviews. I have lead teams of as man as 12 programmers from our stations on these multi-day visits.

During my radio days, I visited Maryland over 20 times to study diaries for the various stations and markets in which I managed. I left Maryland every time thinking the same thing. There has to be a better way to measure radio.

I've worked in markets with Hooper, Pulse, Birch, Burke, Audits & Surveys, Mediastat, Mediatrend, IBOPE, Datos S.A, INRA-Starch-Hooper, BRI, Clapp & Mayne, Strategy Research, Asesores, Inc., and others. As far as controls, follow up, accuracy, verification, validation, being audieted by a user association, Arbitron is far ahead of all of these.

ARB is a great direct mail and telemarketing operation. That is what they do. Back in the 70's, when they competed with Pulse, they proved to be great businessmen as well. They spent all their time selling to the agency community, how great their service was. Pulse spent its time servicing its radio customers. We know who won the war, ARB.

I was in the last market released by Pulse, and was actually in their offices when the last book was released and the office closed. Arbitron was better then and is now. I had to use Pulse because Arbitron was not at the time interested in doing my market.

But you are one of the few I know who realized that Arbitron sold to the agencies. When the seller came back from an agency call saying the client was buying off Arbitron, stations finally dropped first Hooper and then Pulse... but Pulse held in there for 13 years after Arbitron started.

They now operate a monopoly in the radio measurement business. They do not want to change from a diary based system. It's much cheaper for them.

They are dying to go to PPM, as they can increase rates by nearly 70% with PPM. It took the MRC to stop the ill-timed rollout, in fact.

What's sad for the radio industry is this technology was developed in the early 90's. I attended an Arbitron presentation in Maryland to learn about this in 1992. It took over 15 years to get it in the marketplace!

I saw it working on the third floor of Arbitron around 1995. The meter was the size of a paperback novel, and the battery life was just about a half a day. The encoding was still noticable, and there were not components and batteries on the market to make it practical in the field.

Pricing was always the issue. Every GM I know wanted the pager method but the cost was out of sight. At the time, my station paid over $250,000 a year to ARB. They wanted slightly over $800,000 a year for the new system from our station in Houston. I have no idea what they charge now for their service, but I bet it's less than that on a per station basis.

The increase was about 60% to 70% over the cost of the last diary survey in the market.

What is really sad, is that The Media Audit has a cell phone based system that everyone would use. Think about it, a free cell phone for you and a great rating system for the stations. Everyone carries cells these days, so there would be no problem getting people to use them.

The idea was very good. However, when an attempt to test it was done in Houston, the destruction of the analog signal was so horrible few stations kept it on even 6 hours. And idea is not practical unless it works.

My prediction is the folks in Maryland are doing a Texas Two Step because of the problems of the pager system and they can continue to use a system developed in the late 40's and print massive amounts of money for the next 15 years while they study the problem. And radio falls farther behind in the advertisers eyes.

Arbitron is working on cell phones, but the biggest issue is having a standard for detection given that there is a wide range of microphones on cellulars; even if models are modified, there have to be multiple models since different demos and lifestyles will not want the same phone and the pickup has to be the same on each, no matter what.

 

[walter1]

Dave you act like the MRC are god's are something...there's just as much politics involved in their decisions as not.

The MRC is pretty dominantly made up of qualified research and polling experts and fends for the interests of advertisers to guarantee that any electronic measurement meets statistical and research standards, is consistently applied and is adequately monitored. An audit of each provider or service is done each year, and, in the case of Arbitron's diary method, takes about a month.

I appreciate your fervent desire to cling to yesterday.

I cling to accurate results. I have yet to see any from the PPM. When they get it right, it will be great. They don't have it right yet.

I can't see anyway a passive system can be beaten by something relying on recall. The older I get the more I realize how "recall" ain't so hot!

The passive system is not yet using a valid and proportional sample. Until such time, the defects of the diary are fewer than the defects of the PPM.

IF the written diary were so perfect why then are ARB and N getting away from it?

Arbitron makes lots more money. PPM is the only way to do that.

Agencies get faster data. If Arbitron could have turned diary data around in 2 weeks, they would have accepted that. Speed, not methodology, was the main concern.

PPM's and LPM's are a major step in the right direction and just the beginning of new measurement techniques. Cling to the diarys, use them as your lifeboat.

In most markets, we will never see PPM in our career lifetime. There is not enough transactional business written in these markets to justify the expense which increments as a percentage of market revenue the smaller you go in market.

Regardless of who you are or what you think, it IS all about the money. Now you may be a shill for one of the stations that has gotten stiffed by the PPM's.

No, not at all. However, we find that the results in the markets where PPM is running or failed-while-running were based on inaccurate and inadequate samples.

If that is the case you are doing a great job. As for your points about KTRH and KPRC there's was very little going on in the way of format change on KTRH prior to the PPM's coming along, certainly nothing to cause them to drop like a rock from top 10 to Johnny come lately.

I have been following KTRH and KPRC and AM in general in the PPM since June of 2005. The changes in KTRH were reflected, bad sample or not, since the beginning of the PPM test and from that point on.

Probably what I find funniest in all this as that you actually used the PPM's to justify the accuracy of the diaries. How can it be both ways Dave? Gee the inaccurate PPM's tracked within decimal points of the diary...that's ok I'm sure you have some more spin for us so bring it! And I will call BS on your comments about KTRH and the "changes" being reflected in the PPM. Till the PPM's rolled out they were posting top ten virtually all the time.

 

[davideduardo]

Probably what I find funniest in all this as that you actually used the PPM's to justify the accuracy of the diaries. How can it be both ways Dave? Gee the inaccurate PPM's tracked within decimal points of the diary...that's ok I'm sure you have some more spin for us so bring it! And I will call BS on your comments about KTRH and the "changes" being reflected in the PPM. Till the PPM's rolled out they were posting top ten virtually all the time.

I used the accredited Houston PPM survey data fromm July of 2005 on to compare with the diary data that ended in March, 2007.

In the period between Fall, 2004 and winter, 2007 KTRH averaged just below 11th, with the highest a 7th and lowest a 17th. Keep in mind a lot of programming changes were made ovedr those two and a half years. The shares average about a 3.3 to 3.4 over that period, with a peak around a 4. In PPM, the station is running in the top 5 to 6 range of late, and the shares are around a 4.

Again, the station changed a lot, obviously to adapt to the PPM as it saw the first two years of trial PPM data.

In the PPM, after adjustments, KTRH is doing better than the last two and a half years in the diary. Of course, CCu had the advantage you apparently did not have of seeing two years of test data prior to the currency status of the PPM in Houston.