I just heard Lonsberry say on WHAM that Urban stations automatically get 1.5 added points in the ratings. The reasoning is that people that listen to such stations are less likely to participate in any kind of surveys. Is this true? If it is, how unfair this is to other stations and formats? I never heard anything about this before!
-
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
Extra points for being Urban?
- Thread starter therealjm12
- Start date
B
Bob1370
Guest
"I just heard Lonsberry say on WHAM that Urban stations automatically get 1.5 added points in the ratings. The reasoning is that people that listen to such stations are less likely to participate in any kind of surveys. Is this true?"
Where did he get that from?
If anything, urban stations complain to Arbitron, with regularity, that they get under-reported in most surveys. They complain that the system is especially harsh on urban stations in PPM markets, but allege that diary markets like Buffalo and Rochester are tough nuts to crack as well.
The ratings services try hard to make their sampling panels for every book closely approximate the demos of the market, so they sometimes will reach out and solicit more participation from some demos than others if they get a poor initial response from one or another demo slice--and even it out from week to week or month to month so the overall report will be demographically sound. Sometimes they'll look for more minority listeners, sometimes they'll seek women, sometimes upscale men, or suburbanites, or whatever, so they can get a proper overall demo profile for the full report. It's all designed to get an accurate overall demographic profile within the sample you finally tabulate for the book, as close as possible to what you have in the overall census numbers for the market. We can debate how well they reach that objective, but there's little question that they're trying hard.
Is Lonsberry trying to justify why his own station is making a somewhat weaker showing in the latest spring 2012 survey results just recently released, compared to the past?
If he is, that's a little puzzling in itself.
WDKX gets its current strength and its #1 ranking 12+ from the fact that it seems to own the 12-34 audience in both city and suburb, and that appears to be an audience that cuts across demographic and geographic lines. I think the best analogy to WDKX's current performance, is the way WBBF(AM 950) pulled the same kind of top-ranking numbers among both urban and suburban youth 45 years ago...despite the worst signal coverage of any fulltime station in the market, just like WDKX has the weakest FM signal among the commercial stations licensed to Rochester proper. Control the 12-34s, give them what they want to hear, and you can control the 12+ rankings. Still works like it did then, whatever people say about young people not listening to radio any longer (that's not true; they listen to more than just radio these days--a lot of mp3s included--but they still do listen to a lot of radio).
Last I checked, no talk station was looking for 12-34 dominance in any market, not even sports talkers. For years, WHAM has been building its business plan on strength in 35-64 listeners just like all the other news-talkers, and WDKX isn't really TRYING to compete for that slice of the total pie...just as WHAM isn't trying to compete for teens or 18-34 adults.
Every station has to pick its target, go after it, and if it misses, look within itself rather than blaming some factor beyond its control.
Where did he get that from?
If anything, urban stations complain to Arbitron, with regularity, that they get under-reported in most surveys. They complain that the system is especially harsh on urban stations in PPM markets, but allege that diary markets like Buffalo and Rochester are tough nuts to crack as well.
The ratings services try hard to make their sampling panels for every book closely approximate the demos of the market, so they sometimes will reach out and solicit more participation from some demos than others if they get a poor initial response from one or another demo slice--and even it out from week to week or month to month so the overall report will be demographically sound. Sometimes they'll look for more minority listeners, sometimes they'll seek women, sometimes upscale men, or suburbanites, or whatever, so they can get a proper overall demo profile for the full report. It's all designed to get an accurate overall demographic profile within the sample you finally tabulate for the book, as close as possible to what you have in the overall census numbers for the market. We can debate how well they reach that objective, but there's little question that they're trying hard.
Is Lonsberry trying to justify why his own station is making a somewhat weaker showing in the latest spring 2012 survey results just recently released, compared to the past?
If he is, that's a little puzzling in itself.
WDKX gets its current strength and its #1 ranking 12+ from the fact that it seems to own the 12-34 audience in both city and suburb, and that appears to be an audience that cuts across demographic and geographic lines. I think the best analogy to WDKX's current performance, is the way WBBF(AM 950) pulled the same kind of top-ranking numbers among both urban and suburban youth 45 years ago...despite the worst signal coverage of any fulltime station in the market, just like WDKX has the weakest FM signal among the commercial stations licensed to Rochester proper. Control the 12-34s, give them what they want to hear, and you can control the 12+ rankings. Still works like it did then, whatever people say about young people not listening to radio any longer (that's not true; they listen to more than just radio these days--a lot of mp3s included--but they still do listen to a lot of radio).
Last I checked, no talk station was looking for 12-34 dominance in any market, not even sports talkers. For years, WHAM has been building its business plan on strength in 35-64 listeners just like all the other news-talkers, and WDKX isn't really TRYING to compete for that slice of the total pie...just as WHAM isn't trying to compete for teens or 18-34 adults.
Every station has to pick its target, go after it, and if it misses, look within itself rather than blaming some factor beyond its control.
There is such a thing as "weighting" the diaries to correspond to population cells and response rates, but "adding 1.5 shares" to Urban stations is just silliness. Bob1370 offers a compelling response to the allegation. It's also a fact that years ago, Arbitron weighted diaries for AOR stations because of lower response rate and in-tab. Many of us often joked that it was difficult for some listeners to fill out a diary after hitting the bong. I admit this may have been stereotyping, but we did enjoy a laugh. Sometimes at our own expense.
JustPastBuffalo said:
Arbitron has a PDF describing their weighting here: http://www.arbitron.com/downloads/ArbitronEthnicMeasurement.pdf
I've heard 1.5 as a multiplier bandied about for several years; perhaps that was what was heard from Lonsberry.
With all due respect, Bob1370's response may be compelling, but it is also irresponsible. He impugns and questions Lonsberry's motives based on a hearsay comment that may or may not have been understood correctly. And I say this as someone who's not particularly a Lonsberry fan.
B
Bob1370
Guest
I'm impugning no one...however, the comment that started this whole thread, assuming therealjim12 got the gist of it (and we have no reason to believe he did not), is itself rather curious and can be expected to raise questions, especially given the context.
This is where the PPM would come in handy...unless it is argued that the "Urban" listener STILL would not like to wear a PPM.
I don't think the ppm problem with Urban music isn't so much that listener won't hear the device as to where they listen.
Soft a c stations and classic hits stations do well because they are listened to in stores and places at work, and listen to longer periods of time.
Soft a c stations and classic hits stations do well because they are listened to in stores and places at work, and listen to longer periods of time.
B
Bob1370
Guest
Actually oldies and CHR stations do well with PPM too, although classic hits stations that play 1964-1989 hits do seem to be the biggest beneficiaries of PPM. Just ask Dan Mason why the very first thing he did when he took over the CBS radio stations division is flip WCBS-FM in NYC back to classic hits. He knew there was a lot of workplace listening to be had, and they sure did pick it up--going from worst to a perennial contender for first.
Having said that, WDKX probably wouldn't be hurt much by a switch from diary to PPM, because it seems to have become this generation's equivalent to what WBBF or WKBW were to our generation--a principal source for hit music. It has a lot in common, musically and formatically, with successful CHR/Rhythmic stations in other large markets like Z100, which PPM treats kindly, although it's more of a full service station than your typical CHR. So it would probably do well no matter how it's measured.
As far as news/talk stations are concerned, there seems to be little shift in reported audience for these stations in markets which have changed from diary to PPM--it's the one format which seems to have been impacted LEAST, either positively or negatively, by changes in ratings methodology.
Having said that, WDKX probably wouldn't be hurt much by a switch from diary to PPM, because it seems to have become this generation's equivalent to what WBBF or WKBW were to our generation--a principal source for hit music. It has a lot in common, musically and formatically, with successful CHR/Rhythmic stations in other large markets like Z100, which PPM treats kindly, although it's more of a full service station than your typical CHR. So it would probably do well no matter how it's measured.
As far as news/talk stations are concerned, there seems to be little shift in reported audience for these stations in markets which have changed from diary to PPM--it's the one format which seems to have been impacted LEAST, either positively or negatively, by changes in ratings methodology.
JustPastBuffalo said:
Arbitron did not weight the diaries that mentioned AOR stations. What has always been a problem is getting young adult men to participate in surveys. So, the response rate tends to be below the desired number that would proportionally represent that demo. The first line of defense was to give bigger incentives to 18-34 white males, then to place more diaries knowing less would come back. Finally, if the number of diaries returned was below the proportional quota, the ones that did return would be weighted up so that 18-34 men was represented in proportion to the market population.
There are also demos that are weighted down on occasion... it all depends on who returns their diaries.
There has never been format-specific weighting of any kind.
Ed Trefzger said:
That document only details a procedure for ethnic identification implemented about 7 years ago, where classification was changed from household based to individual based.
And it describes the procedures, recently changed quite radically, for language preference identification among Hispanics, a procedure often, and generally inaccurately, described as "language weighting" which is really "language proportionality". In this area, Arbitron should pull this document as it has been replaced by an explanation of the new language preference procedures.
It does not describe how weighting is done. A bit of detail is contained in the Purple Book, the Arbitron description of methodology... available at http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Arbitron/Purple Book 2012.pdf
That's exactly what I meant DE, but did not correctly articulate. The clarification is appreciated. The diaries from listeners in the particular demo were weighted, not the station or the format. Stations and formats (such as AOR) that appealed to listeners in the demo were concerned with and aware of the process. As it applies to my original post, the talk show host's claim regarding "adding 1.5 shares" is/was an urban myth in the literal and figurative sense.DavidEduardo said:
JustPastBuffalo said:
Gotcha!
I have to ask one thing, though. Of perhaps all the boards on Radio-Info, this one seems to always have the most intelligent ratings discussions. There's a good understanding of sampling, and lots of interesting questions and interpretations from folks like Bob and Roxalot (to name just two). This kind of dialog is missing on most other boards... and I wonder what makes this so... is it just serendipity, or are there more informed veterans in those markets, or what?
Maybe it's just that Buffalo's a market with a great radio legacy, and a lot of smart people who've benefitted from some great programmers who created some outstanding radio stations. The legacy of Jeff Kaye and others lives on, passed down through several generations.
Every radio market thinks that they're unique. In my opinion, this radio market really is. It's not a market that's been kind to automation or syndication.
Every radio market thinks that they're unique. In my opinion, this radio market really is. It's not a market that's been kind to automation or syndication.
Wonder why the Rochester talk show host didn't claim that Country stations get an extra share and a half "tacked on," considering that WBEE had, for such a long time, topped that market's ratings before WDKX seized the crown. I'm not saying his comments were racial, but this guy has been stunningly tone deaf in this regard and said some incredibly stupid things on the air. Given the nature of commercial talk radio in Rochester and Buffalo, it's no surprise. Let's presume it was 'all about radio' and nothing else. He still got it wrong.
As to the question about Buffalo-NF-Rochester posters ability to understanding and comment about ratings, it could be that Buffalo is a market where sales and air talent got along pretty well and shared information. A few jocks actually were certified/accredited sales professionals and progressed from on-air to sales and management, such as Larry "Sherlock" White at WBUF.
The ability of posters' ratings knowledge also could be attributed to the program directors in this market who were up front with their air personalities and gave them access to the ratings, answering questions and educating their staff members. Jocks were competitive and curious, like computer geeks, sharing information and educating each other. There's a unique (and sometimes weird) fraternity of radio-TV-media people in this market.
It's not only ratings, the general quality of posts here exceeds that of many other R-I boards. This is not to say we're above occasional keyboard combat. (Only a matter of time before "A" makes an appearance to counter Roxalot's premise that Buffalo is unique. Sure, you can get Buffalo wings at Applebee's in Denver, but they ain't what's served at Frank and Teresa's, LaNova or Duffs.)
It's important to remember that good air talent and programmers, not only Jeff Kaye, but Larry Anderson, Bob Wood, Michael Spears, Tom Langmyer, Sandy Beach, John McGhan, Randy Michaels (whatever your opinion, he's a radio guy), NPR's Bill Siemering and so many others, came from and progressed through this market. More important, plenty stayed in the market and made it their home.
Then again, Buffalo remains a diary market, so most of the legacies have long understand its nuances. This could change if and when the market transitions to PPM, which at this point appears to be far down the road. But even then, we'll likely pick it up, take it apart and find out what makes it tick.
As to the question about Buffalo-NF-Rochester posters ability to understanding and comment about ratings, it could be that Buffalo is a market where sales and air talent got along pretty well and shared information. A few jocks actually were certified/accredited sales professionals and progressed from on-air to sales and management, such as Larry "Sherlock" White at WBUF.
The ability of posters' ratings knowledge also could be attributed to the program directors in this market who were up front with their air personalities and gave them access to the ratings, answering questions and educating their staff members. Jocks were competitive and curious, like computer geeks, sharing information and educating each other. There's a unique (and sometimes weird) fraternity of radio-TV-media people in this market.
It's not only ratings, the general quality of posts here exceeds that of many other R-I boards. This is not to say we're above occasional keyboard combat. (Only a matter of time before "A" makes an appearance to counter Roxalot's premise that Buffalo is unique. Sure, you can get Buffalo wings at Applebee's in Denver, but they ain't what's served at Frank and Teresa's, LaNova or Duffs.)
It's important to remember that good air talent and programmers, not only Jeff Kaye, but Larry Anderson, Bob Wood, Michael Spears, Tom Langmyer, Sandy Beach, John McGhan, Randy Michaels (whatever your opinion, he's a radio guy), NPR's Bill Siemering and so many others, came from and progressed through this market. More important, plenty stayed in the market and made it their home.
Then again, Buffalo remains a diary market, so most of the legacies have long understand its nuances. This could change if and when the market transitions to PPM, which at this point appears to be far down the road. But even then, we'll likely pick it up, take it apart and find out what makes it tick.
Element9 said:
I think in his context, I wouldn't disagree. There's a lot of heritage, and it still has an effect. And I agree with what you said about the effect of Buffalo still being a diary market.
I think it's interesting that Townsquare just launched a nationally syndicated 7-midnight country show. The show can be heard in all their markets except Buffalo. For now, anyway.
And I consider it a priviledge to have "ended" my career in "radio" (meaning getting a paycheck!!) in the Buffalo market. There was nothing like the competitive spirit "on the air"...and the family & friendly spirit "off the air" that could be found in this market.
HDBG
Caveat: This goes back to 1996 ish...I'm not claiming it's the same today)
- Status