Fall Book For Public Radio In Rochester

[Mark_Giardina]

Just like their commercial counterparts, Rochester’s public radio stations didn’t see much of an increase from the summer to fall rating books.

AM-1370’s ratings did go up somewhat from their 1.9 share (12+) to over a two share, while their FM classical music station kept their three share overall.

These figures are a far cry from what both stations had (ratings wise) just two years ago.

And I am sorry Bob (Smith) but I just don’t buy your theory that AM is still suffering from audience erosion because NPR lost Bob Edwards to XM satellite radio. Morning Edition and All Things Considered are doing just fine.

Besides if you use the Bob Edwards’ excuse for the decline in ratings explain why WBFO’s audience has remained constant for the past two years while WXXI’s audience has gone from a high of over 3.4 to a low of 1.8.
<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>

 

[radiomike]

> Besides if you use the Bob Edwards’ excuse for the decline
> in ratings explain why WBFO’s audience has remained constant
> for the past two years while WXXI’s audience has gone from a
> high over 3.4 to a low of 1.4.

Mark, it is because you have left us!

 

[Mark_Giardina]

> > Besides if you use the Bob Edwards’ excuse for the decline
>
> > in ratings explain why WBFO’s audience has remained
> constant
> > for the past two years while WXXI’s audience has gone from
> a
> > high over 3.4 to a low of 1.4.
>
> Mark, it is because you have left us!
>
Thanks for the compliment Mike, but I hardly doubt my departure had anything to do with WXXI’s audience erosion. But it sure makes my ego happy that you mentioned that

<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>

 

[Bob1370]

> Just like their commercial counterparts, Rochester’s public
> radio stations didn’t see much of an increase from the
> summer to fall rating books.

Actually it was a significant one. We are clearly back to where we normally are, for both stations, in AQH and cume.

> AM-1370’s ratings did go up somewhat from their 1.9 share
> (12+) to over a two share, while their FM classical music
> station kept their three share overall.
> These figures are a far cry from what both stations had
> (ratings wise) just two years ago.

Actually, not at all in cume, and even in the quarter hours, we had an unusual spike in AQH share early in 2004 because of an elevated TSL together with a little increased election-season sampling like a lot of news/talk stations around the Northeast experienced in that particular book. (For example, that was the same survey period that represented WABC's post-September 11 high, and IIRC, WBEN's and WHAM's as well. They also reported stable cumes, but highly elevated TSL which swelled their AQH numbers in that one book.)

> And I am sorry Bob (Smith) but I just don’t buy your theory
> that AM is still suffering from audience erosion because NPR
> lost Bob Edwards to XM satellite radio. Morning Edition and
> All Things Considered are doing just fine.

They are NOW, in Rochester, but according to the pubcasters' trade paper, 'Current,' the typical NPR affiliate across the country is still down from its peak a couple years back and Morning Edition numbers are an important factor in that. We've come back significantly from that funk, and I'm sure other markets will too. I can't speak for Buffalo, not having followed in detail how their two competing fulltime NPR affiliates may be splitting the audience or whether they're losing or gaining relative to WBEN or anyone else in any daypart.

> Besides if you use the Bob Edwards’ excuse for the decline
> in ratings explain why WBFO’s audience has remained constant
> for the past two years while WXXI’s audience has gone from a
> high of over 3.4 to a low of 1.8.

And then back safely into the 2s again. Both that 3.4 and the 1.8 were, as it turns out, flukes, spikes and valleys that represented outliers from long term steadier trends for clearly traceable reasons having to do with sampling and especially changes in time-spent-listening. It's like a career .250 hitter; does either a month of hitting .340 or a .180 slump in the next 100 at-bats really reflect the basic characteristics of that player, or do those represent the kind of wild swing that may happen either side of a longer term norm?