Fall ratings withheld?

[Mark Giardina]

Ok how did this tread go from the Fall ratings being withheld to some tower calendar?
I think someone has had too many cans of Vernors ginger ale for lunch.

 

[Element9]

Hey VOR, could you PM me or call me at the station?? Arbitron is a continuous source of mirth at WYSL (how many stations can make THAT claim??) I say "mirth" because, while Radio's Only Ratings Service generally reports WYSL has an audience too small to measure, our streaming portal company WarpRadio reports the following for our live internet stream:

Also....every Arbitron book is imprinted with the title, "Listening ESTIMATES for....such and such a market, quarter and year." If you look in your Webster, the leading synomym for "estimate" is..."guess."

There's no guessing with internet listening. The streaming company logs each unique IP address and how long that computer was logged on. The results are simply tabulated and reported reliably, month after month....for FREE. It's simple arithmetic....NO guesswork/"estimating."

Mr. Savage:

The information provided to me by boss was in strict confidence and if he found out that I even mentioned it on this board I could risk losing my job. However what I can tell you is that from what I've been told your observations about the rating system is totally correct. Your station is being ignored by a certain ratings organization and it does have an audience. The 12+ figures I've personally seen shows your station generating around a 2.5 share. That's all I can really share with you.
Also your morning program (Quinn and Rose) does have a following with older demographics. Or as I refer to them, people who still listen to radio and have the money to spend. Just keep up the good work!

VOR

I read this when it was first posted and refrained from commenting. But since some have noted the detour taken in this thread, it may be a good opportunity to re-set the GPS.

VOR, being a member of this board in good standing and thoughtful contributor, provides testimony regarding a certain high profile ratings company "ignoring" a radio station within the Rochester survey area. Okay. I'll bite. Explain it to me like I'm a sixth grader (I've been called worse.) Tell me how such a thing happens. Don't tell me about the raw data. That, I can understand, diary placement and all that hoo-hah.

Tell me how a multi-million dollar company puts itself at risk of a lawsuit served by the owner-operator of a radio station in upstate New York because said rating conglomerate intentionally ignores or modifies the results of a survey so as to discriminate against said radio station, a radio station owned by an attorney no less and one who has years of experience in matters of broadcast law.

I'm fully aware of the quirks and variations of ratings. I'm no apologist for the big ratings arbitrator in Beltsville. I concede that ratings are estimates based on mathematical models. But seriously, intentionally warping the ratings?

Bah!

To quote another well known barrister, "It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous."

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I read this when it was first posted and refrained from commenting. But since some have noted the detour taken in this thread, it may be a good opportunity to re-set the GPS.

VOR, being a member of this board in good standing and thoughtful contributor, provides testimony regarding a certain high profile ratings company "ignoring" a radio station within the Rochester survey area. Okay. I'll bite. Explain it to me like I'm a sixth grader (I've been called worse.) Tell me how such a thing happens. Don't tell me about the raw data. That, I can understand, diary placement and all that hoo-hah.

Tell me how a multi-million dollar company puts itself at risk of a lawsuit served by the owner-operator of a radio station in upstate New York because said rating conglomerate intentionally ignores or modifies the results of a survey so as to discriminate against said radio station, a radio station owned by an attorney no less and one who has years of experience in matters of broadcast law.

I'm fully aware of the quirks and variations of ratings. I'm no apologist for the big ratings arbitrator in Beltsville. I concede that ratings are estimates based on mathematical models. But seriously, intentionally warping the ratings?

Bah!

To quote another well known barrister, "It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous."

You don’t honestly think that it is beyond the parameters’ of a major media company to use what ever influence it can to make certain that a smaller market competitor’s numbers are not counted in a rating period? If so then you are not dealing with cold hard business reality. The name of the game is to win…no matter what it takes.
Right now there are two stations battling for listeners for first place in the Rochester market with just a small percentage of listeners separating them. If another station, with say a 2.5 overall share, were added to the mix, that could turn the tide in favor of one of those bigger stations, thus not only impact total ad revenue, but also bonuses paid out to station managers. That’s right there is a clause in at least one station manager’s contact which stipulates that this person does not get a bonus if the morning show on one of his station’s is not in first place. So do think this person is going to give up thousands of extra dollars?
Again, as I told Mr. Savage, I am not about to divulge any inside information that I have been told, or read myself. But I can attest to the fact that his station does have an audience, even though Arbitron claims the opposite.
I will let Mr. Savage argue the merits of his station and state his own case.

 

[Savage]

Yeah, after all: big corporations have NEVER been known to try to put their thumbs on the butchers' scales in their efforts to win. It's NEVER happened. :

C'mon, my friend Nine, this kind of thing happens in business every day. Do I have hard evidence in this case? Nope. And I probably never will. But that doesn't mean it's impossible. Or even unlikely.

And who would Arbitron's biggest radio customer be, ask thyself? (Hint...it AIN'T ad agencies....)

How, you ask, could such a thing happen? Simple: a quiet one-on-one conversation between a regional exec with radio's only ratings company and a major broadcast group's competitor to the effect, it's EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to observe "proper diary editing protocols" when tabulating the Rochester, NY surveys. There is so much wiggle room in diary protocols this could be said without even technical violation of any laws.

Outrageous and egregious? Absolutely. Preposterous? I really don't think so.

I will now await reading the flood of derision about paranoid conspiracy theories....

 

[Element9]

I will now await reading the flood of derision about paranoid conspiracy theories....

Funny, the thought crossed my mind, but "flood?" P'shah! We sometimes have a tendancy to become strident in our debates here, so let me approach this tactfully.

1) VOR: As I read your initial post, I surmized that your boss had "secret information" indicating that a certain radio station had garnered larger ratings in a survey, but the statistical results of the survey were not printed or released. Are you alledging that America's premier radio ratings company [/sarcasm] fudged the numbers? That there are two sets of books? And that you boss has information on this?

Whoaa!

If this is true, you fellows may have just won the lottery, because...

2) As Mr. Savage knows (far more than I), the legal ramifications of collusion are quite serious, to say the least.

To believe that any one of America's largest radio companies would attempt to cook a backroom deal with America's premier radio ratings company [/sarcasm] is a tough sell. God love ya' if you can connect the dots because you fellows will be able to buy a couple of major market clusters with the settlement, if not the entire award.

I'm not being naive nor am I trying to taunt you gentlemen. It's just that the thought of such an egregious and patently stupid agreement between monolithic radio firms and a monolithic ratings firm is hard to fathom and even harder to prove, unless of course that "boss guy" can be convinced to testify in a legal proceding. I'd love to be in the room during that deposition! Once again, see "winning the lottery," above.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

Bob, WYSL sounds like a nice place. Someone would have to be a real fool in this day and age to betray your trust.

At one station I found that if I got my door key in just the right position I could open up the PD's office. I swear the only thing I went in there for was to read the latest R&R, honest!

Paid holidays in radio, wow never heard of that! I thought one of the stations I worked for was really progressive when we got rotating weekends off!

Because I worked so many holidays when the holidays come around now, I don't have to work but I have no idea what to do!

 

[Savage]

Okay, fellow sorta-clergy/deejays and newspeople: we've heard the confession. Now what penance should we impose on Mike? (BTW, did you see the news story this morning about the sentence some judge imposed on kids who played their thumping car stereos too loud? They were forced to sit in a conference room and listen to Barry Manilow songs. The facial expressions on today's 16-year olds being exposed to "I Write The Songs" was priceless.) So - whaddya think? "Breaking and entering the PD's office to read R&R?"

Mike, I wonder if you checked the statute-of-lims before posting this!

My friend Nine: I have just a few words for you.

Enron. Global Crossing. Tyco. And....Countrywide. I could go on....but you get the point.....generally there is an inverse relationship between corporate arrogance and good judgment. How many times have we heard a news story of some corporate misdeed and thought, what the h**l were they thinking???

A happy and blessed Thanksgiving to all!

 

[Element9]

Enron. Global Crossing. Tyco. And....Countrywide. I could go on....but you get the point.....generally there is an inverse relationship between corporate arrogance and good judgment. How many times have we heard a news story of some corporate misdeed and thought, what the h**l were they thinking???

And Worldcom... yes, the scam artists and corporate crooks are known to most of us who read the papers and take an interest in such matters. You see this issue from the perspective of an owner operator who has a dog in the fight. I see it in an academic sense, primarily as an outside observer. I understand your concerns. There may come a time when people look at this thread and say, "Damn, I remember when they debated this very issue on the Buffalo-Rochester message board..." I think Arbitron ("yesterday's research, in thirty days, and at a hefty price") is smarter than that and has better corporate oversight in place... and it may be that I've misjudged the situation.