FCC investigates PPM

[davideduardo]

PPM doesn't cost Arbitron 60% more, it costs the stations 60% more. For that much of a rate hike you would think Arbitron would take the extra steps to ensure accuracy for ALL it's clients.

Actually, it does cost Arbitron 60% more... in fact, it has cost more than 60% more, and Arbitron has been quick to point that out in the investor / analyst calls. Adding a few more meters will not help... and, if the current accuracy is adequat, quadrupling the field cost will not improve that significantly... it will just reduce wobble a bit more. Nobody will pay for that... the increase for PPM was a major strain, in fact.

 

[nmoore6676]

My own ax to grind is that in either method of ratings my group (the aging WASP population) is under represented so as I get older the radio programming drifts away from what I like.

That's not true at all. 55-64 and 65+ are proportional to their percentage in the population in the PPM panel, and are either proportional or weighted to proportionality in the diary markets.

But stations look at 18-49 and 25-54 and their subsets almost exclusively because advertisers look at that .... they don't look at 55+ because there is limited or no interest in advertising to that demos. The numbers and tables are there... but there is no ad money.

David, my point was in the context of why others are protesting the PPM measurement. So by their standards my own group is underrepresented too. I understand the statistical principles behind the panel selection. I do take exception with the resulting effect on the listening choices but that is how it is done.

I also question the concept that people at 54 stop buying things because I would think that, the current state of the economy notwithstanding, they are the very group most likely to have disposable income and or the credit to buy stuff. If I choose to protest however I can elect to avoid buying from advertisers who I think are not serving me, I don't need or want the government acting on my behalf. That is how it works in a free enterprise capitalistic society.

 

[Buckethead]

The reason Arbitron rushed PPM into use before it was ready is because it was MORE profitable not LESS.

The board members were promised a bonus if PPM could be currency by Oct 08.

 

[TheRover]

But isn't the goal of gonglomerate radio to play along with diversity just enough so that there are stations "serving" enough various cultures-----

With the simple intent of spreading efficiently beer adds across all markets and cultures.....

I call it corpratism of the "Public's Airwaves"....

Think Obama will do anything about that ?

Beer commercials are not culturally enlightening.

Corporate welfare, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Radio ---- NOTHING but the Lowest ----- Common Denominator ---- and Beer.

There, I'm finished with my crazy rant !!

 

[Bob_Hudson]

Anyone who thinks the FCC's PPM interest is anything other than political-pandering needs to wake up. Politicians (and appointed FCC commissioners are political) love this kind of thing because they get brownie points for the appearing to care, even though the officials know their stance is BS. But they also know it diverts attention away from real problems and there is no one too upset by their involvement in the issue: it's not like oldies station listeners are calling news conferences to support PPM.

As for the FCC having the power to regulate this: how is that? Even if some sort of encoded signal is included with the music and other programming as long as the station is within existing technical parameters the FCC should have no power, but these days government is granting itself new powers that have not been created by law and this will probably be another such case.

 

[davideduardo]

The reason Arbitron rushed PPM into use before it was ready is because it was MORE profitable not LESS.

The main reason Arbitron "rushed" to roll out PPM after only 10 years or so of development was because response and return rates were falling faster than ever, and the change to a smaller, less recruit-intensive panel system was becoming urgent.

Further, agencies were demanding electronic measurement,

The board members were promised a bonus if PPM could be currency by Oct 08.

Actually, it was certain key employees, not the board. The idea was to get away from the mounting difficulties in recruiting in the larger markets.

 

[davideduardo]

David, my point was in the context of why others are protesting the PPM measurement. So by their standards my own group is underrepresented too. I understand the statistical principles behind the panel selection. I do take exception with the resulting effect on the listening choices but that is how it is done.

The "protests" are related to the speed at which Arbtron gets to full DDI compliance. They have a ramp up period, and it is too slow and in the meantime, some discreet cells are necessarily smaller than they could/should be. In addition, the methods of cell phone and phone based recruiting are questioned, with address based recruiting being preferred (as it is used in Houston only). And, of course, MRC accreditation.

I also question the concept that people at 54 stop buying things because I would think that, the current state of the economy notwithstanding, they are the very group most likely to have disposable income and or the credit to buy stuff. If I choose to protest however I can elect to avoid buying from advertisers who I think are not serving me, I don't need or want the government acting on my behalf. That is how it works in a free enterprise capitalistic society.

Ask P&G or Coke or Budweiser why they do not buy 55+. You will be told the ROI on such advertising makes no sense, and so they don't do it because they lose money.

 

[beachguy3b]

Yes I do.
Channel Flipper, let me put this in a way that is simpler to understand.

You have 1000 balloons taped to a large dartboard and they are all yellow except for 10, which are blue. (those are your listeners, for a station that would be profitable with a 1.0).

If you throw 3 darts, you have a 3% chance of hitting a blue balloon. If you throw one dart, you have a 1% chance of hitting a blue balloon.


The darts are 3 diaries as opposed to 1 PPM.

Amazing... you proved Channel's point by completely failing to get your own example right.

Hint: Those 3 darts do not give you a 3% chance, unless you throw them all at once. Then... well, it still isn't three percent. But I'll let you figure out why.

 

[Buckethead]

I did say "For the sake of argument these 3 darts are being thrown simultaneously."

 

[nmoore6676]

David, my point was in the context of why others are protesting the PPM measurement. So by their standards my own group is underrepresented too. I understand the statistical principles behind the panel selection. I do take exception with the resulting effect on the listening choices but that is how it is done.

The "protests" are related to the speed at which Arbtron gets to full DDI compliance. They have a ramp up period, and it is too slow and in the meantime, some discreet cells are necessarily smaller than they could/should be. In addition, the methods of cell phone and phone based recruiting are questioned, with address based recruiting being preferred (as it is used in Houston only). And, of course, MRC accreditation.

I also question the concept that people at 54 stop buying things because I would think that, the current state of the economy notwithstanding, they are the very group most likely to have disposable income and or the credit to buy stuff. If I choose to protest however I can elect to avoid buying from advertisers who I think are not serving me, I don't need or want the government acting on my behalf. That is how it works in a free enterprise capitalistic society.

Ask P&G or Coke or Budweiser why they do not buy 55+. You will be told the ROI on such advertising makes no sense, and so they don't do it because they lose money.

David you still missed the point, the people protesting and asking the FCC to intervene are concerned about minority ownership and programming they feel is being hurt by the ratings methodology. That would be among the same people who are advocating some form of "fairness doctrine" because radio stations carrying "progressive talk" are not getting ratings and thus advertisers such as the conservative talkers. Obviously certain music formats are being hurt or benefited by the ppm rollout and whether the blowing up of some formats is premature remains to be seen. I suspect the flap over ppm and sampling is just another arrow in their quiver, if it wasn't that it would be something else.

The bottom line is that all sectors are suffering due to the economy are being affected, thus the mass firings at stations all over and the expansion of syndication and tracking. I just don't want any of this to be an excuse for some form of government control of ownership or content of broadcast media. I want a free and open privately owned media and if I don't personally want to listen to something that is my own concern I can find alternatives and I do.

I still say that older people still buy products, so if they don't want to advertise to us then fine, it is their business, if it were mine then I could decide otherwise. I've given up drinking so Budweiser is off my shopping list now. I still do laundry and take showers so P & G is safe and since they sold Folgers to Smuckers I won't have to consider changing coffee brands in protest. I do know of stations, not locally I must say, that program for my age group so I listen to them on the web. Thus what they do here doesn't affect me so long as I have internet access. Those stations target advertisers that cater to seniors, though one sponsor, a monument company, might be just a bit macabre. However I'm considering the "Scooter Store" more seriously every day. ;D

 

[davideduardo]

David you still missed the point, the people protesting and asking the FCC to intervene are concerned about minority ownership and programming they feel is being hurt by the ratings methodology.

I understand that point fully.

There is no specific format concern... there is concern about service to the Black and Hispanic communities. The issue is whether the recruiting, methodology and specifics of the PPM accurately reflect the listening of these two groups.

There is, however, no concern specifically that one or another kind of Black or Hispanic format may be impacted. The issue is whether these two groups or one of them may not be properly sampled and placed on the panel, resulting in an inaccurate view of listening by members of those groups.

That would be among the same people who are advocating some form of "fairness doctrine" because radio stations carrying "progressive talk" are not getting ratings and thus advertisers such as the conservative talkers.

No, the two main groups involved in the drive for ethnic proportionality and accuracy are NABOB and SRA. Neither is active or has, as far as I know, ever made any mention of Fairness and, in fact, SRA was formed last year to represent Hispanic market radio operators in PPM or soon to be PPM markets with respect to Arbitron and with no other agenda item.

Obviously certain music formats are being hurt or benefited by the ppm rollout and whether the blowing up of some formats is premature remains to be seen. I suspect the flap over ppm and sampling is just another arrow in their quiver, if it wasn't that it would be something else.

Some formats got "exaggerated" diary entries for a variety of reasons, and some did not get written down as often as they should, and the issue is whether the PPM corrects the diary deficiencies or adds new ones.

I still say that older people still buy products, so if they don't want to advertise to us then fine, it is their business,

Again, this is not an issue radio has anything to do with. Marketers advertise to the consumers that can make them a profit.

 

[nmoore6676]

David you still missed the point, the people protesting and asking the FCC to intervene are concerned about minority ownership and programming they feel is being hurt by the ratings methodology.

That would be among the same people who are advocating some form of "fairness doctrine" because radio stations carrying "progressive talk" are not getting ratings and thus advertisers such as the conservative talkers.

No, the two main groups involved in the drive for ethnic proportionality and accuracy are NABOB and SRA. Neither is active or has, as far as I know, ever made any mention of Fairness and, in fact, SRA was formed last year to represent Hispanic market radio operators in PPM or soon to be PPM markets with respect to Arbitron and with no other agenda item.

I still say that older people still buy products, so if they don't want to advertise to us then fine, it is their business,

Again, this is not an issue radio has anything to do with. Marketers advertise to the consumers that can make them a profit.

From other sources like Neil Boortz I hear that they are among the same groups but that is conjecture for the most part. My central objection is any attempt for any reason to make changes in radio programming or station ownership based on some kind of governmental dictate. That is a free market issue and a basis of what this nation is supposed to be about. That is my point because I don't care about Hispanics , Blacks, Whites, or whatever. They will all survive and eventually find what they want because, again, that is how free markets without meddling operate.

Advertising IS a radio issue because programmers go after groups that advertisers want. Sort of a chicken and the egg issue I suppose. I get that a large part of it is creating product loyalty among younger people because they represent a future market. I will also acknowledge that as I alluded to that I, as an older individual, already have established product purchasing preferences. I am however a sucker for the latest "new" menu offerings from IHOP or Jack In The Box and I want my mattress for "FREE" if Larry can't beat the price, so I do pay attention to the ads. Then there is that "Sham Wow" pitch guy on TV or The Topsy Turvey, I'm ready for those must have products.

Now a question that you can likely answer. I consult for various business regarding their IT systems. I notice that a lot of offices have telephone systems that play the music on hold from their speakerphones. If someone in those offices has the PPM device does it register those music on hold stations?

 

[davideduardo]

Now a question that you can likely answer. I consult for various business regarding their IT systems. I notice that a lot of offices have telephone systems that play the music on hold from their speakerphones. If someone in those offices has the PPM device does it register those music on hold stations?

Yes, if the following is met...

1. They listen a minimum of 5 minutes in any quarter hour
2. its a radio station on hold, not a music service.
3 The station must be encoded.
4. The PPM must hear the phone with enough volume to detect the id tag on the audio (speakerphone, yes, receiver, no)

 

[Radio_bored-Op]

Sidebar:

this statement, early in the thread:

But you need to normalize for the fact that you have thrown 3 darts and not 1. Odds on each dart is still one out of 100 (except what makes it worse is when you throw the second dart, one balloon is already broken, which changes the odds). So until you have enough balloons broken to change the odds, the answer is still 1/100 no matter how many darts you throw.

*IS* not exactly accurate, if any one cares, zap me a memo/message, i will explain why
(with math and facts) why the odds:less, than 1/100...as stated above.

 

[beachguy3b]

Two points for Bored for getting it right.

 

[Zeb Norris]

I just don't want any of this to be an excuse for some form of government control of ownership or content of broadcast media.

Well, that's too bad for you. The public own the airwaves, the government licenses them for both commercial and non-commercial use, and content is regulated so we don't ever have to see Janet Jackson's nipple again. And that's the way it's been since the 1930s.

 

[Dick Skinner]

There is no specific format concern... there is concern about service to the Black and Hispanic communities. The issue is whether the recruiting, methodology and specifics of the PPM accurately reflect the listening of these two groups.

I think the issue is whether the recruiting, methodology and specifics of PPM accurately reflect the population of these two groups. When that is accomplished, the process will reflect the listening levels. I've not followed this topic as closely as you have, David. Is there data implying that Blacks and Hispanics are not being sampled proportionally? If so, I'd say Arbitron needs to get it's act together. If not, I think NABOB and SRA should get used to the idea that their listening constituencies had been practicing sloppy diary behavior, and that we're now getting a much clearer picture of listening reality. From your perspective, which is it, David?

 

[davideduardo]

I think the issue is whether the recruiting, methodology and specifics of PPM accurately reflect the population of these two groups. When that is accomplished, the process will reflect the listening levels. I've not followed this topic as closely as you have, David. Is there data implying that Blacks and Hispanics are not being sampled proportionally? If so, I'd say Arbitron needs to get it's act together. If not, I think NABOB and SRA should get used to the idea that their listening constituencies had been practicing sloppy diary behavior, and that we're now getting a much clearer picture of listening reality. From your perspective, which is it, David?

Speaking of the Hispanic group, Arbitron will argue that they have had over quota participation in this group. However, this is not a "listeners by the pound" issue. First, there is concern that Arbitron should be using address based vs. random phone recruiting for Hispanics and Blacks. Address based recruiting is used in Houston, and this was the first and only long-time MRC accredited market.

One of the issues is whether the random phone call system "catches" a true cross-section of the groups. For example, people identified as Spanish dominant (little or no English) are using lots more English language radio than what was seen before, and that defies all logic... but is explainable if proper recruiting is not being done. Again, this is one very (over) simplified example of what is being done or not done, but there is some evidence that the methods and stratification are not resulting in a good cross section of these communities.

Considering that the MRC has not accredited most PPM markets, there IS something wrong. The best comment I can make is that Arbitron must get accreditation now and not later and the MRC can be an effective monitor of the procedures and system being used; keep in mind that Houston, long up for reaccreditation, is not yet reaccredited!

The MRC has some of the best folks in surveys, samples and statistics in the nation. I defer to them... and they have not accredited any markets except for Houston and Riverside.

 

[Buckethead]

One of the issues is whether the random phone call system "catches" a true cross-section of the groups. For example, people identified as Spanish dominant (little or no English) are using lots more English language radio than what was seen before, and that defies all logic... but is explainable if proper recruiting is not being done. Again, this is one very (over) simplified example of what is being done or not done, but there is some evidence that the methods and stratification are not resulting in a good cross section of these communities.

David, This speaks to my original proposition that we are not seeing the many various cross sections of culture showing up in PPM.
You focus that concept on the Hispanic population but the same can be concluded in regards to every section of our population.
You are more succinctly expressing what I have been trying to say in this thread, which is that just because there are a certain number of each ethnic group and age recruited that doesn't mean it is an accurate cross section of each group.

The Houston address based recruitment (I beleive) is more along the lines of what Neilson does and has been long proven effective.
What is the reason Arbitron will not use this method?

 

[davideduardo]

David, This speaks to my original proposition that we are not seeing the many various cross sections of culture showing up in PPM. You focus that concept on the Hispanic population but the same can be concluded in regards to every section of our population.

Only the Black and Hispanic "ethnic groups" (a misnomer,of course) are considered significant enough and practical enough for any kind of "special treatment" to insure overall survey proportionality. Other groups are too small, have too many languages, or too assimilated to merit treatment... remembering that radio pays for the surveys and only if there is an advertiser need for deeper data will the expense be borne.

The Houston address based recruitment (I beleive) is more along the lines of what Neilson does and has been long proven effective.

Yes, this is a Nielsen TV system, now being used for the one-time-a-year radio experiment

What is the reason Arbitron will not use this method?

Cost. Radio does not have the financial size of TV, and adding a more expensive recruit process reduces profits. You are right... this is the only way to go today.