Interesting article on PPM

[ChannelFlipper]

Interesting observational article on PPM at Reason Magazine Online.


http://www.reason.com/news/show/132662.html

I have yet to hear a persuasive argument against the PPM technology or sampling methodology. The fact that there are (predictable) winners and losers in the switch to PPM is prima facie evidence that in fact there was a tremendous amount of over-reporting of individuals listening habits of their favorite station(s). Now that dedicated fans of a given station or personality cannot game the system by blocking out entire blocks of listening in the diary any more and a few of the politically active connected are negatively impacted, there is now a "controversy" over the new system.

I am waiting to hear the first persuasive argument that the PPM is anything but a resounding success.

 

[davideduardo]

I am waiting to hear the first persuasive argument that the PPM is anything but a resounding success.

For starters, look at KTDD in February in the IE. It's a product of sample size being way too small and Arbitron's lack of quality control.

Or, look at the number of meters that give top stations their ratings at any one time of the day... MediaMonitors gives the raw data... and see that it's often 10 or 15 meters!

Or look at how a small change in panel can change a station's rank for as long as those panelists remain... which may be 24 months!

It's a good idea, but still way off in implementation.

I reviewed diaries regularly from my first visit to Beltsville in 1970... and never saw excessive evidence of exaggeration, voting or manipulation. Yes, people round... but they round times in all aspects of life. But the much commented "voting" opinion seems to all come from people who have never done diary reviews.