I believe the new policy that Arbitron has implemented is unfair to the smaller radio companies, which do not have the deep pocket books to pay the exorbitant fees in order to subscribe to Arbitron. Furthermore, these stations will suffer because they will not have access to the information necessary to ensure that there stations are performing adequately in their particular markets, which hurts their bottom line in the sales department. Moreover, the new ratings will not give an accurate picture of what's happening within a particular market. For example, the only two companies that subscribe to Arbitron in the Jacksonville, FL market (Market #50), which are the large national radio conglomerates Clear Channel and Cox Radio. As a result, only the radio stations owned by these two companies showed up on the March 2012 ratings book. Does anyone else feel that Arbitron is doing a disservice to smaller radio companies with this new policy?
-
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
Is the new Arbitron Ratings Policy Unfair to Smaller Radio Companies?
- Thread starter olmjax
- Start date
PPM system is now TERRIBLE !! Where I live, I listen to a lot out of market radio stations. So with this PPM system, I don't count as a listener. PPM system is AWFUL !!
O
ok walters
Guest
Let me get this straight. You think it is unfair that someone doesn't supply important copyrighted industry information that it pays to gather to a non-paying customer? You actually refer to using the information for benefit without paying for it.
It's not about being fair.
This change is also about Arbitron deciding to take less of a view that radio is a public trust, and rather enforce
the purely commercial aspect as their focus.
It's a paid-admission club. It's like the "Who's Who in Business" vanity directories published for no particular reason.
Arbitron is all about Arbitron.
In the same way that any other branding promotes themselves and "enforces" a position, they have
every right to control the information they sell.
If they have decided theiy are not in the business of ranking stations, I guess it's OK for them to get out of that
line of business. They appear to be choosing to judge stations who pay to enter their beauty pagent.
That's a fair enough, but does little to correct the idea that Arbitron ranks stations.
They rank verifiable station audio throughput exposure to eardrums and thereby rate commercial sales "acceptability".
I'll accept that it IS fair to discredit any competetive service if you feel you've been misled
about what the company does.
It's also OK to help others see that Arbitron does not measure "popularity", but their specific metric response data.
And they sell it. To people who don't really want to address out of market listening, for example.
So it''s easier, cheaper, and more comfortable to assume it doesn't happen and doesn't need to be addressed in the data.
Whether the data is more or less than relevant than before depends on perspective and acceptance of
the more limited interpretation.
This change is also about Arbitron deciding to take less of a view that radio is a public trust, and rather enforce
the purely commercial aspect as their focus.
It's a paid-admission club. It's like the "Who's Who in Business" vanity directories published for no particular reason.
Arbitron is all about Arbitron.
In the same way that any other branding promotes themselves and "enforces" a position, they have
every right to control the information they sell.
If they have decided theiy are not in the business of ranking stations, I guess it's OK for them to get out of that
line of business. They appear to be choosing to judge stations who pay to enter their beauty pagent.
That's a fair enough, but does little to correct the idea that Arbitron ranks stations.
They rank verifiable station audio throughput exposure to eardrums and thereby rate commercial sales "acceptability".
I'll accept that it IS fair to discredit any competetive service if you feel you've been misled
about what the company does.
It's also OK to help others see that Arbitron does not measure "popularity", but their specific metric response data.
And they sell it. To people who don't really want to address out of market listening, for example.
So it''s easier, cheaper, and more comfortable to assume it doesn't happen and doesn't need to be addressed in the data.
Whether the data is more or less than relevant than before depends on perspective and acceptance of
the more limited interpretation.
N
normhill007
Guest
Everybody know Arbitron always stacked the deck against non subscribers by placing diaries where they will shine more favorably on clients..I know this for a fact from a small rural country station on the fringe of a medium market..They got a 4 on their very first book and Arbitron basically said, if you give us 50,000 dollars the good ratings would continue. We couldn't afford the 50 grand and we never showed up again.
Exactly. Arbitron has decided to use the publication of 12+/6+ ratings as a carrot to get more buyers for their ratings. If everyone ponies up, then the ratings are no longer an inaccurate picture.otharadioman said:
Keep in mind that Arbitron has no reason to care whether or not stations that don't buy the ratings suffer. A station that doesn't buy the ratings gives Arbitron just as much business as a dark station.
N.E. Streetz said:
Not true. There are bunches of PPM markets you can look at where out-of-market stations show up in the ratings. For example, WABC shows up in the Philadelphia ratings.
otharadioman said:
Arbitron has a monopoly in most markets. Eastlan does exist, but most of its markets are not rated by Arbitron, or the counties Eastlan rates are a subset a larger Arbitron market.
I went to Eastlan Ratings but they only have certain markets. They don't have as many markets as Arbitron and the majority of the markets listed are small. Since I live in Jacksonville, FL, it would be nice to know what are the ratings of all radio stations in this market but the nearest market that is rated by Eastlan is the Gainesville/Ocala, FL market.
Tom Wells said:
That's a strange way of putting it. If radio was a public trust, there would be no need for Arbitron. American radio, for the most part, is a commercial operation, and Arbitron has built its business on quantifying that business. In the way that Hooper did in the 40s. Arbitron exists mainly for advertisers. Not as an agency of the government. It costs money to gather their information, and they make money by selling it. If that's not acceptable, you can commission your own survey.
In the US, the term "A Public Trust" applies to non-commercial public broadcasting. There was a book written about it with that title in 1967.
reelyreal said:
According to RBR, Cumulus is looking to revive their deal with Nielson.
TheBigA said:
I stated it that way simply to illustrate differing perceptions held by the public vs people in the business.
The public thinks the radio is "for" them.
They never read the 1967 book defining public broadcasting as that, and commercial radio as a business district.
The public persists in thinking the "content" is what radio is about.
Radio people should know it's all about business, and business is by definition a "non-fair" zone.
It's about success in occupying ears, not listening or any kind of assessment of content.
The highest rated station would naturally be one that is compelling to listen to, but contains only content that becomes
immediately irrelevant or incorrect. Like news and sports.
Hey, wait a minute.
Tom Wells said:
You mean the Wizard of Oz wasn't real? Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
It's an interesting lesson, because the people want things for free. They're willing to make deals that might, in the long term, be harmful because they want stuff for free. We see that right now in the current political process.
normhill007 said:
That's not true. The diary survey is accredited by the MRC in all but one market, and the MRC certification guarantees as close to a random sample as is possible.
PTBoardOp94 said:
As I recall, Arbitron began releasing data to the trades and to newspapers back when we still had Hooper and Pulse and Arbitron was the challenger. After Arbitron vanquished its foes at the agency level, the practice continued... and served a purpose during the Birch and SRC days, as well.
Those were the days of R&R and FMQB and Gavin and such and we followed other markets closely to see how stations we emulated, copied or respected were doing.
But in general, the public release of data served Arbitron well in the era when it was striving to be the top ratings company.
Can Arbitron require non subscribing stations to encode for PPM?
No, but it is in the interest of non-subscribers to encode. Otherwise they won't be rated at all. Kind of like the current situation with non-subscribers in the public release of data, but also affecting the data purchased Arbitron's paying customers.
Problem with Arbitron is that they have lost any credibility as a ratings service. If it is about ratings then you need to include all radio stations in the market. More than half of the stations in the Atlantic City, NJ market are no longer included in the ratings. I am currently investigating the possibility of starting a new rating service at much lower cost than Arbitron. As a former scientific programmer for the military I believe I can develop a statistical analysis that would provide area radio stations with the info they need and at far less cost.
josh said:
The biggest issue with ratings is not the tabulation software, but, rather, the design and recruitment of a sample that is proportional and representative of all the desired aspects of the universe being studied.
My guess is that, to create, implement and pay for operation until the time some major clients are signed you would need upwards of $150 million for startup and burn capital.
Nielsen couldn't do it... so I tend to think that you probably couldn't, either.
- Status