Jan 2012 ratings

[holyradio]

David, since you seem to know everything about this issue... I thought you might know the answer to this question. Do you have to be a legal US citizen to be on the Arbriton PPM panel in Las Vegas?

Nope.

You don't have to be a citizen to be in the US. You can be a legal resident, too (with a "green card" which is, actually, pink). Or a tourist. Or a student.

You don't have to be a citizen or even a legal resident to be counted in the US Census. You just have to live in the US.

Since Arbitron uses a derivative of the Census (processed by Claritas) to define the "universe" of each market, it's pretty obvious that neither citizenship nor legal residency would be a requirement. Having some kind of permanent residence is, but only so that the docking of the meters can take place and so the meters can be attributed to a particular sampling unit. Otherwise, anyone is eligible.

Well David,

I’m sure glad that Arbitron just made Spanish speaking illegal immigrants more valuable in PPM than an English speaking US citizen. I’m sure the general market stations that got jumped by both Spanish Language stations should feel that this absolutely fair and justified.

 

[Jay F]

It looks like CHRs KLUC, KVEG, and KFRH were especially impacted by this. They all have large English speaking Hispanic audiences.

 

[davideduardo]

I’m sure glad that Arbitron just made Spanish speaking illegal immigrants more valuable in PPM than an English speaking US citizen.

I don't know why you say "just" and I don't know why several posters here think that language preference proportionality is "new." Neither is a properly used term.

Arbitron has always measured a sample of the population using the United States Bureau of the Census data (as provided by Claritas) to define the market (or, technically, the "universe"). The Census counts all residents of the country and its states, counties, cities and census tracts. So Arbitron must use the same standard.

Further, imagine if Arbitron asked "Are you a legal resident of the United States?" The biasing that such a question would cause is enormous as it introduces a socio-political element that, in these times, is noxious.

But more than this point about "eligibility" is the issue that you seem to think that any person, legal or illegal, Hispanic, Black, white, male, female, young or old might be of greater importance in the PPM. That is just not true. In a panel, and except for minor variations caused by panel turnover, it is possible to have every important subset of the universe represented in nearly exact proportion to the presence of that subset in the overall population. Nobody is more or less valuable.

I’m sure the general market stations that got jumped by both Spanish Language stations should feel that this absolutely fair and justified

There are not just two Spanish language stations... so "both" is wrong. There are a five FMs and one AM that are players in the market.

And nobody got "jumped." What was happening prior to January is actually evidence of the need for language proportionality. Spanish dominant Hispanics were being undersampled, while English dominant Hispanics were oversampled.

But Hispanics, overall, were sampled in precise proportion with the Hispanic makeup of the market. There is no change in the average number of Hispanics on the panel or the "weight" of them as a group.

All that changed was the application of a metric on the language usage/preference of ALL Hispanics in order to more accurately reflect listening.

 

[davideduardo]

It looks like CHRs KLUC, KVEG, and KFRH were especially impacted by this. They all have large English speaking Hispanic audiences.

If we exclude the Holiday book, as nearly everyone does, and the December one as well since it wobbles due to Thanksgiving and the pre-holiday season, we see a couple of things.

On 18-34 and 18-49, KLUC is in the same tight range as it had for the pre-December months. KVEG is off a bit, but still at the low end of its prior range... KVEG tends to wobble more than KLUC. KFRH wobbles a lot... lower share, greater margin of error. Still, it looks to be in the normal range.

Of course, Arbitron adjusted the theoretical sample proportions to reflect the new data implemented in January. Since the PPM is a panel, not a new sample every week as the diary was, they have to transition from the old target panel makeup the new makeup. That means the use of some / more weighting in the next few months than will be used further into the future, and thus it means that we should look at the next several months before making any firm conclusion.

 

[holyradio]

I’m sure glad that Arbitron just made Spanish speaking illegal immigrants more valuable in PPM than an English speaking US citizen.

I don't know why you say "just" and I don't know why several posters here think that language preference proportionality is "new." Neither is a properly used term.

Arbitron has always measured a sample of the population using the United States Bureau of the Census data (as provided by Claritas) to define the market (or, technically, the "universe"). The Census counts all residents of the country and its states, counties, cities and census tracts. So Arbitron must use the same standard.

Further, imagine if Arbitron asked "Are you a legal resident of the United States?" The biasing that such a question would cause is enormous as it introduces a socio-political element that, in these times, is noxious.

But more than this point about "eligibility" is the issue that you seem to think that any person, legal or illegal, Hispanic, Black, white, male, female, young or old might be of greater importance in the PPM. That is just not true. In a panel, and except for minor variations caused by panel turnover, it is possible to have every important subset of the universe represented in nearly exact proportion to the presence of that subset in the overall population. Nobody is more or less valuable.

I’m sure the general market stations that got jumped by both Spanish Language stations should feel that this absolutely fair and justified

There are not just two Spanish language stations... so "both" is wrong. There are a five FMs and one AM that are players in the market.

And nobody got "jumped." What was happening prior to January is actually evidence of the need for language proportionality. Spanish dominant Hispanics were being undersampled, while English dominant Hispanics were oversampled.

But Hispanics, overall, were sampled in precise proportion with the Hispanic makeup of the market. There is no change in the average number of Hispanics on the panel or the "weight" of them as a group.

All that changed was the application of a metric on the language usage/preference of ALL Hispanics in order to more accurately reflect listening.

Yes, both terms are proper. Spanish speaking people are now worth more than an English speaking person and Arbitron “just” implemented it in Las Vegas starting with the January book. The proof is in the numbers as EVERY Spanish language music station is UP (all 5 of them, not just the top 2 players) book to book simply because of the “new” language preference weighting. In fact, the ONLY Spanish language station that is not up is KLSQ-AM, which is flat (6+).

That’s all this is…weighting based on language preference. I realize that this system has been used in other markets BUT it is “new” to Vegas. Just because Arbitron has been using this weighting system in other markets for years doesn’t make it right.

 

[davideduardo]

Yes, both terms are proper. Spanish speaking people are now worth more than an English speaking person and Arbitron “just” implemented it in Las Vegas starting with the January book. The proof is in the numbers as EVERY Spanish language music station is UP (all 5 of them, not just the top 2 players) book to book simply because of the “new” language preference weighting. In fact, the ONLY Spanish language station that is not up is KLSQ-AM, which is flat (6+).

That’s all this is…weighting based on language preference. I realize that this system has been used in other markets BUT it is “new” to Vegas. Just because Arbitron has been using this weighting system in other markets for years doesn’t make it right.

No person is worth more than any other person.

What we had up to January was the opposite... the Hispanic population is 60% Spanish dominant, but, without applying language proportionality, the sample apparently wobbled around 45% to 50% Spanish dominant per extrapolation. So the Spanish dominant person was under-represented based on the new knowledge of the Las Vegas language preference.

Non-Hispanics are the same percentage of the panel as they were in October, November, December and Holiday. Arbitron changes the definitions of the market on age, gender, ethnicity, income, education, etc. every year in October based on the Census' American Community Survey (which is a poll, not a Census and is "weighted" just like nearly every other survey known to man). But they only change Language preference data when Nielsen produces new results, and the Nielsen results will be a multiyear average.

The only thing that changed is the composition of the Hispanic part of the panel. Not the total number of Hispanic panelists, but the number who represent Spanish and English dominants... so as far as non-Hispanic whites, there is no change whatsoever in their weight or value in the PPM survey.

In fact, there is no change in the weight or value of Spanish dominants persons in the panel... there are just a few more of them and a few less English dominant Hispanics. Remeber, "English dominant" applies only to Hispanics, not to the overall sample.

 

[holyradio]

David,

I'm sure everyone else that visits this board is getting sick of us debating over this issue. So, this will be my last post on this topic and I’ll give you the last word. But once again, you are wrong. Every person on any PPM or diary panel is worth a certain number of people. And that number literally changes everyday depending on how many people are holding their meters. Any Arbitron Rep will confirm this fact. That's how weighting works. And now, Spanish dominate PPM holders are worth more than English dominate. Once again, the proof is in the numbers as every Spanish language station is up from book to book. Perhaps in a couple months, Arbitron will add more Spanish dominate panelist so they won’t have to weight them up so much. But that probably won’t change the outcome. Spanish language stations will still be much more dominate, compared to where they ranked recently.

 

[MC]

If it is too complicated to write on the backof a cocktail napkin, it is not worth anything in the long term. Let's debate what a lawsuit is or isn't.

 

[davideduardo]

But once again, you are wrong. Every person on any PPM or diary panel is worth a certain number of people. And that number literally changes everyday depending on how many people are holding their meters. Any Arbitron Rep will confirm this fact. That's how weighting works.

In a perfect panel, there is no weighting. That is because a panel is pre-recruited to perfectly match the composition of the group under study, and built in perfect synchronization with the market.

The only time, in a panel, where weighting has to be applied is if the panel does not perfectly represent the universe. But, for all practical purposes, the weighting on a panel is very very small... typically less than +/- 5%, which is less than the overall margin of error of a panel survey.

If the amount of weighting is significant, then there is an issue. But if it is in the low range of single digit numbers, it's insignificant and does not materially affect the outcome of the survey.

In Las Vegas, using the Spring 2011 data, there were 766 in tab meters for 1,571,000 12+ persons, or an approximate per meter value of 2,000 persons. For 490,000 Hispanics 6+ there were 247 meters, or approximately 2,000 persons per meter. For 776,000 women 12+, there were 386 meters and for 775,000 men 12+ there were 380 meters. If you go through all the cells, the per-meter value stays very close to 2,000.

There is none of the 10%... 15%... even 20% weighting up or down we saw with the diary. The weighting is so small that it is far less a factor than margin of error for the given sample size and is a factor that is almost irrelevant in a discussion of the PPM methodology... because, again, we are dealing with a predesigned panel, not a random probability sample such as the diary, phone samples, intercepts, etc.

And now, Spanish dominate PPM holders are worth more than English dominate. Once again, the proof is in the numbers as every Spanish language station is up from book to book.

The most desirable situation for a station is to have its target audience oversampled so that each panelist is "worth less " and weighted down. That means there are more meters in the sample for their listeners, so the margin of error... and wobble... will be less.

The value of a Spanish dominant Hispanic in a panel is the same as the value of an English dominant one... about 2,000 in Las Vegas. While there may be some difference in the months preceding implementation of language proportionality in that the panel, as it turns out, had too many English dominant Hispanics and some had to be dropped while more Spanish dominant ones had to be added. Overall, we are talking about a change of about 12 more Spanish dominants and 12 less English dominant Hispanics to restore proportionality to the survey and to make any weighting minimal or totally unnecessary.

Spanish language stations are at a disadvantage if the Spanish dominant panelists have to be weighted up ("worth more") because it means the reliability of their ratings is less. That's not a desirable situation.

Perhaps in a couple months, Arbitron will add more Spanish dominate(sic) panelist so they won’t have to weight them up so much. But that probably won’t change the outcome. Spanish language stations will still be much more dominate(sic), compared to where they ranked recently.

The amount of weighting is minimal, if you look at the sample report. And within a month or two, it will be negligable... in other words, less than "minimal."

 

[davideduardo]

If it is too complicated to write on the backof a cocktail napkin, it is not worth anything in the long term. Let's debate what a lawsuit is or isn't.

I suppose you agree with the statement "Ignorance is bliss" too.

Our Constitution won't fit on a cocktail napkin, but your attitude reflects why so few people understand its meaning.

 

[BeachBum]

It makes me sad when incontrovertible facts are ignored because of a preconceived bias that's more important to someone than the truth.

 

[iknowpeople]

Everyone - if you are going to keep talking about weighting, make a new thread. This is a thread about the January 2012 numbers. Not how the numbers were generated. :-X

 

[radiopunk99]

It makes me sad when incontrovertible facts are ignored because of a preconceived bias that's more important to someone than the truth.

BeachBum, What is meant by your comments and who is it directed at? ???

 

[radiopunk99]

Everyone - if you are going to keep talking about weighting, make a new thread. This is a thread about the January 2012 numbers. Not how the numbers were generated. :-X

Iknowpeople, if you are going to make a useless comment about what people are commenting about, instead of actually saying something with content... then start a new thread with subject line "this will waste your time".

 

[iknowpeople]

RadioPunk99 - I'm sorry, I didn't have more time to post. I'm employed.

 

[davideduardo]

RadioPunk99 - I'm sorry, I didn't have more time to post. I'm employed.

Many of us are. But, unless you are working several jobs, there are still a few hours left in each day during which one or another coherent thoughts might originate.

 

[radiopunk99]

RadioPunk99 - I'm sorry, I didn't have more time to post. I'm employed.

Iknowpeople, good for you! I am too. And if you work in radio here in Las Vegas, there is a pretty good chance YOU KNOW ME too. Who knows, we might even work in the same building. See you around the hallways!

 

[MC]

Radio info reported the settlement of a lawsuit, I think, maybe it is not a lawsuit, maybe it is a ?....I don't know at this point:

http://www.radio-info.com/news/sbs-...eople-meter-and-the-ppm-coalition-protests-ar

 

[davideduardo]

Radio info reported the settlement of a lawsuit, I think, maybe it is not a lawsuit, maybe it is a ?....I don't know at this point:

The lawsuit was "settled" in the sense that NJ and NY realized that they did not have the information, knowledge or, probably, jurisdiction, to deal with the issue. A number of legislators and government bodies were pressured by some broadcasters and the response was basically saber rattling.

What nearly nobody in radio realized before this ugly episode is that the defects were in the diary methodology, not the PPM.

 

[MC]

I was in Texas and the car dealerships had signs out that they would finance with either a Mexican or USA driver's license. So I do agree that where ever some one is from they can be a customer and someone an advertiser wants to reach.

Here in Vegas their are hotels that cater to people from Hawaii for example, and radio shows for Hawaiian people on some of the vanity stations like KLAV.

There are Jewish Rabbi shows, German Shows, Filipino shows, Indian (India) Shows etc. Lots of these people spend money traveling, and going on the net, eating, etc. People also need legal and medical services.. Some of these demographics can mean good money, for example many foreign nationals (Canada, China, Brazil, Russia, etc.) are buying up many of the foreclosed homes in VEGAS.