January 2012 Ratings for San Jose and San Francisco.

[davideduardo]

I used to like KLIV almost 40 years ago when it was a good Top 40 station, but anywhere north of mid San Mateo County, their signal sucked. I don't think they can be considered a true SF market station.

Yeah, the signal is limited. I was attempting to explain to recto (which is, oddly, "rectum" in Spanish) that Santa Clara County is 100% part of the San Francisco market... but like a number of very extended metros, there are stations that can only serve small portions of those markets... which in the case of KLIV is San Jose.

 

[MC]

Great station to listen in my "Chevy NOVA"

 

[recto101]

Look at the San JOse books why is KOST-FM in LA and KAMP-FM in LA in the books? besides some of the web audience in San Jose is listening to it.

 

[1069_KIFR]

I asked that last month about some LA stations showing up in the SF book. An answer I got was that maybe some PPMers were in LA on vacation. Their meters picked up the LA stations, but yet their device is subscribed for the SF market. Same issue with the San Jose book.

 

[suburbandj]

You will find PPM panelists having lives, they will have business trips, they will have vacations, they will visit famiy. To get their incentive from Arbitron, they will carry their meter outside of the Bay Area.

 

[Goldilocks94941]

Then shouldn't the data for the meter wearers on short trips to, say, Los Angeles, be counted in the Los Angeles market ratings for the time they're there? This seems like a major design flaw if it goes with the person, regardless of where they are for a week or whatever.
When the "panelist" is within the LA market, and their listening registers LA stations, why wouldn't that add to the survey sample in the LA market, even if it's only for a day? That's different than someone DX-ing a distant signal, like listening to KGO in Pasadena at night, which would make more sense (regardless of what's being programmed on KGO now!). I don't think the FM stations from LA, mentioned earlier in this thread, could ever be heard "over the air" anywhere in the Bay Area to be picked up by a people meter. Even if it was a rare tropospheric signal scattering kind of day. And even if they could once a year or so, I seriously doubt that has anything to do with them showing up in the SF market data.
And if it's online webstream listening, I thought the Arbitron listings indicated that separate from the broadcast signal.
So what gives with Arbitron? Are they collecting market data or personal monitoring history of the chosen few?

 

[recto101]

Then shouldn't the data for the meter wearers on short trips to, say, Los Angeles, be counted in the Los Angeles market ratings for the time they're there? This seems like a major design flaw if it goes with the person, regardless of where they are for a week or whatever.
When the "panelist" is within the LA market, and their listening registers LA stations, why wouldn't that add to the survey sample in the LA market, even if it's only for a day? That's different than someone DX-ing a distant signal, like listening to KGO in Pasadena at night, which would make more sense (regardless of what's being programmed on KGO now!). I don't think the FM stations from LA, mentioned earlier in this thread, could ever be heard "over the air" anywhere in the Bay Area to be picked up by a people meter. Even if it was a rare tropospheric signal scattering kind of day. And even if they could once a year or so, I seriously doubt that has anything to do with them showing up in the SF market data.
And if it's online webstream listening, I thought the Arbitron listings indicated that separate from the broadcast signal.
So what gives with Arbitron? Are they collecting market data or personal monitoring history of the chosen few?

How about KNX 1070 AM signal that can be heard in Vallejo or KGO-AM heard in San Fernando Valley.

 

[davideduardo]

Then shouldn't the data for the meter wearers on short trips to, say, Los Angeles, be counted in the Los Angeles market ratings for the time they're there? This seems like a major design flaw if it goes with the person, regardless of where they are for a week or whatever.

No, the objective of a survey is to measure all the radio listening habits of people in a particular market area. It does not matter if they go out of town, as going out of town is a normal thing people do; unless all behaviour is measured, the survey is not an accurate representation of all radio listening and the level of total radio listening would appear to be lower than it really is.

When the "panelist" is within the LA market, and their listening registers LA stations, why wouldn't that add to the survey sample in the LA market, even if it's only for a day?

Because the idea is to measure the residents of a particular market where ever they go.

And if it's online webstream listening, I thought the Arbitron listings indicated that separate from the broadcast signal.

That is true if the web stream is not identical, such as when agency spots are removed. But if they are identical, the station can opt for having them combined.

So what gives with Arbitron? Are they collecting market data or personal monitoring history of the chosen few?

Since the beginning, in 1965, Arbitron has measured, by the diary and now the PPM the listening of its selected participants. In the diary, for a 7 day period and in the PPM for up to 24 months. In either case, they must include all listening by the people in the sample over the entire period that they are participants.

 

[LKellerIII]

Since the bottom-line point of PPM is to help set advertising rates, it makes sense to count "tourists" too. If just as likely to be influenced by a radio commercial if I'm in LA listening to the radio, as if I would be if I was here in the Bay Area. I guess this tiny segment (tourists) would certainly count for regional and national advertisers, not so much local - I'm not likely to go buy a Worthington Ford while I'm there, or pick up the Sav-On "Radio Bargain of the Day."

Do they still do that?

 

[1069_KIFR]

And when tourist that are PPM'ers, come to SF, these stations benefit as well. It goes both ways! (Keep it clean)

 

[Goldilocks94941]

Folks - my point was, if someone from San Leandro with a people meter is in LA, then his or her radio listening should be attributed to LA, for the period of time they are there -- and not show up as a tiny fraction of listening to LA stations in the SF market survey. Unless they're actually listening to those LA stations while they are in the SF metro area. Kapeesh?

 

[stewie]

Folks - my point was, if someone from San Leandro with a people meter is in LA, then his or her radio listening should be attributed to LA, for the period of time they are there -- and not show up as a tiny fraction of listening to LA stations in the SF market survey. Unless they're actually listening to those LA stations while they are in the SF metro area. Kapeesh?

I'm tracking you. While feasible with some of the AM's in LA, it's impossible (unless you want to start talking Internet Radio) to pick up the LA FM's in SF.

 

[geek-orama]

For national advertisers the listening to LA stations by people from SF or Chicago is important. So those estimates do have meaning

 

[davideduardo]

For national advertisers the listening to LA stations by people from SF or Chicago is important. So those estimates do have meaning

Not really. The numbers that show up in local market ratings for out of town stations (other than those adjacent to the market) are so small and so erratic that they are not taken into account at all.

Even adjacent market numbers are seldom factored in. For example, the listenership to LA stations in the Riverside San Bernardino market is considerable, but LA stations don't generally get paid any more for that listening than they would if there were no non-local listening.