Anyone have the numbers and willing to post? I'm afraid if I do, David E is going to report me to the Arbitron police.
-
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
July book
- Thread starter radiopunk99
- Start date
G
generaleespeaking
Guest
I think I hear the fat lady siging for kwnr.
joemamma said:
I was referring to the 25-54 and 18-34 demo rankers that I have posted and other people have posted on this board in the past. Of course, everyone can see the 6+ ranker but it's not the ranker that counts to buyers. Last time I did, I took a lot of heat from another guy that posts on this board (and every other board on radio-info).
radiopunk99 said:
R-I never took off those rankers you posted so they must not see a problem with it. Even the poster you are talking about has quoted some rankers for the July book on other boards. Instead of listing the specific demo he called it "the money demo"...maybe you could do the same.
Jay F said:
I did not "quote some rankers" (whatever that means). I referred to a specific station, and did not post overall rankers.
Citing data issued prior to the Arbitron ban seems to be acceptable. In many cases, and with stations that do not change much over time, that is useful and apparently permitted.
...and it's rather amazing that your are trying to turn something that is prohibited in the contracts of every subscriber into an ad hominem offensive.
DavidEduardo said:
I didn't mean it as an offense. I liked seeing the information you provided about that station.
My favorite discussions on the R-I boards over the years have been about ratings, at least the threads with good analysis (such as provided by radiopunk99). It was one of the things that brought me pleasure in life. I feel a sense of loss.
Jay F said:
I agree, I think the new policy does harm to the industry and makes radio less interesting to those who follow it the closest. But, it is their copyright data, and if they want to use this method to protect their property, there is not much I can do.
Which site?
radiopunk99 said:
"Exclusive PPM analysis" on allaccess. It's mostly 6+ but they tell you the top stations 25-54 and 18-34 sometimes even 18-49. It's an ok column but I thought the ratings threads here at R-I were more interesting, maybe because they were more opinionated.
So if they have 25-54 and 18-34 info over there why can't we over here? R-I never took down the rankers from last month so they don't have a problem with it or are unclear on what is prohibited, Maybe I'll post this question on the "ask r-I board".
And I doubt they had permission from Arbitron
How's this
Good where it counts (not in this order):
KKLZ
KWID
KOAS
POINT
KOMP
KCYE
BOB
Still strong but down:
Mix
Sunny
X107.5
Way down from where they used to be:
KLUC
KIFS
OK:
KPLV
KRGT
KFRH
KVEG
KQRT
KXNT
Lowest ratings maybe ever:
KWNR
Good where it counts (not in this order):
KKLZ
KWID
KOAS
POINT
KOMP
KCYE
BOB
Still strong but down:
Mix
Sunny
X107.5
Way down from where they used to be:
KLUC
KIFS
OK:
KPLV
KRGT
KFRH
KVEG
KQRT
KXNT
Lowest ratings maybe ever:
KWNR
So basically, Lotus and Beasley had a good book and CBS and Clear Channel did fair to poor. Congratulations to John Griffin, Justin Chase and their staffs.
- Status