June Rankings (non-6+)

[K.M. Richards]

Both Nielsen in TV and Arbitron in radio have long released those broad numbers.

The reason is simple: they know Americans love lists and rankers.

While that is true, I still have a strong distaste for comments that contain quasi-definitive "conclusions" based on those.

If only (and this is wishful thinking, I know) Nielsen had some kind of required disclaimer accompanying the 6+/12+ numbers along the lines of "these numbers reflect all listening/viewing across all age groups and may not necessarily be a true ranking of the station or program".

😴 <<< me dreaming of such a thing

 

[K.M. Richards]

Quote from BLA, not displayed using the usual format because the comment was written inside the quote box:

High 6+ = F a m e !, Lovely [positive] fame, with or without the money.

Except that in broadcasting, fame without the money is worthless.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

If only (and this is wishful thinking, I know) Nielsen had some kind of required disclaimer accompanying the 6+/12+ numbers along the lines of "these numbers reflect all listening/viewing across all age groups and may not necessarily be a true ranking of the station or program".

I am pretty sure that is the message they are conveying when they say 6+ and 12+. It is self-explanatory, therefore there is no need to wish.

But to indulge your intended point just for a minute, there is no "true" ranking of anything. Each set of ratings are the result of a very limited sample, one that is (necessarily) flawed, whose results are extrapolated to the population, and then subdivided by various sub-populations. Like any sample, only some results are beneficial to most users. Those results vary by user, so the concept of "true ranking' will also vary by user and is, by definition, subjective.

 

[BLA]

While that is true, I still have a strong distaste for comments that contain quasi-definitive "conclusions" based on those.

If only (and this is wishful thinking, I know) Nielsen had some kind of required disclaimer accompanying the 6+/12+ numbers along the lines of "these numbers reflect all listening/viewing across all age groups and may not necessarily be a true ranking of the station or program".

😴 <<< me dreaming of such a thing

Dream on. The [industry] would not require such a disclaimer. An unnecessary disclosure. It's one thing to target a slice of audience for advertisers so as to increase audience sales response, which is essential, however, it's another thing to publicly admit that the rest of the audiences are basically unimportant or less important to sponsors and by extension broadcast companies, which, in effect, is what such a disclaimer would do. Divining the tea leaves for the 6+ numbers is just inevitable I suppose.

 

[K.M. Richards]

If you both will set aside that I already said it was wishful thinking, let's please go back to the side discussion on the validity of using 6+ numbers for discussion rather than the demographic rankings that are helpfully provided by Research Director and which I post here (with attribution) every month.

No ranking is perfect. That's why there is always a margin of error disclaimed when this type of information is released. Doesn't have to be the Nielsen ratings; the endless parade of political polls include same ... hell, any opinion poll will have that, which (I hope) was Flipper's point and which those of us with decades of experience in the business have known all along.

For a moment, let's take the 6+ numbers for L.A. The top ten are:
KRTH 6.4
KOST 5.8
KIIS 5.1
KBIG 4.7
KLVE 4.5
KTWV 4.2
KFI 3.7
KCBS 3.6
KLAX/KSCA (tie) 3.5

If we presume a fairly typical margin of error of +/- 3%, that means those stations could be in practically any order. And people want to debate how well a station is doing based on a top ten list which -- by Flipper's own description of polling -- might or might not be the actual order?

Admittedly, I do not know the actual margin of error for market #2. (Perhaps David does.) But I do know that it is far more important to the stations themselves how they are doing in their target demographics and there is less "wobble" in the ranking.

David made a point, in a thread about the Albuquerque ratings -- which I do know something about 🙂 -- that any discussion of stations' performance, in the absence of demographic breakouts, results in erroneous conclusions being reached.

Which of the participants in this forum wants to be the guy in that linked thread?

That is my point.