As I have mentioned before, the reason Nielsen gives away the 6+ numbers is that they are of no value.
-
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
KIRO-FM climbs back to the top
- Thread starter medev
- Start date
Many of us have David. Even more refuse to believe it.
When I checked a few years ago (maybe 2015?) KVI had an actual sales staff, and their spots weren't cheap. And they weren't pulling in much better 6+ ratings than they were before they went off-grid.
They charged extra if you wanted one of the local hosts to read the spot. The spots I heard on KVI a few mornings back were read by John Carlson, the morning guy, so I don't know how much 'bonus' the spot would be.
They've always had a sales staff. A few years ago after they lost Limbaugh, it was decided that any of the Account Execs could sell any of the stations. For most groups, it's been that way for a while. BTW; I see you're still using 6+ as a benchmark. Weird.
For talk shows, or heavily-hosted shows, that's the way it's always been. A live read is always more expensive than a flight of pre-produced spots. That's because the advertiser specifically wants to sponsor that show, and it comes at a premium. Live reads within a show is not something unique to KVI.
Last edited:
Did I make any of those assumptions in my previous posts? I don't think so, I was simply pointing out that some of the HD numbers were higher than they typically have been. The bump at KSWD-HD2 could possibly bring in a few extra dollars, but assuming it wasn't making any money before, one book of a 0.2 share won't turn that around. If, for example, it had jumped to a 2.0, that may actually mean something, but as you've pointed out many times before, not necessarily. Even if KSWD had jumped to a 2.0 or higher in this book, it is my understanding that that wouldn't mean much unless they stayed around that mark for several books, as clients buy multi-book averages, not one book.
I disagree that total audience numbers are meaningless. I've always thought of them as a general barometer for the general public. A CHR that's #1 6+ does well in multiple demos. It is not unsuccessful. There are formats that do well in other demos that don't indicate such in 6+(like Hot AC)and others(mostly upper demo)that look good in 6+ but not in saleable demos. If you are aware of these exceptions, you can get a pretty good idea of what's going on in the other ratings, not that it necessarily translates to sales.
You have a right to disagree, but the assumption that 6+ numbers are any barometer as to the success or failure of a participating station, is an incorrect assumption.
The public who care (which is a small percentage) are interested in seeing something published. Problem is; just something isn't what programmers, ad agencies, or advertisers use to determine how a particular station or format is doing. For example; using 6+ as a barometer, a station that has a .2 share 6+ could be deemed as having double the audience of a station showing a .1 share 6+? Hardly. Common sense should come into play somewhere.
How do you know that? What if analysis shows the CHR skews younger in audience toward 12-17M? That means the station may have decent 6+ numbers, but is missing the target when it comes to advertising agencies trying to reach 18-24F. Or what about the other way around? A station is doing really well in 18-24M, but the market has a lot of competition in that demo, cutting the pie thinner. Whereas the station may be doing well with ad revenue from beer and auto trying to reach that audience, but their 6+ numbers are hash marks.
See my previous example. 6+ ratings are entirely deceptive. And you're right, 6+ certainly doesn't translate to sales. But ultimately what matters to a commercial station? You guessed it: sales/revenue.
Yes, right here: "When I checked a few years ago (maybe 2015?) KVI had an actual sales staff, and their spots weren't cheap. And they weren't pulling in much better 6+ ratings than they were before they went off-grid."
Since the entire purpose in buying ratings is to have a metric for advertisers, and advertisers don't look at 6+ numbers, my point stands.
I realize that this point seems somewhat dated but since the 6+ shares are printed in the local newspapers, at least the newspapers have another purpose for it.
What do you think that purpose is?
It's the only benchmark I've ever had access to.. Which benchmark are you using?
When the need arises, I can gain access to actual ratings with demographic breakouts. I mainly deal in the TV world now, and have daily access to that data.
The entire point being for radio or TV; to come onto this site and claim you have knowledge relating to the success or failure of a particular station based on publicly-published 6+ ratings, and without revenue data, shows a lack of fundamental knowledge of how this business works. It amounts to the tilting at windmills: Definition of TILT AT WINDMILLS
To put something above or beside the ads that readers who listen to radio might be interested in reading, keeping their eyes on the page long enough to, perhaps, notice the ads. It's not fake news; the numbers Nielsen puts out are real, just useless to radio advertisers and not truly indicative of how any of the stations are doing in reaching the listeners they are telling their advertisers they can reach.
Just one word: Filler.
Are you sure you were quoting the right post there? That wasn't me who wrote that, I wouldn't have had that information.
It is a public service. It provides a general sense to the masses, of whether a station is succeeding or failing to reach an audience and there are more of them than there are of us. A station with a ten share has to be more popular in some saleable demo than one with 0.2! I used CHR as an example because it isn't heavy on older unsaleable demographics and I doubt if there is a radio station anywhere anymore that programs completely to 12-17 year-olds! You asked me how I know that a #1 CHR does well in other demos. These are estimates based on a sample. No one KNOWS anything for certain.
Wow, when I read this I had to double-check my calendar to make sure I wasn't in 1986...which is when this would've last been relevant.
In '21 no one goes to the newspaper to read news, let alone check radio station ratings.
Do any Seattle newspapers even present radio ratings? Most major papers I know don't.
However discussion boards like this one can go on for weeks talking about 6+ numbers.
What happened in 1987 that caused newspapers to plunge in readership? I was in the business back then and remember those years as being pretty good. The internet didn't start siphoning readers away to any great extent until the late '90s.
- Status