KMVN's numbers

[davideduardo]

So DE,

Can we safely assume that from your response that you believe Arbitron's methodology is unflawed?
I understand it as well as you do, and I have certainly have some issues with it.

A random probability sample is a near-poerfect way of measuring audiences (and nearly everything else). The restrictions based on cost (samp0le size) are the impediments to a perfect survey. Stations in each market decide how large a sample is needed, not Arbitron. If the consensus produces a certain sample, it is because the market believes that it is adequate to back sales efforts.

The issues with Arbitron are minor compared with the benefits the survey provides. Most have to do with matters that are related to sample size, something that is determined by the stations, not the survey company.

So, for the stated purpose of the survey, ad sales, Arbitron is excellent. With the roll-out of the PPM starting next week, it will get better because we will have reliable monthly and weekly numbers, faster data delivery and greater granularity... at a cost about 60% higher than the diary. Time will tell if it is worth it.

The methodology itself is unflawed. It is monitored and audited by the MRC, and is the best possible methodology for the intended purpose. I know enough about it to have gotten several books reissued, and am the only person I know who who has gotten a trend reissued, so I am pretty familiar with the system and the process.

 

[Garrett]

As a student of academia, I can confirm that a true "Random Sample" is close to impossible, and even more so when it comes to radio. The cost would be prohibitive. Plus, why would you do that? You do not need to know what EVERY person thinks, only radio listeners. Once you are deselecting non-radio listeners from your sample, you are no longer talking about "Random Samples."

For this reason, I do not believe that "Radom Sampling" is the best way to measure audiences. I think you need to rephrase what you were trying to say. I DO think that the Arbitron Coporporation (and AC Nielsen for TV) have the best data available, which is why THEY get to wear the pointy hats...

 

[BACKnUSSR]

Great. No new information there DE.
And yes, it is the best measuring stick radio has at the moment.

My question remains though....
Do YOU believe that Arbitron's methodology is UNFLAWED?


And if so, why on earth would anything ever need to be reissued....?

 

[davideduardo]

Great. No new information there DE.
And yes, it is the best measuring stick radio has at the moment.

My question remains though....
Do YOU believe that Arbitron's methodology is UNFLAWED?


And if so, why on earth would anything ever need to be reissued....?

The mosat common causes for a book being reissued would be the discovery of media diaries (a station or station staffer who cheated) and some station registering a slogan (and in the past, program or talent) that it did not have. Neither of these impinge the methodology, which is sound. It happens when a station cheats in violation of both ethnics and its contract with Arbitron.

 

[davideduardo]

As a student of academia, I can confirm that a true "Random Sample" is close to impossible, and even more so when it comes to radio. The cost would be prohibitive. Plus, why would you do that? You do not need to know what EVERY person thinks, only radio listeners. Once you are deselecting non-radio listeners from your sample, you are no longer talking about "Random Samples."

You are confusing sample size with methodology. In a true random probability sample, sample sizes can be relatively small as you theoretically get a sample of every stratification variable naturally. This does not occur, so we artificially enforce proportionality by sampling and weighting.

The PPM is pretty close to a true random probability sample, and is perfectly balanced on all stratification variables... yet the sample size is about a third of that of the diary sample and the accuracy is higher, right down to the day by day level.

Also, there is an error in your belief that Arbitron does not sample non-listeners. They sample people, and measure their radio habits. And that includes those people who do not listen at all, or not all days, or whatever. Arbitron's universe is everyone 12+, listener or not.

For this reason, I do not believe that "Radom Sampling" is the best way to measure audiences. I think you need to rephrase what you were trying to say. I DO think that the Arbitron Coporporation (and AC Nielsen for TV) have the best data available, which is why THEY get to wear the pointy hats...

The main reason a random probability sample in its pure form can not be obtainied is in the cooperation rate (in the case of Arbitron, acceptance and return both), but the sample design, within the stratification variables, is a random probability sample in its purest form.

 

[BACKnUSSR]

David,

Do you believe Arbitron's methodology is UNFLAWED?
(Perfect, cannot be improved, without fault, completely and always accurate)

 

[davideduardo]

David,

Do you believe Arbitron's methodology is UNFLAWED?
(Perfect, cannot be improved, without fault, completely and always accurate)

The methodology is unflawed. Any issues have to do with the real world cooperation and diary return rates, not the mthodology for both the diary method or the PPM.

 

[BACKnUSSR]

David,

Do you believe Arbitron's methodology is UNFLAWED?
(Perfect, cannot be improved, without fault, completely and always accurate)

The methodology is unflawed. Any issues have to do with the real world cooperation and diary return rates, not the mthodology for both the diary method or the PPM.

I'd disagree with that. The diary method is an strange, unnatural way to measure usage. In fact, television gave up on that method many years ago. PPM is better.....

Now you'll say that those factors don't have an effect on the "methodology" itself. But, I would offer that, it does in fact taint the results. (Here's a good example.....you have two cars....same model...both travel at the same speeds....however neither driver can drive "stick" and one of the cars is a manual transmission. In all likelihood, the one driving the automatic will win....) The point being that the standard car COULD win and isnt at a disadvantage....it just that the method of driving it is foreign to the driver.....just like filling out diaries is strange to anyone who listens to radio casually.

 

[davideduardo]

I'd disagree with that. The diary method is an strange, unnatural way to measure usage. In fact, television gave up on that method many years ago.

Actually, relatively few markets are metered, and the diary is used in TV, too.

PPM is better.....

Actually, the PPM and the diary method produce amazingly similar results, as the nearly two years of tests in Philly showed and the current test in Hlouston confirms: the diary works, but it is slower in processing, has less granularity (it is not a panel) and tends not to pick up "hearing" vs. "listening."

The real advantage of PPM is speed of delivery and its ability to measure radio, TV, cable, satellite, storecasting, etc., all together. It is vastly more expensive.

Now you'll say that those factors don't have an effect on the "methodology" itself. But, I would offer that, it does in fact taint the results. (Here's a good example.....you have two cars....same model...both travel at the same speeds....however neither driver can drive "stick" and one of the cars is a manual transmission. In all likelihood, the one driving the automatic will win....) The point being that the standard car COULD win and isnt at a disadvantage....it just that the method of driving it is foreign to the driver.....just like filling out diaries is strange to anyone who listens to radio casually.

Both the diary and the PPÑM meansure listening levels and get nearly identical AQH results. The PPM is technologically possible now, but at higher costs. It simply does what advertisers want, which is to get faster data and a same-process measurement of all electronic media. The diary method will be kept outside the top 50 markets indefinitely, at least beyond 2011 (which is when the full top 50 markets will get PPM). There is no plan to do PPM outside the largest markets... becaue the diary is, as the PPM proves, quite accurate.

 

[briancraig]

--Actually, relatively few markets are metered, and the diary is used in TV, too--


Not really true, over 70 percent of tv households live in a metered market.

 

[davideduardo]

--Actually, relatively few markets are metered, and the diary is used in TV, too--


Not really true, over 70 percent of tv households live in a metered market.

This is like saying that 30% of all radio revenue is in the top 10 markets. There are still nearly 300 more rated markets outside the top 10... and the revenue dominance of the top ones does not make them non-existant.

In TV, the fact taht we use DMAs instead of MSAs makes the top markets even bigger (LA adds a third more populaiton, for example), so just a few markets have a huge percentage of TV reach.

Still, the diary is used outside the top... and realively few... markets in television, just as it will be used outside the top 20 radio markets through 2010 and outside the top 50 through early 2012.

Out of 210 DMAs, 56 are metered. That fits my definition of "few."

But the real point I was making is tht nothing is wrong with the diary methodology. In TV, even more than radio, the meter is important because it is so immediate, yielding next day results on an extremely program based medium (as opposed to format-based in radio) which advertisers need to make educated decisions.

 

[zumahans]

And those "few" 56 DMAs have, what, 85 percent of the nation's population?

Hardly a "few".

few |fyo?| adjective & pronoun
1 ( a few) a small number of : [as adj. ] may I ask a few questions? | [as pron. ] I will recount a few of the stories told me | many believe it but only a few are prepared to say.
2 used to emphasize how small a number of people or things is

 

[davideduardo]

And those "few" 56 DMAs have, what, 85 percent of the nation's population?

Hardly a "few".

few |fyo?| adjective & pronoun
1 ( a few) a small number of : [as adj. ] may I ask a few questions? | [as pron. ] I will recount a few of the stories told me | many believe it but only a few are prepared to say.
2 used to emphasize how small a number of people or things is

210 DMAs, of which 56 is not even half.

In any case, Nielsen uses the diary in all 210 DMAs, while the meter is in 56, representing under 70% of TV households.

 

[BACKnUSSR]

I dont want to get too far off topic....but you are aware that Arbitron also initiated PPM measuring television viewership in Philadelphia vs. NSI diaries. And that showed that Arbitron had measured viewership at 46% higher than Nielsen.
And, when New York went from diaries to meters....stations (like WNYW) Fox's NYC station saw viewership plummet.

So "how can they be right when everybody's wrong"???

The point being....diary methodology is suspect. And yes, it is what radio has to rely on at present. But we should never confuse it with reality.

 

[zumahans]

Oh oh. There are people in the industry who worship those flatulent numbers. Some of them even on this board!

 

[davideduardo]

I dont want to get too far off topic....but you are aware that Arbitron also initiated PPM measuring television viewership in Philadelphia vs. NSI diaries. And that showed that Arbitron had measured viewership at 46% higher than Nielsen.
And, when New York went from diaries to meters....stations (like WNYW) Fox's NYC station saw viewership plummet.

I am very aware of the Philadelphia test, as I was on the industry panel that worked with Arbitron on the project.

The PPM measueres tv, cable, satellite (radio and TV), storecasts, webcasts, etc. If it is encoded, it is measured.

So "how can they be right when everybody's wrong"???

NSI has settop meters, while the PPM picks up viewing away from home or on any unmetered set.

The point being....diary methodology is suspect. And yes, it is what radio has to rely on at present. But we should never confuse it with reality.

The diary and PPM results on radio in Philly yielded essentially the same shares. The biggest finding there was that the diary is very valid.

The PPM "picks up" on interrupted listening by not reporting when a person is away from the radio (such as is common in mornings) but adds lots of P4 and beyond cume (although this is very light listening). But, since ad buys are base on share (or the drivitive, AQH persons) there was no real change.

As I said, buyers want faster data and more granular data. The PPM is better at that, as it requires no mailing back of diaries and manual processing, so you can have data very fast (two weeks in the case of the Houston weeklies... I just got week 4 December, in fact). Since the PPM is a panel, the sample is larger each week (in fact, a week has the same sample as a year) so even daily and hourly ratings are as reliable as the monthlies.

 

[zumahans]

See?

 

[malibudude]

KMVN is classic Power listeners with a touch of KIIS gold and KBIG mixed all together. From a music position, I used to call this Rythmic AC before the term was used heavily the last few years. The station has a niche. Someone is just breaking down an extrapolation and nothing more. That station sounds about 80% right in my mind. Certainly good enough for a slice of L.A.

 

[mostb1]

KMVN is classic Power listeners with a touch of KIIS gold and KBIG mixed all together. From a music position, I used to call this Rythmic AC before the term was used heavily the last few years. The station has a niche. Someone is just breaking down an extrapolation and nothing more. That station sounds about 80% right in my mind. Certainly good enough for a slice of L.A.

Very disappointing post coming from you, Frank. It may be designed for "classic" Power 106 listeners but it isn't true classic Power 106. Power 106 had a much more broad "Dance Now" forms of dance music than Movin is playing. There is some KIIS gold but very little. KIIS was a true mainstream CHR during the 80's/early 90's. As far as KBIG, I just heard "Boogie Shoes" on Movin. Do I need to hear that EVER again? KBIG still plays the hell out of it and I heard enough of it back during the Rick Diego days on Disco Saturday Night!

The only "slice" of the L.A. pie that this station is going to get is about what Rock With A Beat got. It's a LOSER. Kill it off now before the shareholders find out. All you have to do is look at that green and black logo to know they don't have a clue how to win. This station is overproduced, without any talent (except Rick Dees) and the music is 80% WRONG.

If you want a winner, turn it into the Adult KIIS with many of the same currents but more gold than KIIS. Bring back real TALENTED PROFESSIONAL Los Angeles air talents from the hey days of Power, KIIS and the Beat such as Mucho Morales, The Boomer and Sky Walker. And Dees needs to lose Patty Lopez and other morning show players who aren't funny and don't seem to realize that DEES is the star and nothing else matters or is necessary.

This station had a real chance to win but the music and presentation is ALL WRONG for what Los Angeles is into in 2007. But what would I expect to hear from a station that plays "ad-lets" at the top of the hour between music and the legal i.d.? Movin 93.9...what a JOKE.

 

[john77]

KMVN is classic Power listeners with a touch of KIIS gold and KBIG mixed all together. From a music position, I used to call this Rythmic AC before the term was used heavily the last few years. The station has a niche. Someone is just breaking down an extrapolation and nothing more. That station sounds about 80% right in my mind. Certainly good enough for a slice of L.A.

Very disappointing post coming from you, Frank. It may be designed for "classic" Power 106 listeners but it isn't true classic Power 106. Power 106 had a much more broad "Dance Now" forms of dance music than Movin is playing. There is some KIIS gold but very little. KIIS was a true mainstream CHR during the 80's/early 90's. As far as KBIG, I just heard "Boogie Shoes" on Movin. Do I need to hear that EVER again? KBIG still plays the hell out of it and I heard enough of it back during the Rick Diego days on Disco Saturday Night!

The only "slice" of the L.A. pie that this station is going to get is about what Rock With A Beat got. It's a LOSER. Kill it off now before the shareholders find out. All you have to do is look at that green and black logo to know they don't have a clue how to win. This station is overproduced, without any talent (except Rick Dees) and the music is 80% WRONG.

If you want a winner, turn it into the Adult KIIS with many of the same currents but more gold than KIIS. Bring back real TALENTED PROFESSIONAL Los Angeles air talents from the hey days of Power, KIIS and the Beat such as Mucho Morales, The Boomer and Sky Walker. And Dees needs to lose Patty Lopez and other morning show players who aren't funny and don't seem to realize that DEES is the star and nothing else matters or is necessary.

This station had a real chance to win but the music and presentation is ALL WRONG for what Los Angeles is into in 2007. But what would I expect to hear from a station that plays "ad-lets" at the top of the hour between music and the legal i.d.? Movin 93.9...what a JOKE.

Exactly.