• 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

KNX on Backup Power

Arbitron has always rated non commercial stations... BUT WILL NOT RELEASE THE DATA TO THE PUBLIC!

See, another half truth from a radio suit.

I got all my "pints" right this time.

You are looking at this like a corporate radio executive.

I am looking at this like a listener.

Radio is not about advertising, radio is about radio. Advertising is one part of it.

To you, it is about money and nothing else.

To those of us who use radio as a medium of entertainment and news, the view is completely upside down from yours.

That is why radio is doomed, why the stocks are depressed, and why listening trends are falling, despite your always-rosy and incorrect bleatings to the contrary.





> > > And, as I have pointed out previously, the ratings are a
>
> > > service to the advertising community, and thus the
> > inclusion
> > > of non-commercial stations is a non-issue. In other
> > words,
> > > they only have to be accurate for the commercial
> stations,
> >
> > > so your statement above is of no consequence whatsoever.
>
> > >
> >
> >
> > A service to the advertising community? I thought this
> was
> > a forum about RADIO.
>
> Commercial radio is all about advertising.
> >
> > And when we are talking about what people listen to on the
>
> > radio, the commercial ratings are not accurate because
> they
> > do not measure noncommercial radio, particularly NPR.
>
> Wrong. Arbitron ratings measure noncommercial radio, and
> always have. 12 to 13 shares have gone to the non-com sector
> in the last 8 books.
> >
> > You err when you say they are of no consequence
> whatsoever.
> > We are talking about the shrinking ratings of all-news
> > stations, two of the highest-billing stations in the
> market.
>
> They are mid billers, around $30 million each. That is half
> of what the #1 biller does.
>
> > If I were an advertiser, I would want to know where those
> > listeners went. If the ratings are only there as a service
>
> > to advertisers, then the advertisers are being disserved.
>
> Advertisers do not give a tinkers damn where listeners went.
> They buy based on multi book averages, and pay rates based
> on what a station has, not on what it might have.
> >
> > But that's NOT why we talk about ratings here, is it? No,
> we
> > talk about what people are listening to.
> >
> > And in the context of why KNX and KFWB are so starved for
> > ratings, the NPR ratings are not only of consequence, they
>
> > are of paramount importance.
>
> Actually, the non-com shares in the last book were at the
> low end of the range. Any attrition from KFWB and KNX has
> not gone there. In fact, what we have is lower TSL, but
> fairly stable cume on both stations.
> >
> > The question is: where did all those KNX / KFWB listeners
> > go?
>
> Most are still there.
> >
> > The answer is KCRW, KPCC and their smaller sisters.
>
> Nope There is no increase over the last 5 years in noncom
> total listening.
> >
> > To say that is of no consequence is to fundamantally
> > misunderstand mathematics, statistics, and radio.
>
> It is of no consequence because it is not true. Untruth is
> totally inconsequential.
> >
> > Which is, of course, in the interest of the over-indebted
> > coprorate radio chains that have wrecked AM/FM
> broadcasting.
> >
>
> Actually, that is not true either. Tke Clear Channel... its
> debt to equity ratio is the same as General Motors, the gold
> standard for US corporations. Invinity / Viacom has
> reasonable debt, as do the other operators in LA, ranging
> from Emmis to Univsion. You fail to understand that most
> expansion in radio was equity funded, not debt funded.
>
> You did not get one pint right this time.
>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by zumahans1 on 09/15/05 01:59 PM.</FONT></P>
 
Re: Now that is darn Cool!

> > Someone who says you can't criticise a radio station for
> > embarassing itself at a time it should have shined, or
> > someone who is so inferior-feeling that he has to answer
> > everyone everytime with a smirking superiority complex.
>
> The problem is that you have not gotton one fact right in
> this entire thread... right down to claiming Nielsen does
> the radio ratings.
> >
>


Gosh, must have been that darn dyslexia kicking it. Ooops, that's your excuse. I'll have to plead it was late and I typed the wrong name.
 
Re: Arbitron has always rated non commercial stations... BUT WILL NOT RELEASE THE DATA TO THE PUBLIC!

>
> Radio is not about advertising, radio is about radio.
> Advertising is one part of it.
>

Whether from a business or lisgtener perspective, radio IS about advertising. Advertising finances the ability of the industry to provide a free to the consumer product.

Once radio got beyond the experimental stage, it has always been advertising driven. KDKD was put on the air tp promote the wares of Westinghouse. Obvoiously, your knowledge of the history of radio is lacking.

No advertising, no radio. So, I maintain that it is all about advertising.
 
Re: Arbitron has always rated non commercial stations... BUT WILL NOT RELEASE THE DATA TO THE PUBLIC!

> No advertising, no radio. So, I maintain that it is all
> about advertising.
>
And no listeners, no advertising. I maintain it is about the listener, the advertising, the community, the programming, the FCC and the whole industry that we call radio.

You have focussed- it's your job to focus - on one thing and one thing only.

And that, kind sir, is exactly what is wrong with your brand of radio.
 
Re: Now that is darn Cool!

>
> Gosh, must have been that darn dyslexia kicking it. Ooops,
> that's your excuse. I'll have to plead it was late and I
> typed the wrong name.

I can not think of a single person in radio more than a few months who would confuse Nielsen with Arbitron. This is like saying you have a Ford when you really have a Chevy... like saying you live in Gilbert when it is really Chandler...

I suppose it was late when you wrote, over and over, that Arbiton does not rate noncommercial stations?

Man, you are just wrong from the start on this thread. Wrong facts, wrong conclusions.

The amazing thing is that this is all part of a tread about a phone that did not work. A phone! A PHONE!
 
Re: Arbitron has always rated non commercial stations... BUT WILL NOT RELEASE THE DATA TO THE PUBLIC!

> > No advertising, no radio. So, I maintain that it is all
> > about advertising.
> >
> And no listeners, no advertising. I maintain it is about the
> listener, the advertising, the community, the programming,
> the FCC and the whole industry that we call radio.
>
> You have focussed- it's your job to focus - on one thing and
> one thing only.
>
> And that, kind sir, is exactly what is wrong with your brand
> of radio.
>

None of the others exist without advertising. You may call it the catalyst, the driving force or whatever, but the US model for radio broadcasting is a commercial one and without advertising we have no news, music, morning shows, listeners or an industry.
 
Re: Not releasing does not mean they do not have it.

Arbitron only realeases to the media a 12+ summary. That summary is of the commercial stations, because that is who foots the bill.

Radio ratings are not intended to be public. They are intended to be mostly a sales tool.

Every subscriber gets full information on the noncommercial stations. Any non-com who wants it can subscribe, and some do in order to improve programming or to suppport fund raising.

There is nothing hidden at all. It is simply that Arbitron is a paid service, mostly restricted use internally and in sales presentations, and they do not release much data to the press because it is not a useful function.

Still, you stated that Arbitron did not rate non-coms. Now you have changed colors, and criticise the disclosure of the data. So, in other words, you KNOW that the non comes are measured, and you were just stirring up things? Or were you so totally out of it that you really thought that Arbitron did not measure non coms?

What did you do for 30 years in radio? Golly!
 
Why don't you post some Arbitron NPR affiliate data, David?

>
> None of the others exist without advertising. You may call
> it the catalyst, the driving force or whatever, but the US
> model for radio broadcasting is a commercial one and without
> advertising we have no news, music, morning shows, listeners
> or an industry.
>

That would be news to the millions of americans who listen to non-commwercial radio, having given up on the cr-p that the rest of the dial has morphed into at the hands of those who see it as an advertising vehicle, period.

Of course, I understand that you cannot.

But since you say that advertising is the be-all and end-all, how is the great unwashed listening public going to be able to prove you wrong?

Your answer is to trust you, that you know what you are talking about.

Put up the data, David. Otherwise your answer is not believable.
 
Re: Why don't you post some Arbitron NPR affiliate data, David?

The data is copyright just like the rest of the Arbitron data. I gave you a source, look for its website. They have full 12+ data for every non-com in a rated market that has any audience.
 
Re: Why don't you post some Arbitron NPR affiliate data, David?

> The data is copyright just like the rest of the Arbitron
> data. I gave you a source, look for its website. They have
> full 12+ data for every non-com in a rated market that has
> any audience.
>

You yourself have said the 12+ is useless except for bragging rights. I agree.

I'm not blaming you for setting up the system this way, but it is a fact that the size of the NPR listenership is conveniently left unknown to the general public - even to the informed radio public reading this forum - by Arbitron.

How convenient for you ad-peddlers.
 
Re: No one can post some Arbitron NPR affiliate data.

> >
> > None of the others exist without advertising. You may call
>
> > it the catalyst, the driving force or whatever, but the US
>
> > model for radio broadcasting is a commercial one and
> without
> > advertising we have no news, music, morning shows,
> listeners
> > or an industry.
> >
>
> That would be news to the millions of americans who listen
> to non-commwercial radio, having given up on the cr-p that
> the rest of the dial has morphed into at the hands of those
> who see it as an advertising vehicle, period.

You are exaggerating. Non-com listening in nearly every market has been flat over the last number of years. Nobody is defecting from commercial radio to noncommercial radio. You have constructed a chimera.
>
> Of course, I understand that you cannot.

Neither can you or anyone else. I did post the rank of the tow larger non-coms in LA, both of which are out of the top 25 and lower rated thatn KNX, where you started this excursion.
>
> But since you say that advertising is the be-all and
> end-all, how is the great unwashed listening public going to
> be able to prove you wrong?

88% of all audience share in LA in the last book went to commercial stations. You just answered your own question.
>
> Your answer is to trust you, that you know what you are
> talking about.

Generally, I do. And I have proven that, on theis subject, you do not.
>
> Put up the data, David. Otherwise your answer is not
> believable.

then would you like me to break some traffic laws, rob a bank and embezzle some funds? What you ask is illegal.
>
 
Say again?

> Neither can you or anyone else. I did post the rank of the
> tow larger non-coms in LA, both of which are out of the top
> 25 and lower rated thatn KNX, where you started this
> excursion.
> > > 88% of all audience share in LA in the last book went to
> commercial stations. You just answered your own question.
> >

You posted that? 88 percent? I'm sorry, I did not see your post where you indicated that. Must be this meandering thread.

But if 88 percent of the audience share is listening to commercial radio, that would leave 12 percent to public radio. There are scant noncommercial stations in this market that are not public-radio formatted.

Assuming classical and jazz gets some of that, the remainder goes to NPR news and talk programming. Or maybe even Pacifica, if that can be imagined.

That's a huge audience slice.

How do you maintain that doesn't affect KNX/KFWB or the other talk stations?
 
Re: Clarification on noncommercial share.

>
> You posted that? 88 percent? I'm sorry, I did not see your
> post where you indicated that. Must be this meandering
> thread.

Actually, I was wrong on deducing commercial shares. There are 88 commercial shares, and about 7 shares for unidentified listening. In Spring of 2005, 4.9 LA shares went to non-commercial stations... all 14 of them.

I had forgotten the 7% that goes to real listening that is not identifiable. The classic example is someone who puts down "news" on a diary entry, and Arbitron knows they were listening to the radio, but there is no way to find out what station they listened to as many have news. Another example is when a person indicates a start and end time for a listening occasion, but puts in no station. They listened, but there is no way to find out which station.
>
> But if 88 percent of the audience share is listening to
> commercial radio, that would leave 12 percent to public
> radio. There are scant noncommercial stations in this market
> that are not public-radio formatted.

Actually, it leaves 7% for unidentified. And just under 5% for the non-coms.
>
> Assuming classical and jazz gets some of that, the remainder
> goes to NPR news and talk programming. Or maybe even
> Pacifica, if that can be imagined.

I gave you a website. Look it up. No public or non-com is in the top 25 stations, and most do far worse.
>
> That's a huge audience slice.

No, its not. especially sinc the 4.9 is divided into 14 parts (only KISL gets no listening at all... the other 13 do register)
>
> How do you maintain that doesn't affect KNX/KFWB or the
> other talk stations?

Well, uh, because there is no correlatable grwoth. If you want, I can run a real Pearson Correlation on the raw data, but it is not going to show anything. KNX and KFWB have had TSL hits, not significant cume decreases.
 
Re: Why don't you post some Arbitron NPR affiliate data, David?

> > The data is copyright just like the rest of the Arbitron
> > data. I gave you a source, look for its website. They have
>
> > full 12+ data for every non-com in a rated market that has
>
> > any audience.
> >
>
> You yourself have said the 12+ is useless except for
> bragging rights. I agree.

This is why Arbitron releases the data only in 12+ form. They are not in the business of giving data away that they could sell to someone.
>
> I'm not blaming you for setting up the system this way, but
> it is a fact that the size of the NPR listenership is
> conveniently left unknown to the general public - even to
> the informed radio public reading this forum - by Arbitron.

CRW and PCC have, combined, about half the total non-com share. They have been at that level for years, with very little change.
>
> How convenient for you ad-peddlers.

I am proud of being advertising supported. You seem to think that that is evil. I guess some people would like the government to tell us what to do, and this is one example. remember how great the Bebe was until Caroline went on the air form that boat...
 
Re: Now that is darn Cool!

> .
> >
> > I'm not sure who I have a greater distaste for ... Hans,
> or
> > Glenn.
> >
>
> What a pleasant tone, Mr. Moderator.

Look at the way you have hammered away in this thread, repeatedly restating your point of view, requoting incorrect facts, every time they were rebutted. Not to mention that you cling to the belief that Arbitron has some responsibility to release the information YOU want them to, when they have no responsibility to release ANY information at all.

Tell me why I should have ANY respect for you. (I have an idea what you will say in response, but being right about the KDAY call letters doesn't count, because you were just as distastefully forceful in that thread as well.)

At least Glenn doesn't get into long, protracted arguments that he cannot win.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: Pearls of wisdom

> > > Have you ever been on the air for 20 hours straight,
> > > anchoring disaster news coverage with no one to relieve
>
> > > you other than field reporters, because your studios
> > > were inaccessible due to the disaster? I have, and
> > > until you have as well, you are not qualified to make
> > > the critique you did above.
>
> > > You wanted me to make a "meaningful" post in this
> thread?
> > > Well, there it is. > > Doesn't make you look any better,
> does it?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure who I have a greater distaste for ... Hans,
>
> > > or Glenn.
> > >
>
> These well-reasoned arguments have convinced me of the
> superiority of your opinions. We must be wrong.

Hans, has anyone ever told you that only a desperate man who is losing a battle starts quoting people out of context in an attempt to win?

You are in real danger of being brought to the attention of the owners. And you know what happens then.


> <P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: Arbitron diary authors

> I had forgotten the 7% that goes to real listening that is
> not identifiable. The classic example is someone who puts
> down "news" on a diary entry, and Arbitron knows they were
> listening to the radio, but there is no way to find out what
> station they listened to as many have news. Another example
> is when a person indicates a start and end time for a
> listening occasion, but puts in no station. They listened,
> but there is no way to find out which station.

Hahaha --- What kind of moron does that?? What kind of screening process does Arbitron practice before they send someone like this a diary. Of course, even the best-intentioned don't anticipate such an omission of a radio station call letters. If that happens, and I am NOT doubting you, David, well that speaks volumes for the accuracy of the ratings doesn't it??? What are they paying diary keepers these days... Has it gone up to $5 yet?? Face it, Arbitron cannot be an exact science when human beings are involved in providing data that can be questionable. Now if you say well that's just a tiny fraction of the total respondents, I dunno... You said 7% not .0007%.
 
Re: The ratings are in error, but that's not of consequence...

You've got to be kidding! I don't have access to ARB data anymore, but I'd bet good money that audience sharing among these stations is minimal in the extreme.

I try to listen even-handedly to the points you make, Hans, but you're getting more far-fetched all the time.

- Doc

> The question is: where did all those KNX / KFWB listeners
> go?
>
> The answer is KCRW, KPCC and their smaller sisters.
 
Re: Arbitron diary authors

Obviously you are not part of the radio industry.

This happens all the time. Remember that WE HERE ON THIS BOARD are the freaks and geeks that make a living or an avocation of radio - the vast general populace could care less what goes on behind the scenes.

Sure, WE think our call letters and slogans and other mnemonics are important, but the fact is that many listeners don't remember what our call letters or slogans are, or what the exact dial position is. These people are not morons - they're NORMAL.

Arbitron has never purported to be an exact science. There are margins of statistical error. You cannot determine exact ratings unless you measure 100% of radio listeners, and that's not physically or financially possible. So Arbitron uses an audience sample which is then statistically massaged and weighted to give an approximation of what listeners' habits are.

Given all this, Arbitron has refined their methodology to produces a remarkably accurate and detailed profile of rated markets. From the outside, you may not think this to be so - but it is, like it or not.

- Doc

> Hahaha --- What kind of moron does that?? What kind of
> screening process does Arbitron practice before they send
> someone like this a diary. Of course, even the
> best-intentioned don't anticipate such an omission of a
> radio station call letters. If that happens, and I am NOT
> doubting you, David, well that speaks volumes for the
> accuracy of the ratings doesn't it??? What are they paying
> diary keepers these days... Has it gone up to $5 yet??
> Face it, Arbitron cannot be an exact science when human
> beings are involved in providing data that can be
> questionable. Now if you say well that's just a tiny
> fraction of the total respondents, I dunno... You said 7%
> not .0007%.
>
 
Re: Arbitron diary authors

> > I had forgotten the 7% that goes to real listening that is
>
> > not identifiable. The classic example is someone who puts
> > down "news" on a diary entry, and Arbitron knows they were
>
> > listening to the radio, but there is no way to find out
> what
> > station they listened to as many have news. Another
> example
> > is when a person indicates a start and end time for a
> > listening occasion, but puts in no station. They listened,
>
> > but there is no way to find out which station.
>
> Hahaha --- What kind of moron does that?? What kind of
> screening process does Arbitron practice before they send
> someone like this a diary. Of course, even the
> best-intentioned don't anticipate such an omission of a
> radio station call letters. If that happens, and I am NOT
> doubting you, David, well that speaks volumes for the
> accuracy of the ratings doesn't it??? What are they paying
> diary keepers these days... Has it gone up to $5 yet??
> Face it, Arbitron cannot be an exact science when human
> beings are involved in providing data that can be
> questionable. Now if you say well that's just a tiny
> fraction of the total respondents, I dunno... You said 7%
> not .0007%.

In the real world, research has to be a random probablity sample or whatever is as close to that as possible. There is no distinction for intelligence, awareness and clarity of thought... just as there is no such requirement for listening to the radio.

Incentives are only used to build a "guilt factor" so people will return the diaries, but they are ineffective in recruiting. The money is intended to do the same thing as those charity solicitations we all get in the mail that have a real stamp enclosed... you feel guilty to "steal" the stamp, and send at least a dollar or so.

Some listeners think that writing down "news" is plenty of identification for what they listened to, since it IS in their world. Some listeners think that, if they say in the comments section, "KXXX is my favorite station" that just putting the times on the day by day pages is enough. However, Arbitron does not use the comments for cures, so the entries have to be processed as unidentified. In any case, studies made show that the unidentified listening is spread between all stations pretty evenly, and does not affect rank.

All surveys have this sort of issues. It is part of finding out what listener or consumer behaviour is. Since not all consumers are clear, concise and articulate, some data is ground clutter. Still, we learn more than we knew without the research.

The Portable People Meter obviates all this, by identifying the station via encoding, and will make this whole thing a moot issue. Satellite, radio, cable, TV, storecasting... the PPM will know what you are hearing.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom