• 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

listeners are bored

> 35-64
> Decreased Use of Traditional Radio Due to...
> "Same old-Same Old"
> 31%
>
> Anyone that is surprised by this, has been part of the
> problem. Why should this demo listen? They've "heard it
> all before"...
>


I've never heard of this company, nor do I know anything about their methodology. You can conduct a survey and have it show anything you want it to show. One interesting comment though...

4. MP3 player fatigue is slowing overall as the market continues to expand due to consumer interest in these devices. Fatigue with MP3 players remains high among those consumers who have owned the devices longer than 6-8 months.

This tells me that mp3 players, which are supposedly "killing radio" are not the threat everyone said they were. Also interesting to note that satellite radio & webcasts are also down in listenership (by roughly the same amount as terrestrial radio). Could it be merely that there are more and more sources for entertainment out there & listeners are shuttling between them? The sky is not falling.
 
> This tells me that mp3 players, which are supposedly
> "killing radio" are not the threat everyone said they were.

Good point. On top of that, I think that the same people who have been saying MP3 players are killing radio are the same people who are shocked by this information (revealing that they're part of the problem). The trick is to get your listeners to listen to your material on their MP3 player. Then again, this of course implies that you have good material that people are going to want to download and listen to... so on that note, for the people who don't see what's wrong with their product, then yes, MP3 players are killing radio, at least for them. But overall, I agree... MP3 players aren't now killing, nor will they ever kill, broadcast radio.

> Also interesting to note that satellite radio & webcasts are
> also down in listenership (by roughly the same amount as
> terrestrial radio). Could it be merely that there are more
> and more sources for entertainment out there & listeners are
> shuttling between them? The sky is not falling.

That would coincide with a story on AllAccess yesterday that pointed out that overall TSL is down again. It just makes sense, really... more sources of entertainment, each source gets less attention. There are only 24 hours in a day.

Post 1132, after realizing I've already surpassed 1130 posts, is retroactively dedicated to 1130 WBBR.<P ID="signature">______________
radiodude.jpg

http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>
 
> > This tells me that mp3 players, which are supposedly
> > "killing radio" are not the threat everyone said they
> were.
>
> Good point. On top of that, I think that the same people
> who have been saying MP3 players are killing radio are the
> same people who are shocked by this information (revealing
> that they're part of the problem). The trick is to get your
> listeners to listen to your material on their MP3 player.
> Then again, this of course implies that you have good
> material that people are going to want to download and
> listen to... so on that note, for the people who don't see
> what's wrong with their product, then yes, MP3 players are
> killing radio, at least for them. But overall, I agree...
> MP3 players aren't now killing, nor will they ever kill,
> broadcast radio.
>
> > Also interesting to note that satellite radio & webcasts
> are
> > also down in listenership (by roughly the same amount as
> > terrestrial radio). Could it be merely that there are
> more
> > and more sources for entertainment out there & listeners
> are
> > shuttling between them? The sky is not falling.
>
> That would coincide with a story on AllAccess yesterday that
> pointed out that overall TSL is down again. It just makes
> sense, really... more sources of entertainment, each source
> gets less attention. There are only 24 hours in a day.
>
> Post 1132, after realizing I've already surpassed 1130
> posts, is retroactively dedicated to 1130 WBBR.
>

I read an article recently pointing out that one of the biggest threats to those of us "regular" radio is the off switch. Think about it. How many of you or your staffs don't listen to your own station or don't monitor the competition so you know what they're doing. My competition, for example, is hanging their next book on 1 personality who, although she's been in the market for a long time, is in her first radio job. That and being the "10 in a row" station. At least they've stopped talking about us in their sweepers. But you what? We'll still kick their a*&%$.
 
> I've never heard of this company, nor do I know anything
> about their methodology. You can conduct a survey and have
> it show anything you want it to show. One interesting
> comment though...

You should look into them more. I've read many of their studies. This is a legitimate, well-respected research company.
 
> > I've never heard of this company, nor do I know anything
> > about their methodology. You can conduct a survey and
> have
> > it show anything you want it to show. One interesting
> > comment though...
>
> You should look into them more. I've read many of their
> studies. This is a legitimate, well-respected research
> company.

I think you exaggerage. The company is relatively new, they give no explanation of methodology, and the present durvey was done in only 6 markets.

Much of the Bridge stuff I have seen seems to be self-promotion and has a high stink quotient. I find it nearly useless.
 
I have to agree with David here. Bridge Ratings seems to come up with a survey about the same their boss feels they need to issue another press release.
 
> I think you exaggerage. The company is relatively new, they
> give no explanation of methodology, and the present durvey
> was done in only 6 markets.
>
> Much of the Bridge stuff I have seen seems to be
> self-promotion and has a high stink quotient. I find it
> nearly useless.

And you are entitled to your opinion.
 
> > I think you exaggerage. The company is relatively new,
> they
> > give no explanation of methodology, and the present durvey
>
> > was done in only 6 markets.
> >
> > Much of the Bridge stuff I have seen seems to be
> > self-promotion and has a high stink quotient. I find it
> > nearly useless.
>
> And you are entitled to your opinion.

The Bridge method is 24 hour recall, so it gives no weekly cume (required by advertisers) and is done on the phone. It does not meansure listeng times, just stations and "favoriteness."

Look at this from thier site:

"Studies indicate 66%-80% of a listener's weekly listening is attributed to their favorite stations. By measuring favoriteness, stations can have a greater degree of confidence in the reliability of the information. In addition, this methodology more accurately detects listeners who are contributing the majority of their daily or weekly listening to a specific station. This "loyalty" score, when combined with Bridge Ratings' Cume Share, enables stations to more accurately determine how well they are converting cume audience into favoriteness. "

This is, simply, the ATU adapted to radio by Owen Leach of Broadcast Architecture over 20 years ago. This is not new, and not particularly unusual.

What is unusual is that they state they, uniquely, do this. A number of research companies use the ATU (Awareness, tria, usage) in radio but they do it for internal guidance. In other words, the Bridge people are engaging in extreme puffery.

And to take an ATU from 6 markets and project it on the entire nation is just absurd. But it does get publicity, and, probably, bluy in from a number of potential clients who do not know any better.


>
 
>
> The Bridge method is 24 hour recall, so it gives no weekly
> cume (required by advertisers) and is done on the phone. It
> does not meansure listeng times, just stations and
> "favoriteness."
>
> Look at this from thier site:
>
> "Studies indicate 66%-80% of a listener's weekly listening
> is attributed to their favorite stations. By measuring
> favoriteness, stations can have a greater degree of
> confidence in the reliability of the information. In
> addition, this methodology more accurately detects listeners
> who are contributing the majority of their daily or weekly
> listening to a specific station. This "loyalty" score, when
> combined with Bridge Ratings' Cume Share, enables stations
> to more accurately determine how well they are converting
> cume audience into favoriteness. "
>
> This is, simply, the ATU adapted to radio by Owen Leach of
> Broadcast Architecture over 20 years ago. This is not new,
> and not particularly unusual.
>
> What is unusual is that they state they, uniquely, do this.
> A number of research companies use the ATU (Awareness, tria,
> usage) in radio but they do it for internal guidance. In
> other words, the Bridge people are engaging in extreme
> puffery.
>
> And to take an ATU from 6 markets and project it on the
> entire nation is just absurd. But it does get publicity,
> and, probably, bluy in from a number of potential clients
> who do not know any better.
>
>
> >
>


I have no dog in this fight, but if you're saying that Bridge is lacking, particulary in comparison to a more well known ratings company, say like Arbitron, you've clearly not looked closely at Arbitron. Their methodology is suspect at best. The result is far too dependent on which zip codes get diaries.
 
>
> I have no dog in this fight, but if you're saying that
> Bridge is lacking, particulary in comparison to a more well
> known ratings company, say like Arbitron, you've clearly not
> looked closely at Arbitron. Their methodology is suspect at
> best. The result is far too dependent on which zip codes
> get diaries.

Oh, gawd.

Arbitron is MRC certified and audieted, Bridge is a smal sample telephone head count.

Arbitron does not offer proportionality by ZIP code, and there is little indication that a random probability sample that takes the entire market needs sample frams as small as ZIPs... plus the cost would be horrific.

Radio gets what it pays for. If we wanted ZIP code level proportionality, larger samples, etc., Arbitron would provide them. Radio does not want to pay for this. I tis not necessary.

Yhere is nothing suspect about Arbitronmethodology. there are concerns about response rates and othe rissues, but a diary poll is pretty much the accepte radio measurement tool worldwide anywhere that literacy is adequate for sampling this way.
 
listeners

Makes total sense to me. Why do we believe these Jack/Variety Hits stations have struck a chord- IT'S NOT THE SAME OLD/SAME OLD. It's fresh and different.
It ignores a lot of the traditional radio rules and takes chances.

Most radio today has the same music, same jocks, same imaging, same contents, same language & terminology, same weather. And all on the same stations at about the same time every day. Same old-same old. Blah, blah, blah. Listeners are stuck in their routines enough- and much of radio is pretty much stuck in their same routines in concert with their listeners. It makes much of radio very predictable and, with all the choices out there, predictable is not a good thing.

>
>
> 35-64
> Decreased Use of Traditional Radio Due to...
> "Same old-Same Old"
> 31%
>
> Anyone that is surprised by this, has been part of the
> problem. Why should this demo listen? They've "heard it
> all before"...
>
 
I don't get it...

Do you defend Arbitron because it's the "best available" system (which it probably is) or because it's an "end all" (which it certainly isn't).

It's my contention that there is no other billion dollar industry that has less of an idea of who uses it and why.

While retailers are constantly tracking consumers, radio has no method for determining who is walking through their door on a given day.

It's as if Wal-Mart got it's number of daily shoppers by doing daily fly-overs and counting cars. Sure they would know that Christmas was busier than a rainy Monday in September, but that's about all.

Here's the perfect acid test. Explain the fluctuations in the ratings of these four stations; WFMT, Chicago WGMS, San Fran., WDFC, Washington and WQXR, NYC. All are market exclusive stations, programming Classical music. Yet these four stations all see 1.0 swings in ratings over any given year. Were listeners lured away because the local top 40 station was giving away a trip to spring break? Did they come back when more Mozart was added to the rotation? Or did the Classic rock station get credit? There is no real-world explanation.

I know you & I have gone down this path before, but I still maintain that Arbitron in general is a poor provider of information and their system would be laughed out of any other boardroom.

Then again, if there were a better way, it would be in use right now.
 
Re: I don't get it...

> Do you defend Arbitron because it's the "best available"
> system (which it probably is) or because it's an "end all"
> (which it certainly isn't).

Arbitron is the best system given the economics of radio... in other words, the amount of money we will pay for ratings. As such, it is the "end all" of measurement within the confines of reality.
>
> It's my contention that there is no other billion dollar
> industry that has less of an idea of who uses it and why.

The PPM, wich will be 60% more costly per station, shows basically the same data. Station listening (AQH persons) hardly varies, although the components of share and AQH persons, TSL and cume, do change. The data on listening is currently very accurate within the needs of advertisers (who want us to buy and give them the PPM, which really changes nothing).

Radio may be a $20 billion dollar industry, but the average US radio station bills less than $300,000. So increasing costs for ratings by 60% may mean that an LA cluster could pay as much as $1 million more a year, and not see any real effect on billings.

By the way, we do not use arbitron to determine who listens wo us and why. Arbitron is a sales too. We use a variety of proprietary perceptual research methods to determine how a station is used and the trending of its listeners.
>
> While retailers are constantly tracking consumers, radio has
> no method for determining who is walking through their door
> on a given day.

Arbitron gives excellent data on usage, and the PPM is even more granular. But we do not get any "why" out of Arbitron, as it is a sales tool. We do other research... many stations on an ongoing basis... to determine this.
>
> It's as if Wal-Mart got it's number of daily shoppers by
> doing daily fly-overs and counting cars. Sure they would
> know that Christmas was busier than a rainy Monday in
> September, but that's about all.

Arbitron des count day by day and hour by hour listeners by age, sex, ethnicity, geographic area (sample frame), income levels, langauge usage, etc. If we want that data, it is there.
>
> Here's the perfect acid test. Explain the fluctuations in
> the ratings of these four stations; WFMT, Chicago WGMS, San
> Fran., WDFC, Washington and WQXR, NYC. All are market
> exclusive stations, programming Classical music. Yet these
> four stations all see 1.0 swings in ratings over any given
> year.

Any statistical sample will swing within the margin of error. The PPM has a smaller sample than the diary, and only the largest marekts may approve it due to cost. If we had quadruple the sample size, we could reduce the wobble. But that would be prohibitively expensive. So we make do with what we can afford.

> Were listeners lured away because the local top 40
> station was giving away a trip to spring break? Did they
> come back when more Mozart was added to the rotation? Or
> did the Classic rock station get credit? There is no
> real-world explanation.

All stations wander a bit. If you read the "purple book" from Arbitron or look at the description of methodology at the back of a printed ratings book, you can calculate the wobbvle within one standard error easily. Low rated stations, like all but one of the ones you mention, have higher margins of error than higer rated ones.

Ad agencies handle this by using 2 to 4-book averages to buy.

> I know you & I have gone down this path before, but I still
> maintain that Arbitron in general is a poor provider of
> information and their system would be laughed out of any
> other boardroom.

It is mostly a sales tool, not a programming tool. It is data that is as much as 120 days old when it comes out, too. The PPM is an improvement, but has a small sample and admitted problems, like with 18-34 men, for example. In the end, we use the method that is cost efficient and also accredited by the MRC as it is all about sales.
> Then again, if there were a better way, it would be in use
> right now.
>
 
> >

>
> Yhere is nothing suspect about Arbitronmethodology. there
> are concerns about response rates and othe rissues, but a
> diary poll is pretty much the accepte radio measurement tool
> worldwide anywhere that literacy is adequate for sampling
> this way.
>

Just because it's the accepted methodology doesn't make it "good". It's far from good and I say that having had a fair amount of Arbitron success. (knock wood)
 
> > >
>
> >
> > Yhere is nothing suspect about Arbitronmethodology. there
> > are concerns about response rates and othe rissues, but a
> > diary poll is pretty much the accepte radio measurement
> tool
> > worldwide anywhere that literacy is adequate for sampling
> > this way.
> >
>
> Just because it's the accepted methodology doesn't make it
> "good". It's far from good and I say that having had a fair
> amount of Arbitron success. (knock wood)

There have been several other methodologies used in the last 50 years, including coincidental (Hooper) personal interview 24 hour recall (Pulse), telephone 24 hour recall (Birch) and adaptations of the diary and recall from Burke, Audits & Surveys and such.

In the rest of the world, the methodologies are divided between the diary (more literate) and recall (where literacy precludes the diary). The only place where the diary is not used is where basic litaracy prevents it... otherwise, it would be used everywhere as it is the best existing methodology for most markets.

We are about to enter into an era where the larger markets in the US have the PPM or some equivalent. This is only possible in these big US markets as they are about the only markets in the world that can afford the system.

There is no other practical system that measures audince size by time period and by day and by a series of demographic stratification variables. Were this not true, we would have different methodologies surfacing. There are none.

I even saw a market go from diary to recall (the secnd largest market in the Hemisphere, in fact) under European research firm IBOPE. The results did not change a bit (with the exception that a 24 hour recall can not give true weekly cume except by an algorithm).

We already have the best possible system, and one that is fortunately audited annually by an independent board of experts. We can not ask for more... especially since there is nothing as an alternative.

A radio rating survey is very simple.

1. Get a random sample of the universe with proportionality in all desired cells.
2. Have the sample record its listening for a period of times.
3. Get the results and tabulate, projecting them into the universe.
4. In any cell where proportionality is not perfect, use weigthing to achieve it.

End of story. That is Arbitron.
 
A Simple "Yes" would of been sufficent... (eom)

> > Do you defend Arbitron because it's the "best available"
> > system (which it probably is) or because it's an "end all"
>
> > (which it certainly isn't).
>
> Arbitron is the best system given the economics of radio...
> in other words, the amount of money we will pay for ratings.
> As such, it is the "end all" of measurement within the
> confines of reality.
> >
> > It's my contention that there is no other billion dollar
> > industry that has less of an idea of who uses it and why.
>
> The PPM, wich will be 60% more costly per station, shows
> basically the same data. Station listening (AQH persons)
> hardly varies, although the components of share and AQH
> persons, TSL and cume, do change. The data on listening is
> currently very accurate within the needs of advertisers (who
> want us to buy and give them the PPM, which really changes
> nothing).
>
> Radio may be a $20 billion dollar industry, but the average
> US radio station bills less than $300,000. So increasing
> costs for ratings by 60% may mean that an LA cluster could
> pay as much as $1 million more a year, and not see any real
> effect on billings.
>
> By the way, we do not use arbitron to determine who listens
> wo us and why. Arbitron is a sales too. We use a variety of
> proprietary perceptual research methods to determine how a
> station is used and the trending of its listeners.
> >
> > While retailers are constantly tracking consumers, radio
> has
> > no method for determining who is walking through their
> door
> > on a given day.
>
> Arbitron gives excellent data on usage, and the PPM is even
> more granular. But we do not get any "why" out of Arbitron,
> as it is a sales tool. We do other research... many stations
> on an ongoing basis... to determine this.
> >
> > It's as if Wal-Mart got it's number of daily shoppers by
> > doing daily fly-overs and counting cars. Sure they would
> > know that Christmas was busier than a rainy Monday in
> > September, but that's about all.
>
> Arbitron des count day by day and hour by hour listeners by
> age, sex, ethnicity, geographic area (sample frame), income
> levels, langauge usage, etc. If we want that data, it is
> there.
> >
> > Here's the perfect acid test. Explain the fluctuations in
>
> > the ratings of these four stations; WFMT, Chicago WGMS,
> San
> > Fran., WDFC, Washington and WQXR, NYC. All are market
> > exclusive stations, programming Classical music. Yet
> these
> > four stations all see 1.0 swings in ratings over any given
>
> > year.
>
> Any statistical sample will swing within the margin of
> error. The PPM has a smaller sample than the diary, and only
> the largest marekts may approve it due to cost. If we had
> quadruple the sample size, we could reduce the wobble. But
> that would be prohibitively expensive. So we make do with
> what we can afford.
>
> > Were listeners lured away because the local top 40
> > station was giving away a trip to spring break? Did they
> > come back when more Mozart was added to the rotation? Or
> > did the Classic rock station get credit? There is no
> > real-world explanation.
>
> All stations wander a bit. If you read the "purple book"
> from Arbitron or look at the description of methodology at
> the back of a printed ratings book, you can calculate the
> wobbvle within one standard error easily. Low rated
> stations, like all but one of the ones you mention, have
> higher margins of error than higer rated ones.
>
> Ad agencies handle this by using 2 to 4-book averages to
> buy.
>
> > I know you & I have gone down this path before, but I
> still
> > maintain that Arbitron in general is a poor provider of
> > information and their system would be laughed out of any
> > other boardroom.
>
> It is mostly a sales tool, not a programming tool. It is
> data that is as much as 120 days old when it comes out, too.
> The PPM is an improvement, but has a small sample and
> admitted problems, like with 18-34 men, for example. In the
> end, we use the method that is cost efficient and also
> accredited by the MRC as it is all about sales.
> > Then again, if there were a better way, it would be in use
>
> > right now.
> >
>
 
Re: A Simple "Yes" would of been sufficent... (eom)

Pardon me. I ingenuously thought that you were actually interested in the subject matter.
 
Re: A Simple "Yes" would of been sufficent... (eom)

I am.

But even in a your strong defense of Arbitron, you have to revert to statements like "wobble" & "wander".

Doesn't it make you the least bit uneasy that our "customers" (ie advertisers) are so approving of the system? Maybe morning drive spots should be selling for 10x what they're going for. At this point, we simply don't know

The similiar results produced by the PPM shouldn't come as any surprise to anybody. It's basically the same system, produced by the same company, with a diffenent method of gathering of data. It would be pretty embarrasing for them to come up with a set of radically different answers. If you compare poor results with more poor results that doesn't confirm the previous poor results... It only means you got more poor results.

And just by saying that statistical results are accepted does not mean they are necessarily accurate... It only means they are accepted.

I contend that radio will continue to sell itself short up until the day they can accurately pin point your listener and get inside their head. Unfortunately, I don't have that system developed yet and if I did, you can bet I wouldn't be posting it on a message board. :)

On the other hand, I guess the possiblity exists that radio is over-selling itself...
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom