WGIR-FM ROCK 101 out of Manchester, New Hampshire! Thats right, in the latest Bosotn arbs (Spring P1), Wgir got a 1.0 12+ share while WFNX followed with a 0.9 12+ share. Thats pretty lame to get beat by a station originating from market #190!
-
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
Look who beats WFNX now...
- Thread starter newhampshiredude
- Start date
Speaking of ratings we can see the 12 plus (not as imp as 25-54s?) at http://www.radioandrecords.com
Click ratings and then Boston
--WBOS up slightly since change to Radio 92.9
--WKOX two periods in a row of fairly decent ratings; just slightly more than what they got with
prog talk ("Tropical")
--WRKO and WTKK tied
--WKLB still does pretty well; 8th, slightly ahead of Oldies 103
--WEEI down but still good enough for 5th
WILD is listed as gospel. I thought it was some black talk shows followed by old school R&B weekdays,
maybe gospel all day Sunday...?
WBCN down slightly
As before, WTTT (changed to Spanish religion) and WWZN (sports and brokered) are no shows. As are
the 890 (WAMG) and 1400 (WLLH) ESPN combo.
Click ratings and then Boston
--WBOS up slightly since change to Radio 92.9
--WKOX two periods in a row of fairly decent ratings; just slightly more than what they got with
prog talk ("Tropical")
--WRKO and WTKK tied
--WKLB still does pretty well; 8th, slightly ahead of Oldies 103
--WEEI down but still good enough for 5th
WILD is listed as gospel. I thought it was some black talk shows followed by old school R&B weekdays,
maybe gospel all day Sunday...?
WBCN down slightly
As before, WTTT (changed to Spanish religion) and WWZN (sports and brokered) are no shows. As are
the 890 (WAMG) and 1400 (WLLH) ESPN combo.
raccoonradio said:
They haven't updated their listing from the brief period when 1090 was all gospel a couple of years ago. It's gospel Sunday mornings (maybe until around noontime or so?), then old school R&B (and infomercials) Sunday afternoon to signoff.
C
ciao99
Guest
Eli Polonsky said:
Amazing how an automated AM daytimer with no local talent and infomercials pulls bigger ratings than some of the FM stations (i.e. FNX) and the fulltime AM sports stations (ESPN, The Zone). And yet the naysayers say there's still no room for Urban AC.
newhampshiredude said:
Not really when you consider that southern Hillsborough & Rockingham counties (Nashua, Salem, etc.) are part of the Boston metro. Wasn't WGIR using "Boston's #2 rock station" as a positioning statement a few years ago?
I'd guess that WFNX's actual listenership is much higher than the numbers imply. Keep in mind that a large percentage of their audience does not have a landline phone, so they aren't likely to get a diary.
C
ciao99
Guest
Oldbones said:
But Nashua is it's own market.
And it was explained here by WFNXers that the landline issue was the motive (or excuse) for the adult contemporary leaning playlist. So what you're saying is the ratings still stink even with the carefully selected playlist of Mix 98.5 standards.
S
spilot113
Guest
Oldbones said:
Last I heard Salem and Rockingham County were not part of the Boston metro.
Where did you get this information?
It's not just the landline issue, though it is a huge issue, but the sample size it terrible as well. I'm shocked so many people rely on numbers from a less than 1% of the market sample. Shows are fired, stations are flipped, etc off asking what amounts to a "handful" of people in the market what they listen to.
I was told that 1500 people in Philly got PPM meters this last book. Philly has over 4 million people. When I asked why the sample was so low they justified it by saying it's a LARGER sample than the old diary way. That's just inexcusable to me.
Until they can actually get to the point where they are sampling 5% of the market I will never trust these numbers.
I was told that 1500 people in Philly got PPM meters this last book. Philly has over 4 million people. When I asked why the sample was so low they justified it by saying it's a LARGER sample than the old diary way. That's just inexcusable to me.
Until they can actually get to the point where they are sampling 5% of the market I will never trust these numbers.
Well, I think the plan is to eventually...like 10+ years from now...use more and more PPM's to increase the sample size. But 5%?!?! Let's be realistic here: for just one market you're talking about 200,000 people! That's an awful lot of PPM's (which, individually, are not all that cheap to manufacture, maintain or operate) to send out AND keep track of. And I strongly suspect that you'd find results not terribly different from a much smaller sampling size.
Admittedly, I don't think 1500 people is all that representative, either...even with all the clever demographic-tracking tricks that pollsters have up their sleeves. I'd be a lot happier with 10,000 or 20,000 in a market that big. And for the smaller markets? Don't get me started...my last survey for WEOS had less than 500 diaries...a WHOLE LOT less (I don't know if it's kosher to say the exact amount). At that rate, it takes just one diary to go to a WEOS fanatic (or to not go) for our ratings to change substantially.
statistics...
Having taken Probablities and Statistics in college -
a sample of only 30 units (listeners, in this case...) will yield results
that are 95% accurate. This, however, assumes that the group sampled
is truly random and universal. Home phones vs. cell phones only would
not affect the numbers at all, if diaries or PPM's were given to people
chosen at random (example - walking around the Pru on a given day)
Math was hardly my best subject, to be sure. Any math wizards out
there who care to elaborate on this, feel free to do so!
Having taken Probablities and Statistics in college -
a sample of only 30 units (listeners, in this case...) will yield results
that are 95% accurate. This, however, assumes that the group sampled
is truly random and universal. Home phones vs. cell phones only would
not affect the numbers at all, if diaries or PPM's were given to people
chosen at random (example - walking around the Pru on a given day)
Math was hardly my best subject, to be sure. Any math wizards out
there who care to elaborate on this, feel free to do so!
Re: statistics...
I took 2 years of stats myself....
You can't base a proper sample size on a number, you have to base it on a % of the market, the higher percentage the more accurate the sample....and there is NO WAY you can argue that 1500 out of 4.5 million can be accurate.
Especially when it's NOT a random sample. If it was random they would poll those with landlines, those with only cell phones, those without phones at all maybe....but arbitron only polls those with landline telephones, eliminating a huge demographic of 20-30+ year olds that don't have a landline. I can count the people I know who are my age and have a landline, I ditched mine in 01, as did most people I know.
See not including cell phones changes the demographic, since cell phone only households are much more likely in younger households, poor households, etc.
Here are some Stats from a CNN study....
1 in 8 adults only have a cell phone
3 in 10 age 18-29 only have a cell phone, double the amount people over 30 have.
14 percent of males and 12 percent of females only had cell phone service.
1 in 5 poor people have only cell phones, about double the percentage for those who are not poor.
So, eliminating those without a landline changes everything, young leaning stations will get worse ratings, male leaning stations will get worse ratings, stations with a higher income listener will get worse ratings. I think you get my drift.
WLYNgm said:
I took 2 years of stats myself....
You can't base a proper sample size on a number, you have to base it on a % of the market, the higher percentage the more accurate the sample....and there is NO WAY you can argue that 1500 out of 4.5 million can be accurate.
Especially when it's NOT a random sample. If it was random they would poll those with landlines, those with only cell phones, those without phones at all maybe....but arbitron only polls those with landline telephones, eliminating a huge demographic of 20-30+ year olds that don't have a landline. I can count the people I know who are my age and have a landline, I ditched mine in 01, as did most people I know.
See not including cell phones changes the demographic, since cell phone only households are much more likely in younger households, poor households, etc.
Here are some Stats from a CNN study....
1 in 8 adults only have a cell phone
3 in 10 age 18-29 only have a cell phone, double the amount people over 30 have.
14 percent of males and 12 percent of females only had cell phone service.
1 in 5 poor people have only cell phones, about double the percentage for those who are not poor.
So, eliminating those without a landline changes everything, young leaning stations will get worse ratings, male leaning stations will get worse ratings, stations with a higher income listener will get worse ratings. I think you get my drift.
Re: statistics...
Although I agree that the number is significantly larger, Arbitron is only using 3.3 million as the 12+ population for the Boston market.
4.5 is probably closer to accurate, but since when has Arbitron ever been concerned with accuracy?
They'll actually respond to proof of their flawed data with; "Oh well...Don't worry about it...eventually the numbers will skew your way and it will all balance out."
And our industry continues to subscribe why?
thetheo said:
Although I agree that the number is significantly larger, Arbitron is only using 3.3 million as the 12+ population for the Boston market.
4.5 is probably closer to accurate, but since when has Arbitron ever been concerned with accuracy?
They'll actually respond to proof of their flawed data with; "Oh well...Don't worry about it...eventually the numbers will skew your way and it will all balance out."
And our industry continues to subscribe why?
Ciao said:
Since when?
Boston is an artificially large market and Manchester artificially small, I'll give you that. It's also too far west to be "Dover-Portsmouth." But there is no formal "Nashua" radio market.
THE_VIKING said:
Whew! Viking beat me to this comment by 30 seconds!
Yes, Nashua is part of the Boston market. And, I am pretty sure that Salem is too - along with most of the border towns. You have to get up to Manchester/Bedford/Goffstown to get into the MHT market. Not sure which one Derry is in.
And the Dover-Portsmouth market doesn't start until you get into eastern Rockingham County (i.e. Exeter, Durham, etc.).
As for TV, Rockingham County is in the Boston DMA, not Portland - though Portland channels get significantly viewed status in many sections of the county.
- Status