Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Riverside-San Bernardino, Baltimore

[Pattern.Guru]

This question refers to 4 markets: Los Angeles, Riverside-San Bernardino, Washington, and Baltimore, so hopefully this forum is the best one for me to learn this aspect of Arbitron Radio Metro Markets.

This flows from these threads on 2 separate forums.
http://radiodiscussions.com/smf/index.php?topic=239093.0
http://radiodiscussions.com/smf/index.php?topic=239170.0

I believe that I have learned these things so far
1. The fairly new Arbitron policy is that, in the publicly released 12+ numbers, Arbitron no longer lists any non-subscribing stations, whether in-market or out-of-market.
2. Even a subscribing station will only be listed for the specific market(s) for which it is considered “subscribed” by Arbitron.
3. Many stations are under group contracts or agreements for various markets.

Have I got it right so far?

Then, these situations are what I find so counter-intuitive.

No commercial Baltimore station subscribes to the Washington, DC book, and vice-versa. The only 2 stations listed in the public ratings in both markets are WAMU-FM and WGTS-FM, which Huff explains “Those two stations are non-commercial and are licensed to show publicly in any book by virtue of a national licensing arrangement with the Radio Research Council”.
Huff also informs that “There is significant overlap of DC stations in Baltimore, with nearly a dozen Washington stations pulling at least a 1.0 share on average. Far fewer Baltimore stations show in the Washington book, with much lower listening levels.”

Central Baltimore to Central Washington is roughly 36 miles as the crow flies, and about 39 miles driving.
They are very close, the listening overlaps quite a bit, and yet not one commercial station in either market subscribes in the other market.

Contrast this situation with Southern California.
Riverside is closer to Los Angeles than is San Bernardino, and is about 49 miles as the crow flies, and approximately 59 miles driving. So, best case, at least 10 miles further apart than Washington is from Baltimore.

But it is more different than that. These 2 SoCal markets are considered so separate for Radio purposes that they have a No-Man’s-Land between them.
What DavidEduardo has described as “the foothill area of San Bernardino County from the LA County border through Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga and to Rialto”, which Arbitron labels San Bernardino County West Outer, is part of no market at all, an orphan, a No-Man’s-Land, and which David has estimated has about 800,000 persons. This has to be by far the most populated urban/suburban area in the USA which is excluded from any Arbitron Radio Market; I do not believe there is any area of similar density of even one-quarter the population which is not a part of any Arbitron Radio Market -- truly one-of-a-kind.

And yet, there are 11 stations (excluding XEWW-AM Rosarito) which are publicly released in both markets, which means these stations are subscribed for both markets. DavidEduardo has indicated that it is most likely because those stations are part of group contracts, such that these 11 stations are considered by Arbitron to be “subscribed” in both markets (David, I am paraphrasing here, so please let me know if it’s not 100% what you have meant).

So, here’s what I cannot make sense of.

Washington and Baltimore: closer to each other, relatively flat terrain between them, more signal overlap, some stations getting a sizeable share in the other market, the market boundary is adjacent for many miles, but not one commercial station is considered “subscribed” by Arbitron for the other market, and thus none are shown in the publicly released ratings.

Los Angeles and Riverside-San Bernardino: farther apart by about 10 miles, more topography interference, supposedly less signal overlap, not adjacent but separated by a No-Man’s-Land, but 11 stations are considered “subscribed” by Arbitron for the other market, and thus all 11 are shown in the publicly released ratings in both markets.

The only possible explanation that I can dream up is that NONE of the commercial stations in either the Washington or Baltimore markets belongs to an ownership group such that by a corporate contract they would be automatically shown in the publicly released ratings in both markets, as seems to be the case in the 2 Southern California markets.

Is this actually possible?

Or what do I still not understand?

 

[davideduardo]

Washington and Baltimore: closer to each other, relatively flat terrain between them, more signal overlap, some stations getting a sizeable share in the other market, the market boundary is adjacent for many miles, but not one commercial station is considered “subscribed” by Arbitron for the other market, and thus none are shown in the publicly released ratings.

Baltimore stations can't sell in the DC market with shares around or below a 1-share. Ratings are used by "transactional buyers" who use ratings as a metric to do cost evaluation of stations. But these buyers infrequently go more than 10 deep in the target demo, and practically never go beyond 15th to 20th.

Paying lots of money for ratings that really won't sell anything is not productive.

Los Angeles and Riverside-San Bernardino: farther apart by about 10 miles, more topography interference, supposedly less signal overlap, not adjacent but separated by a No-Man’s-Land, but 11 stations are considered “subscribed” by Arbitron for the other market, and thus all 11 are shown in the publicly released ratings in both markets.

And all are either remnants of old contracts, the product of failed expectations or due to blanket corporate agreements.

The only possible explanation that I can dream up is that NONE of the commercial stations in either the Washington or Baltimore markets belongs to an ownership group such that by a corporate contract they would be automatically shown in the publicly released ratings in both markets, as seems to be the case in the 2 Southern California markets.

I don't know the reason here... there are Clear Channel, CBS and Radio One clusters in both markets, and no doubt many of the stations have some penetration of both markets. Why they are not available is a mystery to me.

I had assumed that companies that are subscribed in two adjacent markets where there is crossover would naturally have access to both market's data for each station since each market's management gets the full, un-redacted report. But perhaps, while they get to see the data, the data is not considered "public" as the out of markets are not subscribed... or maybe this has to do with being part of the old TSA (Riverside was in the LA TSA, but Baltimore and DC were not in the same TSAs, IIRC).

 

[TomT]

simple explanation: Arbitron greed.

A more egregious example is Cleveland and Akron-Canton, where many of the towers are located between Cleveland and Akron (many Cleveland stations are closer to downtown Akron than downtown Cleveland).

Arbitron has gone on attack, regarding even 12+ numbers as state secrets. Recently they announced that non-subscribers who simulcast will not have their station shares combined. Triggering a call to the FTC to reject the proposed merger with Nielsen from one station owner.

This could prove to be a dangerous game. In many markets, national and regional dried up in the recession, and while buys have come back, rates are still low. The agencies all have the book--(costs them about $300/market), paying mega $$$ at the stations can't be justified if having the book means only a marginal increase in agency business.

Publishing only 12+ numbers for subscribers is an anti-competitive business practice. Makes the numbers meaningless to the broadcast industry; and damages the public perception of the non-subscribing stations. Not publishing will mean the "book" will become something of little importance except to the sales staff.

 

[Pattern.Guru]

Arbitron has gone on attack, regarding even 12+ numbers as state secrets. Recently they announced that non-subscribers who simulcast will not have their station shares combined. Triggering a call to the FTC to reject the proposed merger with Nielsen from one station owner.

TomT, is Gary Burns of 3 Daughters Media the owner you are referring to?
http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/archive/story/121245/gary-burns-takes-his-displeasure-with-arbitron-to-#ixzz2c21ERd6d
I posted this on the Virginia Forum a couple of days ago, but no replies as of yet.

 

[davideduardo]

simple explanation: Arbitron greed.
Not publishing will mean the "book" will become something of little importance except to the sales staff.

And that, in a nutshell, is the reason ratings have been done since the late 20's.

Advertisers need a metric to establish pricing.

American's love of lists... countdowns, Letterman's Top 10's, sports statistics, etc... makes them enjoy seeing how their favorite TV shows and radio stations are doing. But that is not why ratings exist.

 

[davideduardo]

This could prove to be a dangerous game. In many markets, national and regional dried up in the recession, and while buys have come back, rates are still low. The agencies all have the book--(costs them about $300/market), paying mega $$$ at the stations can't be justified if having the book means only a marginal increase in agency business.

I answered this separately because there is a bigger overriding issue in play.

Station operators know that ratings will not be done in a market where stations don't pay for the service. And when there is no ratings service surveying the market, agency business cheapens or dries up.

I went into a top 15 market as a GM years ago following two whole years of no ratings. Market billing was off by nearly 50% and rates were about half of what they had previously been. Agencies would say, "I'll pay you this much. You can't prove you are worth any more, so take it or leave it."

Often forgotten is that not all local business is direct business. Most markets, even below the top 100, have local agencies and they do use ratings to place business and to negotiate rates.

 

[TomT]

It makes no financial sense to buy the "book" when the cost is a significant percentage of the net amount we are getting from national spot. We're in market 242, with one metro station in a market with two group owners.

One (Clear Channel) gets the book--but I suspect at a discount under a blanket plan. The other group doesn't buy the book. Not uncommon a situation in many small and medium markets.

Incidentally, our rep and and a number of agencies seem less concerned that we can't give them specific numbers. Of course, they have the numbers, though they may not be inclined to dig into them.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Publishing only 12+ numbers for subscribers is an anti-competitive business practice. Makes the numbers meaningless to the broadcast industry; and damages the public perception of the non-subscribing stations.

Anti-competitive? Pray tell which competitors Arbitron is trying to drive out of the market.

And the numbers are no more meaningless now than they were under the diary when they excluded most non-commercial stations. The only thing that has changed is that Arbitron is trying to apply a little bit more leverage on non-subscribers, and more effectively prevented their non-subscribers from using data without a license.