• 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

March ratings

WEEI continues on its death march.
I am puzzled by the WBZ FM leap up.
Bruins ?
People fed up with EEI ?

WBQT looks good.

WERS is slumping.
I wish they would change back to their old format.
 
It looks like Magic is getting back to it's pre-holiday numbers. Sports Hub is ruining WEEI. Also, This looks like one of the strongest numbers for Mix in a long time.
 
WERS is slumping.
I wish they would change back to their old format.
Click to expand...

You would find that their old "format" of block programming would fare much, much worse than what is on now.

In fact, the weekend programming probably hurts them more than anything else. Who's listening to 6 hours of kids music a week? I can tell you that nobody is donating to 6 hours of kids music a week.

Looking closer, the cume is up but the share is down. That's a TSL problem. And the fluctuations are within the margin of error, so it's really more flat than anything else. You would be shocked at how few PPM meters make up that audience estimate.
 
WNTIRadio said:
WERS is slumping.
I wish they would change back to their old format.
Click to expand...

You would find that their old "format" of block programming would fare much, much worse than what is on now.

In fact, the weekend programming probably hurts them more than anything else. Who's listening to 6 hours of kids music a week? I can tell you that nobody is donating to 6 hours of kids music a week.
Click to expand...

I would think that some weekly specialty shows are a dependable source of donations. Maybe not children's music, but how about gospel or bluegrass or show tunes? Don;t listeners to such programs donate out of gratitude that there's a radio station actually playing that music on Saturday morning or Sunday afternoon?
 
I wanna see show ratings. Like, what is Salk & Holley pulling in? How bad are each individual shows on the Sports Hub crushing 'EEI?
 
I've seen the numbers, and they're bad. However, they can't be posted here. That violates the site's TOS and Arbitron's copyrights.
 
I've seen the claim of an Arbitron copyright a lot, but has it even been legally tested? The company can put contractual limits on the info getting out, but I am not sure about copyright violations. Arbitron is claiming it is measuring the number of people listening to radio stations. But facts are not protected by copyright. Straight information can be reproduced and sold. It's how the information is presented that is protected by copyright. It's like stats for baseball. I can just go espn.com, write down the numbers, and post them online. I cannot reproduce the espn.com page. I realize that Arbitron is important and everybody is working under contracts and the threat of lawsuits, but Arbitron's copyright isn't so certain.
 
dyeingeye said:
... But facts are not protectedby copyright. Straight information can be reproduced and sold. It's how the information is presented that is protected by copyright. It's like stats for baseball. I can just go espn.com, write down the numbers, and post them online. I cannot reproduce the espn.com page.
Click to expand...

ESPN doesn't compile the baseball statistics, they, and others, simply post them. The statistics are not created by ESPN, they are public information. Arbitron actually compiles the ratings using their own equipment and technology to compile data that they exclusively receive from the individual stations, so the compilation of the ratings is their own original creation, and they can copyright it.
 
Show vs show, here you go.

http://www.boston.com/sports/touching_all_the_bases/2013/04/sports_hub_first_in_winter_rat.html

I will delete the actual numbers but go to article to see them.
>>The Sports Hub finished first overall in the men 25-54 demographic for the period of Jan. 3-March 27, earning a --- share. In morning drive (6-10 a.m), The Sports Hub's "Toucher and Rich'' program was first with an ---(including a huge --- share in March). WEEI's "Dennis and Callahan" was tied for fourth with WBZ (1030) at ---.In afternoon drive (2-6 p.m.), "Felger and Massarotti" was first ----. WEEI's programming finished in a three-way tie for fourth ---- with WMJX and WBOS.
 
With the Red Sox season underway, look for WEEI-93.7's ratings to spike in April thanks to their Soxcasts.

WBZ-1030 will likely enjoy a huge spike for April and the full Spring book, but it will be due to Monday;'s (April 15th) terrorist attacks at the finish line of the Boston Marathon.

But WBZ-98.5 may also spike thanks to the Bruins, but their biggest ratings will be from the end of this month until the end of the Bruins' playoffs (which might not be until around June 22nd if they get to the Stanley Cup Finals).
 
Eli Polonsky said:
dyeingeye said:
... But facts are not protectedby copyright. Straight information can be reproduced and sold. It's how the information is presented that is protected by copyright. It's like stats for baseball. I can just go espn.com, write down the numbers, and post them online. I cannot reproduce the espn.com page.
Click to expand...

ESPN doesn't compile the baseball statistics, they, and others, simply post them. The statistics are not created by ESPN, they are public information. Arbitron actually compiles the ratings using their own equipment and technology to compile data that they exclusively receive from the individual stations, so the compilation of the ratings is their own original creation, and they can copyright it.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that is accurate at all. Companies used to compile names and phone numbers. That wasn't protected by copyright. You cannot present facts and then claim that your effort somehow protects them. Copyright protection doesn't extend to information, it is limited to the specific presentation of information. If it is the specific measure they claim as copyright (i.e. 1 point equals x listeners), the measure is a fact. It's a fact that Arbitron claims that so and so got x and the other one got y. I don't see the copyright protection.
 
A settlement proves nothing. Arbirtron alleged a lot of things. Show me a single court case that has held the information that Arbitron provides is protected by copyright.
 
dyeingeye said:
A settlement proves nothing. Arbirtron alleged a lot of things. Show me a single court case that has held the information that Arbitron provides is protected by copyright.
Click to expand...

If the alleged infringers are all settling rather than trying to prove that Arbitron is wrong in court, doesn't that indicate that they have more than a shade of doubt about the legality of their position?

It could be worse. I understand that in England, newspapers cannot print lists of upcoming games in the Premier League (soccer) without permission from the sport's governing body, the Football Association. The FA's stand is that the schedule is its property, since it was the FA that created it.
 
CTListener said:
If the alleged infringers are all settling rather than trying to prove that Arbitron is wrong in court, doesn't that indicate that they have more than a shade of doubt about the legality of their position?
Click to expand...

A settlement proves nothing. It could be entered into simply to avoid the cost of litigation. Plus, there were other claims, such as using Arbitron's trademark.
 
dyeingeye said:
A settlement proves nothing. Arbirtron alleged a lot of things. Show me a single court case that has held the information that Arbitron provides is protected by copyright.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Try actually reading the consent order. Gannett would never have agreed to those conditions if it were sure of its position.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom