Mr. Smarty Pants

[jdweaver]

KMCQ doesn't do market research, doesn't hire a staff, doesn't test music, doesn't do jack. They just essentially put an MP3 player with a library of Ronco hits on the air - and they pull a 3+ share. Must make some of the 'smartest guys in the room' wonder what hit 'em.

Add to that less than city grade signal, lousy fidelity, a playlist that no self respecting programmer would submit and absolutely NO promotion of any kind and it becomes even more impressive.

We've made this business too complicated...too research oriented...too damn self important and lost the focus on our listeners. Good reminder of what we all need to do...my own Smarty Pants self included...

 

[Bongwater]

KMCQ may be an enigma to many in the biz. Yet it really isn't.

But it goes to show even the "pros" and all their resources and validation are simply no match for the general public when they find something they like to hear on the radio.......

KMCQ to me is what happens when you simply put a MASSIVE oldies playlist on the air and strip away all the typical radio format bulls--t people are just SICK of hearing.

Any typical LPFM could do what KMCQ does EASILY. It's not rocket science when the same thing could be done by just about anybody.

 

[radioguy123]

um uh ,what???
The station ranks 22nd in prime demos while running commercial free and after being in the format for two plus years. I am guessing if KJR ran commercial free it would be about a ten share. If KISS ran commercial free it would be about an eight share. When KLCK was commercial free it was top three 25-54 in the market. When AMP was commercial free in LA it knocked off KISS for a short time. If anything this shows how poorly programmed the station is.

Running commercial free will lead to enhanced listenership, but it really hard to make a living that way. Give KMCQ a full commercial load and it will rate about the same as GEN-X or KNBQ, maybe less.

 

[jupiter2]

The PROS you refer to have to run a spot load. They are delivering much larger numbers. A 3 share is not a big win, when your lifting barbells with marshmallows. Big whoop.

I fail to see what 104.5 proves other than a few ex radio folks like it and a few stores probably put it on as background music, generating a PPM bump. If KJR had it 3 share it would certainly be a failure, so why is this bankrupt failed investment on shuffle anything to celebrate at all? It certainly didn't put anybody back to work.

Reason for encoding. Make it annoying enough to CBS (The now dethroned JACK FM probably most affected, since it was also a soul-less variety juke box, but had to play lots of spots) or some other group that will buy it to change the format to something that will actually make money.

Sad to see the lack of human passion in a radio format celebrated. It's not like there won't be plenty of ways to play a mix tape in the modern world. Where's the unique value in that?

Just my 2 cents. No offense to anybody who digs the tunes. If I was Amish, I'd put them on in my stage coach often.

 

[bossbill]

Ahh... speculation.

I guess I missed the research on the inverse relationship between spot loads and audience share. I'll do some digging.

 

[bossbill]

And by the way, for anyone who REALLY believes that the Arbitron PPM methodology reflects ongoing changes in a radio market as a whole, I suggest you study up on statistics. If still convinced, then I've got some waterfront property at Washaway Beach on the Washington Coast for sale.

I understand that Arbitron has handed this flawed methodology to the radio broadcasters, and the 18-year-old agency buyers don't know the difference, but if you play to the PPM, you'll be making radical changes every two years, and this (IMHO) will add to audience attrition.

 

[Steenman]

@ Bill I have an MBA in statistics and have been buying media in this market for over 20 years. As a good natured friendly show of support, I'll take you on for the PPM debate. What's your specific beef? You don't like the sample size? You have a problem with the way they are conducting the sampling? You liked 'voting' (as opposed to actually listening) better? You're a professional and a smart guy so I ask with only respect. What's your specific beef with PPM? NO system is going to be accurate or perfect so really the discussion needs to be (1) is this system better than the previous one (2) is there an actual, actionable 'better' idea out there. Remember, actionable means do-able within the constraints of budget and reality in the business today. Take a shot at me folks we're all to get better and learn and this old dogs is always open to new tricks!

 

[Dick Skinner]

@ Bill I have an MBA in statistics and have been buying media in this market for over 20 years. As a good natured friendly show of support, I'll take you on for the PPM debate. What's your specific beef? You don't like the sample size? You have a problem with the way they are conducting the sampling? You liked 'voting' (as opposed to actually listening) better? You're a professional and a smart guy so I ask with only respect. What's your specific beef with PPM? NO system is going to be accurate or perfect so really the discussion needs to be (1) is this system better than the previous one (2) is there an actual, actionable 'better' idea out there. Remember, actionable means do-able within the constraints of budget and reality in the business today. Take a shot at me folks we're all to get better and learn and this old dogs is always open to new tricks!

Thanks, Steam Man...we need some actual knowledge injected into this debate. Personally, I think PPM is a vast improvement over the houseful of minority diaries methodology. Now we have the houseful of minority meters methodology, but at least the station has to actually be on to get credit. How could that not an improvement, Wolfing Burger?

 

[Bongwater]

Guys...GUYS...come on now.....

Did I ever jump up and say "HEY GUYS! I got a GREAT idea! Let's just get rid of ALL advertising on the radio?"

You can't help but admit it's a GREAT idea....from a listener standpoint.....

And WHO can blame them?

But what is COOL about KMCQ is they (at least appear) to follow little (if ANY) format structure whatsoever.

It is not a question of advertising whatsover.

It's how ya do it

 

[SeattleObserver]

I've got some waterfront property at Washaway Beach on the Washington Coast for sale.

*Snort* Good one, Bill.

 

[TVradioguru]

Obviously I won't speak for Mr. Wolfenbarger; but from what I've witnessed the ones who are most bothered by the concept of PPM are concerned about their existing diary or call-out ratings, being turned on it's head if PPM ever came to their particular market.

Sure PPM has changed the age old game played for many years with some stations being given a new lease on life after being given up for dead, while other past winners droping to the mid-pack or bottom of the heap. Overall, the methodology seems to be valid, by measuring what people are at least in earshot of listening to, rather than what station they 'vote' for on the final few hours before having to return the diary. Could the sample for PPM be larger? Maybe..But I believe what's been witnessed to date is it wouldn't make a substantitave difference in the results.

 

[bossbill]

@ You don't like the sample size? You have a problem with the way they are conducting the sampling? You liked 'voting' (as opposed to actually listening) better?

(1) is this system better than the previous one (2) is there an actual, actionable 'better' idea out there. Remember, actionable means do-able within the constraints of budget and reality in the business today.

My primary concern is sample size. Is less than .01% (1/100th of one percent) fixed sample of a population adequate to measure changing listening patterns? Is this small panel truly representative of the entire population base for an extended period of time? Is passive listening valuable to clients? I hope it's open for debate, but I'm not so sure PPM is an improvement. At least with diary and telephone methodology, we get new random samples each period, and over any extended period of time we can use averaging and trending with a much larger accumulative sample. Given that the PPM sample should be much larger, but cost constraints don't allow it, then we're trading one flawed system with another.

One appeal PPM has for me, since my stations have encoders, is that when you drive to Ocean Shores next weekend with your PPM appendage, I may get credit in the metro. My calculations tell me that about 200 PPM boxes will travel this way over the next year. If I can get a buy out of this, all my concerns will go out the window.

 

[AQH]

It is not a question of advertising whatsover.

It's how ya do it

Then how do bills get paid?

 

[Steenman]

You make the assumption that more is better but STATISTICALLY that's not correct, more does not equal better, BETTER equals better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_power. Read paragraph two under Factors Influencing Power. "A significance criterion is a statement of how unlikely a result must be, if the null hypothesis is true, to be considered significant. The most commonly used criteria are probabilities of 0.05 (5%, 1 in 20), 0.01 (1%, 1 in 100), and 0.001 (0.1%, 1 in 1000". So yes, Bill .01 is not only valid, it's common. This is not to suggest it's this simple. You want to argue that the way they do the sampling is wrong, that is possible and I think was in fact a problem the first year because all the respondents were new at the same time and it was all being figured out. I saw the same thing when the set top boxes started on tv, it took a couple of years for it to actually level out and make sense.

 

[bossbill]

You make the assumption that more is better but STATISTICALLY that's not correct, more does not equal better, BETTER equals better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_power. Read paragraph two under Factors Influencing Power. "A significance criterion is a statement of how unlikely a result must be, if the null hypothesis is true, to be considered significant. The most commonly used criteria are probabilities of 0.05 (5%, 1 in 20), 0.01 (1%, 1 in 100), and 0.001 (0.1%, 1 in 1000". So yes, Bill .01 is not only valid, it's common. This is not to suggest it's this simple. You want to argue that the way they do the sampling is wrong, that is possible and I think was in fact a problem the first year because all the respondents were new at the same time and it was all being figured out. I saw the same thing when the set top boxes started on tv, it took a couple of years for it to actually level out and make sense.

I make no assumption that more is better, and .01 may be valid. But we're not talking about .01 (1 in 100) or even .001 (=.1% or 1 in 1,000). We're talking less than .0001 (=.01% or 1 in 10,000). To arrive at even the last denoted "valid, common" criteria, you would need a panel of 3,000.

What further complicates the statistical accuracy of any radio ratings methodology is the number of variables. If you ask a broad base of likely voters who is their choice for President, you've got several candidates. With broadcast ratings, you have 1) perhaps 50 stations, 2) 24 hours, and 3) demographic details.

I don't know that we disagree philosophically, and I don't have an answer other than getting rid of caller ID and cellphones, and using updated telephone methodology, but I have serious issue with the sample size and the verrrry slowwwwlly evolving panels.

 

[jupiter2]

Interesting discussion.

I'm no expert at statistics. It seems obvious the diary allowed someone to vote for a show or station they liked. Personalities and brands that were engaging and created passion did well. It could be argued that these things were more effective for advertisers, even though the hours may have been inflated.

Conversely, the meter makes no distinction between actually hearing something or having it on in the background at work. Seems to favor a jukebox with no personality.

An interesting question for ad agency types would be, does higher rating in ppm correspond to better results for client?

 

[TVradioguru]

Interesting discussion.

It seems obvious the diary allowed someone to vote for a show or station they liked. Personalities and brands that were engaging and created passion did well. It could be argued that these things were more effective for advertisers, even though the hours may have been inflated.

Actually your assumption isn't quite correct. There are many personality-centered shows that do well in PPM where some did well in diary. Using the Seattle market as an example; perhaps some that 'voted' in diary for KUBE' morning show, comes to mind, but it didn't fare well with PPM while others, such as the KISW morning show, increased share in PPM and in demo. Both could be considered personality-based shows couldn't they? In this example, one survived, one did not. Look at your local AC station, Star 101.5; That morning show rules the 25-54F demo.

There was a couple discussions on another thread about survey of listeners and their responses. In research it is common for respondents to claim they listen to say, the local classical station, when after further questioning you find out they can't name any classical artists or announcers on the local classical station.

So does that mean that one can assume that personality radio is more advantageous for a station than more music? It depends on the market, format and in some cases, how long the station has been around. Listeners will listen longer if you play more music with less interruption, period. This theory also allows for a lower cost of operation, but at a much lower advertising rate.

 

[Dusty Dale Brooks]

"Any typical LPFM could do what KMCQ does EASILY. It's not rocket science when the same thing could be done by just about anybody."

Bongwater is right-on. It is being done by somebody. An example is KGHO at 103.3 and 92.7. That LP off Capitol Peak is listed at 10 watts (?). I think they're more entertaining than KMCQ.

Who are those guys???

 

[bossbill]

"Any typical LPFM could do what KMCQ does EASILY. It's not rocket science when the same thing could be done by just about anybody."

Bongwater is right-on. It is being done by somebody. An example is KGHO at 103.3 and 92.7. That LP off Capitol Peak is listed at 10 watts (?). I think they're more entertaining than KMCQ.

Who are those guys???

"these guys" is "that guy"... Brian Spencer. He operates an LPFM in Hoquiam. He's not there, however. Nobody is there, just a lonely computer and transmitter. He has (under another "licensee") a few FM translators, and because he has identfied his LPFM as being owned by "an educational institution", he therefore is able to rebroadcast his "educational" programming on translators which extend his coverage far beyond the normal coverage of an LPFM.

I don't think this is what the FCC intended in creating the LPFM rules, but they basically play dead unless a broadcaster does something really egregious, like missing a weekly EAS test.