talkjim said:
Of course you have no issue with Nicole. You attempt to minimize her success any time you get a chance, but other than that you have no issues at all. And it is you that has the problem with accuracy and statistics, David. When you concede to me that a 1.4 rating is higher than a 1.3, I'll take you seriously. Despite your many claims of glory, I have absolutely no evidence that you've ever done anything but post on this board. And I'm certain that no one, in or out of radio, ever has or would hire you as a motivational speaker. Judging by the volume of your posts, it would seem that you would have little time left over to do anything but post here.
Now that you have that off your chest, let's look again at what ratings really are.
Ratings are a statistical sample of the population of an area which is projected back into that population to produce estimates of the size of the total radio audience and that of individual stations. Since each person sampled represents many hundreds to many thousands of other people, we know that the results are not going to be 100% correct; for that, we need a census.
So, using techniques like replication analysis, we can see how close the estimates are to reality and establish the range of accuracy (I'm not going to go into levels of standard error, etc., as this simplification covers the basic concept) for each number. For example, since a high rated station has more "mentions" in the survey, the degree of reliability will be higher than for a station that gets relatively few mentions.
The end result is that we can see the range of numbers that any number in the survey represents. If we take into account this fact, we realize that what we are seeing in the Arbitron reports is the specific number that came up by the equivalent of "luck of the draw" is simply one of a number of numbers that could have come up. If we know the range, and we do by using Arbitron's handy tables and formulae, we also know that the next month or the next book's numbers could be entirely different yet just as accurate even if the station has not changed its "real" audience size at all.
So there is no real difference between a 1.3 and a 1.4. You may think so, and others may, but if you look at the statistical base and basis for the survey, you learn that such a belief is not correct.
"You are doing it again. WFtl has a 0.2 share in the Miami market, due mostly to commuters who listen in WPB, not the Miami market. That is hardly the definition of a South Florida station."
More of your trademark pettiness, David, and know this: your issue is not with me. I simply cut and pasted a press release that is obviously of great concern to you, and in which others may take an interest. Now get going on your 300th post of the day!
So you believe press releases 100%? And pass them on under your name? A station that has no 10 mv/m anywhere in the Miami MSA is hardly a South Florida station. What's even more amusing is that the station, on its own website, uses the 0.5 mv/m contour to show coverage of areas where there is really no signal at all. All this for a station whose AQH audience in 25-54 is 800 persons.
