OK, folks! It's Survey Time

[davideduardo]

So, these are kinda sorta nice-to-haves. Sounds like 'imperfect' is an understatement. Essentially, there are "poles", right? In pretty much every area of polling, it's been found that societal changes of the last, say, 10-15 years have made (past) polling methods irrelevant. Possibly, these ratings poles are behind the curve in keeping up with the times(?).

I do not know what "societal changes" you refer to.

A poll or survey done with a statistical sample that is proportional on all the qualities the buyer of the data needs is just as reliable now as ever. In fact, with more core data about the population being available, it is likely that the accuracy of a poll is greater today than ever.

No matter what the characteristics of a population you want to study, it's a function of the sample recruit to find the proper target. Whether you want an accurate sample of all the significant ethnic and cultural groups in a market, or whether you want to know if households buy cake mix, the key is in sample design.

The Nielsen study has several dozen areas that are subject to proportionality control... things like the specific age ranges (6-11, 12-17, 18-24, 25-34 etc.) gender, ethnicity / race, language preference (among Hispanics), income, education, household size and the like are measured as close as possible to mirror the market as a whole with a small and affordable sample.

Nothing has happened in the last few years that changes the nature of statistical sampling and polling.

Question: Are trends of the "Trends" generally reliable?

They are "indicators" of motion. And in any case, the "trends" in the diary markets will be gone next year as Nielsen will do 12-month rolling averages with monthly issuance and full weighting for proportionality in each report. But the sample design remains essentially the same, adjusted only for continuous measurement instead of discreet "time slice" sampling.

 

[Buddy Shula]

Get a grip, clown. Reality sure isn't your specialty. You're the one who guaranteed the 5 share by now...

reality is not my specialty? Who took a station that nobody talked about for the past 20 years, and made it the most talked about station in Buffalo in just 17 months? Refer to the Buffalo News articles for clarification. If it were not for WECK, nobody would be talking about radio in this market. Also, I did not guarantee a 5 share this quickly. It will come. And we do have 5 shares in 45 plus demo, which is the only one I care about. If this were a PPM market, WECK would be even higher.

 

[Buddy Shula]

Lost in all this discussion is the fact that Townsquare has been advertising for separate program directors for Mix and Jack, giving no hint of a change in the Mix format. The company in early November released their Operations Manager who also programmed Mix and Jack. If Mix were to go to a 21st Century Oldies For Women it could substantially affect the ratings for Star, WHTT and WECK. Depending on the approach, WECK would have more to lose than WHTT, which has shed most of its 60s, retained a moderate amount of 70s and established a 80s-based Classic Hits approach, with a smattering of 90s hits. Star's overall ratings may actually improve if Mix goes away. Also worth noting: Townsquare has been consistently promoting the Mix Christmas music format and morning show on bus cards, the Buffalo News and it's website, showing no abatement in the company's dedication to the Hot AC format. These basic indicators may point to Mix sticking with the Hot AC format after Christmas. OTOH, the newspaper and bus ads could be part of a trade agreement and Townsquare is simply burning off the trade before year's end. As for Jack, it seems to have become more 80s-hits intensive over the last three months.

Folks, Mix is not going Oldies for Women. However, I do know what it is doing, and it won't be effecting WECK anytime soon. Infact, no one will effect WECK. WECK controls it's own destiny, we don't let others dictate is. As long as we are in our lane doing the right thing, nobody will effect us. My prediction for 2019. WECK will move from #10 station in market to number #7. I have a ton of big news coming up in 2019 that will change the game. WECK has 2 total metro covering FM's. For now....

 

[Element9]

Folks, Mix is not going Oldies for Women. However...

In case you missed the caveat, "...These basic indicators may point to Mix sticking with the Hot AC format after Christmas."

 

[Buddy Shula]

In case you missed the caveat, "...These basic indicators may point to Mix sticking with the Hot AC format after Christmas."

If I had mix it would have never gone from soft to hot AC. I thought dropping JOY was a huge mistake. From a listener and advertiser standpoint, I would go lite AC. There is a trendy format called The Breeze that is doing this. If they did this, it would hurt Star and Kiss. That’s it. WHTT is classic hits which plays none of the breeze format and WECK is solidly in the very oldies lane which play none of the Breeze music. A soft AC would be female based. Hurting the kiss and star.

 

[Element9]

What you suggest for Mix is exactly what's been suggested by others here earlier in the thread using "The Breeze" interchangeably with "21st Century Oldies" to describe the same format which targets women. As noted earlier in this thread, this format is also known as The Sound. The Breeze (format and moniker) has been most recently adopted by stations in Philadelphia and Detroit. It's been a proven success in several other markets.

Programmers and managers who believe their formats are impervious to attacks, direct or flanking, would be wise to consult the ratings to determine their station's cume and shared listening. New formats (whether referred to as 21st Century Oldies, The Breeze, or The Sound) have a way of re-shaping (exclusive and shared) cume and audience sharing trends.

One of the best examples of unsuspected audience sharing occured with Howard Stern when he was on OTA radio. It surprised many programmers and consultants to find that Stern listeners were not entirely exclusive. Many of them also listened to NPR especially when Stern went into his patented 10 minute commercial breaks.

WYRK, although having a robust Cume, shares listeners with several stations that are decidedly not Country.

 

[TheBigA]

WYRK, although having a robust Cume, shares listeners with several stations that are decidedly not Country.

Absolutely, and people who attend country concerts notice that when stars like Luke Bryan or Thomas Rhett do Bruno Mars songs. Everyone in the building knows them as though they're country songs.

 

[davideduardo]

What you suggest for Mix is exactly what's been suggested by others here earlier in the thread using "The Breeze" interchangeably with "21st Century Oldies" to describe the same format which targets women. As noted earlier in this thread, this format is also known as The Sound. The Breeze (format and moniker) has been most recently adopted by stations in Philadelphia and Detroit. It's been a proven success in several other markets.

I've never heard the term "21st Century Oldies" as that would mean music from 2000 onwards. The most common term is "Soft AC" and it got its big kick when Cox finally figured out that the WDUV format would not work on younger, highly ethnic Miami's WFEZ. They tested and tried alternatives, and came up with a version that was gold based, instead of WLYF's much more contemporary AC that included a good percentage of currents and recurrents.

And that was going on 4 years ago. We've now seen WDUV update, going from 15th to top 3 in 25-54, as well as several years now in SF and San Diego. This is not a new format... I think other markets and owners were waiting to see if the format could sustain good 25-54 numbers.

Programmers and managers who believe their formats are impervious to attacks, direct or flanking, would be wise to consult the ratings to determine their station's cume and shared listening. New formats (whether referred to as 21st Century Oldies, The Breeze, or The Sound) have a way of re-shaping (exclusive and shared) cume and audience sharing trends.

We've been looking at shared listening since the late 60's in Arbitron diaries.

One of the best examples of unsuspected audience sharing occured with Howard Stern when he was on OTA radio. It surprised many programmers and consultants to find that Stern listeners were not entirely exclusive. Many of them also listened to NPR especially when Stern went into his patented 10 minute commercial breaks.

I can't think of a single Stern market where the PD did not do a diary review several times a year. I generally ran into one or more of them in Columbia every time I went to review the books.

We all knew that we shared primary listening with an average of two other stations, and often, if the diarykeeper could remember, with several more secondary stations.

I don't recall any high frequency of Stern listeners going to public radio stations.

WYRK, although having a robust Cume, shares listeners with several stations that are decidedly not Country.

And that has been normal for any top station since the diary method began.

 

[Rob Piotrowski]

I've never heard the term "21st Century Oldies" as that would mean music from 2000 onwards.

No, it means doing a "traditional oldies" format in the 21st century. IOW, playing music from the past without living in it.

 

[davideduardo]

No, it means doing a "traditional oldies" format in the 21st century. IOW, playing music from the past without living in it.

That is a far reach. One that time buyers will not swallow, as the "oldies" word is poison to most.

As I said, it is not the term used in the industry by programmers and managers to describe the format. The generic name is "soft AC" and many are using the "Breeze" name as a quasi-synonym, although none of the early successes in the format bear that name.

WFEZ is "Easy", WDUV is "Lite Favorites" and Seattle is, of course, The Sound. Chicago is "Me-TV-FM". Just a more recent convert, KISQ in San Francisco, is called The Breeze.

Philly and Detroit are too new to even have numbers, although they are breezy too.

 

[CTListener]

No, it means doing a "traditional oldies" format in the 21st century. IOW, playing music from the past without living in it.

How far back does a "21st Century Oldies" station go for the music it plays? The same years -- 1955-69 -- that were at the core of 20th century oldies formats in the '80s, or the post-British Invasion-through-disco years that the format transitioned to during the '90s? I assume it's not playing '80s and '90s because that would make it just another classic hits format.

Also, are these oldies they play uniformly soft, or are hard rock and funk Top 40 hits played as well? And finally, how do you present a playlist in which the most recent songs are about 40 years old without sounding like you're living in the past? Have the jocks make small talk about Ariana Grande and Pete Davidson, or the latest hot Netflix series, between "Crocodile Rock" and "Hey Jude"? I don't see how that could work.

 

[four4rock]

Hoping this is not to far afield, but with the exchange above laden with snazzy labels (i.e. The Breeze, and all that kinda stuff), it makes me wonder how relevant that is to listeners. Honestly, I don't think anyone I've encountered listens to a radio station because it's called something... Breezy, Lite, Ocean, whatever.

Suppose a successful station had label like those being talked about. Now suppose that station changed nothing (programming-wise). Same announcers, same songs, same news/weather/traffic/closings, same contests... etc, etc. But they changed the label. No big splashy announcements of the label change. No press release. Just simply changed the label. Yesterday, it was Banana. Today, it's Foam Rubber.

Would that lone change make any ratings difference?

 

[davideduardo]

How far back does a "21st Century Oldies" station go for the music it plays? The same years -- 1955-69 -- that were at the core of 20th century oldies formats in the '80s, or the post-British Invasion-through-disco years that the format transitioned to during the '90s? I assume it's not playing '80s and '90s because that would make it just another classic hits format.

The poster child for the soft AC format is WFEZ in Miami, as that is where the general format for a 25-54 friendly softer, all-gold AC was first successfully developed. Looking at the playlist, there is nothing pre-1970 and only about 5 songs from 1970 to 1974. The bulk of the music is centered on the 80's, with a bit of later 70's and a broad sampling of 1990 to 2015.

The difference is in which songs are played. It's a different list, but with some overlap, from the conventional AC operation, and it plays zero currents, while an AC mainstreamer may be about 20% current in number of spins.

Also, are these oldies they play uniformly soft, or are hard rock and funk Top 40 hits played as well? And finally, how do you present a playlist in which the most recent songs are about 40 years old without sounding like you're living in the past? Have the jocks make small talk about Ariana Grande and Pete Davidson, or the latest hot Netflix series, between "Crocodile Rock" and "Hey Jude"? I don't see how that could work.

The talk is not about the artists as much as local weather, local events and that kind of thing.

Note that MeTVFM in Chicago is not typical as 1) it has rather dreadful 25-54 numbers and 2) it does play way back. Waaaay back.

 

[davideduardo]

Hoping this is not to far afield, but with the exchange above laden with snazzy labels (i.e. The Breeze, and all that kinda stuff), it makes me wonder how relevant that is to listeners. Honestly, I don't think anyone I've encountered listens to a radio station because it's called something... Breezy, Lite, Ocean, whatever.

You don't buy detergent because it is called Tide. You buy it because it cleans well. But the function of branding is to build awareness of a product so that it is recognizable at the point of purchase and memorable for the consumer who will need to know what brand to buy when they run out.

Same with radio. The brand becomes a "name" for a kind of music you like. You know where to find that station on the dial or in an app. It is like the address for a retail business. And with increasing listening coming from mobile and other new media devices, just the dial position will not work any more.

Suppose a successful station had label like those being talked about. Now suppose that station changed nothing (programming-wise). Same announcers, same songs, same news/weather/traffic/closings, same contests... etc, etc. But they changed the label. No big splashy announcements of the label change. No press release. Just simply changed the label. Yesterday, it was Banana. Today, it's Foam Rubber.

Would that lone change make any ratings difference?

Yes. Extreme.

 

[TheBigA]

Note that MeTVFM in Chicago is not typical as 1) it has rather dreadful 25-54 numbers and 2) it does play way back. Waaaay back.

And has no jocks at all.

 

[Element9]

Post #26 used the term "21st Century Soft AC" and I erred in misquoting it as "21st Century Oldies." However, the points of most posts, including my own, and the original premise remain as this discussion relates to formats known as "The Breeze" or "The Sound." As to exclusivity and sharing, I stand by my post. If owners, managers, sales reps and programmers believe that listeners don't share, don't 'punch around' and don't sample other formats or variations of formats, they're wholly mistaken. This kind of thinking can be a detriment to any station. The days of "set it and forget it" or "set it and rip the knobs off" are long gone, if they ever existed in the first place. And yes, I know that in the early days of AM Top 40, stations like WKBW in Buffalo; and heritage stations in others markets such as WABC and WMCA, WRKO and WMEX, WLS and WCFL, WFIL and WIBG, WBBF and WAXC had massive cumes, TSL and shares. But even then, listeners checked other stations. In Buffalo, "KB" was the "hottest, biggest and bestest" station on the dial for decades, yet you can say "Be big, be a builder!" to most people 65+ and they'll tell you the call letters and/or frequency with which it was associated.

{Pop quiz for David and A: What station would that have been? Call 9 now at 6-4-4 One-two-three-oh.}

 

[davideduardo]

Post #26 used the term "21st Century Soft AC" and I erred in misquoting it as "21st Century Oldies." However, the points of most posts, including my own, and the original premise remain as this discussion relates to formats known as "The Breeze" or "The Sound." As to exclusivity and sharing, I stand by my post. If owners, managers, sales reps and programmers believe that listeners don't share, don't 'punch around' and don't sample other formats or variations of formats, they're wholly mistaken. This kind of thinking can be a detriment to any station. The days of "set it and forget it" or "set it and rip the knobs off" are long gone, if they ever existed in the first place. And yes, I know that in the early days of AM Top 40, stations like KB and WABC and WMCA, WRKO and WMEX, WLS and WCFL, WFIL and WIBG, WBBF and WAXC had massive cumes, TSL and shares. But even then, listeners checked other stations. KB was the "hottest, biggest and bestest" station on the dial for decades, yet you can say "Be big, be a builder!" to most people 65+ and they'll tell you the call letters and/or frequency with which it was associated.

You are concluding that neither today nor in the past did station management understand that (with the exception of formats like religion) there was little cume that was not shared. And the sharing generally takes in practically every competitive station in each market with the only differences being the percentage of sharing with each of the others.

There is no revelation in what you describe, and good programmers have been aware of shared listening since the industry began.

Going back about 50 years we could go to Beltsville and look through plastic trays of diaries for our markets. We saw who listened, what time they listened and when they changed stations. We kept doing that in Laurel, and then in Columbia. Some of us went there hundreds of times. A few of us dug deeply enough to find significant attribution errors and got whole books reissued. And we saw the sharing. And we have been seeing it and understanding the dynamics of sharing for half a century now.

Remember that in the "early days of Top 40" nobody had "massive cumes" because Hooper and Pulse did not show anything except share. Here is an example of a full report for a medium market in the early 60's:

https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Ratings/Hooper-Roanoke.pdf

And yes, once Arbitron became dominant in the early 70's lots of programmers and consultants and managers went to look at the diaries. Arbitron had many rooms for such purposes, and during the 90's and up to the time of the PPM introduction, one had to reserve a visit well in advance as the demand was so great.

Even the first Arbitron reports in the 1964/1965 period only showed AQH listening, not cume. It was not until later that cume bean to be listed, and even well into the 70's cume was just an added set of columns on tables called "Average Quarter Hour Listening Estimates". And until we had cume, there was no way of calculating TSL.

Of course, during all this history, agencies who used ratings bought AQH persons, not cume.

Oh, and the term "21st Century Soft AC" came from a non-programmer who obviously made it up. It's not an industry term I have seen in Inside Radio or The Tom Taylor Report or in TBR or Radio Ink or in All Access and the like.

 

[Element9]

You are concluding that neither today nor in the past did station management understand that (with the exception of formats like religion) there was little cume that was not shared. And the sharing generally takes in practically every competitive station in each market with the only differences being the percentage of sharing with each of the others.

I am concluding neither. Please, Mr. Gleason. I wish not to get into a prissing match. I have stated that "that stations share listeners... and (to wit) programmers who do not take sharing into consideration subject themselves to risk." Nothing more. Nowhere did I write or suggest that all programmers, for all the time, have ignored sharing. Some have, many haven't. Most importantly, programmers have learned to not ignore the fact, lest it cost them.

You used the word "we" as a collective, as if every programmer, manager or consultant undertook the Hajj. You. Went to Beltsville. As did a select number of programmers and consultants. Not every programmer went to Beltsville. Not every station saw the numbers in detail. Many stations and programmers relied on consultants to translate or forward the findings. You're a brilliant professional with a vast amount of experience, and your knowledge-sharing is appreciated. But Sweet Jeebus, you can be pedantic at times. Good day, sir.

 

[davideduardo]

I am concluding neither. Please, Mr. Gleason. I wish not to get into a prissing match. I have stated that "that stations share listeners... and (to wit) programmers who do not take sharing into consideration subject themselves to risk." Nothing more. Nowhere did I write or suggest that all programmers, for all the time, have ignored sharing. Some have, many haven't. Most importantly, programmers have learned to not ignore the fact, lest it cost them.

You used the word "we" as a collective, as if every programmer, manager or consultant undertook the Hajj. You. Went to Beltsville. As did a select number of programmers and consultants. Not every programmer went to Beltsville. Not every station saw the numbers in detail. Many stations and programmers relied on consultants to translate or forward the findings. You're a brilliant professional with a vast amount of experience, and your knowledge-sharing is appreciated. But Sweet Jeebus, you can be pedantic at times. Good day, sir.

It is hardly pedantic to correct statements that are patently wrong.

If you want to put a limit on who paid attention to sharing, we can exclude the low rated stations that did not live off ratings nor cared to do do so. Fine: those stations did not subscribe to Arbitron, and were focused on niche markets like religion and brokered shows.

Some stations in smaller markets could not afford to go every book to Beltsville/Laurel/Columbia. So in many cases they had one of the consultants do reviews, often being on the phone with them when the review was going on. Others ordered the horrendous "mechanical diary" which was a print-out of every diary's tabulated data, with the disadvantage that one could not spot ascription errors or misinterpretations.

Yes, I went to see Arbitron a lot. But so did just about every significant station, from even smaller rated out-or-the-top-100 markets. It was not a "select number" but, in fact, a large one. When Tallahassee was one of my markets, and that is a small market, we definitely went to see the diaries... and knew that our competitors went at least once a year.

Diary review techniques were written up in Gavin, R&R, the Hamilton Report, Fred and loads of other trade magazines; looking at sharing and when flips from one station to another were the prime topics of those discussions. It is had for me to believe that anyone at a ratings driven station later than the mid-70's was not keenly aware of sharing, fragmentation and the like.

And then, when you speak of being "pedantic" you can't really thing that a statement such as you made about early Top 40 stations having huge cumes does not warrant correction. While, in light of later evidence, we know that Top 40 did have large cumes and shorter TSL, in the 50's and 60's ratings did not have cume data nor could we derive TSL.

 

[Buddy Shula]

Post #26 used the term "21st Century Soft AC" and I erred in misquoting it as "21st Century Oldies." However, the points of most posts, including my own, and the original premise remain as this discussion relates to formats known as "The Breeze" or "The Sound." As to exclusivity and sharing, I stand by my post. If owners, managers, sales reps and programmers believe that listeners don't share, don't 'punch around' and don't sample other formats or variations of formats, they're wholly mistaken. This kind of thinking can be a detriment to any station. The days of "set it and forget it" or "set it and rip the knobs off" are long gone, if they ever existed in the first place. And yes, I know that in the early days of AM Top 40, stations like WKBW in Buffalo; and heritage stations in others markets such as WABC and WMCA, WRKO and WMEX, WLS and WCFL, WFIL and WIBG, WBBF and WAXC had massive cumes, TSL and shares. But even then, listeners checked other stations. In Buffalo, "KB" was the "hottest, biggest and bestest" station on the dial for decades, yet you can say "Be big, be a builder!" to most people 65+ and they'll tell you the call letters and/or frequency with which it was associated.

{Pop quiz for David and A: What station would that have been? Call 9 now at 6-4-4 One-two-three-oh.}

Be big, be a builder was WNIA