PPM IS A FRAUD AND SHOULD BE ABOLISHED

[Organizer]

http://news.****************/cgi-bin/rol.exe/headline_id=b12129

Someday, maybe someone will develop a system for being able to tell who's really listening to the radio. If there is such a thing as karma, this will take a heavy toll on Arbitron.
The longer PPM is foisted on stations and markets, the worse radio will sound. Here's to any manager anywhere who stands up to them and just says "no."

 

[bilco]

The resignation of the Arbitron chairman does not indicate PPM is a fraud. Him, Maybe, but the system still has merit. As opposed to diaries where people wrote what they wanted to no matter what they actually listened to, the PPM system measures actual exposure to the radio. If you are hearing it, PPM hears it, if not, then PPM does not record it. While I may prefer soft jazz and clasical, if in fact I am listening ot Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura, then that's what gets reported. The sponsors don't care who you say you like, they want to know who you are actually listening to. The sample sizes, demographics and all are getting better and wil be more refined with time, but they already beat the heck out of any system before this. If you have a better way to measure actual listening habits, let's hear it.

 

[Lazy J]

READ THE ARTICLE... The only thing it says is that the CEO lied about participating in a training meeting. "Skarzynski testified before Congress in November, 2009, that he had personally participated in an in home training visit. Unfortunately, that was not the case"

So, as ORGANIZER pointed out, this obviously means the technology is a scam. ;D

If Minority Stations play Minority Programming, they can expect the Minority of the Ratings. Not PPM's fault.

 

[Organizer]

Just as with Arbitron itself, you both fail to acknowledge the difference between "listening" and "hearing." It is major and distinct, and stations' revenues and the lives of their employees should not be based on a blurring of that line so obviously based on convenience and not accuracy. So apparently you're just fine with the fact that they've replaced one random, arbitrary, inaccurate system with an updated electronic one. Maybe it's no coincidence that "Arbitron" sounds so much like "arbitrary."

My posting of the article link is unrelated to the post itself, I was just noting the company's current embarrassment in a long series of them. Oh, and if you missed it, PPM was rejected by the Media Rating Council in 18 American cities yesterday. Let's hope it's a trend that continues.

 

[landtuna]

It seems that the major consideration of PPM, as with the old diary method, is selecting the proper sample. You wouldn't want an office listener to wear the PPM as that would likely skew TSL. You'd want a representative sample of the total measured population.

Other than it is almost impossible to tell if a listener is actively listening and even if so will patronize the advertiser, if proper representation can be determined what is wrong with PPM?

 

[Lazy J]

I think you fail to realize that radio is advertising. And like all advertising, it is impossible to determine if someones brain is actively processing your advertisement.
Website sell ads based on website hits.
Billboards sell ads based on daily traffic.
Newspapers sell ads based on the number of subscribers.
None of the other forms of advertising have any way to prove that their ads are actively being viewed. They base advertising on POTENTIAL buyers.

Radio sells ads based on Potential Listeners. If the PPM "hears" and ad, then you are POTENTIALLY "listening" to that ad.

Just like TV, Billboards, Websites and Newspapers, they all sell ads base on potential buyers. So PPM is VERY relevant. Even if your co-worker listens to some crappy station at the office for 8 hours a day, you will POTENTIALLY hear an advertisers ad.

 

[davideduardo]

Just as with Arbitron itself, you both fail to acknowledge the difference between "listening" and "hearing." It is major and distinct, and stations' revenues and the lives of their employees should not be based on a blurring of that line so obviously based on convenience and not accuracy.

Advertisers insisted on a measurement that captured all forms of listening, including "hearing" as what advertisers want is to know how many people hear their ad, not who picked a particular station to listen to.

Ratings are produced almost totally to provide advertisers with a metric for pricing of advertising time.

[/quote] So apparently you're just fine with the fact that they've replaced one random, arbitrary, inaccurate system with an updated electronic one. Maybe it's no coincidence that "Arbitron" sounds so much like "arbitrary."

What is "arbitrary" about measuring everything a listener was exposed to?

Oh, and if you missed it, PPM was rejected by the Media Rating Council in 18 American cities yesterday. Let's hope it's a trend that continues.

What will happen is that Arbitron will improve its sampling techniques, proportionality in all age, gender, demographic, geographic, and language cells and eventually get all markets accredited.

Question: in what Top 15 market has Arbitron's survey NEVER been accredited by the MRC? Do stations not sell advertising using ratings there?

 

[davideduardo]

Other than it is almost impossible to tell if a listener is actively listening and even if so will patronize the advertiser, if proper representation can be determined what is wrong with PPM?

First, hearing an ad is what advertisers care about. It's called "exposure" and is relevant to marketing.

Second, there have been several press releases about Arbitron having created a panel or committee of industry "experts" from radio and advertising to work on a metric that measures engagement. Such a metric is not impossible.

 

[landtuna]

I think you fail to realize that radio is advertising. And like all advertising, it is impossible to determine if someones brain is actively processing your advertisement.
Website sell ads based on website hits.
Billboards sell ads based on daily traffic.
Newspapers sell ads based on the number of subscribers.
None of the other forms of advertising have any way to prove that their ads are actively being viewed. They base advertising on POTENTIAL buyers.

Radio sells ads based on Potential Listeners. If the PPM "hears" and ad, then you are POTENTIALLY "listening" to that ad.

A few days ago someone on the board was telling a tale of when he was in sales. He explained to his advertiser how his station could drum up more business for that client to sell the ad. He then returned after the campaign to assess the results and found the client very satisfied with the results.

Rather than try to sell the next potential client on POTENTIAL listeners I'd use the results (in abstract of course) of the first sale to sell the second and so on. (Something like "If we can do this for client A we can do something good for you too.") Given that the salesman now knows what the increased business was worth to the first client he can more accurately assess what the ad cost should be for succeeding clients.

This is obviously a very simplified example but it seems much more accurate than trying to figure out how many people are listening, whether they actively hear your commercial and whether they may be potential customers. Basing an ad campaign upon sheer numbers of heads doesn't seem like a very efficient method of marketing. The direct mail people figured this out many years ago.

ust like TV, Billboards, Websites and Newspapers, they all sell ads base on potential buyers. So PPM is VERY relevant. Even if your co-worker listens to some crappy station at the office for 8 hours a day, you will POTENTIALLY hear an advertisers ad.

My point was that TSL would be skewed unrealistically by a radio playing in the background (as it is in many offices and stores) when there are no active listeners. If I were buying ad time based on TSL as one of the factors I wouldn't be happy about the over-inflated number in this column. Rather I would want to know if my ad was reaching my particular client base and not the total number of listeners.

PPM seems like it can deliver a fairly accurate composite of the audience given that PPM-wearers are carefully representative of the population at large (as, you would assume, the diary people would also have been) and the radio(s) they listen to are essentially theirs and not a background source.

It seems to me the wrong question is still being asked.

 

[bilco]

I have not missed the difference between active and passive listeners. In the 46 years I have been in this business we have always accepted that there are three types of listeners, Concentrated (active), pasive and subliminal. IT MAKES LITTLE DIFFERENCE, since they are all exposed to the ad. 2 of my six stations are in Spanish, which I don't understand very well, but I can pick out the phrase "Dollar Loan Center" or "Half Price Lawyers, 400-0000" and I might remember that. Likewise if I am an active concentrated listener, I might be totally sick of some repetitive spots like the older 24/7 private vault ads on the talk stations. They've caught on. Any savvy ad buyer knows the difference, realizes that everyone who hears the spot is not going to buy and just depends on the sheer volume (count not loudness) of the message recipients produces results.