• 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

Question Regarding Market Boundry

M

Michael Rivers Kramer

Perhaps David E could give some insight into this...

I find it interesting that the San Francisco arbitron market includes the embedded San Jose and Santa Rosa yet, Los Angeles does not include the Inland Emprie. Many LA stations show in the top 10 in Riverside-San Bernardino market, but stations like KNX ignore the area (ie...The most traffic reports for LA and Orange County). It sounds limiting considering the audience size the station has in the inland empire.

Just a question from a Northern California transplant.
 
Michael Rivers Kramer said:
Perhaps David E could give some insight into this...

I find it interesting that the San Francisco arbitron market includes the embedded San Jose and Santa Rosa yet, Los Angeles does not include the Inland Emprie. Many LA stations show in the top 10 in Riverside-San Bernardino market, but stations like KNX ignore the area (ie...The most traffic reports for LA and Orange County). It sounds limiting considering the audience size the station has in the inland empire.

Just a question from a Northern California transplant.
Click to expand...

This is a complicated question.

Geography is added to a market only if a percentage (I believe it is 75%) of subscribers approve AND if a certain percentage of listening in the expansion are is to stations home to the market that would add the territory. This is why each year, some markets are changed... the lsitening does not meet the minimum requirements.

There was an attept to include the IE in the LA MSA (It is part of the TSA and DMA) but not enough subscribers approved.

Through the mid-90's, Orange county was an embedded market, iwth its own market report. That stopped when the local subscribers ceased to want to pay for it. Embeded markets go away when there are no subscribers.

I have never been involved in a market expansion, although I have been involved in dividing a market into more sampling units such as dividing LA into 5 separate zones for better geographical balance. So I am somewhat uncertain about the adding and removing issues, but I think at arbitron.com under Radio Stations there is a paper about market definitions you might like to read.

I hope this helps.
 
So, are you saying, the research methodology is controlled Arbitron at the beck and call of the radio stations, which may be trying to manipulate the data so as to make themselves appear to be more relvant than they really are?

Sincerely,

Curious in Zuma Beach
 
zumahans said:
So, are you saying, the research methodology is controlled Arbitron at the beck and call of the radio stations, which may be trying to manipulate the data so as to make themselves appear to be more relvant than they really are?
Click to expand...

Why would you say that?

Arbitron has three market definitions. The MSA, or Metro Survey Area, is based on the OMB definiton of a metro (MSA) or consolodated metro (CMSA). The TSA is a variable market which is created out of non-MSA counties or portions of large counties where stations home to an MSA are also heard in a significant and defined percentage of total listening. A county can belong to multiple TSAs. And a county can come and go as a TSA county, depending on listening. The DMA matches the Nielsen deefinition of a TV market, and is used by many marketers.

An MSA can only change with consent of subscribers. An example was the 1980 or 1981 decision fo consolidate Miami and Ft. Lauderdale. The OMB had already designated Miami and Broward counties as an MSA. But, to change an existing radio MSA, at the time, 75% of the subscribers had to approve. The idea behind this is to eliminate the chance that a few large stations will create a market that the other stations can not compete in due to signal issues, etc.

When the idea of adding the Inland Empire to the LA MSA came up, stations in both markets voted, Since few IE staitons get more than a small amount of LA market coverage, they all voted no. And since there are many staitons, ranging from KJLH to KHJ that did not cover the IE, either, there were not enough subscriber votes to achieve the creation of that market.

Changing a market definition has only happened a few times. It has always been when there was either a change in the OMB definition of the MSA (Miami-Ft. Lauderdale) or the designation of a CMSA (LA, Orange, Ventura and parts of Riverside and San Bernardino counties as the LA CMSA).

The changes must be approved by the MRC, but there is no change in methodology... just the definition of a market. Radio stations have no control of the methodology. Even Arbitron does not; methodology is changed only with the full consent of the MRC.

This happens from time to time as markets expand and grow "into" each other. Dallas and Ft. Worth were separate radio markets for many years. Today, the Metroplex is a single market that only the biggest signals can cover... because the OMB and Census changed the definitins and thelocal staitons approved the consolidation of the two markets.
 
zumahans said:
MRC?
Click to expand...

Media Rating Council.

Unless he's talking about something else, but in this context it seems this is what was being referred to.
 
Rico Garcia said:
zumahans said:
MRC?
Click to expand...

Media Rating Council.

Unless he's talking about something else, but in this context it seems this is what was being referred to.
Click to expand...

Correct.

I was just taunting Hans.

He claims he was in radio, and the MRC, formerly the EMRC, has been around for about 42 or 43 years, yet he does not know about it.
 
---->He claims he was in radio, and the MRC, formerly the EMRC, has been around for about 42 or 43 years, yet he does not know about it.


Yeah, imagine that. Never heard of it. Stuff like that didn't ever filter into the newsrooms.

But Davey, your confession about taunting me is most interesting. Are you posting here just to taunt me?

Are we to assume many of your other 8,600 posts or so are mere taunts?

Would you please enlighten us which ones are taunts, and which are to be taken seriously?
 
Ron said:
Just a quick question for David since we are both from NE Ohio. Is or has Akron ever been part of the Cleveland market?
Click to expand...

I do not think it was ever part of the Cleveland MSA, but it is part of the Cleveland DMA (TV per Nielsen) and TSA.
 
Ah the Media Research Council

Oh, so let's see just who this magic MRC is, those guardians of mathematical and statistical purity:



2006 MEMBERSHIP
A&E Television
ABC Disney
ABC Owned TV Stations
ABC Radio Networks
American Urban Radio Networks
Anheuser-Busch
Belo Corporation
Bonneville International Corp.
Cable Advertising Bureau (CAB)

etc etc etc

entire list visible at http://www.mediaratingcouncil.org/MembeCompanies.htm

Oh, yeah, I trust those foxes to guard the henhouse.

What a joke. The same companies that make money by using fake ratings methodologies are the companies in charge of making sure the ratings are sancrosanct.

It's not like those blue chip, public servants have any interest in maintaining the status quo, is there?

Do you think we are that stupid, Davee? Obviously, yes.
 
Re: Ah the Media Research Council

zumahans said:
Oh, so let's see just who this magic MRC is, those guardians of mathematical and statistical purity:



2006 MEMBERSHIP
A&E Television
ABC Disney
ABC Owned TV Stations
ABC Radio Networks
American Urban Radio Networks
Anheuser-Busch
Belo Corporation
Bonneville International Corp.
Cable Advertising Bureau (CAB)

etc etc etc

entire list visible at http://www.mediaratingcouncil.org/MembeCompanies.htm

Oh, yeah, I trust those foxes to guard the henhouse.

What a joke. The same companies that make money by using fake ratings methodologies are the companies in charge of making sure the ratings are sancrosanct.

It's not like those blue chip, public servants have any interest in maintaining the status quo, is there?

Do you think we are that stupid, Davee? Obviously, yes.
Click to expand...

Most organizations around as long as MRC exist for so long because they are respected for their work. If the radio industry and its supporters (advertisers - primarily agencies) respect the MRC, then that would be why they exist. The MRC can't operate effectively if adverisers and media companies aren't involved in their objectives.

Just my opinion...
 
Re: Ah the Media Research Council

Rico Garcia said:
Most organizations around as long as MRC exist for so long because they are respected for their work. If the radio industry and its supporters (advertisers - primarily agencies) respect the MRC, then that would be why they exist. The MRC can't operate effectively if adverisers and media companies aren't involved in their objectives.

Just my opinion...
Click to expand...

A valid point, to be sure. But a cynic might look at the whole self-perpetuating machine as an exercise in self-justification and self-righteousness.

I mean, if we can't trust America's largest broadcasting companies to be honest about how good they are at delivering audience, who can we trust?
 
Re: Ah the Media Research Council

zumahans said:
A valid point, to be sure. But a cynic might look at the whole self-perpetuating machine as an exercise in self-justification and self-righteousness.
Click to expand...

Well having the media companies AND the advertisers involved is a system of checks and balances. Why would the advertisers agree to something that is self-serving to the media companies, and vise versa?

I mean, if we can't trust America's largest broadcasting companies to be honest about how good they are at delivering audience, who can we trust?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
 
Re: Ah the Media Research Council

zumahans said:
Rico Garcia said:
Most organizations around as long as MRC exist for so long because they are respected for their work. If the radio industry and its supporters (advertisers - primarily agencies) respect the MRC, then that would be why they exist. The MRC can't operate effectively if adverisers and media companies aren't involved in their objectives.

Just my opinion...
Click to expand...

A valid point, to be sure. But a cynic might look at the whole self-perpetuating machine as an exercise in self-justification and self-righteousness.

I mean, if we can't trust America's largest broadcasting companies to be honest about how good they are at delivering audience, who can we trust?
Click to expand...

The MRC is made up of a group of the most resepcted statisticians, polling and research experts in America. Most of the members are from the advertiser and agency side, and the EMRC, its predecessor was set up following government hearings about ratings in the 60's. Since, in the case of ratings, the affected parties are advertisers, the main thrust of the MRC is to insure that methodology be approved before implementation and that the methodology be followed flawlessly.
 
Re: Ah the Media Research Council

----> Well having the media companies AND the advertisers involved is a system of checks and balances. Why would the advertisers agree to something that is self-serving to the media companies, and vise versa?

Good point. But look who is missing from the triangle: listeners, new technology (except our friends at Microsoft), etc.

Advertisers like Anheuser Busch have huge vested interests in preserving the status quo of big business media. Without a robust commercial delivery system, how can they sell trainloads of beer?

>I mean, if we can't trust America's largest broadcasting companies to be honest about how good they are at delivering audience, who can we trust?

----->I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

We have here an industry that measures itself, and comes up with the brilliant, shining conclusion that Americans love their radio and consume just as much of it as they did in 1955.

The radio industry - as represented by El Pluperfecto's posts, in this little corner of the world - proudly boasts that the sale of 14 million satellite radios by Christmas, streaming internet audio, Cable TV audio, Sirius on DISH, XM on DirectTV, Music Choice on digital cable, 40 million IPods, MP3 ripping on computers, and a total abandonement of radio by college students and below ....

.... all of this has absolutely no impact on radio listening.

I don't buy it. Anyhone with a brain wouldn't buy it.
 
Re: Ah the Media Research Council

zumahans said:
Good point. But look who is missing from the triangle: listeners
Click to expand...

Listeners being a part of an organization that determines and audits how media is rated wouldn't make sense.

That's like having car drivers involved in choosing what machine the city puts on the side of the road to do traffic counts.

Just my opinion...
 
Re: Ah the Media Research Council

--->Listeners being a part of an organization that determines and audits how media is rated wouldn't make sense. That's like having car drivers involved in choosing what machine the city puts on the side of the road to do traffic counts. Just my opinion...

This isn't counting cars, it's a billion-dollar industry that relies on highly-proprietary, secret data to manage airwaves that belong to you and me.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom