• 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

Rick Bird ratings story from The Post

> I had heard that WYGY had a good book in younger demos, but
> 3rd 18-34? That's pretty impressive. Huge book for WSAI
> too. Stern gets a big send-off and WCKY is flat.
>
http://news.cincypost> .com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060120/LIFE/601200335/1005
>

Yup. It all really happened. In one 90-day period, a hard-to-hear AM all-sports station's audience more than quadrupled. A second-tier country station's audience more than tripled. The dominant rock station lost a third of its audience.

This article and everyone quoted in it begin with the assumption that the ratings are accurate and scientifically reflect actual audience behavior. As if enormous numbers of people radically change their listening habits simultaneously.

Not to deny the hot streak of the Bengals, or of Stern's big finish, or country's resurgence. All these stations could predictably have moved in the directions they did, but these numbers are just plain ridiculous. Even without knowing the sloppy methodology used to arrive at the ratings, common sense just says that radio listeners don't behave this way.

Stay tuned for the next book, when everyone offers their rationale for "where the audience went."
 
> Yup. It all really happened. In one 90-day period, a
> hard-to-hear AM all-sports station's audience more than
> quadrupled. A second-tier country station's audience more
> than tripled. The dominant rock station lost a third of its
> audience.
>
> This article and everyone quoted in it begin with the
> assumption that the ratings are accurate and scientifically
> reflect actual audience behavior. As if enormous numbers of
> people radically change their listening habits
> simultaneously.
>
> Not to deny the hot streak of the Bengals, or of Stern's big
> finish, or country's resurgence. All these stations could
> predictably have moved in the directions they did, but these
> numbers are just plain ridiculous. Even without knowing the
> sloppy methodology used to arrive at the ratings, common
> sense just says that radio listeners don't behave this way.


I don't disagree with you, but the trouble is perception is reality until someone comes up with a better way to sell radio. Whether or not the numbers are an accurate depiction of how people use radio is irrelevant. Agencies and businesses buy based on Arbitron.
 
> > Yup. It all really happened. In one 90-day period, a
> > hard-to-hear AM all-sports station's audience more than
> > quadrupled. A second-tier country station's audience more
>
> > than tripled. The dominant rock station lost a third of
> its
> > audience.
> >
> > This article and everyone quoted in it begin with the
> > assumption that the ratings are accurate and
> scientifically
> > reflect actual audience behavior. As if enormous numbers
> of
> > people radically change their listening habits
> > simultaneously.
> >
> > Not to deny the hot streak of the Bengals, or of Stern's
> big
> > finish, or country's resurgence. All these stations could
>
> > predictably have moved in the directions they did, but
> these
> > numbers are just plain ridiculous. Even without knowing
> the
> > sloppy methodology used to arrive at the ratings, common
> > sense just says that radio listeners don't behave this
> way.

>
> I don't disagree with you, but the trouble is perception is
> reality until someone comes up with a better way to sell
> radio. Whether or not the numbers are an accurate depiction
> of how people use radio is irrelevant. Agencies and
> businesses buy based on [ratings].
>


I don't disagree with you either. Media buyers will use the numbers to their best advantage.

What I'm addressing is something different: how people on these boards discuss the newest Book without an inkling of doubt about its reliability, no matter how absurd the numbers are.

Huge numbers of radio listeners just do not suddenly radically change their listening habits, and then just as suddenly "change" back 90 days later, as past books have shown and as the next one will undoubtedly show again. Yet public discussion always tries to make sense of the yo-yo ratings rather than look to the real issue: semi-scientific, sloppy methodology from a monopolistic system that has no incentive to improve.
 
Qcityguy...where would we be without your guidance?

Any discussion of the ratings has an understood skepticism. Nobody said these were gospel. But they are somewhat of an indicator, don't you think?

As for WEBN, they've been having these 5 share books off and on and they probably lost a lot to Stern this time. WSAI probably DID get a huge bounce from the Bengals. I think the Arbitrons prove they are somewhat reliable because in the Fall and Winter WSAI gets huge increases, then fall back down in the Spring and Summer. The flip side for WLW and the Reds. You can't deny (and I know you didn't) that this year was unlike any other Bengals year in recent memory.

As for the country ratings, I don't know. WUBE seemed to come on pretty strong after Bill Whyte came back. WYGY always did seem younger. But I can't account fir such a huge increase.
 
> Qcityguy...where would we be without your guidance?
>
> Any discussion of the ratings has an understood skepticism.
> Nobody said these were gospel. But they are somewhat of an
> indicator, don't you think?
>
> As for WEBN, they've been having these 5 share books off and
> on and they probably lost a lot to Stern this time. WSAI
> probably DID get a huge bounce from the Bengals. I think
> the Arbitrons prove they are somewhat reliable because in
> the Fall and Winter WSAI gets huge increases, then fall back
> down in the Spring and Summer. The flip side for WLW and
> the Reds. You can't deny (and I know you didn't) that this
> year was unlike any other Bengals year in recent memory.
>
> As for the country ratings, I don't know. WUBE seemed to
> come on pretty strong after Bill Whyte came back. WYGY
> always did seem younger. But I can't account fir such a
> huge increase.
>
The system is broken.....Always has been, and may always be. However, it is the system by which radio revenues thrive, survive, or dive. Some figures are correct within reason, and some are ARBITRARY.....funny they named the company
ARBITRON.

Here's a question for all on which to pontificate...

If you were say a 1200 station cluster with an @ $20M/year agreement with the ratings system, would you continue a relationship if the book did not provide a means to generate twice that revenue? On the flipside, would Arbitron or any other business be able to keep such a contract without providing accepatable (if not stellar) results to the client? Would not, at the end of the day, it be prudent for the system to give the client what they want....A sales tool? A sales tool that is only good if the client is winning? Theoretically, the whole thing is (at least in part) a hoax.
 
> > Qcityguy...where would we be without your guidance?
> >
> > Any discussion of the ratings has an understood
> skepticism.
> > Nobody said these were gospel. But they are somewhat of
> an
> > indicator, don't you think?
> >
> > As for WEBN, they've been having these 5 share books off
> and
> > on and they probably lost a lot to Stern this time. WSAI
> > probably DID get a huge bounce from the Bengals. I think
> > the Arbitrons prove they are somewhat reliable because in
> > the Fall and Winter WSAI gets huge increases, then fall
> back
> > down in the Spring and Summer. The flip side for WLW and
> > the Reds. You can't deny (and I know you didn't) that
> this
> > year was unlike any other Bengals year in recent memory.
>
> >
> > As for the country ratings, I don't know. WUBE seemed to
> > come on pretty strong after Bill Whyte came back. WYGY
> > always did seem younger. But I can't account fir such a
> > huge increase.
> >
> The system is broken.....Always has been, and may always be.
> However, it is the system by which radio revenues thrive,
> survive, or dive. Some figures are correct within reason,
> and some are ARBITRARY.....funny they named the company
> ARBITRON.
>
> Here's a question for all on which to pontificate...
>
> If you were say a 1200 station cluster with an @ $20M/year
> agreement with the ratings system, would you continue a
> relationship if the book did not provide a means to generate
> twice that revenue? On the flipside, would Arbitron or any
> other business be able to keep such a contract without
> providing accepatable (if not stellar) results to the
> client? Would not, at the end of the day, it be prudent for
> the system to give the client what they want....A sales
> tool? A sales tool that is only good if the client is
> winning? Theoretically, the whole thing is (at least in
> part) a hoax.
>


I did callout research for several years. More often than not the numbers our research department came up with were similar (and sometimes an exact match) to Arbitron. This was impressive considering the survey methods were so different from each other. Like the old Birch ratings, our telephone surveys seemed to boost the numbers of young end formats like CHR. But so many times when our surveys saw a station trending up or down, Arbitron showed the same trend. So count me in as someone who basically trusts Arbitron, it's not perfect, but no survey is.
 
> >
>
>
> I did callout research for several years. More often than
> not the numbers our research department came up with were
> similar (and sometimes an exact match) to Arbitron. This was
> impressive considering the survey methods were so different
> from each other. Like the old Birch ratings, our telephone
> surveys seemed to boost the numbers of young end formats
> like CHR. But so many times when our surveys saw a station
> trending up or down, Arbitron showed the same trend. So
> count me in as someone who basically trusts Arbitron, it's
> not perfect, but no survey is.
>
I absolutely LOVED BIRCH! I was doing afternoon drive at a CHR and Birch numbers were nearly double ARB numbers. Took me from a close second to a monster first place in the market. Who wouldn't love a system that made you look that good!
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom