Do buying agencies ever use San Jose ratings books or hardly ever. The only station that I know would benefit the San Jose book are KBAY, KEZR, KRTY, KLIV, KCNL, KUFX, and KSJO. Also, if a SF station does better in San Jose book instead of San Francisco book will they take it to account or not?
-
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
San Jose Ratings
- Thread starter e-dawg
- Start date
e-dawg said:
The San Jose book, of course, is an "extract" from the SF book. There are a couple of stations that look well there, but are burried due to limited coverage in the SF total market. But again, the SF book can be used, via the Arbitron software, to configure custom geographies... so in a sense it is not really needed. But as long as someone pays for the actual book, Arbitron will issue it.
For most all agency buys, the full book is used. On occasion, something like a grand opening (how many of those happen today?) will use the SJ numbers if the location is in Santa Clara County.
Because the San Jose market (or sub-market) is much more Hispanic than the total market, except for KSOL (which is a simulcast on the infamous "double 99's") the SF stations don't do better there.
This book was allegedly first carved out at the request of several powerful families that used to control the San Jose stations...long before the big corporate owners hoovered up so many stations. They wanted it and paid. With the new PPM software, it is easier than ever to create custom reports, so this extracted book isn't really needed. The one thing about it is that when the diaries were king, just over a third had to be in Santa Clara County, which really skews the SF book, in my opinion.
SFStatic said:
How does it skew the SF book? The market is the 9-county Bay Area, is it not? As such, the ratings have to reflect not only the core of the Bay Area but the edges as well. KNGY is not going to do as well as KIOI or KOIT because they simply can't cover the market as well. Are you saying that the current PPM sampling does not have a similar population distribution to include about 1/3 Santa Clara County?
SFStatic said:
The market report is hardly carved out. It is simply the data from Santa Clara County, balanced for proportionality only in that geography.
Arbtitron does not play requests... if there is enough support, they will do a separate report for any embedded sub-market. If they no longer can make money from it, they drop it.
It was just as easy to create a Conunty report in Maximiser, and it took about 10 times less to process.
The subscribers seem to think that keeping the market identity is important.
No matter how many diaries are placed in the county, it would not matter... the county is weighted proportionally when inserted into the MSA.
<No matter how many diaries are placed in the county, it would not matter... the county is weighted proportionally when inserted into the MSA.>
What does that mean, David? If a station has a lot of signal elsewhere, but doesn't have a city grade signal in San Jose, the station is screwed out of listening that might be recorded if the meters are placed elsewhere. Note that KFOG had to roll their format on KFFG to make up for this, and they are just one example of how this lack of coverage in an area that has a third of the diaries/meters affects their ratings.
What does that mean, David? If a station has a lot of signal elsewhere, but doesn't have a city grade signal in San Jose, the station is screwed out of listening that might be recorded if the meters are placed elsewhere. Note that KFOG had to roll their format on KFFG to make up for this, and they are just one example of how this lack of coverage in an area that has a third of the diaries/meters affects their ratings.
SFStatic said:
Not correct. In the diary survey, SF got 7,000 in-tab diaries each 12 week book, while LA got 7,000 in-tabs for about twice the population.
Normal sample size was used in all the other 30 sampling units (2 more in Santa Clara County). But, since they wanted MRC accreditation in the San Jose market alone, and there were clients to pay for it, they upped the sample... about 24% would be proptional, but they needed about 28% to get the necessary minimums on the discreet cells.
So, the diaries for SJ are in effect weigted down so the county represents about 24% of MSA population, but they also have enough diaries to have an accreditable survey in San Jose alone.
Santa Clara County is 1,464,000 12+ and the total market is 5,965,000. The Santa Clara data is "inserted" into the MSA calculations in proportion to the population ratio. This is very common for other reasons... small samp,ing units, like Contra Coasta East can find themselves weighted up or down to achieve proportionaltiy, since the size is small, and a handful of diaries can upset proportionality.
East Contra Costa historically had half the number of diaries that ARB themselves required. My former GM complained about this to them, and he had worked for ARB for 7 years. They just replied "pay for more yourself, or buy an ACE report," and did admit they had half the number. Weighting doesn't make up for this kind of skew.
SFStatic said:
SF, in the diary, had more sampling units than any other market in the US. Obviously, some, particularly those with low populations, would wobble widely.
However, joining Contra Costa East Balance and Contra Costa East HDHA for the last few diary books yielded a PPDV of 1,100. In Contra Costa West (all areas) the PPDV was, well, 1,100. The entire SF market, without Santa Clara County and its 4 sample units, had a PPDV of between 1,120 and 1,160. So Contra Costa East was minimally oversampled in the last year of diary surveys.
I once heard that the SF metro area is the only one in the US where the namesake city (SF) is not the biggest city in the metro area; San Jose is. Is that true?
AM FM listener said:
It's true, but the reason is historical. San Francisco was a much bigger city in terms of population for over 100 years - until maybe 2 decades ago. I can't recall the exact year San Jose passed SF...I'm guessing it was the late 1980s. I remember that Herb Caen in the Chronicle expressed mock horror when the 'big event' happened.
The population of San Jose in 1980 was only 625,311 (below SF), but grew to 782,000 by 1990. San Francisco was 723,959 in 1990. Current populations: 845,559 in San Francisco; 1,006,892 in San Jose. Both cities are the biggest they've ever been. But San Francisco is obviously constrained by its geography (49 square miles) – it can only grow more dense, while San Jose can continue to spread out into open land for a number of years.
Pardon the Civics lesson.
AM FM listener said:
The real issue is that radio measurement for five or six decades at least has been based on counties, not cities. As city complexes expanded beyond a single county, radio survey areas have become, in their majority, multi-county areas.
No Metro Survey Area is based on cities. They are based on counties.
AM FM listener said:
City populations are meaningless. Metro's are more important. the San Francisco-Oakland MSA is way bigger than the San Jose MSA. The Sacramento MSA is bigger than the San Jose MSA. San Jose is about 85 percent suburban. If you look at city populations....Jacksonville is bigger than Miami, Tampa and Atlanta.
The San Francisco book is based on the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland CSA (excluding Santa Cruz county). Most of the signals that serve the largest geographic and population base of the Bay Area are based in San Francisco. Most of the San Jose stations (except for Univision) target just the embedded San Jose market.
It's interesting to note that the stations in San Francisco market want to include far reaching Santa Rosa and relatively close San Jose whereas, stations in the Los Angeles market vote to EXLCUDE the Inland Empire (even the Ontario area). I guess it doesn't matter since LA would still be number two in ranking if the Inland Empire and Ventura County were included.
I do believe that the LA stations base their rates on the the DMA otherwise their cost per point would be too high compared to New York.
Michael Rivers Kramer said:
The Arbitron markets are only loosely based on the OMB defined metros. There is an unfortunate duplication of terms, "MSA," but Arbitron's version is the Metro Survey Area, while the OMB calls it a Metropolitan Statistical Area.
The definition is often established by the 55/15 rule, which says...
"The guidelines used to determine if a county may be included in a Metro (aka the 55/15 rule):
The county is contiguous to a county within the Metro.
At least 55 percent of the quarter-hours of un-weighted listening reported in the county are credited to Metro stations, based on the previous calendar year’s Spring and Fall surveys. 15 percent of the commuting from the county must be into the existing Metro, according to the most recent decennial Census. "
That's why markets with big AMs tend to be much larger than the coverage of the local FMs.
Below are the guidelines used to determine if a county may be included in a Metro (aka the 55/15 rule):
The SF market was configured by the above rule, while the LA and IE markets were very separate, dating back to AM radio days. Neither the IE broadcasters wanted to join LA (the would have been obliterated) nor did the LA ones want to be gifted with the IE, which would result in lowering share levels.
The strange thing is that there is a big chunk of land around Ontario, Fontana and such that is in neither market... over a half-million people neither market really wants.
Most LA FMs and a couple of AMs cover the IE well, but the same is not true for Ventura County. Adding Ventura would change the shares and even the rank of a number of LA stations.
DMA is a TV term. There is no LA radio DMA. In fact, with the PPM, there is no TSA either. Rates are based, like all radio rates, on demand. LA stations get higher CPPs than NY.
DavidKaye said:
I had not thought of Monterey; that's a good one. Riverside-San Bernardino and Lancaster-Palmdale may be two more, now that I think about it.
Oh, and this thing about counties defining metro areas bugs me. For example, is all of San Bernardino county part of the Riverside-San Bernardino market? Even the bare deserts on the way to Vegas or Havasu? If so, how does the Victor Valley market work? Is it a subset of Riverside-SB metro? Lancaster-Palmdale sure doesn't seem like part of "LA Metro" any more than does Riverside-San Bernardino?
BTW, I realize city pops don't matter; I just find it interesting, that's all.
AM FM listener said:
The market definitions are county based. In some cases, they are based on portions of counties, but not on cities.
Riverside and San Berdoo counties are so huge that they are carved into several natural markets. The Riverside San Bernardino market is the bowl or basin that confines the population areas; the Victor Valley (which actually goes all the way to Barstow) is another somewhat natural market. And Riverside County also contains the separate, and geographically very tiny Palm Springs / Coachella Valley market.
Each of those markets has a dozen or more cities and towns in them...
Yet Lancaster is part of the LA market. It's so small, it does not influence the LA ratings, and can't pay for Arbitron ratings on its own. The 55/15 probably shows that the area uses LA stations, and there are lots of commuters towards LA, the city.
And the explanation of the Riverside San Bernardino counties is that those are each larger than quite a few states, so Arbitron did what the authorities should do... split them.
Oh, OK. That makes more sense. Thanks, David.
- Status