The Spring Book

[Kabrich]

Arbitron never sold us a weekly or even monthly diary service. They sold us a 12 week sample that, at the end of 12 weeks, was supposed to be fairly well balanced in each demo, fter the whole sample is obtained. And the way they get at least close to the problem cells, such as 18-34 males and Hispanics, is by doing lots more calls, using DST, and in general using a quota sample rather than a random probability sample on the problem cells... that is oversampling as there is no longer a random sample when they do that.

Actually, with the diary (via Maximiser) you could go in and look at any week (or specific weeks) that you wanted to. Might be helpful if you had a particular promotional period you wanted to check on. Problem was that when you checked into certain demos, the sample might have been too small to produce a result. Meaning that 30 people had to included in that sample. . . often times (especially with younger male demos) there were not 30.

It was 30 for the entire 12 week period, even if you only look at one 15 minute period. Thus, the only demo I have seen that will not run in Atlanta are things like Hispanic/Male 18-24 or Hispanic/Female/25-34. Have you seen others? With PPM I'll bet you will see issues with a lot of demos.

 

[davideduardo]

Interesting - they changed the Cume calculation and just like the HDHA change that just happened, did not bother to tell anyone. Why am I not surprised?

Subscribers got their first notification of the HDHA change in September, 2007... 11 months ago... and it does not go into effect until next year. I'd say that 18 months is a pretty good advance notice.

As to cume, going back to the Houston test from June of '05, I see the same definition of cume as currently used... there must be a credited quarter hour by the 5 total minute rule for cume to be created.

 

[Fran]

The sample is not balanced and weighted by the week or month, and the whole survey is based on the full 12 weeks.

My car will do 160. I have never driven it that fast, because it is not a sensible thing to do... just like trying to form conclusions on a single week with only 8% of the sample.

On the other hand . . . .because the survey is made up of 12 weekly random samples, on a monthly basis we are observing 3 separate outcomes. Going month to month lets one achieve a Linear extrapolation of the data (usually with the assistance of a mechanical diary).

With the diary method, there are two keys to achieving better ratings, the first one is obvious, the second one is motivating listeners to report longer listening times. Take two stations and five listeners . . . both stations have a 50% share. One station’s 50% is derived from one 9AM-6PM listener and the other station’s 50% is derived from the other four listeners. There are various reasons why this happens. . . and they are not always by chance.

You can lead a listener to indicate listening times that are extrmely favorable . . . .of course once the week is over, that listener is gone. . . . in the new world that same listener may be in the mix for months.

 

[davideduardo]

On the other hand . . . .because the survey is made up of 12 weekly random samples,

Due to the attempt to achieve proportionality among groups with differing cooperation rates, we can't possibl have a random probability sample. We have a quota sample instead. And the quotas are tuned dynamically as the first weeks of the 12 come back, making up via future placement for overages or shortfalls in the first weeks in certain cells.

on a monthly basis we are observing 3 separate outcomes. Going month to month lets one achieve a Linear extrapolation of the data (usually with the assistance of a mechanical diary).

I didn't know the mechanical was still available, and have not used one for probably 12 or 13 years. The issue is that the months are not proportional, not equal in sample, and should only be used for the broadest of trending issues. Using X Trends is likely the best as we can see the months next to the rolling averages and it's usually apparent what is wobble and what is a developing trend that way.

With the diary method, there are two keys to achieving better ratings, the first one is obvious, the second one is motivating listeners to report longer listening times.

I have generally found that extending incidents is impossible. Creating more incidents is somewhat easier to do, but I should probably not even use the word "ease" here.

Take two stations and five listeners . . . both stations have a 50% share. One station’s 50% is derived from one 9AM-6PM listener and the other station’s 50% is derived from the other four listeners. There are various reasons why this happens. . . and they are not always by chance.

in the new world that same listener may be in the mix for months.

The panel problems in Houston last year, between April and June, were exacerbated by the large number of panelists (households and dwelling units) who had reached the 24 month max for being on the panel. Tow years...

 

[Kabrich]

Interesting - they changed the Cume calculation and just like the HDHA change that just happened, did not bother to tell anyone. Why am I not surprised?

Subscribers got their first notification of the HDHA change in September, 2007... 11 months ago... and it does not go into effect until next year. I'd say that 18 months is a pretty good advance notice.


As to cume, going back to the Houston test from June of '05, I see the same definition of cume as currently used... there must be a credited quarter hour by the 5 total minute rule for cume to be created.

Actually, it went into effect this Spring according to what we saw in several markets and Arbitron confirmed in emails this week - and there are some significant changes in some markets because of it.

BTW, while subscribers might have gotten notification of it in September 2007, everyone I contacted this week (including members of the Radio Advisory Council) were not aware of it - so to say it is widely known about (you didn't) or that it was pointed out to in subscriber correspondence, well, lets just say it isn't. Even someone very high up and on the Hispanic Priority list was totally caught off guard by it this week.

Which is why I can only laugh when Arbitron speaks of their new openess.....you knew about it, but were lead to believe it starts next year - and others including members of the RAC and key Hispanic Programmers knew NOTHING about it until it came up this week. One wonders exactly how this change was communicated to subscribers (and the Industry in General).

As for the Cume in PPM, as I go back seeing every piece of PPM data since Delaware in 2001, to the very first 2002 Philadelphia results etc, I am somewhat befuddled on when that one changed along the way as well.

 

[davideduardo]

Actually, it went into effect this Spring according to what we saw in several markets and Arbitron confirmed in emails this week - and there are some significant changes in some markets because of it.

The rule I quoted was in the PPM DOM that dates back to when I downloaded it, 5 or 6 months ago. Now the issue would be whether Arbitron actually made a change or whether they were simply catching up on something they did all along.

BTW, while subscribers might have gotten notification of it in September 2007, everyone I contacted this week (including members of the Radio Advisory Council) were not aware of it - so to say it is widely known about (you didn't) or that it was pointed out to in subscriber correspondence, well, lets just say it isn't. Even someone very high up and on the Hispanic Priority list was totally caught off guard by it this week.

There were notifications of the changes in HDHA percentages as far back as early September of 2007, when Arbitron did a series of conference calls with subscribers conducted by Dr. Ed. The issue has been discussed in the SBA proceedings, which include the PPM involved operators, too. I would say that this item has been, if anything, over discussed while those pesky little subjects like cell level proportionality have not been covered... wonder why?

Which is why I can only laugh when Arbitron speaks of their new openess.....you knew about it, but were lead to believe it starts next year - and others including members of the RAC and key Hispanic Programmers knew NOTHING about it until it came up this week.

What I am talking about that starts next year, per the timetable released on 7/15, is the change between 25% and 40% criteria to establish an HDHA. That is what was notified last year....

The issue of requiring a qualified quarter hour of listening to be part of a station cume was in the DOM at least going back to around the first of the year. I haven't saved the various items from the Philadelphia test (except for a souvenir data CD which even on eBay is probably worthless) but I would think the description of methodology embedded in each eBook would resolve the issue for at least the 13 months of Houston data.

One wonders exactly how this change was communicated to subscribers (and the Industry in General).

Which one... cume or HDHA?

As for the Cume in PPM, as I go back seeing every piece of PPM data since Delaware in 2001, to the very first 2002 Philadelphia results etc, I am somewhat befuddled on when that one changed along the way as well.

Everything I have saved on the cume issue, which is Houston currency and the pre-currency tests, shows that qualified quarter hour listening is required for cume.

 

[Kabrich]

Actually, it went into effect this Spring according to what we saw in several markets and Arbitron confirmed in emails this week - and there are some significant changes in some markets because of it.

BTW, while subscribers might have gotten notification of it in September 2007, everyone I contacted this week (including members of the Radio Advisory Council) were not aware of it - so to say it is widely known about (you didn't) or that it was pointed out to in subscriber correspondence, well, lets just say it isn't. Even someone very high up and on the Hispanic Priority list was totally caught off guard by it this week.

There were notifications of the changes in HDHA percentages as far back as early September of 2007, when Arbitron did a series of conference calls with subscribers conducted by Dr. Ed. The issue has been discussed in the SBA proceedings, which include the PPM involved operators, too. I would say that this item has been, if anything, over discussed while those pesky little subjects like cell level proportionality have not been covered... wonder why?

Which is why I can only laugh when Arbitron speaks of their new openess.....you knew about it, but were lead to believe it starts next year - and others including members of the RAC and key Hispanic Programmers knew NOTHING about it until it came up this week.

What I am talking about that starts next year, per the timetable released on 7/15, is the change between 25% and 40% criteria to establish an HDHA. That is what was notified last year....

David

I am not going to get into a long debate with you about the HDHA issue which you state "starts next year according the 7/15 update", especially when there is so much written evidence that it started this past Spring..

http://www.arbitron.com/Radio_Stations/survey_sp08.htm

High Density Hispanic Area (HDHA) Criteria
Effective with the Spring 2008 survey, a county is eligible for a High Density Hispanic Area (HDHA) when the county meets both of the following criteria:

The county must contain at least one ZIP Code whose population is at least 40 percent Hispanic; and
The proposed ethnically-split portions of the county (HDHA and Balance) must have sufficient population, as a proportion of the total Metro, to appropriately be allocated an in-tab target of at least 21 diaries. An HDHA will be retained as long as the target for each portion of the county is at least 18 diaries.

Now, you state that there has been all kinds of communication on this. You state there has been more communication than there should be.

Yet YOU DID NOT EVEN KNOW IT HAD STARTED and most of the Spring books are out!

You make your living doing Diary Reviews and are supposedly an expert in the world of Hispanic Radio Diary Reviews, HOW COULD YOU HAVE MISSED THIS?

There are only 2 possible explanation

1) You screwed up big time

or

2) Arbitron, as I stated, has NOT publicized this change and its catching everyone by surprise INCLUDING YOU.

I am just not going to go on debating that something has NOT happened when it already has.

And just looking at the Atlanta HDHA numbers (OR ANY MARKET WITH A HDHA CONFIRM IT)

Since this is the Atlanta thread.

De Kalb Balance Fall 2007 Intab 131
De Kalb Balance Winter 2008 Intab 121
De Kalb Balance Spring 2008 Intab 186

De Kalb HDHA Fall 2007 Intab 104
De Kalb HDHA Winter 2008 Intab 121
De Kalb HDHA Spring 2008 Intab 79

HDHA numbers drop off substantially and are replaced by Balance Diaries.

We see the same thing in virtually every market starting with the Spring 2008 book.

I realize you have to suck up to Arbitron as you go in to visit and review diaries. As I have been banned from Arbitron so many times, thankfully I do not have to suck up - and it drives them nuts as I find out more without going near the place than they tell others who are not banned.. But please don't go defending them on something like this where everyone from YOU to the Radio Advisory Council was unaware of this going into effect in the last book.

 

[davideduardo]

I am not going to get into a long debate with you about the HDHA issue which you state "starts next year according the 7/15 update", especially when there is so much written evidence that it started this past Spring..

I think the reason you believe I am wrong and you are right is that there are two different issues. Effective in Spring 2008 for a county to have an HDHA the old 25% criteria was changed to the new 40% criteria.

As to existing HDHA's, they will be converted starting in Fall of this yeasr, based on the same criteria, and by Winter of 2009 all will be converted.

Now, you state that there has been all kinds of communication on this. You state there has been more communication than there should be.

Yet YOU DID NOT EVEN KNOW IT HAD STARTED and most of the Spring books are out!

The policy is in effect for new HDHAs, but there are no new HDHA's under consideration in any county that I know of.

You make your living doing Diary Reviews and are supposedly an expert in the world of Hispanic Radio Diary Reviews, HOW COULD YOU HAVE MISSED THIS?

There was nothing to miss. I can see why Arbitron has banned you. You change an interesting discourse into a battle, filled with insult and invective.

[/quote]2) Arbitron, as I stated, has NOT publicized this change and its catching everyone by surprise INCLUDING YOU.[/quote]

Actually, there is #3, that the change affects nothing until the existing HDHAs are reevaluated. The Spring '08 change is for possible new counties with no HDHA.

I realize you have to suck up to Arbitron as you go in to visit and review diaries.

I have not been to see diaries for several years. It's a PPM world, or didn't you get that memo, either.

As I have been banned from Arbitron so many times, thankfully I do not have to suck up - and it drives them nuts as I find out more without going near the place than they tell others who are not banned.. But please don't go defending them on something like this where everyone from YOU to the Radio Advisory Council was unaware of this going into effect in the last book.

Unless the release, which you quote in part, is ill-written and the HDHA change is in effect now for existing HDHA counties, then there is nothing to be aware of.

P.S. The chnages in HDHA vs balance diary returns has to do with a totally different issue than HDHA definition changes.

 

[Kabrich]

I am not going to get into a long debate with you about the HDHA issue which you state "starts next year according the 7/15 update", especially when there is so much written evidence that it started this past Spring..

I think the reason you believe I am wrong and you are right is that there are two different issues. Effective in Spring 2008 for a county to have an HDHA the old 25% criteria was changed to the new 40% criteria.

As to existing HDHA's, they will be converted starting in Fall of this yeasr, based on the same criteria, and by Winter of 2009 all will be converted.

David, you are wrong....they were converted in the Spring 2008, which again shows that Arbitron did not convey this information properly.

Look at San Antonio for example:


Bexar Balance Winter 2008 135,639 Intab 256
Bexar Balance Spring 2008 365,891 Intab 565

Bexar HDHA Winter 2008 1,135,134 Intab 1949
Bexar HDHA Spring 2008 905,359 Intab 1392

If we believe your explanation, Arbitron suddenly dropped 550 HDHA diaries for NO REASON and added 300 diaries to the Balance FOR NO REASON.

Just admit you were wrong and move on - because otherwise people will ask how a the Research Director as Company that does diary reviews for a living could have missed this!

There was nothing to miss. I can see why Arbitron has banned you. You change an interesting discourse into a battle, filled with insult and invective.

My badge of honor. I will not suck up to Arbitron as a VP for the Research Director is doing now.

I realize you have to suck up to Arbitron as you go in to visit and review diaries.

I have not been to see diaries for several years. It's a PPM world, or didn't you get that memo, either.
[/quote]

The the Research Director must be out of business then. Would you mind having your company quit sending me mailers for Diary Reviews as apparently the people doing them are unaware of Arbitron changes and "don't do Diary Reviews" any longer.

 

[davideduardo]

If we believe your explanation, Arbitron suddenly dropped 550 HDHA diaries for NO REASON and added 300 diaries to the Balance FOR NO REASON.

Just admit you were wrong and move on - because otherwise people will ask how a the Research Director as Company that does diary reviews for a living could have missed this!

Are you referring to the company that Rhody Bosley used to run? I don't even know their phone number.

Again, the issue in HDHA's, the farther you get from the Pacific Coast, is related to what Arbitron calls "the political issue" and not any change in the HDHAs themselves.

 

[RTibbs]

Ummm, perhaps you two should just e-mail each other, no else seems to be interested.

 

[davideduardo]

Ummm, perhaps you two should just e-mail each other, no else seems to be interested.

That, in part, is Randy's point... that nobody pays attention to very important Arbitron methodology issues.

You are nominated as club president.

 

[davideduardo]

De Kalb HDHA Fall 2007 Intab 104
De Kalb HDHA Winter 2008 Intab 121
De Kalb HDHA Spring 2008 Intab 79

HDHA numbers drop off substantially and are replaced by Balance Diaries.

Let's look at this over a slightly different number of books....

Sp '08: 79
Wi '08: 121
Fa '07: 104
Su '07: 65
Sp '07: 90

That is not a trend to me... it's a variation or wobble.

 

[Merlin Berlin]

I tried to read this thread all the way through. My head exploded on page 4.