Yes. You. Now give it up. You've already lost.
-
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
Tom Leykis' online show outdrawing Limbaugh and Hannity in Los Angeles
- Thread starter Ultimajock
- Start date
Yes. You. Now give it up. You've already lost.
Ahhh, the ol' "I know you are, but what am I" response.
Your disposition belies your mentality.
Last edited:
I'm not the one making personal attacks because a complete stranger insults their favorite radio host.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
But, it does point out a problem with all ratings systems. They are not totally reliable. They all have fundamental flaws. A savvy broadcasting pro knows how to exploit those flaws to get higher numbers. Naturally, anyone who achieves a high level of success in working the system, including exploiting the flaws, will defend the system. He knows how to work it, and counts on the knowledge of those flaws to maintain his success record. It's little different from a lawyer or accountant who knows how to beat the loopholes for his clients. No one who works in an environment where he knows the inside methods for exploiting the flaws is going to do or say anything that jeopardizes his position. When your success and livelihood depend on maintaining the exploitable flaws in a system, you'll defend that system with diligent tenacity. The more successful you are at playing the game, the stronger you'll defend the game.
Not exactly. The game is the game. Our clients accept the numbers from what they feel is an unbiased source, so we live with it.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
You've just confirmed what I wrote.
Though once again, you're obsessed with "feelings" instead of "thoughts". That's very revealing about how your mind works.
You obviously are reading what you want to read, not what is actually there. If "feelings" bothers you, you can replace is with this:
Our clients accept the numbers from what they THINK is an unbiased source, so we live with it.
Better?
Or how about this:
Our clients accept the numbers from what they KNOW is an unbiased source, so we live with it.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Think is correct. Know is not. So, you're agreeing that the ratings game is fixed, but as long as the players don't care that it's fixed, or don't want to believe that it's fixed, those who know how to work their way around the fix want to keep it fixed because they know how to work around the fix, while people who don't know the arcane ins and outs of working around the fix are at a disadvantage.
Sure it is. Either David or I can produce piles of data that will PROVE their numbers are factually correct. Both David & I have flown to the Arbitron headquarters to actually LOOK at diaries written by listeners. We have seen the untouched words from actual people. So as scientists (and yes I am a scientist), we can say that we KNOW it is an unbiased source.
Depends on what you mean by "fixed." Because the people at Arbitron/Nielsen have absolutely no reason to fake or make up numbers. They get paid regardless of the results.
Also, who do you think doesn't know the "ins and outs" of the ratings system?
Last edited:
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Look at it this way. If you have a thermometer that isn't accurate, producing piles of temperature readings taken with that inaccurate thermometer do not prove it is correct. It proves that you rely on it being accurate whether it is or not. And as long as no one else questions it, it will never be challenged.
Who said anything about "faking"? They came up with a system that their customers accept. They get paid regardless of whether the numbers are genuinely accurate or not. They have no real competitors, so whatever they sell, their customers either buy or do without.
But as I stated clearly, we all question results all the time.
But we have pointed out to you countless times, there are outside agencies who monitor the metrics and set standards for Nielsen to meet. Even the FTC has examined the metrics. And of course both radio and advertisers are constantly challenging the metrics. But you've convinced yourself that everyone except you are sheep, and they just accept whatever is put on their plate. You're wrong about that, and if you'd do a simple search, you'd find pages of challenges by lots of people to Arbitron/Nielsen metrics.
He's probably beating 99.99% of all podcasts. But he's not beating anyone on the radio.
The radio ratings are as accurate as any poll with comparable sample size might be. We'd like it to be more accurate, but that means larger samples and that, in turn, means greater expense for the stations who pay for nearly all the costs of radio ratings.
And there is nothing to "game". So "gaming the system" is not possible.
There are no mysterious procedures in programming that "trick" the ratings. There are certain facts, such as the optimum times to run commercials for each methodology that are widely known and even discussed at Nielsen webinar, seminars and training courses. But there is no black magic that some of us know and hold as a secret from the uninitiated. This is radio, not Harry Potter.
As to "question(ing) it" most larger broadcast companies have people on staff who do nothing but run the numbers, do the analytics and look for things to question with Nielsen.
One company I know of, with stations in 13 PPM markets, was unhappy enough at the time of the PPM roll-out that not only did they not subscribe to the PPM service, they refused to encode their stations! So if you think that everyone is making nice even when there are blemishes and spots on the product, you are wrong and you have not been following the industry news.
No, Arbitron came up with a system that advertisers liked. Radio preferred Pulse and Hooper, but Arbitron sold its product at the agency level and agencies began buying off Arbitron and not the others. So radio, preferences aside, canceled their other contracts and signed with Arbitron. By the early 70's Hooperatings were gone. By 1978 Pulse was gone, too... I know as I was a subscriber in the last market Pulse delivered when they closed.
As is usual and customary, you are wrong about everything here.
Since the 60's we have seen Trendex, Hooper, The Pulse, Birch, Mediastat, Mediatrends, Audits And Surveys, Burke, SRC, Strategy Sesearch (some markets) MobilTrak and even pre-merger Nielsen and others start to compete. Agencies, with the reassurance of the MRC which they finance, preferred Arbitron as being a superior service that provided a good buying metric.
The reason radio stations want ratings is so that they can base pricing on something tangible. The reason agencies want it is the same. The current system, while occasionally imperfect, serves that purpose. There are not tricks, conspiracies, secrets, cover-ups, Bengazis or Watergates here. Just the give and take of buyer and seller.
Last edited:
A bit different - Pandora has 2 BILLION listening hours per month. Does it exactly translate? No. But it's a bit foolish to assume they aren't a real player.
Tom is just throwing out the biggest number he has, which isn't very impressive in the digital world.
True. But they also have millions of permutations of content. You can't compare Pandora to a singular host or station. You compare Pandora to Clear Channel or Cumulus. In which case that listening hour number isn't so great.
For a podcast they're not bad. Someone estimated a cume of about 15,000. That's not bad if they're paying to listen.
Even if he charged only 99 cents per month, that would still translate into $180K per year. Better than most major market non-drivetime gigs.
You're assuming all revenue is profit and salary for one employee. I imagine there are other costs.
- Status