WABC SATURDAY NIGHT OLDIES $64000 QUESTION

[Phil Boyce]

Oaktree: Once again you come here to attack me personally, by name, completely unprovoked and completely 100% WRONG. You are as factually challenged as anybody I have ever seen on this board, and that says a lot. Here is what I posted:

Can't do much about the stock price, but the NYC PPM numbers will be out on Monday. WABC will have a huge fall book in the PPM, just my prediction. Let's say something in the mid-4's...#5 or 6 overall...#1 AM in NYC...beating WINS. Best book since 1995.

As you can see I was talking about the PPM numbers, which frankly are more accurate than the diary. In fact we did not even know we were going to HAVE a diary till halfway through the fall book when Arbitron pulled a fast one and switched back to a diary that we did not even know was in the field. You can say that this is just the PPM so it doesn't matter, but the PPM is eventually going to be currency in NYC within about 8 months so it DOES matter. It matters alot. But most importantly, my prediction had nothing to do with the Diary. This was about the PPM, as you can plainly see.

WABC did a 4.5 in the Fall book in the PPM just as I predicted. We ranked #5 in NYC, and we were #1 on the AM dial. It was the best book since 1995. Everything I said came true. Imus had 8 days on the air in the fall book and with the PPM I can pull out those days and see what he did. Imus did a 6.2 in 12+, which was up 20%. He did a 3.5 in 25-54, up 30%, and he did a 5.0 in 35-64, up 40%. Now that may level off after the first 8 days, but I predicted Imus would be a hit, and he is.

Next time you decide to smear me, get your facts straight. But I know why you lie. This is personal between you and me isn't it? You have lost all touch with reality. I know why you hate me. In fact I now know who you are, why you own Citadel stock, and why you know what is in the company handbook.

You and I have a difference in philosophy about how to conduct yourself on a public message board. I post using my real name, and never lie or make stuff up. You post using a fake name, and lie and invent facts all the time. I never come here an attack other radio professionals or radio stations or companies. You think the whole reason this board exists is to attack other radio professionals, stations and companies. We will never get along.

By the way, Oaktree has attacked me here using other fake names as well. You are leaving squirrel tracks.

PB

 

[Dave DuBrow]

I don't like this one bit, however it seems the more successful people like Phil Boyce become, the more of a target they present.

The same can be said for many great talents on radio whether it's news/talk, oldies, etc. Jealousy and envy are very powerful emotions. What's interesting is how every element of a radio station and its lineup is examined and dissected.

As the saying goes, somedays they're with you and somedays they aren't. I think good radio should not only entertain, but educate as well. This applies to any format.

So to the Phil Boyce's and others out there, keep your eyes on the road and your hands on the wheel. I give the audience credit for knowing what works and what doesn't.

Dave DuBrow

 

[davideduardo]

As you can see I was talking about the PPM numbers, which frankly are more accurate than the diary. In fact we did not even know we were going to HAVE a diary till halfway through the fall book when Arbitron pulled a fast one and switched back to a diary that we did not even know was in the field. You can say that this is just the PPM so it doesn't matter, but the PPM is eventually going to be currency in NYC within about 8 months so it DOES matter. It matters alot. But most importantly, my prediction had nothing to do with the Diary. This was about the PPM, as you can plainly see.

I would take any comparisons or analysis of the PPM data with extreme skepticism. First, the data so far is not MRC accredited and nowhere close to being accreditable. Second, the sample is not proportional, so much of what we see is the reflection of weighting three to four times as extreme as seen in any diary cell.

Until the PPM data is proportional, and Arbitron makes each stratification variable proprotional, not just the overall sample, the diarly data will be superior as it complies with MRC certification and is pretty darn close to proportional in every variable.

 

[Phil Boyce]

David, you have a right to your opinion. I think otherwise.

1) The Diary Method is antiquated technology. In fact it is not technology at all. It is paper and pen. Wow, really high tech. It is frought with error of judgement. Most listeners do not fill out a diary till Wednesday night. They are NOT writing down what they listened to but what they thought they listened to, or who they wanted to VOTE for. As we have seen with some ethnic stations, listeners were writing down a lot more listening than was actually occurring. And there was NO WAY for them to accurately remember every station they listened to and how long. The whole idea that busy people driving along a freeway will keep writing this down all week is silly. Not gonna happen.

2) The PPM does not record what people THINK they listened to. It records what they really did listen to. No way to fake it out. No way to distort it. No way to vote for some station more than what you listened to. By this simple fact, it is more accurate.

3) At any given time, there are 5 times MORE ppm's in the field than diaries. This allows the sample size to be larger and more statistically reliable. It is true some small demo cells need some help...they are working on that and will get it right. That is why we have this delay.

4) The Diaries were NEVER good research tools. What good is a diary if you can't go back to a particular day and figure out how many people liked what you did that day. The PPM will allow that. I can go back now and see how many listeners were there for the Imus launch...day one thru day 8. I could never do that in the Diary with any degree of accuracy.

5) Most important to me...the sample does not overturn every week. In the Diary you have a new group of diary keepers every week and if Arbitron does not find your people, you get screwed for that week or even that month or even that book. The wobbles lately in the diary method have been horrendous. In this book in NYC we did not even know they had diaries in the field till mid way through the book. How much effort was placed by Arbitron to get a good sample when they did not think it was going to be used? Not much, I assume. In the PPM the same people carry the devices from week to week so there is much less wobble than the Diaries. The wobbles were driving PD's CRAZY. At least there is some sense of normalcy with the PPM.

You can't fight progress. Eventually the PPM will be currency in NYC and everywhere else. Might as well embrace new technology. Whatever happened to 8- tracks, and cassette recorders?

pb

 

[davideduardo]

You can't fight progress. Eventually the PPM will be currency in NYC and everywhere else. Might as well embrace new technology. Whatever happened to 8- tracks, and cassette recorders?

Whatever happened to proportional samples? No research with a highly defective sample is accurate. The MRC would not accredit the NY PPM because it is not an accurate measurement.

There are nearly 20 times the participants in the diary survey each year than there are in the ppm panel goals. And that is without getting into individual cells.

Here's the kicker to your "Hispanics don't listen as much..." Diary shares, Winter 2007, 19.5. PPM shares, October, 19.7.

Having looked at tens of thousands of diaries since 1970, I do not believe most are filled in on Wednesday, and extensive research has shown they are generally filled in each evening... that's why Arbitron makes 5 post placement calls.

Again, I don't disagree that, eventually, Arbitron will get it right. They are nowhere even close as yet. You are drinking their press release and hyped, optimistic conference calls brand of Kool Aid if you think the pre-release data had any remote connection with the truth; it's can't because the sample is totally non-proportional, there is weighting beyond any statistician's worst nightmare, and the MRC agrees.

 

[oaktree]

Funny, but it looks to me like 1010-WINS remains #1 in NYC according to Arbitron.

Looks, too, like while WABC went up marginally, WOR is still keeping pace in both the metro and the suburbs...where WABC lost 2 full shares in one book.

Further, it looks like th 25-54 demos are abysmal for WABC ... and any demos below that ... meaning that higher TSL and WAY OLDER 55+ demos are the strength. There is some life in 45+ but, again, not enough to matter.

WOR had, at worst, a 1.9 drop in one outlying book. But overall, it kept pace on the upticks in other markets outside the metro, while WABC lost. In fact, figuring it out, WOR netted more of a gain in several demos than WABC.

Finally, Phil, you are incorrect. I originally mentioned in a post (and email) that the PPMs this time meant absolutely nothing and were for "research reasons only." Very very few of us even got the PPMs and they weren't posted. You know that. David Eduardo is absolutely correct.

As for the last comments about this book ... the "in the middle of the fall" book ... what I stated was absolutely correct. WINS is still #1 AM, except in the suburbs, where, in four of five cases, WFAN is. WABC ranks as high as #2, but lost 2-full shares in one two-county book.

A 4.1, 4.2 or 4.3 is "Not" a "mid-4s or 5's" ... no where near it, in ANY book ... PPM or diary.

The demos that you completely ignored out of knowing better than to try, back up what's on your computer ... getting older by the day. Not even top 10 in the buyable demos. Not even top 15, in fact.

Come on Phil. Please don't do this. And today ... thanks to Citadel for a wonderful $1.56 stock close. How much lower will it go? It's near penny stock level with Westwood One.

I'm sorry this irritates you, Mr. Boyce. But an attack this is not. It's a fact.

Finally, there is an annoying 60hz hum from the Rainbow Studios. Very prevelant.

Thank you for your understanding. I'm sorry that you still don't understand how free, but fair, speech and the anonymity of phone callers and board posters works. I'm being honest, Phil, and I'm sorry that doesn't seem fair to you.

I'm truly sorry. Someone with a tied for 6th place ... if you "figure the numbers" (though WCBS-FM has already claimed 6th place) and WABC is, in reality, 11th place ... in a tie.

And that's the real story. I'm sorry you don't like that, and I can't blame you. Neither do I.

And I, too, believe you are entitled to your opinion ... and I, at least, respect that opinion, though I disagree with it, especially when the facts are right in front of you as they are me.

I, too, am entitled to a "right of opinion," and I am respecting that you are entitled to yours. Good night, Phil.

 

[Phil Boyce]

Oaktree: You accidentally proved my point about the dairy method better than I could when you said:

WABC ranks as high as #2, but lost 2-full shares in one two-county book.

Thanks for pointing this out. This is the problem with the diary method. Do you think WABC really lost 2 full shares? Or do you think the Arbitron Diary Method shows more wobbles than an asphalt road in the Texas Panhandle. Of course we did not lose two full shares of listeners, anywhere. In fact WABC was up 3.1 to 3.3 in the Fall book. Arbitron can't fix this with diaries. This is why the are moving to the PPM.

A 4.1, 4.2 or 4.3 is "Not" a "mid-4s or 5's" ... no where near it, in ANY book ... PPM or diary.

WABC did a 4.5 in the PPM. You may not have access to that number, but I do. That is what I predicted we would do, and that is what we did. In fact everything I predicted was right on the money.

Nobody is denying that WINS is #1 am in NYC in the fall book (diary). My prediction was about the PPM. GET it...PPM. Now you can bitch and moan all you want that WINS is beating WABC in NYC but I am not sure why that is so important to you. WINS has traditionally been the #1 AM in NYC for the last 10 years. WABC has beaten WINS a few times, including Spring of 2007. We did not do that in the Fall, but I did not predict we would. My prediction was about the PPM...which will replace the diary method in 8 months. So far in the PPM, 3 PPM books have been released. October, November, and December. WABC has beaten WINS in all 3 of them. Just a fact. Again..PPM. You can add those 3 books together to create a PPM fall book. WABC did a 4.5 there. FACT. I don't make things up.

I'm sorry this irritates you, Mr. Boyce. But an attack this is not. It's a fact.

I made a prediction about where WABC would be in the PPM. You came here and attached me for it, tried to make fun of me for it, using the results of the diary method. That is a fact. These methods are different. Arbitron stands by both of them....strange as that may seem. I am spending more time looking at PPM data because it will eventually be adopted as ratings gospel.

David says:

There are nearly 20 times the participants in the diary survey each year than there are in the ppm panel goals. And that is without getting into individual cells.

I get that...but keep in mind those diary keepers only participate for ONE WEEK. So of course there needs to be more of them. Arbitron tries to replace the sample every week. That is why we have the wobbles. What I said was that on any given day, there are many more people meter carriers than people listening via the diary method. This allows Arbitron much more accuracy in breaking down individual weeks, days, and even hours. As a programmer the PPM is infintely better as a research tool. It can actually tell me how many people are listening to my station by minute. I can then track topics and figure out which ones worked, and which ones drove listeners away.

They will fix the demo cell samples. They have to. There is too much riding on this for them to back out now.

pb

 

[davideduardo]

Here's the kicker to your "Hispanics don't listen as much..." Diary shares, Winter 2007, 19.5. PPM shares, October, 19.7.

Sorry... forgot to say, "Houston, only accredited market so far for PPM."

The NY sample is below quota overall, below quota on many key demos and variables and, so far, is useless. To lay claim to any share based on an incomplete sample is not rational.

Fine, there is more granularity. But the fact is that the sample, overall, is much smaller and gets even smaller by time; that is a function of a panel, a type of research Arbitron had never done before. Until the panel is fully proportional, and not just on 6+ or 12+, the results are meaningless.

 

[davideduardo]

They will fix the demo cell samples. They have to. There is too much riding on this for them to back out now.

They have been trying for nearly 6 years, since the first Philly test started... and still they can not recruit (or keep... see Houston disaster in June / July) panelists or keep them active and carrying (see Houston starting April on carry rates).

They may fix it, they may not. For the moment, any "trial data" is very, very suspect.

 

[Phil Boyce]

David says:

The NY sample is below quota overall, below quota on many key demos and variables and, so far, is useless. To lay claim to any share based on an incomplete sample is not rational.

I program a radio station in NYC. The data is not useless to me. It may be useless to you. Arbitron launched PPM in NYC for the fall book and then had to retreat. They now will go currency in September. Do you really think they will miss that deadline? I don't.

I am not laying claim to anything. What I said was a prediction about how WABC would do in the PPM in the fall. That's IT. We did what I predicted. That's it.

You don't have to consider the PPM a research tool. As a programmer in NYC I do. Anytime you have 3-5,000 people walking around with a device that monitors your radio station 24/7, and you can get the data within weeks instead of months, and you can analyze that data down to the minute...that is a valuable research tool.

I am not reading any Arbtiron press releases or drinking anybody's koolaide. I am telling you how I can use this data to make my station better. A lot of people used to send letters across the country using the Pony Express. Remember? I am sure some people defended that system when the trains came along. But me...I happen to be in the locomotive pulling the whistle. I will wave at you on that horse as we drive by.

I am not saying the PPM is perfect, far from it. But for everything wrong you can list with the PPM I can list 2 or 3 more wrong with the diary. Any programmer who is not paying attention to the PPM and learning how to make his station better because of it...is not doing his job. It will change the way we look at radio numbers. Some stations will perform better in the PPM world, some will perform worse. Fortunately I work at a station that is performing better in the PPM, so I intend to embrace this new technology and learn from it.

pb

 

[davideduardo]

I program a radio station in NYC. The data is not useless to me. It may be useless to you. Arbitron launched PPM in NYC for the fall book and then had to retreat. They now will go currency in September. Do you really think they will miss that deadline? I don't.

And I have responsibility that includes three stations in NY, all three of which are affected by language dominance sample issues and tow of which are predominantly focused in 18-34 or 18-44, where the sample is definitely not proportional.

Will Arbitron make the deadline? Only the MRC will be able to answer that. At present, the sample is better on some issues, but proportionality on all stratification variables is a long way away.

The mere fact that Arbitron did not anticipate so many problems makes me very skeptical of the whole process.

I am not laying claim to anything. What I said was a prediction about how WABC would do in the PPM in the fall. That's IT. We did what I predicted. That's it.

I am not sure I see any skill in predicting something that is not official, and not accurate by any count. Were the test dada or the first currency release they planned to have been accredited, that would be different. For the moment, we have a GIGO survey; reading the entrails of that is useless.

You don't have to consider the PPM a research tool. As a programmer in NYC I do. Anytime you have 3-5,000 people walking around with a device that monitors your radio station 24/7, and you can get the data within weeks instead of months, and you can analyze that data down to the minute...that is a valuable research tool.

The New Hampshire polls were more accurate than I think the PPM data is now. I don't think that using highly granular PPM data is without extreme risk.

I am not reading any Arbtiron press releases or drinking anybody's koolaide. I am telling you how I can use this data to make my station better. A lot of people used to send letters across the country using the Pony Express. Remember? I am sure some people defended that system when the trains came along. But me...I happen to be in the locomotive pulling the whistle. I will wave at you on that horse as we drive by.

I have been involved with PPM, including participating in numberous seminars back to the start of the Philly test. I've been at every PPM fly-in for years. Where were you?

I believe electronic measurement has great potential. I question the pager device for women, and do not buy Arbitron's justification that women use less radio; I think they carry the device less and Arbitron can not, years after this was in discussion, make a more attractive alternative device or incorporate them in other devices. In fact, they know how to segregate at-work and in-car listening, yet are not even doing that while the lowly diary did this well. For the moment... and did I say that the MRC agrees?... I think the PPM has many problems to resolve before it is credible.

 

[oaktree]

"WABC’s total-week 12+ share between November and December was strong but flat (4.5-4.6)." While the cume grew noticeably, from 1,281,000 to 1,419,400. And to get really geeky, here are the 25-54 rankings for December: WLTW, Z100, WKTU, WSKQ, WAXQ and WWFS (tied at #5), WRKS, WCBS-FM, WPLJ and “Power” WWPR. (Tom Taylor - Radio-Info and other sources.) The other breakouts are much less kind to, except in 45+.

You also know that the Oct-Dec PPM were raw data only and not weighted in any way to be used in a scheduler module for advertising sales purposes. An advisory went out from Arbitron emphasizing this. Just like your "calculation" that Imus racked up a 6.2 12+ share in his first 8 days on WABC. As you know, Phil, and as David Eduardo has stressed here many times (and correctly,) plotting a station's success on 12+ "beauty contest" numbers is a fool's folly. They serve as entertainment for radio message boards, but NO ONE with knowledge, such as you, relies on them for any credibility or, certainly, with unweighted statistical confidence and reliability at that. That's basic Radio 101. Yet you quote them ... and I'm surprised that exercise was even quoted in the trades.

Let's not mix apples and oranges, for we really can't. Also, a cursory glance at the "diary" book for the Fall shows WINS still the #1 AM and, in fact, stronger than anyone in AM Drive, showing up in 25-54 in mornings, mid-day and at night. WABC does not. WFAN does in males 25-54, in both PPM (up, in fact,) and in the diary book. These are the cold facts, in all respect to you, Phil. We have enough trouble with interpreting how figures are manipulated by many ad reps on the street and agencies.

Funny how we now, and that includes me, fawns on the side of future PPM development and rip, as we have for decades, about the methodology and diary-keeping habits of listeners. We didn't believe what we saw from what was reported ... but it was accepted and life continued until the next book.

Now, with PPM, we are also questioning that "methodology" with sample size errors and problems, as well as "hear all" difficulties that are both realistic and unrealistic in the dependability of listeners carrying the module, leaving it docked, etc. Yet, many of us, including you, still debate the accuracy of the numbers we've received in market after market.

So, who's right, Phil? The diary method? (According to you, no ...) or the PPM "pre-currency" data? (According to you, again, no.)

Seems when any number is in our favor ... we live on to see another day. When they're not ... some still live on, while, unfortunately, too many haven't since the standard bar had long ago been set, like it or not.

So, who to believe?

I'd put that Fall PPM in the middle drawer and put a paperweight on it. As for the current diary numbers, these are the one's the industry goes on except in Philadelphia and Houston. Live with it ... for another nine months.

And since you brought up what you think is a "personal" affront, including hate of you, etc. Phil, I don't hate you at all. I don't dislike you at all. I have casually said "hello" to you and shook hands with you twice and moved on. These are strong charges to make. Is it personal? Not to you at all, but to my stock portfolio ... well, yes it is. And I'm sure you understand that. But it's not against you, personally. But it is about you, for conduct unbecoming of an executive to be held in such high standing in an industry in deep trouble. People at a low 3's share need to concentrate more on more of a 6.2 share, not wear their "personal" feelings on their sleeve ...

I said early on, Phil, you're a "nice guy." You mean well. And I'm betting on your success by putting my hard-earned radio company's money where my mouth is on your company (and others,) in a horrid industry market. That's as personal as it gets and so far, I don't like this "reality" so, yes, I am out of touch. Now, my stock stands at $1.56 a share and you're arguing semantics and making assumptions that "I'm out of touch." Wow.

 

[oaktree]

PS -

Phil,

We are, as you know, in the Presidential Primary & Caucus season.

Would it be possible for WABC to not run a 17 hour old Laura Ingraham program when the polling numbers, like last Tuesday, have already been tabulated? It makes for bad radio, especially considering the competition that had "live" coverage and, at worst, the total results.

That could not have been a fluke. It wasn't even an afterthought. I'll be listening for Tuesday's Michigan "results" in the Republican Primary. South Carolina is next Saturday, as is Nevada ... right in the middle of SNO, so, I'm sure Mark will update us ... or, wait, is that going to lead into infomercial programming? I'm sure, none the less, that you'll have this all resolved prior to the February 5th "Super Tuesday." (Your state is involved ...) so, please, no more 17 hour old Laura during important news times?

Not an attack, in any way. Just sense. Common, at that.

 

[radio mike]

Getting the news flash at 11pm on who won the caucus, is not what WABC does or needs to worry about.

The next morning, midday and afternoon is when the people who follow that, turn to WABC for in depth commentary, analysis, interviews with the candidates and talking heads about what happened.

If someone is looking for live primary results at 10 or 11pm, obviously they would be watching TV. There might be a handful of people who are in a car, but 11pm is not exactly drive time.

 

[oaktree]

Tell the people who do the 11 p.m. TV news that ... especially when the results were known two full hours before.

And the point is, one that you completely missed, would you have run a 17-hour old Laura Ingraham show that spoke repeatedly of "people going to the polls, long lines at the polls, etc etc ... and still talking about who people should vote for?" Read the post, please.

A 17-hour old program would be akin to not saying anything about some event that had happened during the day ... and acting like it never happened. It was major news. It did affect a New York community leader ... one from both political parties. Results closer than what anyone thought ... because the pundits on this station were wrong as were all the polls. That's not important news? Just run a 17-hour delayed show?

I'd like to hire you as a program director.

 

[Phil Boyce]

DE says:

I am not sure I see any skill in predicting something that is not official, and not accurate by any count. Were the test dada or the first currency release they planned to have been accredited, that would be different. For the moment, we have a GIGO survey; reading the entrails of that is useless.

It was not a great skill. It was relatively easy...and that is my point. I knew how we would do, based on how we did in October and November. GONE are the wild and unpredictable wobbles. We actually have stability now. That is a good thing. That is the BEST thing about PPM data. It really is predictable and it really does make sense.

As for calling it useless, you go right ahead. Programmers who understand how the PPM works and learn to make sense of it and take advantage of it will win. If you choose to sit there hoping it never gets accredited, that is your call. It is fascinating to me that one little mention of PPM data in the middle of a thread that has nothing to do with it can generate this kind of reaction. I dropped in my prediction about how WABC would do in the fall PPM as an afterthought. It was just a little prediction...like the Chargers are going to beat the Colts. It was not meant to re-write radio history. It did give me a chance to explain my thoughts on the PPM and the future of radio ratings, so for that I guess I am happy. But my God.....give this a rest.

As for Oaktree's criticism about Laura, I actually agree with him. We should have put a live show on that night. Radio Mike makes a good point, that in the overall scheme of things WABC makes hay in the daytime, but I am never one to defend not being relevant when we have the chance to do so. Next time, we will do better.

See, I am not always out to get you Oaktree. But it does seem like you are out to get me. Never has one radio station received MORE scrutiny from one disgruntled fake poster on a message board, than what WABC now gets from you. You are now analyzing MY PPM data down to the tiniest degree, hoping to find areas to discredit me, as if I really care what you think. Do you really have any responsibility over any radio stations like you claim? If you do, list their calls right here, so I can scrutinize all that they do down to the last little thing. I mean if the point of this board is to attack ME because I post here using my real name and that annoys you, just level the playing field, and let me scrutinize YOUR stations. Take the challenge???

Didn't think so.

 

[davideduardo]

It was not a great skill. It was relatively easy...and that is my point. I knew how we would do, based on how we did in October and November. GONE are the wild and unpredictable wobbles. We actually have stability now. That is a good thing. That is the BEST thing about PPM data. It really is predictable and it really does make sense.

Oh, really? The only accredited market PPM wobbles as badly if not worse than the diary measurement of the same market, and I have been following Houston for 33 months now. By "wobbles" I mean that there are changes that have no relationship to the programming activities in the market... in other words, inexplicable aberrations showing the margin of error in PPM is considerably greater in reality than we thought a panel might deliver. Maybe that is because the panel is chiurning much faster than Arbitron predicted, failing to carry more days than predicted, and can't be recruited fast enough to replace the noncompliers and the dropped panelists. Just maybe.

[/quote]As for calling it useless, you go right ahead. [/quote]

Until the sample is proportional, it is more than useless... it is dangerous. It does not represent the universe.

[/quote]Programmers who understand how the PPM works and learn to make sense of it and take advantage of it will win.[/quote]

Yes, once the PPM is workiing right. It is not working right at present, particularly and specifically in New York, where the sample and the proportionality are horrible. Did I mention the MRC would not accredit it for this and other reasons so grave that Arbitron willingly, although certainly not wishfully, lost a quarter of its market value when the realized they could not release the NY currency month data.

Not only that, they knew they had a major problem and that is why they continued to do diary sampling even as the PPM started.

[/quote]If you choose to sit there hoping it never gets accredited, that is your call.[/quote]

As long as the PPM data in NY is useless, it will not be accredited. Once it is, we will have a decent sample, both proportional and of the right size. Until then, as I said, the data is dangerous. At the rate Arbitron is going, it is anyone's guess how long it will be before the Ny survey is accredited.

Programming is programming. In any book, a good station is still good. But that requires at least a proportional sample. I have programmed using over a dozen different ratings services and methodologies, ranging from Pulse, Hooper, Datos, S.A., INRA/Starch/Hooper, BRI, Clapp & Mayne, SRC, Birch, IBOPE, etc., and the good programmers get good ratings. The little tricks of each methodology enhance the "goodness" or "badness" of any station, but good, compelling, entertianing radio wins in any system.

I have also watched programmers play too much of a ratings game, with time warping to get extra minutes and other absurdities and the time spent in these head games generally was wasted and a distraction from making the station as good as it could be.

It is fascinating to me that one little mention of PPM data in the middle of a thread that has nothing to do with it can generate this kind of reaction.

I am fascinated with how much can be trumped up from data that is patently defective, even per Arbitron.

I dropped in my prediction about how WABC would do in the fall PPM as an afterthought. It was just a little prediction...like the Chargers are going to beat the Colts.

It is not that simple. With a bad sample, it is like saying the Chargers are going to beat the Clippers.

As for Oaktree's criticism about Laura, I actually agree with him. We should have put a live show on that night. Radio Mike makes a good point, that in the overall scheme of things WABC makes hay in the daytime, but I am never one to defend not being relevant when we have the chance to do so. Next time, we will do better.

If any consolation, you are not alone. On Tuesday evening, in the car from Houston's airport to my hotel, the driver and I were having fits of laughter hearing Clear's KTRH running a show that had been recorded before the polls closed. Of course, everything was wrong...

Do you really have any responsibility over any radio stations like you claim?

He owns a station in CA. While he and I have disagreed to a major extent in the past, I give him great credit for doing local radio on AM and being part of his own station's morning show, as well.

 

[Phil Boyce]

DE says:

He owns a station in CA. While he and I have disagreed to a major extent in the past, I give him great credit for doing local radio on AM and being part of his own station's morning show, as well.

Good for him. But he is pathologically obsessed with me, choosing to chase me all over this freakin' message board trying to discredit me, my station, and my company. If he wants to identify his station, I would be happy to rip it apart for him here, like he does every day to my station. He is now my personal stalker. I guess I should feel honored, instead of annoyed.

Until the sample is proportional, it is more than useless... it is dangerous.

I agree that the sample should be proportional, but dangerous? Right now it is just data on a spread sheet. No animals were harmed in the making of these ratings.

The little tricks of each methodology enhance the "goodness" or "badness" of any station, but good, compelling, entertianing radio wins in any system.

I have also watched programmers play too much of a ratings game, with time warping to get extra minutes and other absurdities and the time spent in these head games generally was wasted and a distraction from making the station as good as it could be.

I agree 100%. I have tried NO tricks to enhance PPM data. In fact I did not change a thing. What I am talking about here is not playing a head game to manipulate the numbers. I would not waste my time doing that. However, I can now tell if an interview with Senator Fred Thompson makes my ratings go up or down. I can tell what happens when a sub host is on instead of the regular host, and which sub host scores better. I can tell when a host gets self-absorbed and starts talking about things that really do not matter to the listeners and watch the listeners literally turn off the radio minute by minute. If you don't think that kind of data can make you a better PD or a better radio station, then sit back and ignore it. I choose to use it to make my station better, and I believe that smart PD's who do that will eventually win.

There is nothing dangerous about it.

As long as the PPM data in NY is useless, it will not be accredited.

Ready or not, here it comes. I intend to be ready for it. Arbitron has invested too much in the PPM to let it fail now. Even as we speak, a panel is monitoring data in LA and Chicago. Eventually that data will be used by PD's to make their stations better. PD's who embrace this new technology rather than fight it will be miles ahead when the system finally becomes currency. You really do not have a disagreement with me, you have a disagreement with Arbitron about the proportionality of the sample sizes and I agree with you 100%. I just believe they will get it right, or as close to right as possible and that the PPM is an inevitability so you might as well deal with it. But that's just me. You may be different.

pb

 

[oaktree]

Dear Phil -

Scrutinizing my stations, several, in fact, that are ABC News & Talk affiliates, is not a level playing field against a heritage 50kw flamethrowing blowtorch likes yours. This isn't about scrutiny out of malice, Phil. Honestly.

We'll leave it at this - first, I don't do "delay programming" to protect a "franchise show." I see that here with Dan Patrick in LA and I see it here on your own LA station two hours a day with Imus. But ... that's your call, Phil, and a damn tough one.

I have enough to worry about than to "rip" you, Phil. Only your defensiveness and lack of professional courtesy that goes back aways have annoyed me. Maybe I look at you as a role model, because it's not easy running these things, as you know. And when I call my broker and he tells me that things are falling apart ... you bet I'm concerned.

And with five e-rating books in front of me, I can understand how this rating thing is a mess. But I do thank David immensely because from him on this very board, I learned to listen before I spoke and ended up learning a hell of a lot ... and will. Maybe we both need to do more of that. Have a good night and a good week, Mr. Boyce.

This time, I do appreciate your kindness and understanding. I had hoped we'd both get there.

 

[davideduardo]

I agree that the sample should be proportional, but dangerous? Right now it is just data on a spread sheet. No animals were harmed in the making of these ratings.

Using inacurate data to form programming decisions is dangerous.

[/quote]I agree 100%. I have tried NO tricks to enhance PPM data. In fact I did not change a thing. What I am talking about here is not playing a head game to manipulate the numbers. I would not waste my time doing that. However, I can now tell if an interview with Senator Fred Thompson makes my ratings go up or down. I can tell what happens when a sub host is on instead of the regular host, and which sub host scores better. I can tell when a host gets self-absorbed and starts talking about things that really do not matter to the listeners and watch the listeners literally turn off the radio minute by minute. If you don't think that kind of data can make you a better PD or a better radio station, then sit back and ignore it. I choose to use it to make my station better, and I believe that smart PD's who do that will eventually win.[/quote]

Only a station with a huge audience will have enough meters behind the numbers at any one time to be reliable. I can't understand music stations that would not accept less than 20-25 persons in a cell in music test readily making decisions based on a daypart and demo where they may have had 7 or 8 meters hearing them. In fact, there are folks marketing ways of using the PPM to show which songs should and shouldn't be played, which to me goes way beyond stupidity as it fails to take into account things beyond the music like natural flow of audience, commute patterns, etc., etc.

There is nothing dangerous about it.

I'd sooner lick your station's base insulator than make a programming decision of any kind on today's PPM data. The data does not proportionally represent the universe.

[/quote]Ready or not, here it comes.[/quote]

I'd bet money that if Arbitron does not fix the PPM in NY and get accreditation, they will postpone it more.

I intend to be ready for it. Arbitron has invested too much in the PPM to let it fail now. Even as we speak, a panel is monitoring data in LA and Chicago.

Yes, an Arbitron panel. However, the listener PPM panel is not complete, and we will see if they have the same problem as NY. Since I work with three of the top 10 in LA in sales demos, I'm watching these markets, too. In fact, I will be involved with 6 of the top 10 PPM markets, but would enjoy having a correct sample before betting the farm on PPM data.

[/quote]
I just believe they will get it right, or as close to right as possible and that the PPM is an inevitability so you might as well deal with it. But that's just me. You may be different.

[/quote]

I think Arbitron had no clue as to how difficult the panel thing would be. They have gone from a company I was known and criticised for supporting to one I have grave doubts about. What is most disconcerting is that they truly believe their own BS... the example being the idea that women listen less when experience, logic and my own research show they don't... they just don't find carrying the meter as easy as a male does. Unfortunately, they have all too many PDs and GMs believing their excuses. I side with Bob Neil.