Whats with the drop in AARs ratings?

[SaltyDog]

> > I know I keep saying this, but some of the AAR talkers
> have no consistent appeal.

> Randi Rhodes beat Sean Hannity in 25-54 listeners in NY and
> is doing quite well in a lot of markets so I guess I'll take
> the ratings over your word for it.

Uh, he expressed an opinion. You aren't taking his word for his opinion?

Fact Check: "Randi Rhodes, host of “The Randi Rhodes Show,” beat WABC’s Sean Hannity in New York with a 3.3 share to Hannity’s 3.0 share in the Men 25-54 demographic (3-7 p.m.)"<i/> Source: www.airamericaradio.com/press[/i]

It was a nice report card for Randi. No need to stretch her accomplishment.

<P ID="signature">______________
SD</P>

 

[k9ez]

So much for a business conversation.....

Good grief folks, you cant keep personal attacks and politcs out of anything here.

Why bother here.......

 

[dampier]

> Uh, he expressed an opinion. You aren't taking his word for
> his opinion?

He's entitled to his opinion. I'm entitled to prove his opinion factually wrong.

 

[dampier]

Re: Welcome to Broke Brain Mountain

> You are out of touch with reality. Everything is political
> conspiracy to you.

And people say they don't manufacture anything in America anymore. You're a busy bee at manufacturing speculation every day.

> This is not unique to progressive talk or people who support
> or listen to progressive talk.

You pull a theory out of thin air with no facts to substantiate it whatsoever in a message thread about AAR ratings. The connection you were trying to make was quite clear.

> People Lie!

Maybe in your world, everyone is out to cook the ratings books, but in mine I assume the ratings being presented are generally accurate and true until PROVEN otherwise. Suggesting things and speculating isn't proof.

> Please show where I said or implied that anybody conspired
> with anyone to do anything.

I take this as a "fold" of your original theory you offered as to why AAR ratings are where they are. Even you are now running away from it.

> And since I have to operate at special ed level and
> underline everything for you: Yes, I am sure the same
> phenomenon happens with Salem and happened with Rush
> starting out (when he was a "cult" host). Feel better now?

No, because this tapdance around your original message still lacks anything resembling FACTS. Show us the evidence.

> I imagine there is some Clintonesque evasion in there. But
> I would be curious to see how you post on his site without
> visiting it.

You are perfectly aware of my history with Brian Maloney (back in the days here when you were using another handle). Last summer we shared many threads together about his nonsense and you are well aware I replied to a few of his nonsensical accusations. You also know (because I posted it here), that his response was not to argue with the facts but to just attack me in one of his "articles."

My assumption here is that you have a memory and can put in context what I am saying. But maybe your memory disappears with every handle change.

It's hardly breaking news, because I cross posted some of that conversation with him on this very board. After that conversation, I haven't been back there since.

> You know, there really is a resemblance:
>
> Brian Maloney
> Phillip Dampier

If you think so, it only emphasizes your need to take off the blinders you've been wearing here all along. When you have to grasp for straws by posting pictures, the game really is up.

 

[nwebster]

Well, well and maybe well

It's Male listeners 25 to 54. And in all fairness, unless you have actually seen the Arbitron book you are taking AAR's word for it, too.

The terms "quite well" and "lot of markets" are imprecise.
AAR has network affiliates in 17 of the top 25 markets (excluding stations which carry only Thom Hartmann or take Jerry Springer from Clear Channel and otherwise have no affiliation with AAR). Of these, three had 12+ AQH shares above two (and one of these has fallen below two in the most recent Trends). Six are below two and above one. Eight are below one. I don't think any station below two can be said to be doing either "well" or "quite well." Portland and Seattle are doing well. San Diego was doing well but is looking shaky right now.

>
> Randi Rhodes beat Sean Hannity in 25-54 listeners in NY and
> is doing quite well in a lot of markets so I guess I'll take
> the ratings over your word for it.
>

 

[nwebster]

Do you want to talk about radio?

Or do you want to trade barbs? When you talk about radio, I enjoy crossing swords with you.

If you insist on a p*ing contest, at least try something new. You say others are "wrong" or "speculating." You demand evidence. I have not seen you provide evidence for your assertions. Mostly I see you self-righteously declare that anyone with a differing opinion or intepretation is "wrong." Sorry, you are not the judge here; just another one of the players. And since I am not concerned with changing your (closed) mind, I don't feel the need to proove anything to you.

 

[dampier]

...With the Guy Who Does Google Searches & Does Photo Spreads?

> Or do you want to trade barbs? When you talk about radio, I
> enjoy crossing swords with you.

Yeah, this from the guy who wasted his time doing Google searches on my name (and bungling it) trying to look for something that has nothing to do with radio, and now you post my picture on here, and that's all about radio?

Yeah, I'm the guy who doesn't want to talk about radio.

> If you insist on a p*ing contest, at least try something
> new. You say others are "wrong" or "speculating." You
> demand evidence. I have not seen you provide evidence for
> your assertions.

Sure you have, or did the Alzheimers kick in on this too when you changed handles. In fact, I routinely post links about direct assertions I make. I even have web space where I post clips. It's like you weren't even here before the mwebster handle was retired for 'skyeye' or whatever you were using before being outed. Talk about a fresh new start!

You dramatically asserted that people fake their diaries and that is one explanation why AAR stations were getting good ratings. I asked for one iota of evidence or -anything- to back up that speculation. Instead, we are getting this song and dance distraction routine that wouldn't keep you on stage three minutes on American Idol.

"Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse... it did." -- Simon Cowell.

> Mostly I see you self-righteously declare
> that anyone with a differing opinion or intepretation is
> "wrong."

We've had this discussion about a dozen times in here. I don't have a problem if you state your opinion and it differs from my own. But if you wrap it in the guise of some factoid, be prepared to be called on it and asked to produce some bit of evidence to back it up. I asked you to offer some evidence of that and you posted a photo album.

> Sorry, you are not the judge here; just another
> one of the players. And since I am not concerned with
> changing your (closed) mind, I don't feel the need to proove
> anything to you.

At least prove it to yourself and go find the evidence.

 

[nwebster]

Back to the drop in KLSD, San Diego ratings

Let's look at this in context. The context was what happened with KLSD in San Diego? Numbers up substantially for two books and then back down in the most recent trends. Now I say any - ANY - big shift in numbers like that without a major programming change in the market is cause for suspicion.

Howard Stern goes to satellite and stations which carry Howard see a huge drop. That's to be expected. No such programming changes have occured on KLSD or competing stations.

Some people are very happy to jump to the conclusion that the sky is falling and Air America Radio is failing. I don't think so. I would think you don't think so either.

People are pretty consistent in their radio listening habits and patterns. When audience numbers are volatile, I look at the measuring instrument (on the advice of Sir William of Occam's Razor).

Arbitron is about to get rid of diary measurment in favor of personal people meters. Other suppliers (working with major broadcasters) are pushing competing technologies and measurment systems. Broadcasters and advertisers have been complaining about Arbitron's sampling methods and their use of diaries for years. People who review diaries (Arbitron diaries and other diary-based market research panels) have said it appears panel members often do not record their own behavior as they go. They wait until the end of the day or the end of the week and then complete diaries based on what they think they remember they did. There is also an indication that people over-estimate some behaviors and under-estimate other behaviors. For example, for something they like or approve of, they may say (or recall) they listened longer than they did or listen on a day they actually missed. Heck, as anybody who has ever answered the phone at a radio station knows, people are not even always sure what station they are listening to at the moment - let alone sure what they listened to a couple of days ago. People are unreliable witnesses - even of themselves; maybe especially of themselves.

Here's the speculation part: If KLSD's numbers drop inexplicably, I say inherent errors in diary measurement are a most likely suspect. If you have an alternative theory, let's hear it.

Remember this thread began as somebody asking "What's with the drop in AAR ratings?" San Diego appears to me to be the only significant change. You explain it.

PS: You are the one who has long gone back to old posts or outside information in an attempt to discredit those with whose posts you disagree rather than trying to deal with what you see as flaws in the post. If you insist on playing detective, then so will I. I repeat, I have not seen you provide evidence for your statements, while demanding others do so. This is a DISCUSSION board. Not a political debate, Crossfire or the O'Reilly Factor.

 

[dampier]

Re: Back to the drop in KLSD, San Diego ratings

> Let's look at this in context. The context was what
> happened with KLSD in San Diego? Numbers up substantially
> for two books and then back down in the most recent trends.
> Now I say any - ANY - big shift in numbers like that without
> a major programming change in the market is cause for
> suspicion.

Did the station spend money on promotion which brought in new listeners? Did other stations in the market drop the ball and let people sample something different? Was there a local show that started well and then lost ground? Did fewer people who didn't listen to KLSD fail to return their diaries? There are many possibilities here that we can't even begin to consider. Many of them are more plausible to me that a concerted effort to boost KLSD ratings by faking it in the diaries. Further, stations jump and recede in the ratings all the time. The overall trend is what's important.

> People are pretty consistent in their radio listening habits
> and patterns. When audience numbers are volatile, I look at
> the measuring instrument (on the advice of Sir William of
> Occam's Razor).

That's true when conditions in a market are static. But if other stations are rearranging chairs on deck or if KLSD managed a better signal during a season, or if they carried something (like the aforementioned WROC carrying ball games), could that have brought in listeners. I just don't think, without any evidence, that the first conclusion to draw is that people are diary fudging.

> PS: You are the one who has long gone back to old posts or
> outside information in an attempt to discredit those with
> whose posts you disagree rather than trying to deal with
> what you see as flaws in the post. If you insist on playing
> detective, then so will I. I repeat, I have not seen you
> provide evidence for your statements, while demanding others
> do so. This is a DISCUSSION board. Not a political debate,
> Crossfire or the O'Reilly Factor.

Actually I rarely go back and search for old posts. This forum software hardly makes that an easy thing to do. I do recall where people stand on issues, and if they get hypocritical, I will point that out. I will go to outside information to back up what I am saying. I think having actual evidence when asserting an opinion is better than just asserting an opinion, when that evidence is available.

If you want to play detective, that's fine, but I don't know what posting a picture of me is going to do to bolster your argument. I am not bothered that you did it, just amused you would invest time and energy into doing so for no real purpose.

 

[nwebster]

Re: Back to the drop in KLSD, San Diego ratings

Just a general observation about diaries being inherently inaccurate. When diary panel results are compared with scanner data, all sorts of errors show up. There was a shift in reported TV viewing when AC Nielsen shifted from diaries to boxes. It will be interested to see what happens when PPM data starts coming in.