WRLL Hits New Low in Winter Trend

[regionear]

> > > A trend has the same sample size as a book; it is a 12
> > week
> > > rolling average. Every third trend becomes a book.
> >
> > The one difference, of course, is weighting the sample.
> > First and second phases of a book are dependent on what
> Arb
> > gets back in terms of diaries; the third phase is subject
> to
> > manipulation in terms of balancing the sample (efforts to
> > get more return from particular demographics).
>
> A trend tends to be pretty faithful to the data when you
> compare extraps with Phase I and Phase II data. There are
> small variances, but you have the same sample size, and
> Arbitron knows by experience very closely how many diaries
> to place for each demo, so weighting is very tiny in any
> cell (look at sample report).
>
you always have to one up don't you

 

[davideduardo]

Re: It's not "only" a trend.

> >
> > A trend tends to be pretty faithful to the data when you
> > compare extraps with Phase I and Phase II data. There are
> > small variances, but you have the same sample size, and
> > Arbitron knows by experience very closely how many diaries
>
> > to place for each demo, so weighting is very tiny in any
> > cell (look at sample report).
> >
> you always have to one up don't you

When someone dismisses a trend because it is "less than a book" and then pulls the weighting issue, I have to laugh. Afyter that, I have to respond to the nonsense. Arbitron, in most markets and situations, has diary plecement so perfected that the weighting on a book is less than aa couple of percent per cell... which means that the change in a discreet demo would be less than a couple of hundreths of a share point.

Trends have all the sample of a book. In fact, any trend, with a little extra processing and no more sample, could be a book by running the computer a few more minutes on the same in tab data.

Postings that say, "it's only a rend" are generally getting the readr ready for some equally absurd contention about a station or format or owner or jock.
>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: WRLL

> > [CC is keeping WRLL on because it is cheap to run.
> > So if revenue is over expenses, it is in good status,
> unless
> > another cheaper profitable format could be laid out.]
>
>
> Good observation. Radio people like to get hung up on
> ratings. Ratings are important, to be sure. But it would
> seem that survival is more important. And with all of the
> competition terrestrial radio faces today, maybe it's time
> they start thinking about survival. About 30% of the
> stations in Chicago are at 1.0 or less. Where will those
> stations be in another couple of years?

Most of those stations are religious, brokered or ethnic. They do not engage in transactional business, and can not due to bad signals... which is why the seek a non-ratings driven niche.
>

 

[burbs]

Re: It's "only" a message board.

> When someone dismisses a trend because it is "less than a
> book" and then pulls the weighting issue, I have to laugh.
> Afyter that, I have to respond to the nonsense.

And respond, you did, in typical "I'm an expert" fashion.

I've seen several hundred trends, David. And rarely do the extrapolated monthlies match the actual numbers. Maybe that's been your experience, but not mine.

Go on all you want - but trends aren't accredited, and books are.

Besides that - why are you always on here? Don't you have actual consulting to do?

 

[davideduardo]

Re: It's "only" a message board.

> > When someone dismisses a trend because it is "less than a
> > book" and then pulls the weighting issue, I have to laugh.
>
> > Afyter that, I have to respond to the nonsense.
>
> And respond, you did, in typical "I'm an expert" fashion.
>
> I've seen several hundred trends, David.

I download over 250 a year. And have been dealing with Arbitron since the late 60's. Ask Owen, Dr. Ed., or anyone else in Columbia. And I have an opinion as to the validity of trends based on that experience.

What changes from the Phase II trend to the book is based far more on the elimination of the oldest 4 weeks and the addition of new data than on weighting.

> And rarely do the
> extrapolated monthlies match the actual numbers. Maybe
> that's been your experience, but not mine.

The monthly extraps are not the same as the 12 week rolling average. I was talking about the differences of trends and books, which is minimal.
>
> Go on all you want - but trends aren't accredited, and books
> are.

Arbitron is accredited. Neither a specific trend or book is.
>
> Besides that - why are you always on here? Don't you have
> actual consulting to do?

I am not a consultant at present as I have too much to do with the "other" 70 stations.
>

 

[uncamark]

> That's why typically no one's undies get in too tight a
> bunch about trends. It's been surprising to see Feder put
> so much stock in them this time around re: Rover.

He'll change on that *if* CBS announced that they were going to flip 'JMK back to oldies with Biondi back on at night. I'm convinced that's the only reason he's ragging on Rover the way he is.

 

[nwside7725]

Nostalgia? Classic Country?

Why not try something a little different?

You can't expect 1690 to ever be high rated, but why not try to do something not on the FM?

I don't see much anything for the older audiences, except for talk or the ethnic voices.

I listen often to the Spanish stations. I just like the music, but I think the station ought to stay English, but go after a format that's not present in Chicago.