Your true feelings on the diary or PPM's

[Radio girl]

When our stations are ranked high, we think the books are great. But when we're ranked low we think they’re flawed.

In smaller markets, where Arbiton or Eastlan are not a factor, stations still manage to book business.

What if these services were not available, would it change the landscape of radio that much?

I am interested in hearing the view point of the broadcaster's and the agency’s.

 

[Radioman100]

If ratings didn't exist, you would see people buying their favorite stations more often on a local level. National media buyers would be clueless.

PPM is a huge step in the right direction. NABOB's complaints about PPM reflect its accuracy. Urban formats are suffering under PPM only because the diary methodology was so deeply flawed. It was all about recall, what people thought they were listening to or wanted to be listening to, not what they actually were listening to.

This is why AC has dominant cume under PPM, and other workplace friendly formats like mainstream CHR and hot AC are doing well in Houston and classic rock and classic hits are doing so well in Philly. You won't hear thug anthems in many cubicles or anywhere employees are dealing with the public.

Hip-Hop fans might be loathe to write down listening to KODA, KRBE or KHMX but if they want to listen to radio at all at work, that's what many of them are doing. Fortunately, PPM reflects what they're really listening to, not what they wish they were listening to.

 

[silkpony]

I was reading an article from Radio Ink and the Arbitron executives are saying that since the PPM data shows the first 15 Houston stations as highly packed in their share, that they are going to push cume as a better metric. They go on to say that cume will allow radio to compare itself with other forms of media besides just comparing radio to radio.

http://www.radioink.com/HeadlineEntry.asp?hid=138910&pt=todaysnews

Since cume is the new king of the block, the recent Houston PPM data, linked on radio-info, is quite interesting. There are a lot of bottom feeders that use to be high up. As for PPM v. Diary? As the other poster stated, PPM is getting the actual exposure to radio and not someone's bias that is filled in at the end of the day hindered by a poor memory.

As for who's going to flip formats? I think any station sitting on a blow torch that is pulling in low cume is in the cross hairs.

Can David Eduardo post the first 20 Houston stations 12+ or perhaps 25-54? If there are rules against that, no problem.

 

[davideduardo]

I was reading an article from Radio Ink and the Arbitron executives are saying that since the PPM data shows the first 15 Houston stations as highly packed in their share, that they are going to push cume as a better metric. They go on to say that cume will allow radio to compare itself with other forms of media besides just comparing radio to radio.

This, of course, goes against the way radio has been bought traditionally, which is based on "how many people hear each spot" and is, frankly, the wrong route. Newspapers sell circulation, because they can not give exact readership figures for each page and ad. Radio would be going backwards by selling cume... particularly since the PPM picks up very light, useless, cumers.

Since cume is the new king of the block, the recent Houston PPM data, linked on radio-info, is quite interesting. There are a lot of bottom feeders that use to be high up. As for PPM v. Diary? As the other poster stated, PPM is getting the actual exposure to radio and not someone's bias that is filled in at the end of the day hindered by a poor memory.

The diary measures cume, TSL and memory. People round out time in the diary, and tend to exaggerate the length of listening. Th PPM measures cume, TSL and both hearing and listening. It picks up "tons" of very short incidental listening, which increases cume, but averages the TSL down. Looking at all this secondary cume is a distraction and serves Arbitron well, but not radio or advertisers.

Can David Eduardo post the first 20 Houston stations 12+ or perhaps 25-54? If there are rules against that, no problem.

The trend today is to more and more 18-49 buying, so here is the list of stations in 18-49 in the las PPM Monthly.

18-49: KTBZ, KLTN, KRBE, KBXX, KHMX, KODA, KMJQ, KKRW, KOVE, KLOL, KKBQ, KILT, KHPT, KHTC, KTJM.
25-54: KKRW, KTBZ, KLTN, KODA, KMJQ, KHMX, KRBE, KOVE, KHPT, KKBQ, KHTC, KBXX, KILT, KSBJ, KLOL

As an aside, I was in a top 15 market where for two years there were no ratings. The result was that buyers made "take it or leave it" offers and market billing fell by about 50% in that time.

 

[silkpony]

The trend today is to more and more 18-49 buying, so here is the list of stations in 18-49 in the las PPM Monthly.

18-49: KTBZ, KLTN, KRBE, KBXX, KHMX, KODA, KMJQ, KKRW, KOVE, KLOL, KKBQ, KILT, KHPT, KHTC, KTJM.
25-54: KKRW, KTBZ, KLTN, KODA, KMJQ, KHMX, KRBE, KOVE, KHPT, KKBQ, KHTC, KBXX, KILT, KSBJ, KLOL

As an aside, I was in a top 15 market where for two years there were no ratings. The result was that buyers made "take it or leave it" offers and market billing fell by about 50% in that time.

Thanks David.

Definitely some surprises. KHPT and KHTC are showing strong. And KROI seemed to be rising fast in the last diaries but has fallen off the map. KHJZ seems to have vanished too. KKRW is a surprise being 1st in 25-54. Their last diary 12+ had them 12th.

 

[tengallonhat]

The unfortunate truth is that all of this is voodoo. To sample a couple of thousand people in a city of 3 million is a ridiculous and pointless exercise. And the fact that it governs people's lives, families and livelihoods is an abomination. The foundation for the ratings systems is greed. Arbitron's greed. What are the least amount of people we can sample and what is the least amount of money we can pay them to walk around with an electronic device like a released prisoner? What's next...a chip in our brains? Then, in a completely lopsided arrangement, it's how little can we charge the agencies and how much can we charge the radio stations? If the true motiviation were truth and accuracy, it would be different. It's all about greed. The true test of any commercial radio station should be the results it generates for advertisers and the community. And virtually any radio station in town has enough listeners to draw a crowd at a car dealership on a Saturday. Most local, direct clients couldn't read a ranker if it was tattooed to their arm. They buy their favorite radio stations, or the ones that send the hottest sales people or the ones that invite them to concerts and sporting events. So the ratings don't really matter. But if they have a slow Saturday, they want to change radio stations and fire their agencies...regardless of the ratings. A station with ratings that can't move product is goin to remain a favorite of local direct clients. But since the media queens only look at numbers on a screen (or who's picking up the tab) it's a mess.

The system is flawed...but it's the only one we have at the moment, so we better learn to live with it and make it work to our advantage. The move from reported listening to actual listening is closer to the truth but we still have a long way to go.

 

[Radioman100]

This, of course, goes against the way radio has been bought traditionally, which is based on "how many people hear each spot" and is, frankly, the wrong route. Newspapers sell circulation, because they can not give exact readership figures for each page and ad. Radio would be going backwards by selling cume... particularly since the PPM picks up very light, useless, cumers.

I would argue that listening is listening. If I go into an oil change place and spend 15 or 20 minutes listening to a station I otherwise never would, they should get credit for it. If I read a newspaper while I'm there, should the paper get no credit for the ads I'm exposed to even though I'm not a subscriber? Of course. It seems to me that it's your belief that unless a station is someone's P1 or P2 choice, all listening to that station is invalid and useless. I disagree.

The diary measures cume, TSL and memory. People round out time in the diary, and tend to exaggerate the length of listening. Th PPM measures cume, TSL and both hearing and listening. It picks up "tons" of very short incidental listening, which increases cume, but averages the TSL down. Looking at all this secondary cume is a distraction and serves Arbitron well, but not radio or advertisers.

I disagree. This "secondary cume" serves both advertisers and radio as an industry, though I do think it will create two tiers of radio station buying, probably favoring the high cumers. As the Radio Ink article says, qualitative data is going to become much more important.

The high cuming stations will be able to sell more ads that target the public at large, ads for things everyone needs like oil change places, grocery stores, power companies, etc. The formats that do well in terms of TSL in specific demos but don't necessarily have huge cume will be able to sell targeted advertising.

Of course, that will be a double edged sword. If qualitative data indicates your audience has high discretionary income, you're golden. If not, you could be in trouble. This is probably at the root of NABOB's complaints about PPM. They're scared to death, and they should be. For years they've had inflated cume numbers which helps cover up the ugly qualitative truth about their audiences. Without that, it's going to be much harder to sell their less than desirable demographics.

Before, urban formats could argue the only way general interest adversisers like grocery stores were going to reach their audience was by buying them. PPM demonstrates that's clearly not the case. Stations like KODA and KRBE clearly reach people that previously would have written down KMJQ exclusively in their paper diaries.

If general interest advertisers can buy around you and still get results, and qualitative data indicates your audience doesn't have much money, you have a major problem. I can see why companies like Radio One and Univision wouldn't be big fans of PPM.

 

[davideduardo]

I would argue that listening is listening. If I go into an oil change place and spend 15 or 20 minutes listening to a station I otherwise never would, they should get credit for it. If I read a newspaper while I'm there, should the paper get no credit for the ads I'm exposed to even though I'm not a subscriber? Of course. It seems to me that it's your belief that unless a station is someone's P1 or P2 choice, all listening to that station is invalid and useless. I disagree. .

I am not discounting th eP3's and beyond, but so few of them contribute any TSL that using cume based metrics without looking at the AQH is very detrimental to time buying. The additional cumers spend so little time with a station, you would literally need a spot in every set to reach them.

The radio metric has always been AQH listenin at the time of the spot's running. Cume dose not tell if you reached any or even a lot of the listeners... it just says that if you run 600 spots a week, that is how many you can reach. But for the average 20 to 30 spot buy, you need AQH, not cume, to measure. Cume is meaningless in determining the value of each spot.

I disagree. This "secondary cume" serves both advertisers and radio as an industry, though I do think it will create two tiers of radio station buying, probably favoring the high cumers. As the Radio Ink article says, qualitative data is going to become much more important. .

Cume is like circulation for a paper. If a guy buys the paper for scores and sports, the rest of the esections are wasted. Or if they buy for a classified ad, the rest is wasted. The P3's and beyond listen a couple of quarter hours, and can not be reached with the average schedule. It is disingenuous for Arbitron, who knows how truly little the lower P levels listen, to state that PPM cume is meaningful. What is meaningful is the listening level as each spot runs. And that is down 40% in the PPM, on average. And the P1 and P2 listening is still around 90% of all listening.

You can not program for "hearers" just listeners.

The high cuming stations will be able to sell more ads that target the public at large, ads for things everyone needs like oil change places, grocery stores, power companies, etc. The formats that do well in terms of TSL in specific demos but don't necessarily have huge cume will be able to sell targeted advertising. .

But that extra cume does not contribute significant listening to a station, and the efficiencies of buying make reaching them impossible. The P1 and P2 cume are most of the AQH listening, and can be reached efficiently.

.

If general interest advertisers can buy around you and still get results, and qualitative data indicates your audience doesn't have much money, you have a major problem. I can see why companies like Radio One and Univision wouldn't be big fans of PPM.

Univision was the second signed Houston subscriber. What I don't buy into is that a person who hears a station for 5 minutes in a 15 minute period would be considered reachable via that station. The lower P levels consist of people who barely made the 5 minutes, not necessarily consectutive, in one quarter hour once a week. And they count in cume as one person, but they can not be reached by any reasonable ad buy.

 

[Jay F]

Even if Arbitron says that cume is now king or would like it to be, I don't think that agencies/advertisers will go along with it.

 

[davideduardo]

The unfortunate truth is that all of this is voodoo. To sample a couple of thousand people in a city of 3 million is a ridiculous and pointless exercise..

Yes, it is ridiculous. They could do it with about half the sample of they could insure over 90% daily cooperation, instead of around 68%.

The test of a sample is whether the results replicate... that is, come out the same... if you repeat the polling procedure. The sample size used for Houston is larger than what is necessary to achieve the desired result. Remember, ratings are used to determine the cost of advertising, not the heat resistence of tiles on the space shuttle. In other words, a slight margin of error is acceptable and hurts nobody.

And the fact that it governs people's lives, families and livelihoods is an abomination..

Ratinings have to be affordable by the client stations or nobody subscribes. Increasing significantly the sample would increase costs enormously. In fact, to reduce even slightly the margin of error, you have to more than double the sample; stations can not afford this. Stations get the largest sample they can afford... fortunately in most markets this is more than adequate for the intended use.

The foundation for the ratings systems is greed. Arbitron's greed. What are the least amount of people we can sample and what is the least amount of money we can pay them to walk around with an electronic device like a released prisoner?.

Arbron, like any company, has a right to make a profit. Yet their margin of profit is lower than that of most of the stations they have as subscribers... not razor thin, but not excessive either.

Costs for increased sample are passed on to stations, in fact. If anyone in Houston wants to double the sample, they have to convince the rest of the subscribers they ought to pay 150% more than they paid for the diary survey, rather than just the 60% more they are paying now.

The sample size and all methodology in fact is approved by the MRC, which represents advertisers. If the people who buy radio ads believe it is correctly done, then it probably is... the MRC is made up of some of the finest statisticians and consumer polling experts in the world.

And the methodology was asked for by the clients, not by radio.

What's next...a chip in our brains? Then, in a completely lopsided arrangement, it's how little can we charge the agencies and how much can we charge the radio stations?.

Ratings, just like ABC audits, have always been paid for by the media. Advertisers don't care. With no ratings, they can beat down the rates. So the media does surveys or circulation audits to prove the value of advertising and to provide a metric for pricing. As is the usual case, sales tools are paid for by the seller and not the buyer.

If the true motiviation were truth and accuracy, it would be different..

The reason why surveys exist is as stated above... to give a reasonably accurate measure of the size of an audience. And that is what we have.

It's all about greed. The true test of any commercial radio station should be the results it generates for advertisers and the community. And virtually any radio station in town has enough listeners to draw a crowd at a car dealership on a Saturday..

Now that is truly ingenuous. Most advertisers who use ratings have multi-media and multi-medium ad campaigns. Varios TV and cable channels, many radio stations, metro and suburban papers, web support and outdoor and even direct mail and cupons and such. How can an advertiser determine what the results from any one station is? And... big "and" here... radio is not responsible for the pricing, quality of the product, convenience of locations, creative concept, competitive offerings and such for any advertiser. So it is really impossible to measure only one station unless we have a small, one station buy.

So advertisers look at how many potential customers each station and each medium among all media choices can deliver. The rest of the selling job is up to the agency, the client and the product or service. New Coke did not fail because the radio stations they selected were bad... it failed because it was a marketing error.

[/quote] Most local, direct clients couldn't read a ranker if it was tattooed to their arm..[/quote]

The ones buying multiple stations sure know how to do it. But the kind that are confused by anything that falls under "marketing" usually fail, unless they are in small markets or very unique.

They buy their favorite radio stations, or the ones that send the hottest sales people or the ones that invite them to concerts and sporting events. So the ratings don't really matter. But if they have a slow Saturday, they want to change radio stations and fire their agencies...regardless of the ratings. A station with ratings that can't move product is goin to remain a favorite of local direct clients. But since the media queens only look at numbers on a screen (or who's picking up the tab) it's a mess..

You are mixing agencies with media buyers with direct accounts that are clueless. It's funny that the agency media people are usually around longer than the radio sellers that call on them, but independent local businesses that pick their ad media based on personal preference generally are out of business even quicker.

.

The system is flawed...but it's the only one we have at the moment, so we better learn to live with it and make it work to our advantage. The move from reported listening to actual listening is closer to the truth but we still have a long way to go.

Except for a bunch of cumers who listen a few minutes a week, the numbers are surprisingly alike in both methodologies; the only other item of significance is the fact that diary keepers round to even hours and half hours most of the time, while the PPM does not.

 

[bobbybooey]

The unfortunate truth is that all of this is voodoo. To sample a couple of thousand people in a city of 3 million is a ridiculous and pointless exercise. And the fact that it governs people's lives, families and livelihoods is an abomination.

Sounds like someone's never taken a statistics course... mathematically it really is an acceptable sampling of the market.

 

[j1bad]

"As an aside, I was in a top 15 market where for two years there were no ratings. The result was that buyers made "take it or leave it" offers and market billing fell by about 50% in that time."

David,

Do you know why agencies would do this? I realize they're trying to get better rates, but just because a market didn't have arbitron for a period of time doesn't mean people aren't listening to the radio. Is it strictly a rate issue? Because that would seem awfully stupid on the part of the agency to not use radio for a client just because they don't have ratings. If an agency is placing a buy for zit cream...do they really need ratings to tell you that you should probably be on the Top 40? Especially if it's one you know historically does well. If you're placing a buy for Ford Trucks, I'd think it's a pretty safe play, even without ratings, to be on the country, rock, sports stations. And if billing dropped off %50 then what other media did they move the money too? And what did the clients of these agencies think of this?

 

[tengallonhat]

It's chilling...perhaps frightening...to find so many defenders of Arbitron. It's clear that you have all had a healthy dose of their Kool-Aid...which is readily available in written form at any NAB. You won't have any trouble finding their booth, because it is the size of an airplane hangar. I disagree with so much of what has been said that I don't know where to start. To witness the comparatively meteoric rise of The Point when the PPM came out and suggest that diary results have been replicated by this new methodology is kind of a shocker. To suggest that most local direct advertisers have multimedia campaigns is downright ignorant (unless you are talking about car dealers...most of which use agencies of some sort or another). And to point out that Arbitron has to be affordable to radio stations is to completely miss the point. The biggest abusers of the Arbitron system are the ad agencies and they pay a fraction of what radio stations pay to use the service.

And I have taken a statistics course by the way but it doesn't provide an explanation for why a vast percentage of a rock station's cume would suddenly abandon Led Zep for Garth Brooks in a 13 week period...which happened in Houston in the 90's along with dozens of other horror stories that resulted in PD's renting U-Hauls.

To paint Arbitron as some benevolent, impartial third party interested in truth and fair play for all is to give credit where credit isn't due. Any system that gambles with people's livelihoods by depending on the masses' willingness to provide factual information in exchange for A DOLLAR is not living in the real world.

And any system that can be manipulated by a 300 point per week TV campaign, The Birthday Game, or a multiple car giveaway was definitely in need of an overhaul. Are we saying that the PPM is it? Not according to NABOB and dozens of others.

The PPM is clearly a case of Ready, Fire, Aim.

That's my (clearly unpopular) take on this flawed system.

 

[Radioman100]

It's chilling...perhaps frightening...to find so many defenders of Arbitron. It's clear that you have all had a healthy dose of their Kool-Aid...which is readily available in written form at any NAB. You won't have any trouble finding their booth, because it is the size of an airplane hangar. I disagree with so much of what has been said that I don't know where to start. To witness the comparatively meteoric rise of The Point when the PPM came out and suggest that diary results have been replicated by this new methodology is kind of a shocker. To suggest that most local direct advertisers have multimedia campaigns is downright ignorant (unless you are talking about car dealers...most of which use agencies of some sort or another). And to point out that Arbitron has to be affordable to radio stations is to completely miss the point. The biggest abusers of the Arbitron system are the ad agencies and they pay a fraction of what radio stations pay to use the service.

And I have taken a statistics course by the way but it doesn't provide an explanation for why a vast percentage of a rock station's cume would suddenly abandon Led Zep for Garth Brooks in a 13 week period...which happened in Houston in the 90's along with dozens of other horror stories that resulted in PD's renting U-Hauls.

To paint Arbitron as some benevolent, impartial third party interested in truth and fair play for all is to give credit where credit isn't due. Any system that gambles with people's livelihoods by depending on the masses' willingness to provide factual information in exchange for A DOLLAR is not living in the real world.

And any system that can be manipulated by a 300 point per week TV campaign, The Birthday Game, or a multiple car giveaway was definitely in need of an overhaul. Are we saying that the PPM is it? Not according to NABOB and dozens of others.

The PPM is clearly a case of Ready, Fire, Aim.

That's my (clearly unpopular) take on this flawed system.

I wouldn't suggest that the diary methodology is even remotely accurate. Never has been, never will be. Personally, I didn't have a problem with it because I was always successful manipulating it, but I'm a lot more comfortable with PPM because it's not so easy to manipulate, and it removes personal preference from the equation. Despite Arbitron's admonitions against it, I can't help but think paper diaries have always been mostly a record of preference rather than actual radio listening. I suppose that's why the P in P1, P2, etc. stands for preference!

As you can see from the huge plummet of KMJQ, a lot of people were reporting listening to the station a lot more than they actually were. They may have wished they were listening to Majic, but were probably listening (a lot) to radios set to KODA by their bosses. I frequent a Subway where their radio is always on a country station. The employees are mostly black. One time I asked if someone working there was a country fan. Yup! The owner. They told me changing the radio is a firing offense.

Do you seriously think any of those black employees at Subway would ever write down listening to KKBQ for 8 hours a day?

PPM may not be perfect, but it's a huge step in the right direction.

 

[davideduardo]

Do you know why agencies would do this? I realize they're trying to get better rates, but just because a market didn't have arbitron for a period of time doesn't mean people aren't listening to the radio.

This was prior to Arbitron being in the market... after the hiatus, we got The Pulse. In any case, agencies that have no proof of audience will negotiate based on a station having no provable audience. Agencies look for benefits for the client, and hammer the media. It is just the way things are.

Is it strictly a rate issue? Because that would seem awfully stupid on the part of the agency to not use radio for a client just because they don't have ratings.

They used radio, but the attitude was that there was no way to justify any rate, so it was take it or leave it.

If an agency is placing a buy for zit cream...do they really need ratings to tell you that you should probably be on the Top 40? Especially if it's one you know historically does well. If you're placing a buy for Ford Trucks, I'd think it's a pretty safe play, even without ratings, to be on the country, rock, sports stations. And if billing dropped off %50 then what other media did they move the money too? And what did the clients of these agencies think of this?

Clients loved it... the agencies got radio for less than the year before, so there was more money for TV. Agencies only put tiny bit in radio, but love TV because they cqn charge lots for TV creative.

 

[davideduardo]

It's chilling...perhaps frightening...to find so many defenders of Arbitron. It's clear that you have all had a healthy dose of their Kool-Aid...which is readily available in written form at any NAB. You won't have any trouble finding their booth, because it is the size of an airplane hangar. I disagree with so much of what has been said that I don't know where to start. To witness the comparatively meteoric rise of The Point when the PPM came out and suggest that diary results have been replicated by this new methodology is kind of a shocker.

The difference is that PPM results are so compacted that there is not much difference between #5 and #15. And the results are not replicated... they are similar in share, very different in TSL and very different in cume. But on P1 and P2, they are even closer than in the share tables.

To suggest that most local direct advertisers have multimedia campaigns is downright ignorant (unless you are talking about car dealers...most of which use agencies of some sort or another).

In larger markets, single location advertisers generally use targeted direct mail or neighborhood cable or suburban print. They can not afford mass market full coverage radio.

And to point out that Arbitron has to be affordable to radio stations is to completely miss the point.

It DOES have to be affordable, or stations would not sponsor it, and Arbitron would leave the market. It's a balance of a reliable sample vs. price for each subscriber.

The biggest abusers of the Arbitron system are the ad agencies and they pay a fraction of what radio stations pay to use the service.

Ad agencys pay cost for Arbitron. They do not share in the expense of doing the survey, they just pay the cost for delivering the results. The only purpose of doing ratings is to have a sales tool to help set pricing, and agencies use ratings to negotiate price. There is no abuse there.

And I have taken a statistics course by the way but it doesn't provide an explanation for why a vast percentage of a rock station's cume would suddenly abandon Led Zep for Garth Brooks in a 13 week period...which happened in Houston in the 90's along with dozens of other horror stories that resulted in PD's renting U-Hauls.

Many stations are cyclical, based on format appeal. And there is the one time in many that the statistical error is more than one standard error. In general, the diary results were stable, and reasonable.

To paint Arbitron as some benevolent, impartial third party interested in truth and fair play for all is to give credit where credit isn't due. Any system that gambles with people's livelihoods by depending on the masses' willingness to provide factual information in exchange for A DOLLAR is not living in the real world.

Arbitron is a business and wants to make a profit. So is radio. When the goals are in congruence, all are satisfied. And the fact is, not eveyone got a dollar (DST) and the PPM pays like a frequent flier program, not by the meter.

The system is not perfect... only a census can approach perfection, and a quarterly census in Houston for radio listening would cost more than the total billings of all radio stations. So we make do with a salmple, and understand that the results are estimates and will wobble a bit, but that is not important within the buying function.

And any system that can be manipulated by a 300 point per week TV campaign, The Birthday Game, or a multiple car giveaway was definitely in need of an overhaul. Are we saying that the PPM is it? Not according to NABOB and dozens of others.

The fact is that contests can change listening, just like advertising heavily can affect sales. That is why both are done... if a station can bring up ratings 52 weeks a year, then the advertiser does not care why... as long as it sustains the listening.

 

[its time w (your name)]

The unfortunate truth is that all of this is voodoo. To sample a couple of thousand people in a city of 3 million is a ridiculous and pointless exercise.

Beautiful and well said, popular or not. Dare to disagree with "experts," will you?

I do, however, wish that success truly mattered, even if measured by a flawed system. It looks to me like the more
they fail, the harder they do exactly what caused them to fail, and the more stubbornly they "stay the course." Not naming any names, of course. Somebody do a rhyme for me here.

 

[bobbybooey]

And I have taken a statistics course by the way but it doesn't provide an explanation for why a vast percentage of a rock station's cume would suddenly abandon Led Zep for Garth Brooks in a 13 week period...which happened in Houston in the 90's along with dozens of other horror stories that resulted in PD's renting U-Hauls.

To paint Arbitron as some benevolent, impartial third party interested in truth and fair play for all is to give credit where credit isn't due. Any system that gambles with people's livelihoods by depending on the masses' willingness to provide factual information in exchange for A DOLLAR is not living in the real world.

If you have even a basic grasp of statistics, then you should realize that your initial point regarding sample-size is inaccurate. Now, you may have a problem with the accuracy of the methodology used to get the numbers, fine, but that's entirely different than arguing that the sample-size itself is too small. From a statistical standpoint, it's not.

And bringing in a case from 10+ years ago is not going to help your argument... that scenario was built upon the wildly fluctuating diary-returns... the PPM is designed to eliminate many of that systems flaws.

Those of you bashing the PPM are basing your conclusions upon a couple of months of data, and simply because it's showing different listening habits than you're used to seeing. Has it occured to any of you that the reason the numbers for many stations are different now is because a lot of the diary-based data - upon which your historical perspective is based - was inaccurate?

 

[ChuckTiller]

I agree. The PPM is far more accurate. I posted some time ago about how a somebody making $40,000 or more would not even bother to fill out a diary for the obligatory five or ten bucks(or whatever small amount it is.) It;'s not worth it. With the PPM, all you have to do, is have it in your possession.

 

[davideduardo]

I agree. The PPM is far more accurate. I posted some time ago about how a somebody making $40,000 or more would not even bother to fill out a diary for the obligatory five or ten bucks(or whatever small amount it is.) It;'s not worth it. With the PPM, all you have to do, is have it in your possession.

And you have to carry it every day for a certain number of hours (determined by the motion sensor) and every member of the family or domestic unit has to do the same. At present, the biggest issue is the low percentage of people carrying the meter every day, and Arbitron has started a major effort to increase compliance.

I am sure that this will be a major subject of discussion at the researcher and consultant fly-in this week at Arbitron's HQ in Columbia. I'll make sure to report back on this!