The Future of Terrestrial Radio..Part Duex

A very interesting article about how iPODs and Sat radio are not (presently) effecting radio listenership......

http://www.radioandrecords.com/Newsroom/2005_07_13/studydespite.asp

> A very interesting article about how iPODs and Sat radio are
> not (presently) effecting radio listenership......
>
>
> http://> www.radioandrecords.com/Newsroom/2005_07_13/studydespite.asp
>

I read that article this morning with a VERY skeptical eye. The survey size was only 400 people. That's not a very big sample size to determine if alternative media is, or is not, putting a dent into radio listenership.

Sounds like that marketing group is trying to appease their masters.

Re: The Future of Terrestrial Radio..Part DEUX

> I read that article this morning with a VERY skeptical eye.
> The survey size was only 400 people. That's not a very big
> sample size to determine if alternative media is, or is not,
> putting a dent into radio listenership.
>
> Sounds like that marketing group is trying to appease their
> masters.

I recall a similar study being done with a much larger sample, several months back. If I can remember where it is, I'll post the link.

It came to much the same conclusions and was heavy on pointing out that the amount of time needed to download/rip songs and load them onto the iPod was causing some disenchantment already ...
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

Re: The Future of Terrestrial Radio..Part DEUX

> I recall a similar study being done with a much larger
> sample, several months back. If I can remember where it is,
> I'll post the link.
>
> It came to much the same conclusions and was heavy on
> pointing out that the amount of time needed to download/rip
> songs and load them onto the iPod was causing some
> disenchantment already ...

And if these 400 person sample showed alternative media had the lead on terrestrial, for some reason it'd be more accepted.

Why don't companies just stick to 1,500 minimum on these samples. We're talking about a NATIONWIDE audience survey - Come on research guys... do some REAL research we can ALL read with confidence.

>
> I read that article this morning with a VERY skeptical eye.
> The survey size was only 400 people. That's not a very big
> sample size to determine if alternative media is, or is not,
> putting a dent into radio listenership.
>
> Sounds like that marketing group is trying to appease their
> masters.
>


Is it any different than asking a handful of high school kids what's their favorite radio station & getting a blank look and determining that no one under 20 listens to the radio?

Maybe the "sky is falling" doomsayers are wrong.

> >
> > I read that article this morning with a VERY skeptical
> > eye. The survey size was only 400 people. That's not
> > a very big sample size to determine if alternative media
> > is, or is not, putting a dent into radio listenership.
> >
> > Sounds like that marketing group is trying to appease
> > their masters.
> >
>
>
> Is it any different than asking a handful of high school
> kids what's their favorite radio station & getting a blank
> look and determining that no one under 20 listens to the
> radio?
>

Yes, that would be different. In your instance the data is a non random sample. Non randomly sampled data will always be skewed, i.e., contaminated.

My concern was the small sample size of only 400 people. The margin of error (plus or minus) is fairly large with a sample size that small to be able to say that other forms of media are NOT putting a dent into radio listenership.


> Maybe the "sky is falling" doomsayers are wrong.
>

Maybe, or maybe not, but that survey is not much to go on either way.