• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Nielsen buys Arbitron

DavidEduardo

DavidEduardo

Moderator/Administrator
Staff member
Today's announcement that Nielsen would absorb Arbitron, plus yesterday's information from Arbitron's own RADAR national survey point out that traditional single medium measurement is not the future.

RADAR showed a half-hour reduction in per-person listening levels per week across the board, with nearly an hour reduction in the last year in younger demos. Over the air radio is losing listening, which means lower delivery and lower ad rates. And lower revenue.

Arbitron has the patents and the experience with a multimedia capable measurement device. Nielsen has a huge revenue stream, but their meter is not portable in an increasingly mobile age. Combine the two and you can derive further technology; in the meantime, you have the revenue stream to ward off competitors in new media.

It's good news for Nielsen, a solid buy-out for Arbitron shareholders and gloomy news for radio.
 
DavidEduardo said:
Over the air radio is losing listening....
Click to expand...

Isn't this what myself and others have been opining (unscientifically, of course)? But you and others insist that TSL is up.

I'm not picking nits here and I am not in a position to "tell you so" but which is it? Is RADAR correct or is there other measurements which are not in evidence?

The other obvious question is, if your conclusion that radio is a declining medium then what might bring listeners back? What has radio failed to deliver that other delivery system offer?
 
landtuna said:
What has radio failed to deliver that other delivery system offer?
Click to expand...

It's technologically driven. Once I got the taste of interactivity where I could directly influence the songs that I hear and effectively veto those I hate, I was hooked. Also, online music can serve up songs I love even though they don't sell enough copies to make them hits.
 
landtuna said:
Isn't this what myself and others have been opining (unscientifically, of course)? But you and others insist that TSL is up.
Click to expand...

I have never said TSL is up, because it isn't.

Two reasons:

PPM, which captures precisely to the minute without rounding up, showed real listening to be 40% lower than in the diary.

New Media has reduced the OTA radio usage for many, particularly in young demographics (mostly because OTA radio operators missed the boat on moving into new media distribution).

What is true is that cume is still very constant at about 93% of the population using radio.

I'm not picking nits here and I am not in a position to "tell you so" but which is it? Is RADAR correct or is there other measurements which are not in evidence?
Click to expand...

RADAR is a hybrid measurement of PPM and Diary counties. So, if you are comparing pre-PPM Radar data, there is going to be a huge influence from the 48 PPM markets where TSL per person went from about 19 hours to around 13 hours when the change occurred.

However, cume and TSL are different things. Radio's reach continues to be huge. If operators can transition to new media distribution, they will survive. If they can't, they are going to be dead.

The other obvious question is, if your conclusion that radio is a declining medium then what might bring listeners back? What has radio failed to deliver that other delivery system offer?
Click to expand...

The delivery system is antiquated. AM is over 100 years old, and FM is over 70 years old. People may like some of radio's content, but they don't really like the delivery system.
 
Salty Dog said:
landtuna said:
What has radio failed to deliver that other delivery system offer?
Click to expand...

It's technologically driven. Once I got the taste of interactivity where I could directly influence the songs that I hear and effectively veto those I hate, I was hooked. Also, online music can serve up songs I love even though they don't sell enough copies to make them hits.
Click to expand...

That was intended to be a rhetorical question but since you answered let me respond.

We, the listening public, have been technologically able to listen to our favorite music since records became available some 90 years ago. We listened to the songs we liked and didn't listen to the others. We could buy popular songs that everybody else liked or those that just a few of us liked. The only difference recently has been the mobility. It wasn't feasible to tote a record player around but now it's a simple matter to carry tunes and on a variety of devices that double or triple as something else useful. So, it isn't the technology that has made it possible, just easier.

What then did radio add in all the years that it has been the 1st or 2nd most popular means of mass communications? Much more than just music. The radio personalities (GAWD how I hate that term but can't think of anything better), and the content (music or otherwise).

Discounting the online stations that simulcast real terrestrial radio stations, what do the others bring to the table other than niche music genres? No significant personalities. Maybe fewer commercials, or none? No local information or entertainment? In short, nothing that you could not enjoy on your own mp3 player. An example:

I once found an online station I enjoyed listening to because it had a nice mix of "my" music and also some personalities that added entertainment. As I continued listening it occurred to me their playlist was a pretty small subset of my personal library and I began to get tired of listening to the same rotation. I switched to my mp3 player where I have multiple playlists that keep me entertained for weeks at a time. But then I suffered the sterility of the mp3 player so I put jingles and sweepers and all manner of airchecks in between the music to emulate what I had been missing. Still no personalities though and I finally realized what I had been missing.

Without people on the air (recorded or not) "radio" is not the same entertainment medium as it once was - and what most of us are used to. If the young people today are only interested in listening to music then "radio" as we know it is a dying medium and no content change is going to fix it. If, though, they begin wanting some entertainment or information with their music then radio has a chance to remain viable.

It's content. Not technology. People will watch an NFL game on a 4" TV screen if they have to. Technology makes it possible but content attracts the viewer.
 
DavidEduardo said:
However, cume and TSL are different things. Radio's reach continues to be huge. If operators can transition to new media distribution, they will survive. If they can't, they are going to be dead.
Click to expand...

Radio's reach may be huge but if it isn't reaching the right people or the right people aren't listing as much as they once did it will not be successful in the long run.

DavidEduardo said:
The delivery system is antiquated. AM is over 100 years old, and FM is over 70 years old. People may like some of radio's content, but they don't really like the delivery system.
Click to expand...

If we exempt AM from that statement I don't think it makes sense. Is there any real difference listening to a ball game over your home stereo, your car radio or a portable radio with earphones? No, the content is exactly identical. The content will drive your decision to listen to the game, not whether it is on one delivery system or the other. We will use whatever delivery system is appropriate for our current scenario. But we will use none of them should we not want to hear baseball.

Or did I completely miss the point?
 
landtuna said:
The delivery system is antiquated. AM is over 100 years old, and FM is over 70 years old. People may like some of radio's content, but they don't really like the delivery system.

If we exempt AM from that statement I don't think it makes sense. Is there any real difference listening to a ball game over your home stereo, your car radio or a portable radio with earphones? No, the content is exactly identical. The content will drive your decision to listen to the game, not whether it is on one delivery system or the other. We will use whatever delivery system is appropriate for our current scenario. But we will use none of them should we not want to hear baseball.

Or did I completely miss the point?
Click to expand...

Over the air radio requires a radio receiver. Few computers, tablets or smartphones have radios. People don't want to have to carry a radio in addition to the smartphone... they want to listen on the smartphone.
 
This is an interesting conversation. Radio has be able to, and has been forced to... go for the largest possible audience, and the surveys in the past have made that audience attractive to major advertisers.

Some of my personal tastes, my wants, are kin to those of Landtuna. I want some "humanity" in my audio stream. A major portion of the audience does not. So far, that "major audience" has basically owned the direction and future of radio.

If, however, iPods, m3players and other devices have become so user friendly that people who could care less about "humanity" mixed in with their musical noise all turn that direction since they can get music choices that are finely-tuned to their personal taste, is it possible that radio will find that those of us with strangely wired brains that like humanity mixed into their audio content may be the ONLY audience left for radio? Will the day come that radio ownership has to throw-in-the-towel, bite the bullet, and do the heavy lifting of producing programming that only those of us with mis-wired brains can appreciate?

No. I don't think life is all that simple. But we misfits may find the dog throwing us a small bone now and then for a change.
 
landtuna said:
It's content. Not technology. People will watch an NFL game on a 4" TV screen if they have to. Technology makes it possible but content attracts the viewer.
Click to expand...

Content is driven by technology. Terrestrial radio is inherently non-interactive and it can't be. So the content is whatever the PD says it will be. Yes, people would watch an NFL game onn a 4" TV if it was the only way to see it and they listen to music on radio when it's the only way to hear it. Give them a choice though, and some of us go for the big screen TV and the interactive music technology.
 
Salty Dog said:
landtuna said:
It's content. Not technology. People will watch an NFL game on a 4" TV screen if they have to. Technology makes it possible but content attracts the viewer.
Click to expand...

Content is driven by technology. Terrestrial radio is inherently non-interactive and it can't be, so the content is whatever the PD says it will be. The Internet provides means for the listener to interact and influence the music being served and so the content is changed. Yes, people would watch an NFL game on a 4" TV if it was the only way to see it and they listen to music on radio when it's the only way to hear it. Give them a choice though, and some of us go for the big screen TV and the interactive music technology.
Click to expand...
 
Salty Dog said:
landtuna said:
It's content. Not technology. People will watch an NFL game on a 4" TV screen if they have to. Technology makes it possible but content attracts the viewer.
Click to expand...

Content is driven by technology. Terrestrial radio is inherently non-interactive so the content is whatever the PD says it will be. Yes, people would watch an NFL game onn a 4" TV if it was the only way to see it and they listen to music on radio when it's the only way to hear it. Give them a choice though, and some of us go for the big screen TV and the interactive music technology.
Click to expand...
 
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
Some of my personal tastes, my wants, are kin to those of Landtuna. I want some "humanity" in my audio stream. A major portion of the audience does not. So far, that "major audience" has basically owned the direction and future of radio.
Click to expand...

Many thanks for saying succinctly what I've been attempting to get across.
 
Salty Dog said:
Content is driven by technology. Terrestrial radio is inherently non-interactive so the content is whatever the PD says it will be.
Click to expand...

Terrestrial radio today is non-interactive.... not inherently.... but by bean-counter design.

Small town, rural market mom-and-pop radio has been very interactive long, long before we ever heard of Social Media.

Running an interactive radio station is hard work, and it has a certain amount of risk. Interactive participation by the audience can bring embarrassment, and/or legal issues. It has some risk, and it is hard work. And it requires SMART MANAGEMENT and it requires the attracting and the keeping of reasonable talent.

If maximum profit is the only motive, the driving motive of ownership/management, that drives non-interactive terrestrial radio.... not the technology.
 
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
Terrestrial radio today is non-interactive.... not inherently.... but by bean-counter design.

Small town, rural market mom-and-pop radio has been very interactive long, long before we ever heard of Social Media.

Running an interactive radio station is hard work, and it has a certain amount of risk. Interactive participation by the audience can bring embarrassment, and/or legal issues. It has some risk, and it is hard work. And it requires SMART MANAGEMENT and it requires the attracting and the keeping of reasonable talent.

If maximum profit is the only motive, the driving motive of ownership/management, that drives non-interactive terrestrial radio.... not the technology.
Click to expand...
When I say "inherently non-interactive", I mean that it pushes information in one direction only, from the broadcaster to the listener which is all a terrestrial transmitter can do. Internet-based media pushes music toward me and I reply back that I like this song and not that one and it responds to my interaction even if I'm the only one who does.

Even if a radio station is live staffed, listeners can communicate back any number of different ways but the radio management, no matter how good, can only aggregate the feedback of the small percentage of listeners who give feedback, and respond with the same product to all listeners. Internet-based interactive music services can customize for an audience of one, millions of times.

Where we might agree is on the issue of profit. Profit, like happiness, is best achieved as a byproduct of pursuing the interests of other people. Grasping at it directly only makes its permanent attainment more elusive.
 
Getting back to the original story....

I'm wondering why no one is saying the "m" word here: Monopoly. Not a lot of competitors in this field, and Nielsen has made a practice of buying competitors and shutting them down. For example: When they bought Radio & Records 6 years ago. They couldn't beat them, so they bought them. Sort of the same thing here.

Yes, I understand the difference here. The PPM device is simply a better device. That's what they bought. But it's a very expensive system. Stations have already seen their costs go up by a factor of ten to subscribe to Arbitron. I'm sure Nielsen will try to use this to get more money from TV stations. And at some point, broadcasters are going to complain about the lack of competition. I think they have a case.
 
TheBigA said:
Getting back to the original story....

I'm wondering why no one is saying the "m" word here: Monopoly. Not a lot of competitors in this field, and Nielsen has made a practice of buying competitors and shutting them down. For example: When they bought Radio & Records 6 years ago. They couldn't beat them, so they bought them. Sort of the same thing here.
Click to expand...
I thought about raising the issue it and I'm certainly uncomfortable with it but realistically, I think they will be viewed incorrectly by regulators as very different companies. They approved Sirius/XM, improperly in my view, on the grounds that they compete in the larger radio market with lots of competitors.
 
Salty Dog said:
I thought about raising the issue it and I'm certainly uncomfortable with it but realistically, I think they will be viewed incorrectly by regulators as very different companies. They approved Sirius/XM, improperly in my view, on the grounds that they compete in the larger radio market with lots of competitors.
Click to expand...

If I'm a radio station, who else will sell me authoritative and accepted audience data? Nielsen has a monopoly. All they have to do is raise their prices, and that is using their monopoly to restrain trade. Textbook definition.
 
TheBigA said:
If I'm a radio station, who else will sell me authoritative and accepted audience data? Nielsen has a monopoly. All they have to do is raise their prices, and that is using their monopoly to restrain trade. Textbook definition.
Click to expand...
I think we already agreed on that point. I don't think there is a chance regulators will block it. Do you?
 
I'm out of touch. In this day and age, who is paying Nielsen.... the stations? the ad agencies? Both?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom