• 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

WTF 2 PPM meters makes WYUU Stream #1 in Tampa

hdradioeng said:
http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/a...lp-a-tampa-station-s-stream-la?ref=mail_recap

Looks like everyone needs to run over to Oldsmar and pick up some streaming encoders!!!!!
Click to expand...

Shows how FUBAR Nielsen's methodology is. But Big A made the point in another thread that the radio companies are more than happy with the current renderings and could pay Nielsen more if they wanted a larger panel. Panel changes have made huge differences that were *supposed* to wash out in the number crunching. We may be better off than the dairy days but the unexplained wobbles continue.
 
This doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Imagine my dentist and his hygienist (who are a married couple). If they both wore a PPM, the local AC station would register 25-40 hours a week from each of them, just from their time in the office. If instead they decided to play the web stream of WYUU at their work place, I don't see why that should be "invalid".

The sample size question is another one altogether. I would assume that my dentist and his wife would not bias the ratings as much as this couple, because Persons 55-64 is probably a larger sample for Neilsen.
 
PTBoardOp94 said:
The sample size question is another one altogether. I would assume that my dentist and his wife would not bias the ratings as much as this couple, because Persons 55-64 is probably a larger sample for Neilsen.
Click to expand...

All age cell samples are proportional to the cell's percentage of the market population. That's because the PPM sample is based on a panel, which can be balanced for proportionality on all of the things Nielsen measures, like age cells, gender, ethnicity, etc.

The real issue is sample size overall. This allows extreme behavior by just a few panel members to have extreme influence on the total results. Increasing sample... not just by 10% or 15%, but by at least double to make a marked effect on aberrations... would double the cost of a survey methodology that is already nearly double what would have been the rate if the diary survey had continued.
 
DavidEduardo said:


All age cell samples are proportional to the cell's percentage of the market population. That's because the PPM sample is based on a panel, which can be balanced for proportionality on all of the things Nielsen measures, like age cells, gender, ethnicity, etc.

The real issue is sample size overall. This allows extreme behavior by just a few panel members to have extreme influence on the total results. Increasing sample... not just by 10% or 15%, but by at least double to make a marked effect on aberrations... would double the cost of a survey methodology that is already nearly double what would have been the rate if the diary survey had continued.
Click to expand...

I'm wrong to blame this on methodology as David has explained the real issue. It is sample size and radio has no interest in paying more money to Nielsen to increase the sample size. What I was trying to say in a clumsy way is that the numbers still do not accurately reflect listening. PPM was supposed to make this better but we still see wobbles that can only be explained by panel changes. With an adequate sample these changes would wash out.
 
wavo said:
I'm wrong to blame this on methodology as David has explained the real issue. It is sample size and radio has no interest in paying more money to Nielsen to increase the sample size. What I was trying to say in a clumsy way is that the numbers still do not accurately reflect listening. PPM was supposed to make this better but we still see wobbles that can only be explained by panel changes. With an adequate sample these changes would wash out.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

The problem is that, when introduced the PPM raised costs by 70% on average. With national (read: "agency") revenue softening, the need for ratings decreases. So a larger sample would likely be totally rejected based on cost.

In statistics, we see that improving reliability by the equivalent of one standard error would require quadrupling the sample. If you think about this, in the Tampa example, at what point would the WYUU result become less of a distortion? You'd have to reduce the weight of those two panelists by about 75% to 80% for them to not influences severely the results... quadruple the sample!
 
hdradioeng said:
Nielsen Removes Tampa Household from Feb. PPM Survey

http://www.insideradio.com/free/nie...cle_2bd67df4-07fa-11e7-a554-0b4663416cfe.html

I think we all kinda knew this would happen. To bad, I think Nielsen has hurt their credibility since they defended the data at first. Guess they have found a tie to a station employee or friend. This will be good news as it gives The Sponge more ammo against Nielsen.

and sample size has always been the issue,
Click to expand...

Beasley just can't stop stepping on landmines in the Tampa market, LOL!
 
You know Tampa is a special place...................

I think between Bubba, the LPFM, challenging translators, Nielsen and all the ratings stuff, they are definitely using up the legal line item in the GL! Welcome to Tampa Caroline, Bruce, & Brian!
 
jimmydean said:
Beasley just can't stop stepping on landmines in the Tampa market, LOL!
Click to expand...


That's not a Beasley-invoked issue. It's the product of the very small sample sizes, particularly at the discreet demographic level, in the PPM.

With under 1,500 meters in Tampa, one can do the math on how many, proportionally, are being used at any given moment in time by Hispanic males in 18-34.
 
hdradioeng said:
Nielsen Removes Tampa Household from Feb. PPM Survey

http://www.insideradio.com/free/nie...cle_2bd67df4-07fa-11e7-a554-0b4663416cfe.html

I think we all kinda knew this would happen. To bad, I think Nielsen has hurt their credibility since they defended the data at first. Guess they have found a tie to a station employee or friend. This will be good news as it gives The Sponge more ammo against Nielsen.

and sample size has always been the issue,
Click to expand...

"Apparently" Nielsen did not find any connection with the station; what was found seems to be detections when the meter was not being carried. This can occur when the panelist wants to rack up points and figures out how to make the meter motion sensor detect activity even if the meter is not being worn in order add hours and days to the panelist's account.
 
DavidEduardo said:



That's not a Beasley-invoked issue. It's the product of the very small sample sizes, particularly at the discreet demographic level, in the PPM.

With under 1,500 meters in Tampa, one can do the math on how many, proportionally, are being used at any given moment in time by Hispanic males in 18-34.
Click to expand...

I am aware that it wasn't Beasley's fault.

It was a joke pointing out that Beasley cant stay out of the negative spotlight.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom