Again, Agency - Client research is OFF

[amfmsw]

It's time to grab those merchants, manufacturers, and ad agency 20 somethings and tell them they're wrong. Show them it's foolish and rather expensive NOT to target 45-64 year olds. I'm NOT referring to 55+, which includes nursing home residents and funeral home customers waiting to happen.

http://www.rab.com/public/rst/rst_new/rstarticle.cfm?id=1443&type=article2

 

[cabradio]

It's time to start asking the agencies why they abuse the power given to them by their clients. The clients expect the agencies to work in their (the client's) best interest. But, as has been noted, the clients place their faith in 20 somethings with little real world (business) experience that are placing ads on stations that these "20 something buyers" prefer, i.e. Hip Hop formats, Top 40 CHR, or Hot AC. Obviously, these stations do have listeners, BUT, there are other stations these agencies should be buying depending on the demo sought after. Not everyone is targeting a 23 year old female!

My belief is that some agencies will skip a radio buy because they think radio is too expensive, based on the "buy 2 deep" ideology, where the agencies will only buy the top two stations in the market/format (the most expensive in the format/market). They don't think to go deeper; or don't want to because that would require extra research and work. Stations outside of the top 10 in any market can also get a good response, with proper frequency (number of ads run) and at a better price.

Maybe if the agencies were required to pay for the (flawed) Arbitron research, they would take their buying power a little more seriously. They would work a little harder to make sure that the best audience was being reached, because they would have an investment to monetize. But hey, let the radio industry autocrats continue to waste money on Arbitron while cutting good jobs for decent people, and let the industry as a whole suffer.

 

[DavidEduardo]

It's time to start asking the agencies why they abuse the power given to them by their clients. The clients expect the agencies to work in their (the client's) best interest. But, as has been noted, the clients place their faith in 20 somethings with little real world (business) experience that are placing ads on stations that these "20 something buyers" prefer,

That's not the way it works. Media buyers have client specifiedd demographic targets to meet, and the media director will specify the cost per point goals needed for each market. The buyers then get quotes for each station based on the delivery in the ttarget demo. Personal preference is not terribly relevant in this case... particularly since a huge amount of buying by agencies is done for markets the buyers have never even visited in al liklihood. This is what is called transactional business, based almost purely on cost per point and value added (bonus spots, remotes, etc) that each station offers to snag part o f the business.

My belief is that some agencies will skip a radio buy because they think radio is too expensive, based on the "buy 2 deep" ideology, where the agencies will only buy the top two stations in the market/format (the most expensive in the format/market).

Radio pricing by agencies is based on meeting a cost per point (CPP) goal for each market. Stations that are in the target demo are bought if they deliver the CPP or close to it. CPP is a leveler, where the rate is proportional to the audience size.

They don't think to go deeper; or don't want to because that would require extra research and work. Stations outside of the top 10 in any market can also get a good response, with proper frequency (number of ads run) and at a better price.

There is no "better price" with CPP goals... every station is priced on delivery. And campaigns may buy one deep, or 20 deep, depending on how many are needed to meet the campaign's reach and frequency goals. Stations that add little reach are often skipped if the higher rated ones give the proper CPP, and stations are often bought around if they are to pricy in the target CPP.

Maybe if the agencies were required to pay for the (flawed) Arbitron research, they would take their buying power a little more seriously.

Agencies oversee Arbitron via the MRC, and media research, whether it be Nielsen, Arbitron, ABC, or whatever are always paid for by the media.. they are sales tools, and provided to help agencies get the best value for their money.

But hey, let the radio industry autocrats continue to waste money on Arbitron while cutting good jobs for decent people, and let the industry as a whole suffer.

What you suggest is no ratings at all. Unlike most, I have been in a top 15 market that had no ratings for two years several decades ago. The result was that market b illing declined over 50%, many jobs were lost, and it took 3 years after a ratings service came back to reestablish prior pricing levels. You do not even want to think about radio without ratings.

 

[DavidEduardo]

It's time to grab those merchants, manufacturers, and ad agency 20 somethings and tell them they're wrong. Show them it's foolish and rather expensive NOT to target 45-64 year olds. I'm NOT referring to 55+, which includes nursing home residents and funeral home customers waiting to happen.

45-54 is a prime demo. It's 55+ that is not bough, or any part of it. And it is about ROI, not buying power. If you find that what is spent to advertise is not made back by sales, then there is no reason to target any group.

Again, ad agency buyers don't determine demos... generally, the client does and it may go all the way up to how the product to be advertise was designed... for a specific demo.

 

[cabradio]

What you suggest is no ratings at all. Unlike most, I have been in a top 15 market that had no ratings for two years several decades ago. The result was that market b illing declined over 50%, many jobs were lost, and it took 3 years after a ratings service came back to reestablish prior pricing levels. You do not even want to think about radio without ratings.

And the current situation has left many radio people unemployed too - probably more so than your HUMBLE experience. The difference is that stations favor paying for a flawed science and using the info (which in my [ignorant] opinion should be against the law). The multi-millions that is paid to Arbitron every year should be used instead to keep good jocks employed.

I think we are all intelligent enough to figure out why the #1 and #2 markets originally dropped two of the biggest formats (Country and Oldies). To give a hint - in favor of preferred formats by media buyers, so the radio stations can get more buys. Only it backfired, and the stations lost more audience than they gained by doing the flips. Tell me I wrong David, I know you want to. And you'll even have your own scientific answer.

The ratings (dis)service doesn't add billing. Good sales people do. Good sales people don't need "numbers" to sell. When is the last time you asked a car salesman how many people are buying a particular model to influence your choice? I don't ask that question. I could care less what other people like. When is the last time you asked how many people buy a certain brand of milk, so as to influence your purchase? I never have. Advertisers shouldn't care how many people are listening, they should care about how many people will walk in the door because of their ad. You will argue the number of listeners a station has, will have direct proportion to the response. To a certain extent, this will be true. But the frequency of the ad has more impact, than just the number of listeners a station has. I have an example in the next paragraph.

Radio is an emotional medium on every level...not just for the listeners. Top Radio Executives make their decisions emotionally too...For example: "I really want a 5 million dollar bonus this year, so I'm firing 10% of my staff". Tell me that isn't emotional. So it is for the buyers. The science tells us the numbers say it all. But they don't in REALITY. The whole CPP game cheats many good stations out of a sale. You can take your CPP and apply to every station in the market, it doesn't change the fact that the ad buyers dictate where the dollars will be spent: "I'm familiar with the artists on this station but I have no idea who that artist is on that station. The demo supposedly fits both station profiles. Hmm. The CPP is higher on this station, but it's the number 3 station and I'm familiar with the format. The CPP is lower on that station, but they are number 11 in the market, and I don't listen to that format. Hmm. I'll go with the number 3 station, because I know who Jay Z is.". Besides, when is the last time an agency bought 20 deep, as you suggest anyway? Better yet, when is the last time the 3rd rated or 4th rated Talk station in market 125 was given a decent buy for Women 45-54? Really, answer the question. I want to know. I was in market 50, with a Talk Format with 50% female audience, if not more listening, but we never showed in Arbitron and as such never got a buy from an agency. [And yes we had listeners, enough that should have placed us 11th in the market over-all; that is based on a third party survey.] Whenever I called an agency, I got the shove off because we weren't "rated". The truth is the buyer didn't understand the format, and how we reached their target demo. They didn't even want to listen to the pitch. Instead I heard: "Send over your rate card and we'll keep it on file". The rate card doesn't explain who the audience is! My "CPP" would have blown the Lite AC out of the water [same demo], and we would have given more frequency and a better response. Is it better to spend $1000 and get 10 commercials that reach 100,000 listeners over a week, or is it better to spend $1000 and get 100 commercials that reach 10,000 listeners over a week. Which station provides the better value? Where is the client's dollars better spent? We all know that frequency is important to get consumers to actually respond to the ad...so... please enlighten the reading audience on MY flawed logic. Please embarrass me.

Anyway, thanks for that in-depth over-analysis by a jaded radio executive. I have enjoyed reading some of your posts, but you tend to be pretty self-absorbed. I don't mean that to be insulting, just that you really think you know it all. (wait, maybe you do! silly of me to think you don't.)

Admit it or not David, the Arbitron/Agency game is a sham, made to benefit the few.

 

[deltas69]

charlie proffit..i want to you a beer !! now pause for the inevitable response from mr. know it all..(not to be confused with a certain moose and squirel).. ;D

 

[muskrat14]

What David is trying to tell you -- and you all keep missing -- is that it's not the agency that determines the buy, it's client demands. For instance, when Michelob beer wants to get a campaign out, it's Anheuser-Busch that tells the agency what demos to buy and how much it is willing to spend to reach them. All the agency does is analyze the ARB, get CPP info and make the actual buys. Whether or not a media buyer likes Jay Z or not is irrelevant. Anheuser-Busch is demanding a demo; the agency is not going to endanger that multi-million dollar account by buying stations based on the personal musical tastes of the media buyer.

You want radio to serve 55+? You have to reach the clients -- Anheuser-Busch, Proctor and Gamble, General Mills, Southwest Airlines, etc. They have the power. If they want 55+, you better believe a station will show up to serve them.

Those clients, by the way, know that 55+ has money. They have determined, though, through their own research that radio is not an effective way to reach them. Instead, they find they get better ROI with TV, newspaper, direct mail, etc.

I understand your frustration with the system. I speak as someone who got bounced out on oldies gig a few years ago. It's time to face facts, though. Oldies fans have to realize commercial OTA radio will never serve them again. Get a satellite subscription, listen to internet radio or buy an iPod.

And comfort yourself with this -- in a few years, your younger brothers and sisters will be crying about their music disappearing from the radio, too. Time marches on.

 

[DavidEduardo]

And the current situation has left many radio people unemployed too - probably more so than your HUMBLE experience. The difference is that stations favor paying for a flawed science and using the info (which in my [ignorant] opinion should be against the law). The multi-millions that is paid to Arbitron every year should be used instead to keep good jocks employed.

If advertisers have no way of measuring the relative value of different stations, they simply say "here is $10 a spot. Take it or leave it." And since stations have no way of showing their value, and have staffs to pay and expenses to cover and debts to service, they take it. Nobody gets paid well, and radio becomes a last-place medium because there is no metric.

Advertisers believe that Arbitron data is adequate for its purpose, which is establishing a metric for pricing. Advertisers created the MRC to audit electronic media, and the methodology has to be approved and is audited every year. No country in the world has better media measurement than the US.

Most stations in rated markets do not use ratings for programming strategy. Ratings are a report card and a sales tool. We do´proprietary research to determine programming strategy, and Arbitron to track it.

You can't keep talent employed without revenue. Ratings are key to revenue.

I think we are all intelligent enough to figure out why the #1 and #2 markets originally dropped two of the biggest formats (Country and Oldies).

Yeah. It's simple. Country did not have a high enough share for viability, and oldies (not classic hits) was moving out of the sales demos and had declining revenues since year 2000.

To give a hint - in favor of preferred formats by media buyers, so the radio stations can get more buys.

Media buyers pick stations mostly based by cost per point. Only the obvious things like not advertising things that are not used in a lifestyle are factors... mostly, the demo specs determine stations. For example, beers buy stations with 21 to 45 to 50 year old men because they buy about 80% of the beer in the US.

Only it backfired, and the stations lost more audience than they gained by doing the flips. Tell me I wrong David, I know you want to. And you'll even have your own scientific answer.

Jack and CBS FM today have relatively comparable 25-54 audience size (3.2 Winter 07 as Jack and 3.4 Fall 07 as CBS-FM.)

Country on a major signal was so long ago as to not be relevant. The demos, the ethnicity and the popularity of country have changed a great deal since there was a full B country in NYC.

The ratings (dis)service doesn't add billing. Good sales people do. Good sales people don't need "numbers" to sell.

In transactional markets, where most or much of the billing is agency in origin, you have to have ratings. Agency sellers are negotiators, while direct sellers are salespersons. It takes both. But if you have no numbers, don't call on an agency.

When is the last time you asked a car salesman how many people are buying a particular model to influence your choice? I don't ask that question. I could care less what other people like.

Really poor analogy. Agencies want to know how many listeners will hear each spot. If they will pay $10 for 1,000 listeners, they will pay $1000 for 100,000 AQH listeners. Radio is sold by pairs of ears. More ears, more impressions for the ad. Advertisers are vitally interested in how many listeners there are as that determines the effective reach of a campaign.

. Advertisers shouldn't care how many people are listening, they should care about how many people will walk in the door because of their ad.

Nope. While that may measure local direct effectiveness, agencies know that the effectiveness of an ad depends on things like retail location and avaialbility, a good price point, need for the product, and many more. Radio is a medium. If the message and product and marketing are all wrong, the product will not sell.

You will argue the number of listeners a station has, will have direct proportion to the response. To a certain extent, this will be true. But the frequency of the ad has more impact, than just the number of listeners a station has.

That is why agencies take all the possible buys to reach the target demo and run reach and frequency calculations, and will drop duplicative stations that do not add cume to the total. R&F is done with AQH for the desired daypart(s) and cume for the same. It requires ratings.

You can take your CPP and apply to every station in the market, it doesn't change the fact that the ad buyers dictate where the dollars will be spent: "I'm familiar with the artists on this station but I have no idea who that artist is on that station. The demo supposedly fits both station profiles.

Most buyers have never listened to the stations they buy. They buy multiple markets and simply call for rates against the market CPP and run the R&F on the ones that come in competitively.

Besides, when is the last time an agency bought 20 deep, as you suggest anyway?

In the larger markets, buys can go 10 to even 15 deep, although most don't. But a Female 18-34 buy will take in different stations than a male beer buy or an older female family van buy or a buy for Black stations or Hispanic targeted stations. I've seen buys that specify "Hispanic females 25-44 assimilated / English dominant" which might pick up none of the same stations as the beer buy. The top 25 to 30 stations 12+ in LA do signficant agency business because each reaches a group that gets buys.

Better yet, when is the last time the 3rd rated or 4th rated Talk station in market 125 was given a decent buy for Women 45-54?

Well, market 125 is Lansing. There are two talkers, one with a 4.4 and another with a 0.8. The 0.8 probably is an NPR station, so it is out of the running for buys. Lansing only gets about 20% of its revenue from non-local agency accounts, so we are not talking about much business there.

I was in market 50, with a Talk Format with 50% female audience, if not more listening, but we never showed in Arbitron and as such never got a buy from an agency.

Smart folks, those agency buyers. They don't usually buy where their message is not going to be heard by anyone.

[And yes we had listeners, enough that should have placed us 11th in the market over-all; that is based on a third party survey.]

Agencies tend to never look at non-accredited surveys. Any station could, otherwise, piece together something that made them look good.

Whenever I called an agency, I got the shove off because we weren't "rated". The truth is the buyer didn't understand the format, and how we reached their target demo.

What is there to understand? They use accredited research, and in Arbitron you did not show. It only takes about 10 diaries and a little bit of TSL to show, so if you did not show you truly had no audience.

They didn't even want to listen to the pitch. Instead I heard: "Send over your rate card and we'll keep it on file". The rate card doesn't explain who the audience is! My "CPP" would have blown the Lite AC out of the water [same demo], and we would have given more frequency and a better response. Is it better to spend $1000 and get 10 commercials that reach 100,000 listeners over a week, or is it better to spend $1000 and get 100 commercials that reach 10,000 listeners over a week. Which station provides the better value? Where is the client's dollars better spent? We all know that frequency is important to get consumers to actually respond to the ad...so... please enlighten the reading audience on MY flawed logic. Please embarrass me.

Agencies want an optimum reach and frequency... such as a reach of 60 and a frequency of 3 a week in the target demo. If you have neither cume nor AQH listeners, there is no way of calculating R&F because 0 times 0 is zero and zero divided by zero is zero. In the eyes of the agency, you had no audience as proven by the instrument they trusted.

Admit it or not David, the Arbitron/Agency game is a sham, made to benefit the few.

Yeah, the few happen to be, in this case, the clients of America's ad agencies. To believe otherwise is to think that P&G and Honda and S.C. Johnson and Pepsi and all the other brands that advertise are staffed by stupid persons. And it's not a sham.

 

[cabradio]

blah blah blah...and more blah blah blah

Just skimming over your remarks I can see that your intent is not a true conversation, but a feeble attempt at self-grandeur. Your responses are projected like you have been initiated into some "radio cult". Scary. But, I honestly did not read your whole post. Sorry you wasted your time. I knew you would go off and try to make me look like a stupid a$$. I'm just wondering who is more stupid right now. See the difference between us is that I know what I know, but don't feel the need to prove myself point-by-point. You are entitled to your cult-like opinion. The fact remains, the industry has been greatly injured, and it partially comes down to the power plays between Arbitron and Agencies [from a revenue perspective, we're not discussing consolidation]. I understand the hows and the whys of agencies buys. That is not the argument. The argument is that the science is inaccurate and the way agencies use that info hurts the industry as a whole. Now...please indulge us in another point by point useless diatribe. I know some people will read everything you write against me...some may even side with you. As I said, I know what I know, and the Truth Shall Set You Free. Stop lying to yourself, and be human for once. Sheesh. Like I said earlier, Radio IS emotional on every level. You can't break it down to 1's and 0's like a computer program to get results. To deny that, is to deny Radio it's soul.

Just an addendum, as I scanned over your reply again...you said the station I was managing had no listeners. Hmm. We must have just imagined all the calls we would get, and imagined taking down their contact info and demo info. Interesting. Thanks for pointing out that my imagination affected everyone in the building. We must have been on some hallucinogenic drug that gave us all the same experience. And as far as the third party research...it was accredited. You make such bold ASSumptions in the hopes of making me look foolish. You're clearly an advocate for Arbitron, because you don't do proper research and you can't get your facts right.

 

[deltas69]

make that a keg of beer.. ;D

 

[DavidEduardo]

Just skimming over your remarks I can see that your intent is not a true conversation, but a feeble attempt at self-grandeur. Your responses are projected like you have been initiated into some "radio cult". Scary. But, I honestly did not read your whole post. Sorry you wasted your time. I knew you would go off and try to make me look like a stupid a$$.

Actually, I spent a lot of time trying to present a logical and true to real life explanation of how things really work, as you prior post was filled with a high number of misunderstandings and errors of fact. I was not trying to make you look like an a$$... you had achieved that effect all by yourself in that same post.

All of us have been a$$es at one time. We had wrong data, made a wrong assumption, or simply did something stupid. It's usually great to have someone extricate our head from out posterior orifice, at least in my opinion. As a friend was told when being fired from a top 5 market PD position, "Son, you don't learn from your successes."

I would hope you reconsidered and decided to learn from the several posters in this thread who have real radio experience and who are willing to share, and not from the clueless ones who agree with you because your point of view fits their similarly distorted view of radio.

I'm just wondering who is more stupid right now. See the difference between us is that I know what I know, but don't feel the need to prove myself point-by-point. You are entitled to your cult-like opinion. The fact remains, the industry has been greatly injured, and it partially comes down to the power plays between Arbitron and Agencies [from a revenue perspective, we're not discussing consolidation]. I understand the hows and the whys of agencies buys.

You obviously do not know, or you would not post the mistaken stuff you have been writing.

There is no "power play" between Arbitron and ad agencies. Radio stations pay for ratings, and agencies use them to determine the efficiency of ad buys. Really simple.

That is not the argument. The argument is that the science is inaccurate

All polls, and the diary based ratings are a form of a poll, have a margin of error. This is due to the fact that not every person in each market is sampled. The sample is mostly decided based on what stations can afford and what margin of error agencies (actually the MRC and agencies) will find tolerable while buying radio ad time.

The science of statistics is actually quite accurate. We can even tell how much the margin of error is based on sample size and total population of any study, radio or use of disposable diapers. In most cases, a couple of percent variation is very acceptable to radio and to advertisers as it does not materially change the results.

and the way agencies use that info hurts the industry as a whole.

Agencies and advertisers use ratings to determine how much audience a station has so they can compare rates vs. delivery and pick the most suited ones for each campaigh. There is nothing in ratings that hurts the industry any more than ABC circulation data hurts the newspaper business. That's why a page in Newsday costs more than one in the Traverse City Record Eagle... newsday has greater readership.

Stop lying to yourself, and be human for once. Sheesh. Like I said earlier, Radio IS emotional on every level. You can't break it down to 1's and 0's like a computer program to get results. To deny that, is to deny Radio it's soul.

Ad sales is not an emotion-laden area. At the agency level, it is supposed to be analytical and blind to anything but the delivery of listeners in the client's selected target demo.

Just an addendum, as I scanned over your reply again...you said the station I was managing had no listeners. Hmm. We must have just imagined all the calls we would get, and imagined taking down their contact info and demo info. Interesting. Thanks for pointing out that my imagination affected everyone in the building.

To an ad agency seing Arbitron, you had no listeners. Unless there was a showing in Arbitron, it was unlikely that you would get any business as the station did not meet even MRS requirements to be in the report for your market.

We must have been on some hallucinogenic drug that gave us all the same experience. And as far as the third party research...it was accredited.

The only accredited ratings company serving radio is Arbitron.

You make such bold ASSumptions in the hopes of making me look foolish. You're clearly an advocate for Arbitron, because you don't do proper research and you can't get your facts right.

I have considerable issues with Arbitron, but, as I have found over the 38 years since my first diary review, one can work with the company to move towards better and better measurement.

Arbitron is the de facto top 300 market provider, because agencies use it and trust it. A dozen other companies have come and gone since 1965 because none has gained the confidence of the agencies and been consistently accredited by the Agency-sponsored MRC.

 

[cabradio]

The only accredited ratings company serving radio is Arbitron.

Believe it or not, there is another service used. Not as widely as Arbitron, (maybe not "accredited", because I'm sure Arbitron has paid a hefty price for that exclusive privilege) but it is legitimate and used by both stations and agencies alike. Again, not doing your research properly.

The TRUTH is something you and many others don't want to acknowledge, part of which is the sample size taken is too small. You just accept it because Arbitron will charge more if you want a larger sample; makes sense, it's the American way. But we all know Arbitron does not accurately measure radio listenership with the handful of diaries. Everyone jokes about hating Arbitron when you lose, but loving them when you win. There is a reason for it, and it's because of its inaccuracies. People don't RESPECT Arbitron, they TOLERATE Arbitron. There is no respect for Arbitron on the front lines of radio, because radio vets know it is scam. AND IF ARBITRON IS SO TRUSTED, WHY IS THERE SUCH A PUSH FOR A MORE ACCURATE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM? Everyone KNOWS it's flawed David. EVERYONE! Don't tell me it's accepted, because it's not. It's TOLERATED because radio is starving for validation! It's about VALIDATION, at any cost, David. Even slicing our own collective wrists. It's not about accuracy or truth. Arbitron fed radio a poison pill. Radio took it and swallowed. Now radio is looking for the antidote.

The Arbitron methodology is flawed. Here's just one example why: When a station gets penalized by Arbitron (for whatever reason, usually for sharing the book with a non-subscriber) how can the book [that excludes the "guilty" radio station] be an ACCURATE TRUE HONEST REPRESENTATION of what stations the listeners are listening to? It ISN'T and yet the information is published as FACT and stations use it, and the agencies use it...but THAT station gets EXCLUDED from the book and may not be considered for potential buys as a result. And their over all rating for the year goes down, which directly affects the CCP they can charge. IT'S A SHAM David. It's a mockery of our business, and yet stations and groups still PAY for the RATINGS (i.e. you don't pay, you don't show). And people like you defend them.

Another example: I lost diaries to the "larger" station in my market because listeners failed to put my call letters. But they were clearly listening to my station based on the other info included, like the fact that they were listening to Dr. Laura. We were the ONLY station in our market carrying her at the time. But the "larger" station gets the diary by default when the calls are not on the diary. And I got it straight from the horses mouth at Arbitron. It's not a TRUE, HONEST AND ACCURATE MEASURING SYSTEM. It is designed to favor the few. The DOJ really needs to look into this scam.

The agencies make their money by spending someone else's money. The more they spend, the more they make. It is in the agencies best interest to buy the most expensive stations in the market, because it actually looks like they are doing more with their clients money by showing $300 spots vs $25-$50 spots. This analogy may be "out there" but consider this: If you gave a broker $1000 +/- a few dollars, and he came back and showed you he invested it in an unknown company, say XYZ123 that he had researched and he told you it was poised for growth, and the stocks were roughly $9 each (but up 29%), you might get upset that he didn't buy you 456rst stocks at roughly $30 each (up 0.26%) just because you are more familiar with 456rst. The point I am trying to make is that the agencies buy the expensive stock because it has more appeal for ROI to the client. But the little guy can out perform the big guy with frequency to get an ROI, when considering that is what advertisers are look for. Your cookie cutter formula is a basic mathematic formula. It ignores common sense. For example you never answered my question about which is better: $1000 for 10 spots reaching 100,000 listeners over a week, or $1000 for 100 spots reaching 10,000 listeners per week. This is something agencies do not consider. And you didn't answer me, because I am right.

So, You also made a mockery of my random pick of market 125 [I didn't verify that "Lansing" would have 3-4 talkers, I figured you were smart enough to understand the question and answer it. My bad.]. You wouldn't even find a comparable market to answer the real part of the question. The market doesn't matter in relation to my question. Pick any market with 3-4 Talk stations...how about Salt Lake City. Go wild and answer the question: When is the last time a 3rd or 4th ranked Talk Station in SLC (market 30 something) got a DECENT buy for women 45-54. We know they listen (at least I do...there were women calling our talk station all the time. I was not in SLC, but the stations are comparable) Now, you're going to give me your long drawn out explanation that the station didn't have enough AQH or CUME for the target demo based on the CPP the client established to pay. Go ahead, rip the soul right of radio and demean it's existence to 1s and 0s. It's what you've been trained to do.

That's why "formats" fail. Now it's all about 1s and 0s, instead of guts and instincts. Gut and instinct is why many successful businesses become a blip on the investor radar. Then they get bought, gutted and stripped down to nothing. And then the investors wonder why it has stopped being successful. Hmm. Maybe because it was gutted, thus there are no more guts. Maybe because it was stripped and has no more instinct. That's topic for another day.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Believe it or not, there is another service used. Not as widely as Arbitron, (maybe not "accredited", because I'm sure Arbitron has paid a hefty price for that exclusive privilege) but it is legitimate and used by both stations and agencies alike. Again, not doing your research properly.

Eastlan is NOT accredited. And it is primarily in markets below #300.

Accreditation can not be bought. The organization that does accreditation, the MRC, is principally the product of the congressional investigations of ratings in the 60's and is a group of some of the most highly qualified and recongnized statisticians and pollsters in the world. The ratings companies such as Nielsen and Arbitron must have every step of methodology approved, every change approved and the whole procedure audited every year in aprocess that lasts over a month and is totally transparent.

Your accusation of bribery is libelous and, to say the least, coming from someone who has demonstrated about zero knowledge of ratings, a cheap shot.

The TRUTH is something you and many others don't want to acknowledge, part of which is the sample size taken is too small. You just accept it because Arbitron will charge more if you want a larger sample;

Remember that to "double" reliability, you have to quadruple the sample, and that would make the survey cost increase by 250% to 300%. The industry can not afford that, and the margin of error in the current sample is within an acceptable range anyway. There has never been a push for anything except a sample that will allow the more narrow dayparts and demos to have an adequate sample for presentation purposes.

But we all know Arbitron does not accurately measure radio listenership with the handful of diaries.

Here's an interesting comparison so you can see the samples are quite large.

LA has 7,500 diaries per survey. A radio station can do music research with 100 respondents... and they can do one, two, three, four tests of 100 persons and the data will be identical within a tiny margin of error. So stations do not need to test more than 100 persons and you can entrust a station worth hundreds of millions to the responses of 100 persons. So, for the radio market 7,500 diaries is qute a decent figure.

In smaller markets, the ratio of diarykeepers to population is actually lower as we approach markets below size 200.

Everyone jokes about hating Arbitron when you lose, but loving them when you win. There is a reason for it, and it's because of its inaccuracies.

No, it's simple human nature to blame anyone except yourself for problems, and to take full credit when things go well. Success has many fathers, and failure is an orphan. Some stations or programmers blame Arbitron. Seldom is Arbitron at fault... it's station programming.

People don't RESPECT Arbitron, they TOLERATE Arbitron.

Prove it. You can't. It's not true.

There is no respect for Arbitron on the front lines of radio, because radio vets know it is scam.

No, we do not know that. The diary system has been the best system for audience measurement until the still-being-perfected People Meter was introduced. We trust the system enough to use Arbitron as our report card and to institute changes and research projects based on that "report card."

AND IF ARBITRON IS SO TRUSTED, WHY IS THERE SUCH A PUSH FOR A MORE ACCURATE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM?

The new system is the PPM. It is being rolled out over the next 3 years in the top 50 markets, but for the moment will not be used in markets 50 to 300... because the diary is more than adequate to measure those markets. The reason why the larger markets will have PPM is because the PPM provides reports much faster and much more often. Since most agency activity is in these same 50 markets (nearly 30% of all radio billings is in the top 10 markets alone!) the agencies have asked for the PPM. Radio gets a smaller sample for 60% more cost. Again, it's the advertisers who use the data and who can specify the type of measurement they want.

(Irrational rant edited)

The Arbitron methodology is flawed. Here's just one example why: When a station gets penalized by Arbitron (for whatever reason, usually for sharing the book with a non-subscriber) how can the book [that excludes the "guilty" radio station] be an ACCURATE TRUE HONEST REPRESENTATION of what stations the listeners are listening to? It ISN'T

Here you show your shortcomings in understanding the system. If a situation like you describe occurs, no commercial station is left out of the e-Book and no station at all (including educational, religious and out of market) is left out of Maximiser. What happens is the station that is stealing the data is given a cease and desist order to stop using it, billed for the usage it made, and the market is embargoed... which means no data is released to the press, local or national. NO STATION IS LEFT OUT OF THE REPORT.

Your statement above is simply NOT TRUE.

and yet the information is published as FACT and stations use it, and the agencies use it...but THAT station gets EXCLUDED from the book and may not be considered for potential buys as a result. And their over all rating for the year goes down, which directly affects the CCP they can charge. IT'S A SHAM David. It's a mockery of our business, and yet stations and groups still PAY for the RATINGS (i.e. you don't pay, you don't show). And people like you defend them.

Except for the fact that stations are not left out for pilfering Arbitron data... and their ratings are still published as always.

Another example: I lost diaries to the "larger" station in my market because listeners failed to put my call letters.

Over 85% of diary entries nationally don't include call letters. Most, about 80%, are written in by frequency. Next, by station or program name. Failure to put in calls is not a concern to anyone but you.

But they were clearly listening to my station based on the other info included, like the fact that they were listening to Dr. Laura. We were the ONLY station in our market carrying her at the time. But the "larger" station gets the diary by default when the calls are not on the diary.

That's not true. Arbitron up to two years ago got a roster of slogans and show names from each station in the quarterly SIP and used the slogan and progam tool in editing to find what show or what talent was on what station.

And I got it straight from the horses mouth at Arbitron. It's not a TRUE, HONEST AND ACCURATE MEASURING SYSTEM. It is designed to favor the few. The DOJ really needs to look into this scam.

Any subscriber has the right to view every diary for the subscribed markets. The system is totally transparent. Obviously, you have misunderstood what Arbitron told you as there are several levels of crediting diary entries, down to ascription where confusing entries are randomly assigned to eligible potential stations based on proportionality to trailing cume for each. Read the Purple Book before you make statements totally devoid of fact.

The agencies make their money by spending someone else's money. The more they spend, the more they make. It is in the agencies best interest to buy the most expensive stations in the market, because it actually looks like they are doing more with their clients money by showing $300 spots vs $25-$50 spots.

Agencies buy listeners. The $300 spot will get you 6 times the listeners of the $50 spot in most cases. With agency buys, they specify a cost per ratings point for each market. The station with 0.8 rating (usually about a 4 share) can get twice as much per spot as the station with a 0.4 rating because they have twice the audience. The agency does not look better buying a station with a higher rate since they will pay the same amount per listener on each station.

So, You also made a mockery of my random pick of market 125 [I didn't verify that "Lansing" would have 3-4 talkers, I figured you were smart enough to understand the question and answer it.

You were the one who said "market 125." I just looked it up, looked at the talkers and looked at the share. You opened that door.

Pick any market with 3-4 Talk stations...how about Salt Lake City. Go wild and answer the question: When is the last time a 3rd or 4th ranked Talk Station in SLC (market 30 something) got a DECENT buy for women 45-54.

Talkers tend to be around 60% male, so they don't get a lot of female buys. Further, lots of female clients have a "no ocntroversy" dictate, so that limits it further. But lets look at Salt Lake. There are 7 talkers there, but two of them have 13 of the 15 shares, with the other 5 dividing 2 share points. As such, the # 3 to #7 will never get on agency buys as they are not even in the top 20 stations in market 31. The first two are #1 and #3 12+ in the market, and probably have decent 25-54... and will be on lots of buys, both of them.

However, there are not a lot of buys so specific as 54-54 women. 35-54, maybe. or 25-44. Or 25-54. Or Hispanic women 18-49. But you picked a seldom seen demo.

Again, the stations with bigger audiences get bought more often. The ones with small audiences are mostly going to have to do good direct selling. And the bigger the audience size the higher the rate, the smaller the audience, the lower the rate. This is the same for magazine circulation, number of direct mail pieces, newspaper circulation, etc. Even billboards are priced based on how many cars pass by each one each day. Ad rates are in direct proportion to ad impressions.

 

[cabradio]

First, I'm not talking about Eastlan. But go ahead and try to show your "superior intellect". It's fun watching you reply to almost every sentence I write! I could give my take on rabbit breeding in North Africa, and you'll still try to out-post me, out-smart me, out-everything me. It's a competition to you.

Politicians aren't bought either, they just take money from special interest groups and "do good things with it".

You bring up another "statistical" monster that has eroded radio: Music Research. When you take the same cross section of people, you will get the same results. If you take 100 people: 20 African Americans aged 18-24, 20 White Males aged 35-54, 20 African American females aged 25-34, 20 White females aged 35-54 and 20 Hispanic males aged 18-24, (or however you want to mix it up, because each demo MUST be represented somehow, right, you think your answers will be different with each test group, when you are sampling the same 10 seconds of each song (or however long the test sample is) ? You have your opinion, oh, and it's better and more correct than anyone else's.

I don't respect Arbitron. And I know others that don't too; Radio station OWNERS even. Point proven. Just because you have a love affair with the statistical beast that has destroyed radio, doesn't mean everyone does.

The PPM is a joke too. I sat in on a seminar where Arbitron explained their new system. It's a joke and you know it. You just won't admit it. Did you get kick backs or something?

So, I didn't explain the "embargoed market" correctly. That does not change the fact that the science is imperfect. FACT.

I sent in my SIP regularly. The fact also remains that diaries that should have been awarded to me, because even Arbitron knew the listeners were listening to me, because of the program listened to, were awarded to a larger station. FACT.

And you STILL won't answer this question: Which is better value for the CLIENT: $1000 for 10 spots reaching 100,000 listeners over a week, or $1000 for 100 spots reaching 10,000 listeners per week. This is something agencies do not consider. And you didn't answer me, FOR a second time, because I am right. Which proves my whole point.

Are we done?

 

[amfmsw]

I think what you're trying to convey David is that Agencies buy a market for a campaign, and they have a goal of grips (GRP=Gross Rating Points). And the reach vs. frequency argument always, always goes in the favor of frequency. "Tell 'em, tell 'em again. tell 'em you told 'em"...minimum 3 frequency. But is the real world, you need a 5-6 to cut through the daily clutter of life's noise. An All news Station has awesome cume, but has notoriously small TSL, therefore it's ineffective because you need to buy so many spots to hit frequency goals.

The average Joe Advertiser is much better off buying a more affordable, if smaller, audience and can OWN them. It's been proven by Roy Williams, the "Wizzard Of Ads": series writer, time and again.

Arbitron is a coarse barometer. It can tell you if the patient is healthy, or dying. It truly can't tell you status, not with it's margin of error. I believe what Charlie is speaking about is it's bizzare ascription anomolies. He feels, probably correctly, that his station was cheated out of many quarter hours of listening because of the diary entry reader. If a listener writes sloppily, or mixes names and frequency, it usually gets split credit. I lost many, many times because of someone's stupidity there. There are ways to correct, and sometimes the company actually re-releases 'the book'.

I had listening to my station credited to a station 1st adjacet to mine in the same format 90 miles away. The diary keeper lived deep at the end of my city grade. It is impossible to even pick out of town station up there. But they got full credit. I got a useless notation of correction.

As far as Saample size, most feel Arbitron's is too small. Mr. Ed, you stand by your number of 100 to accurately rate music. You boast L.A.'s rating sample at 7500. You said to double accuracy, you need to quadruple sample. The numbers that blow the myth's off of "useless older boomers" was from a sample of 17,000. More than quadruple, and more than double the accuracy, right?

That is the frustration with Arbitron. They're nice people, and offer good training to up'n commers. And in Major Cities, you pretty much can't sell without it. In smaller markets, if you live by the book, you die by the book. Point there is, make and sell relationships, NOT numbers. The second point is, the agencies always steer the client into what they professionally feel would work for them...and they're steering them down the wrong road. If an client says "we want 25-49" and the experienced agent knows it should be 35-64, they have an obligation to open they're mouths.

And premium beers target Men 21-25, 21-30 secondary. College boys who want to impress their friends, and inexperienced drinkers who want to try everything.

 

[DavidEduardo]

I think what you're trying to convey David is that Agencies buy a market for a campaign, and they have a goal of grips (GRP=Gross Rating Points).

There is more to it than that. There is a weekly reach goal and a campaign frequency goal. Since most radio campaigns other than sales are multi-week, the frequency builds hugely over time.

And the reach vs. frequency argument always, always goes in the favor of frequency. "Tell 'em, tell 'em again. tell 'em you told 'em"...minimum 3 frequency. But is the real world, you need a 5-6 to cut through the daily clutter of life's noise. An All news Station has awesome cume, but has notoriously small TSL, therefore it's ineffective because you need to buy so many spots to hit frequency goals.

This is why, again, campaigns are either done ove multiple weeks or, if for sales and rollouts, they have higher frequency over a shorter period. Most agency campaigns have a CPP market goal, based on market population and population in the demo target, they have a weekly reach and frequency goal and a campaign goal. Software looks at the ratings, and balances for optimal cost, reach and frequency. So they may get reach with short TSL stations, add frequency with long TSL ones, and avoid duplication by looking at cume sharing. It's a balancing act involving multiple variables.

The average Joe Advertiser is much better off buying a more affordable, if smaller, audience and can OWN them. It's been proven by Roy Williams, the "Wizzard Of Ads": series writer, time and again.

That's wonderful strategy for the local direct account who can not use an agency and can't afford multi-station mass buys. But for most agency accounts, where large reach is required, there is no other way. The local merchant is not concerned with reach but, rather, with optimizing a smaller budget.

[/quote]Arbitron is a coarse barometer. It can tell you if the patient is healthy, or dying. It truly can't tell you status, not with it's margin of error.[/quote]

The margin of error for the diary porduct is very small for significant players. It is even smaller for agencies that do, as many truly do, 2 to 4 book averages. That flattens any wobble and minimizes up and down trending since multi station buys are contemplated nearly always.

I believe what Charlie is speaking about is it's bizzare ascription anomolies.

Ientifying program names and creidting them is not using ascription. Ascription is employed when there is a diary entry of "107" when there is no station using a rounded slogan and there are two local stations in the range, 107.1 and 107.5. In this case, using a random number generator each time (to flatten the effects of listed quarter hours) either of the stations can get the credit in proportion to each's trailing cume. It's fair, and allows nearly unidentifiable data to used fairly.

Ascripton is not used for slogans, talent names or program names. Those are applied in accordance with what station is using them, just like calls and frequency.

I've looked at hundreds of thousands of diaries going back to 1970 in beltsville, Laurel and Columbia. I can say that the diary processing procedure today is so close to perfect that criticism is hardly warranted... and I'm a person who has gotten two full books reissued and who has uniquely gotten a trend reissued in the past.

He feels, probably correctly, that his station was cheated out of many quarter hours of listening because of the diary entry reader.

If his SIP was on file, he got credit for all his shows. If he did not file it, that's his error.

If a listener writes sloppily, or mixes names and frequency, it usually gets split credit.

Arbitron can read nearly everything. I have never seen a missed credit based on handwriting. And split entries are often due to a person listening to two stations in one period of time... younger listeners often put three to five frequencies on one line over a period of an hour or more, as those are the stations they switch around to.

I lost many, many times because of someone's stupidity there. There are ways to correct, and sometimes the company actually re-releases 'the book'.

A reissue only happens if an error has been spotted that materially affects rank of staitons. Find me one reissued book over the past 5 years that had edit errors as a cause (the re-issues were for station employee tampering, such as the Traverse City case, not errors, and were discovered by Arbitron itself.)

I had listening to my station credited to a station 1st adjacet to mine in the same format 90 miles away. The diary keeper lived deep at the end of my city grade. It is impossible to even pick out of town station up there. But they got full credit. I got a useless notation of correction.

If the entry was format related, and not station specific, ascription enters in. One time you lose, one time you win.

As far as Saample size, most feel Arbitron's is too small.

But stations will not pay for more. In general, those asking for sample increases do not understand that it takes four times the sample to improve reliability by one standard error... and think 25% is a big sample increas when it is meaningless in most cases.

Mr. Ed, you stand by your number of 100 to accurately rate music. You boast L.A.'s rating sample at 7500. You said to double accuracy, you need to quadruple sample. The numbers that blow the myth's off of "useless older boomers" was from a sample of 17,000. More than quadruple, and more than double the accuracy, right?

One is a quantitative study, the other a qualitative. No comparison.

The second point is, the agencies always steer the client into what they prof essionally feel would work for them...and they're steering them down the wrong road. If an client says "we want 25-49" and the experienced agent knows it should be 35-64, they have an obligation to open they're mouths.

Most larger clients have plenty of data to support their demographic target and these are always discussed as part of the ongoing relationship. But the agency, unless they commission research on behalf of the client, is not going to know who the core consumers are.

And premium beers target Men 21-25, 21-30 secondary. College boys who want to impress their friends, and inexperienced drinkers who want to try everything.

No, they don't target either of those. First, neither are diary based demos (21-24 and 21.34 are possibly, nut not the ones you put in). Second, premiums are premium priced. The heavy user is definitely 25+ and usually 35+.

 

[DavidEduardo]

First, I'm not talking about Eastlan.

Then you are talking about one of several commpanies that does quickie phone surveys... I've forgotten the names of several over the years. One of them even does LA, and it's product shows no Spanish language station in the top 10 in a market that is 42% Hispanic and over 55% Hispanic in 18-34. So much for that... tiny samples, surveying over just a few days, limited demo breaks, etc., etc.

Politicians aren't bought either, they just take money from special interest groups and "do good things with it".

Why do you persist in suggesting corrupt or improper practices when none have ever been suggested in this area over the 43 years that Arbitron has measured radio? You seem to revel in tarring and feathering with no regard for underlying fact.

You bring up another "statistical" monster that has eroded radio: Music Research. When you take the same cross section of people, you will get the same results. If you take 100 people: 20 African Americans aged 18-24, 20 White Males aged 35-54, 20 African American females aged 25-34, 20 White females aged 35-54 and 20 Hispanic males aged 18-24, (or however you want to mix it up, because each demo MUST be represented somehow, right, you think your answers will be different with each test group, when you are sampling the same 10 seconds of each song (or however long the test sample is) ? You have your opinion, oh, and it's better and more correct than anyone else's.

Music tests are not done the way you suggest, nor anything close. A recurit for a soft AC might be 100 women 35-54, half 35-44 and half 45-54. 60% P1 and 40% P1 and no more than half of the P2's can be P1 to any single station, stratified by age. If the market is ethnic and the station has ethnic appeal, a percentage by ethnicity may be employed. A minimum amount of weekly listening for P1's and for P2's may be applied, also. The target demo is determined by the age span that collects 70% to 80% of all heavy users per Arbitron.

Each demo must NOT be represented, as you want to test users of the format and, mostly, users of your own staiton. They are the only ones who will know the music you are testing. Only the demos you can appeal to heavily will be tested, and only the people who know the music... they use you primarily or secondarily and use you enough to know the songs.

This is the method used worldwide (and used for three decades or more) by dozens of research companies, all of which exist because stations that test this way get better ratings than ones that do not test. Also bear in mind that there has been loads of methodology testing over the years to determine fatigue vs. accuracy for hook length, and 8 seconds is more than enough since the 8 seconds are the hook part of the song. Any more time, the participant gets uneasy and fatigues quickly. Any shorter, the hooks may not fully tell the story. When using electronic dials to measure, we see that all respondents have scored by the 6th second, and most around 4 or 5. That is all it takes, but you have to have actually done some tests to understand it. And you have to actually have programmed a tested library against one that isn't to know how badly your competitor will lose (my last one was a 1.8 to a 20 share, advantege my tested station).

I don't respect Arbitron. And I know others that don't too; Radio station OWNERS even. Point proven. Just because you have a love affair with the statistical beast that has destroyed radio, doesn't mean everyone does.

All of us want better performance from everything from our car mechanic to Arbitron. The fact is, it is a valuable sales tool and a good programming report card. There have been about a dozen options in the last 47 years, and none has achieved agency acceptance (Pulse, Hooper, Mediatrend, Mediastat, Birch, SRC, Burke, Audits & Surveys, etc.).

The PPM is a joke too. I sat in on a seminar where Arbitron explained their new system. It's a joke and you know it. You just won't admit it. Did you get kick backs or something?

The PPM itself is great. There are sample issues regarding proportionality still being worked on, and Arbitron never did panel based research and has been caught in some learning process glitches. With the cooperation of broadcasters and the MRC guidance and that of the Advisory Council, they will get it right. And it satisfies the need for immediacy that agencies get for TV and other media but not radio.

So, I didn't explain the "embargoed market" correctly. That does not change the fact that the science is imperfect. FACT.

Huh? You said a staiton using data without a contract was not listed in the book. That is just 100% wrong.

I sent in my SIP regularly. The fact also remains that diaries that should have been awarded to me, because even Arbitron knew the listeners were listening to me, because of the program listened to, were awarded to a larger station. FACT.

Arbitron always corrects edit errors if proven. Either you did not prove them or the incident did not materially affect station rank. Otherwise, they woud have reissued. They always do in this case.

And you STILL won't answer this question: Which is better value for the CLIENT: $1000 for 10 spots reaching 100,000 listeners over a week, or $1000 for 100 spots reaching 10,000 listeners per week. This is something agencies do not consider. And you didn't answer me, FOR a second time, because I am right. Which proves my whole point.

Nope. I can't answer the "when did you stop beating your wife" question.

If you wanted poor reach and high frequency with few people many times, then the second option will work. If you want lower frequency but lots of potential consumers, option one works. And that is how agencies do it, too. Goals are set for a campaign for reach and frequency... depending on the nature of the campaign, its duration, the desired share of voice, etc., the right reach and right frequency are determined.

 

[cabradio]

You are STILL wrong about the research company I am talking about.

In any case: Bravo!

Through all your nit picking at me, and over-analysis of almost every sentence I have written (whether I am right, wrong or indifferent on the matter discussed), you have clearly shown the reason why things must change in our beloved industry.

Listenership is down. - Lets continue to do music research to see what the remaining audience wants. Forget about finding a way to bring them back.

Revenue is down (yes there are other extenuation circumstances affecting every industry. Needless to say, it's worse than it should be). - Let's continue to spend multi-millions for Arbitron, even though the science and methodology is flawed.

Employment [in radio] is down, as there are fewer and fewer available positions. - What? We still have a mid-day guy. Get rid of him or I won't get my bonus.

Moral at many stations is down [people just aren't as excited as they used to be]. - What? We still have a mid-day guy? Get rid of him, or I'll get rid of you! I need my bonus!

Everything you say about the industry "tools" is coming from a closed mind. - There is nothing better than Arbitron. It is God's word for Radio. Music testing is the only way to know what songs "hook" people. People don't want variety. People want what we say they want, when we say they want it.

You are not willing to accept the fact that the industry is broken, and things must change. - We are the radio Borg. Assimilate or you will be exterminated.

Life is survival of the fittest. - We are the radio Borg. Assimilate or you will be exterminated.

Radio, compared to all other entertainment choices, is not fit. - There are no other choices. Oh except Satellite Radio, and we will kill it. We have already killed the iPod by removing most DJs from the airwaves. You'll see. Arbitron will show you the ratings. They will have the proof. Arbitron is the Bible for radio.

But, keep everyone's eye over here, so the top execs can continue to make cutbacks and bad decisions [like keeping Arbitron] over here and no one will notice until it's too late. - Look over here. I have free concert tickets for you!

Oh. I have separated every thought for you, to save you a few clicks of the mouse.

 

[DavidEduardo]

You are STILL wrong about the research company I am talking about.

Well, Strategic no longer measures, and, apparently, neither does Bridge.

Why don't you tell us the name of the research company? You started by saying it was accredited, of course. Now you can't even give us the name.

Yes, I am trying to show that the things you post are suppositions and assumptions and are unbased in reality. Did I mention that you stated that stations who used Arbitron data without being subscribed were delisted, when this is not true? Or that you do not understand the difference between automatic credit data, like frequency and name and program names, vs. ascription data which consist of things tow or more stations could equally claim credit for?

Listenership is down. - Lets continue to do music research to see what the remaining audience wants. Forget about finding a way to bring them back.

It's disingenuous to think that with all the alternatives for entertainment that radio would not have some erosion. The fact is that listening levels today are close to what they were in the 70's, although there was a peak in the 80's when portability favored radio faster than portable CD plaers and other devices. At this time, radio reaches 95% of all persons 18+ every week, although the TSL is off from the peak in '87 to '88.

Revenue is down (yes there are other extenuation circumstances affecting every industry. Needless to say, it's worse than it should be). - Let's continue to spend multi-millions for Arbitron, even though the science and methodology is flawed.

Radio is a mature, and slow growth, industry. All else is the effect of the economy. WaMu stock is off 75%... things are tough all over. Singling out radio is similarly disingenuous in this contet.

Employment [in radio] is down, as there are fewer and fewer available positions.

Actually, there are more sales politions and less in other areas. Computers and technology have reduced the requirements for engineers, on air staff, cut the time for production, sped u´traffic and bookeeping, etc. In the late 40's, WOR had over 80 engineers alone! Today, they need two or three at most. Times change in all industries. Gas stations used not to have self serve pumps and the single grade of gas was aobut $0.27 a gallon in around 1960.

Everything you say about the industry "tools" is coming from a closed mind. - Everything you say about the industry "tools" is coming from a closed mind. - There is nothing better than Arbitron.

There IS nothing better than Arbitron, anywhere in the world. This is a free economy. Many, many companies have tried to do radio ratings, and no other company has endured or made a mark. That's because Arbitron offers a good price point and quality of service for the diary survey and agencies are familiar with it and comfortable with its consistency and reliability for the buying function.

Music testing is the only way to know what songs "hook" people.

I am waiting with bated breath for your alternative to hook based music testing. Go for it. Stun us.

People don't want variety.

Of course people want variety. Variety, however, is not "a lot of songs." It is "only my favorite songs, one after the other." For a hip hop or CHR partisan, variety may mean playing 30 to 50 songs and lack of variety may mean p.laying 100 or more songs, because the ones the listener wants to hear do not come up often enough.

We have already killed the iPod by removing most DJs from the airwaves.

That makes no sense. The iPod is not a radio.

 

[cabradio]

Funny thing is, you don't realize how well you prove my point for me. Thank you.