Again, Agency - Client research is OFF

[barnaby_wilde]

Come on people. David says advertisers rely on research. Charlie says research is flawed. David agrees that research is not perfect, but (to use my own analogy) buying advertising without first looking at research is like walking across the street without first looking both ways. Charlie thinks following flawed research without question is like walking across the street because someone told you to rather than looking for yourself.

Gentlemen. In my opinion, you both happen to be correct. If you believe that for radio to succeed, its listeners must translate to sales for the advertiser, then you must also believe that there are a number of variables in that formula. Having a huge group of loyal listeners who don't buy anything may get you lots of listener action and interaction, but it won't create sales for advertisers. Having a huge group of loyal listeners who might buy anything, but who are given a bad advertising message won't create sales for advertisers. Having a small group of loyal listeners who might buy anything, may create some (but maybe not enough) sales for advertisers.

The thing that bugs me about this whole deal (besides all of the attacks - personal and otherwise) is that David's main premise is that it has been proven that persons over 55 cannot be effectively influenced by radio advertising to buy products. Furthermore, once you accept this premise, then you remove these persons from further studies (as to what kind of radio format they like, music preferences, etc.). Essentially, these people are now non-entities and neither require nor merit further consideration.

With that said (and not just because I'm over 55), has David or anyone questioned the reason for the result of the research that led to the premise that people over 55 are not effectively influenced by advertising? Could it be that age was not the factor that led to the result? For example, if the study were done in 1990, the 60 year old was born in 1930, during the depression, and that people born in that period were NEVER influenced that much by advertising? Perhaps advertising didn't influence them in 1950 when they were 20, and in 1960 when they were 30, etc. Maybe it's not the age that a person attains that influences his/her reaction to advertising, but the era that he/she was born that is the deciding factor.

If it's the era of birth rather than than the age of the person, baby boomers who were influenced by advertising at age 35 would also be influenced by advertising 20 years later. I am not stating that this is a fact. I have no research. However, I do believe that to totally dismiss anyone over 55 from even being part of research keeps research from being very scientific. What makes someone turn the corner from being influenced by advertising at 45 and not being influenced 15 years later? I don't know. Not only do I don't know what makes them change, right now I am not convinced that they did change.

With all that said, let's assume two things. Charlie is correct and the research is flawed. David is correct and advertisers rely on research. It seems that the answer to the equation in that case is that sales revenues go to stations that rely on research. Furthermore, because of the flaw, a demographic which may also be a viable consumer base is overlooked and not served by those stations. Somehow I want to believe that Charlie is correct, but if I were a station, I couldn't provide sufficient evidence of flawed research and I am not a big enough gambler to risk it all on a gut feeling that the research data is flawed. I guess I sure would like to prove that over 55 deserve some radio consideration, but I don't know how except not to listen. Unfortunately, by not listening, I provide someone some more evidence that over 55 do not merit radio consideraton.

 

[DavidEduardo]

With that said (and not just because I'm over 55), has David or anyone questioned the reason for the result of the research that led to the premise that people over 55 are not effectively influenced by advertising?

It's not that 55+ are not influenced by advertising. They are. It's just that they are a lot slower in making a product change or trying a new product than a 28 year old, for example. So it takes more advertising to convince them and to make the sale. The real reason why 55+ are essentially never addressed via radio advertising is that the cost of making the added impressions needed to make the sale erase any potential for profit.

Could it be that age was not the factor that led to the result?

We are talking about very current research by companies like Proctor & Gamble and Anheuser Busch and Pepsi and such... who spend hundreds of millions on research for their brands. They uniformly see that there is poor or no ROI on ad investments against 55+.

With all that said, let's assume two things. Charlie is correct and the research is flawed. David is correct and advertisers rely on research. It seems that the answer to the equation in that case is that sales revenues go to stations that rely on research. Furthermore, because of the flaw, a demographic which may also be a viable consumer base is overlooked and not served by those stations. Somehow I want to believe that Charlie is correct, but if I were a station, I couldn't provide sufficient evidence of flawed research and I am not a big enough gambler to risk it all on a gut feeling that the research data is flawed. I guess I sure would like to prove that over 55 deserve some radio consideration, but I don't know how except not to listen. Unfortunately, by not listening, I provide someone some more evidence that over 55 do not merit radio consideraton.

Companies like P&G would love to have an additional market segment to grow in. But they know that the cost of that growth will lose them moeny. The research is not flawed... it is proprietary, and every major brand of product and service does it. If they could make money, they would be all over 55+ and radio would respond by programming some stations in each market for 45-64 instead of 35-54, for example.

In any case, this is a decision made at the client level in the marketing department, and radio does not and can not reach into those places.

 

[amfmsw]

Mr. Wild, excellent observation. Thanks for joining in.

Mr. Ed, The premium beers are NOT older. We just completed the summer buys for many brands. The Mooseheads, Heinekins, Becks and such were 21-24, then 21-34. And a station cannot have more than a third of it's audience underage, or it's out.

Now, many, many times you have said persons 55 -64 are "slow" to act on advertising. Source please. Book, study, hunch, myth? I think it's nonsense. Again, if you're trying to sell a 58 year old an entry level Kia, good luck. If you're trying to get them to switch from Cadillac to Lexus, you'll have good luck with the right message.

 

[Don62]

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.

Wow. Spoken like a real corporate bureaucrat. Radio isn't going to grow. We're all going to shut the stations down. It's over. Young people don't listen anyway.

If you work in radio, I can see why the medium is in trouble with "thinking" like that.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Mr. Ed, The premium beers are NOT older. We just completed the summer buys for many brands. The Mooseheads, Heinekins, Becks and such were 21-24, then 21-34. And a station cannot have more than a third of it's audience underage, or it's out.

Yes, the underage restriction applies. But a station with stong male 25-44 will also get the premiums. The obvious target is 21-34 though on most brands.

Now, many, many times you have said persons 55 -64 are "slow" to act on advertising. Source please.

While the research is proprietary, those of use who sell or have managed stations or managed sales have had many contacts with agency executives who see the research and who are bound by it. In general, what comes out of every one of the studies (remember, P&G spends over $100 million on research) is that the amount of advertising needed to create a sale in 55+ is more costly than the profit on the sale it generates.

Many of us have met with brand managers of major corporations, and have confirmed that way that 55+ is just not a target of interest. It´s all about ROI.

I think it's nonsense.

Then why are there no 55+ buys?

Again, if you're trying to sell a 58 year old an entry level Kia, good luck. If you're trying to get them to switch from Cadillac to Lexus, you'll have good luck with the right message.

Not really. In our LA cluster, the younger leaning pop station takes the Lexus buy, while the adult hits station does not. Client dictate... sell them younger and build loyaty. Sell preowned if you can't sell new, but get them in when they start making enough so you don't lose them for multiple purchases.

 

[barnaby_wilde]

Originally posted by David Eduardo:
We are talking about very current research by companies like Proctor & Gamble and Anheuser Busch and Pepsi and such... who spend hundreds of millions on research for their brands. They uniformly see that there is poor or no ROI on ad investments against 55+.

So P&G, A-B, and Pepsi still research 55+ people to see whether they may be more receptive to advertising? The reason I keep asking is that many believe that, in today's world, 50 is the new 40. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. If it is and 55-65 today is like yesterday's 45-55, then the demo might be more easily influenced by advertising. Then again, today's 55+ might just be more active, live longer, and stay more set in their ways for ten more years. If the latter is the case, I guess us old folks must put up with ten additional years of having to listen to radio that doesn't care about us just to get the news, weather, etc. and forget thinking that anybody will ever play music we like!!!!
Just askin' ???

 

[amfmsw]

Mr. Ed, my dear and respected favorite cyber adversary,

Lexus target is women / 35-49, then adults 35-64 with an earned income of $100k+. Lexus is NOT buying youth stations. A local dealer may, to push trade-ins, but certainly not factory money. Lexus/Infinity/ M-B using a hip-hop station to market to "yoots" is fantasy, and anyone, everyone reading this thread knows better.

Now the source, in a court of law, it would be ruled heresay, and inadmissable to the arguement (discussion). It's not fair, and it has NO credibility to say it's "proprietary". That means, to me, that it's an old wive's tale from the 30-'60's that you firmly believe, and these marketers cling to. It is something outdated from a college textbook on Marketing from 1967. This is a new generation, and we're HUGE.

"Then why are there no 55+ buys?" My answer again, is the same: it nonsense...and foolish on their part First off, we're not talking about 55+. We're talking about rock era pop music listening, and that's 35-64. There's plenty of buys for 35-64. If P&G and A-B continue on the same course, they will continue to see their market share shrink. That's what happened to ALL of the record companies, and "The Big Three" auto makers.

Toyota just overtook GM as the worlds #1 manufacturer in the first quarter. Average age of Toyota buyer: 45. Scion: 41 Source: Ad Age

Radio should dance with the date that brought them, instead, it's left us standing in the corner while they court another girl.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Lexus target is women / 35-49, then adults 35-64 with an earned income of $100k+. Lexus is NOT buying youth stations.

Lexus recently appointed an Hispanic shop, and it is buying stations like KLVE in LA, as are the dealers, where the stations target 25-44 with pop formats (comparable to English Hot AC) because of dealer surveys in large Hispanic markets as to who is buying the cars. The largest dealer in LA sells 60% of new cars to Hispanics.

A local dealer may, to push trade-ins, but certainly not factory money. Lexus/Infinity/ M-B using a hip-hop station to market to "yoots" is fantasy, and anyone, everyone reading this thread knows better.

Who said hip-hop? Although in LA, the ethnicity, demos and distribution of income makes all the assumptions you stated just totally wrong for the market... and for most large Southwestern markets.

Now the source, in a court of law, it would be ruled heresay, and inadmissable to the arguement (discussion). It's not fair, and it has NO credibility to say it's "proprietary". That means, to me, that it's an old wive's tale from the 30-'60's that you firmly believe, and these marketers cling to. It is something outdated from a college textbook on Marketing from 1967. This is a new generation, and we're HUGE.

Any station with good relationships with agency executives (not just the media folks... the AE's who deal with the client and the heads of the shops... will tell you, gladly, how demos are decided as that avoides stations and media that don't apply from bothering the agency about all those "lost opportunities" that the clients have researched already and discarded.

Almost all marketing research done by companies in the US is proprietary. Arbitron, in fact, is proprietary in everything except 12+ numbers and rankers without numbers for a few other cases. Companies, tied in with the computer data shared with retailers that include data from buyer cards at supermarkets, know who buys and how much. They know sales by the day and ZIP code. They do their own or omnibus pantry checks to determine who buys what along with perceptual questions as to why. They correlate all this with ad expenditures, as well as marketing strategies such as self facings and end aisle displays (for products as oppposed to services) and have done this (with less technology) for decades.

The fact is... and I checked in Top 10 markets (where nearly 30% of all ad expenditures are made) and Top 20 markets and there are essentially no 55+ radio buys. Those buys in other media for 55+ tend to be the sort of thing you see in the AARP magazine... investments and health / medications that require statistics and disclaimers... retirement related issues often requiring appetite appeal (pictures, illustrations) and so on, which is why this sort of thing is not put on radio.

"Then why are there no 55+ buys?" My answer again, is the same: it nonsense...and foolish on their part First off, we're not talking about 55+. We're talking about rock era pop music listening, and that's 35-64. There's plenty of buys for 35-64.

No, there really are not. The CPP is based on 35-54, and the rest is spillage. Were there 55-64 tagged on to broader demos, then so many oldies stations would not have moved to classic hits... on a 25-64 they looked great, but on a 25-54, they were moving out of the top 10... no buys, no money, no format.

If P&G and A-B continue on the same course, they will continue to see their market share shrink. That's what happened to ALL of the record companies, and "The Big Three" auto makers.

The record companies, lead by 55+ old guys in suits, has a brick and mortar mentality and can't get the digital model right even after the consumer has plainly shown what they want.

The Big Three built bad cars for decades. I had several in the 70's and would not buy one even not that the quality has improved: call it payback, but I was cheated by ford and GM twice and won't do business with them. Nearly everyone I know has similar attitudes, whatever the cause, about US car makers.

Neither music nor cars has anything to do with demos.

Toyota just overtook GM as the worlds #1 manufacturer in the first quarter. Average age of Toyota buyer: 45. Scion: 41 Source: Ad Age

And isn't it funny that Scion was developed for the youth market right down to trendy corners in the showrooms with youth decor.

Radio should dance with the date that brought them, instead, it's left us standing in the corner while they court another girl.

In any case, this is not, as I have said hundreds of times, a radio issue. If there are no buys for 55+ then how can radio program to the demo?

In for letters: WDUV.

#1 12+, zero listening under 55, 15th in market billing. There is no money after the demo.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Originally posted by David Eduardo:
We are talking about very current research by companies like Proctor & Gamble and Anheuser Busch and Pepsi and such... who spend hundreds of millions on research for their brands. They uniformly see that there is poor or no ROI on ad investments against 55+.

So P&G, A-B, and Pepsi still research 55+ people to see whether they may be more receptive to advertising? The reason I keep asking is that many believe that, in today's world, 50 is the new 40. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. If it is and 55-65 today is like yesterday's 45-55, then the demo might be more easily influenced by advertising. Then again, today's 55+ might just be more active, live longer, and stay more set in their ways for ten more years. If the latter is the case, I guess us old folks must put up with ten additional years of having to listen to radio that doesn't care about us just to get the news, weather, etc. and forget thinking that anybody will ever play music we like!!!!
Just askin' ???

Again, this is not about being receptive to advertising. It is the fact that the older a person gets, the more cautios they generally are in believing, acting on or responding to advertising. Youth is rach and impulsive while maturer persons are more reasond, deliberate, etc. While there are exceptions on each side, in general caution is a product of ageing. So it takes more ads to do the same job of convincing a person to use or try a product if they are older... and at some point, the cost of the ads is greater than the potential for profit and it makes no sense to go after a particular segment.

Of course, one of the reasons for advertising to younger demos is to make them long-term consumers.

 

[amfmsw]

David...SOURCE. You keep retelling this long held farce, but have no real contemporary source. Your point has zero value. Zero.

You keep begging the point of 55+, and you know better than that. That's a red herring. It's nonsense. Of course theres few 55+ buys in the top ten market. I'm surprised there's any!! AGAIN, WE'RE talking about 35-64. Get to the mark. The folk of the 35-64 have the cash. PLEASE STOP using some LA subset of a SMALL DEMO for a national sweep. 25-44? You're making people of intelligence laugh.

I'm done genuflecting to the crap science and "research" spewed. REAL life experience has told me differently.

Gentlemen and Gentleladies, make your case... It seems the pontificating of the "marketing geniuses" needs to end here. I hope the marketing "experts" have their feet held to the fire when the major advertisers see their market share keep shrinking year after year. I'll hold the match to set the pyre.

 

[barnaby_wilde]

Again, this is not about being receptive to advertising. It is the fact that the older a person gets, the more cautios they generally are in believing, acting on or responding to advertising. Youth is rach and impulsive while maturer persons are more reasond, deliberate, etc. While there are exceptions on each side, in general caution is a product of ageing. So it takes more ads to do the same job of convincing a person to use or try a product if they are older... and at some point, the cost of the ads is greater than the potential for profit and it makes no sense to go after a particular segment.

Of course, one of the reasons for advertising to younger demos is to make them long-term consumers.

All these facts that are espoused by Mr. Eduardo relate to generalizations about aging individuals being more cautious, reasoned, deliberate and less rash and impulsive. And I think that is a rational statement, even if no statistical study is cited to prove the point. However, since we are living longer, older folks could still be long term consumers for decades. Somehow it seems to permeate Mr. Eduardo's reasoning and research that age is the only variable that is relevant in advertising. Maybe, just maybe the advertising message itself and how it is presented might also affect how individuals are convinced to use or try a product. Perhaps an advertising campaign that appeals to the listener's reason as opposed to impulse just mighty pry open the 55+ wallets. Not more ads, but using reason instead of impulse to convince in the ad copy. It's a really crazy concept, but it just might work. With that said, I guess we will never know because such ads won't be aired on media that appeals to geezers. Anyway, it seems like we have a lot of folks on this board that are exceptions to the 55+ study results, but we may just be a rare sample.

 

[DavidEduardo]

All these facts that are espoused by Mr. Eduardo relate to generalizations about aging individuals being more cautious, reasoned, deliberate and less rash and impulsive. And I think that is a rational statement, even if no statistical study is cited to prove the point.

All large brands and services do research, either on their own, or via syndicated multi-participant products, to find out about their market, sales by age, region, sex, ethnicity, income and education level, etc. They also track sales by the same criteria (for products) so they know who is buying. They can correlate this data with advertising media and expenditures.

None of this data is published. Most "outsiders" will never see it. Most of it is the subject of NDA's or, like Arbitron, a contract with a service provider.

However, it is in the best interests of ad agencies to have the media know in general terms what each client is seeking. This helps both wayas: the media can present specific features or shows or events based on knowing what clients want, and the agency is spared having media that does not reach the target wasting time pitching something that will never happen. At the same time, they will answer questions that do not break the NDAs or reveal confidential data... part of that is the "why don't they target 55+" or some other demo.

In the 55+ question, the answer is that client research shows a poor ROI; additional factors may be not wishing to image the product as "old" for core consumers or not wanting to confuse retailers or have, inadvertently, the product put in different shelf positions, etc.

However, since we are living longer, older folks could still be long term consumers for decades. Somehow it seems to permeate Mr. Eduardo's reasoning and research that age is the only variable that is relevant in advertising. Maybe, just maybe the advertising message itself and how it is presented might also affect how individuals are convinced to use or try a product.

Again, this is not about income or levels of consumption. It's about the number of impressions and their cost to create a sale. While a percentge of 55+ behave differently, the bulk are "more resistent" to advertising so it costs more, via more impressions, to create trial usage. At that point, there may be no profit. That is why 25-34 is so powerful a sales demo, moreso thatn 35-44 and even more than 45-54. It's about receptivity and response to advertising, which declines as a function of age.

Perhaps an advertising campaign that appeals to the listener's reason as opposed to impulse just mighty pry open the 55+ wallets.

If you think that P&G or Budweiser or... (insert national brand here) has not thought of this, spent millions researching it, and determined that it is a waste of money, then you need to read a bit on how many billions and billions these brands spend in marketing each year and how carefully they track and research everything.

 

[DavidEduardo]

David...SOURCE. You keep retelling this long held farce, but have no real contemporary source. Your point has zero value. Zero.

Please read my reply to Barnaby White. And then talk to a senior AE or head of any shop with brand accounts. But then again, if you think that P&G is going to publish its marketing research, you may not be open to understanding this.

You keep begging the point of 55+, and you know better than that. That's a red herring. It's nonsense. Of course theres few 55+ buys in the top ten market. I'm surprised there's any!! AGAIN, WE'RE talking about 35-64. Get to the mark. The folk of the 35-64 have the cash. PLEASE STOP using some LA subset of a SMALL DEMO for a national sweep. 25-44? You're making people of intelligence laugh.

I'm looking at buys down below market 50, too. The older the demo, the less buys there are against it. 25-34 is prime, 35-44 a bit less, 45-54 still even more below 35-44 because of ROI. 55+ is seldom asked for in any market size. Anything ending in xx-64 is rare, too.

Again, as I said, if there were 35-64 or 45-64 buys, most of the 60's oldies stations would not have converted to 70's oldies stations... because they would look great in 45-64. Nope. The 55+ part was unsalable, so they moved the music up 10 years average, and now they are 35-54 formats and have good sales demos. Nearly all agency buys are within the 18 to 54 range including all the possible age, sex and ethinc subsets

The fact that these buys against anybody over 55 just don't exist ought to be proof that the agency clients don't want the demo.

 

[cabradio]

David, you are so stuck in your 1s and 0s, black and white,thinking that you fail to understand that change is in the air. It's time the corporate shell was broken. The damn chicken is trying to get out! And you guys keep patching up the shell, thinking you know better.

For the longest time, educated people believed the world was flat. We're talking thousands of years! And it was proven because there were people who "studied" it and taught the others the "facts". The funny thing about those "experts" is that they were WRONG.

For the longest time, educated people believed the Sun revolved around the Earth, and that the Earth was the center of the Universe. And it was proven because there were people who "studied" it and taught the others the "facts". The funny thing about those "experts" is that they were WRONG.


For the longest time, educated people believed that something that was heavy fell at a faster rate than something that was light. And it was proven because there were people who "studied" it and taught the others the "facts". The funny thing about those "experts" is that they were WRONG.

For the longest time, educated people believed asbestos was a good material for insulation. And it was proven because there were people who "studied" it and taught the others the "facts". The funny thing about those "experts" is that they were WRONG.

There are scientists that have irrefutable proof the Earth is millions or billions of years old, and there are scientists that have irrefutable proof the Earth is only tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years old. One set of experts is WRONG, they both can't be right.

There are other more recent examples, but you get the point. (or should...)

So, for decades, (small amount of time compared to the experts of yore) research has been done on advertising to specific demos. And it has been proven because there are people who "studied" it and taught the others the "facts". And people believe the researchers, after all, they are experts.

And for decades, Arbitron has been selling its flawed research, selling it as "accurate". And it has been "proven to be accurate" because there are people who "studied" it and taught the others the "facts". But it's the only game in town. There are no other studies, because of the cost involved to create one. These days people are more interested in profits than truth. Since there is not real way to monetize the research, nobody does it. Radio stations are already paying for the flawed research, they won't pay for another study even if it is more accurate. So, the sheep follow blindly to the wolf's den. And it shouldn't be the radio stations that pay for the research anyway. The agencies should. And Cumulus is exploring a better option for their stations in markets below 100. The only reason they are keeping Arbitron in markets above 100, is a temporary one. They can't afford to lose agency dollars right now. But once that new formula is perfected, I'd bet they'll drop Arbitron completely.

Look David, your methodology's may have worked for the industry in the past, just as a flat Earth worked for the people of the time. It's a convoluted formula, that confuses the layman in order to sell snake oil. Ah, but if you study it, and learn it, and worship it, you become initiated into the "Flat Earth Society", you will then believe that it is accurate. Arbitron's numbers are only "true" until someone does finally prove otherwise. The fact remains, it is flawed. And it is time for the industry to demand something better, as Cumulus is. And I don't mean settle for PPM.

You can explain your belief in Arbitron's system to me all you want. You can show me all the "proof" you want. You can use inaccurate research data to prove what you want, only as long as there is no refuting data. All the other companies that have come and gone, just haven't been able to monetize their research so they aren't here today. Of course, their data could have been flawed too. In any case, it's time the Explorers step up and show the "experts" how and why their science is WRONG.

 

[DavidEduardo]

And for decades, Arbitron has been selling its flawed research, selling it as "accurate". And it has been "proven to be accurate" because there are people who "studied" it and taught the others the "facts".

Abrbiton is indeed very accurate within the margin of error of the sample size. The rules are set by the science of statistics, where we see that in every case the trade off for a smaler-than-a-census sample is error. The error is quantifiable, and if all users of a poll, such as Arbitron, find the error acceptable, then polls are very useful because only the government can afford a census, and then only every 10 years. So no matter who does radio ratings, the accuracy will be pretty much the same.

But it's the only game in town. There are no other studies, because of the cost involved to create one.

Hooper
Pulse
Mediatrend
Mediastat
Birch
Audits & Surveys
Burke
SRC

These are companies that have actually surveyed since Arbitron began doing radio. All failed to last.

These days people are more interested in profits than truth. Since there is not real way to monetize the research, nobody does it.

Go back and think about it. If you look at every buy that used ratings to decide to buy your station, of course you can monetize it. No agency will buy without numbers, for example.

Radio stations are already paying for the flawed research, they won't pay for another study even if it is more accurate.

The only way to increase accuracy is by increasing dramatically the samplle. There is no way radio would pay such an amount.

So, the sheep follow blindly to the wolf's den. And it shouldn't be the radio stations that pay for the research anyway. The agencies should.

Agencies do not pay for the data that allows each medium to sell, such as ABC in print. It has been this way all over the world for 100 years.

And Cumulus is exploring a better option for their stations in markets below 100. The only reason they are keeping Arbitron in markets above 100, is a temporary one. They can't afford to lose agency dollars right now. But once that new formula is perfected, I'd bet they'll drop Arbitron completely.

There aren't many agency dollars in markets below 100, and all Cumulus is doing is putting the screws to Arbitron to add enhancements to the product, like qualitative.

Look David, your methodology's may have worked for the industry in the past,. Arbitron's numbers are only "true" until someone does finally prove otherwise. The fact remains, it is flawed. And it is time for the industry to demand something better, as Cumulus is. And I don't mean settle for PPM.

And how do you propose measuring listenership?

I know... you have no idea how to improve it. Just like you criticize a product you don't understand, Arbitron, you can not conceive of a better system.

The fact is that the diary, till now, is the absolute best system world wide in countries with high literacy. Door to door used to be the best, but is impractical to the highest order today. Electronic passive measurement is the future, and when the PPM is perfected, we will have cost effective and rapid measurement within the confines of an affordable sample.

All the other companies that have come and gone, just haven't been able to monetize their research so they aren't here today.

That's because the advertisers use Arbitron and perceive no need for anything else. And radio has no use for a survey that can't be used for sales... we use other products for programming, anyway.

Of course, their data could have been flawed too. In any case, it's time the Explorers step up and show the "experts" how and why their science is WRONG.

The data was just as likely valid as the Arbitron was, given equal samples and measurement periods.

The science is statistics. It is as sound as algebra or calculus, and can not really be modified. Sampling in a poll has a calculated margin of error, and our whole industry accepts that fact and debates whether to pay more for more sample or not... the only way to improve accuracy.

 

[cabradio]

These days people are more interested in profits than truth. Since there is not real way to monetize the research, nobody does it.

Go back and think about it. If you look at every buy that used ratings to decide to buy your station, of course you can monetize it. No agency will buy without numbers, for example.

You misunderstood me. I meant that it is difficult for the research company to monetize it...as you said below, the agencies don't see a need for better research. Foolish on their part.

Radio stations are already paying for the flawed research, they won't pay for another study even if it is more accurate.

The only way to increase accuracy is by increasing dramatically the samplle. There is no way radio would pay such an amount.

And when you look at what Arbitron is raking in, selling flawed research, one would think they might invest a little more to get better research. The PPM won't do it. Not the way it is design to function now, anyway.

And Cumulus is exploring a better option for their stations in markets below 100. The only reason they are keeping Arbitron in markets above 100, is a temporary one. They can't afford to lose agency dollars right now. But once that new formula is perfected, I'd bet they'll drop Arbitron completely.

There aren't many agency dollars in markets below 100, and all Cumulus is doing is putting the screws to Arbitron to add enhancements to the product, like qualitative.

Funny that you do not support Cumulus's efforts to get better research....Hmm I wonder why.

Look David, your methodology's may have worked for the industry in the past,. Arbitron's numbers are only "true" until someone does finally prove otherwise. The fact remains, it is flawed. And it is time for the industry to demand something better, as Cumulus is. And I don't mean settle for PPM.

And how do you propose measuring listenership?

I know... you have no idea how to improve it. Just like you criticize a product you don't understand, Arbitron, you can not conceive of a better system.

Just because I can't "invent" the idea, doesn't mean I am wrong for wanting one. And it is my right to criticize, just like it is your right to criticize my criticism. Things don't get better when everyone thinks things are fine, when they really aren't. I thought you were smarter than that. I am willing to admit I did not come to the table well versed to debate specifics. I have never used Arbitron and never will. I know enough about it to know it's a mathematical game used by the Agencies and their clients, to devalue the radio industry as a whole. A logical mind would say that the "billions and billions" (your words, not mine) of research dollars could actually be SPENT on the media itself, instead of narrowing down what is spent to a fraction of what the research cost. Seems to me the ROI is better found reaching the clients, than paying for statistics that aren't even correct; but are accepted because there is no other data available to say otherwise.

All the other companies that have come and gone, just haven't been able to monetize their research so they aren't here today.

That's because the advertisers use Arbitron and perceive no need for anything else. And radio has no use for a survey that can't be used for sales... we use other products for programming, anyway.

Again, sheep blindly following the wolf to the den

Of course, their data could have been flawed too. In any case, it's time the Explorers step up and show the "experts" how and why their science is WRONG.

The data was just as likely valid as the Arbitron was, given equal samples and measurement periods.

The science is statistics. It is as sound as algebra or calculus, and can not really be modified. Sampling in a poll has a calculated margin of error, and our whole industry accepts that fact and debates whether to pay more for more sample or not... the only way to improve accuracy.

And the "experts" that said the Earth was flat had their perfect science too. Welcome to Arbitron's equivalence to Flat Earth Society.

 

[DavidEduardo]

You misunderstood me. I meant that it is difficult for the research company to monetize it...as you said below, the agencies don't see a need for better research. Foolish on their part.

The agencies see no need for another research company as there is no affordable better research that the media can provide. Since radio can not afford any more expensive research, and the laws of statistics applly to all research, we are not going to see anything better as such does not exist.

And when you look at what Arbitron is raking in, selling flawed research, one would think they might invest a little more to get better research. The PPM won't do it. Not the way it is design to function now, anyway.

Arbitronis not raking in profits. It is making a decent profit, in line with other businesses in its field or related business to business providers. To reduce significantly margins of error would quadruple the sample size (a law of statistics) and raise Arbitron's operating costs by more than double... impossible for a company making around a 12% margin.

Funny that you do not support Cumulus's efforts to get better research....Hmm I wonder why.

Cumulus is doing what CCU did a while back.... making threats so Arbitron gives them more for their money... mostly sales tools. There is no issue about sample, really, and Cumulus is simply negotiating for the best contract, not the best research.

Just because I can't "invent" the idea, doesn't mean I am wrong for wanting one. And it is my right to criticize, just like it is your right to criticize my criticism. Things don't get better when everyone thinks things are fine, when they really aren't.

There is no better system than the diary for most markets. Big ones can afford the PPM, which will eventually be better, but the small ones can not.

I have never used Arbitron and never will.

So you are like a monk discussing sex.

I know enough about it to know it's a mathematical game used by the Agencies and their clients, to devalue the radio industry as a whole.

It's pure applied statistics, and is a science, not a game. And it gives value to radio... probably half of the billing of radio overall is transacted based on ratings. Without them, thousands of radio stations would become unprofitable, have to recduce service and programming costs, etc.

A logical mind would say that the "billions and billions" (your words, not mine) of research dollars could actually be SPENT on the media itself, instead of narrowing down what is spent to a fraction of what the research cost.

That was billions and billions spent by american business, not radio. Our entire economy runs on research... from the developent via focus groups of new products to test marketing to pantry checks and consumer surveys and much more. Radio spends a lot on research, but Arbitron's entire revenue is just over $300 millionand as such is a tiny part of the $21 billion radio gross income.

Seems to me the ROI is better found reaching the clients, than paying for statistics that aren't even correct; but are accepted because there is no other data available to say otherwise.

I don't think you get what ROI is. If you spend $10 in advertising to make $5 in sales, your ROI is a negative number. If you spend $10 and get $20 in sales, but the product cost $15 to make, you still have a negative ROI (product plus advertising must be less than the sales income).

And the "experts" that said the Earth was flat had their perfect science too. Welcome to Arbitron's equivalence to Flat Earth Society.

We should be beyond the infantile flat earth comparisons.

 

[amfmsw]

Mr. Ed, first I am a senior AE. Former GSM in Philly.

Second, the disservice comes when the agency knows better, and doesn't tell the client the truth. The agency is "just folowing orders."

Third, agencies do buy without numbers when told to by the client. When working at small stations, and the agency wouldn't give us the time of day, we went with our ideas and promotions to the client. They always had money, I just had to show them it was worth it to move a few dollars. Deliver what was promised, and you were on the next buy.

And agencies do buy without numbers in major markets when a station flips to a targeted format, like spanish, finance, sports, or in years back, Top 40. I just did it with Don Imus. It was pre-sold before it hit the air...no numbers.

What are you talking about? Have you ever walked the streets selling, or just sat at a desk crunching numbers? I mean REAL selling, not taking orders over the phone. Real selling, getting your nipples twisted every month to hit budgets? On the road, beating the crap out of your car, burning your fuel, scraping for change for tolls, is my tie straight style, face-to-face, knee-to-knee selling? Don't come back without the order and a check selling? I've been doing that since '85. I'm good at it, and I love it. And when I see the clients again, whether in Church or the Supermarket or at the Phila Ad Club Awards Dinner, I can look 'em in the eye, shake their hand and smile with confidence that what I told them was true, and it worked.

Forth, Barkeep...a Jamesons Irish and Michelob for me and my friend Charlie here. Oh, and one for our friend Ed too, the one with defensive wounds. C'mon Ed, put down the Kool-Aid and step away from the 1960's marketing. Boomers have rewritten the book.

 

[cabradio]

David you keep saying:

Abrbiton is indeed very accurate within the margin of error of the sample size.

And you ramble on about the science of statistics. Remember, you can make a statistic say anything you want. That doesn't mean it is accurate.

So, your margin of error is based on a fabricated statistic to begin with. That is why it is flawed.

The Earth Is Flat argument is not "infantile". It is a great analogy that you cannot break down into 1s and 0s. You can't deny that truth, and you can't argue that the science Arbitron uses is perfect, or even near perfect. All you can say is that it is "accurate within the margin of error of the sample size". Basically that means the larger the sample size, the larger the margin of error. Which means there is a flaw in the way the statistic is derived. But it's easier for you to be defensive and say it's "infantile".

I don't care that the Industry "accepts" it. I don't accept it. I don't have to. There are others that don't too. Many secretly, in hiding for fear of being shamed by people like you. There is no Arbitron Law. And just as AMFMSW has stated, we don't NEED Arbitron to help make sales. We need better sales people that will create long lasting relationships directly with the Clients. Yes, directly with the P&G's, etc. Show the clients they can take that research money and instead increase their ROI by spending more on the advertising. Research in and of itself is an expense with no ROI. Sometimes you can take the information and use it to get ROI. But the research itself doesn't work for you. So, take the "investment" in research, and directly invest it in the medium. We already know it works. When you have people with a vested interest in the Client's success, you can't lose any more money that you would with a flawed research study, but your ROI stands to be dramatically greater, because you invested wisely. And if the radio stations invested more in their own people, the people would be willing to work harder for the station. Instead the stations make cost-cutting measures with people, but continue to spend money on a "sales tool" that has essentially cut the feet off radio.

I'll say it again...The Flat Earth concept worked for the people of the time. But CHANGE came about. Smarter people were born, and disproved THAT SCIENCE. The same is happening now, regarding your Church of Arbitron. The religion is flawed. Smarter people are now alive (yes David even smarter than YOU!) and will bring about an equalizing change.

Think GOOGLE.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Mr. Ed, first I am a senior AE. Former GSM in Philly.

I am talking about discussing the demo issue with AGENCY AE's. Not AE's at a radio staiton, many of whom never even call on agencies.

Second, the disservice comes when the agency knows better, and doesn't tell the client the truth. The agency is "just folowing orders."

That's why they were hired. The client generally has a marketing department... or if they are a franchise, dealer, etc., has the market research or directives from the company they represent.

Third, agencies do buy without numbers when told to by the client.

Yeah, local buys by local agencies and in the overall picture, not significant. It's the same as local buys by local agencies excluding a station because the client does not like the station, or, in worse cases, because the "don't want those people in my store."

All exceptions. And the "exceptions make the rule" saying applies very nicely here.

When working at small stations, and the agency wouldn't give us the time of day, we went with our ideas and promotions to the client. They always had money, I just had to show them it was worth it to move a few dollars. Deliver what was promised, and you were on the next buy.

Very exceptional, and very small, local, dollars. Did I say local? When compared to the amounts spent by national or regional accounts, drops in a big bucket.

I can find exceptions for everything I have ever posted, I think. Every onec in a while a non-researched format will get some decent numbers. Occasionally an AM's ratings will go up. In a few markets there is more than one AM in the top 20... etc., etc. But again, your small anecdotal experiences prove that you have to reach... and trying to get client demos changed is extremely hard. I have sold, been GSM or NSM for about 30 of my years in the business so I am also rather familar with local, agency and national agency sales.

And agencies do buy without numbers in major markets when a station flips to a targeted format, like spanish, finance, sports, or in years back, Top 40. I just did it with Don Imus. It was pre-sold before it hit the air...no numbers.

And how often does that happen with agency accounts?

Preselling always goes with either a delivery guarantee or a severe, extreme, deep discount. I have seen plenty of start ups or relaunches (it's been my specialty) and the first months are generally all direct business, no agency. Agency business without numbers is strictly local, and really low dollar.

What are you talking about? Have you ever walked the streets selling, or just sat at a desk crunching numbers? I mean REAL selling, not taking orders over the phone. Real selling, getting your nipples twisted every month to hit budgets? On the road, beating the crap out of your car, burning your fuel, scraping for change for tolls, is my tie straight style, face-to-face, knee-to-knee selling? Don't come back without the order and a check selling? I've been doing that since '85. I'm good at it, and I love it. And when I see the clients again, whether in Church or the Supermarket or at the Phila Ad Club Awards Dinner, I can look 'em in the eye, shake their hand and smile with confidence that what I told them was true, and it worked.

Yes, I did all that... and it wasn't as hard as you describe, maybe because I was doing the job for stations with market leading prime demo audiences. In one run as GSM (among other functions) in a top 15 market, I had a 28% annual sales increase over an 8 year period. Oh, and nearly 100% of the sales was agency, local and national... the market had over 100 local / regional agencies right in our home city.

Forth, Barkeep...a Jamesons Irish and Michelob for me and my friend Charlie here. Oh, and one for our friend Ed too, the one with defensive wounds. C'mon Ed, put down the Kool-Aid and step away from the 1960's marketing. Boomers have rewritten the book.

And that explains why there are no 55+ buys in the pipes? In some recent RBR reports, buys are swinging younger, not older, and 45-54 is becoming less desirable, too.