THE “MPR’S” OF PROGRAMMING

PART 19: RATINGS "Beyond The Basics"

This month the MPRs of Programming  returns with another look beyond the basics at the next “R” on the list of MPR’s…Ratings. This time around we’ve culled great insight and comments from a research expert, veteran radio programmer, and several Arbitron executives about radio ratings and Arbitron’s methodology.

Understanding how the ratings system works should be a programmer’s first order of business. Last time we discussed how Arbitron ratings are compiled as well as investigating AQH, Share, and Cume and how to use this ratings system to gauge how a radio station is performing in it’s target demos and in key dayparts.

RATINGS METHODS: DIARY VS. TELEPHONE

While radio has had the option of using several forms of rating’s systems to measure audience listening, the primary system of measuring radio over the last several decades has been the diary methodology of Arbitron. What are the positive and negative aspects of doing research in this fashion? Why has telephone methodologies of radio research like Birch been unsuccessful in comparison to Arbitron?

“The positives of the Arbitron diary method is the detail of reported listening possible due to the diary, the sample size, length of data collection, and uniform, random methodology,” states Bruce Fohr, the President of FMR Research, a leading radio research firm based in Tucson, Arizona.

“We have found in our research that Arbitron ‘diary-types’ and those not likely to participate in the diary survey are the same types of people,” says Fohr. “In other words, there is little ‘non-response’ bias in terms of projectability to the general population.”

“The negatives of the diary method continue to be cooperation rates, especially for specific demographic sub-groups, geographic areas, ethnicities and the associated escalating costs as a result,” notes Fohr. “The telephone-based rating services in the past have not been successful for a variety of reasons.”

“This telephone method hasn’t been able to consistently project or predict Arbitron results, and therefore, it’s been seen as unreliable,” claims Fohr.  “By design, telephone surveys don’t measure the same listening patterns as does the Arbitron diary. Arbitron measures specific listening behavior, while telephone methodologies ask preference questions.”

Ed Cohen is the Vice-president of Domestic Radio Research for the Arbitron company. While he obviously agrees with Fohr about the positives of the diary system, he candidly notes some of it’s drawbacks. “It does require some minimal level of literacy, and while we offer an 800 number and on-line help with any questions, it’s possible for diarykeepers to be confused and write entries or even entire diaries that are unusable.”

“While the response rate is very good by diary standards, it could be higher and we’re always working on that,” notes Cohen. “As a self-administered instrument, there is no capability to interactively question respondents about entries so we accept their entries as truth.”

Cohen was also the director of research at Birch during the last year of it’s existence and offers his insight on the differences between the diary system of Arbitron and telephone-based systems that Birch used to employ.

“Birch used a modeled cume that contained some flaws,” recalls Cohen.

“Telephone is essentially a recall technique, so the standard argument about Arbitron and people writing down what is top of mind may be even more prevalent in a telephone system because some memory is required. This recall technique may make it easy to remember that you listened to WXXX yesterday morning, but how certain are you about the exact times?”

PLAYING THE “ARBITRON GAME”

Since the diary methodology of the Arbitron system has indeed become the primary method of measuring radio listening, today’s radio programmer must have a basic understanding of Arbitron and it’s ratings terminology in utilizing the Arbitron Radio Market Report.  But does this understanding help improve the quality of programming or does it create programming that manipulates the Arbitron system?

“It’s almost mandatory for today’s PD to fully understand how to read an Arbitron book,” claims Michael Cross, veteran radio programmer and current Operations Manager of Active Rock KFMW and Oldies KOKZ in Waterloo, Iowa. “Not understanding and comprehending Arbitron’s terminology when programming your radio station is like going on a long and difficult journey without a road map to guide you.”

“Whether you agree or disagree with the Arbitron system isn’t important,” states Cross, “because these are the cards that radio programmers have been dealt, and ultimate success in delivering ratings through this system is what we’re being paid to accomplish.”

Cross feels that knowing the basics of deciphering your radio station’s AQH, Cume, and TSL can lead to a wealth of research information that directly leads to better ratings.

“There’s valuable research here that should be utilized to create clocks that will schedule those ‘home run’ songs leading to higher AQH, solid marketing and promotions that create better cume, and great programming ideas that result in improved TSL. Overall, improving these programming elements should spell success.”

Bob Michaels, the VP of Programming Services for Arbitron also believes there’s a valuable benefit to understanding Arbitron’s basics. “There is a pattern I’ve seen in my years working with radio stations and that is smart programmers understand how Arbitron works and how to provide good radio to their audiences. They run the stations that consistently perform well in Arbitron.”

Michaels also feels that playing the “Arbitron game” actually does lead to creating quality programming. “Playing the ‘Arbitron game’ is actually finding out what people want in a radio station, giving people what they want, and telling them it’s your station that’s giving them what they want.”

“Is this the ‘Arbitron game’ or just good radio?” asks Michaels.  “I believe that well programmed and promoted radio stations do well in Arbitron with the audience they’re trying to reach. A radio station today has to be well programmed and promoted to be successful. Using the old sales adage, ‘nothing happens when you don’t advertise’, the same philosophy works for radio stations.”

THE PORTABLE PEOPLE METER

While playing the “Arbitron game” and utilizing it’s “diary-methodology” has been met with criticism, over the last several years the Arbitron company has been developing a more high-tech form of radio ratings measurement called the Portable People Meter (PPM). This electronic form of measurement tracks any radio, TV, or cable audio within ear shot with a pager-sized device.

Arbitron is currently experimenting with the Portable People Meter in the Philadelphia market. If implemented in the future, how much of a difference will this new methodology make and will this system be met with praise or criticism? Will actual listening dramatically increase or decrease?

Thom Mocarsky, the VP of Communications for Arbitron sees lots of advantages with the PPM because it’s going to use panel measurement. “We envision a large sample of consumers carrying the PPM for an extended period of time. Instead of a hundred consumers a week filling out a diary for a week, adding up over the twelve weeks to a three month sample of 1200 people, you’ll see a thousand or so people carrying the meter for months at a time.”

“Since the PPM is also a cross media tool that tracks a large panel of consumers over the course of months, programmers will be able to track how their TV campaigns directly affect their radio audience,” explains Mocarsky.

“They’ll know who saw their spots on local TV stations, find out if those people tuned in for the ‘big money’ contest, and know who’s new to the station and who’d been there before.”

“Within radio,” continues Mocarsky, “you can look at the people who listened to your station six months ago and see if they’re still with you or if that new 80’s format in town has drawn some of your listeners away.”

Mocarsky also feels that cumulative audiences will definitely increase over time using the PPM. “Right now the Arbitron diary can only report a weekly cume of seven days of listening because that’s all we measure. We’ve already seen that with the PPM, two-week, three-week, and monthly cume audiences are significantly higher than the single week cumes reported by the PPM. What the PPM creates is the ability to measure this increase on an on-going basis and to use that number in programming and promotion.

It will be interesting to see how the radio industry responds to this new method of rating radio stations when it becomes available in the future. “We believe there are dramatic business benefits that will pay big dividends for radio no matter what the diary to PPM comparisons might show,” states Mocarsky.

“Both in sales and in programming, the PPM is a powerful new tool that gives radio broadcasters access to a level of information they’ve never had before. All using a technology that’s easy for consumers to use and that captures their exposure to all encoded media with no memory loss, no blank page in a diary, and no bias for any one medium.”

While Mocarsky and Arbitron are obviously bullish on the PPM, researcher Fohr still believes that, for radio, Arbitron’s current methodology is more likely to be “accurate” than other technologies that rely on either passive methods of data collection or even more “top of mind” dependent.

“The key is that Arbitron measures awareness of the station doing a good job in it’s format,” says Fohr. “For stations to receive maximum credit in Arbitron they must be ‘doing a good job’ in a format through solid programming and effective, well-targeted marketing. Programmers and station managers aware of this reality are generally the most successful in Arbitron surveys and will be in the future regardless of the data collection method.”