Broadcasters blast ratings service

Michael Hedges May 28, 2008

Well, some have and some haven’t. But then one of the oldest anecdotes in broadcasting is: when the ratings are good, credit my brilliant programming, and when ratings are bad, blame the measurement system. The howling by several US broadcasters about Arbitron’s PPM system only grows louder.

Three of America’s notable broadcasters – Cox Radio, Spanish Broadcasting System (SBS) and Inner City Broadcasting - have gone on the offensive against what they consider systemic failures in Arbitron’s Personal People Meter (PPM) methodology. Arbitron, the de facto monopoly supplier of radio audience measurement in the US, has been trying to roll out its electronic measurement system to all US markets. Cox, SBS and Inner City want the roll out halted until Arbitron gains accreditation in more than one market. Cox and Inner city have taken out full page ads in US media trade publications to make their case. SBS has hired a public relations consultant.

Last months’ focus of ire is sampling methodology, the means of selecting panel participants. Research people know that sampling – not limited to sample size - is critical for representative (don’t say accurate) results. How sampling is conducted can affect the entire breadth of the research exercise.  

After correcting other system problems Arbitron rolled out PPM measurement in the Houston, Texas market a year ago. That panel was, and continues to be, selected by house-to-house personal interview. The super-secret Media Ratings Council (MRC) duly accredited the methods and all attendant details for the Houston market. Arbitron proceeded into the New York City and Philadelphia markets selecting the panel sample, however, by coincidental telephone recruiting. The MRC did not accredit the PPM methods in New York City or Philadelphia. Citing confidentiality agreements, no reasons were given publicly.

US radio consultant and perennial thorn in Arbitron’s side Randy Kabrich analyzed sampling data from the Houston and Philadelphia markets examining what may or may not result from the different sample frames. That report was widely circulated this week (May 27), including to ftm. Kabrich concluded, after showing more than 30 pages of data, that the address-based sample frame (Houston) produced “relatively balanced” sampling by age group and gender as well as showing generally increasing reach.

All is different with the telephone-based sample frame used in Philadelphia and New York City. “Philadelphia has suffered from samples with poor demo cell balance and DDI (designated delivery index) levels in the 18-34 demos that barely passed the minimum benchmarks Arbitron set for themselves,” he wrote. Much worse for broadcasters, reach – referred to in US radio-speak as cume – in Philadelphia and New York City declined.

“Radio is at a crossroads,” said Kabrich. Concluding that the loss of reach is related to the telephone-based sampling frame, he said it “makes radio stations look like they are dying like newspaper’s circulation.” Ouch!

And so Cox Radio and Inner City Radio placed an ‘open-letter’ ad in the major US media trade publications with the headline “Would you fly on an airplane that wasn’t FAA certified?”

Home listeners in the rest of the world noted that the UK’s radio audience survey provider RAJAR tested, tested, tested and then dropped electronic measurement earlier this month with the agreement of both broadcasters and the advertising people.   

Lest anybody be confused, all of this is about money in America. Way back when Arbitron first started selling the idea of electronic measurement, more than a decade ago, the implied advantage for broadcasters was results showing greater reach. That, presumably, would impress ad buyers who were already impressed with the new measurement system’s ability to produce geometrically multiplied data points at near lightening speed. And the price, for ad buyers, would be just right. Broadcasters would pay for it; several times the cost of the much maligned but thoroughly tested diary surveys.

This month’s focus of ire is the quest for evidence that the PPM measurement system lives up to the implied promise of more money spent in markets measured by PPM than those on the old diary system. Because another Randy – Newman – once sang, “It’s money that matters, everyday,” Arbitron’s customer committee – officially known as the Arbitron Advisory Council – requested an audit of ad revenue in the PPM-enabled markets to be compared with non-PPM markets. One broadcaster – CBS Radio – refused, seemingly. US broadcasters regularly and quite transparently disclose ad revenue figures to independent audit firm Miller Kaplan. CBS Radio is a vocal supporter of a rapid rollout – even without MRC accreditation – of the PPM system.   

Arbitron must be credited for embracing the perils of innovation. It has been costly. Broadcasters everywhere moan about ratings and surveys. Passive electronic measurement, evidently, is not ready for prime time. UK broadcasters and advertising people have moved on. German broadcasters aren’t interested. US broadcasters remain in a dilemma as recession pressures on consumers and advertisers test all media.