Jim Carnegie got the quote from Cox Radio CEO Bob Neil no other publication had today and Bob continues to say in public precisely what our friends at Arbitron need to hear:
"I think the next steps are pretty clear. Their customers, broadcasters and agencies, see little or no value in 6-11 year olds in the sample. They were there for TV purposes. Eliminating them allows the sample size to grow 12 plus, which should help at least get bigger numbers in the challenged age cells. The sampling issues must be dealt with, and I think an 85 index against target is a good floor. That's a "B" in High School and we're paying for an "A". If we don't get there, there should be a rebate to broadcasters and agencies that is significant enough to hurt, so it forces Arbitron to keep an unrelenting focus on the sample. Before another market rolls out, Philly and any other proposed PPM markets must get MRC accredited. Because of this snafu, customers are going to demand to know they are getting a quality product, and the MRC gives us confidence that the data is credible. No more waiting on accreditation. I don't think any of this is unreasonable, nor should it cost customers any more than the huge increases we're paying. It's going to be up to Arbitron to set a new direction here by telling their shareholders and Board that this is going to go slower, and frankly, that their profits on PPM won't be what they thought they were going to be. If they shut down their spin machine, and fix these problems, the industry will move into the Electronic Measurement age smoothly and with confidence. If not, Arbitron may be the Hooper and Pulse of the new millennium."
Back in 1999 when industry relations were less contentious between ARB and its customers I remember the company's Research VP Dr. Ed Cohen say that a good guide for proportionality indexes in all target cells is "... like the FM dial, between 88 and 108."
Even 85 isn't 88, but compared to where we have been in the past year, I'd take it.
1 comment:
“Although we are rolling out PPM in Canada over the next year, we do not anticipate any of the causes of delay seen in the US.
I believe the reason for Arbitron’s PPM delay is a bit complicated, but important to note that it is 100% related to sampling and 0% related to the PPM technology.
BBM uses only the PPM technology. But we use a different sampling method, different panel management procedures and software, and different calculation engines.
BBM also operates in a different environment without the complex sampling requested of Arbitron.
The BBM recruitment and panel management system has been operated successfully since the launch of electronic measurement in television in 1998.
Our Quebec and Montreal PPM panel has operated since 2004, using the same processes, with very high scores for daily participation, panel balance, monthly turnover and stability. I think we can expect the radio PPM panels to achieve similar results when commercialized further in several markets beginning in 2008″
(from Paragon Research's PPM blog)
Post a Comment