tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600560384355436278.post4517162894094765602..comments2024-02-24T15:19:02.095-08:00Comments on SPARK NEWS: IS LISTENING TO STREAMING RADIO BEING OVER STATED? • NEW GM HIRED AT KALWKen Mills Agency, LLChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00792966356989583664noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600560384355436278.post-88909694598337718342018-05-21T08:14:30.332-07:002018-05-21T08:14:30.332-07:00Thanks to Ken for publishing my commentary. I'...Thanks to Ken for publishing my commentary. I'd like to add something I thought of today well after I sent him my thoughts...<br /><br />While I have several well-known concerns about the Nielsen PPM system, I do want to give it credit. PPM is a strong attempt to solve the very problem I raised with Edison's methodology. It gets away from relying on self-reporting...which as any psychological researcher, pollster, or even readers of "Freakonomics", knows is highly problematic at yielding useful, accurate data...and tries to get more at the reality of what people are hearing.<br /><br />Sure, there's gonna be tradeoffs. People often are quick to point out that PPM only measures *exposure* whereas diaries (self-reporting) measures *retention*. That's not an idle difference, but I can live with that difference just fine. Exposure is valuable to know, too, and I think it's more important to get objective listening rather than the memory of listening.<br /><br />My real concern with Nielsen is that we're given no reason to have faith in their methodology. Okay, the PPM system itself is a little iffy, but we can gleam enough from the hardware to make educated assessments about its efficacy. And yeah, the sample size is arguably too small but while (as I said) statistics isn't my strong suit, I know that often you can accurately gleam trend information from a surprisingly small sample set. And Nielsen deserves a tremendous amount of credit for how much information they collect about the people in the sample set. The granularity of the data they have about those people holding the PPM's is astounding. Everything down to their preferred wines to drink. <br /><br />But what we DON'T know is how Nielsen "processes" the raw data collected by the PPM system and turns that into ratings books. And thanks to Voltair, we now know that there was clearly a PROBLEM with the system. Stations that installed Voltairs suddenly saw 40 to 60% increases in listenership practically overnight. (!!!!)<br /><br />Logically, that means either the ratings information was incorrect before Voltair, or it's incorrect after Voltair, or it was incorrect both before AND after Voltair, just in different ways. It has to be one of those three. But Nielsen has steadfastly asserted that the ratings information was correct BOTH before AND after Voltair. That logically cannot be true, and that's the source of much of my skepticism of Nielsen's assertions.<br /><br />And one more thing about the Edison research: it's important to remember that the broad trend might be that "radio" listening is still primarily through actual AM/FM broadcasts and not the web...but it can vary quite a bit depending on your format, your market, and your audience.<br /><br />For example, I think of KQED's "pledge-free webcast" which is a system that probably wouldn't have worked if weren't in the Bay Area. A place with very, very devoted public radio listeners AND listeners with access (and inclination to use) a lot of high-level technology well before the rest of the country. I would bet that public radio listeners in general are a little more willing and able (operationally and financially) to listen via non-AM/FM means, like smart speakers. I'm not sure of the details here; these are just guesses, but they're good things to keep in mind when digesting these studies and applying them to your own station's plans.Aaron Readhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07971835990882097517noreply@blogger.com