Is the new Arbitron Ratings Policy Unfair to Smaller Radio Companies?

[Jason Roberts]

That's a strange way of putting it.  If radio was....

 

I stated it that way simply to illustrate differing perceptions held by the public vs people in the business.

The public thinks the radio is "for" them. 
They never read the 1967 book defining public broadcasting as that, and commercial radio as a business district.

The public persists in thinking the "content" is what radio is about.

Radio people should know it's all about business, and business is by definition a "non-fair" zone.

It's about success in occupying ears, not listening or any kind of assessment of content.

The highest rated station would naturally be one that is compelling to listen to,  but contains only content that becomes
immediately irrelevant or incorrect.   Like news and sports.   

Hey, wait a minute. 

I don't think the public cares a whit about this.  They care about what comes out of the speakers. And if it entertains them, they don't care if the station's #1 or #21.

[amfmxm]

This makes for very interesting reading, I must say. When the topic first surfaced I chose not to participate because I thought that the whole premise was idiotic, and ultimately Big A and David Eduardo popped-in to say whatever it was I would have contributed. Thanks, as always.

But it remains fascinating to me that there are so many (presumably) in the radio industry who think that Arbitron has various axes to grind against different categories of stations or markets or non-subscribers. And although, like any other longtime broadcaster, I've had my share of ups-and-downs, wins-and-losses--and serious complaints about how they do business (like a monopoly), I have never witnessed a single incident of favoritism or perversion of the ratings themselves.

Like any major research organization, their lifeblood is the integrity of the research. If they ever stooped to grind an axe... or to slant the numbers in favor of certain clients or friends... they'd be finished. They'd be killing a business doing hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

And in my first 45 years in the biz, I haven't seen it happen.

[ChiefOperator]

I believe the new policy that Arbitron has implemented is unfair to the smaller radio companies, which do not have the deep pocket books to pay the exorbitant fees in order to subscribe to Arbitron. Furthermore, these stations will suffer because they will not have access to the information necessary to ensure that there stations are performing adequately in their particular markets, which hurts their bottom line in the sales department. Moreover, the new ratings will not give an accurate picture of what's happening within a particular market. For example, the only two companies that subscribe to Arbitron in the Jacksonville, FL market (Market #50), which are the large national radio conglomerates Clear Channel and Cox Radio. As a result, only the radio stations owned by these two companies showed up on the March 2012 ratings book. Does anyone else feel that Arbitron is doing a disservice to smaller radio companies with this new policy?

I agree with you.  Just so you know, you're station is entitled to Arbitron supplied equipment at no cost even if you don't subscribe to the service.  Your ratings will be listed, but you won't be entitled to the information.


I just went through this with one of my AMs.  As for knowing the ratings, the station simply talks to one of the stations that does subscribe.