Your true feelings on the diary or PPM's

[DavidEduardo]

From today's reports, it doesn't sound like 200 agrees with you:

The issue is totally different than diary when weekly cume participation changed every week. As you know, with the PPM, the participant's usage may be tracked for years.

The issues of the last month had to do with Arbitron applying a stricter boot-from-panel criteria at the same time that summer began. They simply could not replace the panel losses fast enough. They have added staff, and instituted new procedures, and should have the average daily in tab back at around 900 by late September.

The system is not going away. The system is being perfected to get better response rates, and more backup panelists are being obtained. It's still a lot better than the diary with a couple of hundred booklets a week... vs. nearly 1000 a day for PPM.

The average on-panel time is about 8 months. And the longest period Arbitron issues a report for is 28 days.

[InTIMadate]

The issues of the last month had to do with Arbitron applying a stricter boot-from-panel criteria at the same time that summer began. They simply could not replace the panel losses fast enough. They have added staff, and instituted new procedures, and should have the average daily in tab back at around 900 by late September.

Not true: Those records were recorded but not reported or caught by Arbitron quality control systems. This had nothing to do with boot-from-panel criteria, according to Arbitron. That's another serious issue entirely.
 
ARBITRON SVP/Press And Investor Relations THOM MOCARSKY released the following: "There was a data processing error that impacted the sample report and weekly cume estimates in HOUSTON PPM Weekly report for JULY 26th through AUGUST 1st, 2007. There was no precipitous decline in panelist cooperation in HOUSTON for that week.

The file used to process the weekly cume estimates (the unified weekly sample) was incompletely loaded from the data warehouse to the production system. It appears that exposure records for almost 200 panelists who were in-tab 6 of 7 days were not included in that file transfer. This is why the average (unified) weekly in-tab appears to be abnormally low. "

According to All Access: down about 33%.

[DavidEduardo]

Not true: Those records were recorded but not reported or caught by Arbitron quality control systems. This had nothing to do with boot-from-panel criteria, according to Arbitron. That's another serious issue entirely.

I meant the sample frame issues of not meeting in-tab quotas. A data processing error is fixable, and it was handled in 3 days. I downloaded my file yesterday at noon, and most of the information except weekly cume was the same.

The weeklies are not currency. They do not go to clients, and are for internal tracking. To expect everything to work in a new system is ingenuous; I have had two books reissued due to diary review... two months after the data collection was finished. Now we have Arbitron reissuing a correction in 3 days. I think that is pretty good.

The current panel size is fine, and it will increase to the full guarantee in less than 60 days. Replication studies show the sample is actually higer than needed, so there is good confidence in the data... but we don't want, as subscribers, less than what we are paying for or to risk excessive weighting on any cell.

[Johnny.Sunshine]

A data processing error is fixable, and it was handled in 3 days.

DavidEduardo, has Arbitron disclosed the ethnic in-tabs by age/sex, or the ppmv as promised?  Just curious...

[DavidEduardo]

DavidEduardo, has Arbitron disclosed the ethnic in-tabs by age/sex, or the ppmv as promised?  Just curious...

The only report so far is the sample report, which shows Blacks and Hispanics on 6+ and 12+, with no breaks.

We still see a huge issue with Hispanic females. Examples: KLTN #3 18+ men, #17 18+ women. KOVE #4 18+ men, #14 18+ women. We know there is less TSL in the PPM by women than by men, but the difference is not anywhere near what the Spanish langauge stations reflect in male-female imbalance (TSL, when looking at share in men and women, should not be a factor anyway as we ware comparing women to women and men to men).

[michaelshiloh]

Either way, though, the PPM is shaking things up in Houston and that's a good thing.

[DavidEduardo]

Either way, though, the PPM is shaking things up in Houston and that's a good thing.

Yeah, it's great that it shows radio listening off 40% and radio revenues are considerably off for the market.

[michaelshiloh]

I'm not sure what your point is, David.  If the PPM method more accurately reflects the true marketplace, even if that truth is painful, it's a good thing.  If you're saying radio revenues in Houston are off because the PPM is inaccurate, that's another thing.

[DavidEduardo]

I'm not sure what your point is, David.  If the PPM method more accurately reflects the true marketplace, even if that truth is painful, it's a good thing.  If you're saying radio revenues in Houston are off because the PPM is inaccurate, that's another thing.

The fact that radio revenues are off significantly is due to two things... agencies are very cautious due to the data glitch two weeks ago and the iability to get a good metric comparison with the diary method... so they are buying less radio overall. When this happens, stations add commercial uints to make up for the difference. End result: we will be back to 15 ant 18 minutes of spots an hour on music stations.

Many of us are not yet satisfied that Arbitron has its panel correctly built demograpnhically and we know that the panel is undersized and not totally proportional. The PPM may, indeed, be the death of radio as we know it.

[michaelshiloh]

Look, David, I know you to be a serious booster and defender of radio as an advertising medium.  Your remark about the death of radio as we know it is a little harsh, don't you think?  With an increased sampling size and the stabilizing of the system later on, the PPM will be an accurate reflection of what people listen to, without the "ballot box stuffing" and weighting of the diary system.  I guess you disagree?