Obviously it's not enough, or the system itself is flawed to the point where it just may not work.
It works, but is still being perfected. There is not any way to run the two systems in parallel any longer. We simply have to hope that the issues that have arrisen will be worked on and fixed.
I quote you
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.
Those are two issues. One is getting the panel the right size and fully proportional, and the other is the sales issue coming out of a system that shows much less total listening.
Obviously until they truly feel the numbers with PPM look right.
And that is being done as the system is rolled out; the numbers will "look" better as the panel is improved so we get the target daily and weekly in-tabs. Nobody knows what "right" is since this is a new system.
During this 24 month PPM test, what did the data show compared to the old diary method? Did Arbitron make those numbers available to subscribers so they could see the type of data collected vs the old system?
The numbers were given to subscribers in the test markets, and, towards the end of Houston testing, to those subscribed to PPM. They are the subject of confidentiality agreements. In addition, a few of us were invited to receive the Philly numbers around 2002 and 2003, as the first large US test was done. We had to sign confidentiality there, too.
It is in the best interest of broadcasters, which rely heavily on this service as part of its business model, to expect a drastic change in the way data is gathered. Broadcasters interested in ensuring accurate data gathering should absorb the cost to study the differences in the data.
Broadcasters don't have the resources to do this. It might have been nice, but nobody would have paid for it. That's the difference between reality and utopia.
But these were tweaks to the overall system over time that evolved it. This is a total move to a new system
The changes I mentioned, and many more, were significant ones that affected the listening measurements and rank of many stations. They were hardly tweeks... they were changes so significant that the MRC required over a year of testing in some cases to give certification. For example, the change to language preference took about four years from the agreement to make the change to full implementation.