How Arbitron's PPM will measure station podcasts

[Holland Cooke]

Asked about PPM credit for podcasts at Arbitron's recent Consultant Fly-In conference, Sr. VP/PPM Global Marketing Jay Guyther clarified that if encoded material “from an on-air broadcast, not edited, not-added-to” and contains its original broadcast timestamp, it will be credited as-if-listened-to at-the-time-originally-aired, if played back within 7 days. “Right now, we’re seeing about 1% of credit being timeshifted” in this fashion, he noted.

My notes from the Fly-In: http://hollandcooke.com/08January.pdf

HAPPY NEW YEAR,
HC
www.HollandCooke.com

[Bill DeFelice]

In that case it doesn't make sense to produce station podcasts and not air them as well. Recording them off-air and encoded with the PPM signature sounds like a win-win for additional ratings boost.

[Holland Cooke]

In that case it doesn't make sense to produce station podcasts and not air them as well.

Sure it does!
If they're sponsored.
 

[Johnathan]

So this would also mean that if listeners use their own timeshifting software, say, on a computer, that records a properly PPM-encoded online stream (or perhaps uses a USB FM tuner as an audio source, to record directly off air) then as long as a timeshifted program is listened to within 7 days, the station can still get PPM credit?

That's interesting.

One thing that I think would help HD radio is if they came out with some radios that could timeshift programs, just like XM and Sirius have done. Even if HD reception wasn't perfect in a portable unit, what if my HD radio could record my favorite programs from my local HD stations overnight, and then I could just take it out of the dock and on the go, to listen to recorded content during the day?

[Radioman100]

Asked about PPM credit for podcasts at Arbitron's recent Consultant Fly-In conference, Sr. VP/PPM Global Marketing Jay Guyther clarified that if encoded material “from an on-air broadcast, not edited, not-added-to” and contains its original broadcast timestamp, it will be credited as-if-listened-to at-the-time-originally-aired, if played back within 7 days. “Right now, we’re seeing about 1% of credit being timeshifted” in this fashion, he noted.

My notes from the Fly-In: http://hollandcooke.com/08January.pdf

HAPPY NEW YEAR,
HC
www.HollandCooke.com

I have to wonder if Arbitron's left hand knows what its right hand is doing.

For purposes of streaming, Arbitron's director of encoding operations, David Forr, told me that streaming was not currently being included in audience estimates.  He explained that this is at the request of advertising agencies, which makes sense.  They do not want station streams, which cover up their ad buys, included in audience estimates.  He said for programming to be encoded, it must be a 100% simulcast of the main signal.

It seems to me that utilizing podcasts in this way would be even more offensive to advertising agencies.

[Radioman100]

Hello Holland?  Anybody home?

Since you're the expert on these things, I was thinking maybe you'd offer an opinion or two regarding Arbitron's seemingly conflicting directives about encoding.

[Holland Cooke]

Alas, all-too-briefly, on a pit-stop between last week's massive, mind-boggling Consumer Electronics Show, and the coming week's travel to client stations.  My CES notes begin @ http://members.aol.com/cookeh/ces2008.html and continue in the next issue of Talkers magazine.

RE encoding streaming -- as-opposed-to the podcast encoding I had noted:

In the audio chain you are describing, it sounds like the encoder is downstream from where the streaming catches the audio feed because spot insertion makes the stream less-than-a-100%-simulcast.

[Radioman100]

For purposes of this discussion, where the encoder is physically located in the audio chain is a moot point.  It's the concept that troubles me.  Any competent engineer could route the encoded audio to both air and the streaming encoder. 

Arbitron told me that they do not allow encoding of streams.  They told me it's because of ad agencies that don't want streams included in audience estimates because their spots are covered up on the streams.

Similarly, their spots wouldn't make it into podcasts either, unless they bought additional placement in the podcasts, so what's the difference?

Either practice artificially inflates audience estimates for the purpose of ad buys.  Audience estimates manipulated this way do not present buyers with an accurate representation of who's hearing the spots they buy.

[StanWayBack]

OK....here's a little twist....

What about other local podcasters in the various markets??
If it's good for the goose, why not the gander...