On Monday Tom Taylor reported on a Media Life Magazine survey that purported to show that media buyers overwhelmingly prefer Arbitron's PPM over Nielsen's diary method for radio measurement. Taylor is to be commended for being the first to bring the study to radio's attention. It does offer a few insights into media buyer perceptions of PPM and radio in general. Unfortunately, the study was poorly conceived. It completely misses the point of Nielsen's entry into radio measurement and twists the issues into an unrecognizable muddle of confusion. Here's how the summary begins:
In a recent Media Life poll, media people were asked: Based on what you know about Nielsen’s proposed system and Arbitron's PPM, which system do you like better? Arbitron was the clear winner with 84 percent of respondents choosing it over Nielsen's proposed system.
As to the reason given by media buyers, the author writes:
Media people have long welcomed the PPM, believing it would offer far more accurate listener data, since it uses a passive electronic device versus paper diaries, which rely on sample listeners remembering and writing down what they listened to and when.
The survey found that readers are largely pleased with the results of the PPM so far, with the system now up and running in 10 markets, including Houston, Philadelphia and New York. Asked to rate the PPM, more than half, 55 percent, agreed with this statement, "It’s a vast improvement over the old paper diary system," while 27 percent agreed that, "It’s an improvement over the old system."
So the overwhelming support of Arbitron is based on the fact that Arbitron's PPM is believed to be an improvement over the old paper diary system. Which would be reasonable if the markets Nielsen is entering were measured with PPM. They are not and will not be for the foreseeable future. They are markets measured with diaries. In condensed markets, Arbitron measures listening twice a year using 500-600 diaries each book. Demographic wobbles from book to book in these markets are immense with shares sometimes swinging 100-200%. The swings are so bad that some operators in condensed markets begged Arbitron to eliminate one book and combine the diaries into a single book with twice the sample. Arbitron responded by adding rolling averages to their reports that average the numbers from two books.
Nielsen is proposing one book a year with 1600-2000 diaries for about the same price. They have also proposed a service that includes product consumption data and cross media usage. Nielsen's approach will create far more accurate ratings and reduce wobbles. The additional consumption data could potentially give condensed market operators more tools to sell with.
So a survey asking whether media buyers prefer PPM or dairies completely misses the point. The real question is whether the Nielsen diary product is going to be better than the Arbitron diary product. Until we see the Nielsen product, we won't know. We can, however, find out how Arbitron and Nielsen are perceived by media buyers, which is what the Harker Research study did. In that study, we found that Nielsen was more highly respected by media buyers.
While the comparisons are of little value, Media Life's questions regarding the PPM roll-out are much more interesting. This is how the magazine reports their results:
Readers were asked: Do you have any reason to believe the PPM is underreporting radio listenership?Nearly a third, 30 percent, agreed with this statement: "Absolutely not. We finally have a reliable system." But a larger share, 49 percent, agreed with this statement: "I still have my doubts, but the PPM is better than the old system." Just 21 percent thought the system was substantially flawed, agreeing with this statement: "Absolutely. Arbitron didn’t delay the launch long enough. These underreporting complaints have some basis in fact, and they should be looked into."
A good share of readers, 47 percent, also thought Arbitron made a mistake by not getting MRC approval before beginning the roll-out, versus 33 percent who thought not. The rest were undecided.
The responses suggest that there is still a great deal of skepticism regarding PPM. When less than a third of media buyers express total confidence in PPM, there's some work to do. According to this Media Life study, 70% of media buyers express some reservation about PPM, an alarming number considering that PPM is now the currency in all of the top 10 markets.
Comments