| 
				
				
				 
				 by 
				Marsha Friedman 
				EMSI 
				
				
				 Radio 
				represents a critical means of communicating ideas and opinions, 
				and no matter the next technological breakthrough in 
				communications, we will still tune in because we never know what 
				those voices in the air will say next.  
				
				And that’s why I am so incredibly 
				excited to present to you an interview I did with one of the 
				most significant voices in the radio industry, Michael Harrison, 
				the founder and publisher of the talk-radio industry’s #1 
				publication, 
				Talkers Magazine.  
				
				MF: Some prospects/clients request that we only 
				book them on Arbitron-rated stations and we often have to 
				explain why that isn’t always in their best interest.  Would you 
				agree?    
				 
				
				 MH: 
				What we have here is an example of a little knowledge is a 
				dangerous thing. It certainly isn’t in their best interest if 
				it significantly limits the number of stations on which they can 
				be booked or precludes them from appearing on a show or with a 
				host whose specialty is the guest’s subject and whose audience, 
				though small, is loyal and hangs on to every word.   
				 
				Look, I can understand guests wanting to be on big stations and 
				logically, to a certain extent, size does matter. However, there 
				is a huge difference between selling Coke or car insurance (like 
				GEICO) to the masses and selling a book, a philosophy or a 
				specialized small business product to targeted segments of the 
				population. Arbitron’s basic mission is to give advertising 
				agencies, concerned with making large spot buys for big clients, 
				a thumbnail overview of very general statistics such as the age 
				and gender of mass audiences.  
				 
				The ratings for each station, as determined by Arbitron, provide 
				information that fuels a system of convenience described as 
				cost-per-point. It guides them in determining how much it will 
				cost per hundred or thousands of sets of ears to get their 
				message and brand out there to millions of people.   
				 
				MF:  So to clarify, what you’re saying is that 
				the information Arbitron collects is more quantitative in 
				nature? 
				 
				MH: It is almost entirely quantitative. That is not to knock it. It 
				serves a vital purpose economically within the Madison Avenue 
				big time commercial segment of the business. It serves the 
				advertisers and their agencies that don’t have the time or 
				interest to really study the radio stations and their 
				connectivity to the emotional, intellectual and psychological 
				nature of their audiences.   
				 
				The point simply is this method does not reveal very much 
				qualitative information. For example, Coca Cola doesn’t care if 
				the people who buy their product are Republicans or Democrats, 
				or interested in sports, celebrity gossip, gardening, cooking or 
				astrophysics. These qualities of their target customer base do 
				not directly impact their business.  
				 
				MF:  So if you are not a megabrand or company, 
				size is not as important as the quality of the audience? 
				 
				MH:
				By ruling out being booked on small stations, offbeat programs 
				and relatively unknown hosts, the Arbitron-only crowd you 
				described is missing the benefits of this form of marketing, 
				which is often even more important to their success than sheer 
				unqualified audience numbers. Nowadays you need to promote large 
				and small, especially when in today’s electrically-charged 
				digital environment, even a "small" host could go viral with 
				information the world is eager to know.   
				 
				The ratings don’t tell you if that host you never heard of in an 
				unrated market has a Facebook page or a loyal army of Twitter 
				fans capable of rivaling the reach of many medium-market radio 
				stars, or if he talks and writes (blogs) fervently about the 
				guests he speaks with on the radio. The ratings also don’t have 
				much to say about whether the show is on the Internet and what 
				kind of online audience it has amassed. Thus, to shackle the 
				promotion of guests selling specific ideas to already motivated 
				individuals, with the same system that GEICO uses to promote 
				awareness of its gecko, is to miss out on where the true action 
				is in marketing specialty products (such as books, opinions and 
				other forms of eclectic direct-response merchandise) in today’s 
				multimedia world.   
				 
				MF: Can you give us a snapshot explanation as 
				to how the Arbitron system works and how accurate the 
				listenership numbers are? 
				 
				MH: Keep in mind when discussing radio ratings 
				that actual radio listening is a mysterious process. So the word 
				“accurate” is a highly subjective premise. I am personally not a 
				fan of radio ratings and never have been beyond accepting them 
				professionally and industrially as a necessary evil. That being 
				said, none of this is meant to be a slam against Arbitron per 
				se. They do what they do very well.  It’s just that even when 
				done well, radio ratings are a sloppy business.   
				 
				Most of the U.S. population has access to radios and more than 
				90 percent listen to some of the thousands and thousands of 
				radio stations and shows out there, at least five minutes every 
				week. At least that is what the latest research says, for 
				whatever it’s worth. However, there is no way to measure 
				mathematically precise numbers of an unwired medium the way, 
				say, books or movie box office sales are tallied, or the way we 
				can now determine the precise metrics of Internet usage. And, 
				that’s what’s dangerous about overreliance on Arbitron or taking 
				its numbers at face value. They do not necessarily reflect 
				results.   
				 
				MF:  So how does Arbitron collect the data? 
				 
				
				 MH:
				One of the main issues the radio industry is dealing with at the 
				moment is Arbitron’s transition from what is called the “diary” 
				method of audience measurement to a new system called the 
				Portable People Meter or "PPM." This transition has been slow 
				and not without problems and criticism.   
				 
				The diary represents the paper and pencil world of the 20th 
				century, a world of simpler media and significantly long-term 
				memory and attention spans. The PPM represents the 21st century 
				world of instantaneous digital communications and the need for 
				hard, fast facts. It is now an A.D.D. world.   
				 
				The diary method measures listeners’ recall, meaning you go 
				about your business listening to radio and then, when you have a 
				chance you fill out what you listened to—from memory—in a 
				workbook called a "diary."  Games are played the way games are 
				scored. Football teams are designed to score touchdowns and 
				field goals because that’s the way the game is scored.  Baseball 
				teams are designed to bring runners across home plate. In the 
				diary method, there is a significant disconnect between actual 
				listening and the act of thinking about listening.   
				
				The diary basically asks listeners to vote for stations, shows 
				and personalities.  This method requires that stations program 
				to create brand awareness, community involvement and listener 
				loyalty to get the full benefits of its system. Although loosely 
				accurate at estimating the relative popularity and brand 
				awareness of radio, the diary method is an extremely inaccurate 
				methodology of measuring actual minute-to-minute listenership. 				 
				 
				The PPM, on the other hand, is a small mechanical device that is 
				directly plugged into and measures, in hard numbers, the actual 
				listening habit of the person wearing it. In playing the PPM 
				game, stations are focusing on a much shorter listener attention 
				span. At this point in the transition, I believe the PPM is in 
				use in the top 50 markets. The diary method is still being used 
				elsewhere.  You can see this is causing a bit of turmoil in 
				radio programming circles. If you'll pardon the sports analogy, 
				are we supposed to be scoring runs or are we now playing for 
				touchdowns? 
				 
				MF: So, when it comes to knowing how much of an 
				audience you're reaching, do the Arbitron ratings really matter? 
				 
				MH: Only in as much as they provide a general 
				overview of a stations bulk listenership and obviously it 
				doesn't hurt to reach as many people as possible.  So don't get 
				me wrong. I am not saying this is useless information.  What I’m 
				saying is it doesn’t provide the complete picture in terms of 
				promoting the kind of product and ideas your clients and 
				potential clients are looking to expose.  Unfortunately, most 
				laymen don’t have a clue as to how to make sense of Arbitron 
				numbers. They have so many different dimensions to them that 
				even professionals in the field get confused. That’s why I said 
				a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.    
				 
				MF: How many stations even bother with the 
				Arbitron ratings system anymore? Are stations using Arbitron 
				more or less now than in the past? 
				 
				MH: Frankly, off the top of my head, I am not 
				sure. I suspect it has remained fairly constant over the years, 
				perhaps dropping off during recessions such as we have just 
				experienced. Many stations don’t actually "subscribe" to 
				Arbitron, which means they don’t pay for it. Technically that 
				means they can’t cite their numbers to clients when doing sales 
				pitches. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have an Arbitron 
				rating attached to the station and it doesn’t mean the agencies 
				won’t use it in determining buys. The key is not whether 
				stations “bother” with or are using Arbitron; it is whether or 
				not the advertising agencies are using Arbitron.  And most of 
				the agencies still find it useful.  
				 
				MF: How would you recommend people judge a 
				show’s value to determine whether the time they invest as a 
				guest is well spent?   
				 
				MH: Good question. No simple answer. The 
				obvious answer is, if you receive a bump in response or sales as 
				a result of going on the show, it was time well spent. But there 
				is more to it.  If a host does a particularly good job and has a 
				loyal audience, you never know who is listening and what the 
				longer term ramifications of that exposure will be.  
				
				An appearance on a show that provides no immediate results might 
				in fact trigger a bunch of reactions that comes back at you down 
				the line. Plus the host of that show might have friends in the 
				business and start a buzz about you. Or the host of a small 
				station today could be the Sean Hannity of tomorrow. The 
				nurturing of contacts is vital to doing business in the 21st 
				century. As far as I am concerned, there are no small stations, 
				hosts or customers. And, with the Internet buzzing beneath all 
				of our feet, you never know when an appearance on any show, 
				anywhere, at any time will strike pay dirt! 
				
					
						
							 
						 
					 
				 
				
				Marsha Friedman, CEO of EMSI, is a 20-year 
				veteran of the public relations industry, who provides PR 
				strategy and publicity services to corporations, entertainers, 
				authors and professional firms.  
				She is also the author of the book, Celebritize Yourself.
				
				marsha@marshafriedman.com 
				
				
					
						 
					 
				 
				
				
				
				
				
					 
				 
				
				
				
				
				 
				 
				
				
				
				More Articles  | 
				Submit Your Article  | 
				PR Subjects  
				
				
				About Public Relations Homepage
				 
				
				Contact Us
				 
				   
				 |