Time for radio to take some chances
by John Snyder, VP/Portable People Meter Sales, Arbitron
"Time for radio to take some chances." That was the headline on a daily fax after a group panel that took place at the NAB in Dallas. Cumulus' Lew Dickey said, "We can't be afraid to fall on our faces."
There are probably very few in the radio industry who would disagree that radio needs to step out on a limb and take some chances. There are also probably very few who would disagree that better programming is key to a healthy industry. So why doesn't it happen more? Is it that the industry doesn't have the creative minds to come up with new content? Why can television run shows for a couple weeks and dispose of the ones that are failures?
I would argue that one of the major reasons why there is less experimentation in radio has to do with the measurement system. Think about it for a second. You go ahead and try a new morning show or switch your music, and then what? You wait and wait. The trend comes out and after reverse engineering the square root of pi you still aren't sure if the change in programming is working for or against you. Finally the book comes out and everyone agrees that you need to wait for another book before making a final call. By the time the second book is released (six months later), you no longer have an experiment on your hands; you have missed revenue on your shoulders. That's a high price to pay for creativity and I would contend one of the major reasons why we don't see radio trying more innovative programming.
Enter PPM and electronic measurement. Seems like a strange hero to come to the aid of creativity in radio, but it might just hold the key. How?
The PPM utilizes a panel approach to measurement. Simply put, you have a group of respondents who are surveyed each week. That differs from the diary service where a respondent is surveyed for one week. The next week, a fresh new set of diarykeepers are found. The problem with this approach when it comes to measuring change over a short period of time is that you can never really be sure if the change in estimates from one week to another is a result of a change in programming or the result of finding diarykeepers with different preferences. The other issue relating to the different sampling methodologies is that in any given week in the diary service today, one-twelfth of the diaries are in the market at any point during the process. It is difficult, if not impossible, to get a good feel for programming with a fraction of the sample in the field. With the PPM panel approach, the entire sample is out is in the market each month, week and day.
What does this look like in actual numbers? In Houston today, there are 4,300 diaries sent out for each survey. This means that during any given week there are roughly 300 diaries in respondents' hands. With PPM, there is a total of 2,100 panelists. During any given week, there are 2,100 panelists who are recording what they're listening to.
Besides the panel approach to measurement, PPM offers near-passive electronic measurement. All the respondents need to do is remember to undock their meters, carry them with them and dock them at night. How does this help with experimentation? It takes away the need for the respondent to consciously notice that their behavior has actually been altered.
This is a very big deal that has shown up in the Philadelphia and Houston PPM data. Promotions, new features, special guests and breaking news stories all show up in the PPM but are usually missed in the diary. These one time events or subtle changes don't register with the consumer right away. Broadcasters might cut their spot load and it might lead to more listening, but is the respondent aware that they actually have started to spend more time with the station?
Finally, the PPM data is reported monthly, with weekly updates. Take a chance on something that isn't working and you no longer need to wait seasons to find out the results. There's no longer a need to jeopardize your quarter or year for the sake of experimentation.
Back to the television question. Why can television take chances on some of the most ridiculous concepts known to man? Because they have an evaluation system based on electronic measurement that is reported soon enough to make changes. Giving radio these tools would untie the hands of radio's creative minds.
The competitive landscape is simply too great these days not to have the tools needed to deliver top-notch content. TV and the internet are utilizing these tools to better their content. Let's at least make it a fair fight.
