There’s been lots of hand-wringing over the rollout of Arbitron’s portable people meter in New York City and seven other markets earlier this month, with many minority-focused stations claiming the new device undercounts its listeners and politicians pushing into the protests to win votes in an election year. The New York and New Jersey attorneys general went so far as to file lawsuits against Arbitron, which debuted the device a couple days earlier than expected in order to avoid outside interference. But in a few months, this may all simply be background noise. Buyers in the two markets that have already been using the PPM for more than a year, Houston and Philadelphia, say that despite some adjustments, the new data has been a big improvement over the old paper diary system. Ratings arrive in a more timely fashion, and while numbers have slipped, they’ve done so almost across the board, demonstrating the inaccuracies of the old system. Overall, media people believe the PPM allows for a much better way to buy and plan radio. Kelley Mohr Rodriguez, media director at Richards/Carlberg in Houston, and Bernie Shimkus, vice president and director of research at Harmelin Media in Bala Cynwyd, Pa., talk to Media Life about the PPM, which stations have seen the biggest declines, and whether Arbitron will have any more rollout problems. 

 
What are you seeing that's different from the old Arbitron numbers, in terms of additional data? What's the most valuable change?
 
Rodriguez: I think the most valuable change is we get the monthly data. You see what stations do when they switch their format, and you can see the results almost immediately, when it used to be quarterly. If a station does a promotion, I think they can see a turnaround much more quickly than if they had to wait for the diary to come out.
 
Shimkus: The most immediate differences everyone will see are the large increases in cume audiences, the decreases in average time spent listening (TSL), and the subsequent declines in reported average quarter hour (AQH) audiences.

Other important differences we have noted are an increase in the number of different stations people listen to, impacting both station duplication estimates and exclusive listening estimates.

However, all of these differences make perfect sense in light of the change to electronic measurement.
 
In terms of additional data the biggest differences are in the frequency of data releases -- monthly compared to quarterly -- and the immediacy of the numbers to signal changes in programming content or promotional activity.
 
The most valuable change is the accuracy and confidence that the PPM numbers give us due to the electronic measurement methodology and the panel compliance requirements.

The old diary-based system relied on a person's memory to recall all radio listening down to the minute for an entire week and accurately record that in a booklet. This is a fairly unrealistic expectation with ample opportunities for human error to impact the reporting.

The PPM system monitors actual exposure to the radio signals that listeners are exposed to and requires much stricter compliance efforts on the part of participants.
 

What stations have been most affected, in terms of your experience -- what's up or down how have the stations been reordered in terms of ratings?
 
Rodriguez: I think initially some of the top stations really took a hit. But I think it’s kind of evened out now. I would say the more at-work easy listening stations were affected most, the ones that people would say they listened to in the diary were the ones hit the hardest. In actuality people were changing the dial more than they portrayed in the diary.
 
Shimkus: The stations that have been affected most are those that had the longest time spent listening figures and highly concentrated audiences under diary measurement. 

Various stations with urban or Spanish formats certainly fit that profile and show declines in reported AQH estimates. Although it is important to note that any station with high TSLs, regardless of format, experienced significant declines as well. 
 
However, Harmelin Media feels comparisons of PPM ratings to diary ratings are not that worthwhile or completely valid. PPM ratings and diary ratings are really two different metrics.

You wouldn't directly compare television's new C3 commercial ratings to the old Live+7 program ratings. C3 ratings are a different and better measurement for television advertisers.

Likewise, PPM ratings are a different and better metric that more accurately report actual radio audiences, which, in reality, have not changed. 

How has the PPM changed how you're buying radio? How has the additional information affected the buying process?
 
Rodriguez: I think from a planning and buying perspective, they’ve come up with conversion table that shows you how to get the same delivery. It’s really a new measurement system, so a 1.0 diary rating can equate to a 0.7 PPM rating, but with the same delivery.
 
Shimkus: Initially the impact of the PPM on buying has been limited. Since Harmelin always viewed this conversion as more of a currency change, we've maintained the effectiveness of our radio schedules by focusing on spots rather than rating points. For instance, there is no reason for any of Harmelin's various retail clients to believe that the same number of radio commercials run weekly under a PPM measured world won't deliver the same results with customers that they did under a diary-measured world regardless of the change in calculated rating points.
 
For other non-retail clients, we're adding supplementary demographic characteristics such as income, education, or household composition to the usual age/sex target definitions in order to make better station choices. Any qualitative research is also being used more often in a compressed PPM ratings world. Overall, all this new information has probably slowed the buying process a bit.
 

You have New York and New Jersey pushing on one side; on the other side is the ad buying community saying we want this and Arbitron committed to making it work. How do you see the controversy over the PPM all playing out?
 
Rodriguez: It’s hard because when it first came to Houston it was the same thing. Arbitron did a good job of bringing stations and the buying market together to hash out the different arguments on having only one currency.

Good or bad, is it a perfect system?

No, but it’s getting there, and I think that’s where the other markets have to get, too. I think everyone will have to continue to challenge Arbitron because it’s the only player in this.
 
Shimkus: I'm not a lawyer so I don't think I should speak about the various lawsuits. However, we are recommending that our clients proceed forward with the use of the PPM ratings on all future radio buys in the eight new markets just as we have done in the initial two markets of Philadelphia and Houston for the past year and a half.

Harmelin has been actively involved in the evaluation process if the PPM rating service for more than five years. We are confident that the PPM service is based on sound media research principals, and are pleased with the efforts Arbitron has made to achieve and maintain the quality of the PPM panels.
 

For lots of radio companies the big issue is they could lose a lot of money. Do you think there will be any effective blocking of the rollout?
 
Rodriguez: I don’t think so. People want the change. I feel like a politician now, but people do. It’s not perfect but it’s a little more perfect than the diary was.
 
Shimkus: For the sake of our clients using radio, we certainly hope not. The PPM system is clearly superior to the old diary system and a long overdue first step.

Forcing advertisers or agencies to use the inferior diary service numbers hurts our ability to plan and schedule radio more effectively and generate better results for our advertiser clients. In today's increasingly competitive media environment, poor results will drive dollars away from radio much faster than any adjustments caused by the conversation to the PPM itself.
 

Do you think the new system is an improvement on the old?
 
Rodriguez: I do. I think it’s quicker, its more up to date, it’s more actual because it’s actual encoding of the radio someone is listening to at that moment, rather than recall at the end of the day or week.
 
Shimkus: Without question. As mentioned before, the PPM's two biggest advantages are the passive, electronic measurement methodology and the panel compliance requirements.

Electronic measurement captures actual radio exposure, eliminating human errors and biases, while the panel compliance requirements are an improvement unique to the new system. In fact, using an ongoing panel itself is a major improvement since it is much easier to match market population profiles using a panel sample than it is for 13 separate weekly diary samples.
 

What do you see as the shortcomings of this device? If you had your druthers, what could Arbitron do to make it better and eliminate any bugs?
 
Rodriguez: I think they have to just continue to make sure there’s equal representation of the demographics of that market and to make sure nothing’s skewed by any outside factors. It all has to be apples to apples so we get a true sense of where the stations are, because this is all we have to go by.
 
Shimkus: One of the shortcomings of the device is battery life and the need to dock the meter on a nightly basis to recharge and submit data. This can impact reporting for members of the younger, more mobile 18-34 year-old age group who do not always return home every night. However, I believe Arbitron has already begun testing on longer-life batteries to address this problem.
 
To make the PPM better I would like the device to recognize the embedded audio codes faster so that we can perform better analysis on audience retention during commercial breaks. I'm not very satisfied with the research performed in this area to date. I'd also like to see Arbitron include panelists who live in group quarters at colleges since this segment is a substantial portion of the 18-24 year-old age group.