Research
Media buyers: We're behind Arbitron
By Lisa Snedeker
Dec 2, 2008 - 7:35:31 AM

Nielsen may have its eye on challenging Arbitron in its role as the dominant radio audience measuring service, but it's going to face a tough go of it, and it probably won't get much help from the people whose support it most needs: media buyers and planners.

Media people may have their issues with Arbitron and its portable people meter, which it’s now rolling out to replace its longstanding diary-based system. But they think far less of Nielsen's plan, announced several weeks ago, to begin offering a competing system in 50 of the nation's smaller radio markets with support from two major radio players, Cumulus and Clear Channel, which promptly signed up to use the new service.

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.

Asked which of the two systems was most likely to win out in the event of a shakeout, 75 percent chose Arbitron's PPM.

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."

Some 7 percent thought it was about as good as the old system. Just 5 percent thought it wasn't as good, and the last 7 percent agreed it was much worse.

Most thought Arbitron has done a decent or good job selling the PPM to the marketplace.

Just under 32 percent agreed with this statement: "It has addressed the concerns of buyers and sellers, and it has good results to tout."

A larger share, 47 percent, agreed with this statement: "It has done a good job justifying the replacement of the paper diaries, but the lack of Media Rating Council accreditation remains a concern," referring to Arbitron's decision to begin rolling out the system in some markets before receiving a stamp of approval from the MRC, the independent body that certifies the accuracy of media measuring systems.

The smallest share, 21 percent, felt Arbitron had done a poor job selling the PPM, agreeing with this statement: "The company has been too heavy-handed in its approach and seems to assume that its monopoly ensures that everyone will accept its will."

A major hurdle for Arbitron in its PPM rollout has been the objections of some station owners that the new system undercounts minority listeners, and it's been enough for many to ask the rating agency to halt the rollout until those issues are resolved.

Those charges, disputed by Arbitron, are of some concern to media buyers but not enough that they would prefer to stick with the old system.

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 rollout, versus 33 percent who thought not. The rest were undecided.

Most respondents think an improved measurement system will benefit not just media buyers but also media sellers.

Readers were asked: Do you feel a more accurate system of radio ratings would help radio as an advertising medium?

Three fourths agreed that it would, with just 15 percent thinking not. The rest were undecided.

And from what they'd heard about Nielsen's proposed system, readers did not think it would advance radio's cause, since it will rely on a paper diary system, though one it claims is superior to Arbitron's.

Media Life asked readers: What credibility do you place on such a system at this stage of research technology, after several years of using Nielsen’s local people meter?

More than half, 57 percent, gave it low credibility and 25 percent gave it no credibility. Just 2 percent gave it high credibility, with 16 percent giving it medium credibility.

The biggest flaw, in the minds of readers, is the fact that the system will rely on data gathered once a year. Asked to note their biggest reservations about the Nielsen system, and given the option to choose more than one, 79 percent chose the timeliness of the information. Not far behind, at 64 percent, was the fact that it will be based on paper diaries.

But also right up there, at 65 percent, was this answer: "That its clear intent is to pacify station owners upset over declining ratings at the expense of media buyers and advertisers and their need for accurate measurement data."

A lesser concern, at 35 percent, was that the system would roll out in an already fragile market where ad spending has long been in decline. Just 26 percent were concerned that it would lead to a long battle between Nielsen and Arbitron.

Asked to comment on the entrance of Nielsen into radio, readers offered up a range of responses, and a number welcomed it. As one wrote, "Competition! Name of the game," and another, "Competition is back, at last!" and yet another, "Competition will spur a different attitude from Arbitron."

But mostly readers saw little benefit coming from it. As one wrote: "While it's good to have a competitive option to Arbitron, if there are 2 sources for radio data (with different methodologies and different subscribers), there won't be a common currency that buyers can use to accurately assess their buys, which will cause a lot of confusion on both sides."

Opined another: "It means nothing as most agencies won't be able to afford both Nielsen and Arbitron. Could Nielsen have picked a worse economic climate to launch a pricey product?"

What follows are other representative responses:

"More confusion."

"More headaches."

"A land grab on the part of a company that is already a monopoly on the TV side."

"They're just trying to put Arbitron out of business I don't think it's going to happen. Media buyers don't want to have to decide between two services to use."

"It actually could mean the death of Arbitron. I personally wish that Nielsen would spend their time on getting their TV markets up to speed instead of spreading talent across two mediums -- so media buyers will still have inferior data in two mediums -- because neither Nielsen or Arbitron is close to being accurate in markets with paper diaries."'

"Nielsen would seem to have made a horrendously expensive, monopolistic mess of TV measurement. Now radio? Nielsen's entry into radio measurement may illustrate what journalist Naomi Klein has called the 'The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.' In short, for media buyers Nielsen's entry could mean chaos and confusion at the worst possible time. It could become a perfect example of 'disaster capitalism.'"