|
|
People Meters: Part II
Arbitron's main man on how they do a better job
By Kevin Downey
As president of worldwide Portable People Meter development at Arbitron, Marshall Snyder is overseeing the launch of Arbitron’s Portable People Meter, which is a passive system that measures radio, TV, and cable audiences by picking up inaudible signals embedded in broadcast transmissions. He spoke to Media Life this week about the PPM test that has been going on for almost a year in Wilmington, Del. Arbitron is getting ready to expand the PPM test throughout the Philadelphia area in January with a new panel of 1,500 or more people, who will be asked to wear the pager-sized meter. That phase of the test is expected to last through the better part of 2002 with the PPM possibly rolling out for widespread use shortly thereafter. Snyder spoke about how ratings from the PPM differ from the diary now used for radio, which is currently Arbitron’s primary area of expertise. He also spoke about the potential for the PPM data to be used in multimedia reach and frequencies.
The results from the tests show that radio ratings, overall, are only about 2 percent higher with the PPM than they are with the paper diary. Why do you think the results are so similar? And doesn’t that suggest that the diary is an adequate–and presumably, less expensive–method to measure radio listening?
The diary is doing a fine job with radio. It has its weaknesses, some of which are overcome with an electronic device.
The real news here is that the audience cume levels are going to go up substantially in a PPM-measured house. That will be due to things that don’t traditionally make it into the diary.
We will find that the average person will be more exposed to radio outlets than he or she has been putting in a diary. If someone listens to two stations with a diary, that may go up to four, five, or six, which will increase the cume audience of stations. And those increases will not be insignificant.
Why have there been shifts in listening by dayparts, such as an 18 percent decline in morning drive? Are there similar shifts in listening to specific radio stations?
The PPM does pick up more stations and the duration of the average occasion is shorter. But there are more occasions.
What we’re talking about here is a more precise instrument that should yield a more conclusive communication with the consumer, which is the objective of advertisers.
Regarding the morning drive, yes, there is information that is different from the diary in a negative direction.
But in the afternoon, evening, and night dayparts, particularly among mobile young people, the PPM found more of them. They are out there doing what they do after the sun goes down, but the PPM is in motion.
So there’s a new targeting opportunity for the younger mobile people and perhaps more affluent people.
If some daypart and station ratings are down, doesn’t that mean media buyers will need to use more stations and more dayparts to reach the same audience they are getting now?
It doesn’t necessarily mean that. It means they will have the opportunity to do that. The targeting possibilities are greater, but they don’t need to take advantage of it.
I think the real advantage is the multimedia data. Buyers will get to see how radio, television, and cable complement or duplicate one another.
The multimedia data provide insight for a media planner that will be quite valuable in seeing how one media complements another.
That’s especially true when you think about different station formats, different program types, different time periods, and different demographic groups.
And therein lies an advantage for radio that the diary by itself can never provide.
Media people are talking a lot about fusing disparate surveys into something that resembles a single multimedia survey. Is it possible that the PPM will eliminate the need for data fusion for broadcast media?
We think it definitely has that potential. Remember, we’re working with a panel of people, and we’ll take a large portion of the measures that we need using a passive electronic device.
That makes it exceedingly easy for people to provide their data. Even if they listen or watch a lot, the PPM doesn’t get any heavier. There isn’t a lot of work involved in participating.
That gives us the opportunity to collect additional information from the panel. So we can expand the definition of single-source measurement by collecting more data from the same people.
That wouldn’t necessarily mean using the PPM, although that’s a possibility.
We can ask them questions about other media usage. We already ask them questions about their demographic profile but we can also ask questions about their purchasing behavior.
So there could be quite a breadth of information for media planning and for detailed targeting.
Data fusion, or data integration, is still a possibility. Customers of ours in the advertising sector have large amounts of information about their customers. And there are other databases that are fed to those companies. There is certainly the possibility of fusing those data sets with the PPM data sets.
Fusion is still available but it’s available to do additional work after a single-source has begun measuring four or five different media. Then there’s the opportunity to fuse other data sources, which advertisers tell us is very exciting to them.
There is also a lot of work being done in media to create multimedia optimizations. Will the PPM provide the data needed to create such a system? Is Arbitron developing a multimedia optimizer?
We’re talking to people who have experience developing optimization systems.
Those conversations are well underway. Of course, the customers should be involved in those discussions.
If there is one persistent concern expressed by media people about the PPM, it’s that it is taking too long to go from test into full-scale use. When will the PPM be in use and in which markets will it be available?
We’re taking the panel size up in Philadelphia just as soon as we can get the preliminary work in Wilmington wrapped up and behind us.
We felt it was important to bring that to the market so that people would become excited about this type of measurement system.
Toward the end of 2002, we have plans to take the PPM to more markets than just Philadelphia.
So we’ll go to Philadelphia and people will see the individual media outlet ratings, so that they can evaluate the data in greater detail. And assuming that the enthusiasm that exists today still exists then, we’re prepared to roll.
But that also calls for our potential joint-venture partners to conclude that the formation of the joint venture is the right thing to do. We’re spending time with them discussing that possibility and what needs to be put into place to make that happen.
I assume you’re referring to Nielsen. How involved are they in developing the PPM?
You were talking about people being anxious and being ready to move forward at a greater speed. Well, Nielsen needs to hear that because they need to be assured that, by embracing PPM, it’s the right thing for the market they serve.
They don’t need to hear that from me, they need to hear it from the market.
We need to get Nielsen to agree to the formation of the joint venture as soon as is practical, which I would say is next year. It’s time to do that and deploy the system to more markets.
We’re making plans for that to happen.
But all constituencies, meaning TV, cable, and radio, don’t need to start at the same time. It’s possible that one of those constituencies will be ready to move forward and embrace the PPM system before another. That could happen in Philadelphia next year.
What has the reaction been so far to the PPM? And how are you keeping clients informed about the test?
The overall reaction has been that this is understandable and appears to be better.
People have a certain amount of comfort with what they’re seeing. They want to understand things in more depth but there is a certain amount of caution.
They should be cautious because this is currency, or the medium of exchange, for buying and selling. The mechanisms we use to keep people informed include one-on-one meetings with people who will shape the future of change, which we have many of each week.
We have summit conferences where we invite representatives from all the agencies, advertisers, television, radio, and cable to come to a central location to hear what is new and discuss subjects that are of interest to them.
We have sessions that are specifically designed to think about the future and the value of the data with major advertisers.
We’re out there talking to many advertisers to make sure that we’re not overstating the value of a multimedia single-source electronic panel. We still have things to prove and software to develop but all of those things are underway. The word is not just being carefully spread domestically but also around the world.
November 2, 2001 © 2001 Media Life
-Kevin Downey is a staff writer for Media Life.
Printer-Friendly
Version | Send
to a Friend
Cover Page | Contact
Us
