Questions over Portable People Meter

Questions over
Portable People Meter

Does it pick up many who aren't really listeners?

By Kevin Downey

Media folks have been extolling the virtues of Arbitron’s Portable People Meter since before the media measurement tool went into test in Philadelphia last year.
   While that enthusiasm hasn’t exactly died down, questions about the PPM are now being raised that suggest some media buyers don’t think it will be ready to replace the paper diaries used to measure local radio and TV audiences for a few more years.
   At the very least, the PPM seems headed for the type of heated debates that greet most new measurement tools but which have mostly been absent during the PPM test.
That changed this summer with the release of the first PPM data since Arbitron hit its goal of 1,500 panelists.
   A major concern revolves around data that show people listen to twice as many radio stations as previously thought and that stations, on average, have 10 times the number of least-frequent listeners with the PPM as they did with the diary.
   Arbitron says the PPM is picking up people who do not fully report listening with the diary, but some media people think the system, which picks up inaudible codes embedded in radio, television and cable signals, is simply picking up too many people.
    “An example is you’re sitting in a cab talking to someone and you find out you were counted in the ratings for a Hispanic station because that’s what the cabdriver was listening to,” says Nancy Haynes, communications director at Collins, Haynes & Lully, an agency in Charlotte, N.C.
   “There’s a lot of room for error with the diaries, but there’s enormous room for errors with the PPM.”
   Of primary concern is that radio stations will suddenly start charging advertisers for more listeners, many of whom may be within earshot of a signal but aren’t necessarily paying attention to a station.
   “Neither the diary nor the PPM measures attentiveness,” says Thom Mocarsky, vice president of communications at Arbitron.
   “The PPM reports every exposure, whether that’s to a radio station a person chose to listen to or not.”
   He says the increase in occasional listeners was not unexpected and has had virtually no impact on most stations’ primary audience.
    Data from May, for example, shows the average Philadelphia radio station had a core audience of 88,000 people, according to the diary, while the PPM reported a core audience of 86,000.
   Arbitron and some media people say the PPM is a better system that is simply redefining the radio audience. That’s similar to what happened in the 1980s, when Nielsen switched over to the People Meter for its national TV measurement, and to what’s happening now in Boston with a test of Nielsen’s first local People Meter.
    “The radio industry has been asking for a technology update for some time,” says Tripp Eldredge, president of DMR, a Cincinnati-based marketing services company.
   “In general, I think people are very much in support of the PPM. But it’s a much more complex methodology, and the radio industry hasn’t had a strong need to understand research in the past.
    “Clearly, Arbitron has a ways to go in the education process and in the development of what is a new currency.”
    To that end, Arbitron has been sharing data with clients and discussing the results.
   Moreover, Arbitron is expanding the PPM test as a result of those discussions.
   A second panel of 1,000 people will be added in Philadelphia, which will be used as a control study to ensure that the PPM results are not a fluke but the product of a valid system, with acceptable response rates and a sample reflective of the population.
    Arbitron also intends to roll out a test in another market to see how well Hispanics adapt to the PPM, which is a pager-sized device worn by panelists.
   Still, even as Arbitron responds to some concerns about the PPM, others are being raised.
   One is the cost of the PPM and whether it will provide sufficient value to radio stations and media buyers.
   “Since we haven’t discussed costs yet, that’s not an issue,” says Mocarsky.
   A bigger concern, however, is whether Arbitron can continue developing the PPM. It has already spent millions and the test has at least a year to go. Others say it could go on for up to three years.
   Mocarsky says the company is committed to the PPM.
   But key to answering that concern is Nielsen, which has spent in excess of $2 million to develop the PPM in partnership with Arbitron. Nielsen has the option of bowing out of the relationship and, more importantly, pulling its financial support.
    “It’s only been since March that we have had a full panel in place, so it’s only recently that we’ve been able to look at the data,” says Jack Loftus, a spokesman for Nielsen.
   “We have target dates for different phases for continuing our relationship, but I expect we’ll have reached some decision before the end of the fall, if not sooner.”

-Kevin Downey is a staff writer for Media Life.

Printer-Friendly Version | Send to a Friend
Cover Page | Contact Us