Audience Goals

Hi, Doc:  I know salespeople work with budgets.  Is there any way to set an audience goal for the next ratings sweep? - Anonymous

Anon: While your question appears simple, it's actually very complicated.  Here is why and I'll try to make this quick . . .

The comparison you make is not apples-to-apples because the budgets salespeople work with are tangible.  The budget numbers are concrete items (entities) and salespeople do have some control over the events that affect their performance, and, consequently, the probability of reaching the budget goals.  For example, salespeople can make more sales calls, or the sales department could increase rates for a period of time.

Setting audience (ratings/share) goals isn't in the same league as setting a sales goal because there are many intervening variables involved in producing the audience estimates that aren't involved in advertising sales.  Your radio station's ratings and shares are a function of Arbitron's research procedures, which is the same problem encountered by all companies that conduct research.  The ratings and shares for your radio station reported by Arbitron may or may not be accurate, and that's why Arbitron says that the data the company reports are only estimates.  There is nothing wrong with that statement because all behavioral research (studies with humans) only reports estimates.  Nothing in behavioral research is exact because human beings are not static in their behavior.  This elasticity in behavior means that behavioral research studies can only provide estimates of what people like and don't like, and so on.

However, there is a way for you to accomplish your task to some degree and I'll get to that in a moment, but I first need to explain a few things.

How do audience "estimates" affect your ability to set a ratings or share goal?  Audience estimates, like all behavioral research, include three major types of error: (1) Sampling error; (2) Measurement error; and (3) Random error.

Sampling error refers to errors related to selecting the sample.  Are the correct people involved in the survey?  Are there enough people in the sample to produce reliable information?  And so on.

Measurement error refers to the errors related in collecting and analyzing the data.  In the case of Arbitron audience estimates, this relates to whether diaries and/or the PPM (Portable People Meter) actually collect valid and reliable listener information as well as whether the information is correctly calculated and reported.  And so on.

Random error refers to all other potential problems with research.  Was there a significant situation in the market during the ratings collection period that may have affected the data?  Were there any undocumented or unidentified variables that may have affected the results?  In most cases, random error can't be identified, but realize that it's present in any study.

The error involved in behavioral research makes "audience goal setting" a tough thing to do because the audience estimates, for the most part, are out of your control.  For example, you may have a perfect show, daypart, or even an entire radio station, but the sample involved in an Arbitron ratings period may not be the correct sample, or some other problem that may affect the "true" listener information.

OK, now with all that said, let's get back to setting an audience goal because there are some rules to follow if you do this.

Since Arbitron started radio ratings in 1949, virtually all users of the information have compared one ratings period (book) to another to determine if a radio station is "up or down."  A typical comment is something like, "The radio station is doing well—we're up to a 5.0 share in Spring from a 4.2 in Winter."  The problem is that statement makes no sense because, scientifically speaking, it isn't legitimate to compare the raw numbers from one ratings period to another without converting the data into z-scores.  Why?  Because up until the PPM, Arbitron used different samples for each ratings period and comparing one period to another isn't legitimate.  Each sample is different, each sample has its own unique characteristics, and each sample has its own error.

z-scores allow for "apples-to-oranges" comparisons because the procedure converts all the data to the same metric (type of number) and all z-score data have a Mean of "0" and a Standard Deviation of "1."  This is very important.  Comparing one Arbitron ratings period to another (including PPM estimates) without converting the data to z-scores is, quite simply, and exercise in futility because the comparison isn't legitimate.  (I have answered many questions about z-scores in this column in the past 10 years, and many of them are included on The Research Doctor Archive—click here.)

So what should you do if you want to set an audience goal?  You cannot use Arbitron's raw data if you want to set an audience goal.  You must convert the Arbitron data to z-scores.  No exceptions.  None.  Nada.

When you set your audience goal, you can use a percentage, such as an increase of 10% for a particular show, daypart, or other time period.  Convert the data to z-scores and then determine if you met your goal.  By the way, in case you're wondering, you can't "skirt" the issue of converting your data to z-scores by comparing the rank changes for a program, daypart, or Total Week.  Ranks are still affected by the sample and a comparison of ranks without z-scores isn't legitimate.

(Note:  Arbitron's use of a Panel Study design for the PPM methodology—using the same respondents for several ratings periods—does eliminate a major problem with comparing the data from two or more ratings periods, but it's still necessary to convert PPM data to z-scores because Measurement Error and Random Error are still present.)

Audience Goals - Comment

Hey, Doc:  That was great for such a "quick response."  Thank you very much.

 

However, continuing with my original question, now I have the correct approach for analyzing the data, but it is still not clear for me how can I actually set an audience goal.

 

As you said, "salespeople can make more sales calls, or the sales department could increase rates for a period of time" when they need to achieve their numbers.  For ratings, however, I think it is very difficult to set a goal mainly because of:

 

1. Radio listening in a given market can grow or decrease from one ratings period to another. It is not possible to control that variable.

 

2. I could make some changes in my radio station looking for a share growth, but it is also possible that the other stations will make their own changes, so that is something I can't control, either.

 

3. But this is my biggest concern: Let's assume I need a 10% growth to be first in women 25-44.  How do I know if the changes I make in my station will attract 1,000, 10,000 or 100,000 new listeners?  How do I know how much time will it take to attract those new listeners?

 

Is there any kind of research that can help in predicting an audience growth? - Anonymous

Anon: You're welcome for the answer.  I had a feeling you would be writing back with more questions.  Before I get to your three questions, I noticed that you picked up on the difference between sales goals and ratings goals.  I'll mention more about that in a moment.

Here are my responses to your three questions:

1.  You are correct in saying that broadcasters have little or no control over ratings increases or decreases.  In some cases, the changes may be legitimate, but in other cases, the changes may be the result of sampling error, measurement error, or random error.  I'm sure that Arbitron would be happy to increase the sample size to decrease (at least) sampling error, but ratings subscribers won't pay for the increase in cost to do so.

2.  You are correct again in saying that just because you make changes on your radio station will not guarantee an increase in your audience.  As you say, other radio stations may also make changes, or may even copy what you did—all of which may, in some situations, negate the influence of what you did to improve your radio station.

 

3.  Now to your biggest concern about how many new listeners you might attract if you make changes on your radio station.  Unfortunately, there is no way to know this number.  Yes, I know that some PDs, GMs, consultants (and others) may claim that their radio station's cume (for example) increased 10% because of a programming change, jock change, contest, fewer commercials, or anything else on the radio station.  The problem is that all of these claims are wrong, unsubstantiated, meaningless, worthless, and, well I think you get the idea.

 

The only way, and I mean the only way to know how much a radio station's audience increased or decreased based on some type of change is to control every possible intervening variable that may have also affected the station's numbers.  And that, my friend, is impossible—not virtually impossible—but completely impossible under any circumstances.  As I have said many times before in this column, a radio station's audience estimates in Arbitron are a function of dozens of individually unique variables and there is no way at this point in the history of humankind to control all of those variables.  None.  Nada.  Zilch.

 

You asked how much time it will take to attract new listeners?  I don't know.  With no sarcasm intended, it will take as long as it takes.  Consider this little radio research "pearl". . . research I have conducted over several decades indicates that it takes as long as eight years for a radio station's listeners to learn that the radio station changed its call letters, moniker, or slogan.  I'm not exaggerating.  Since it takes that long to for listeners to learn such basic pieces of information, you may be able to see that trying to figure out how long it will take to increase your audience after you make a change is very, very difficult (if not impossible).

 

Don't feel depressed about these things because all mass media are faced with the same thing—all mass media are complicated entities when it comes to predicting audience behavior.  The mass media aren't hard sciences like chemistry or physics that have specific facts and rules.  The mass media succeed or fail because of the likes and dislikes of people who constantly change and don't follow a set of facts or rules.

 

So what?  Well, you do your best and don't get frustrated.  Radio has been this way since it started in the 1930s and it will continue to be so in the future.  Your plan should consist of two elements: (1) Find out what the listeners want, give it to them, and tell them that you gave it to them; and (2) Have patience.  In radio, one year is a "flash in the pan" in reference to expecting audience increases due to changes made on the radio station.  Expecting increase after only a few months is ludicrous.  Rule:  One year minimum wait before increases in audience size can be expected after changes are made on your radio station.  Analyzing the effects of changes in less than one year is a waste of time.

 

Finally, once you find out what your listeners want, you can't rely on that information for long because people change quickly.  That's why it's important to have a consistent plan to find out what your listeners want.

 

One more thing—Read this article I wrote a while ago about radio ratings—click here.

Audience Goals - Another Comment

Hi, Doc:  Once again, thanks for your answers.  As I wait for your comments about the difference between sales goals and ratings goals, I wanted to tell you that all these questions have to do with a "ratings budget" our GM is asking us to do.

 

He wants us to come up with a given growth for the next ratings sweep, and after all you have explained to me, I see it is very difficult to do (if not impossible, as you suggest).

 

Keep up with your great work. - Anonymous


Anon: I will try to keep up the great work.  Thanks.  Also, you already know that you didn't have to wait for my answer to your second series of questions.  I posted my answer before you sent this new comment.  Anyway, on to your question . . .

 

My comments here are based on only the information you have provided.  There may be more things I need to know, but I can only work with what you have sent.  So, with that in mind, here are my comments.

 

If your GM wants you to provide a ratings goal, then I'm assuming he provided you (and the other decision makers at the station) with the following items:

  1. A current market research study that provides all of you with information about your market, your radio station, your target listeners, your competitors, and how your target audience rates a variety of programming elements (music and non-music elements) so you know what is important to them for the Morning Show and the Total Day.

  2. A current music test (I assume your radio station is a music station).  You need this information so you (or whomever) can develop a good playlist based on what the listeners want, not on someone's gut feelings.

  3. Talented personnel in all positions of the radio station who can carry out all the information provided in the market study and music test..

  4. A marketing and advertising budget that will allow you to get your radio station's message on TV, billboards, direct mail, or the medium you decide to use.  You should also have enough money for station promotions and other station items like bumper stickers, t-shirts, and so on.

 

That's the minimum required if your GM wants you to provide a ratings goal for the next ratings period.  If you don't have all that "stuff," then setting a ratings goal is, quite simply, Vulpes Fulva leavings.  In other words, it's a waste of time.
 

Automation Software

Doctor:  Please can you tell me what is the best automation software or the most popular today. - Anonymous

 

Anon:  I don’t know anything about automation software, but maybe another reader will help.  In the meantime, here are two searches that may help: Software One and Software Two.

Automation Software - Comment

Doc:  I think the industry standards are Prophet (NexGen), Scott Studios, AudioVault.  ENCO is still around, and  I think and maybe even Arrakis.  All of them have their good points, and obviously some are better.  I am most familiar with Prophet, Scott, and AudioVault.

 

Personally I think it's a matter of cost for some folks, but Prophet is the most inclusive of all the software.  There's so much you can do with it...almost too much for most folks, but it makes voice tracking a breeze and log editing, etc.  The downside to Prophet is that you cannot tweak the audio levels once a file is put in the system, you more or less have to redub it.

 

Scott Systems is a DOS based program, but the SS32 is really an amazing animal.  The touch screen is a handy tool to have and makes things easy if you don't have chubby fingers or a staff with a propensity for greasy foods while they're on the air.  Scott has a lot of good points as well and it is very good.

 

AudioVault is I think DOS based as well...hard to tell...but it's a pretty good program as well...as usual with most things, the principle is the same on just about everything...it's just getting used to the jargon.

 

I was using AV before my last gig switched to Scott, which I was familiar enough with to help with the install, and my current gig was using Scott when I came in, but we switched to Prophet 2 years ago.  I would say if you can afford it Prophet is the way to go, but that's not to knock Scott or AV.  I still think those are fabulous systems.

 

Thanks...hope I helped and wasn't too biased...I tried my best not to be. - Josh Brandon

 

Josh:  Thanks for the comments. I always appreciate help.

Audience Turnover

I’m a high school student so I hope you’ll answer my question. Would you explain the term ‘audience turnover’ as it relates to radio? We talked about this in class and I wasn’t sure what it meant. – Ken


Ken: It’s my pleasure to answer your question. I’m happy to know that high school students read the column. For your information, this column is required reading in research classes at several colleges and universities around the world.


Audience turnover (usually shortened to just "turnover") is an estimate of how many times a radio station’s audience changes during a given daypart. Turnover is computed by dividing a station’s cume audience by its average persons total. A low turnover means that the audience tends to stay with the radio station for a long time. A low turnover means a high TSL, or Time Spent Listening number. A high turnover is just the opposite—the audience comes in for shorter amounts of time and therefore has a low TSL.


A high turnover doesn’t necessarily mean that the station is bad (or sucks, using the scientific term). For example, Top 40 radio stations usually have a high turnover—the younger listeners tend to tune in and out more frequently than do older listeners who listen to Soft AC (Adult Contemporary) or other formats.

 

Turnover is particularly useful for advertisers because it gives them an idea about how many spots they need to run in order to reach a specific frequency (exposure to their message) target.

Audio Levels - TV

Hi Doc: I have only worked in radio, and don't know much about the television biz.  Like everyone else, when I'm in the studio, I'm always watching audio levels and such to make sure they're about the same.  Doesn't this happen in television?  Why is it that commercials differ so greatly from the programs on certain channels?  Are TV stations not manned 24/7 like a lot of radio stations are? - Anonymous

 

Anon:  This comment/complaint has been around for many years and the TV folks say they don't "crank up" the sound when commercials come on.  Their answer is that audio levels for commercials are the same as those for the programs, but in many cases, the audio is low in a program just before they cut for a commercial.  The difference, therefore, makes the commercials sound louder than the programs.  In addition, many broadcasters say that the sound in commercials is compressed, which makes them sound louder than regular programming.

 

I have been around many TV control rooms and have never seen anyone boost the sound for the commercials, but that's not proof that it doesn't happen.  My guess is that it probably doesn't because that's too much to worry about.  I think the general explanation that the program/show sound level is lower than the commercial sound level is probably accurate.

 

If you're interested, there are several mentions about the sound on TV commercials on the Internet—click here.

Audio Levels - TV - Comment

Doc:  I am a radio news writer during the week, and on weekends I am an audio engineer for a large-market net-affiliated TV station.  Your reasons for spots sounding louder are "sound" ones, but there is one aspect that's even more important.  Here's the deal:

 

The spots usually have more peaks.  Most programs only reach max audio once in a while, but most commercials hit the max peak constantly.  Most of the music played on the radio is over-compressed so that the peaks are pretty constant.  (Just look at the waveform of a hit song.)  Plus, the jocks are usually excited, and talk fast.  So the difference in number of peak levels isn't as noticeable.

 

But try playing two or three ballads back to back, announce them in a relaxed voice, and then play a car dealer spot, all the while carefully watching the peak levels.  You'll notice the same effect. Okay? - Geno

 

Geno:  OK.  Thanks for the help in explaining the differences in sound levels.  Your explanation sounds logical to me.

Audio and No Service Morning Shows

Hi Doc! Great column! I have two questions:

  1. Is it worthwhile for a station to research its audio—its “sound”—processing, bass, treble, etc.?

  2. I’ve noticed that some stations are moving to what amounts to a no-nonsense, no-services approach in morning drive. Do you see anything positive in this?  I’m thinking that an all music/no B.S. morning show MIGHT have some appeal with a younger audience, but it sure blows the hell out of every theory we’ve held near and dear over the years!

Thanks and continued success! - Chris

 

Chris:  Thanks for the comment about the column.  I’m glad you enjoy it.

 

1.  I’m not sure what you mean by “research” a radio station’s sound.  What I’m not sure about is how you would conduct such a study.  Your audience listens to your radio station on a countless number of receivers.  Which of those receivers are you going to test?  If you test only one, that doesn’t mean you can generalize the results to every other receiver.

 

But let’s assume that you want to conduct some type of study anyway.  The only way to do this would be to produce several variations of your signal (on tape) and play these for a group of listeners who would select which approach they like best.  You can’t ask them about processing, bass, treble and all that because they won’t be able to answer those questions.  But you can ask them to rate each sample in reference to how much they like it.

 

Overall, unless you’re having some serious problems with your signal, I would say that the professional ears at your radio station are enough to judge whether your signal is good or bad.  Besides, listeners complain only when a signal is horrible…I mean a signal you can barely hear….they will not complain about small tweaks in bass or treble.

 

2.  I’m not sure what’s going on with the no-service approach to some radio stations.  As you say, this makes no sense in reference to the comments listeners have made for decades.  I haven’t seen any specific research on this topic, nor have I seen any Arbitron results for radio stations using this approach.  I’m always willing to learn and to change my opinions, and I’ll wait for the evidence before making any decisions.

Audio Quality

Here’s a real-life scenario for you. Station A is a heritage CHR in a large market, the processing sounds great, and it does well in the ratings. Then one day Station B comes along with a CHR format and cranks up its signal to the point of over-modulation. If you are station A, do you try to sound louder or stick with your good, subtle processing? My GUESS is that as a listener, if one station sounds louder than another, it's a sign of weakness to the quieter station. Would you say, ‘That don't be right’ or am I correct? Do listeners care how loud your station is? Thanks, love the column! - Anonymous

 

Anon: Thanks for the comment about the column. I’m glad you enjoy it. (I assume you’re with Station A?)

 

In all my years in radio research, I have never heard one listener say anything about a radio station’s processing. They will comment about signals that sound like they’re coming through tin cans and a wire, but never about how "loud" a radio station sounds. If it’s a "soft" radio station, they just turn up the volume. The difference between the processing on the two radio stations is probably not detected by an average listener in your market.

 

I know some people will write and say that processing is important. I agree. But I don’t agree that listeners will tune to Station B over Station A only because of processing. That, as you said, don’t be right.

 

Worry about your product. Worry about whether you are giving your listeners what they want to hear. Worry about whether you relate to your audience. Don’t worry about Station B being "louder." If Station B beats Station A, it will be because of the product, not the processing.

Augusta Article Fake Name

Doc…Do you know anything about the newspaper article about the woman protesting the Masters Golf Tournament in Augusta, GA where a person played the “funny name” joke on the reporter writing a story about the event? - Anonymous

 

Anon:  I did hear about it and here’s the explanation: Fake Name Story.

 

The original article was edited on April 23 and no longer contains the fake name.  You can see the edited version here: Article.

 

If you go to the article, you’ll see that the fake name has been changed to “one man.”  If you click on that (one man) you’ll see an explanation of what happened.  But to make it easier for you, just click here for the explanation:  Wimped Out and Edited the Story.

Average Scores - Research Interpretation

In a recent presentation of a telephone perceptual study for our radio station, the researcher was summarizing respondent ratings (on a 1-5 scale) for several items.  One of the items had an average score of 5.2.  I questioned how that could be and he said it was due to “weighting.”  Is that correct? - Anonymous

 

Anon:  No, it’s not correct, and the answer that it was due to “weighting” makes absolutely no sense at all.  Let me explain.

 

An average score for any data set can never be lower or higher than the lowest or highest number in the data set.  In this case, you’re using a 1-5 scale, which means that the average score cannot be lower than 1.0 or higher than 5.0.

 

Next, weighting is used to compensate for a shortfall of respondents in a specific question.  In other words, let’s say that your study involved 400 respondents, but for some reason, only 350 answered a particular question.  Randomly selecting 50 respondents who did answer the question and duplicating their answer would weight the data to a sample of 400.  However, even in this case, the “weighted” average could only be something from 1.0 to 5.0.  Weighting would not be the cause of the 5.2 average score.

 

I would bet my entire savings account of $1.00 that there was an error in the data entry phase.  If you look at the raw data for your question, I’m sure you’ll find a few ratings higher than 5 among the 400 responses.  I garOWNtee that’s the answer.

 

Next…I think your researcher needs to take a math or statistics course.

Avian Flu

I know this isn't a pleasant topic to discuss, but I wonder about the deaths that may happen due to Bird Flu (Avian Flu).   - Anonymous

 

Anon:  I'm not a medical doctor, so I read a few dozen articles on the Internet that provide a lot of information about Avian (Bird) Flu (H5N1).  All the experts agree that it is virtually impossible to predict the number of deaths that may result from H5N1, but the consensus is that—if the flu mutates into a human virus—hundreds of millions of people would die.  Nice thought, eh?

 

While the general public doesn't seem to be greatly alarmed at this prospect, the medical experts are worried.  Why?  Human beings are not immune to H5N1, and there is no vaccine currently available for the virus (since it hasn't yet mutated to a form that affect people).

 

As I said, I'm not a medical doctor and I certainly wouldn't want to be an alarmist about this Avian Flu situation.  However, if you read some of the information on valid and reliable websites, I think you'll see that this could be a major deal in the future.  According to the information I read, the only way to contract H5N1 now is to come in direct contact with a bird that has the virus (infected feathers, bird secretions, etc.).  However, when the virus mutates to human form, it will become an airborne virus and people will contract it simply be being around an infected person who breathes on them or near them.  Whoa!

 

Probably everything you need to know is located on this CDC website (Center for Disease Control).  There are dozens of links on the site for additional information.  However, if that's not enough information for you, then you can go to the World Health Organization page that discusses the problem, and another page with Frequently Asked Questions (this page will scare you.)

Aviation/Weather Term

Doc:  On websites for airport closings, like this one, there often is a word or term used that I don't understand.  It's CIGS.  Do you know what that stands for? - Anonymous

 

Anon:  I didn't know the answer, but I found it on the Internet.  CIG stands for "ceiling," so you may see something like, "Departure delays due to low CIGS."  You can see the acronyms used for aviation about halfway down this website page titled, A Pilot's Guide to Aviation Weather Services.

Awareness - Top of Mind

I was privileged to be a part of a session where our consultant brought in a group of “real” Arbitron diary users.  One common theme among all of them was how they referred to the stations in their diaries.  All of them but one used the stations’ frequencies, and only occasionally made reference to the stations’ names (“The Party,”  “Kiss,” etc.)  The only station that was not true for was the local Christian CHR.  Most diary mentions referred to it by its intended name “Way FM.”

 

Since then, I’ve made it a point to make sure our frequency is in every jingle, shout, sweeper, promo, etc.  (A no brainer I know, but I have not much for a brain).

 

We are going to enter a situation where we will simulcast on different frequencies (2 now, 5 total later).  Here are my questions:

  1. Why did “Way FM” stand out among the diary holders?  When listening to Way FM, they use their positioner very much like their counterparts in the market use their positioners.  Yet their counterparts rarely had anything other than their frequency mentioned in diaries, even among their P1s.

  2. Does the use of multiple frequencies confuse listeners?  What about the use of multiple call letters?

  3. Assuming the answer to #2 is yes, I need to find a positioner that is top of mind among my listeners.  You will tell me I need to ask them, and I will, but I am having trouble finding the correct way to pose the question.  Do I just ask, “When you think of Today’s Best Music, 104.5 The Rock, what ONE word comes to mind?”  Or what about “Use just one word to describe 104.5 The Rock.“

You once mentioned that listeners do not consciously recall positioners (“Today’s Best Music,” “Z100,” etc.).  But I need them to since I can’t use traditional frequency and call letter mentions.  Thanks for any help and insight you can provide Doctor! - Anonymous

 

Anon:  I need to address a few things before I get to your questions:

OK…on to your questions.

  1. I can only speculate about why the respondents identified the radio station as “Way FM” because I wasn’t at your session.  (Someone should have asked these people why they call it that during your session.)  My experience with the Christian radio stations indicates that the name “Way” is significant because it relates to religion—such as, “It is the way” and so on and this is significant to the listeners.  You said you listened to Way FM in your market, then you should have heard them use the name very often.  That has been my experience and I don’t think your market is unique in that sense.

  2. Does the use of multiple frequencies confuse listeners?  What about the use of multiple call letters?  From my experience with this situation in several markets is that the answer is “no” to both questions as long as the information isn’t given as if there is a fire in the building.  In other words, the multiple information should be presented slowly…not overly so…but not rushed.  Radio listeners aren’t great at remember a lot of stuff, but they do fairly well with call letters and frequencies (and the concept of simulcast radio stations).

  3. The answer is “no” for question #2, however, if you’re looking for help from the listeners to develop a positioner, one good way to do it is to ask this question: “How would you describe Rock 104.5 to someone who never heard it.”  You should get some good expanded answers you can analyze for positioners.  A second way is a variation of the question you posed, “How would you describe Rock 104.5 in just one word?”

However, the second choice doesn’t always produce good results because average radio listeners aren’t marketers, promotion people, PDs, or anything else and this type of question is very difficult for most respondents to answer.  I prefer the first question.

 

Other stuff…

  1. Yes, I did mention that listeners do not use positioners very often—actually, it’s rarely.  When asked to identify the radio stations they listen to, most listeners will give call letters, a moniker, or the frequency—not a positioner.  By the way. I don’t consider “Z-100” as a positioner, it’s a moniker.

  2. The underlying theme of your questions is how to identify your radio station.  And I think there is a very simple answer—tell the listeners your address.  Your address is a set of call letters or a moniker and the frequency.  Why make things difficult for listeners?  Tell them who you are and where you can be found—104.5 The Rock (that’s good).

  3. Which brings up a point about Z-100.  There is no radio station at 100 on the dial, so why use that address?  The radio station is located at 100 point something and that’s what the listeners should be told.  What is the logic behind dropping the decimal point?  There is none.  It’s the same as giving someone your home address.  If you live at 4218 Main Street, you would not tell a person that you live at 42 Main Street, or 4200 Main Street.  You would tell the person your exact address.  (I don’t understand why so many radio people try to keep their real address from listeners.  It makes no sense.)

  4. As I said, I think it was a great idea for your consultant to present the session, but don’t get carried away with making generalizations to the population unless the sample of diary keepers was large enough to do so.  My guess is that the sample wasn’t large enough to do so.

  5. There is no universal pattern to how radio listeners identify radio stations.  Frequencies are used in some markets, call letters in other markets, and monikers in others.
     

A Arbitron B C D E F G H I J K-L M
Music-Callout Music-Auditorium N O P Q R S T U V W-X-Z Home

All Content © 2011 - Wimmer Research   All Rights Reserved