Mark Ramsey's New Book

Please allow me to recommend Mark Ramsey's new book "Making Waves."

I have known Mark for many years and worked with him at hear2 and Mercury and I can tell you he is one of our industry's brightest minds. This book will be a quick and easy read but I can't think of a more important book for radio people than this one.



Dana Hall at Radio-Info just posted a brief interview with Mark. Here is the link.

PPM vs. FCC and Now NYAG

Issues with Arbitron? Really? Knock me over--holy cow! Arbitron? Wow!!!

But seriously...

First the FCC starts poking around and now NYAG Andrew Cuomo is investigating Arbitron.

According to R&R:

"Because of Arbitron's virtual monopoly over ratings in the radio industry, a significant and improper decline in ratings under the PPM methodology could cause minority stations to suffer drastic reductions in advertising revenues. This, in turn, could severely harm minority broadcasting in New York," wrote Cuomo in a Sept. 9 letter to Steve Morris, chairman, president and CEO of Arbitron, and Timothy Smith, executive VP and chief legal officer, legal & business affairs.

More wows! You can read the entire R&R article here.

My friend and research guru Mark Ramsey wrote an excellent piece on the subject on his blog hear2.0. I couldn't have said it better. So I didn't.

Law & Order: PPM

From Radio & Records:

New York AG Investigates PPM

New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo has initiated an investigation into Arbitron's PPM system. Arbitron received a subpoena today from the NYAG's office requesting PPM documents dating back to 2003 and has until Sept. 19 to produce the paperwork.

Okay, I have an idea.

If you don't like the numbers you're getting from the folks you're paying to do the best possible job of audience research, something inherently fraught with error no matter who does it and no matter how well, then make up whatever numbers you want.

Research is not perfect. Ratings are not perfect. The diary methodology is not perfect. PPM is not perfect. The errors exist in every methodology and will slice a different way depending on the details of the methodology. Note I said a "different" way, not a right or wrong one.

But when you define "accurate" as numbers you got under one methodology but not another one, you do not understand what "accurate" means. All ratings are estimates, best guesses based on sampling and response factors which are, to some degree, out of the researcher's control. Further, the very act of changing the response tool will change the ratings - period. And you can't prove they're less "accurate" simply because you don't like the outcome.

There is no such thing as "accurate." There is only such a thing as numbers you like and numbers you don't.

Love 'em or hate 'em, it seems to me that Arbitron has every incentive to provide the best possible audience estimates that radio can afford to pay for.

Should Arbitron be held accountable for doing their very best? Sure.

But how far beyond that should our industry go?

The idea of inviting the FCC into this process is galling enough, but to incite attention from the federal legal eagles and with it the implication of deliberate wrong-doing...this is over the top.

It's a development that will serve to diminish confidence in all radio measurement and in all the stations that use it, regardless of whether that measurement is derived from paper or meters.

Just wait and see.

No HD Radio Spin

I hate writing about HD Radio. Why? Because there's really not much more that can be said. Thus far, the free market has spoken. Virtually nobody cares. It's like beating a dead horse. Could it turn around? Ahh sure, anything is possible.

OK, so why bring it up? Good question.

My friend and former colleague Mark Ramsey, President of Hear2.0 and Mercury Radio Research, was at the Radio Ink convergence conference in San Jose and wrote an excellent post on this very subject and I thought I would share it with you. The conference was more about what can and should be rather than what never was.

From Mark Ramsey and hear2.0:

Black Friday for HD Radio

This week's Convergence conference in San Jose was a terrific gathering of broadcasters and their partners who feel radio's best days might very well lay ahead. No sticks in the mud, these. Rather, folks with brains and vision and a plan, or at least the hopes of developing one.

This was no place for spin doctors and conventional wisdom. So I was not surprised when Kurt Hanson spoke on radio's future with an emphasis on radio's inevitable future on the Internet.

Nor was I surprised when Kurt veered left to discuss - and dismiss - HD Radio.

What fascinated me was the reaction.

Any room full of broadcasters is full of HD radio doubters, nowadays. But the vibe in this room was remarkable for the eye-rolling and audible snickering that greeted virtually any mention of HD.

Kurt disassembled HD's premise by dividing the total number of radios now in circulation by the markets in which those radios live and other relevant assumptions (I did something like this a while back myself). He arrived at the conclusion that the average HD radio advertiser in any given market could reach more prospects by standing at the bottom of their driveway and handing out fliers.

In a panel session immediately following Kurt's, the lone iBiquity spokesman filibustered on his talking points, spitting one after the next, but the effort seemed surprisingly desperate. You could almost hear the sweat forming on his brow as he reiterated his case, oblivious to the thrashing that had just occurred.

Although he described himself as Kurt Hanson's "evil twin," the feeling in the room was that he was at least half right.

It left me feeling that a corner had been turned. That broadcasters understood new media presented scores of new opportunities, few of which had anything to do with selling newfangled radios to consumers who don't want or need them.

This should create great hope for those of us in radio: Hope that good ideas really will rise to the top. Hope that we're too smart to be taken in by pyramid schemes. Hope that those with a vested interest will be revealed for what they are. Hope that those with the interests of broadcasters and listeners and clients at heart will create the kind of future those constituencies demand and deserve.

All along, HD radio was designed as the industry's counterpunch to XM and Sirius. As the satellite titans near a merger (which I do believe will happen and could come any day now) in order to save themselves, as satellite's control over one pocket in the dashboard accelerates, as another pocket opens up for all-things-Internet, HD radio will rapidly dim into obsolescence like the technological also-rans which preceded it.

All technology is transitional, but some never make it to the transition.

In this new media world, opportunities are actually less about "convergence" than about emergence. Chaotic storms of passion bring audiences together. Their whims and tools and discussions allow them to take the driver's seat. We are and always will be in service to them.

HD radio was always about what the industry wants, not about what consumers want. That's why it was doomed to fail from the start.

And, unless there's some remarkable consolation prize embedded into the satellite radio merger decision, that day shall be Black Friday for HD radio.