10 / 20
Page 10
to be higher under electronic measurement whilst
TSL is generally lower when compared to figures
returned by DAR or diaries. This results in a drop in
ratings for which a pricing correction needs to be
applied in order to maintain at least an equivalent
level of advertising investments when switching
to electronic measurement. This pattern can be
largely explained by the fact that respondents tend
to overestimate the time they spend listing to their
favourite stations and may not report listening
to alternate stations or those they hear on public
transport, when in other people’s cars, etc. Con-
versely, passive technology picks up all of these
audience contacts, which translates into higher
reach for stations.
/ / The US
PPM was introduced as a replacement to diary
data in some parts of the country from 2007. As
of spring 2015, 48 out of 273 designated market
areas (DMAs) are measured using PPM
2
, whilst
the remaining areas continue to be measured us-
ing diaries. The national radio ratings, known as
RADAR, combine passive and declarative method-
ologies, and the reporting is a traditional AQH fig-
ure delivered four times each year. This relatively
low granularity help to avoid potential instabilities
in electronic measurement whilst offering greater
accountability to the market, and it ensures that
the trading practices are consistent across national
radio advertising.
The research company responsible for radio rat-
ings, Arbitron, was acquired by Nielsen in 2013.
Comparisons between diary and PPM data made
at the time PPMwas introduced show that smaller
stations increased their share of overall listening
at the expense of larger stations, while less popu-
lar day parts increased in importance versus peak
time slots. From the beginning, Arbitron faced con-
troversy and legal challenges regarding PPM data,
particularly from ethnic minority-owned broad-
casters. The owners of these stations cite signifi-
cant under-reporting, in part due to panel selection
problems and compliance in wearing the meter on
the part of panellists. Arbitron itself contested the
audience share declines under the PPM method-
ology, claiming that the lowered ratings initially
experienced have rebounded and that there have
been no systemic decreases in revenues.
Radio programme directors have long sought to
find ways to give their PPM ratings a boost, for in-
stance by ensuring spoken content contains back-
ground music and using dense production values
and high levels of audio processing to increase the
chances of their encoded stations being recorded
3
.
A fresh debate sprang up in early 2015 with the
appearance on the market of a device going by the
name of Voltair. This piece of equipment continu-
ously analyses how effectively the watermark en-
coding is taking place, giving insights into the like-
lihood of the station’s signal being recognised by
PPM devices in the field in different settings, such
as in home or in a car. As well as providing tools
to optimise radio programming, the manufacturer
claims that Voltair’s audio processing capabilities
enhance the detectability of the watermark codes,
and programmers using it say it has a direct impact
on ratings, especially news, talk and sports sta-
tions
4
. At the time this report went to press, the
response from Nielsen has been limited to a state-
ment that the company is evaluating the Voltair
box and that it does not recommend its clients use
the device until testing and validation is complete.
/ / The Nordic region
First Norway in 2006, then Denmark in 2007 and
Sweden in 2013 have all introduced PPM mea-
surement for radio. In all three countries, compara-
tive data from the time of the transition show con-
sistent increases for reach and decreases for TSL.
In
Norway
, the switch to PPM resulted in a 30%
reduction in inventory value compared to CATI. The