Jennifer Lane, Kurt Hanson call "one-to-one vs. one-to-many" a meaningless distinction

Posted by

Issue Date: 
Jan 10 2012 - 9:00am

From Issue:

Just before the holidays, broadcasters' collective "foot came down" with Arbitron and Katz360 in regards to Pandora.

Traditional radio doesn't like Pandora. It's not "real radio," broadcasters say. They don't want Pandora listening measured using the same metrics as the broadcast world, because that might allow Pandora (and Internet radio as a whole) to "sipon off...ad dollars" to which broadcasters feel entitled. And broadcasters made it clear how they feel to Katz360 and Arbitron. So Katz360 dumped Pandora. And Arbitron issued a warning against putting any credence in listening reports from Pandora. You can review all of this in more detail with our coverage we link to here.

Yesterday in her Audio4Cast blog, Jennifer Lane took particular exception to one of arguments Arbitron made in its statement regarding Pandora. Arbitron wants the reader to believe it's not logical to compare audience estimates of broadcast listening (that is, many people listening to the same thing at the same time) to estimates of webcast listening, because in many cases (e.g. Pandora) each listener is listening to his or her own personal stream (no one else is hearing the same songs and ads at the same moment as anyone else).

"They’ve created an imaginary line to justify measuring the two categories separately and differently," Lane writes. "Supposedly, because 'one to many' audiences are all exposed to the message simultaneously while 'one to one' listeners are exposed to the message during their unique sessions, the data is different and cannot be assimilated."

RAIN senior editor and AccuRadio founder Kurt Hanson dismantles the argument by using an example of an ad campaign spread across various broadcast stations during a designated hour and day -- naturally, the ad won't play at the exact same moment on all stations. Lane herself uses the example of network radio programs, which can run on hundreds of stations at various times.

But it's really not about logic, it's about Arbitron bending to pressure from their broadcast clients. 

"As a research firm, (Arbitron is) obligated to create products that are fair and objective," she writes. "The listening landscape is rapidly evolving into a space that includes new audio platforms. Ultimately, advertisers and listeners will decide the landscape – listeners will listen to what they want to hear and advertisers will spend to reach them." By refusing to compare broadcast and webcast audiences based on meaningless distinctions like "one-to-many vs. one-to-one" messaging, these research firms do themselves, ad buyers, and ultimately radio a disservice by not providing the best and most accurate product they can.

Jennifer Lane's Audio4Cast blog on this topic is here.

Comments

Very good post

payday loans costa-mesa

We have certainly not been recently planning to the particular internet site these days. Necessary any contact yet again along with there was the right statements over the internet. Really exceptional distribute! Today simply click the following payday loans costa-mesa Thank you tremendously keep on the fantastic operate.

timemart

Excellent Blog! I would like to thank for the efforts you have made in writing this post. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well. I wanted to thank you for this websites! Thanks for sharing. Great websites.

máy tập cơ bụng ab rocket twister | máy tập cơ bụng black power | máy tập cơ bụng ad rocket | may tap bung fitness | máy tập cơ bụng six pack care |
máy tập cơ bụng | máy tập cơ bụng | máy tập cơ bụng | máy tập cơ bụng
máy tập cơ bụng
máy tập cơ bụng
máy tập cơ bụng
máy tập cơ bụng

excellent. one of the best

How to reconcile this with "online music service isn't radio"?

I really enjoyed Jennifer Lane's blog, I felt it was well-written and raised some great points. She was clearly trying to approach the topic in a fair manner and look at both sides of the coin and didn't just rant that "Arbitron sucks".

With that said, it would seem that Kurt's blog: "online music service isn't radio" would contradict the belief that broadcast & Pure Plays belonged on the same ranker. If they aren't the same medium then why should they be placed on the same ranker?

Agencies no longer have just the two buckets of TV or Radio but rather Video and Audio and then subdivisions within those buckets in recognition of the vast expansion of options in recent years. I don't see that agencies are lining up YouTube videos and NBC prime on the same ranker.

I agree 100% that the easier you make it for an agency, the more likely they are to buy it. But just because two vehicles are both audio by nature doesn't inherently mean they belong on the same ranker... doesn't mean they don't either.

Ultimately, nothing should be done because it is the "easiest way" (for either agencies or Arbitron) but rather the decision on this topic should be made because it is the "right way".

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.