In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

wrote in message
...

Group owners attack the ratings technology that it will eventually
have to embrace causing everyone including agencies and buyers to
question its viability. I see several radio groups taking credit for
derailing the Arbitron People Meter (PPM) rollout in many of the top
markets. I've said it before and I'll say it again, they have some
legitimate methodology and response concerns. But once you've
destroyed the very instrument that you're asking advertisers to rely
upon -- what kind of victory is that? It's stupid -- like a lot of
other strategical blunders in radio.

Group owners said they were not receiving what they paid for because the
PPM
sample is not complete and not proportional.

But the main reason the start dates were rolled back is that the
accreditation board, representing ADVERTISERS, found enormous problems
and
would not certify the methodology or the implementation.

Since it was advertisers who originally asked for the faster and more
precise electronic measurement, the agency that mostly represents
advertisers was responsible for insuring it was correctly done.

It's always a problem when empirical evidence does not reflect what you
want.

True, but in this case we simply have a bad sample.

My understanding is that there is more than one "bad sample" but in time
this will be straightened out I guess.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California