Nielsen, by way of the announcement of a deal with Cumulus Media, entered the radio ratings fray. They seem to have girded their loins to take on Arbitron, the undisputed king of radio ratings services. My question is: What will they offer that is different from what Arbitron is providing? What is needed is actual use, not the reliance on memory, to make the case to advertisers

At first blush, other than different names for the same services…we can't seem to get past the pencil.* OK, I’m guessing they are offering to do it cheaper. Price is clearly the driving force behind most broadcast media decisions. But, beyond that, according to the rather brief New York Times article, ‘Nielsen will produce ratings by collecting diaries from respondents.’ This is the same methodology that has been provided by Arbitron forever. The Times goes on to point out, ‘Arbitron’s effort to gradually replace diaries with an electronic form of measurement, personal people meters, has led some station owners to complain.’

So let’s recap…a radio company is going to reinvest in questionable recall, diary (read pencil and paper) methodology because the new electronic technology, which is in it’s very infancy, isn’t giving them the results they want (and, BTW, is also much more spendy than said diaries.).

To be fair the pitch from Nielsen talks about all sorts of cool stuff to make data collection more, as they say, robust. Their ‘addressed based sampling’ (ABS) is promising access to “the 34% of U.S. households that are not covered by current sampling methods”. Other nifty commitments include;

• Large samples to reduce relative error and bounce.

• A significant investment in oversampling and differentiated incentives to improve response rates and representativeness among hard-to-reach demographics.

• An "e-diary" option for 2010 that will appeal, in particular, to younger demographics that are more comfortable participating online.

• Robust, single-source qualitative measurement of lifestyle, consumer behavior, and purchase intent.

• Nielsen's web-based Radio Advisor software platform, which will include responsible limits on the granularity of analysis and relative errors that can be used in proposals and analyses.

Well that’s all cool and stuff but, it still relies on listener recall to write down what they are listening to….the same thing that Arbitron is currently providing. The diary method, as flawed as it is, use to be just fine. Advertisers were content with it. Now, they want more and radio must give it to them.
Meanwhile, new media outlets like interactive and social media continue to offer proof of real use of their medium. Even TV still has “the box” that transmits hard data.

Look, I’m no fanboy of Arbitron. I have had my share of issues over the past years. Everything from sample size, weighting, placement, slogans, etc. have given me reasons to dial up the home office in Maryland. But as the rise of ‘actual use’ data being provided by other media has continued, the need for a new method of data collection is clearly the most important issue facing radio.

In turn, I applaud the efforts made by Arbitron as they have worked to provide electronic measurement of radio listening through the development and deployment of the People Meter (PPM). Electronic measurement must be developed and supported. Like any broadcaster I would love to see that form of measurement be less costly, but I’d also like to see the price of college tuition for my kids go down…it ain’t gonna happen, at least right away.

So, I have to ask, why would a broadcaster be interested in heralding a relationship with a company that is providing what is essentially the status quo?

I am hopeful that this new foray into radio ratings by Nielsen will ultimately result in a (cell phone based?) technology for measuring radio, if not by Nielsen by somebody. It just has to be! Surely we’re not just prolonging an antiquated methodology. (Of course, I’m an optimist.) In the meantime, I’m hoping that Cumulus and Clear Channel are getting a smoking good deal on ‘old school’ ratings. Just remember, you get what you pay for.  

*Update: It should be noted that the Nielsen diary does get past the pencil in so much it is a "sticker diary". So instead of using a pen or pencil, survey participants use pre-printed stickers to enter their listening habit. Since recall is the issue I don't think stickers are the answer...though my kids loved playing with stickers when they were small. (Thanks for the heads up Harv.)

Yesterday, my good friend Steve Borsch wrote, as he always does, a very insightful piece on Connecting the Dots. Lessons From Our First "Social Media" President highlighted many aspects of the Barack Obama campaign for President and it's obvious social media strategy.

One lesson learned that went without much notice was that of the need to commit to social media fully. Make no mistake, the Obama campaign was a well oiled machine in it's use of social media. However, I noted a few lapses in the execution of that well thought out plan.

The biggest lapse, that of inviting people to sign up to receive a text message when Obama chose his running mate, implying being "the first to know". I still feel a sense of betrayal when that text was received...around three in the morning. We may have been some of the first to know, but 3am? Sounds like executing an obligation rather than telling a friend.

Steve also shared the email that 'Barack' sent just prior to his Grant Park acceptance speech. It was a wonderful note that should be shared by all involved...yet it hasn't been posted on the Facebook page. In fact, as of this writing, the last note on Facebook says, "There are still a few hours to make a big difference in this election." while the MySpace page is current. As Steve pointed out, "you can’t let a friendship wane and then call on that friend in your time of need and expect them to be there for you."

Admittedly, these are some incredibly minor issues. Ones easily overlooked and overcome. What I'm trying to point out is that any kind of organized social media involvement requires a huge committment. To do it right, and I think the Obama campaign did it pretty damn right (they could have shortened their list of target applications), a committment of time, money and human resources must be made.

The social web never sleeps. People are always coming and going. The conversation continues and that means you have to participate...often.

Steve also notes, "Don't stop the conversation." The battle may be won but the war continues. Is this truly the beginings of an ongoing conversation or the end of a marketing campaign? The coming days, weeks, months, and years will determine if Barack Obama truly is the first "social media" President or just the first "social media" Presidential candidate.

One last thing. I would be remiss if I didn't applaud Steve for noting how much the election of the best candidate to the highest post in our country was not about race. Like Steve, I paid little attention to the color of now President-elect Obama's skin, thankfully, much as the rest of the country did the same. We continue to make incredible strides against racism in this country. It's ultimate conquering will be signalled by our ability to talk about accomplishments by anyone without making a reference to their skin tone.