NAB reports (Mar-Dec 1933)

programs that have had large followings, lose out to some de¬ gree or are withdrawn, from the air. Incidentally, the New England survey proved one thing — that listeners are not wedded to any single station but shop around for programs they like. Mail questionnaires — they were great stuff. That is, they were until advertisers began asking not what results were ob¬ tained, but how were they obtained. Some astonishing con¬ clusions have been drawn from some of these surveys. Interviews, whether in person or by telephone, although rather expensive to obtain, are enlightening. I believe there is objection to this type of survey because of the human ele¬ ment. Properly conducted, however, it seems to me that the chances are equal; that a person is as likely to err in one direction as in another. Improperly conducted, almost any predetermined answer can be had. Carried on consistently over a period of time, the interview method strikes me as the best yet developed for determining program popularity. But the single survey that has kicked up the most interest is the field intensity measurements made by competent engi¬ neers. The field intensity survey is, in my opinion, the only accurate yardstick for measuring the potential coverage of a station. Until you know where a station lays down an ac¬ ceptable signal, day and night, winter and summer, it is next to silly to attempt to define the peculiarities of your audience, whether you use mail, telephone, personal interview or any other method. Therefore field intensity surveys are basic, and have nothing to do with a stations popularity. The survey simply shows where a station may be heard consistently. Using the field intensity survey of our station, I have asked advertisers to consider the eost-per-mile of dependable cover¬ age. Cost-per-mile, it seems to me, is entirely analogous to cost per 1,000 circulation, ABC. Obviously, an advertiser would not buy a certain newspaper or magazine with limited circulation because its rates were cheaper, in dollars and cents, than the publication -with much wider circulation. Yet, there still remains a surprisingly large number of advertisers who consider rates only when selecting a station for their cam¬ paigns. And in this connection there is one important fact that is overlooked in all efforts to set up a eost-per-listener basis. This fact is that, intentionally or otherwise, no regard is taken for the number of stations in g, given area. We are told, for instance, that in the metropolitan areas, where the percentage of radio receiving sets is greatest, that the number of sets, or listeners, divided into the c-ost of a single station’s time, gives the eost-per-listener. Absurd! No one station could possibly have all the audience, or even a major portion of it. Soi there must be some consideration given to measure¬ ment of station popularity. It is quite likely that in commun¬ ities where there are few broadcasting stations, the number of listeners tuned to the dominant, station is even greater than in the highly saturated areas where there also are a large number of broadcasting stations. Also, there is a tendency on the part of some to point to the total population as evidence of potential worth. More bunk, for if the population does not have receiving sets, then the programs are not being heard. So, it is the number of radios, plus the number of persons per family, that counts, and not the total number of people. Competent engineers have recently undertaken to set up definite standards of measurement of primary and secondary zones of influence. They are using sound engineering prin¬ ciples and their reports cleeidely are a step in the right direc¬ tion. They are not endeavoring to establish the relative popu¬ larity of stations, other than on the general proposition that the listener prefers the station that gives them the strongest signals. The advertiser wants more than proved signal strength, how¬ ever, to establish a station’s value. This must be done by some other method. For individual stations to undertake to obtain both field intensity measurements and have popularity surveys made, it would require an outlay of time and money far beyond the value of the information. A compromise governed by purely practical consideration, will have to suffice until such time as a cooperative plan of auditing broadcasting can be formulated. The Commercial and Engineering Committee of the NAB should be designated to work with the radio committee of the 4 A’s with the view to establishing such a bureau as that . Page recommended by the 4 ’s. The established agencies now en¬ gaged in development work, either in the field intensity or station popularity surveys, should be given every consideration in the development of a Radio Audit Bureau. MR. HARLOW: I am afraid the engineer had the wrong idea of the purpose back of the Yankee Network survey and I just want to briefly outline that and let you draw your own conclusions. We were not interested in making that survey to know the potential audience of our stations. It was made on four stations. We had in mind in making that survey one purpose only, — for in the final analysis it isn’t where your station reaches potentially, it is who is listening now, this moment. In order to be perfectly fair, we only took the hours when all of the stations were on the air, that is, all the major sta¬ tions were on the air. There were some minor stations which we felt any survey to be comparable, of course, could not consider if it was to be fair. The survey was made through an independent audit, in fact the people employed didn’t even know whom they were working for. I think there were three of us at the station who knew, that is all. We made the same number of telephone calls every fifteen minutes of the day and the evening for seven days and the operators who made the calls merely asked the question, “Good morning,’’ or “Good afternoon,” as the case might be, “this is the Radio Audit Bureau,” “would you be willing to tell us whether or not when your telephone rang your radio set was tuned in?” Of course, if the set was not tuned in, it was an incompleted call. If they said, “Yes, the set is turned on now,” the operator asked “Will you please tell us to what station it is tuned in?” But such questions as those in the New England audit, we honestly believe are eminently fair and the only way to get actual truth. That is our belief. MR. CAMPBELL: I don’t think I questioned the ad¬ vantage or the accuracy of the method, at least I certainly did not intentionally do so. I read your reports very care¬ fully. I read Mr. Mann’s correspondence and communication. The point I tried to make is that such a report proves pro¬ gram popularity. It strikes me that where somebody has a flock of listeners at one particular time and another station does not, that; is not particularly a proof of listeners who are listening as such to WBC. They are listening to Amos ’n Andy or something else. Your program structure changes. That survey now, in my opinion, is probably 30 per cent in¬ accurate because you undoubtedly had a 30 per cent change in program since that was made. Yet you undertake to es¬ tablish that as a survey of station popularity. It strikes me as being rather far-fetched. That is the point I am mak¬ ing. MR. HARLOW : That, unfortunately, I can ’t answer. The survey was taken both in the summer and in the winter. MR. CAMPBELL: Both in summer and winter. Well, I didn’t get that impression. I thought it was a one-week survey. MR. HOWLETT: Mr. Chairman, I have established the fact popularity of the station waxes and wanes and in accord¬ ance with its program structure. You have agreed to that. It seems to me as an advertiser uses the station when it wanes, that is exactly its value, and when he uses it as it waxes, that is its value, too. To seek to determine a value that is con¬ stant is not in the final analysis a true value of its potential worth at that moment. ME. CAMPBELL: It is not possible, I should say. MR. HOWLETT: I think the surveys suggested are an excellent form. MR. CAMPBELL: I agree with that. I, mean to use that sort of a survey over a period of months or years, unless it is taken regularly — and I think a survey perhaps, even an intense survey would have to be regularly made. A survey made six months ago would be more or less valueless as to popularity. MR. HOWLETT: Let’s find a simple form to follow, shall we? MR. CAMPBELL: My suggestion is the field intensity survey as measuring the potential coverage, not the potential 147 .