U. S. Radio (Jan-Dec 1961)

(ant in his study, Mohi prepared, where similar information was available for three or more markets, i composite figure through use of a weighted avei age. In order to arrive ai composite figures he weighted the Pulse data for each market by the size ol the respective market. For example, the (able on page five, Ownership of fm radio sets, was weighted by (lie n n i Tiber of radio homes in each market. I Wo othei tables, not reprinted liere, Use of fm radio in the last week and Reasons for listening to fm radio, were weighted by the number of fm homes in each market. "It is questionable," Mohr says, "whether or not these composite figures should be projected beyond the sample, as most of the reports were done in different years and at differ Angeles, where 7 1 .2 percent reported listening in a one-week period, rune-in in the otliei h\e markets was: Chicago, <>!.<> percent; New York, 57.4 percent; Boston, 52.7 percent; San Francisco-Oakland. 18.6 percent, and Philadelphia, 17.1 percent. Among listene rs reasons loi liste n ing to fm ladio. the most c ited ir spouse (49.2 percent) in the six markets was that the) "liked gi m n I mu sic." Some 21.8 percent said thc\ had "no particular reason" for listening to fm; 19.2 percent liked Em bee. him there were "fewer commercials;" 15.7 percent said they listened because of "superior sound, lone, reception oi lack of static." The figures total above 100 percent because ol multiple responses. I'n fortunately, as Mohr points out may be, is a qualit) audience and should not be compared with am in lei ins ol audienc e si/e." lie believes that it is important loi I in broadcasters to fust sell the medium, secondly the market, and finally, the station. However, in the absence of widely accepted quantitative audience data, he recognizes that an adveiiiser considering fm as a vehicle for his methods is laced with not finding the exact number of homes his commercial might reach. At the same time, he reflects, the cost of producing audience si/e data periodic ally may be prohibitive for man) fm stations. "One solution to this problem was suggested by the sales manager of a metropolitan fm station," says Mohr. "His proposal is to develop data on IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Ownership of fm radio sets in the top six fm markets San Francisco Com New York Los Angeles Chicago Boston Philadelphia Oakland posite Total radio homes interviewed 1000 1000 1050 1000 1000 1000 6050 Homes possessing fm receiver 53.5% 48.9 42.9 50.1 36.3 47.3 48.2 Homes without fm receiver 46.5% 51.1 57.1 49.9 63.7 52.7 51.8 TOTAL 100.0% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 * Source: The Pulse Inc. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiini ent times of the year; and there was a slight difference in the wording of questions among some of the reports. Furthermore, two Los Angeles reports were used interchangeably. "However," he states, "since no similar data exists in composite form for these six markets to the best of the author's knowledge, the data gives some approximation of the combined market." In his study of how many listeners used their set in a one-week period, Mohr came up with these figures for the composite six-market area: 59.1 percent said that they used their fm radio during the week; 40.9 percent said they did not. Thus, over half of these fm owners used their sets during the week. The highest percentage of tune-in was registered in Los in his comments, "there is no precise definition of good music. It could be classical, semi-classical, popular, jazz or other type. Good music to an fm owner in one section of the country may not be appealing to another listener in a different area." Audience data, which will tell an advertiser how many homes within a market are listening to an fm station at a particular time, are still lacking, Mohr points out. "Although it is obvious," he states, "that audience size figures for fm stations would be lower, in general, than similar figures for am stations, such data would be useful as an aid in evaluating fm stations, time periods, programs and cost per thousand. The fm audience, however small it fm homes-using-radio for individual markets." Going one step further, Mohr advocates: "Assuming that all fm stations within a market contributed to a joint fund set up for fm audience research, surveys of fm usage by hourly periods could be taken for the entire market. This would not handicap fm stations with smaller audiences, as ratings for individual stations would not be shown. "At the same time this information is obtained," he continues, "it would be highly desirable to also obtain audience composition data reflecting the percent of men, women, teens and children listening to an fm receiver at several intervals of the day. Having data with which to sell their market, stations would then be in a position to sell themselves.'' ■ U. S. FM August 1961