|
The Inside Story with Mike
Kinosian
The Inside Story
with Mike Kinosian:
Cellphone-only homes and
Arbitron.
Cord Cutting Fallout
The love affair for the cellular phone is only
escalating.
For better or worse, each latest
incarnation seems to permanently attach itself to someone’s
earlobe.
A growing trend with pronounced ratings-based
implications is cell phone-only households.
Fast-Pace World
The inability to reach a
growing segment of the population as potential Arbitron diary
keepers has, quite understandably, thoroughly captured the
attention of industry figures like Detroit-based consultant
Fred Jacobs, who proclaims the situation has reached “crisis”
proportions. “The real issue here is that the world, in
general, is moving faster than Arbitron can keep up with,” the
Jacobs Media President opines. “With all fairness to them,
though, I also think the world is moving faster than most of
us can keep up with.”
The first time Jacobs
appreciated the magnitude of the cell phone-only issue was in
a conversation he and Edison Media Research President Larry
Rosin had immediately after the 2004 election. “[Larry]
brought it to my attention that in the exit polling they’d
done, younger cell phone-only voters were unreachable by so
many pollsters. He thought it was something that could [also
affect] radio. In essence, that was the beginning of it.”
With that in mind, the decision was made that when
Jacobs Media did a New Media poll, questions regarding cell
phones and cell phone usage had to be included.
Surprising Data
That stance was honored and
the consultancy subsequently waded through more than 19,000
surveys in its just-concluded web poll, which focused on a
variety of technology-oriented issues.
More than 50
domestic radio stations were included, representing formats
such as Alternative; Active Rock; Mainstream Rock; Classic
Rock; and Classic Hits.
When probed about home
telephone status, 17% of that web sample indicated, it was
“cell phone-only”, with more than one of every four
Alternative listeners (28%) falling into that category. “If
you asked me a couple of months ago when we dreamed this whole
thing up, what the outstanding piece of data from the web poll
would be, I wouldn’t have guessed the piece of information
we’re now discussing,” Jacobs states. “The entire study really
does tell a story. New technology is very much a part of just
about every radio listener’s life.”
Proper
Measurement
Younger people are more apt to be involved
with new media/new technology, but it’s not reserved
exclusively for that audience. “We had a startling percentage
of people who are [Instant Messaging] Online; listening to
Internet radio; or actively playing videogames,” Jacobs notes.
“There was a whole litany of different activities we talked
about, but this piece of information that revolves around cell
phone-only people turned out to be a substantial number in our
study.”
It becomes an Arbitron issue, of course, since
the ratings company doesn’t contact cell phone-only
households, and Jacobs maintains they comprise a sizeable
portion of the population at large. “Our numbers show that
one-third of 18-29s are cell phone-only people. There are many
implications here, and how it relates to proper measurement.
Another thing we saw is that all 18-29s are not created
equally. If you’re 18-29 and an Alternative fan, you have an
even higher propensity to be a cell phone-only person.”
That particular format is clearly under a lot of
pressure at the moment. “Stations are bailing out of
Alternative for any number of reasons and here’s yet another
problem impacting the format,” Jacobs remarks.
Possible Solutions
But it goes beyond that.
“We as an industry have been so totally fixated on the 25-54
Holy Grail that it’s become difficult for broadcasters to see
their way to think about younger formats,” Jacobs maintains.
“Yet we know younger radio listeners are ultimately the
lifeblood of what we do. If we can’t get people actively
listening to the radio in their Teens or early-20s, [you have
to wonder if] they’re ever really going to become core radio
listeners like we were when we were kids. Arbitron’s
difficulty in trying to get its arms around this problem
really speaks to the larger issue of radio not targeting young
listeners and the survival of young formats in general.”
Hand-dialing and conducting some level of face-to-face
recruitment are two potential possibilities for the cell
phone-only situation, although Jacobs points out, “The problem
Arbitron suffers from is they tend to approach change at a
very studied and methodical sort of way. This is a dynamic
problem that’s happening right now. It’s not that Arbitron
doesn’t get it. They’ve been talking about it for some time.
I’m just not sure that they have a plan in place that
addresses this.”
Growing Trend
Data from
the Jacobs Media survey isn’t from a random sample of all
people across the country, but rather a web poll of people who
are partial to certain formats. “You can say there are some
limitations,” Jacobs concedes. “But if you go out and talk to
people in their Teens or early-20s about their telephones and
how they use them, many of them will tell you that they’ve
already dropped their landlines. If they haven’t, they’re
thinking about doing so. This is a problem that’s in full
motion right now and really does require some sort of action.”
That’s why Jacobs has urged owners/operators –
especially those with younger-oriented stations – to contact
Arbitron and let them know how they feel. “Every radio
station, whether it’s a youth-targeted station or not, should
include this kind of question in every survey it does to
understand the difficulty [and depth] of this problem,” he
emphasizes. “Like so many [other things] that are
technology-based, it starts young, but ultimately makes its
way into older groups.”
In the Jacobs study, for
example, 19% of 30-34s are cell phone-only and 9% of 35-44s
are also in that group. “Consumers having both cell phones and
landline home phones are asking themselves why they need
both,” he notes. “This ongoing problem will ultimately
transcend youth formats and Alternative, specifically.”
Rapid Reaction
While undeniably an activist
on this subject, Jacobs at the same time jokes, “We’re not
really positioning ourselves as campaign headquarters for this
movement. We have other things going on. Our sense is we’ve
identified the problem to the degree that we’ve quantified it.
The ball is really in the court of broadcasters.”
Within an hour after the Jacobs Media web poll data
was sent out, Entercom President/CEO David Field contacted
Jacobs and asked what he could do. “He immediately dashed out
a letter expressing his concern about this situation to
[Arbitron President/CEO] Steve Morris, [Arbitron
President/U.S. Media Services] Owen Charlebois and other
Arbitron brass,” Jacobs points out. “My guess is other
broadcasters have made some sort of contact with Arbitron that
we’re unaware of. We didn’t ask our clients or anyone else in
the industry to check back and let us know what they’re up to.
I’d hope CEOs, GMs and PDs of youth-oriented stations would
have the initiative to contact Arbitron and be part of a
larger voice.”
Good Timing
As far as
Jacobs’ contact with Arbitron is concerned, it’s mainly been
through the ratings company’s Advisory Council. “Our data was
still percolating in our place when I had a phone conversation
with [Saga Executive VP/Group PD] Steve Goldstein, who is
Chairman of Arbitron’s Advisory Council,” notes Jacobs. “I
related some of this information to him and he said the timing
was perfect for me to put together some basic information
because the council was meeting that week.”
A January
2005 Arbitron-conducted “Web-Ex” conference call presentation
was part of a larger effort to explain what it’s doing on the
youth problem. “It isn’t just cell phones - their whole 18-34
situation has been problematic,” Jacobs contends. “Their
cooperation rate [among] young people has been challenged for
some time. In that January call, they talked about some of
these cell phone studies they’d already undertaken and ones
they had planned for the future. The Advisory Council is a
sharp and competent group of broadcasters. They care, so I’ll
put the data in front of them and let them do their job.”
Getting Their Feet Wet
Although Arbitron
VP/Domestic Radio Research Dr. Ed Cohen acknowledges the cell
phone-only situation is a growing problem and a “key issue”
for his company, he doesn’t share Jacobs’ view that it’s at a
“crisis” level. “I wouldn’t use that term because we don’t
know enough about it,” Dr. Cohen remarks. “It’s certainly
something we’ve been studying and working on for a lot longer
than anyone [else] in the entire survey/research business in
the United States. We did the first study ever that we know of
in the United States about it, two and a half years ago.”
With the lack of any firm data, it was Arbitron’s
opinion a few years ago that “a pretty small percentage” of
people would abandon landline phones in favor of cellular
ones. “[But] you could see something was going to happen, so
we wanted to be ahead of the curve and wanted to see what the
problems would be,” Dr. Cohen comments. “We knew the legal
restrictions involved, so it wasn’t something we could throw a
few dollars at and try it out.”
The first involvement
was very much of a toe-in-the-water affair. There were 200
“completes” in three states via cell phones with Arbitron
offering $10 to each participant in the three-minute survey.
“We just wanted to see what would happen, [but] weren’t really
concerned so much about radio listening,” Dr. Cohen explains.
“While the questions we asked were interesting - with 200
people - we also didn’t want to draw very many conclusions.
What you did want to conclude from it was that we could, in
fact, do this. The first study found that it was possible to
make phone calls to cellular phones and actually get people to
respond to a survey. We said that was great, but didn’t push
that fast.”
Beefing Up The Sample
It took
exactly two years to get to the second study, which was done
last October (2004).
This time, though, Arbitron more
than quadrupled the number of completes to 850. “It was a
longer study and, at the end of it, we `sort of’ tried to
place diaries,” Dr. Cohen recalls. “I say `sort of,’ because
it wasn’t one of the Arbitron field services, either our own
or one of our contract vendors. It was a different one that
was hired specifically to do this study. We got a very high
number on cell phone-only. That wasn’t surprising, but you
have to think about the kind of people you get. If you have a
cell phone as your only phone, the odds are that it’s on all
the time and if someone calls, they’ll get an answer.”
False Assumption
Many older cell phone
users tend to leave the device on for only a few minutes every
month, utilizing it more as an emergency device. “The odds of
ever getting [people like that] to respond to a survey via
cell phone are about zero,” Dr. Cohen remarks. “What you end
up with is a bias toward people who are cell phone-only, so we
had some pretty high numbers. But again, we wanted to know
more about these people. We didn’t get into their radio
listening. We wanted to see that, even if we don’t follow all
the rules, we could place diaries.”
That led to the
company’s third study, which was done this winter. “We had our
own field service and our own people [in Columbia, MD]
actually placing diaries by cell phone,” Dr. Cohen explains.
“We’ve also been looking internally at how we would implement
this thing. We don’t tell everyone everything we’re doing and
had done some briefings for many industry groups, including
the Advisory Council and Media Rating Council. We don’t know
how quickly we can do this, because there are so many twists
and turns. There’s an assumption in the business that all you
have to do is add some cell phone numbers into the frame and
the whole thing is done. It’s not that simple. There are many
other methodological issues involved. Because of that, we
haven’t been able to move as fast as some people would like us
to - or as fast as we’d like to.”
Cellular Summit
The best estimate Dr. Cohen has for cell phone-only
households is somewhere around 7%, with that approximation
coming from the Bureau Of Labor Statistics. “That’s overall
and not by demo,” he stresses. “One really good study was done
in February 2004 as part of the current population survey. In
2002, [Nielsen Media Research public opinion researcher] Paul
Lavrakas and I were chatting at a response rate summit put on
by the Census Bureau for one of their studies. I said there
was going to be a real problem with the cell phone situation
and it might be something that Nielsen and Arbitron could work
together on. He thought it was interesting, but nothing much
happened.”
About one year later, however, Dr. Cohen
received an out-of-the-blue invitation to a cell phone summit
that Nielsen was putting on. “The germ of it was from that
dinner,” he contends. “They brought together many good survey
research people, mostly from outside the industry. When they
presented [results] at the second cell phone summit [in
February 2005], we said it made some sense, but it even
confused us and we’re survey researchers. That’s when they
said the figure is about 7%.”
Not About To
Disappear
In and of itself, 7% might not appear to be
huge, but it may mask some more significant percentages. “It
might be 1% or 2% among those 65+ but it’s far higher among
18-24s,” Dr. Cohen notes. “My best guess is it’s up around 20%
or more.”
Equally as important, if not more so, is
that few people would argue that the number is flat or
declining. “We wondered in the late-1990s if we should do some
weighting for multiple phones in households,” Dr. Cohen
recalls. “The number of landlines is dropping. Some of it is
because they were cutting off landline phones to go
[cellular-only], but [many others] are switching from dial-up
Internet service to DSL or cable modems and they don’t need
the second [phone line]. You know this [particular situation]
isn’t going to go away tomorrow.”
It’s important to
remember that the 7% figure is a national number, so Dr. Cohen
isn’t aware of the percentages of cell phone-exclusive
residences in any individual metro. “I don’t know the
difference between New York and Los Angeles or between State
College, PA and Duluth, MN,” he reveals. “I know it has to
vary across markets, but I couldn’t say what those numbers
are. We have to make some reasonable estimate of what it
should be in each market, but we have nothing to base it on.”
It’s The Law
The first data about which
formats are most adversely affected by cell phone-only
households will be seen in Arbitron’s fourth cell phone study,
which will be conducted this summer. “We’re going to do an
offline test during the first phase of the summer book,” Dr.
Cohen notes. “Our projection – at least our hope – is to have
at least 1500 diaries across a number of markets. For the
first time, we’ll be able to see what [stations] cell
phone-only persons listen to.”
Rather than utilizing
predictive dialers, all three previous Arbitron tests have
been conducted by hand. “That’s the law - we have no other
choice,” Dr. Cohen explains. “Our lawyers say the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act Of 1991 means that you dial by hand.”
Use of a “Power Dialer” is said to be acceptable. “The
interviewer is sitting in front of a screen and when they want
to make it happen, they actually hit the button that makes the
phone dial; they’re in control,” Dr. Cohen comments. “It
doesn’t dial until they say `go.’ That’s unlike a predictive
dialer, which everyone agrees is off-limits. That’s what we
use in our syndicated service, because of the volume we do.
We’re going with the very conservative interpretation, so we
don’t get into any trouble. We’ve done all three tests dialing
numbers by hand, and our planning is based by dialing them
[that way].”
Domino Effect
Legislation
could help, but it’s completely unrealistic to think it would
ever be enacted, since there’d hardly be much support for
legislation allowing survey companies to call cell phones
unsolicited. “Think about how popular the `Do Not Call’
legislation was,” Dr. Cohen remarks. “It was one of the few
times Democrats and Republicans joined arm-in-arm in support
of something. It was like a resolution that supported the
American flag. We have no hopes that anything is going to
change in the foreseeable future and we’re operating under
that assumption.”
Comparatively speaking, radio people
are accustomed to things moving pretty quickly and can, for
example, execute a complete format change in a relatively
short period of time. In contrast, Dr. Cohen concedes,
“Arbitron – for any number of reasons - moves much more
slowly. Everything has to work right, so we’re very careful as
to how we move. We have many systems and whenever someone
wants to change something, it affects far more systems than it
would appear. It’s a very complex operation.”
Significant Ramifications
While some others
feel great frustration with the cell phone-only situation, Dr.
Cohen senses positive movement on several levels. “There’s the
progress of understanding the whole phenomenon and how you
deal with it,” he contends. “On that level, we’ve made a ton
of progress. The second part of progress is when it can be put
into production and have it count.”
That’s proven to
be much tougher, but Dr. Cohen maintains, “It’s probably the
No. 1 issue right now internally. If we could make it happen
overnight, we would. But if you’re not careful, you’ll end up
with problems. There’s a lot of scrutiny from our clients and
the Media Rating Council. Sometimes haste isn’t the best
[solution]. What we do affects billions of dollars, so we have
to do it right. We’re doing our best and are trying to show
that we’ve done more than most anyone [else] out there. That’s
all we can do.”
Last week’s “Inside Story with
Mike Kinosian” focused on WMJX/Boston’s “Exceptional Women”
public affairs program; “Money Pit” co-host Leslie Segrete was
the subject of this week’s “Mike Kinosian Interview:
Personalities Inside Radio.”
Subscribers can find both
features archived
www.insideradio.com.
By Mike
Kinosian
Copyright © 2005 M Street
Publications and First
MediaWorks |
