How are the ratings measured these day? Still using a ratings log book? Are other methods of listening included?
I must admit I listen to more radio on my phone and computer than an actual radio.
80% is those surveyed fill out hard copy diaries. 20% fill out online diaries that can be accessed through tablets, computers and phones.
I am not sure how Em can claim 'We are the No.1 engaged breakfast show in Australia on Facebook and Instagram".
How did she measure this?
Maybe both her listeners have liked their Facebook page.
I can see where she is coming from. I don’t even own a radio, but I’ve watched plenty of their stuff online.
Same here.
I am amazed that you don’t own a radio. But that is where we are heading. I suppose it was only 40 years ago that a person’s link to popular culture was the radio, movies and TV. Now it is the internet.
I have cut back on listening to the radio by about 75% in the last two years. Now its iTunes and Spotify. The only stations I listen to much are Radio National, 702 and KIIS.
I’m sure she wouldn’t have the same sentiments were the show rating…
Social media ‘engagement’ means very little. At best, it means that the very small number of people listening are very engaged in and committed to the show, but it does not necessarily mean that proportionately more people are listening than suggested through the official surveys.
Keep in mind that you don’t have to live in Sydney to ‘engage’ with the show on social media. In fact you don’t even have to live in Australia.
I agree that perhaps measurement of radio ratings is flawed, but I would suggest our system is better than the PPMs of the US. And more consistent than the RAJARs in the UK.
The world is evolving and there would be many households now that don’t own a radio. The only radio I own is in my car. I’ve not been given an actual diaried survey recently, but I have done market research for some of the stations and the questions are always along the lines of ‘what stations/shows’ do you listen to, for how long and at what times of day, rather than ‘specifically thinking of a traditional terrestrial radio, do you listen to it at all…?’
The surveys seem to still be a pretty good indicator of roughly who is listening to what when and for how long, even though they have potential flaws in the methodology. I think more importantly is shifting the ideas around what is done what that information. Once upon a time that’s all you had. These days, there are things like social engagement which can bolster your advertising pitches and revenues. I think it’s probably more pertinent to move away from a singular focus on the traditional surveys, but I don’t know that that means there’s a fatal flaw in the survey itself.
In terms of advertising, it probably takes a rethink of how you sell advertising space. Virgin Radio Lebanon, for example, has 13 million followers on Facebook, despite the entire population of Lebanon maxing out at around 6 million. And I’d suggest that not every single person in Lebanon likes them on Facebook. A ratings survey for them would find they have significantly fewer listeners. That doesn’t make it an inaccurate survey, it just means they’re good at the online stuff.
I feel bad for whoever fed Em the “most engaged breakfast show” line that she’s now decided to run with. Some poor online team member is desperately trying to find stats to justify the statement as we speak.
I would suggest someone would have taken the opposition breakfast shows, taken a sample of around 5 or so posts, and divided the number of comments and likes by the amount of followers. Kyle and Jackie O have 1.5million followers on Facebook. If someone from online takes 5 posts that have 20 likes and 15 comments each and compares that to 5 posts from Em & Harley that have 50 likes and 30 comments each, given ~80,000 followers someone would make the leap that their audience are therefore more engaged with the content they push out. Doesn’t really mean a lot at the end of the day, and even if true, it’s a bit of a leap to suggest it means the entire radio ratings survey is incorrect…
I don’t think anyone is saying that social media numbers show that the ratings numbers are inaccurate. The Daily Mail has most likely missed Em’s point.
Ratings measure who is listening during a particular time slot - 6 and 9am in this case. Their purpose is to tell advertisers which station is best to get the most people in their target demographic. The method used is somewhat outdated and isn’t 100% accurate, but it still gives a good indication and probably advantages all AM stations and disadvantages all FM stations.
However, in today’s media landscape, not everyone is listening at the same time. People listen to podcasts and engage on social media. This is separate to terrestrial listening, but is not irrelevant. It is an opportunity to offer more to advertisers.
Good social media engagement is also an indication that a show is doing something right. The beauty of social media is that people can interact with multiple shows at essentially the same time. People can like and follow both Kyle and Em’s shows.
Whereas on terrestrial, you can only listen to one station at a time. People have to change and as we know, it’s very hard to get people to change their radio dial.
Low ratings are still a concern, but good social media engagement is something to be happy about.
High engagement is also what advertisers look for - it’s what makes people hear and remember their ads. A lower rating station with good engagement could be a better option than a higher rating station with low engagement.
I completely agree, but more was responding to the idea that the survey must be inaccurate because of social media engagement. Hopefully the Daily Mail has messed up the context, though she said something similar when she hit out at Kyle didn’t she…?
Mumbrella is reporting that Em is taking a break from 2DayFM.
I am sure that the thoughts of mediaspiers are with her.
Em herself is actually reporting that.
She’s only taking 2 days off and the headlines make it sound like she’s about to quit altogether. I think it’s pretty disrespectful to be honest. No other talent gets similar headlines when they take a couple of days sick leave.
Thoughts are absolutely with Em and her family right now.
Do we know who will sit-in for her tomorrow and Friday?
Celeste Barber
In all honesty Em could have taken sick leave and this would have gone unnoticed but she was brave enough to try and get some publicity for an issue that few people talk about. Many people keep quiet about miscarriages. Thanks Em.
You say a lot of disgusting things but that’s a low blow, even for you.
You need to reread my comment. No low blow. Total respect.
Fair enough. I apologise. On first read through, it sounded like you were saying she was trying to get publicity fot herself. I agree she is brave for highlighting an issue that is difficult for many people to talk about.