[JPL] Re: comments re: Audience 2010
Shaunna Morrison Machosky
morrison at wduq.org
Mon Aug 14 12:12:54 EDT 2006
Audience 2010, just like any research study, should be taken with a
grain of salt.
Studies are not doctrine. The researchers are not programming experts.
Studies are good for revealing that there are problems that need to
be fixed and there are successes to celebrate. Studies are tools.
They aren't perfect. All stations are different. All markets are
It's the same with audience ratings.
As Bob said:
"At the statin level, it's our job to read the data, make the
adjustments and avoid the "stupid programming decisions."
Shaunna Morrison Machosky
WDUQ 90.5 FM
>I agree. Eric's assertion that "...so many stupid programming
>decisions are being justified with the data and analysis we [Walrus
>& ARA] provide" is spot on.
>It's good to have the research and I don't have issues with its
>quality. But I agree that the interpretation of the data should not
>be left to the researchers (nor to NPR or CPB). Researchers are,
>after all, specialists in research methodologies, an essentially
>scientific (or at least technological) process. But how does that
>make them programming experts?
>The researchers, in the narrative portions of their reports, admit
>as much and point out that the solutions to whatever problems are
>revealed, are up to the stations to parse out for themselves.
>However, their narratives do often seem more than a little
>self-serving. And I think the tendency in our industry is for many
>of us to just read those caveats as so much "boilerplate."
>We seem to expect the researchers, who are, after all essentially
>"archive rats" -- just kidding, guys!) to tell us how to program our
>radio stations. That's just dumb! How the hell would they know?
>At the statin level, it's our job to read the data, make the
>adjustments and avoid the "stupid programming decisions."
Audience 2010 is looking to me VERY much like an extremely drawn out
CYA document. Walrus & ARA have never been more influential on
programming that they are right now, and important numbers are dipping.
WHY? One answer they don't seem willing to investigate is : "because so
many stupid programming decisions are being justified with the data and
analysis we provide."
CPB really ought to hire someone else to come in and look at these
numbers and offer a second opinon/analysis. The tone of this study just
seems to me to be self-serving to the nth degree--I've so far read
absolutely nothing in it that's new and helpful--just public radio
bromides about getting to know your listeners.***
WNMC 90.7 FM
More information about the jazzproglist