The advertising industry is buzzing about Personal People Meters (PPMs). These devices, which measure media consumption, promise more objective ratings that will clearly raise the value of radio advertising. Consequently, some say PPMs may help stem the flow of ad dollars going to new media.
Now this essay is not to determine whether or not agencies will make good on their promises regarding PPMs (which I'll discuss later); or if PPMs are better than the diary method (another way of measuring media consumption). Instead, my interest is to share with the iMedia audience how a communication analysis can inform our decision about PPMs, where they may fall short and where they could be rehabilitated.
The objective of PPMs is to measure the listening audience of radio programs quantitatively, and with neutrality through the use of encrypted signal coding to be decoded by a receiver suspended from a human body. The problem: From a communication research point of view, how should we view PPMs?
Basic communication sensing
Let's start with a very basic premise of all communication: there are distinctions between seeing and watching, speaking to and speaking with, and listening versus hearing (which I'll discuss later). All are quite distinct processes and effects and are at the heart and soul of a communication enterprise. We can easily demonstrate these distinctions by example. Seeing TV vs. watching TV; speaking to one's self (monologue) vs. speaking with somebody else (dialogue); and listening vs. hearing. With these distinctions in mind let's look at PPMs.
PPM is a technology, a technology designed for a purpose. However PPM is not unique as it is a part of a whole network of sensory technology (for example, smoke detectors, GPS, home security and ankle cuffs). In this case PPM senses signals/sounds of radio programming which has been encoded. All of these technologies are very good to excellent in "sensing," picking out or detecting stimuli, motion, smoke, sound, heat, et cetera.
What are PPMs supposed to do?
What claims are being made regarding PPM sensing activity? At a very basic level the purpose of the PPM is to discriminate sound (let's call it radio program or station) from "noise." It should be noted that PPM accurately discriminates 59 percent of the sound (see Rajar validation Test -- Feb. 14, 2005, reprinted in Industry Commercialization Viability Analysis of the Personal People Meter, Interim Report as of July 2005, RAB PPM Task Force and RAB Board of Directors). Now, how does this square with a communication analysis? The PPM is a fine example of the transmission model of communication.
Transmission model of communication
I have given an introduction of this model in a previous iMedia article. In the PPM context, additional insights are highlighted. Shannon and Weaver's model was set forth in 1949 in the Mathematical Theory of Communication. They define communication as "all procedures by which one mind may affect another." The model itself was designed for purposes of electronic engineering. It is essentially a linear, left-to-right, one-way model of communication. It led to technical improvements in message transmission. The transmission communication model looks like the following:
While this model had a relatively long career in the '70s, it was finally put to rest in the '80s. But it does appear again as PPM.
Definition of hearing/listening
Arbitron defines hearing/listening: "The definition of listening both in the diary and with PPM according to Arbitron is the ability to hear a station, not the conscious choice to listen. Their stance is that the PPM goal of capturing audible listening is consistent with this and therefore the issue of unintended listening is not a major issue." (See report previously cited.)
Some in the agency world would have us believe that there is something magical about electronic data collection. They claim self reporting is less accurate. And that the short comings will be overcome with technology. This line of thinking requires you to assume that PPMs are more accurate and that the electronic transmission of encoded signals to a device overcomes recall limitations. That's a pretty big leap and it's easy to see why radio owners are reluctant to embrace the technology.
The PPM picks up unintended sound and interprets all data as listening. However, all hearing is not listening as listening refers to something one attends to which may be radio as foreground or background. Yet PPMs can not discriminate the difference. The sound could be all listening, part "noise" or all "noise," to the individual in the household.
PPMs interpret all hearing as listening. However, it would be equally logically to assume that all hearing is "noise" as there is no human discrimination involved in separating listening from noise. For PPMs, all coded sound is a signal to a destination receiving the signal, which is transformed into an interpretation of what the signal means, which is already pre-defined as listening. With an accuracy of 59 percent, PPMs "hear" with only one eye.
Conclusion
Even with the technical perfectibility of the PPMs or the best sampling technique imaginable, it is impossible for PPMs to discriminate listening from noise, because that requires a human differentiation. Therefore, at present, the PPM as an objective rating tool is an impossibility.
While media buyers may think PPMs answer their needs for buying radio more efficiently, does it really answer the needs of marketers who are moving to a consumer-centric model in order to increase ROI? Will this technology readily stem the flow of radio dollars that are going to new media? Perhaps radio would be better served with a consumer consumption component to complement the technology.
Additional resources:
Read Arbitron's comment on this article.
Joe Pilotta is vice president of BIGresearch, and a professor at Ohio State University, School of Communications. He holds two Ph.D.s from Ohio University (Communication Research) and from University of Toronto (Sociology), Canada. Member of Word of Mouth Association (WOMMA) Standards and Metric Committee and the ARF Long Term Advertising Effects Committee.
