This is the last in a series of essays on the use of Arbitron ratings as a tool for Pacifica programming decision-making. While the information is specific to station KPFA in Berkeley, Pacifica's general trend of dealing with their audiences in the same manner as commercial audiences is clear in these reports.

This is the final essay in my series summarizing the suggestions made in the "Walrus Report," which was a major influence on KPFA's new format. The figures here are based upon the Spring 1994 AudiGraphics report, which combines the Fall 1993 and Spring 1994 Arbitron surveys.

A Few More Statistics
Recall that KPFA had about 24,000 "core listeners" (those who average more hours per week listening to KPFA than to any other station) and about 87,000 "fringe listeners" (those who average more hours per week with at least one other station than with KPFA) in Spring 1994 (current figures had increased by over 30% before the format change).

The other stations most listened to by KPFA listeners were KQED, KJAZ, KGO, KCBS, KDFC, and KALW.

The average KPFA listener spent 20% of his/her radio-listening time with KFPA, 11% with KQED, and 6% with KJAZ. The average core KPFA listener spent 60% with KPFA, 10% with KQED, and 4% with KJAZ. The average fringe KPFA listener spent 12% with KQED, 11% with KPFA, and 6% with KJAZ.

Figures for men and women were similar, except that KKSF replaced KJAZ as the second-place "competition" for KPFA among women.

For the age range of 25 to 55, the results were similar except that time spent listening to KQED increased from 8% for 25-34, through 11% for 35-44, to 17% for 45-54, whereas time spent listening to KPFA went only from 21% through 22% to 23%. In other words, we were "losing the competition" with KQED much more heavily with older listeners than with younger listeners.

The "Competition"
Among KPFA listeners, the other significant stations tend to pull away mostly male listeners (with around 80% of those spending time with KALX being male, and KJAZ and KCBS drawing KPFA listeners who are about 70% male). Only KQED and KDFC among "major competitors" draw away listeners who are about 50% male.

Walrus says: "Among those listeners who cross over to KQED, the TSL is under 6 hours to KPFA but 7 hours to KQED. Among those who cross over to KJAZ, the jazz station earns more listening by about an hour per week. The difference is really big for KGO and KCBS. Your listeners who use the AM news talk stations listen two hours to the competition for one hour to KPFA."

Results are similar in terms of the average number of occasions per week when people tune to the different stations. Also in terms of loyalty to the different stations to which people listen. Again, Walrus emphasizes that "KPFA loses the competition in each case."

Walrus: "The point is that you may think of them as KPFA listeners--your listeners--but on average they give more TSL, occasions of tune in and loyalty to the competition. So they really belong to the competing stations primarily, and only sometimes come over to KPFA. And this explains, finally, why on air fund raising is so difficult on KPFA. If you'd like to increase listener support, you need to win loyal listeners --become their primary, favorite radio station."

Well, it's interesting to note that KQED is laying off staff (mostly TV, it's true), and KJAZ has gone out of business, while KPFA has steadily improved its audience and income. Who's losing this competition?

Flashpoints
A few more examples of the kind of recommendations Walrus made. The report notes that on weekdays KPFA is preferred by those who listen to both KQED and KPFA only between 6 and 7am, 5 and 7pm, and around 10pm (the latter based on a very small sample). Walrus suggests that a lot of the Morning Edition audience apparently crosses over to listen to Flashpoints and the KPFA Evening News, and that similar programming might draw more KQED listeners in the morning. This presumably is the reason for adding more news breaks in the Morning Show and trying to make it more similar to Morning Edition (not quite what Walrus said-- presumably the afternoon programming draws listeners because it is NOT a copy of the KQED programming). Only Flashpoints and the Evening News were drawing a majority of KQED core listeners who ever listen to KPFA away from KQED. Similarly, KCBS drew away most of the shared listeners in the morning, but these listeners preferred KPFA in the afternoon drivetime.

It's interesting to note, though, that one of the few places in the weekday schedule where KPFA was drawing more of the shared listeners fringe to both stations than KQED was, was in the early afternoon-- the "folkish" music shows that were changed to talk programming.

KPFA's Program Changes
Well, these lengthy essays have only touched upon a few of the many graphs and charts provided to KPFA management. You can find something to support most any change you might want to make, but the changes KPFA did make seem to be based largely upon the generalizations that the Walrus Report expressed in words, rather than upon careful study of the details in the graphs and charts.

My main question is why, with listenership and income increasing at a quite dramatic rate under the old format, it was deemed necessary to make such a dramatic and abrupt programming change rather than gradually shifting things around (a little at a time) to try to fine-tune a structure that was working pretty well. The answer seems to be that the impetus came from a Pacifica directive to increase ratings (something that Marci Lockwood has denied), with these reports providing some suggestions about what to try.

Most radio people say that it takes a year after a programming change for the audience to build up to something approaching the long-range potential of the new schedule. KPFA has stated that the Fall Marathon will have very little special programming, but will instead try to raise money from the regular programs that have been on the air only a couple of months. This could produce some rude surprises in terms of low marathon income. Recalling that these programming changes were based on year-old data, one wonders whether management will have the patience to wait a year to see if the new schedule actually can draw an improved audience before they decide to make other major shuffles.

Personally, I like the idea of steady changes in the lineup, but if you want to use ratings to control your changes, you need to make them infrequently and stay with each schedule long enough to get reliable data on how it is working.

This concludes our look at ratings and what they mean to KPFA.

We believe decisions about our stations should be made by the representatives of all the communities that have a stake in Pacifica, and should occur in an open, accountable, community-oriented process . . . something now lacking at Pacifica.