Burnt fingers
Daniel Schifferle on the fatal consequences of the ups and downs of radio research.
Daniel Schifferle on the fatal consequences of the ups and downs of radio research.
Withholding research results is almost as bad as a listed company postponing the publication of its balance sheet. Add to this a half-hearted information policy, as in the case of the repeatedly postponed publication of radiocontrol figures, and the damage is perfect. Withheld facts are not only poison for any market research. They are an ideal breeding ground for the dubious arguments of eternal critics to run riot. Rapid and comprehensive transparency by Publica Data would have been imperative in order to put a stop to such effects from the outset.
Critical voices are part of the normal background music of any market research, and they also emerged time and again in connection with Radiocontrol. And they also make sense as a counterweight to the blind trust that the recipients of research results have to place in the data providers. However, when none other than publisher president Hanspeter Lebrument now casts doubt on the results of radio research, the matter takes on a new dimension.
Lebrument's objections are understandable. If a research system suddenly delivers figures that are up to 30% lower after the sample has been increased, then there is something wrong with this system. The statement by Matthias Steinmann, CEO of the Telecontrol Group, that the new figures are more accurate (see page 18) sounds cynical. In any case, the statement is the opposite of a consolation, because it unmasks previous radio research as highly imprecise. At least in the case of the three radios, which were confronted with very large deviations without any announcement or explanation.
SRG Director General Armin Walpen also put his foot in his mouth. Although it was not up to him to prevent the publication of the radio figures according to the statutes, he took the lead. In doing so, he gave fuel to the unjustified impression that the SRG was influencing radio and TV research.
> Daniel Schifferle, Head of Media & Information
Withholding research results is almost as bad as a listed company postponing the publication of its balance sheet. Add to this a half-hearted information policy, as in the case of the repeatedly postponed publication of radiocontrol figures, and the damage is perfect. Withheld facts are not only poison for any market research. They are an ideal breeding ground for the dubious arguments of eternal critics to run riot. Rapid and comprehensive transparency by Publica Data would have been imperative in order to put a stop to such effects from the outset.
Critical voices are part of the normal background music of any market research, and they also emerged time and again in connection with Radiocontrol. And they also make sense as a counterweight to the blind trust that the recipients of research results have to place in the data providers. However, when none other than publisher president Hanspeter Lebrument now casts doubt on the results of radio research, the matter takes on a new dimension.
Lebrument's objections are understandable. If a research system suddenly delivers figures that are up to 30% lower after the sample has been increased, then there is something wrong with this system. The statement by Matthias Steinmann, CEO of the Telecontrol Group, that the new figures are more accurate (see page 18) sounds cynical. In any case, the statement is the opposite of a consolation, because it unmasks previous radio research as highly imprecise. At least in the case of the three radios, which were confronted with very large deviations without any announcement or explanation.
SRG Director General Armin Walpen also put his foot in his mouth. Although it was not up to him to prevent the publication of the radio figures according to the statutes, he took the lead. In doing so, he gave fuel to the unjustified impression that the SRG was influencing radio and TV research.
> Daniel Schifferle, Head of Media & Information
