Xref: utzoo news.groups:12414 news.misc:3636
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!att!dptg!rutgers!apple!chuq
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.misc
Subject: Re: accuracy of arbitron "reader" data
Message-ID: <34921@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 21 Sep 89 18:22:02 GMT
References: <18401@looking.on.ca> <790@uvaarpa.virginia.edu>
Organization: Life is just a Fantasy novel played for keeps
Lines: 25

>Nevertheless, I think that the arbitron and inpaths data are useful
>benchmarks as long as we recognise upfront that they are not accurate.
>I do trust them for broad trends and for propogation and flow information.

Agreed. Arbitron has generaly shown readership of rec.mag.otherrealms in the
3500-5000 range. I've done independent surveys where, by checking the
percentage of returns in an area with known levels of readership and
extrapolating those out to the entire survey response, my readership is
closer to 11,000 to 15,000. 

That's at least a 50% difference between arbitron and my numbers. My numbers
may be a little high. They may also be a little low (+- 5% or so). It's
impossible to tell. All I do know is that Brian's numbers are a lot
different and significantly lower, well beyond his margin of error.

What I think you can tell from Brian's numbers are relative things -- I
don't think the relative number of readers will change. I don't think the
relative interest in a group would change. etc. Absolute numbers, though,
they aren't.

-- 

Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA
chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking. I am not Appl
Segmentation Fault. Core dumped.