Advertisers will always use depressing numbers to make a few quid. They are generally quick to pay less and slow to pay more but it is the way in which we handle these numbers in PR terms that I find annoying. At one time it was just amusing. I think the time has come for action. We should all sign up to a code of practice. A simple template that displays the numbers year on year and in the same format, the same style. Either that, or we adapt www.rajarsmilies.com. A brilliantly simple way to cut through the crap. Just once I would love to read a station release that said "the numbers are bad, we deserved better and we can't comment as we are in the pub. When we sober up we will come back fighting'.
When the numbers are up, stations go wild with claims of brilliance. That promotion worked, the marketing campaign hit home, that new presenter delivered for us. When it goes down, they think we won't notice when they swiftly switch their retric from quarterly figures to year on year numbers but it's good to know Dopey dwarfs under 35 are now listening for longer these days. The world has moved on, we know the game now and even though everyone plays it, most end up just looking stupid. The client knows the score, the press certainly do. Those who work in radio are not idiots.
Anyone worth their salt will know that year on year is the only sensible measure worth forming a view on. This won't stop the John Plunkets of this world finding a snappy headline or two, but if we continue to mix and match at will, we simply devalue the currency. So you can look at what you like, panic if you want, celebrate if you must (and you should always find time to celebrate hard work) but audience figures generally have a slow build or a slow decline. For those programmers who have had a bad book this time around, just remember that talent is permanent, luck is not. I have rarely seen anything good come from a snap decision.
Of course none of the above will stop the PD's who care from having a crap night.
