Canada does not have Pandora and that is a good thing. Let me tell you why: Pandora is an on-line music recommendation service that is taking listeners away from radio big time in the USA. And frankly it is not difficult to understand why the model works so well; Listeners sign in and enter a song or artist they like. Then Pandora builds a list of songs it feels this listener will enjoy based on 400 different musical attributes including harmony and tonality, to name just two. Listeners can also provide feedback telling the system the songs they like or dislike which allows Pandora to fine-tune the music so that it is more suitable for the individual listener.
So Pandora builds programming that caters to the tastes of individual music listeners which has resulted in over 80 million people signing up for the service. They are adding 60 new users every minute and they account for almost 50% of all online listening to music services in the USA.
You can listen on your computer but it is also available through a number of internet set top boxes such as Sonos and Grace Digital. But the amazing growth of Smartphones has really propelled this service into the big leagues. In 2008 only 10% of listening was being done on mobile platforms but that has grown in 2011 to 50%. Over the past few months Pandora has been strengthening its partnerships with consumer electronics manufacturers and looking to grow the integration of its services in automobiles.
Pandora is attractive to advertisers not only because of the huge user base and the number of hours tuned, but they also can target advertising to users based on their age, and music preference. Revenue is growing via both the paid subscription service and the free advertising supported model. As Pandora is getting set to become a publicly traded company, Forbes has valued the company at $984 million. Pandora is a real force in the USA and a real headache for radio.
Fortunately this service is not in Canada, but I cannot imagine that will last forever. So what can we learn from what is happening in the USA? Other than continuing to ensure our radio stations is producing content that is relevant and well targeted to our local market, I think we need to exist on all the platforms our listeners are using which include streaming audio on the web and via all the popular Smartphones. We also need to be looking at tablet computers such as the iPad. Apple sold over 5 million units in the last three months, and the demand continues to grow. I was in New York for Easter and watched hundreds of people standing in line just to get into the Apple store on 5th Avenue. These devices can be great for radio if we provide our listeners with great content that is of interest to them. So it’s all about content and delivery.
The great debate about the wisdom of installing FM chips in cell phones in North America continues. It was one of the hot topics disccused from the podium and the floor of the NAB in Las Vegas ealier this month. Now one of the industry heavywrights, Jeffrey Smulyan from Emmis has taken Mark Ramsay to task over his comments he has made in his blog and in particular how the NAB’s ad campaign is all wrong. You can see the website the NAB have created here.
I have written about the importance of getting FM chips into cell phones on a number of occasion including this article which can be found here and here. Like Smulyan I feel this is important and as an industry we need to pressure the cell phone manufactures to incorporate and turn on these chips as a public safety measure.
Smuylan writes, “When Mark asks, ‘Does NAB know the magic of streaming already makes radio available to those same devices and does so with features enabled by technology that no FM chip can match?’ I feel compelled to answer for the NAB, and the rest of the radio industry, so Mark, here goes:
1. Yes, I know all about streaming. Like thousands of other broadcasters, I’ve been doing it for nearly two decades. I don’t know if anyone else has made money at it, but we haven’t, and I haven’t heard of anyone else who has. At Emmis, we’ve invested millions of dollars in our interactive ventures because we want to be where our audiences are, but we are also realistic about economics.
2. Streaming is a one-to-one, interactive medium, which does allow us to do lots of great things, but there is a tremendous cost to that. The best example I can give is to compare streaming with over-the-air transmission. In our Los Angeles station, KPWR, we reach around 2.8 million people a week. Our annual electric costs from our transmitter are $39,500, a cost that does not rise if we serve one person in Southern California, or all 16 million within the reach of our signal. If we were to take down our transmitter and reach every person we currently reach through streaming, our cost to disseminate the signal would be nearly $1 million per year! Is there enough value in making a broadly based entertainment medium a one-to-one medium? That’s the current debate in this country, and I would submit that consumers haven’t found that value yet.
3. Consumers haven’t discovered the value yet, and they really haven’t been paying the true cost of streaming, but that is about to change dramatically. Almost every mobile data plan has unlimited usage; most plans cost $30 per month. However, with AT&T‘s data usage growing by over 5,000 percent in just three years, the company (and every other carrier), admit that this growth is unsustainable. Carriers are going to metering, and our question is, how will people feel about streaming audio and video when their bills grow from $30 to $60 per month, or more? Remember, the average smart phone uses 15 times the data of the standard cell phone, and the average iPad uses 30 times the data of a smart phone. Is there any wonder that the carriers are demanding spectrum from our TV brethren?
4. When Mark talks about ‘phone makers understand(ing) what drives the consumption of their devices while the NAB does not,’ he demonstrates a frightening lack of comprehension on this subject. In the beginning of my work on this project, I talked to one of the largest manufacturers of phones in the world. They have sold many millions of
phones. Their comment was succinct. ;When people know they can have radios in their phones, they buy them. It is a very cheap addition, and people love the feature.’ That’s why nearly one billion cell phones all over the world have been sold with radios in them!
5. Why haven’t we seen this in the U.S.? Because unlike most of the rest of the world, the major carriers control phone sales in our country, and they have deliberately kept radio chips out for years. As I was told early on in this project, ‘We’re not going to allow free radio when we think we can sell music downloads!’ Of course, a few years later, the carriers found out that music downloads weren’t selling, and they’ve largely abandoned that effort. Today, radio chips are becoming ubiquitous all over the world as evidenced by a recent TNS Global Mobile Life study showing that nearly 70 percent of people outside of the U.S. have an FM/AM radio feature on their phone, and nearly 43 percent use them. In fact, millions are shipped in radios in this country, but they are deactivated. iPhones are just one of the models where an FM radio exists but isn’t allowed to be used.
6. The NAB did a study that pointed out that even in the models where FM chips were activated, the carriers never mentioned the feature in their literature, and cell phone salespeople were never told about it.
7. All media advertising will soon have an interactive factor similar to the metrics seen in Internet advertising now. Greater return path metrics are good news for Radio. We are the most promotional, closest mass medium to the purchase and this interactivity will prove out to be a huge proof point for Radio’s effectiveness. Premium costs-per- thousands from enriched interactive advertising are emerging in video through the set top box and in print through QR codes. Radio’s opportunity, as well as the carriers, lies within a broad reach mobile platform the cell phone subscriber base provides. Streaming consumption is a good complement to over the air listening, not a replacement. The interactivity coming to all media will prove this without a doubt. We have been asked, shouldn’t the marketplace decide this? Our answer is, of course it should. But there has never been a free market for radios in cell phones in the U.S. When people have had the chance to vote, all over the world, they pay a small additional fee and get free, over-the-air radio in their phones.
Since this issue has been blocked in the United States, it is incumbent on all broadcasters, and especially with the leadership of the NAB, to explain and inform the public about what’s really going on here. How can we expect the public to understand this when industry experts can’t figure it out?
And there’s one other issue here as well..public safety. While Congress required the cell phone industry to alert the public during emergencies through the WARN act in 2006, the carriers have still not implemented a plan. Their ‘solution’ is building a texting system to send the public several lines of messages during an emergency.
We think that makes no sense for the following reasons:
1. Nearly 40 percent of the American public has never sent or received a text.
2. In an emergency, like in Hurricane Katrina, the Tsunami in Japan or the recent tornadoes in the Carolinas, the power grid goes down, rendering the cell system useless. Since most broadcasters have emergency generators, we have always provided the only lifeline in such instances.
3. Even when the cell system stays up, it gets jammed when usage spikes, which is exactly what happens in an emergency.
4. The NAB has pointed out that the only way to keep the public informed and safe during an emergency is having radios in their cell phones at a cost of less than 30 cents per phone!
For all of these reasons, we will keep fighting vigorously for our industry, for our audiences and for keeping the public safe, while making sure that those in our industry who don’t understand this issue will keep hearing from us.”
“Mandate or not, we’ll get this done.” said Smulyan at an NAB session about the radio industry push to get FM chips in cellphones. Radio wants to remain relevant and be on the devices consumers are using; hence the industry push to get wireless carriers and cellphone manufacturers to include FM chips in cellphones here, as they do in many other countries. Smulyan said “Putting FM chips in cellphones is a good business decision for both the broadcast and wireless industries. Radio can be a free service on cellphones and offer carriers a relief to their bandwidth squeeze.”
In the past year or so a number of Canadian stations have blown up successful A/C brands and moved to another format. The most obvious example would be Astral blowing up CJEZ in Toronto. This allowed CHFI as the only station playing AC in Toronto to sprint ahead in the ratings (CHFI is #1 with a 12.4% of the 12+ market). While Boom as an oldies station is doing well and makes it into the top 5 in Canada’s largest city it is still well behind CHFI, especially when you look at cume. CHFI has over 5 million listeners per week while Boom has just over 1.6 million.
But to the South AC stations are performing well. The latest PPM numbers has WLTW in New York well ahead of the bunch with a 7.6% which is up from the previous book at 7.1%. WLTW, which is known as 106.7 Lite FM, has always performed well in a wide range of demos, and currently is #1 18-49, 25-54 and 36-64. In Chicago WTMX (101.9 The Mix) is back in the top 5 and #1 adults 25-54. PD Mary Ellen Kachinske has more tempo in her music, but like the other top performing AC’s she plays very few currents and relies on the familiarity of re-currents. In Los Angeles AC leader KOST is #3 while sister station KISS is leading the pack no doubt helped by the Ryan Seacrest factor.
Here is the 6pm hour of WLTW New York from Monday
Madonna Like a Prayer 1989
Five for Fighting 100 Years 2003
Survivor Eye of the Tiger 1982
Katy Perry Firework 2010
Prince When Doves Cry 1984
Lady Gaga Paparazzi 2008
James Taylor Fire & Rain 1968
Faith Hill Breathe 1999
Corey Hart Sunglasses at Night 1984
Usher/Pitbull DJ got us falling in love 2010
Eurythmics Sweet Dreams 1983
Nickleback How you Remind me 2001
This is an upbeat AC that plays virtually no currents, and leans heavily on re-currents for the familiarity. The gold is mainly 80’s and 90’s (but only one 90’s showed up in this hour). Once an hour they will play a 70’s or even a 60’s and in this hour WLTW played a sleepy James Taylor song. You might question how they could transition between the upbeat Lady Gaga title to “Fire and Rain” which would have been a large shift in both tempo and era but they seem to get away with it.
AC is still a very valid format in Canada, but perhaps it is the programmers who are tired of the format and feel it has passed it’s time. I for one do not feel that way and while the format has become more of a title driven format and there are fewer core artists, AC continues to perform provided it is well programmed, well researched and the key players in the station understand how to put it all together. AC today is a very different beast that it was even 5 years ago and those stations who fail to evolve the format will likely pay the price as the audience ages and they are painted into the soft and sleepy corner of the format spectrum. In three of the largest USA markets AC is performing very nicely thank you. So before you consider blowing up your AC station, you might want to take a closer look at why these stations are successful.
An interesting article appeared today on one of the blogs I check out from time to time which mentioned all the good press radio has been getting lately. Firstly it has been well reported that radio revenues were up for most companies in 2010 after a couple of bad years. Then Clear Channel’s Bob Pittman good a lot of ink over his positive comments about radio in a speech to the Ad Age Digital Conference. You can read our take on Pittman’s speech here, but you should also read what Hacker Research is saying about radio in their blog here.
Bob Pittman, the Chairman of Media and Entertainment for Clear Channel, gave an interesting address to the Advertising Age Digital Conference about the state of radio in America last Thursday (7 April).
It’s worth watching the video just to see Pittman’s view of how well radio is performing. “Radio is the second most consumed media in the USA, but it is currently an undervalued medium because radio is not getting its fair share of the advertising revenue” said Pittman.
Pittman came to Clear Channel to drive their digital business so this video gives some insight as to where Clear Channel may be heading with their digital strategy. He said, “We have brand permission to give them more than things in the audio stream. Replays, new parts of the show, coupons, access to artists … it’s the power of being local. We have a social connection, which adds a whole other layer. Radio really does have a tribe who wants to talk to each other.” Click here to watch the 11 minute video.
|
All people 12+ Monday – Sunday 2am – 2am
|
Montreal
|
|
||||
|
Survey period: Radio Meter 2010/11 – December 27, 2010 – March 27, 2011
|
Share %
|
Cume
|
Daily Cume
|
|
||
|
Station
|
Market
|
Dec-Mar
|
Nov-Feb
|
(000)
|
(000)
|
|
|
CJAD
|
Montreal CTRL Anglo
|
26.4
|
25.9
|
521.7
|
201.4
|
|
|
CJFMFM
|
Montreal CTRL Anglo
|
18.5
|
18.2
|
790.0
|
232.2
|
|
|
CFQRFM
|
Montreal CTRL Anglo
|
16.5
|
17.2
|
769.1
|
196.4
|
|
|
CHOMFM
|
Montreal CTRL Anglo
|
10.2
|
10.3
|
670.4
|
136.1
|
|
|
CBMEFM
|
Montreal CTRL Anglo
|
8.1
|
7.5
|
211.3
|
68.5
|
|
|
CBMFM
|
Montreal CTRL Anglo
|
3.1
|
2.9
|
199.2
|
28.1
|
|
|
CJPXFM
|
Montreal CTRL Anglo
|
3.0
|
3.3
|
294.1
|
33.8
|
|
|
CKGM
|
Montreal CTRL Anglo
|
2.8
|
2.6
|
233.9
|
45.0
|
|
|
CFGLFM
|
Montreal CTRL Anglo
|
2.0
|
2.1
|
645.7
|
45.5
|
|
|
CITEFM
|
Montreal CTRL Anglo
|
1.2
|
1.2
|
577.4
|
31.8
|
|
|
CKMFFM
|
Montreal CTRL Anglo
|
1.1
|
1.2
|
516.0
|
34.8
|
|
|
CHMPFM
|
Montreal CTRL Anglo
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
252.1
|
17.1
|
|
|
CKOIFM
|
Montreal CTRL Anglo
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
569.5
|
39.3
|
|
|
CKAC
|
Montreal CTRL Anglo
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
159.5
|
13.1
|
|
|
CKLXFM
|
Montreal CTRL Anglo
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
205.0
|
10.5
|
|
|
CBFFM
|
Montreal CTRL Anglo
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
109.6
|
7.9
|
|
|
CBFXFM
|
Montreal CTRL Anglo
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
139.9
|
4.5
|
|
|
TERMS
|
||||||
|
Share – Within a central market area, the estimated total hours tuned to that station expressed as a percentage of total hours tuned to Total Encoded Radio.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Cume (000) – Expressed in thousands, this is the total number of people who were exposed to the stations for at least one minute during the analyzed period.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Average Daily Universe – The average daily universe for the analyzed period. The universe is expressed as daily averages because it changes slightly daily as the intab changes.
|
||||||
|
All people 12+ Monday – Sunday 2am – 2am
|
VANCOUVER
|
|||||
|
Survey period: Radio Meter 2010/11 – December 27, 2010 – March 27, 2011
|
Share %
|
Cume
|
Daily Cume
|
|||
|
Station
|
Market
|
Dec-Mar Nov-Feb
|
(000)
|
(000)
|
||
|
CKNW
|
Vancouver CTRL
|
12.3
|
12.0
|
775.0
|
212.7
|
|
|
CBU+
|
Vancouver CTRL
|
10.8
|
10.2
|
629.8
|
176.5
|
|
|
CHQMFM
|
Vancouver CTRL
|
8.6
|
10.0
|
2,078.4
|
339.2
|
|
|
CFBTFM
|
Vancouver CTRL
|
8.5
|
8.8
|
1,957.4
|
373.4
|
|
|
CKLGFM
|
Vancouver CTRL
|
7.1
|
6.8
|
1,626.5
|
225.8
|
|
|
CKWX
|
Vancouver CTRL
|
6.5
|
6.0
|
977.9
|
217.1
|
|
|
CKZZFM
|
Vancouver CTRL
|
5.2
|
5.0
|
1,751.7
|
260.0
|
|
|
CKST
|
Vancouver CTRL
|
4.2
|
3.8
|
1,021.1
|
158.5
|
|
|
CJJRFM
|
Vancouver CTRL
|
4.1
|
4.2
|
1,113.6
|
138.0
|
|
|
CBU FM
|
Vancouver CTRL
|
4.0
|
3.7
|
701.2
|
87.7
|
|
|
CFMIFM
|
Vancouver CTRL
|
3.7
|
3.7
|
1,339.9
|
138.5
|
|
|
CISL
|
Vancouver CTRL
|
3.7
|
4.1
|
535.3
|
62.9
|
|
|
CFOXFM
|
Vancouver CTRL
|
3.6
|
3.4
|
1,067.1
|
116.2
|
|
|
CFUNFM
|
Vancouver CTRL/Chilliwack
|
3.1
|
3.6
|
1,495.7
|
136.4
|
|
|
CKPKFM
|
Vancouver CTRL
|
2.5
|
2.6
|
952.2
|
71.5
|
|
|
CHHRFM
|
Vancouver CTRL
|
1.2
|
1.3
|
956.9
|
50.5
|
|
|
CHMJ
|
Vancouver CTRL
|
0.9
|
0.9
|
659.3
|
57.7
|
|
|
CFTE
|
Vancouver CTRL
|
0.6
|
0.6
|
368.3
|
29.0
|
|
|
KWPZFM*
|
Vancouver CTRL/Lynden
|
0.6
|
|
333.1
|
31.1
|
|
|
*Spill station
TERMS
|
||||||
|
Share – Within a central market area, the estimated total hours tuned to that station expressed as a percentage of total hours tuned to Total Encoded Radio.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Cume (000) – Expressed in thousands, this is the total number of people who were exposed to the stations for at least one minute during the analyzed period.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Average Daily Universe – The average daily universe for the analyzed period. The universe is expressed as daily averages because it changes slightly daily as the intab changes.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
All people 12+ Monday – Sunday 2am – 2am Edmonton
|
||||||
|
Survey period: Radio Meter 2010/11 – December 27, 2010 – March 27, 2011
|
Share %
|
Cume
|
Daily Cume
|
|||
|
Station
|
Market
|
Dec-Mar
|
Nov-Feb
|
(000)
|
(000)
|
|
|
CHED
|
Edmonton CRTL
|
10.7
|
10.5
|
528.0
|
126.6
|
|
|
CISNFM
|
Edmonton CRTL
|
9.0
|
9.1
|
702.8
|
93.8
|
|
|
CKNOFM
|
Edmonton CRTL
|
8.4
|
8.1
|
892.2
|
146.5
|
|
|
CKRAFM
|
Edmonton CRTL
|
7.4
|
6.9
|
855.6
|
118.7
|
|
|
CIUPFM
|
Edmonton CRTL
|
6.7
|
5.3
|
852.4
|
101.7
|
|
|
CFBRFM
|
Edmonton CRTL
|
6.5
|
6.5
|
685.5
|
107.9
|
|
|
CHDIFM
|
Edmonton CRTL
|
6.4
|
6.3
|
662.1
|
120.0
|
|
|
CIRKFM
|
Edmonton CRTL
|
6.1
|
5.8
|
645.3
|
97.6
|
|
|
CBX+
|
Edmonton CRTL
|
6.0
|
5.7
|
339.1
|
76.4
|
|
|
CKNGFM
|
Edmonton CRTL
|
5.3
|
5.4
|
804.8
|
109.8
|
|
|
CFCW *
|
Edmonton CRTL/Camrose
|
4.6
|
5.1
|
229.0
|
45.7
|
|
|
CHBNFM
|
Edmonton CRTL
|
4.6
|
4.7
|
819.1
|
130.0
|
|
|
CFMGFM
|
Edmonton CRTL
|
4.5
|
7.3
|
942.4
|
113.5
|
|
|
CBX FM
|
Edmonton CRTL
|
2.6
|
2.6
|
194.6
|
34.1
|
|
|
CFRN
|
Edmonton CRTL
|
1.9
|
1.9
|
237.5
|
33.0
|
|
|
CHQT
|
Edmonton CRTL
|
1.6
|
1.5
|
224.9
|
36.8
|
|
|
CKEAFM
|
Edmonton CRTL
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
375.7
|
26.6
|
|
|
* = spill station
|
|
|||||
|
TERMS
|
|
Share – Within a central market area, the estimated total hours tuned to that station expressed as a percentage of total hours tuned to Total Encoded Radio.
|
|
|
|
Cume (000) – Expressed in thousands, this is the total number of people who were exposed to the stations for at least one minute during the analyzed period.
|
|
|
|
Average Daily Universe – The average daily universe for the analyzed period. The universe is expressed as daily averages because it changes slightly daily as the intab changes.
|
|
All people 12+ Monday – Sunday 2am – 2am
|
CALGARY
|
||||
|
Survey period: Radio Meter 2010/11 – December 27, 2010 – March 27, 2011
|
Share %
|
Cume
|
Daily Cume
|
||
|
Station
|
Market
|
Dec- Mar
|
Nov-Feb
|
(000)
|
(000)
|
|
CFXLFM
|
Calgary CTRL
|
9.9
|
9.5
|
934.6
|
140.2
|
|
CHQR
|
Calgary CTRL
|
9.8
|
9.4
|
352.2
|
97.8
|
|
CJAQFM
|
Calgary CTRL
|
8.6
|
8.4
|
868.3
|
127.8
|
|
CBR
|
Calgary CTRL
|
8.2
|
8.0
|
421.1
|
93.5
|
|
CHFMFM
|
Calgary CTRL
|
7.2
|
9.2
|
974.9
|
139.2
|
|
CIBKFM
|
Calgary CTRL
|
6.7
|
6.7
|
913.7
|
165.5
|
|
CJAYFM
|
Calgary CTRL
|
6.2
|
6.0
|
700.2
|
96.6
|
|
CKMPFM
|
Calgary CTRL
|
5.5
|
5.5
|
843.5
|
125.0
|
|
CKRYFM
|
Calgary CTRL
|
5.5
|
5.6
|
619.0
|
81.7
|
|
CFGQFM
|
Calgary CTRL
|
4.9
|
4.8
|
657.6
|
85.8
|
|
CFEXFM
|
Calgary CTRL
|
3.9
|
3.9
|
602.0
|
78.7
|
|
CKCEFM
|
Calgary CTRL
|
3.7
|
3.4
|
808.9
|
96.6
|
|
CFAC
|
Calgary CTRL
|
3.5
|
3.5
|
459.1
|
64.1
|
|
CFFR
|
Calgary CTRL
|
3.4
|
3.2
|
452.8
|
85.9
|
|
CIGYFM
|
Calgary CTRL
|
3.2
|
3.4
|
725.8
|
58.6
|
|
CKMX
|
Calgary CTRL
|
2.9
|
2.8
|
178.9
|
22.8
|
|
CBR FM
|
Calgary CTRL
|
2.2
|
2.0
|
238.5
|
26.3
|
|
Share – Within a central market area, the estimated total hours tuned to that station expressed as a percentage of total hours tuned to Total Encoded Radio.
|
|
|
|
Cume (000) – Expressed in thousands, this is the total number of people who were exposed to the stations for at least one minute during the analyzed period.
|
|
|
|
Average Daily Universe – The average daily universe for the analyzed period. The universe is expressed as daily averages because it changes slightly daily as the intab changes.
|
|
All people 12+ Monday – Sunday 2am – 2am
|
Toronto
|
||||||
|
Survey period: Radio Meter 2010/11 – December 27, 2010 – March 27, 2011
|
Share
|
Cume
|
Daily Cume
|
||||
|
Station
|
Market
|
Dec-Mar
|
Nov-Feb
|
(000)
|
(000)
|
||
|
CHFIFM
|
Toronto CTRL
|
12.4
|
14.5
|
5,053.0
|
901.7
|
||
|
CHUMFM
|
Toronto CTRL
|
10.6
|
9.6
|
4,698.4
|
814.9
|
||
|
CBLAFM
|
Toronto CTRL
|
8.7
|
8.8
|
1,644.2
|
410.6
|
||
|
CFTR
|
Toronto CTRL
|
8.1
|
7.8
|
3,135.7
|
766.6
|
||
|
CHBMFM
|
Toronto CTRL
|
7.1
|
7.4
|
4,456.1
|
578.3
|
||
|
CKFMFM
|
Toronto CTRL
|
6.6
|
7.0
|
4,585.1
|
698.8
|
||
|
CILQFM
|
Toronto CTRL
|
6.4
|
6.1
|
3,188.9
|
492.1
|
||
|
CFRB
|
Toronto CTRL
|
6.3
|
6.2
|
1,076.0
|
237.1
|
||
|
CFMZF+
|
Toronto CTRL
|
5.3
|
5.1
|
1,928.1
|
260.8
|
||
|
CFNYFM
|
Toronto CTRL
|
5.1
|
5.1
|
2,836.1
|
422.3
|
||
|
CKISFM
|
Toronto CTRL
|
3.3
|
3.2
|
3,344.1
|
491.0
|
||
|
CFZM
|
Toronto CTRL
|
2.6
|
2.4
|
1,058.7
|
123.7
|
||
|
CJCL
|
Toronto CTRL
|
2.6
|
2.4
|
1,453.4
|
207.9
|
||
|
CJRTFM
|
Toronto CTRL
|
2.5
|
2.7
|
1,197.8
|
118.0
|
||
|
CIDCFM
|
Toronto CTRL
|
2.3
|
2.3
|
2,919.7
|
365.0
|
||
|
CFMJ
|
Toronto CTRL
|
2.2
|
2.1
|
1,378.3
|
190.5
|
||
|
CFXJFM
|
Toronto CTRL
|
2.1
|
1.9
|
2,163.2
|
236.4
|
||
|
CINGFM*
|
Toronto CTRL/Hamilton
|
2.0
|
–
|
2,154.1
|
179.3
|
||
|
CBL FM
|
Toronto CTRL
|
1.4
|
1.4
|
1,242.5
|
115.9
|
||
|
CKDXFM
|
Toronto CTRL
|
1.4
|
1.4
|
830.7
|
82.0
|
||
|
CIWVFM*
|
Toronto CTRL/Hamilton
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
673.4
|
35.4
|
||
|
CHUM
|
Toronto CTRL
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
489.5
|
15.8
|
||
|
* = spill station
|
|
||||||
|
TERMS
|
|
Share – Within a central market area, the estimated total hours tuned to that station expressed as a percentage of total hours tuned to Total Encoded Radio.
|
|
|
|
Cume (000) – Expressed in thousands, this is the total number of people who were exposed to the stations for at least one minute during the analyzed period.
|
|
|
|
Average Daily Universe – The average daily universe for the analyzed period. The universe is expressed as daily averages because it changes slightly daily as the intab changes.
|
