My first job out of graduate school was at a broadcast network where, in the late 70s, we used to joke that owning a broadcasting license was like a license to print money because it was so easily profitable. Good times. When cable came into the picture in the 80s there was initial discomfit but no real cause for alarm. And soon, many broadcasters either bought or launched their own cable networks so the television hierarchy remained intact. Viewers craving home entertainment were still captive to the television delivery box as we always knew it. Yes, customers were paying more for television but it expanded the choices available and was for many, worth the cost. Thus began the slippery slope for media companies.
Fast forward to the 21st century as we come face to face with the end of the television network model as we know it. We always like to give lip service to the viewer. “The viewer chooses”, we like to say. But it is never as true as today and many major media companies from magazines to newspapers to radio to television are at a loss as to how to fully monetize. Not only can viewers choose, they rule.
There are many factors placing stress on the current model such as the explosion of viewing sources and devices (many of which inter-relate with each other), faster connectivity so higher quality video can be delivered almost anywhere, burgeoning consumer choice and flexibility at a lower cost point, creation of new content on the consumer side in addition to the professional side as well as a plethora of new and finely divined data sources that challenge Nielsen’s measurement currency.
About five years ago I sat across from a senior executive of a network group and told him that we needed to bulk up our websites, negotiate for full program rights and create unique original content for the web because within the next 3 to 5 years viewers would be watching television on their computer. He said it wouldn’t happen because the industry could not monetize it. “Websites are just for marketing and branding the network”, he said. But now it doesn’t matter what we can or can’t monetize. The consumer is driving this change, not the media companies.
There are too many short term thinkers in the industry. How else to explain the crash and burn of so many once great media properties? As long as we reward short term thinking in place of long term strategies we will always be at the mercy of outside influences that reshape our industry beyond our control.
And yet, I see potential opportunities which are not short term or quick fixes.
Radio and print could arguably have the most to gain from the internet revolution. They can, for the first time, break out of their historical media forms. A radio or magazine website can stream video, for example. And, no longer limited to the strength of its signal, a radio station site can reach a listener anywhere and everywhere, programming as many genres as there are tastes.
For all media forms there is global advertising potential. I viewed Susan Boyle’s video on ITV’s Britain’s Got Talent website which was skinned with a Domino’s ad. There are many global brands. So why aren’t more American media companies reaching out to global advertisers … or creating new global advertisers? If I can buy British Telecom stock on the internet, why wouldn’t BT advertise to me on CNBC, CNN or Fox News outlets?
New ways of using media require new metrics and measurements. There are more and more data sources, collected in real time and offering highly granular data points for valuable insights and trends. Let’s finally move from age and gender posting and create more up-to-date measurement systems that reflect a 360 degree media buy… or should we say a 720 degree buy taking into account the multi-tasking and interactivity of platforms?
The future of media is filled with opportunity if we are prescient enough to take advantage of it and cooperative enough to reach some consensus on certain issues such as measurement. Mitch Oscar of MPG has formed a committee on the latter and there are many strategic researchers at media companies who can contribute to the former, should senior management decide to listen.
Aug 31, 2009
Aug 24, 2009
Set Top Box Data - the First Analysis
This most recent article that I wrote for MediaPost in May 2009 came on the heels of a Nielsen data glitch where Nielsen was unable to deliver viewing data to their customers for about three consecutive days. The industry was in an uproar and I thought it would be helpful to demonstrate how set top box data can be used to bridge any data lapses in the future:
The Current And New Television Data Currency
Charlene Weisler, May 15, 2009
Although it happens occasionally, when a giant stumbles, he causes the ground to shake for all. So when Nielsen Media Research has problems with processing its audience data, the entire media industry is put on hold… and shakes.
This is a crucial time of year for the broadcast and cable networks. Not only are they embarking on the next upfront sales season, many networks are considering the fate of their original series for possible renewal or cancellation. Without the Nielsen ratings currency, no one feels comfortable making any important program-related decisions.
This is not the first time nor will it be the last, we expect, for this company to experience server and delivery problems. In fact, Nielsen’s track record is fairly good, compared to other consumer and B to B companies. But because Nielsen is the dominant player when it comes to television currency, any blip in data delivery, processing or collection is potentially catastrophic to its clients.
For the common good, the current currency must expand beyond Nielsen and it is up to the industry – broadcast, cable, advertisers, agencies, satcasters, telcos etc – to decide and agree on the expansion of data providers, processors and metrics.
Currently there are many streams of new set top box based viewership data available from various DMAs and footprints. There is nothing, at this time, totally replicating Nielsen’s national footprint but collectively, all this set top box data can be nationalized to form a fairly good national footprint in the future.
There are companies out there such as TNS, TRA, Rentrak, TIVO and the Telcos, all of whom have data. A company like TNS with Direct View data has an extensive footprint that spans a range of markets with the potential to be nationalized. TNS has graciously provided me with performance data for comparison purposes to Nielsen – for days where there was no Nielsen data problem and the days where Nielsen had to reprocess their data.
While there is a very strong correlation between the TNS Direct View and Nielsen ratings (+0.96) for the days examined, the two services will report different levels due to underlying differences in sample compositions and the fact that Direct TV homes have many more available channels than the average Nielsen home. With that in mind, we compared Direct View set top box data ratings to Nielsen Live ratings as a percentage of gross rating points based on household primetime performance for the five broadcast networks for April 27, 28, 29 and May 4, 5, 6, 2009 – three days of delayed data vs week ago.
TNS Live/ Nielsen Live/ Gross Difference
Monday, April 27, 2009
ABC 30%* 34% -4
CBS 30% 26% +4
CW 4% 5% -1
FOX 21% 21% 0
NBC 16% 14% +2
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
ABC 23% 18% +5
CBS 29% 32% -3
CW 4% 4% 0
FOX 24% 25% -1
NBC 20% 21% -1
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
ABC 15% 17% -2
CBS 28% 28% 0
CW 5% 6% -1
FOX 34% 31% +3
NBC 19% 18% +1
Monday, May 4, 2009
ABC 31% 37% -6
CBS 29% 25% +4
CW 4% 4% 0
FOX 20% 19% +1
NBC 15% 14% +1
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
ABC 23% 18% +5
CBS 29% 32% -3
CW 4% 4% 0
FOX 24% 25% -1
NBC 20% 20% 0
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
ABC 14% 15% -1
CBS 28% 29% -1
CW 5% 6% -1
FOX 35% 32% +3
NBC 18% 17% +1
Source: Nielsen, NTI Galaxy, as dated. Live
TNS, as dated, Second by second ratings projected to DIRECT TV’s digital residential household universe
*To be read: According to TNS, ABC received 30% of the total 5 Broadcast network primetime household gross rating points on Monday, April 27, 2009 .
Despite the sample differences, the two services report similar share of grps by broadcast network indicating that set top box data can help yield similar competitive standing results to the current currency. This is an encouraging first step in helping to establish a relationship between set top box data and the current currency. Obviously much more research is needed in this area.
But should future data delivery problems occur, we are not without resources. In this case, Direct View percentages could be applied against an established (and agreed upon) gross rating point universe to get a sense of the possible ratings level. Or, a grp share metric might be established to be used in lieu of ratings to glean performance.
Charlene Weisler is a research veteran and media strategist.
The Current And New Television Data Currency
Charlene Weisler, May 15, 2009
Although it happens occasionally, when a giant stumbles, he causes the ground to shake for all. So when Nielsen Media Research has problems with processing its audience data, the entire media industry is put on hold… and shakes.
This is a crucial time of year for the broadcast and cable networks. Not only are they embarking on the next upfront sales season, many networks are considering the fate of their original series for possible renewal or cancellation. Without the Nielsen ratings currency, no one feels comfortable making any important program-related decisions.
This is not the first time nor will it be the last, we expect, for this company to experience server and delivery problems. In fact, Nielsen’s track record is fairly good, compared to other consumer and B to B companies. But because Nielsen is the dominant player when it comes to television currency, any blip in data delivery, processing or collection is potentially catastrophic to its clients.
For the common good, the current currency must expand beyond Nielsen and it is up to the industry – broadcast, cable, advertisers, agencies, satcasters, telcos etc – to decide and agree on the expansion of data providers, processors and metrics.
Currently there are many streams of new set top box based viewership data available from various DMAs and footprints. There is nothing, at this time, totally replicating Nielsen’s national footprint but collectively, all this set top box data can be nationalized to form a fairly good national footprint in the future.
There are companies out there such as TNS, TRA, Rentrak, TIVO and the Telcos, all of whom have data. A company like TNS with Direct View data has an extensive footprint that spans a range of markets with the potential to be nationalized. TNS has graciously provided me with performance data for comparison purposes to Nielsen – for days where there was no Nielsen data problem and the days where Nielsen had to reprocess their data.
While there is a very strong correlation between the TNS Direct View and Nielsen ratings (+0.96) for the days examined, the two services will report different levels due to underlying differences in sample compositions and the fact that Direct TV homes have many more available channels than the average Nielsen home. With that in mind, we compared Direct View set top box data ratings to Nielsen Live ratings as a percentage of gross rating points based on household primetime performance for the five broadcast networks for April 27, 28, 29 and May 4, 5, 6, 2009 – three days of delayed data vs week ago.
TNS Live/ Nielsen Live/ Gross Difference
Monday, April 27, 2009
ABC 30%* 34% -4
CBS 30% 26% +4
CW 4% 5% -1
FOX 21% 21% 0
NBC 16% 14% +2
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
ABC 23% 18% +5
CBS 29% 32% -3
CW 4% 4% 0
FOX 24% 25% -1
NBC 20% 21% -1
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
ABC 15% 17% -2
CBS 28% 28% 0
CW 5% 6% -1
FOX 34% 31% +3
NBC 19% 18% +1
Monday, May 4, 2009
ABC 31% 37% -6
CBS 29% 25% +4
CW 4% 4% 0
FOX 20% 19% +1
NBC 15% 14% +1
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
ABC 23% 18% +5
CBS 29% 32% -3
CW 4% 4% 0
FOX 24% 25% -1
NBC 20% 20% 0
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
ABC 14% 15% -1
CBS 28% 29% -1
CW 5% 6% -1
FOX 35% 32% +3
NBC 18% 17% +1
Source: Nielsen, NTI Galaxy, as dated. Live
TNS, as dated, Second by second ratings projected to DIRECT TV’s digital residential household universe
*To be read: According to TNS, ABC received 30% of the total 5 Broadcast network primetime household gross rating points on Monday, April 27, 2009 .
Despite the sample differences, the two services report similar share of grps by broadcast network indicating that set top box data can help yield similar competitive standing results to the current currency. This is an encouraging first step in helping to establish a relationship between set top box data and the current currency. Obviously much more research is needed in this area.
But should future data delivery problems occur, we are not without resources. In this case, Direct View percentages could be applied against an established (and agreed upon) gross rating point universe to get a sense of the possible ratings level. Or, a grp share metric might be established to be used in lieu of ratings to glean performance.
Charlene Weisler is a research veteran and media strategist.
Aug 17, 2009
Set Top Box Data - Opinions Across the Spectrum
This article by Mitch Oscar was published in December 2008 and highlights the different opinions on set top box data across the industry. A great overview as we embark on a fuller examination of set top box data in later posts through the 4th quarter 2009. My opinion is part of the group below:
A Set Top Box Set-Up
by Mitch Oscar , Tuesday, December 23, 2008
AT THE LAST MPG COLLABORATIVE Alliance (Dec. 3) EVAD Consulting's Frank Foster and Current TV's Theresa Pepe Falcone's succinct presentations focused on issues shaping audience measurement as the media community transitions to digital broadcasting. In particular, how television program viewing of the members of Nielsen Media Research's audience measurement panel, upwards of 12,000 TV households, translated into projectable program ratings. For this week's MediaPost TV Board blog I solicited written thoughts on panel vs. set top box viewing data from researchers in attendance at the last Collaborative Alliance as well as those whose opinions I respect but who could not attend in person. My goal is to proffer for public consumption an agnostic way to keep the topic of set top box data collection and panels projectables visible in the press and provide segues to hopefully generate dialogue and momentum on this crucial media topic. Thoughts, comments, noise, welcome.
Rentrak, Ken Papagan, President & Chief Strategy Officer
There are great advantages to panel-based sampling when done properly. It's cheaper, quicker and immediately actionable. Any market scientist "worth their salt" will tell you that you do not need a complete census to predict a group's behavior. While there are many questions around the "conventional" ratings that Nielsen produces from compliance, to ascription methodologies, to sample, etc. the set-top data from our 5+ million set-tops from Dish Networks and AT&T U-verse suggests that when it comes to the top 25 programs or so, the 14,000 Nielsen households generally seem to portray similar viewing data to the mega samples we are seeing with STB data. However, once you begin to drill into un-rated networks and local TV markets the effect of the "long tail" of content offerings and distribution outlets that TV now represents, cannot adequately be portrayed by a relatively "tiny" sample of panel data. The current research needs to be augmented with deeper inquiries and insights. We strongly believe that with a wider sample of millions (for example, Rentrak may have 30,000 homes in a market where Nielsen has 400) instead of thousands, a much more accurate understanding of television viewing can be gleaned.
OTX, Bruce Friend, President
I think we as an industry need to start thinking more outside of the proverbial (Nielsen, set top, desktop, etc.) box. As such, I believe we need to put together an innovative-minded "think tank" of the best and the brightest academic, media industry and technology industry minds, and figure out how we can develop better, passive ways to measure the consumer and not the device. Also, this needs to be government (grant) or industry (client) funded and not vendor-funded.
TNS Media Research, George Shababb, President
The advent of Return Path Data (RPD) has reshaped and forever changed the face of TV audience measurement in the United States and around the world. Not only do RPD provide databases that are orders of magnitude greater than traditional meter approaches, but also data that are free of non-response bias and respondent fatigue. Moreover, RPD services provide key insights on how commercial audiences behave based on granular second-by-second tracking as well as the ability to understand how mainstay and emerging networks and programs are viewed. RPD provide these benefits with both census and robust sample panels.
Horizon Media, Brad Adgate, EVP Research
My thought has been that, at least for now, set top box data is an overlay to panel data. There is an enormous amount of potential for STB information but making sense of all that data and setting up parameters is going to take some time. I think some of the early examples of using STB data will be to test creative execution of TV ads, pod position, pod length, commercial length and so on. For example, instead of doing a quintile analysis to determine commercial wear out, STB will do so in a real environment. Will see how well the media theories existing for decades will hold true.
Rainbow Networks & Services, Charlene Weisler, SVP Research
As the television landscape continues to evolve and fragment, there is a greater need for larger measurement samples. Not only is there a value in measuring "beyond the primary home" - office, hotels, bars and second homes etc -- there is also a need for stable viewing levels for smaller digital networks/VOD services/tiered pay as well as highly targeted consumer groups and niche lifestyle segments. The current currency falls short. The advantage of set top box data, beyond its ability to provide a census, is its ability to parse out the finer details of the viewing experience. It is not perfect, but it would expand the range of data possibilities. It would be helpful to have the major suppliers of set top box data involved in the creation of standardized methodology as a next logical step.
Carat, Shari Anne Brill, SVP, Director of Programming
We are unable to truly harness the power of STB data unless we can put it into context with the following:
Geographic flexibility: the ability to aggregate the information at the national level and to be able to report data all the way down to individual household level Reliable overlays of household characteristics/past-purchase behavior The ability to account for DVR playback Demographics (Still important to understand the characteristics of a program's audience).
Sequent Partners, Jim Spaeth, Co-founder
In the age of long-tail, media-affordable, high quality samples run thin quickly and there is a real attraction to the kinds of large household counts that set top box data can provide. But there is more to sampling than large numbers and more to measurement than collecting electronic events. A new science of media measurement needs to be developed and that requires both a significant investment of resources (time, talent and money) and open minds.
Acxiom, Joshua Herman, Digital Marketing Innovation Leader
Our clients in database marketing have been awash in measurement data for a long, long time. Having confidence in the accuracy and currency of 'who and how many" you're reaching with which message, and 'who and how many' responded to each message, is the only chance you have to continually improve, repeat successes and avoid repeating mistakes in your marketing spend. There are so many measurement check points along the path to getting a target marketing campaign out the door that having the most accurate data possible is considered table stakes before our clients would even agree to pull the trigger for a campaign. In the context of making decision for TV spending, it feels like an amazing luxury to operate with the confidence of marketing data for almost 132MM households in the U.S. Empirical confidence in your ability to measure what happened on the front-end and back-end of a campaign with both predictive and descriptive data is the best way to get a good night's sleep.
With the introduction of set top box data there's going to be a mixed blessing. So the good news is, you've got lots of data -- and the bad news is, you've got lots of data. If we take a lesson from online advertising, it's that the answer isn't behavioral data is king or that "demographic data is king," but that true optimization takes place with the synthesis of both behavioral and demographic data. So when it comes time to wade into the set top box data to tease out the wheat from the chaff, in addition to the statistical complexity, it'll also be important to consider and define the categories of data needed to find the right answers for advertisers. One important discipline I've tried to enforce with students of target marketing over the years is, "You are not allowed to touch the computer until you can clearly articulate the English language question you want the data to answer."
So the data sampling questions are key -- but with digital set top boxes, limited data won't be the issue as much as how we categorize the data and the questions we want the data to answer. Prioritizing the questions we want answered will go a long way to drive the sampling questions in this new data-rich world of TV.
EVAD Consulting, Frank Foster, Principal
While discussing the merits of panels and set top box data is an interesting exercise, moving the industry beyond the traditional approach has proven impossible. The reason, in my opinion, is that no one admits empirically how good or bad the current ratings are. If the industry is to do anything other than talk about the problem of a changing television landscape, it must first evaluate the good, the bad and the ugly of panel based television research. Standard error margins are calculated based on the assumption that the panel is both randomly generated and representative, neither of which is true. Bias associated with panel selection and ancillary behavior requirements are ignored.
Why do we allow ratings to be published without error margins and confidence intervals? It is silly, misleading and a very poor research practice. A thorough evaluation of panel bias and error analysis is in order. Without such a backdrop, any new approach will be straddled with comparisons against a mythical "gold standard."
Current TV, Theresa Pepe Falcone, VP, Ad Sales Research
I am in a constant state of confusion about evolving sampling methods and quality vs. traditional approaches.
Are the results any different? What are the best data collection methods for uncovering TV viewing? What are the trade-offs between STB data and panels? How can we account for national viewership and local market info?
When you are a big network with a distribution that is close to the broadcast networks, or if you are in a channel position attractive and memorable, you may benefit from a panel or a "sample." There is no way a panel will evaluate a small network or a network that is in the digital tier position or higher, in the accurate or beneficial way as real STB data will. Now "real" STB data means data from at least a few MSOs from different DMAs, big and small, different channel positions, different types of distribution (cable, satellite, telcos) and those can give you accurate up-to-the-second viewership by box. Hopefully, in the near future, you will be able to distinguish between few boxes in the same house, broadband usage connected to the same distributor, time shifted viewership, all of which we cannot and will not be able to receive from a Nielsen panel or a Nielsen sample.
Tim Brooks (Lifetime Research Emeritus)
Many people are familiar with Santayana's famous observation, made more than a century ago, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Few, it seems, actually learn from it. The piece of history that needs to be recalled as we go gaga over set top boxes and their huge samples is the Great Literary Digest Debacle of 1936 which, in many ways, gave rise to the modern science of surveying.
The Digest was a large and influential magazine that fielded one of the largest public surveys ever undertaken up to that time, with some two million respondents. It confidently predicted that the winner of the upcoming presidential election would be -- Alf Landon. After Landon was buried in an FDR landslide, it was revealed that those two million respondents had been drawn from the Digest's own upper-class subscriber lists and lists of automobile owners and telephone subscribers. Sure there were a lot of them but they were not remotely representative of the electorate at large.
The Digest went out of business shortly thereafter, while a young statistician named Arthur C. Nielsen built an empire based on scientific sampling.
There may indeed be millions upon millions of set top boxes, allowing measurement of tiny networks without significant "statistical error," but what are they representative of? Certainly not all or even most viewers in the U.S. or even viewers in homes that have an STB (since most of them do not have a two way box on every set) I cringe every time I see a presentation that touts the huge samples that will now be available, how we'll have a "census" (not in our lifetime, Charley), how even small networks or specialized programming will be accurately measured. Santayana (not to mention Alf Landon and A.C. Nielsen) would be spinning in their graves.
The FIRST slide in any presentation on STB measurement should address how this fundamental flaw will be addressed. Not to do so is like ignoring the flammable dope on the surface of the Hindenburg, or the faulty bolts in the Titanic. Can it be addressed? Yes, but it will require some rather sophisticated combination of STB data, scientific sampling, weighting and possibly modeling. STB data can be valuable, but only as one part of the picture. Otherwise we'll be taking a glorious ride on the Hindenburg, or sail on the Titanic. Alf Landon for president, anyone?
Center for Media Design, Mike Bloxham, Director, Insight & Research
While the move toward the widespread adoption of set-top data is both inevitable and right, as with other means of measurement, it will never be seen as perfect. As the media landscape has become increasingly complex, as content appears across different platforms and as technology enables a wider range of media consumption behaviors on the part of consumers, research and measurement will need to keep pace. Ultimately we will rely on the kind of advantages set-top box and other electronic metering can provide, but this will be complemented by other -- more behavioral or sociological -- research methods that enrich our understanding of how consumers are using media, thereby enhancing our ability to target them. In time, this combination will provide the new cross-media version of what we now think of as "currency." It won't be easy and it won't be cheap and will fundamentally depend on the willingness of the market to pay for it -- but it's where we need to go in order to move beyond the rather simplistic and increasingly redundant definitions of "currency" that we use at present.
A Set Top Box Set-Up
by Mitch Oscar , Tuesday, December 23, 2008
AT THE LAST MPG COLLABORATIVE Alliance (Dec. 3) EVAD Consulting's Frank Foster and Current TV's Theresa Pepe Falcone's succinct presentations focused on issues shaping audience measurement as the media community transitions to digital broadcasting. In particular, how television program viewing of the members of Nielsen Media Research's audience measurement panel, upwards of 12,000 TV households, translated into projectable program ratings. For this week's MediaPost TV Board blog I solicited written thoughts on panel vs. set top box viewing data from researchers in attendance at the last Collaborative Alliance as well as those whose opinions I respect but who could not attend in person. My goal is to proffer for public consumption an agnostic way to keep the topic of set top box data collection and panels projectables visible in the press and provide segues to hopefully generate dialogue and momentum on this crucial media topic. Thoughts, comments, noise, welcome.
Rentrak, Ken Papagan, President & Chief Strategy Officer
There are great advantages to panel-based sampling when done properly. It's cheaper, quicker and immediately actionable. Any market scientist "worth their salt" will tell you that you do not need a complete census to predict a group's behavior. While there are many questions around the "conventional" ratings that Nielsen produces from compliance, to ascription methodologies, to sample, etc. the set-top data from our 5+ million set-tops from Dish Networks and AT&T U-verse suggests that when it comes to the top 25 programs or so, the 14,000 Nielsen households generally seem to portray similar viewing data to the mega samples we are seeing with STB data. However, once you begin to drill into un-rated networks and local TV markets the effect of the "long tail" of content offerings and distribution outlets that TV now represents, cannot adequately be portrayed by a relatively "tiny" sample of panel data. The current research needs to be augmented with deeper inquiries and insights. We strongly believe that with a wider sample of millions (for example, Rentrak may have 30,000 homes in a market where Nielsen has 400) instead of thousands, a much more accurate understanding of television viewing can be gleaned.
OTX, Bruce Friend, President
I think we as an industry need to start thinking more outside of the proverbial (Nielsen, set top, desktop, etc.) box. As such, I believe we need to put together an innovative-minded "think tank" of the best and the brightest academic, media industry and technology industry minds, and figure out how we can develop better, passive ways to measure the consumer and not the device. Also, this needs to be government (grant) or industry (client) funded and not vendor-funded.
TNS Media Research, George Shababb, President
The advent of Return Path Data (RPD) has reshaped and forever changed the face of TV audience measurement in the United States and around the world. Not only do RPD provide databases that are orders of magnitude greater than traditional meter approaches, but also data that are free of non-response bias and respondent fatigue. Moreover, RPD services provide key insights on how commercial audiences behave based on granular second-by-second tracking as well as the ability to understand how mainstay and emerging networks and programs are viewed. RPD provide these benefits with both census and robust sample panels.
Horizon Media, Brad Adgate, EVP Research
My thought has been that, at least for now, set top box data is an overlay to panel data. There is an enormous amount of potential for STB information but making sense of all that data and setting up parameters is going to take some time. I think some of the early examples of using STB data will be to test creative execution of TV ads, pod position, pod length, commercial length and so on. For example, instead of doing a quintile analysis to determine commercial wear out, STB will do so in a real environment. Will see how well the media theories existing for decades will hold true.
Rainbow Networks & Services, Charlene Weisler, SVP Research
As the television landscape continues to evolve and fragment, there is a greater need for larger measurement samples. Not only is there a value in measuring "beyond the primary home" - office, hotels, bars and second homes etc -- there is also a need for stable viewing levels for smaller digital networks/VOD services/tiered pay as well as highly targeted consumer groups and niche lifestyle segments. The current currency falls short. The advantage of set top box data, beyond its ability to provide a census, is its ability to parse out the finer details of the viewing experience. It is not perfect, but it would expand the range of data possibilities. It would be helpful to have the major suppliers of set top box data involved in the creation of standardized methodology as a next logical step.
Carat, Shari Anne Brill, SVP, Director of Programming
We are unable to truly harness the power of STB data unless we can put it into context with the following:
Geographic flexibility: the ability to aggregate the information at the national level and to be able to report data all the way down to individual household level Reliable overlays of household characteristics/past-purchase behavior The ability to account for DVR playback Demographics (Still important to understand the characteristics of a program's audience).
Sequent Partners, Jim Spaeth, Co-founder
In the age of long-tail, media-affordable, high quality samples run thin quickly and there is a real attraction to the kinds of large household counts that set top box data can provide. But there is more to sampling than large numbers and more to measurement than collecting electronic events. A new science of media measurement needs to be developed and that requires both a significant investment of resources (time, talent and money) and open minds.
Acxiom, Joshua Herman, Digital Marketing Innovation Leader
Our clients in database marketing have been awash in measurement data for a long, long time. Having confidence in the accuracy and currency of 'who and how many" you're reaching with which message, and 'who and how many' responded to each message, is the only chance you have to continually improve, repeat successes and avoid repeating mistakes in your marketing spend. There are so many measurement check points along the path to getting a target marketing campaign out the door that having the most accurate data possible is considered table stakes before our clients would even agree to pull the trigger for a campaign. In the context of making decision for TV spending, it feels like an amazing luxury to operate with the confidence of marketing data for almost 132MM households in the U.S. Empirical confidence in your ability to measure what happened on the front-end and back-end of a campaign with both predictive and descriptive data is the best way to get a good night's sleep.
With the introduction of set top box data there's going to be a mixed blessing. So the good news is, you've got lots of data -- and the bad news is, you've got lots of data. If we take a lesson from online advertising, it's that the answer isn't behavioral data is king or that "demographic data is king," but that true optimization takes place with the synthesis of both behavioral and demographic data. So when it comes time to wade into the set top box data to tease out the wheat from the chaff, in addition to the statistical complexity, it'll also be important to consider and define the categories of data needed to find the right answers for advertisers. One important discipline I've tried to enforce with students of target marketing over the years is, "You are not allowed to touch the computer until you can clearly articulate the English language question you want the data to answer."
So the data sampling questions are key -- but with digital set top boxes, limited data won't be the issue as much as how we categorize the data and the questions we want the data to answer. Prioritizing the questions we want answered will go a long way to drive the sampling questions in this new data-rich world of TV.
EVAD Consulting, Frank Foster, Principal
While discussing the merits of panels and set top box data is an interesting exercise, moving the industry beyond the traditional approach has proven impossible. The reason, in my opinion, is that no one admits empirically how good or bad the current ratings are. If the industry is to do anything other than talk about the problem of a changing television landscape, it must first evaluate the good, the bad and the ugly of panel based television research. Standard error margins are calculated based on the assumption that the panel is both randomly generated and representative, neither of which is true. Bias associated with panel selection and ancillary behavior requirements are ignored.
Why do we allow ratings to be published without error margins and confidence intervals? It is silly, misleading and a very poor research practice. A thorough evaluation of panel bias and error analysis is in order. Without such a backdrop, any new approach will be straddled with comparisons against a mythical "gold standard."
Current TV, Theresa Pepe Falcone, VP, Ad Sales Research
I am in a constant state of confusion about evolving sampling methods and quality vs. traditional approaches.
Are the results any different? What are the best data collection methods for uncovering TV viewing? What are the trade-offs between STB data and panels? How can we account for national viewership and local market info?
When you are a big network with a distribution that is close to the broadcast networks, or if you are in a channel position attractive and memorable, you may benefit from a panel or a "sample." There is no way a panel will evaluate a small network or a network that is in the digital tier position or higher, in the accurate or beneficial way as real STB data will. Now "real" STB data means data from at least a few MSOs from different DMAs, big and small, different channel positions, different types of distribution (cable, satellite, telcos) and those can give you accurate up-to-the-second viewership by box. Hopefully, in the near future, you will be able to distinguish between few boxes in the same house, broadband usage connected to the same distributor, time shifted viewership, all of which we cannot and will not be able to receive from a Nielsen panel or a Nielsen sample.
Tim Brooks (Lifetime Research Emeritus)
Many people are familiar with Santayana's famous observation, made more than a century ago, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Few, it seems, actually learn from it. The piece of history that needs to be recalled as we go gaga over set top boxes and their huge samples is the Great Literary Digest Debacle of 1936 which, in many ways, gave rise to the modern science of surveying.
The Digest was a large and influential magazine that fielded one of the largest public surveys ever undertaken up to that time, with some two million respondents. It confidently predicted that the winner of the upcoming presidential election would be -- Alf Landon. After Landon was buried in an FDR landslide, it was revealed that those two million respondents had been drawn from the Digest's own upper-class subscriber lists and lists of automobile owners and telephone subscribers. Sure there were a lot of them but they were not remotely representative of the electorate at large.
The Digest went out of business shortly thereafter, while a young statistician named Arthur C. Nielsen built an empire based on scientific sampling.
There may indeed be millions upon millions of set top boxes, allowing measurement of tiny networks without significant "statistical error," but what are they representative of? Certainly not all or even most viewers in the U.S. or even viewers in homes that have an STB (since most of them do not have a two way box on every set) I cringe every time I see a presentation that touts the huge samples that will now be available, how we'll have a "census" (not in our lifetime, Charley), how even small networks or specialized programming will be accurately measured. Santayana (not to mention Alf Landon and A.C. Nielsen) would be spinning in their graves.
The FIRST slide in any presentation on STB measurement should address how this fundamental flaw will be addressed. Not to do so is like ignoring the flammable dope on the surface of the Hindenburg, or the faulty bolts in the Titanic. Can it be addressed? Yes, but it will require some rather sophisticated combination of STB data, scientific sampling, weighting and possibly modeling. STB data can be valuable, but only as one part of the picture. Otherwise we'll be taking a glorious ride on the Hindenburg, or sail on the Titanic. Alf Landon for president, anyone?
Center for Media Design, Mike Bloxham, Director, Insight & Research
While the move toward the widespread adoption of set-top data is both inevitable and right, as with other means of measurement, it will never be seen as perfect. As the media landscape has become increasingly complex, as content appears across different platforms and as technology enables a wider range of media consumption behaviors on the part of consumers, research and measurement will need to keep pace. Ultimately we will rely on the kind of advantages set-top box and other electronic metering can provide, but this will be complemented by other -- more behavioral or sociological -- research methods that enrich our understanding of how consumers are using media, thereby enhancing our ability to target them. In time, this combination will provide the new cross-media version of what we now think of as "currency." It won't be easy and it won't be cheap and will fundamentally depend on the willingness of the market to pay for it -- but it's where we need to go in order to move beyond the rather simplistic and increasingly redundant definitions of "currency" that we use at present.
Aug 10, 2009
Q&A Interview with Horst Stipp, SVP Strategic Insights and Innovation, NBC
Q&A with Horst Stipp
What is the future of television? How has the media landscape changed? Dr. Horst Stipp is the SVP Strategic Insights & Innovation and a 40 year veteran of NBC. His work spans all strategic areas of research including sales research, social research and innovative insights for all the NBC Universal properties. I interviewed Horst in his office and we discussed a range of subjects including the past and future trends of research, DVRs, his predictions, International research and CTAM. There are 7 videos in the interview:
Video Length (in minutes)
Intro and STB Data (4:08)
Changes in Research and T.A.M.I. (6:50)
DVRs (4:02)
Challenges and Research Quality (7:35)
International (2:28)
CTAM (2:10)
Predictions (2:51)
Charlene Weisler interviews Horst Stipp, SVP strategic Insights and Innovation, NBC. Horst discusses his background, his current job responsibilites and the role of set top box data in research.
Charlene Weisler interviews Horst Stipp, SVP strategic Insights and Innovation, NBC. Horst discusses his how research has changed over the past 5 years and a new metric NBC has developed to meet the challenges of measurement today.
Charlene Weisler interviews Horst Stipp, SVP strategic Insights and Innovation, NBC. Horst discusses DVRs - trends, measurement and impact.
Charlene Weisler interviews Horst Stipp, SVP strategic Insights and Innovation, NBC. Horst discusses challenges in Research today and the importance of research quality.
Charlene Weisler interviews Horst Stipp, SVP strategic Insights and Innovation, NBC. Horst discusses his work in International research.
Charlene Weisler interviews Horst Stipp, SVP strategic Insights and Innovation, NBC. Horst discusses his work with CTAM.
Charlene Weisler interviews Horst Stipp, SVP strategic Insights and Innovation, NBC. Horst provides his predictions for the industry in the next 5 years.
What is the future of television? How has the media landscape changed? Dr. Horst Stipp is the SVP Strategic Insights & Innovation and a 40 year veteran of NBC. His work spans all strategic areas of research including sales research, social research and innovative insights for all the NBC Universal properties. I interviewed Horst in his office and we discussed a range of subjects including the past and future trends of research, DVRs, his predictions, International research and CTAM. There are 7 videos in the interview:
Video Length (in minutes)
Intro and STB Data (4:08)
Changes in Research and T.A.M.I. (6:50)
DVRs (4:02)
Challenges and Research Quality (7:35)
International (2:28)
CTAM (2:10)
Predictions (2:51)
Charlene Weisler interviews Horst Stipp, SVP strategic Insights and Innovation, NBC. Horst discusses his background, his current job responsibilites and the role of set top box data in research.
Charlene Weisler interviews Horst Stipp, SVP strategic Insights and Innovation, NBC. Horst discusses his how research has changed over the past 5 years and a new metric NBC has developed to meet the challenges of measurement today.
Charlene Weisler interviews Horst Stipp, SVP strategic Insights and Innovation, NBC. Horst discusses DVRs - trends, measurement and impact.
Charlene Weisler interviews Horst Stipp, SVP strategic Insights and Innovation, NBC. Horst discusses challenges in Research today and the importance of research quality.
Charlene Weisler interviews Horst Stipp, SVP strategic Insights and Innovation, NBC. Horst discusses his work in International research.
CW:
Horst, you are very involved in CTAM. You
were the recent co-chair of the CTAM Research Planning committee. Can you tell
us about your work with CTAM and the value that CTAM brings to your company?
HS:
When you first asked me about my history here at NBC, I recall those days when
NBC was just a television network and now our president Jeff Zucker is on
record as saying that the majority of our profits come from our cable
properties. So our cable properties are not only incredibly important, they are
also of growing importance. And for me personally it has been exciting to get
involved in this more varied world of television and looking at the network and
what that does and also all the different cable networks, their niches, their
branding, their audiences. I’ve been involved in segmentation studies for the
various networks and it has been fascinating. CTAM deals with all of these
issues and at CTAM you meet people dealing with exactly these same issues. At the research conference there is a great
sharing of very interesting information. It was very exciting to put the
program together and work with Colleen Fahey-Rush on the recent Research
Conference. We were very happy with the outcome. We were very proud of the
program. The reason why I even agreed to do the work – and believe me it is
more work than you think as a co-chair – was because I’ve been to several of
the CTAM Research conferences and have always found them to be really good,
really interesting and really valuable. It’s the conference itself, it’s the
program, the information you get and it’s also the networking sharing of
information is informative.
Charlene Weisler interviews Horst Stipp, SVP strategic Insights and Innovation, NBC. Horst discusses his work with CTAM.
CW:
You are in a very unique position in the
industry because you work for a company that has a broadcast network, a range
of cable networks and a very strong off-platform. How would you say that the
research community and the research that you do has changed in the past 5 to 10
years?
HS:
There are a lot of issues. One is of course the currency; the need to get more
data on the smaller networks as well as to get measurement of the DVR, the time
shifted viewing and finally of online viewing. That’s been a major issue in those
last years. The movement of a plain old fashion television exposure currency to
cross media and online measurement and time shifted measurement. You may have
heard about NBC’s creation, T.A.M.I. – the total audience measurement index –
which is an attempt to describe the total reach of a television program on all
these new platforms in the absence of a true cross media, cross platform
measurement tool which we don’t have yet. So that’s the ad exposure issue.
Secondly, I think there has been a move towards more sales research at all the
networks certainly at NBC. Part of that has been our embrace of I.A.G.
(measures, among other things, in-program product placement) in the early
stages. I think we were the first network to actually use IAG data as a
secondary guarantee for some of our clients. So it was establishing working
with new measures. We did, at the time, a very innovative study on galvanic
skin responses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_skin_response)
and eye tracking measures to establish that when people see commercials that
they time shifted and fast forwarded. That they still get a lot of information
even though they are watching fast forward because they are very much focused
on the screen and apparently the brain is hard wired to make sense out of what
is in front of you even though its in fast forward. So that was an interesting
new methodology. And there is an increased demand for cross media research
simply to demonstrate and establish if you advertise across platform that you
get more bang for your buck….
CW:
Where do you see the biggest challenges
to your job in Research coming from in the next 5 years?
HS:
I think Research in general has two issues. One is, I think, a very old one and
one is maybe a little more recent. The older one is to sell the research to
management. Make it useful, show that it is useful, demonstrate its usefulness,
provide the kind of information that is really needed but on the other hand not
to oversell it either. And of course that is a very fine balance and sometimes
we tend to oversell it a little as researchers because we are very passionate
about the data. The shortcomings are that people don’t always know what they
want or don’t always tell you the truth. Respondents are notoriously bad at
telling you about the future such as what kind of programs would you really
like to see that you currently don’t find on tv. The typical answer is more of
my favorite programs right now. I think they are also very bad at predicting
the adoption of certain technologies. That has always been an issue. The new
issue that has come up is that because of the quickening pace of technology and
of changes in media and an increased demand for the kind of question that you
just asked which is “What’s going to happen? How is this going to develop?”….
Charlene Weisler interviews Horst Stipp, SVP strategic Insights and Innovation, NBC. Horst provides his predictions for the industry in the next 5 years.
Set Top Box Data - Issues Part 2
This is a follow-up to the March 2008 article I wrote on set top box data. This one was published in MediaPost in February 2009 and continues the discussion about the need for standardization and cooperation between the various data processors.
Set-Top-Box Data: Next Steps
by Charlene Weisler , Wednesday, February 4, 2009
ONCE A HYPOTHETICAL EXERCISE, SET-TOP-BOX data as a measurement tool is quickly becoming a reality. At this time there are several well-positioned companies jockeying for dominance with their varying methodologies, data footprints and sources. But in this seemingly chaotic competitive land rush, there are those who are actively seeking conciliation and structure. MPG's Set Top Box Data luncheon on Jan. 7, organized by MPG's Mitch Oscar, was a very positive step in this direction.
Attending were agency researchers, content company researchers, data processors and providers, developers and programmers, all of whom engaged in lively discussion of possible next steps for data usage and acceptance.
As an advocate for the use of set-top-box data as a measurement tool, I think that now is the time to examine the next steps needed to standardize, analyze and ultimately monetize this breakthrough data source.
Here are a few suggested next steps:
Set up a non-affiliated, non-partisan advisory council either through an established industry or respected accreditation organization. This council, composed of programmers, agencies, processors and suppliers, would help build consensus and guide the formation of a new measurement currency that works for all interested parties.
Standardization of data processing rules. Can we agree on certain data attributes as the foundation for which other data points are based? For example: standard latency periods.
Standardization of the metrics and nomenclature. Do we conform to the current currency of ratings, shares, HUTS and PUTS? Or do we find new, relevant measurements that all processors can agree upon?
Address and overcome data deficiencies. Yes, there are bonafide issues with set-top-box data. For example: There is no agreed-upon national footprint, and efforts to weight the data to make it more national are not universally accepted.
Agree to dispense with "red herring issues" that only serve to confuse. Some stated problems are not really problems. For example: Lack of demographics is not a deficiency with the data, since datapoints can be matched to actual spending and lifestyle information via companies such as Acxiom. Isn't that what advertisers and programmers really want? Not all women 18-49 are alike or equally valuable to advertisers.
Aggressively market data advantages. Set-top-box data remains the only source of second-by-second measurement. That, along with DVR usage, extensive and stable out-of home information, the ability to integrate seamlessly with online usage, and the ability to parse out actual ad performance, makes the data unique and valuable to a range of customers and is currently unavailable within the current currency. These are market positions worth repeating.
Cooperation and partnerships can help form a foundation for data acceptance and provide the missing pieces of this media measurement puzzle.
Work with Accreditation services to help vet the process and speed acceptance of the data as a possible industry currency.
Charlene Weisler was recently senior vice president, research, Rainbow Media Networks and Services.
Set-Top-Box Data: Next Steps
by Charlene Weisler , Wednesday, February 4, 2009
ONCE A HYPOTHETICAL EXERCISE, SET-TOP-BOX data as a measurement tool is quickly becoming a reality. At this time there are several well-positioned companies jockeying for dominance with their varying methodologies, data footprints and sources. But in this seemingly chaotic competitive land rush, there are those who are actively seeking conciliation and structure. MPG's Set Top Box Data luncheon on Jan. 7, organized by MPG's Mitch Oscar, was a very positive step in this direction.
Attending were agency researchers, content company researchers, data processors and providers, developers and programmers, all of whom engaged in lively discussion of possible next steps for data usage and acceptance.
As an advocate for the use of set-top-box data as a measurement tool, I think that now is the time to examine the next steps needed to standardize, analyze and ultimately monetize this breakthrough data source.
Here are a few suggested next steps:
Set up a non-affiliated, non-partisan advisory council either through an established industry or respected accreditation organization. This council, composed of programmers, agencies, processors and suppliers, would help build consensus and guide the formation of a new measurement currency that works for all interested parties.
Standardization of data processing rules. Can we agree on certain data attributes as the foundation for which other data points are based? For example: standard latency periods.
Standardization of the metrics and nomenclature. Do we conform to the current currency of ratings, shares, HUTS and PUTS? Or do we find new, relevant measurements that all processors can agree upon?
Address and overcome data deficiencies. Yes, there are bonafide issues with set-top-box data. For example: There is no agreed-upon national footprint, and efforts to weight the data to make it more national are not universally accepted.
Agree to dispense with "red herring issues" that only serve to confuse. Some stated problems are not really problems. For example: Lack of demographics is not a deficiency with the data, since datapoints can be matched to actual spending and lifestyle information via companies such as Acxiom. Isn't that what advertisers and programmers really want? Not all women 18-49 are alike or equally valuable to advertisers.
Aggressively market data advantages. Set-top-box data remains the only source of second-by-second measurement. That, along with DVR usage, extensive and stable out-of home information, the ability to integrate seamlessly with online usage, and the ability to parse out actual ad performance, makes the data unique and valuable to a range of customers and is currently unavailable within the current currency. These are market positions worth repeating.
Cooperation and partnerships can help form a foundation for data acceptance and provide the missing pieces of this media measurement puzzle.
Work with Accreditation services to help vet the process and speed acceptance of the data as a possible industry currency.
Charlene Weisler was recently senior vice president, research, Rainbow Media Networks and Services.
Aug 3, 2009
Set Top Box Data - Issues Part 1
I wrote the following article on MediaPost in March 2008 and offer it here as a launch point to a fuller discussion of set top box data that will occur in the 4th Quarter 2009 with Mitch Oscar's set top box data initiative.
The challenge with set top box data has been, and continues to be, lack of standardization across data providers and platforms. Different definitions for the same term, different calculations for the same metric, etc all contribute to industry confusion and delay in acceptance. This article briefly outlines some of the concerns:
What Do you Mean Set Top Box Data?
By Charlene Weisler, SVP Research Rainbow Networks and Services
With all the recent Mediapost articles on set top box data, I thought I would add my two cents on set top box data measurement. The more I researched the issue, the more I found different methodologies for the same piece of data.
The media marketplace is in a constant state of change. Off platform, non-linear, broadband, DVRs and HD all create a vibrant yet unsettling advertising environment. The current standard of measurement needs to keep pace.
Enter set top box data. Described by media experts as a new standard of measurement, set top box data resides in household cable boxes and tracks user activity. Tracking varies by system and by processor. Currently various MSOs and Satellite providers are partnering with measurement services like Nielsen, TNS and Rentrak. In this rush to market, it may be helpful to explore definition of terms of measurement and address issues. Here is a short list to start the conversation:
Footprints:
The issue of “Polling” vs “Census” data where polling data is a subset of the full footprint. Data processors have no control over the amount of data they can receive from an operator. Therefore some data are census and some are a subset of the full footprint. Since sampling methodologies vary from operator to operator, the data must be used directionally until there is a census (or a consensus) for all data sets.
Data Collection:
Appears to vary by system. Some pull data on a second by second basis, others during an interval of time (like quarter hour intervals) and others pull at activity points like channel change.
Rating or Delivery:
In order to gauge viewership, the boxes are “pulled” at a certain point in time. The channel that the box is turned to at that moment is the channel that gets credit for the viewership. Box pulls might be regarded as ratings (in the case of a partial footprint), delivery or perhaps a new metric?
Smallest viewing increment:
If someone is channel surfing, then a pull to that box for that second would not represent actual viewing. Most processors say that the standard length of time should be in 5 second increments. However Rentrak uses a formula to calculate a standard length that varies by programming genre and changes as the amount of data increases.
Trick play:
DVR metrics need to be decided. According to TNS this data is not currently available in the U.S. but is available in the U.K. Rentrak says that it depends on the operator and the device. Some operators have trick mode data available and Rentrak says that it is in the developmental stage.
Latency:
Lag time as the box changes channels or uploads. How is this viewing ascribed, if at all? The standard here appears to be at 5 seconds but this could vary based on the operator and their platforms.
Tuning event:
Some processors are using channel change activity to denote tuning events. Others say they are using 5 second intervals. A combination of both might indicate actual viewing.
Dwell Times:
Nielsen uses the term “dwell times” to describe tuning event intervals. Dwell times are impacted by “latency”.
Picture in a picture as well as simultaneous viewing/ net usage:
Cannot currently be measured. Therefore no standards are in place yet.
Differences in set top boxes:
Can impact measurement insofar as the output data looks different. DVR capability (or not) impacts data because of behavioral difference.
“Set Top Box On TV Off”:
Current processors offer varying solutions. Nielsen match streams to the people meter boxes. TNS and Rentrak use a series of algorithms. Another company will use an entirely different data source that is currently in development.
”Lack of Demographics”:
Nielsen will match to its sample. Other techniques include data fusion with lifestyle, segmentation and geodemographic databases such as PRIZM and Cohorts and purchasing behavior databases such as Experion.
Box availability within the home (“Not all homes have boxes” or “Not all televisions have boxes” or “Not all televisions in the homes have digital boxes”):
The general position is that the data reflects the digital footprint and makes no claims to measure beyond that. Further, the 2009 retransmission makes the issue irrelevant.
Back channel:
A way to get data back to the operator. Cable systems have a back channel but satellite operators can only send data back via the phone lines. Since not all satellite set top boxes connect to phone lines, this must be taken into account when receiving set top box data from satellite homes. TNS says there is no significant difference in the satellite homes with and without the back channel. Rentrak says boxes are connected in different ways – some need to back channel to get scheduling data, others connect via broadband. It all varies by operator. More examination may be in order.
One last point:
All this is emerging and changing – what an operator uses today can evolve or change tomorrow. I am sure that there are other issues and terms and would appreciate your input. Please send it on.
The challenge with set top box data has been, and continues to be, lack of standardization across data providers and platforms. Different definitions for the same term, different calculations for the same metric, etc all contribute to industry confusion and delay in acceptance. This article briefly outlines some of the concerns:
What Do you Mean Set Top Box Data?
By Charlene Weisler, SVP Research Rainbow Networks and Services
With all the recent Mediapost articles on set top box data, I thought I would add my two cents on set top box data measurement. The more I researched the issue, the more I found different methodologies for the same piece of data.
The media marketplace is in a constant state of change. Off platform, non-linear, broadband, DVRs and HD all create a vibrant yet unsettling advertising environment. The current standard of measurement needs to keep pace.
Enter set top box data. Described by media experts as a new standard of measurement, set top box data resides in household cable boxes and tracks user activity. Tracking varies by system and by processor. Currently various MSOs and Satellite providers are partnering with measurement services like Nielsen, TNS and Rentrak. In this rush to market, it may be helpful to explore definition of terms of measurement and address issues. Here is a short list to start the conversation:
Footprints:
The issue of “Polling” vs “Census” data where polling data is a subset of the full footprint. Data processors have no control over the amount of data they can receive from an operator. Therefore some data are census and some are a subset of the full footprint. Since sampling methodologies vary from operator to operator, the data must be used directionally until there is a census (or a consensus) for all data sets.
Data Collection:
Appears to vary by system. Some pull data on a second by second basis, others during an interval of time (like quarter hour intervals) and others pull at activity points like channel change.
Rating or Delivery:
In order to gauge viewership, the boxes are “pulled” at a certain point in time. The channel that the box is turned to at that moment is the channel that gets credit for the viewership. Box pulls might be regarded as ratings (in the case of a partial footprint), delivery or perhaps a new metric?
Smallest viewing increment:
If someone is channel surfing, then a pull to that box for that second would not represent actual viewing. Most processors say that the standard length of time should be in 5 second increments. However Rentrak uses a formula to calculate a standard length that varies by programming genre and changes as the amount of data increases.
Trick play:
DVR metrics need to be decided. According to TNS this data is not currently available in the U.S. but is available in the U.K. Rentrak says that it depends on the operator and the device. Some operators have trick mode data available and Rentrak says that it is in the developmental stage.
Latency:
Lag time as the box changes channels or uploads. How is this viewing ascribed, if at all? The standard here appears to be at 5 seconds but this could vary based on the operator and their platforms.
Tuning event:
Some processors are using channel change activity to denote tuning events. Others say they are using 5 second intervals. A combination of both might indicate actual viewing.
Dwell Times:
Nielsen uses the term “dwell times” to describe tuning event intervals. Dwell times are impacted by “latency”.
Picture in a picture as well as simultaneous viewing/ net usage:
Cannot currently be measured. Therefore no standards are in place yet.
Differences in set top boxes:
Can impact measurement insofar as the output data looks different. DVR capability (or not) impacts data because of behavioral difference.
“Set Top Box On TV Off”:
Current processors offer varying solutions. Nielsen match streams to the people meter boxes. TNS and Rentrak use a series of algorithms. Another company will use an entirely different data source that is currently in development.
”Lack of Demographics”:
Nielsen will match to its sample. Other techniques include data fusion with lifestyle, segmentation and geodemographic databases such as PRIZM and Cohorts and purchasing behavior databases such as Experion.
Box availability within the home (“Not all homes have boxes” or “Not all televisions have boxes” or “Not all televisions in the homes have digital boxes”):
The general position is that the data reflects the digital footprint and makes no claims to measure beyond that. Further, the 2009 retransmission makes the issue irrelevant.
Back channel:
A way to get data back to the operator. Cable systems have a back channel but satellite operators can only send data back via the phone lines. Since not all satellite set top boxes connect to phone lines, this must be taken into account when receiving set top box data from satellite homes. TNS says there is no significant difference in the satellite homes with and without the back channel. Rentrak says boxes are connected in different ways – some need to back channel to get scheduling data, others connect via broadband. It all varies by operator. More examination may be in order.
One last point:
All this is emerging and changing – what an operator uses today can evolve or change tomorrow. I am sure that there are other issues and terms and would appreciate your input. Please send it on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)