• by July 28, 2005

MR. METZGER GOES TO WASHINGTON - The most compelling reason to keep Congress out of the television business is how Congress manages its own television business. CSPAN finally had an opportunity to televise something worthy of, well, television - Wednesday's Senate hearing on its new TV ratings bill - and what does it opt to put on the air? Its typical fare of Senate filibusters and House roll calls. It squandered an opportunity to show one of the most telegenic Congressional events of the year, on not one, but two channels: CSPAN and CSPAN2. Thank goodness for the Web. How else would we have gotten to see the latest episode of the TV industry's most compelling soap opera: "The Young Demos And The Restless." Or maybe it should be, "The Bold And The Beautiful." Nielsen chief Susan Whiting was certainly beautiful on the tiny little RealPlayer screen we viewed the proceedings via. Gale Metzger was bold. He was also the SMARTest guy in the room. Certainly, it wasn't Sen. Conrad Burns (R. MT), who introduced the TV ratings legislation and presided over Wednesday's testimony, stammering non-sequiturs, and gushing how fond he is of the broadcasting business: "I love it. It is dear to my heart. I don't want to do anything that would damage it." Was Burns, who previously worked as a broadcaster, pandering to get back in after he serves his final term in office? Not on-air, we would hope. Maybe that's why CSPAN opted against scheduling his show.

Honestly, after witnessing Wednesday's hearing, we were thinking that maybe it is Metzger who should run for Senate. And Whiting could be cast as the fetching female sidekick in the next edition of CBS' prime-crime franchise: "CSI: DC." Okay, so no laws have been broken in the TV ratings business, but it was clear from the testimony that some principles of industry self-regulation have been. And it was the formation of those principles that first sidestepped federal regulation in the 1960s, and which presumably would prevent it again now. The problem is that Nielsen hasn't honored them. It proved that when it defied the Media Rating Council and rolled out local people meters in markets before it received accreditation. If it did that once - and during a time when there's been such intensive industry, community and government introspection of the TV ratings process - why wouldn't it do it again? That, in essence, said MRC chief George Ivie, fundamentally is what the whole debate is about.

In defense of Nielsen's free market status, Whiting said creating a law requiring ratings services to be accredited before they are introduced or substantially modified would simply slow things down. She also said it would stifle innovation and would deter competitors from entering the market. As altruistic as her motives seem, it was Kathy Crawford's seconding of that sentiment that really had us concerned. By saying that the speedy introduction of new TV ratings systems was more important than the validation of those systems, the MindShare local broadcast buying chief was essentially saying that Madison Avenue doesn't care how good the numbers are, so long as it gets them overnight and with the same consistency as national TV ratings.

We can understand Crawford's frustration. It is the frustration felt by her clients, and many others on Madison Avenue. As she notes, it has taken 15 years to get to the point where Nielsen is rolling out local people meters. But those were business decisions, not research decisions. And as we learned from Tribune Broadcasting chief Pat Mullen's testimony, business decisions and research decisions don't always coincide. One example, he said, is the introduction of portable people meters, and the fact that it is unlikely Nielsen would introduce the Arbitron technology in the top 10 markets, where it has already committed to local people meters.

So when Metzger said, "It's just the opposite," that regulation would increase innovation and competition, we believed him. Especially, when he delivered one of his best zingers of the day: "It would be difficult to have less innovation or less competition than we have now."

While the innovation point may be debatable, no one - not even Nielsen - would deny the competition part. There is none. And when innovation has emerged from the outside, Nielsen has proven how it can either appropriate or squash it. It did that with people meters in the 1980s when AGB tried to introduce them in the U.S. And it seems to be doing it once again with the portable ones, locking up exclusive TV rights for the PPM system. Nielsen says it will make a decision on the PPM in the fourth quarter. We have a feeling we already know what it may be. But from what we can tell, it certainly has not accelerated that process of innovation. Sure it's provided financial backing for tests and technical input on the PPM's R&D, but from what we can see, it has slowed the process down at every turn. It certainly hasn't been pushing it forward.

Back to Washington. What exactly was that jabbering from Burns about "unintended consequences" and Congress getting into the "sampling business?" Was he saying what we think he was saying? We certainly hope not. Anyway, we've jabbered on about as much as Burns by now, so it's time to move on to another rant for another day. But before we do, we'd like to leave you with the Riff's highlights of testimony from the Senate hearing on the FAIR TV Ratings bill:

Most Damaging Statement

"I regret to say that the television measurement system we have in the nation's largest television markets is not worth the public trust." - Pat Mullen, president, Tribune Broadcasting

Best Quip

"Susan Whiting looks and sees a glass half full. I see a gallon jug with a few drops sloshing around." - Gale Metzger, consultant to Knowledge Networks, and founder of SMART

Most Alarming Observation

"A handful of companies can control the MRC." - Kathy Crawford, president-local broadcast, MindShare

Most Startling Admission

"No organization in the MRC can hold more than five seat." - George Ivie, executive director-CEO of the 95-member MRC.

The $64,000-Plus Question

"What would an overhaul like this cost and who would pay for it." - Kathy Crawford

On The Shifting Balance Of Power Between The TV Industry And Nielsen

"With a fragmented medium, no single clients or client wields that much power." - Gale Metzger

Big Understatement

"If Nielsen followed these processes voluntarily, we would not be here today." Rolling out new processes without accreditation." - Pat Mullen

An Even Bigger Understatement

"I think Congress can sometimes get into areas where there are unintended consequences." - Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT)

Most Revealing Testimony

"We have to use the MRC process and not make it mandatory." - Susan Whiting, CEO, Nielsen Media Research

The Ultimate Cost Of TV Ratings

"We have the advertiser paying the ultimate price here." - Kathy Crawford