As Nielsen prepares to make one of its biggest shifts ever in the way it measures and reports television ratings, chinks in its data reporting systems have begun to grow apparent. In recent weeks, Nielsen's so-called "overnight" ratings have been released hours later than they are supposed to be, and some observers believe that is a harbinger for even greater problems as Nielsen plans to release a multiplicity of data streams to both clients and the media--creating the opportunity for more spin, confusion, and data management issues than ever before in its history. The timing of the plan, which begins with the release of ratings data on Dec. 28, reflecting ratings for Dec. 26--the day Nielsen begins reporting multiple streams of ratings related to digital video recorders--couldn't be worse, as it coincides with a traditionally disruptive holiday season. The holiday season--when many people in Nielsen's TV ratings sample move around, or have their TV viewing patterns significantly disrupted--always is a strain on Nielsen's systems, but last week Nielsen released a so-called "Sample Recovery Plan" to clients that looks more like a battle plan. In it, Nielsen concedes that the six-week period will "test our editing rules like no other time of the year." Aside from the displacement of people in its ratings sample, the holiday season marks a time when Nielsen "households" get a wide range of new consumer electronic devices that traditionally affect the way they use television. This year, Nielsen predicts major uptakes in the following technologies: * DVD players * Dual-deck DVD and VHS players * DVD recorders * Low-cost TVs and combination TV/VCR and TV/DVD units * Video Games * DBS satellite TV systems One thing Nielsen does not predict a significant uptick in is standalone DVR units, the device that is sparking the major change in Nielsen's measurement and reporting systems beginning in about a week. At that time, Nielsen will begin issuing three streams of data for clients: "live," "live" plus same day of DVR playback; and "live" plus seven days of DVR playback. Meanwhile, Nielsen has confirmed a plan to release yet another stream of data to journalists who cover the TV ratings business. "...During the past several weeks we have met with clients to discuss how best to produce weekly and season-to-date national averages for the press," the company said in a notice to clients last week. "Based on those conversations, we have decided that once we begin providing the three streams of national data ('live,' 'live plus same day,' and 'live plus seven day') the default stream of data posted on the weekly ratings section of the press website will be 'live plus same day." Season-to-date estimates will be based on a combination of 'live plus same day' for the current two weeks and 'live plus seven days' for all weeks prior. News media that prefer to base their rankings on 'live' or 'live plus seven' will be able to do so through additional links on the website." Nielsen has scheduled a briefing with journalists for this week to help explain the new data streams, and how they can use them in their reporting.
Cable consumers will need to make do with as few as six to nine cable channels in a world that allows them to pick and choose cable networks, says Kagan Research. That would be about one-sixth to one-tenth of the average 64 cable networks they currently receive. Kagan says the number of networks would narrow because people would gravitate to the well-known networks such as ESPN, Discovery, and TNT. But consumers would pay a price for this. Derek Baine, senior analyst at Kagan Research, said in a report released yesterday: "Popular basic cable networks could be $4-$6 per month a la carte." At the high, a consumer bill would amount to $36 to $54 a month. The current average monthly cable bill is $45.40 for a big basic package of networks--up slightly from $43.17 a year ago. While six to nine channels seems light, a number of research reports from media buying agencies have suggested that consumers really watch 9 channels at most--and that most have five "core" networks. Kagan's analysis comes a day after Time Warner Cable announced a family tier package of 15 channels, called "Family Choice," with a retail price of $12.99. But this would be after cable consumers bought a bare-bones cable package--mostly over-the-air channels--and after a Time Warner digital set top box fee of 40 cents a day. All this would come to around $40 to $45 a month, say executives. Kagan Research went on to say that each channel has an effective cost to consumers of 71 cents a month, and that retail price could rise by four times to consumers on an a la carte basis. Cable networks are nervous at the prospect of a la carte cable packaging--something that would hurt their advertising sales. If cable networks were to lose half their subscribers due to a la carte packaging, for example, Kagan says channel carriage fees could rise by 400 percent. Currently, the average wholesale price for each channel paid by cable operators comes to 21 cents a month. Cable operators are concerned as well over a la carte packaging--believing that they could lose overall revenue from customer business as they pick and choose specific networks. Basic cable networks, on average, receive 52 percent of revenue coming from carriage fees, 44 percent from advertising sales, and the remaining 4 percent from miscellaneous activities, according to Kagan Research.
Media agency Starcom MediaVest Group and cable network The Weather Channel have become the first clients to sign up for Nielsen Media Research's minute-by-minute data. Minute-by-minute viewership ratings--sometimes also called commercial ratings--are data that advertisers have been requesting for years--all this to give them a more detailed picture of how their commercials are performing. Because viewers tune into The Weather Channel in shorter time increments, the cable network will benefit by giving advertisers more detailed ratings, especially leading into and out of commercials. The deal will give all Starcom MediaVest Group's media units--Starcom, MediaVest, Starlink, Tapestry, and GM Planworks--access to the data. Minute-by-minute ratings have been made available before. Clients could get that information from Nielsen's NPower database. But a Nielsen spokeswoman said the data could only be used in limited configurations. Media executives have debated the viability of minute-by-minute ratings. The increased viewership detail isn't stable, especially for smaller distributed cable networks. With Nielsen now measuring and reporting on 80 cable networks, granular detail from minute-by-minute data can show many inconsistencies, said one executive. Unlike other Nielsen products, the new data doesn't really have a snappy name. It's just called the "minute-by-minute access data file." This data has been offered to the media in previous years. "But our clients thought it was overpriced," she said. "So we reconfigured it."
The annual Dunder Mifflin holiday party found Michael disappointed with his secret Santa gift, an oven mitt, when he went way over the $20 gift limit and bought an iPod for Ryan. But when Michael suggested turning Secret Santa into Yankee Swap, everyone vied for the iPod in the December 6th episode of NBC's "The Office." That's just one of the featured product placements of the past week brought to you by MediaDailyNews and branded entertainment researcher iTVX. Other notable placements include the following: Nathan reached out to Hailey and Mouth showed Karen a different side of Dan on their Cingular phones in the November 30th edition of the WB's "One Tree Hill." The teams had to create an innovative launch display in two local GM showrooms to promote the new Buick Lucerne in the November 30th installment of NBC's "The Apprentice: Martha Stewart." The final four had to produce a 30-second promotional video for the new Microsoft Office Live Meeting software in the December 1st episode of NBC's "The Apprentice." Comedian Dane Cook hosted the December 3rd installment of NBC's "Saturday Night Live," which included a hilarious skit involving Cook as a new trainee at Target. Link back each Monday to see each week's fresh batch of top five branded deals. Click to view and evaluate placements.
Here's a question you don't often hear at a time when media people complain of being overworked and undervalued: Why don't clients ask more of media? My premise is that, in this new-media world, clients should hold us to a higher bar and change the way our performance is measured and valued. It's not just in a client's best interest to do so, but also our own, because media can and should be expected to contribute more to the business success of its clients. This is, as we all know, a time of profound shifts in the media landscape -- and a time in which the importance of how and when brands connect with consumers can hardly be overstated. Yet, everywhere we turn, there continues to be evidence of media being asked to clear the same old (and I do mean old) hurdles. Imagine for a moment that you're a fly on the wall at the latest big media-agency review. What do you think you'd hear from the clients as they state their agency selection criteria, the burning needs upon which they'll make this monumental decision? Remarkably, you'd hear statements like this: "Service is key. We need to know you'll pick up the phone when we need you, day or night." "We want senior attention. We can't be relegated to the junior staff." "We need clout. You've got to make our dollar spend like a buck fifty. Oh, and charge us below your costs to do it." I wish I were exaggerating, but clients -- not all, but far too many -- really do still hold media to such outdated criteria. (True, some clients list creativity or ideas as media-agency criteria. But when push comes to shove, how many will genuinely stand up for them?) How refreshing would it be to find a client who was willing to ask more of media? To expect agency partners to generate new, more effective solutions to business problems, or to bring forward consumer insights that are actionable and profitable? What if a client selected its agency based on all new metrics, invented for today's world and encompassing the value of consumer engagement, not just eyeballs? Occasionally, we do catch wind of a client or an industry coalition working on just this type of stuff. But in truth, too few clients have changed the way they value and choose media providers, and few seem to be gearing up to change in the future. Why? What's behind the reticence to change the media scorecard? I have a few theories: >> They're afraid to acknowledge that media isn't an exact science. Idea-based valuation of media tiptoes dangerously close to subjectivity; it begins to acknowledge that media is as much art as science. With upwards of 90 percent of their budget going to media (not to mention management and shareholders calling fervently for accountability), clients don't want art. They desperately want a "right answer" in media -- preferably one that spits out of a computer. >> They don't know the metrics. Even if clients know their tools are outdated, they still want to put numbers against subjective or qualitative judgments. ("If not reach and frequency...what?") Few agencies or media-review consultants are helping them do so.>> They cling to the life raft of process. Adrift in the vast gray area that is today's media world, some clients hold firmly onto the familiar protocols and processes of old. Yeah, it's lame, but it's comfortable at a time when almost nothing else is. >> They question their own ability to judge. Many marketers lack confidence in their media knowledge, and memorizing a few thresholds to hold agencies to ("if we don't have a three frequency, it just won't work") is the solution. The idea of chucking those old guidelines, especially in favor of more conceptual, fluid assessments, can be downright scary. >> Media players -- agencies, vendors, and review consultants -- are all too happy to perpetuate the broken model. Hey, it's easy and it's known. We know how to make money with it. Besides, how many media people will bet their paycheck on their ability to invent powerful ideas? I don't have all the answers. What I do know is that the marketer who takes the time, and the risk, to reset the media bar and hold agencies to it will reap huge rewards in the form of smarter, more creative, and ultimately more effective media plans. Lisa Seward is the media director at Fallon, Minneapolis. (lisa.seward@fallon.com). She is a regular contributor to MEDIA magazine. This column is republished from the December issue.