Nielsen Wednesday began informing advertisers, agencies and television networks that rely on its national TV ratings that a significant number of people don't use its so-called "people meter" system properly. In fact, new data being released by Nielsen shows that the more people that are present in those TV ratings households, the more likely it is that they are not reporting their viewing accurately, and that the overall affect has been understating the national TV ratings by about 8%. Nielsen did not release information showing what the effect was on specific TV outlets, programs or dayparts, and the average is the net result of people who both overstate and understate their viewing either by pushing people meter buttons when they are not actually watching TV, or by forgetting to push them when the are watching. The findings are the first results to be released by Nielsen from a somewhat controversial research initiative it began last year, and which it will continue conducting quarterly on an ongoing basis in order to better understand how people comply with the people meter ratings system, and more importantly, how Nielsen can take steps to improve that compliance via better coaching methods, and by focusing on the most problematic households. The research is somewhat controversial, because it is being conducted on Nielsen's live "currency" sample, which raises the specter that it could influence how people in the sample actually watch television. The research method being used, involves Nielsen representatives calling ratings households on the phone while they are watching TV, and asking the person who answers the phone what they or other people in the household are watching at the time. Nielsen has already gotten the blessing of key clients, as well as industry ratings watchdog the Media Rating Council, to conduct the research, but it is being conducted even as Nielsen conducts another, very different test on its live sample to measure their Internet usage alongside their TV viewing (MediaDailyNews April 28). While there always is some concern when Nielsen conducts separate research on its live TV ratings sample, Nielsen executives said both the studies are important, prudent steps toward improving its ratings, and that they are carefully monitoring how it is affecting the quality of its national TV ratings. "There is no perfect research tool, but we wanted to find out if there were ways to improve people's people meter performance," Pat McDonough, senior vice president of Planning Policy & Analysis at Nielsen told MDN during a telephone interview explaining why Nielsen embarked on the research. Nielsen executives said the level of compliance among TV ratings households is consistent with earlier studies Nielsen conducted during the late 1980s when it first introduced people meters to replace its old paper diary and TV set meter system, and during the 1990s. The new research, like the older studies, found that, on average, about 10% of households inaccurately record their viewing via people meters - either by pushing buttons when they are not watching TV, or by not pushing them when they are watching. The net effect is an understatement of 8%, because more people forget to push the buttons than those who push them when they are not watching. While that range is consistent with previous studies, Nielsen has begun drilling deeper into the behavior of its panelists to find out which ones and what types tend to be the worst offenders. And while the data is still limited, Nielsen's top researcher, Bruce Hoynoski said there appear to be no differences among people based on age or gender of the people in the households, but it has found that Hispanic households, and households that have four or more viewers present in the audience, tend to be the worst offenders. In fact, the more people present in the audience, the more likely it is that the ratings will be inaccurate. "For one person in the audience the compliance was 93%. It fell to the high 80s when two person are present in the audience. It fell to the mid- to lower 80s with three person in the audience. And it fell into the 70s when you had four or more person in the audience," Hoynoski explained. He said the insights will enable Nielsen researchers to better deploy their field staff to focus their coaching procedures or adapt them to deal with the most difficult households. So far, that appears to be Hispanics and large audience households, but he said future waves of the phone research could yield insights about other household types that could be addressed later. The finding could be troubling for media planners and advertisers, because programming that attracts larger audiences - so-called "family-viewing" programming, or water cooler events like the Super Bowl or the Academy Awards - tend to be among the most valuable and expensive for advertisers to buy.
Time Warner is anticipating that ad dollars at its Turner networks will fall in a mid-single-digit percentage range for the current April-June period, a top company executive said Wednesday. At the Time Inc. magazine group, a decline in the 30% range is possible. Time Warner also indicated it would be spinning off all or part of the AOL unit soon. CFO John Martin said one contributor to the expected Turner drop this quarter is a decline in international revenue. But he said that advertisers are also exercising options to cancel spending commitments at a higher rate than a year ago, although he did not elaborate. He did say that scatter business is coming in close to air date, so the level of the projected ad drop is difficult to forecast. Unlike other networks, which have maintained that scatter pricing is still topping upfront levels, Martin said scatter CPMs at Turner are "about flat." For the completed January-March period, the ad dollars were about the same at the Turner group's domestic networks as a year ago. The entertainment networks -- which include TNT and TBS -- saw a small drop, while the CNN news channels were up slightly. (Credit Suisse wrote in a report that it is likely Turner increased market share in the first quarter with the flat results, while UBS said the performance is "consistent with industry trends.") Worldwide, Turner ad dollars declined 2% to $723 million, primarily because of a significant decline internationally. Martin spoke on a conference call to discuss first-quarter results. Time Warner does not break out revenues for the Turner group, reporting its performance in conjunction with the non-ad-supported HBO. The combination saw revenues up by 6% in the first quarter to $2.8 billion as affiliate fees climbed. In the quarter, Time Inc. saw ad dollars down 30% (or $167 million) -- a figure perhaps more discouraging, since there was a decline at the online operations, which account for 15% of domestic ad dollars. The rate of decline was not specified. Martin said so far in the current quarter, Time Inc. is posting similar results, although "visibility" regarding projections is low. Ad dollars accounted for about half of Time Inc.'s $806 million in revenues in the first quarter. Martin indicated that the 30% year-over-year decline was driven mostly by advertisers cutting back in spending and not forgoing magazines entirely -- "which we think will help revenue rebound once demand comes back into the market." Still, Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes said earlier in the call that the company is not assuming the ad market at Time Inc. "will automatically come back when the economy returns." At AOL, ad dollars dropped 20%, contributing to an overall 23% decrease at the AOL unit to $867 million. Within the ad pie, which is about half of AOL's revenues, display advertising fell 17%. Time Warner executives indicated that AOL would be spun off in some form soon; the company is also moving to repurchase the 5% stake owned by Google. AOL is now led by former Google executive Tim Armstrong. Bewkes also said he is looking to "make AOL once again a must-buy for premium advertisers." "It's fair to say that Tim wouldn't have come to AOL if he didn't see a lot of upside in the value of AOL's brand and in its products and in its inventory," Bewkes said on the call. Bewkes said Armstrong is working with top executives to "determine the best structure for AOL." A spinoff could include all or parts of the company. Overall for the first quarter, Time Warner's revenues dropped 7% to $6.9 billion.
Meredith Corp.'s broadcasting operations profitability slowed down considerably in its fiscal third quarter. Operating profit was $1.3 million, with revenues at $57 million. This compares to operating profit of $19 million and revenues of $78 million in the prior year period. The big reason for the drop: lower advertising sales. Broadcasting ad revenues were down 31% in the third quarter, due to major declines in the automotive business, along with weakness in the Phoenix and Las Vegas markets. But the company said ad revenues are showing improvement as of late January. The company's publishing business operating profit also sank to $48 million, and $280 million in revenues. A year ago, operating profit was at $64 million and revenues of $315 million in the prior year. Advertising revenues were the main reason -- down $132 million, versus $150 million in the prior year. Still, the company notes that Meredith is outperforming the industry as a whole. Moreover, seven of the company's top 10 ad categories improved in the third quarter over the first half of fiscal 2009, including food and beverage, prescription and non-prescription drugs, and household supplies. Meredith still showed lower net earnings -- almost half of its previous period. It was at $25.5 million against $46.0 million the year before. Overall, revenues sank to $184.1 million from $225.4 million. The day before, Fisher Communications also reported lower broadcasting results. Television revenue was $20.3 million, 27% down against the same period last year. TV broadcast cash flow lost almost all its steam versus a year ago, dropping to $252,000, compared with $6.7 million -- a 96% decrease.
In another sign of the dire situation facing American newspapers, the Newspaper Guild in New York City agreed to a 5% cut in salary for members at The New York Times, clearing the way for reductions that will affect newsroom staff and a number of other salaried professionals. The pay cut is meant to be temporary -- ending Dec. 3 -- but given current revenue trends, may become permanent. The union faced a choice between the pay cut and the loss of 80 jobs in the newsroom and elsewhere -- an increasingly common dilemma as newspaper executives force hard choices on unions around the country. Earlier this month, NYTCO threatened to close The Boston Globe if it can't extract concessions -- including pay cuts, cutting or eliminating contributions to retirement and health plans, and layoffs, that equal up to 20% of the current payroll. Half of this is expected to come from the Boston Newspaper Guild, with the other half coming from the remaining 12 unions. NYTCO has already cut the salaries of non-unionized employees at its flagship paper, as bad financial news is followed by worse. In the first quarter of 2009, the company's ad revenues plunged 27% compared to the same period in 2008, management revealed last week, declining from $458.3 million to $334.6 million. The revenue declines, which exceeded analyst expectations, were spread across all the main advertising categories. This includes Internet ad revenues -- a bright spot in years past -- which posted a 6.1% decline, from $72 million to $67.6 million. In discussing the first-quarter results, NYTCO CEO Janet Robinson warned that the second quarter could see an advertising revenue decline of up to 30%. With a $400 million credit payment looming in May, NYTCO has been scrambling to raise money to keep its core business afloat, resorting to extraordinary measures, including the sale of its new headquarters in Manhattan. It has also put its Boston Red Sox franchise up for sale -- so far sans takers -- and won about $400 million of new investment from Carlos Slim, a Mexican billionaire with ties to the corrupt former president of Mexico, Carlos Salinas.
Source Interlink, a magazine publisher and wholesaler, is going private in a deal that will relieve it of about $1 billion in debt and provide $100 million to fund continuing operations. The transaction to take the company private is being implemented under a Chapter 11 reorganization plan, which affords companies bankruptcy protection in negotiations with creditors. The moves to enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and take the company private are the latest fallout from the high-profile face-off between magazine wholesalers and magazine publishers, which began in mid-January. Squeezed by the economic downturn, Source teamed up with another big wholesaler, Anderson News, to demand an additional seven cents per copy for delivery of their magazines from big publishers like Time Inc. and American Media, claiming they would go bankrupt without a fee hike. The magazine publishers refused, and on Feb. 7, Anderson News suspended business operations; rumors were rife that Source would follow it. However, Source, which also publishes Motor Trend, Automobile and Hot Rod magazines, appears to be committed to staying in the magazine wholesale business. Shortly after publishers rejected the fee increase, Source filed suit against publishers and competing wholesalers in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan for cutting off its supply of various titles, including People and Sports Illustrated. Source accused Time Inc., American Media, Bauer Publishing and Hachette Filipacchi of colluding with rival wholesalers Hudson and News Group to drive it out of business, violating antitrust and anti-monopoly laws. The case was settled out of court on Feb. 18. The dispute and subsequent decision by two major wholesalers to leave the business disrupted delivery of magazines to some of the nation's biggest retail chains, including Wal-Mart, which was temporarily without issues of Time and Sports Illustrated, among other titles. The interruption was especially ill-timed, coming amid a long-term slump in magazine newsstand sales.
Fox keeps cruising through the big May sweeps period -- by blowing away the competition. Its Tuesday night tandem of "American Idol" and "Fringe" put up nearly identical numbers to a week ago. Fox landed with a Nielsen preliminary 6.1 rating/16 share among 18-49 viewers for the night, almost two and a half points better than second-place NBC at a 3.8/10. Week to week, CBS had the biggest gain -- rising to a 3.2/8 from a 2.4/6 -- all this coming from fresh episodes of its sturdy drama "NCIS," "The Mentalist" and "Without a Trace." Nearly at its season-ending conclusion, "Idol" posted a 7.8/22 -- virtually identical to the week before, easily keeping its top-rating status for all Tuesday shows. "Fringe" earned a 4.3/11, up a bit from a week ago, and won the 9 p.m. hour. NBC also made gains week-to-week, rising to a 3.8/10 from a 3.4/9. Its "Biggest Loser: Couples" slipped a bit, but the network made gains with a new episode of "Law & Order SVU," which earned a 3.9/10 and won the 10 p.m. time period. ABC was on par with the week before: a 2.0/5. "Dancing with the Stars: Results" was still no match for "Fringe" or "Bigger Loser," coming in at third place with a 3.2/8. The net's new midseason drama, "Cupid," is still hovering below the 2 rating mark at 1.7/5, although somewhat better than ABC's other drama "The Unusuals," which a week ago took in a 1.5/5 in the time period. Univision was also at the same level a week ago: a 1.7/4. Its best showing came from its new show "Mañana Es Para Siempre," which earned a 2.0/5 at the 9 p.m. time period. CW moved down two-tenths of rating point among 18-49 viewers and among 18-34 viewers to a 0.8/2 and a 1.0/3, respectively, for the night. Both "Reaper" and "90210" were noticeably down versus the week before.
In a market with more candidates than jobs, a willingness to be flexible on title and salary is more and more commonplace. So how do you position yourself as a genuinely interested and qualified candidate versus someone that's overqualified, needs a job and will jump ship when a better opportunity comes along? For some expert advice I turned to the Cable and Telecommunications Resources Association (CTHRA), a nonprofit organization with 1500 members representing over 100 companies. Following is some great advice from a sampling of their members: How can candidates express through their resumes that, although they may seem overqualified for a position, they are indeed invested in the opportunity and not just looking for a pay check? CTHRA: We have two pieces of advice. First, abandon a traditional resume format focused on titles and promotions, and instead create a resume that highlights significant accomplishments and experiences. Emphasize your span of control, impact on the bottom-line and contributions to the overall health and growth of the organization. We believe a bio format helps focus the recruiter/hiring manager on the relevant skills and qualifications and frees them from focusing merely on level or title. Next, leverage your cover letter to: 1) Call attention to the credentials you have that match the description of the position; 2) Specify that your prior experience will allow you to have a greater impact on the organizational goals sooner than less experienced candidates; 3) And explain that you are seeking more than a job title and detail the characteristics that you admire in their company: financial security, potential for upward mobility, reputation, health and welfare benefits, etc. Should an applicant downgrade his or her former job title(s) on a resume, say from an SVP to a VP? CTHRA: Never put anything on your resume that isn't true. You're working to prove to a potential employer that you are honest and trustworthy. The last thing you want is to lose credibility by being caught in a lie. Keep in mind that most hiring managers recognize that titles are indicative of an organization's culture and they tend to vary from company to company. So a VP title in a smaller company may be equivalent to a director title in a larger organization. If you're applying for a VP level position in a similar profession and recently held a SVP or higher position, focus attention on your skills, qualifications and contributions instead of the title. Is there a good answer to questions about recent earnings, especially if you believe you were earning significantly more than the job you are interviewing for has to offer? CTHRA: The state of the economy has caused many companies to scale back compensation components (base, bonus, etc.). As a result, employers and candidates have had to reset their expectations when it comes to salary. This reality can be woven into you're your reply. Start by asking what the salary range or budget for the position is so you can appropriately couch your reply. Then, be transparent and honest about your recent earnings. Given the current marketplace, if you're willing to accept less than in the past, say so, and provide the range you'll consider. You can couch that reply by adding that rather than focusing solely on starting base salary, you'll consider all the company has to offer such as benefits, work/life balance emphasis, growth opportunities, etc. "I was fortunate to have a good career w/ company X where I was able to advance my earnings by proving my value to the organization through my contributions. I learn fast and work hard, so I am certain I can do the same within your company." How does an HR professional present an overqualified candidate to a hiring manager in a way that's not threatening? CTHRA: A good recruiter/HR professional always knows how to position candidates in a manner that the hiring manager feels like he is in control of the process and is getting the best results from the HR team. "I have a candidate for you to interview who I believe will bring energy and new ideas, with the ability to step right into the open position-making your job easier." When interviewing with the hiring manager, should the candidate bring up the issue of being overqualified? CTHRA: No. We advise candidates against using the word overqualified in an interview to avoid appearing arrogant and a poor fit for the job. Also, imagine if the hiring manager has doubts about the person's qualifications, but the candidate starts talking about being overqualified. Then the candidate comes off as presumptuous. It's best to simply avoid using the word at all. How should the candidate reply to an interviewer who asks whether or not he or she will quit once a job with his or her old title and salary becomes available? CTHRA: Answer with an emphatic, "No. After researching this company and meeting [insert various individuals working within the company], I am excited about the possibility of being part of the team. I am willing to make a personal commitment to you and this opportunity, and I expect that if I deliver results, I'll be given the opportunity to advance my earnings and position within the organization." For more information on CTHRA go to cthra.com