• by July 15, 2004

'I DOUBT THAT IT REQUIRES LEGISLATION' - With those words, Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT), chairman of the U.S. Senate's subcommittee on communications, adjourned a hearing today on Nielsen's implementation of the local people meter ratings system. And while the committee's record on the matter will remain open for additional comments for another two weeks, the senator's words must have come as comfort for a number of interested parties, especially Nielsen President-CEO Susan Whiting, who was grilled mercilessly by sub-committee members and challenged by opposing testimony from media company executives, including a persistent appeal from a News Corp. executive on the need for government "oversight" over Nielsen's TV ratings methods. The hearings themselves shed little new light on the process, and essentially recounted the back and forth volley of claims and counter claims as to the reasons behind the striking differences in ratings between Nielsen's old meter/diary system and the local people meters in the new markets they are measuring, especially for minority viewers.

And while the members of Congress participating in the hearing made no pretense about being experts on TV ratings methods, one of the more inquisitive members during the hearing, Senator Barbara Boxer of California, seemed to nail the essential issue in her closing rhetorical remark: "...when you change from the diaries to [local people meters], why the numbers have changed so dramatically. That would lead someone to believe that there was a fault somewhere."

She's right of course, and for all the faults found with local people meters, including a higher-than-normal "fault rates" for minority households, the real reason behind the discrepancy between the two systems does have to do with fault: the faulty methodology of diaries in capturing the discrete viewing behavior of any audience segment, much less minorities. That point was underscored by much of the testimony this morning, but seemed to be summed up by Bob Barocci, president-CEO of the Advertising Research Foundation, who noted "There is only one legitimate issue here and that is the accuracy of the local Nielsen television sample." The question he reminded all the participants, is not whether it is "perfect," but whether it is "better than before."

Never mind that Barocci misidentified one of the ARF's founding organizations as the "Advertising Agency Association of America" in his testimony, his presence and the presumed objectivity of the ARF came as a necessary mediating voice in the middle of a politically-, racially- and commercially-charged debate that led to the first Congressional hearings on the matter of TV audience research in 38 years.

And despite please from Tom Herwitz, president of station operations for Fox Television Stations Inc., and Tom Arnost, president of Univision Television Inc., that the government needs to provide some "oversight," committee Chairman Burns, concluded that what is actually needed, is "to open up lines of communications" between the local people meter adversaries.

One thing that became evident during the testimony, however, was how incredibly complex the process of audience research, not just of TV ratings but for market researchers overall, is becoming due to the increasing diffusion of the U.S. population, and the fact that many households aren't even sure how to racially classify themselves.

Another big issue left to resolve is exactly why some minority households are experiencing higher fault rates than the general sample and what exactly Nielsen should do about that.

But the biggest sidestep of the whole hearing, was after hearing Fox's Herwitz repeatedly raise issues with the veracity of the "button-pushing" people meters, Senator Boxer asked Nielsen's Whiting what Nielsen was doing about testing a more innovative technology: Arbitron's portable people meter system. Maybe it was just the sketchy high-speed connection that the Riff used to listen in on the Senate's webcast, but it sure sounded to us like Whiting gave the same dodgy answer to that question that Nielsen has been giving to its clients over the four years since it first struck a licensing agreement with Arbitron to develop the portable people meter technology. She spoke about the investment Nielsen has been making in the system, concluding, "but today, this is the best way," meaning the local people meter. Which makes us wonder, why wasn't Arbitron sitting at the Senate table?

DON'T COUNT THEM OUT, EVEN IF THEY'RE DECEASED -- One of the most damaging anecdotes raised during today's Senate hearing on Nielsen's TV ratings came from Fox TV stations chief Tom Herwitz, who recounted for the lawmakers how at one point, the representation of African Americans in Nielsen's local people meter sample depended on an African American male who was "dead." And maybe it was just us, but the statement, and the venue reminded us of a former senator from Texas who is rumored to have once said that dead people have "just as much right to vote" as the living.