Nielsen Rejects Citizenship Question Before Supreme Court

Nielsen is getting into the 2020 census fight because of the Trump Administration’s effort to add a controversial citizenship question.

“If the government is successful in adding the citizenship question to the 2020 census, the census will contain flawed data that will have far-reaching consequences for U.S. commerce and media, retail and consumer packaged-goods businesses,” writes David Kenny, CEO, Nielsen.

Almost 20 states, many of the nation's largest cities, and immigrant rights groups say the question would make immigrants reluctant to respond to census takers, resulting in an under-count of the population.

Kenny adding this new question will mean “participation in the census will be suppressed, causing a significant under-count... Billions of dollars follow these counts.”

Nielsen filed a “friend of the court” brief with the Supreme Court supporting the exclusion of a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

Kenny says Nielsen relies on the U.S. census data, using it at a town-by-town, block-by-block level to determine the makeup of its measurement panels that include race, age, gender, socioeconomic class, and other characteristics.

He says it “allows us to project the ratings of a particular piece of video content, the market share of a beverage manufacturer, or what products to stock and where to site physical stores.”

9 comments about "Nielsen Rejects Citizenship Question Before Supreme Court".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Tony Jarvis from Olympic Media Consultancy, April 23, 2019 at 10:31 a.m.

    Not often I aggree with or support Nielsen but in this instance the entire industry notably the ANA, 4As, ARF, MRC, Insights Assocaition to name a few should line up strongly with Nielsen  each as a "friend of the court".  Putting aside this effort by "Trumper's" to deliberately and intentionally disenfranchise many law abiding tax payers in our community that should be provided a path to citizenship, the flaws in, and cost to advertsing, media and marketing and the entire research industry that David Keeny highlights are irrefutable. 

  2. Kevin Killion from Stone House Systems, Inc., April 23, 2019 at 1:48 p.m.

    “... the question would make immigrants reluctant to respond to census takers ...”

    i don’t understand why legal immigrants would be reluctant to respond to census takers.  Oh, wait!  Did you mean to say illegal immigrants?

  3. Leo Kivijarv from PQ Media, April 23, 2019 at 1:55 p.m.

    I totally agree with you Tony, but this should be an all out effort by the media, entertainment & information ndustry that includes the trade associations for each platform (ex., TVB, VAB, IAB, RAB, MPA, OAAA, CAC, WOMMA, DMA, CMI, ERMA, MPAA, RIAA, AAP, SIIA, etc.). The largest media conglomerates and marketing agencies aslo have the lobbyist who can craft a freinds brief.   

  4. Tony Jarvis from Olympic Media Consultancy, April 23, 2019 at 5:53 p.m.

    Kevin:
    As an immigrant, as is everyone here who is not an American Indian, I am reminded: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free, ..." 
    May I respectfully remind you of the visciously punitive Executive Order by our "vile" (Steve Schmidt) "moron" (Rex Tillerson) January 25th 2017 #13,768, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the US" which ICE has been obliged to execute as of February 20th 2017 enforcement requirements from the Department of Homeland Security and which has brutally affected an unkown number of children some of whom may never be reunited with their parents.  While security along our borders is essential, when executed on the basis of nationalism rather than patriotism it surely demans us all?  "Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism is when hate for people other than your own comes first."  Charles de Gaulle. 

  5. Kevin Killion from Stone House Systems, Inc., April 23, 2019 at 7:13 p.m.

    Tony: i have no idea what your reply has to do with why legal immigrants “would be reluctant to respond to census takers”, which is the question I raised. 

  6. Nicholas Schiavone from Nicholas P. Schiavone, LLC, April 23, 2019 at 10:17 p.m.

    David Kenny is absolutely correct in this matter. Kudos to him and to Nielsen for embracing a principled position in this critical matter. Bad Census data based on bad science will result in bad business and government.

    According to the Washington Post:
    “The Trump administration’s move to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census is coming up for oral argument at the Supreme Court on Tuesday. That means the justices could be weighing a ‘Four-Pinocchio’ claim by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.”

    In other words, like Trump, Wilbur Ross is a fool & a liar. Not only does Ross lack the social science credentials to recommend this methodological change, but he also lied about his (Trump’s & the GOP’s) discriminatory anti-Immigration/anti-Hispanic rationale.

    Further, WaPo reports that 2 U.S. District Court Justices (Hazel, who sits in Maryland, and Seeborg, in California) both ruled that “adding the citizenship question would violate the Constitution’s enumeration clause...."

    In sum, Nielsen’s ‘amicus curiae’ brief filed with the Supreme Court “supporting the exclusion of a citizenship question to the 2020 decennial census” is a great service to the Census Bureau, Social Science & American Democracy.

    Thank you, Nielsen.

  7. Nicholas Schiavone from Nicholas P. Schiavone, LLC replied, April 23, 2019 at 10:32 p.m.

    I am not certain such an emendation is necessary for the sentence to which you refer.

  8. John Grono from GAP Research replied, April 24, 2019 at 8:27 a.m.

    Dear, oh dear Kevin.

    The purpose of the Census is to enumerate the population - the ENTIRE population.   It has nothing to do with legality.   For example, prison inmates are enumerated.

    ANYTHING that is likely to cause an under-enumeration is to be avoided at all costs.

  9. Nicholas Schiavone from Nicholas P. Schiavone, LLC, April 25, 2019 at 11:26 p.m.

    Dear John Grono,

    DITTO.  Thank you for clearly expressing the core principle to Kevin Killion.
     
    I regret the seeming obscurity of my reply to Kevin regarding his comment 
    intended to correct [or mock?] Wayne Friedman, West Coast Editor, Media Daily News, TV Watch.
    My note was based on a close reading of Wayne's article and Kevin's comments.

    Kevin: "I am not certain such an emendation is necessary for the sentence to which you refer."

    Best regards to all,
    Nick

Next story loading loading..