Amidst questions over TV measurement and other issues,
Nielsen is doing a major brand refresh across all its communications, website, social media and other platforms to emphasize its business focus around audience, measurement and content metrics.
Its new tag line is: “Powering a better media future for all people.” Another Nielsen marketing theme is: “Nielsen: Audience is Everything.”
“While our business has transformed dramatically over the past few years, it became clear that perceptions of the company have not evolved at the same pace,” stated Jamie Moldafsky, Chief Marketing and Communications Officer.
Nielsen’s move comes just months after spinning off its marketing data division, Nielsen Global Connect, in March. That unit -- which provides consumer goods marketers with key marketplace data -- has increasingly struggled in recent years.
More recently, Nielsen has had to combat questions around a key TV measure, its national TV ratings metric.
Earlier this year, the VAB, the TV network advertising trade group, said there was 2% to 5% undercounting of TV usage during the COVID-19 pandemic.
After deeper investigation, the Media Ratings Council, the industry’s nonprofit group that reviews, audits and accredits media measurement, suspended accreditation of Nielsen national TV service.
This comes as Nielsen continues to work on its Nielsen One effort -- its new revamped next-generation, cross-platform media measurement service set to launch sometime next year.
Nielsen says its new brand will be portrayed in bold, fresh colors to signify, in its logo, that it is “playful, optimistic and smart.”
Wayne, if "audience is everything" then let's hope that Nielsen as well as the end users of its data---time buyers , advertisers, programmers and time sellers---- realize that TV sets, smartphones, tablets and desktop PCs aren't "audiences"----viewers are "audiences". Until we get a national TV rating service that tells us who is actually present and looking at the screen during program content or commercials---whenever a device is used---we aren't measuring "audience".
Ed, you've been in this game through various who's really watching "solutions" for quite a while. Do you really think any measurement service is likely to provide the accuracy we all desire in the next 5-10 years?
Tossing tech solutions at the problem, like voice or facial recognition, might run into privacy issues. So far those technologies have not proven to be totally accurate. Add strangers to the mix--guests over to watch a college football game or out-of-home viewing--and that's another opt-in problem.
I'd guess, MRC has anguished over many of the possible sampling issues that might arise due to using higher tech.
I recall Mel Goldberg saying, when he was with ABC, something like: it might not be valid, but it needs to be reliable.
James, I don't think that any panel operation---no matter how well organized or maintained---- will ever be able to provide a perfect "audience" measurement---even if attentiveness is included. This is because no Nielsen-type panel is ever going to be truly 100% representative---due to their low cooperation rates. However, the same thing applies to the naive idea of obtaining census level information---which, because most people will not cooperate---creates the same issue---you get a much larger sample but it,too, is nothing more than a not necessarily representative panel---and since people are dropping out constantly---you can forget about reach and frequency tabulations as you never have a constant base---unless you statistically "smooth" the results.
What you can try to do is create a service whose panel base is large enough and as representative as possible---never 100%----so that its findings for each network or program source as well as for individual shows are fairly distributed among the sellers by reducing as much of the inherent baises as possible---demo imbalances, heavy viewer biases, device type usage biases, etc. So if an average commercial minute attentive viewer rating for Show A on Network X is 1.2% while the corresponding number for Show B on Network Y is .8%---even though these may not be exactly what a perfect service might report----at least they are in the most credible proportions---share wise--- one against the other. Give me that on a consistent basis and I'm a happy camper---since I'm not making major time buying mistakes that might diminish the impact of my buy.
Wayne & Joe: Part of the issue eloquently adressed by Ed, also reflects a fundamantal problem with the media press which perhaps Bob Garfield should assess in his Bully Pit? Too often the 'media on the media use the terms "audiences" and worse "viewers" when the measurement is device based and as such is only reflecting, if independently verified, devices or screens that have content rendered. No audience, viewing or attention measurement. Kudos to Nielsen for sticking with audience measurement despite its enormous complexities in a digital world albeit persons presence or Opportunity-to-see content (Nielsen) versus eyes-on and/or attention (TVision/Lumen) measures offer advertisers more valuable media measures that relate brand outcomes.
So, is it time for Media Post review its truth in reporting policies in view of the hierarchy of media measurement and appropriate use of terms?
Wow, do we miss Mel Goldberg.... it might not be valid, but it needs to be reliable.