Networks, OpenAP Form JIC To Certify New 'Currencies'
- by Wayne Friedman , January 9, 2023
National TV programmers in the group include Fox Corp., NBCUniversal, Paramount Global, TelevisaUnivision, and Warner Bros. Discovery.
The creation of a new, cross-platform measurement certification will be established in conjunction with a new, unified streaming viewership dataset through OpenAP.
Starting this month, a measurement certification process will begin for third-party measurement firms in partnership with the VAB.
In April of this year, the joint industry committee (JIC) will host an initial event with the goal of accelerating multi-currency industry efforts.
In addition, the JIC plans to create a programmer data set where third-party measurement firms' data will meld with streaming viewership data.
advertisement
advertisement
Executives close to the new group say the JIC will not be dictating which currencies media agencies or advertisers choose. It will also seek active participation from ad agencies to advance the multi-currency future.
Executives also say the JIC is not looking to replace the Media Rating Council (MRC) or other media organizations that certify measurement firms.
The group also expects more TV programmers to join the committees in the coming months, with the requirement that platforms are focused on premium long-form video content, and agree to the same guidelines as existing members in sharing streaming data.
A joint release from Jeff Shell, CEO of NBCUniversal; Bob Bakish, CEO of Paramount; Wade Davis, CEO of TelevisaUnivision; and David Zaslav, president/CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery, said:
“By coming together to establish this JIC, we can collaborate and accelerate the efforts to implement a new multi-currency future that fosters more competition, inclusivity and innovation and will ultimately better serve advertisers, agencies and consumers.”
There will also be third-party audit firms to verify the accuracy of the streaming viewership data.
The JIC also wants to work fully with VAB and the ANA, as well as with other ad groups including the 4As, the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) and the Advertising Research Foundation (ARF).
Wayne the "TV" time selling and buying community would be in chaos if each seller was able to pick and choose what form of measurement best suited its sales promotion needs and use this ---or several of them---instead of a commonly agreed standard "audience measurement" that all parties buy into. Imagine a situation where Nielsen's new "big data" system --which is nothing more than a huge sample for set usage "impressions" augmented by a small panel for viewer-per set projections--- is used by Network's A and B but not C or D. C uses a big data ACR set usage panel that is not nationally projectable and does not include usage on traditional TV sets or viewing while D uses click through rates plus attentiveness factors from a small panel. Meanwhle network E uses pupil dilations based on relativeley small samples of people who opt in for this purpose---what kind of person will do this?--- and E wants buyers to average the results from Nielsen and its own user data.
Even if all of these services were, somehow, "vetted" regarding validity and being able to represent the whole "TV" using universe---a very tall order indeed----how would your poor brand manager state his/her audience goals? Would it be 3 billion CTRs plus 6000 GRPs by ACR sets and 9000 GRPs if Nielsen is used, plus 3 trillion pupil dilations. Even so, if none of these "metrics" is used by all, how does the brand manager deal with that?
What's needed is a nationally representative panel of a fairly large size to measure both device usage and ad attentiveness. Then if a seller wished to employ an add-on mesurement with a given buyer---usually in exchange for a higher CPM or a bigger share of ad spend----that's fine. Sadly, we are not heading in this direction.
As always Ed is on-point. This will fuel the currency choas. In addition this is a MOC - Media Owner Committee - not a JIC. See Joe's piece "Disjointed Industry COmmitttee and the comments.
It is the media agency that will be at the sharp end of a plethora of blunt data sets, trying to equalise, fuse and de-duplicate all the various data sources to get a realistic picture of the market place.
Given the low commission paid to the media agency, they will not have the mass to fund such extra research. What if there was a sort of 'levy' on ad placements to create a 'media research pool' that is represented and managed by a JIC.
The problem, John, is that the sellers---most of them---will not want a JIC as they would lose their current, almost total control over the scope of the "audience" surveys. In times past---long past----advertisers subscribed to Nielsen's national NTI service because it was rating "their shows". As sponsors who often developed the shows themselves, they saw this as a normal part of doing business. But that died out 70 years ago. And there seems to be little chance for significant advertiser fundng on a serious basis for any new audience research initiative---JIC or not. They are all going their many separate ways.
So who is going to pay? Simple. Mainly the sellers and with that they will insist on veto power over anything ---like attentiveness---that is proposed if they see it as counter to their interests---meaning that it dramatically lowers their reported audiences.
You may well ask, "What about the agencies?" Fair enough and I believe that if they banded together--- as they once did in the 1960s and 1970s---to pressure the sellers to accept significant improvements, which Nielsen or what ever company was supplying the data, would then accept---we might see some positive developments. But those days are also well past as the major media agencies ---remember this is the age of "me", not "we"----are so competitive that they wont work together for the common good.
Which leaves us more or less where we are now---the sellers rule and the advertisers just can't be bothered about these boring "media" details---so they lose and the sellers win. Ballgame over.