The U.S. TV/video measurement industry has been misusing and abusing the term “JIC,” or joint industry committee, for some time.
As someone who has held a
wide variety of roles with various JICs, as well as on their technical committees and boards worldwide, the record needs to be set straight so that long established expectations are
met.
The current U.S. “alternative currency” measurement initiative is a multi-currency certifying committee, or a “MCCC.” No more, no less.
And that raises serious issues.
A JIC is a fully independent, professionally staffed, not-for-profit, multi-partite organization that owns, develops, manages, and markets
a single, credible trading currency for an ad medium on behalf of the industry. Full industry participation and control!
JICs embrace the highest audience
measurement principles and standards. The underlying research is typically executed by a consortium of research suppliers selected by the JIC via an extremely stringent RFP
process.
advertisement
advertisement
JIC funding is generally provided ~75% by the media sellers and ~25% by the demand-side (advertisers and agencies) who, to avoid seller
conflicts-of-interest, have board control.
Data licensing, publishing policies, pricing, third-party processor access and ongoing funding are all managed by the JIC staff.
Naturally a JIC works best when all media owners and the major media agencies participate.
JICs have been around for a long time in media measurement providing robust currency
– singular! – for major media based on their unequivocal value, reputation, and industry-neutral structure.
This needs to be recognized and respected in the
U.S.
One of many examples of JIC operations, is BARB (Broadcasters Audience Research Board) in the U.K., which measures “fit-for-TV” content, and like all
true JICs, produces and owns the measurement data at cost, thereby delivering unrivaled value for their money.
Another special JIC example is Geopath here in the
U.S. It has produced leading edge “eyes-on” (visibility adjusted contacts [VACs]) currency for out-of-home media for more than 14 years and conforms to the latest World Out-of-Home
Organization audience measurement global guidelines.
As a JIC, owning the research and data, Geopath has also saved the industry millions versus various for-profit
alternatives.
Now that JICs are properly defined, what are some of the current TV/video media measurement and currency issues and questions?
The suspicion remains that many will still have to buy Nielsen data as “a basic truth set” (per Havas Media Group Global Managing Director Jon Waite) for basic trading and that
these other “currency” services will be used as unquestionably valuable toppings on the Nielsen pizza.
That is madness. In an “alt currency world,” the
Nielsen model remains: with the vendor owning the data; not the industry itself.
So, does the U.S. MCCC become just the midwife to a brood of baby Nielsens?
A true JIC would ensure cost savings that could be reinvested in a single service rather than having the market spread its money across multiple, competing services.
One might suspect that all the various alt currencies to be potentially “certified” here in the U.S. and then accredited by the Media Rating Council (MRC) – at a huge
additional expense and a possible conflict as MRC advises the ANA’s cross-media measurement involving video IDs (VIDs) – will cost significantly more in total than even Nielsen, whose
costs have always been considered egregious. Difficult to judge.
Reflecting the ongoing value of JICs, there is no monopoly. They tender processes every three to
five years, or so. Choice is baked in. This has been consistently proven to be a far more logical way of bringing “choice” to the market than the anarchy, chaos, and confusion
of running multiple “currencies” in parallel.
Has the MCCC reinvented the MRC by issuing a form of research vendor “certification” – an MRC
lite? Will it reassure the market and sanction their use of services that cannot afford, or maybe would never have earned an MRC accreditation? Would this really be reassuring to
advertisers and media agencies?
Interestingly, JICs argue that they do not need to be audited, as their professional researchers, technicians, software gurus and experienced
media research staff continuously monitor data quality and fulfillment of contracted specifications.
At the recent insightful Paramount Advertising “Measurement Now”
conference the total ignorance regarding JICs – and their misrepresentation – continued courtesy of almost every speaker, many of whom know better! This was accompanied by a myriad
of definitions – at least implied – of “media audience,” which generally reflected how each speaker would want to skew any of the “alt-currencies” and how they were
measured to their particular advantage.
Speaking forthrightly at the Paramount event, Publicis Media Director of National Video Intelligence Sam Armando admitted he did not fully
understand the proposed “MCCC” structure or value, and expressed deep concern that different companies could produce the “same metric with very different
values.”
After pleading for standardized terms and definitions – which JICs inherently do for the entire industry – Armando surely earned the last word
on this farrago inside an imbroglio.
“Be scared!”