MRC Responds To JIC Measurement Plan: Stick With MRC Accreditation

In response to the U.S. JIC's (joint industry committee) plan to expand from certifying ad currencies to certifying media audience measurement next year, Media Rating Council Executive Director and CEO George Ivie issued a statement encouraging measurement providers to continue seeking accreditation though the MRC's audit process, noting that it is "the media and advertising industry’s neutral, third-party auditor, formed with the participation of the US Government, that uses standards for measurement developed and approved by the industry."

While he did not comment further, as part of today's announcement about its expansion into audience-measurement certification, the JIC said it has been collaborating with the MRC to help define the role of certification vs. accreditation, and will publish a blog shortly explaining that.

According to an executive familiar with the development, members of the JIC believe audience-measurement certification has become part of its agenda, and that the process is separate, but related to its original mission of simply certifying currencies as meeting minimum standards for media buyers and sellers to transact on.



3 comments about "MRC Responds To JIC Measurement Plan: Stick With MRC Accreditation".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, September 21, 2023 at 7:48 a.m.

    George is right---but the situation today is different as now the TV sellers are in total control of the "currencies" that they transact on, just like the "walled garden" sellers of digital media. So, as advertisers don't seem to care and the agencies are largely silent, isn't it only fair that the various "currencies" that individual sellers can choose from to promote their ad sales, not be accredited? After all, we're talking about sles promotion data---which is sort of like advertising---and nobody is suggesting that all ads be accredited---are they?

  2. Chris Williams from Arima replied, September 21, 2023 at 11:53 p.m.

    Ed, you will notice that many of the walled gardens of digital media have gone through or are using MRC audited and accredited tech. Yes, there is a lot of BS around the various definition of an impression and much of the buying is Caveat Emptor.
    All of which makes the MRC more important in helping navigate advertisers what the hell the sellers are talking about. However, much of the media value analysis is less about currency and more about value or outcomes generated for the advertiser and that data is not being shared with TV sellers. The sellers are shooting themselves in the feet.

  3. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, September 22, 2023 at 9:07 a.m.

    Chris, as you and Dave know, I'm a strong advocate of the MRC and it may well be that some of the tech/digital "walled garden" sellers are abiding, unofficially, by some of the MRC's  rules.

    But speaking mainly about "TV"---both linear and, increasingly the same players ---TV networks---as they expand into streaming--- I don't see much attribution or meaningful "outcome" metrics being employed. One of the main reasons is the single minded focus by national advertisers who participate in the annual upfront time sales  on low, corporate-wide CPMs. No matter what they say in public forums, CPMs take precedence over targeting as all of their brands are merged into one big, impossible- to- target - for brand for these volume discount, bundled buys that account for 70% of total TV ad spend.

    As for the sellers shooting themselves in the foot, I'm not so sure about that as there is no movement by branding campaign CMOs to "punish" the sellers in the only way they could---by switching to "other" media. Again, I'm speaking mainly about "TV". Here, the advertisers have little choice but to keep buying "TV" time as it has been decided long ago that "TV" is the "best"---or"only"  way to communicate brand positioning and sales points to consumers.They can't put most or all of their money in print media, radio or digital display ads. All that they might do is to "punish" a "bad""TV"  seller by diverting their "TV" ad dollars to rival "TV" sellers---but for"TV" in total, this is nothing to worry about. 

    As I keep saying, the advertisers have been largely ignoring media---especially media buying and the national TV upfront system which is biased against their interests----for decades. So now, the "TV"sellers have simply taken over---and I can't blame them. If they can use the audience surveys and buying methods to their advantage and advertisers don't care---why shouldn't they?

Next story loading loading..