• by Tracey Scheppach , Op-Ed Contributor, February 25, 2008

Change will literally be "in the air" when, just about a year from now, the Federal Communications Commission and all involved parties transition over-the-air broadcast television signals to digital, freeing the trusty old airwaves for other applications. As a result, we can likely expect increased production and transmission of HD content; reduced duplication of broadcasts across different distribution systems; and government auctioning of the airwaves, which can help us chip into the national deficit -- and maybe yield a nationwide wireless network, among other possibilities.

One thing we should expect is that the digital transition gives those households that receive TV from over-the-air signals (or "bunny ears") a good reason to finally subscribe to cable, satellite or telco TV services. This switch increases the availability of far more viewing data via set-top boxes, bringing with it granular viewing metrics on a scale we've never seen and the potential to paint our most accurate picture yet of TV's engagement power. Naysayers have rightfully said that set-top boxes had significant skews, as they were only available from a universe that represented digital viewing. However, when everything becomes digitally delivered, that argument begins to evaporate -- leaving us one less excuse to resist change.

As we prepare for the switch, I begin to see greater signs of what I call "the data revolution" -- and I for one say "free the data," for everyone. It's time we started planning and evaluating, if not negotiating, television buys based on what's really happening in living rooms. It's time we had a metric that is more easily comparable to other media in determining their relative value. It's time we took the most technologically advanced, accurate data available under serious consideration, with no excuses from any player in an industry claiming to have an eye on the future. And I believe that it is all possible with large scale set-top-box data.

When we have access to national, second-by-second set-top-box data as a usable metric, experience points to it being the best option available. Once the data is refined and processed by negotiating parties, here are my reasons why it'll be best suited for widespread use:

Go granular. Second-by-second is better than minute-by-minute is better than program ratings. When marketers ask "what part of my TV spend works?" I want to answer based on the performance of a commercial, versus the performance of the minute that commercial shared with another ad. The industry made some progress in last year's upfront, moving to "average commercial minute" ratings, but I remain less than satisfied with two of the three words.
 
Reflect the real population. Fourteen thousand people in a panel representing the fragmented, emerging viewing behaviors of the U.S. can no longer cut it. Figure in the inaccuracy for a panel that size, in regard to standard errors and skews, and national data from set-top boxes will be much more reliable. I say this as someone who has seen an occasional cable network have to explain sudden fluctuations in ratings when it was revealed that a single person's viewing behavior had a huge impact on their figures. This problem gets even more dramatic when we bring local ratings into the discussion.

Pinpoint true audiences. It's time to start defining advertisers' true audiences beyond the age and sex surrogates we have been using. As the data size increases, there are ways to incorporate other audience attributes beyond age and sex while still maintaining the anonymity of the viewers. Once free of traditional surrogates for measurement criteria, we will start to think of consumers in new dimensions, empowering marketers to understand their true consumers' behavior for the first time.

Share and compare. A greater volume of television data can be integrated with other existing large data sets. Set-top-box data helps us better compare and cross-reference TV viewing data with other national data sources, such as Internet behavior, shopping behavior, direct mail lists and marketers' own proprietary data sources. Our understanding of integrated media effectiveness will be all the better without relying on small-scale data fusions to make the match.

With that, I encourage you all to become fighters for the revolution, for the freedom of data -- and you can all play a part. Agencies, networks: Get your hands on all the set-top-box data you can, so that when it is widespread, you'll be familiar with its usefulness before you're forced to play catch up. Marketers: Encourage your agencies to understand this new data source. And for those who control access to the data sources such as cable, satellite, telco, and who knows what's next (this one is important): Provide the data to a variety of partners who can provide different perspectives and services to capitalize on the data's potential. The last thing the industry needs is another data monopoly; the injection of new ideas into the space can only be a good thing.

From the political landscape, to the digital conversion, to the resulting data revolution, change is in the air -- making this a good time to clear the air. As former Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki put it, "If you don't like change, you are going to like irrelevance even less. "