• by October 13, 2004

TO HELP THE TASK FORCE, WE'D LIKE TO ASK THE SOURCE (YOU) -- If you're anything like us, you've been chomping at the bit as the debate over local people meters raged in the media, among civil rights groups, and ultimately, on Capitol Hill. Well, now's your chance to be heard in a way that could actually influence the outcome of that debate.

To help guide the Congressionally convened task force probing Nielsen's local people meters, the ARF is asking the readers of MediaPost to participate in a brief survey (click here) that should help set the record straight.

So, if you're someone who is directly involved with planning or buying television and have a few minutes to spare, we'd love to learn your thoughts on how the business actually works. How influential are Nielsen ratings in determining whether and how much media you target at minority viewers? How important is the Media Rating Council in the process? Are local people meters better than diaries? Let us know and we'll let Congress know.

By the way, if you'd like to let us know your feelings on other important industry matters more regularly, we'd also like to invite you to become a member of the MediaPost Advisory Panel. What does that mean? It means spending a few minutes each month to answer an online survey that will lead our coverage of the industry. The quid pro quo: As a member of the panel, you'll get an early look at survey findings before they are published.

SPEAKING OF NIELSEN AND CONGRESS -- Senator Conrad Burns piqued our interest with his reference last week to some long forgotten elements of the 1966 Harris Commission report. The report, you may recall, was the conclusion of a series of hearings Congress held looking into the TV ratings process, and it ultimately established the current self-regulatory framework for the entire media ratings business.

Burns challenged that some key components of the reports recommendations have not been fulfilled. Specifically, that Congress had intended for the Media Rating Council to coordinate with two regulatory agencies - The Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission - and to consult with them when specific complaints about ratings services are lodged.

From what current MRC Executive Director George Ivie can tell, that's never been done, even though there have been numerous complaints about ratings services over the years.

This got us wondering what else people may have forgotten about the Harris Commission's recommendations, so we decided to give it another read. The first thing that struck us as we leafed through the 22-page tome was that lawmakers may be pretty good at making laws, but that they've got a lot to learn about crafting prose. But the Riff is happy to provide you with a summary of highlights from the report's recommendations:

* The federal government "must be seriously concerned with the reliability of ratings and the proper use of ratings by broadcasters and others whose use of ratings effects broadcasting."
* Proper coordination of law enforcement by the FTC and FCC is "vital if proper practices with regard to ratings are to prevail."
* "The enactment, at this time at least, of legislation providing for government regulation of broadcast audience measurement activities is not advisable. The administration of a statute providing for such regulation would place an unnecessary burden on the federal government, and it is doubtful that more would be accomplished than can be accomplished by effective industry regulation."
* "Effective industry regulation will have to depend almost entirely on the initiative and perseverance of the broadcast industry assisted to some extent by advertisers and other users of ratings. The rating services may accept such industry regulation as a necessary evil preferable to government regulation, but they are not likely to undertake a program of self-regulation on their own.
* "Some degree of informal coordination must be achieved between the present program of industry regulation and the law enforcement activities by the FCC and FTC in the area of ratings. As a minimum the [MRC] and the two agencies should exchange information with regard to complaints received by them concerning ratings."
* "A scheme of industry regulation to be effective even more than government regulation requires the continuing exercise of oversight. In the final analysis... the appropriate committees of the Congress will, therefore, have to shoulder this burden of oversight on a continuing basis.

See what we mean about Congressional prose? Well, there's actually more - four more explicit recommendations to be precise, but the six above are the ones the Riff felt were most relevant to reconsider during this current debate.

As for our takeaway, we think the government used good logic in its original thinking that went into the formation of the MRC and the current self-regulatory environment, but that not all of the parties have lived up to the bargain. Meaning, they haven't respected the MRC's self-regulatory oversight in a way that would have, in the words of one Congressman, "teeth."

But after reviewing the original framework, we now also know that the government always reserved the right to flex its legislative muscles if and when the time was right. So we also know there was some genuine bite in the remarks made by Senator Burns last week when he invoked these recommendations.