Commentary

Why Is The TVB Endorsing L3 Ratings When There Are Real Problems On The Horizon?

"Did you know the TVB is going to endorse L3 ratings?" a television station manager said to me in the Crown Room a few weeks ago.

"When?" I asked.

"The end of this week or next."

"Why?  Are there any local advertisers biting on three days of playback?"

"Not in my market," she replied.

"And the TVB thinks their endorsement is going to change that?"

"Apparently so.  You know, with all the problems we have with this digital subchannel mess, you would think they might pick up the torch there."

"Not excited about selling without rating,  I take it?" I asked.

"You can say that again."

"So what should the TVB be working on?"

"From my perspective?"

"Sure."

advertisement

advertisement

"Cable set top box data," she said.

"Really?" I asked, "You would endorse set-top box data as a basis for television viewership?"

"For our sub-channels?  You better believe it.  There's no other choice."

The most pressing problem on the horizon for television advertising sales groups is the looming glut of unsold local inventory.  New advertising-supported digital networks, high-definition programming, local digital subchannels, addressable advertising, telecom services that compete with cable, broadband television from the networks and (relatively) independent services like Hulu -- scale is becoming more difficult to achieve every day.  So what is the Television Bureau of Advertising working on?  L3 ratings?  Really?

It has been my experience that media agency executives negotiate off of live-only ratings and demographic information in the LPM markets.  In tuner-meter markets, advertisers negotiate off of demographic program ratings from the four sweep periods.  Station managers have been pushing L3 ratings for the better part of this year, but for many of them -- especially now that the election craziness has subsided -- L3 ratings are a near impossible sell. 

It does not matter that Nielsen data indicates over 90% of all playback takes place in the first three days and that the majority of that playback occurs on the same day a program was recorded.  What does matter is that less than half of the recorded commercials are viewed in real time when they are played back. 

Commercial viewership is what advertisers want.  The TVB should recognize that.  Advertisers want Nielsen to deliver commercial ratings locally, just as they do for national TV advertisers -- live commercial ratings plus three days of DVR playback.  But even Nielsen would agree that the current local sample sizes do not support such analysis.  Advertisers want to know which commercials were NOT viewed.  Few are willing to pay for time-shifted viewing without commercial-level insight.

Besides, the TVB notes that over 92% of household viewing is live.  So let's take out the pencil.  Suppose CBS's "CSI" received a household rating of 12 last Thursday night in a local tuner meter market.  Assuming a 400 household panel, one would expect 48 households to have been credited with watching the drama.  How many of those households watched the show in delayed mode?  If we assume that roughly 8% of the audience time shifted, then L3 ratings would be based on the behavior of three or four households -- for one of the most popular shows on television.  Good luck defending your estimates with numbers like that.

Here's a wake-up call for the TVB.  There are bigger fish to fry than L3 ratings.  Take local broadcast as an example.  We are mere weeks away from the digital transition, and I have heard precious little about new local advertising opportunities.  If my local CBS affiliate will be able to broadcast one, two or three unique digital subchannels in the new digital environment, how will advertisers leverage the platform?  More importantly, how will anyone know if viewers are tuning in?  Even television station managers in major markets agree that set-top-box data is the only way to measure these new advertising channels.  Where is the TVB on this issue?

L3 was dead in the water long before the TVB showed up.  Regardless of its efforts, L3 will not survive.  To remain relevant, industry organizations must address real issues.  The TVB should abandon L3 before it risks appearing more concerned with Nielsen's bottom line than those of its regular members.

1 comment about "Why Is The TVB Endorsing L3 Ratings When There Are Real Problems On The Horizon?".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Bill Young from WEWS, November 25, 2008 at 5:07 p.m.

    I think the broadcast industry needs to take a hard look at they way we do business. What other business pays huge amounts of money providing research to our clients who use that research against us. I am not a historian, but I believe ratings were once provided as a service to agencies to justify why advertisers should buy TV advertising. In other words, help them sell clients that a fledgling product delivered the goods...meaning people. I think we are beyond proving the TV advertising works. I truly believe that our industry has to move beyond selling ratings and sell results. Ratings have become a commodity. We have let that happen. Unfortunately, the commoditization of TV is half way down the road. Billions of dollars are spent reaching rating points, many times without thought of what those rating points represent....people. Until we stop paying for research that is ultimately lowering our margins, we are not going to move the industry forward. I think it is time for the agencies to start paying for the Nielsen ratings and let the TV stations provide the qualitative research on our particular station/market. Let's get off the hamster wheel and sell the medium for what it does best...reach a mass audience and sell product.

Next story loading loading..