January 25, 2023
Updated: ANA Confirms Plans For TV Ratings RFP, Scope And Timing Not Disclosed
- by Joe Mandese @mp_joemandese, February 22, 2022
Editor's Note: The Association of National Advertisers has issued a clarification stating the RFP referred to in this article is not for an alternative TV ratings panel, but for one that would be used to calibrate a new technical solution the ANA is developing as part of its Cross-Media Initiative. …
5 comments about "Updated: ANA Confirms Plans For TV Ratings RFP, Scope And Timing Not Disclosed".
Read more comments >
Next story loading 
Joe, this seems like a rather odd move on the part of the ANA as---unless we are in for a huge surprise--- there is not the slightest chance of anything resembling serious funding for an alternative TV rating service coming from advertisers.
So how would you respond if you were a Nielsen wannabie? Any idea you have needs to be costed out so there is enough guaranteed financial support for a number of years of developmental and operational activity ---plus your profit. All of which affects the questions of panel size, how granular you want to be, whether you try to measure every bit of "viewing" activity--in- and out-of home? And. most important, if you hope to include the vital element of attentiveness---which requires every device to be monitored----a very costly business. What do you do if you know that you are dealing with the ANA---which won't pay you anything-----which will eventually try to pass the buck to the sellers and expect them to foot the bill? What I would do is dust off whatever proposals I submitted to NBCU---which are definitely seller-friendly and, no doubt, will not include attentiveness---and see what happens.
As I have suggested over the years, CIMM could serve the industry, and consequently the ANA, as a TV Ratings JIC - Joint Industry Commitee, by establishing an industry agreed exquisitely defined SINGLE TV currency. This would eliminate the confusion and complexity of multiple TV currencies currently being released and outlined at the recent CIMM Summit.
Some of us from media agencies remember the nightmare dealing with target audience currency data from Nielsen and Arbitron for TV and MRI and Simmons for print. However, at least they all measured impressions based on actual persons with a real measured opportunity or liklihood of looking at or seeing or hearing content compared to a device measure of content rendered - so called "viewable impressions". (The latter is fundmanental of course, but only Level I of 8 Levels, per the ARF Media Model, in an ad's journey to impacting a consumer with a superb creative message as a result of an actual measured exposure with attention to consequently drive a brand outcome.)
@Ed Papazian: Well it's unlcear whether the ANA -- or even its members individually -- would fund anything. All we know at this point is that they're poised to issue an RFP. It could be that they just want to assess and bless an alternative currency that others would primarily fund.
But I get your point, and it reminds me of the speech (former Mindshare research czar) David Marans would to every year at the ANA's TV Forum, in which he would tell them that the easiest way to fix all their problems and get the kind of audience measurement they want would be for advertisers to agree to pay a 3% exise tax on their TV ad buys, which would be more than enough to pay for the creation of whatever measurement service they want.
And I agree with @Tony Jarvis that the best way for advertisers to fix their currency would be as part of a JIC (joint industry commitee) spelling out exactly what the industry wants and sourcing it to the best supplier.
Spot on Tony, Ed and Joe.
Given that there seems to be no history of sufficient financial support by the ANA, surely an RFI would be a more appropriate first step. At this stage it sounds like it is a fishing expedition of high hubris.
As Tony points out a JIC is the (unofficial) 'Gold Standard'. I have worked on JICs in virtually all media in AU and can vouch for the process. Candidate businesses and start-ups are intensively reviewed by experts - will they deliver what is required, within commercial time-frames. Then, and only then, does cost come into the equation. Put another way, can the JIC partners afford what they asked for, and how will they carve up the bill each month.
But one thing is certain. If you end up with multiple 'certified currencies' then you have wasted your time and money.
John, re the Industry approach you outlined, what happens when they get to the point of dividing up the cost and one party---the sellers---- refuses to supply the largest portion of the funding. Do the advertisers and agencies pony up the needed cash---or are the specs revisited to make the cost lower and to eliminate any features that the sellers object to?
For example, I understand that in England, there has been no interest in attentiveness and i the existing system which shows almost no out-of-the-room commercial avoidance is accepted by all parties. That, of course, pleases the sellers---but why is there no movement toward getting at the truth? Does anyone believe that UK viewers watch just about every commercial that appears on their screens? This lack of constantly trying to improve the system seems to be a negative, inherent in all committee-run systems---too many compromises to keep all of the little ducks marching behind mama duck in a row?