Media agency worries grow over 30% TV audience fall
Concerns are beginning to mount among Australia’s media agencies over a dramatic decline in TV audience figures so far this year.
However, it is unclear whether the shift – which has seen off peak ratings fall by nearly a third – is due to genuine changes in viewing behaviour or alterations to the OzTam panel at the start of the year to take in time shifted viewing (TSV).
For agencies who are remunerated by clients based on their ability to buy audience reach against a specific benchmark, the result could see them missing targets and significantly losing income as a result.
Among those agencies where alarm bells are bringing is Ikon. An email from trading manager Michael Selden has been widely circulated within the industry:
TV is going the way of newspapers. More choice for information and entertainment than ever before, means less eyeballs, for shorter periods of time. The big pillars of traditional mass-media are being eroded by fragmentation. End of story. The Easter bunny won’t be bringing better numbers this year, or the next.
Torrent. I’ve taught my family and friends how to use it – why put up with delayed shows and ads.
ouch!
good to be working in digital…
Also the fundamental flaw in the new system is that… It won’t take into account when the TV is off but the PVR, DVRs, set-top boxes are left on…
So I think ratings might even fall further if we knew the true figures.
The longer the industry dawdles on this gross audience-led approach, the worse its future looks. The way TV (and most media) is traded is fundamentally flawed. Absolutely no focus is being given to effectiveness, hence the fact that 100 viewers to a progam is deemed less attractive than 200 viewers to a program, regardless of what those people subsequently go on to do.
This will be a major sh*t storm.
I believe that the issue is more to do with people’s time. We need to be able to watch a content on our phone, pick up on our computer and finish it off at work.
Our time is localised into bite sized pieces, I myself can’t even go to a movie anymore and I used to go 4 times a week.
Really, we need to get rid of the Old-White-Man mentality of PUSH programming and monitor exactly who’s watching what and when. In my household iView from ABC is a MASSIVE hit. (No I don’t get time to watch that either.)
Using some simple scripting, a content provider can capture how much of a program was watched via Flash or Silverlight enabled web players.
If I were the “big boys” I’d be more concerned with the loss of the distribution model, along with horizontal and vertical modes of production. As the music can travel direct to the consumer, so too can video.
Another argument is this….
Make good content.
Do you watch a really good program or only the one that doesn’t suck as much as others that are on the other channels at that time. Point in case, the Olympics=very interesting.
In the future, Talent will be everything, not equipment. Talent to make good content.
My 40 cents.
Good points Dean, Chris and Clinton but I have to go with Gezza on this one. Try explaining shifting consumer behaviour and Push programming to a client who wants to know why their TV buy is delivering 30% less audiences than was planned for last year and why they have to pay a lot more to get the same R&F.
Not that they even do, not really, but try explaining that part too.
Its a good things agencies have been so active in working with publishers on developing a buying and pricing methodology for online video, as it would be a shame to spend so much in production to be using the same old distribution channels.
TV has been on the decline for years now, and I’m surprised this has come as a surprise to the industry.
Its fair to say spend committments are now irrelevant for the year unless TV can pick up it’s act which it cannot as its not about the programming, it’s the consumer habits.
Marketers, start to look elsewhere if you havent already!!!
Like any media, you are only as good as the content you have. Last year – good content, this year – shite ! Add in Rafters and Underbelly and it will be a different ball game.
One one aspect is that networks really don’t provide great customer service.
A fact that we’ve been chatting about in the office is the incessantly erratic nature of programming. Series start, then they move time slot or day, or get shifted to the secondary channel, get cancelled, get put on hold, get shortened…it’s just all over the shop. ALL of us either use our PVR’s and series link (thank god for it) and skip the ads; or we buy entire series on DVD so there’s no interruptions; or we download. Simple as that. Its been a while since any of us watched anything live.
Networks…you’re just too hard to live with.
As with newspapers and magazines, the numbers will drop, but this is more an ability to accurately measure….. not a loss of eyeballs.
Its disappointing to see that out of a whole article and ten comments (so far) only one has touched on the real issue.
This year’s content is CRAP!
Quick poll round the office, and for most people there is not a single show that they will make sure they are home for. Most of the shows the big shows are coming to the end of their lifespan (think Lost, CSI and any reality show or iteration), and some of the new shows have been pretty bad (Cougar Town, The Good Wife).
Maybe instead of trying to figure out whether the audience data is skewed, we should be giving the networks a good kick to buy or generate good content.
way too early to be speculating on the results and what it means for the future of TV.
my gut tells me it has more to do with a methodology change than an abandoning of the medium.
wait til Grono is back from his trek for the scoop.
Why would anyone, unless they were elderly and stuck in an armchair with no concept of the internet, watch regular television?
Via PVRs maybe.
TVCs no way. I cannot believe anyone sits through them. Mute button+check your email on your iPhone until the actual programme returns.
I don’t believe for a moment that commercial TV is down 30%. Some channels will be back, but that’s to be expected. We have twice as many commercial channels.
Show the numbers.
@anon1 – it may be hard to accept but not everybody in this country is a tech-savvy young thing like you and me. There are people out there in dusty and desperate parts of the country who don’t even OWN an iPhone – they’re stuck with a BlackBerry Storm and a bug zapper on the verandah for entertainment.
Based on your IP address, I think you already have access to the numbers yourself, “I don’t believe you”.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Do any of you folk get it? Suddenly, in a matter of 3 months ordinary folk like me stop watching TV? Maybe there is a shift in the panel (there has been) & once it’s rectified numbers will return – just not to mothership but to digital baby.
I’m with Dave’s “Crap” comment.
I think quality TV such as ‘Dance Your Arse Off’ should be brought back.
Yep,the content on Facebook has me riveted, as does the content in the Herald-Sun!
OK, Digital geeks, I will now give you a free lesson in media so you can stop making fools of your good selves. Viewing year on year is up. Ratings on FTA are down. If you’ve been in a coma, digital is here – we have more stations!!!! By the way, ring up 7/9/10 & try getting on air in 2 weeks time; good luck!
Just shows how important consensual hallucination is around media metrics.
Get some basis in theory. Get everyone onboard. Away we go.
Newspapers and TV have historically been particularly good at keeping everyone inside the tent despite the disagreements, because they understand how important it is for business.
Yes, the content is crap, but also, the commercial TV channels have slowly reduced the quality of the viewing experience. TV viewing is more and more interrupted by promos, stings, overlays and basically embedded ads for the channels themselves and that all adds up to a lower quality viewing experience.
Perhaps if they started to focus on the viewers again, they’ll see an uptick again one day.
Oh the merry merry ratings dance.
If the Audience drops by 10-15% the Networks scream “its the panel, dont blame us the system is rooted”
If their Audience increases by 10-15% they are geniuses and have bought some brilliant programs or producing excellent local programs.
There are many factors in determining the panel. Surprisingly the TV measurement panel is very old – and i dont mean the age of the panel members – i mean the length of time people have been pressing buttons every day… some 4-6 years for a good part of it. Any change to the panel will always create some variances. But do we really mistrust ozTam (the panel owned the run by the networks) for approving this change and getting is so dismally wrong?
Or are we truly getting up to date with modern and current viewing habits.
The panic button should have been pressed in December last year when eTam started including TSV audience. TSV audience has been around for sometime & 30% is an accrual of the unmeasured data that the media agencies have been enjoying over the years. I guess both live & as live ratings should stabilise as the year goes by, as Network commented above …
All very interesting indeed.
I’ve been sick of watching real TV for years, I swear the last news program I watchedd had one story, then 9 ads! Then again! It was completely out of control! Although clutter is another matter entirely.
Foxtel IQ, Series link button, fast forward all ads. I love it. I am time poor and ads suck up a load of that time. I record what I want to watch and watch it when I can. There are so many other ways in which I consume advertising on a daily basis, being yelled at in my loungeroom by my TV in ad breaks isn’t one of them anymore.
I’m one of many doing this that I know of….and I’m not at all surprised in the decline. It’s been going that way for years!
I watched Man verses Wild last night on SBS, it was excellent viewing!
Did anyone know that when the ad break came on I was off boiling the kettle, checking emails in my study and then when I heard Bear’s voice (he is the bloke in Man v Wild) I went back into the lounge to continue to watching the show.
Whether the channel is on or not does not mean that the adverts are being seen…
OK, I had better go, as I have some beetles to munch on and a bed to make out of a dead camel (if you have watched the show you will know what I am on about.)
“Helicopter, get me outta here!”
p.s. I used to happily watch Top Gear on SBS but now it is on Nine I do not watch it – too many annoying adverts…
Gumby!! SO TRUE! I can’t watch Top Gear anymore now that it’s on Nine! Tried taping it but they are even messing with the format and changing things around, you can tell from the bad edits! All good shows that start on SBS or ABC go south the second they hit the big networks.
I can’t watch anything on 7 because it’s just….well hideous in my book, arse gravy to quote a dear friend. It’s my opinion, I’m entitled to it.
TV is over priced and overrated. Get more creative with getting to the masses I say, there’s better ways to do it without burning up all the marketing budget on “prime time” slots. My favourite I must say is when I happen to see an ad for KFC, then Hungry Jacks, then low fat Yoghurt. Can I get an amen for exclusivity in an ad break! Impossible I know but that is just hilarious.
Anyhoo. Off to watch my weekend taped viewing care of Tivo. Bless.
Nothing better than the old ‘sample size of one’
“I don’t watch TV ads therefore they are completely ineffective!”
I wouldn’t say they are ineffective…….however I wouldn’t say that most people find them a joy to have as a part of their viewing either. Apart from when you get the odd nugget of comical gold. The Wendy’s “Shake ‘n Dog” the vibrating Chihuahua. Always seems to tickle my fancy!
No one can deny that TV is becoming more and more fragmented. No one can say for sure that just because over a million people watched a show in a certain time slot, that those million people also watched and absorbed all the advertising.
Advertising has always been an interesting and fickle game, that’s why we keep playing! There will always be better ways to research, always turns in direction that will (to quote one reality tv show) “change the game forever.”
There’s a lot of good ads, oh and there’s an even bigger pile of stinkers!
Bad shows get low viewing……Good shows get good viewing…… Ad breaks? Some will see them, some won’t. It’s still a great medium.
When you want to reach a mass audience, there’s no better way than through traditional media. When you want to engage with your target audience, you need new(ish) media. When mass media can deliver engagement – BONANZA!
I am constantly irritated by the new(ish) media “pushers”. Wake up – media is fragmenting every day with a miriad of new options for consumers, but traditional media still has a very important place. New(ish) media currently delivers a platform for engagement not achievable through traditional channels (yet). Stop focusing on “taking money from TV” and start making sure you have the best possible product to deliver… otherwise these “old” csshed up traditional media giants are going to develop a product which delivers both mass reach AND engagement… and we can all debate how internet only media companies are finished.
BC! Yes, Mass Media + Engagement = BONANZA! Correct indeed. Creatively though many ads miss the mark. A sad case for the end client who is pouring squillions in to their creative agencies who are intent on winning arty farty awards rather than delivering for the client.
Oh my, can of worms? Yes, inflammatory comment? Yes. But this is an open forum and well, why the hell not. Completely off topic now but fun to stir the pot nonetheless!
BC; your quote: “When you want to reach a mass audience, there’s no better way than through traditional media.”
How many people do you know who have a mobile phone, with internet access to sites like Facebook…?
Media is fragmented indeed and there are slices of the pie that have to be covered. Nevertheless:
People go camping and do not take their TV, they take their phone though.
People get stuck on a train (no tv, no radio) they have their phone.
People are in a nightclub at 3am, they have their phone.
People are woken up in the morning, by their phone.
People check the news headlines, on their phone.
It goes on and on… Perhaps you should revise your quote..?
Just curious, but does anyone know what happened in the US and UK when they incorporated TSV measurement? That is, if they have…
hey adam – do you sell mobile services by any chance?
if not, you should, it sounds like a pitch.
In the US it seems TV is doing just fine:
http://adcontrarian.blogspot.c.....r-and.html
We need better/reliable numbers in this market.
@Adam – agree that ppl have their phone on them 24/7… but what % are actually using it in the way you suggest? Data charges are coming down, and more people are using their phones in this way, but I don’t think it’s got the mass that TV/Radio/Print can deliver. People are updating their twitter/facebook via mobile, no doubt, but I’m guessing mobile site traffic suggests (anyone got any stats?) that they’re not doing a whole lot more than that… yet.
I stand by my comment that traditional media is best at delivering mass audience. Technology is advancing at a rapid rate and there will come a time when the big media companies will be in a position to engage with audiences.
It’s because of downloads. Its so quick and easy to get something as soon as its been on in the states. That and DVD box sets. If I like a show, I’ll watch it all in one sitting. There are very few shows I watch on television at all.
Adam- what a load of utter tripe.
How many agencies incentivised / remunerated by CPM’s are now asking the networks for make goods ? If some shops are, are the networks delivering make goods ?
Correct me if I am mistaken but did you just write this whole article without mentioning the web?
I find that just bizzare. I can not imagine how one can discuss declinging TV audiences without mentioning where they are heading.
Me think that the traditional ad industry really needs to get out more. They might arrange SWAT teams to go into random houses across the nation and gather intelligence. They could use heat detecting cameras from helicopters if banging down doors is seen as over the top
Either way, they will see the same thing. Often there will be the TV sitting on off in an empty loungeroom and the family huddled over their computers.
They are merely waiting for the web to hit the TV and that is then where they will go.
Yep, I can not believe that you could write this article without it being all about the carnage that is being created as the web takes over.
However, I am happy that you do. I hope that adland keeps missing the point. All the more for us digital folks 🙂
Jimi Bostock
PUSH Agency
Brisbane | Canberra | Sydney | Australia
jimi@pushagency.net
Hi Jimi,
Thanks for your comments.
While I’m sure the web is a factor, I don’t think it would be the main reason to explain the precipitous year-on-year daytime viewing drop being discussed here I suspect the digital channels and the new panel are bigger factors.
On the whole I’m not sure that Ten’s viewing of The Circle is down on the slot because stay at home mums are illegally downloading the final episode of Lost.
Yes, the web will have (is having) a massive long term impact, but this year-on-year change in the numbers, I’m not so sure. Once the networks move to their A list after Easter – Underbelly, Hey Hey, Packed to the Rafters, Masterchef – I suspect we’ll have a clearer picture.
Until then it may be best to stand down your (I hope) imaginary SWAT team.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
When the way you monitor a result is switched how can you still make YOY comparisons?? If you want to see if there is a true fall away in audience then you need to ask the direct response guys how many phones ring compared to last year. The fact that infomercial time is still selling out is a better measuring stick than comparing a few thousand people to a few thousand different people using a slightly different measurement methods.
And then using that new result as currency to buy against makes your currency as valid as the Zimbabwean dollar! Good luck guys you are going to need it. Yours Truly R .MUGOBWE
@Jeff – Do you think smart phone ownership and usage could soon outstrip TV ownership and usage?
Audiences down, rates up, when will the media industry realize the consumer has moved on.
CPM’s measures what? A client deserves to have the money spent well not just to reward the media agency.
Engagement should be the focus. The consumer doesn’t sit down and digest TV like before so stop trying to find reasons for why the figures are down.
An interesting thread – some varied (and even some valid) comments and opinions. However, I will not be commenting on the specific numbers, but I would like to correct some glaring misnomers.
1. Tom – 19 Mar 10 – 2:20 pm. You say that the system “won’t take into account when the TV is off but the PVR, DVRs, set-top boxes are left on.”. It’s been long time since I have heard a comment on TV ratings that was more incorrect, so congratulations. If the TV is off, then no ratings are attributed irrespective of the status of any STBs etc. If multiple tuners, STBs etc are on (i.e. receiving a signal) only the one that is active on the screen is attributed. End of story.
Of course this contrasts with online measurement where as just one example page impressions served are counted whether (i) the page is rendered completely (ii) whether the page is rendered to a PC and not some bot, spider, or crawler (iii) whether the page is rendered to a browser that is both still active and with the focus (iv) whether the page is rendered to a tab in the browser that has the focus (v) whether there is a human – or maybe even more than one – at that computer. The magnitude of ‘sources’ on a PC far outweight those on a television. It is relatively simple on a TV to sort it out – on a PC it is difficult and needs a panel of people in order to model the actual usage. So if you are one of those people who nay-say TV ratings have another think about the far more fragmented usage on a PC and the implications for measurement.
2. iusedtosellshit – 22 Mar 10 – 1:32 pm. You say “i mean the length of time people have been pressing buttons every day… some 4-6 years for a good part of it.” There is a scintilla of accuracy in this. In Metro TV the rule is that a panelist can only be on the panel for a maximum of 4 years. This is constantly monitored and reported on by OzTAM. Generally, there are a handful of people who sneak into the “48+ months” group and they are quickly removed from the panel. This is despite there NOT being any compelling evidence that ‘button-pushing fatigue” increases with duration on the panel. If anything, the issue is when they first go on the TV ratings panel and some get carried away pushing buttons – which is why all new panelists are ‘withheld’ until they are ‘run in’ and patterns stabilise.
Some other facts to consider that relate to the television market in 2010 compared to 2010:
* The 2009 panel represented “live-only” homes – there were no TSV homes in the panel in 2009. In 2010 some one-quarter of the panel are TSV homes – reflecting the population more accurately. Yes, TSV homes use TV differently. Work the numbers to see how differently for your demo / client / campaign now that you have them.
* The 2010 market is different to the 2009 market. Each of the FTAs now have fully-blown second and third channels. You only need to look at the OzTAM share reports to see how much share they have captured and how much of that share has come from their primary channels – do the maths.
* Where the FTAs had second and third channels in 2009 they weren’t immediately “broken out” (i.e. they were included with the primary channel) until they had acquired some usage and mass – but by the end of 2010 each had been broken out and reported separately.
@John Grono: “An interesting thread – some varied (and even some valid) comments and opinions. However,”
Blimey who put you in charge..?
Not in charge, but I do represent the MFA on the OzTAM committee, and along with John Alderton from Mitchell’s represent the interests of the media buyers. It’s in the interests of all to ensure that any misnomers are corrected wouldn’t you think?
A great thread. I am just sorry it has taken me so long to find it.
I assume the old peoplemeters were not capable of measuring PVRs. I also assume Oztam have just stumped up the cash to get with the times and bought some of the new Nielsen Unitam meters.
The problem is, by not phasing the meters in as the proportion of households owning PVRs grew, you are left with a large step change in the data when you change 25% of the panel in one foul swoop. Even if the panel changes were like for like you would see data changes when you remove and add that many new panel mebers. It is obvious that PVR ownership is a predicator for differing viewer behaviour to “live only” households.
The other thing is and this is one that people are less comfortable with, but is true. I don’t care if Mr Grono confirms or not. If you have the same panel measured at the same time using the two different peoplemeters (even for “live only”) they will produce different results. For whatever reason the meters will produce different data when measuring the same viewing. It is odd but true.
So in this case you have 25% change in panel membership, 25% of panel using new meters and 25% of the panel using PVRs. Unfortunately it is impossible to say which is driving the change. Some parallel testing would have helped explain the differences. Assuming the research supplier has done this to the level required is often remiss.
Unfortunately for our friends hawking online advertising this has nothing to do with that. Nice try though, as John Grono alludes to, the issues with online measurement make these problems look insignificant.
@ John Grono
Yes and a very good point too. Love your work – it makes sense now 🙂
Yes Researcher, the old PeopleMeters couldn’t measure time-shifted viewing (TSV). The panel consists of three types of meters (i) analogue meters for analogue-only homes (which work based on the frequency of the channel tuned) (ii) digital meters for digital homes – but without a PVR (which work by matching the channel banner when you tune a digital channel), and (iii) UniTAM meters for PVR homes (which work on audio matching back to a master “reference signal” for every second of every day for every channel broadcast).
The phasing issue you raise is very true – we do have a step change as OzTAM were very clear in pointing out during all their numerous educational workshops. The ideal situation would have been to introduce them earlier when penetration was lower – but the rate of increase in PVR penetration was faster than any pundits predictions that I saw. The option of ‘phasing-in’ is a tricky one. What it means is that during the phase-in period the panel is no longer “live-only” and neither would it have represented the PVR universe – it would have been somewhere in between … neither one thing nor the other, which is far from ideal.
And yes, different meters can and do produce different raw data. In my experience the ‘change-line’ data differences are generally small and generally relate to how quickly the meter recognises a channel change. That is, if a person is surfing and flicking through a channel every second or so, do we “credit” that 1 second of viewing, or do we use a ‘rule of dominance’ (the most seconds in the minute wins), a ‘rule of the median’ (use the middle second of the minute), a ‘rule of persistence’ (credit the channel after, say. 15 seconds of consecutive viewing).
Parallel runs on the test-panel were done by OzTAM prior to the TSV change-over. Of course, no-one expected “the same ratings numbers” because the whole point of the (very expensive) exercise was to include the PVR homes which have different viewing habits. The parallel run data at the macro level met with broad expectations.
As Researcher says, you don’t just change a quarter of the panel overnight (with the valid objective of more closely reflecting the TV viewing population) and not expect change from what we were seeing the same time lst year.
I will butt in again…
The Australian population is approaching 22 million. How many people and how are they qualified to be on the panel? If this has been covered before, please point me to the article.
I want to get my ahead around this. I am a big believer in accurate measurement, however will admit that I am skeptical of the stats that are provided about TV viewings.
How do you know if the TV is on but every member of the household is in the garden, or down the beach..?
regards
Hi Adam. Skepticism is very healthy!
First, the TV panels are actually not based on people – they are based on households (currently only in-home TV viewing is measured). This makes sense as TVs are (generally) shared devices. So, all up there are 7+m homes in Australia and the panel is just over 5,000 homes – just under 0.1% of the households.
The sample is random. There are no ‘qualifications’ (apart from having a TV in the home). There are no minimum or maximum viewing requirements for example.
The process undertaken is to augment the ABS Census (and inter-censal) data with an ‘Establishment Survey’ (ES). The ES is conducted as a continuous ‘wave’ by telephone (using random-digit dialling – i.e. we make the ‘phone number up so it is genuinely random) and conducted on 10 times the panel size – amounting to a survey of some 50,000 homes a year (it may be lower as the ES ratio in the regional areas may be lower – I can’t recall) into things that the ABS doesn’t collect that affect TV viewing. This includes things like number of working TVs, digital vs analogue, DVRs, household composition etc.
This then allows the statisticans to ‘segment’ Australi geographically, and within each geographic segment design the “target sample”. That is, how would you allocate the households if you had a blank sheet of paper. This results in a rather large matrix of “targets”. For example, in Sydney you would end up with targets by region (e.g.the northern region etc.), targets for no. of TVs (1 TV, 2 TV and 3+ TV), targets for presence of Subscription TV, targets for PVR homes, targets by houshold composition (e.g. single-person households vs large family households) and so on.
The panel is monitored daily and kept in balance against these targets. For example, a home may drop out of the panel and the statistician would look at the next ‘ideal’ home to balance the panel. This may result in a recruitment target of a 3-person home, with 2 TVs, digital, with a PVR, GB Under 55 that lives in Hornsby. The recruiters then go back to that “pool” of people from the ES and search for a home that matches the requirements – the home is then contacted and invited to join the panel.
So, how do we know that they aren’t in the garden etc?
There are a sophisticated set of edit rules that inspect both the TV tuning as well as the individual viewing every day. This is inspected both as daily data and as trended data. For example, if we notice a TV set on for (say) 10 straight hours without any channel change it is a pretty safe bet that it was left on inadvertently with no-one watching – so that home is removed for that day. The people are asked to push a button on the PeopleMeter remote whenever they are in the room and the TV is on – so we can inspect that data stream as well. So, if we saw a person logged in for 10 straight hours they would be removed as well. We also notice things like people being inadvertently logged in on 2 TVs at the same time – in this case we would “log out” the original TV when we noticed the second log in.
But how do we know that they ARE pushing the buttons? When you inspect the data across time, we look for people that suddenly stopped watching TV. This could indicate that they have got bored of button pushing, but in the majority of circumstances it normally expained by them being on vacation, having left the home, or having acquired a new TV that they do their viewing on. These scenarios are checked out by telephoning the home and where necessary installing meters on the new TV.
Further, when a home is contacted we ask about who was watching when the call was made – which people and which TVs, and which programme were they watching. This can then be checked against the meter records the following day. These checks are rolled up into one big study twice a year – and pleasingly 90+% of the time the buttons records accord with the telephone records. Of the remaining few percentage points that are different, it is most often because the ‘channel attribution’ is incorrect. The person on the ‘phone may say that they were watching Today Tonight on Channel 9 (even though it is on Seven). They may say they are watching Grand Designs on ABC when they are watching it on the Lifestyle Channel etc.
I know I have banged on a lot – but have merely scraped the surface.
The message is that a LOT of time, care and resources are put behind designing the sample, recruiting the panel, monitoring it daily, and then monitoring the data-streams. You could say that the system is even skeptical of itself with all the checks done!
If you have any further questions I will happily take them by email – jgrono@bigpond.net.au.
Simple –
(1) demand a randomised sample of all households nationally where all households have equal chance of being selected. establishing ‘targets’ contradicts randomness as a concept and care in ‘recruiting the panel’ highlights this fact – you cannot claim randomness under these conditions, yet still claim you can talk about the ‘population’
(2) get figures on rejection rates per area – if 30 approaches are made in an area, and only 1 takes it up/meets selection criteria (panel member) – ask why – maybe these 29 approached do not watch FTA/traditional media. if that is the case, the 1 who does take up the offer (selected panel member) cannot be ‘representative’ or drawn from a random sample of the 29 that declined as a portion of the population.
(3) query contra, all lines of comunication with panel members. are all records kept and available for inspection for ‘x’ years? do you have a right of access?
(4) it is proven that there is a bais which operates when one is aware they are being monitored – therefore, does having a ‘box’ increase/decrease the amount of TV that is being watched. What are the viewing habits before/after panel data, is there any follow-up
(5) checking a system does not validate the validity of its existence, it merely supports its framework (once established)
(6) all statistics involve some form of smoke and mirrors, but TV fails in areas of validitty, repeatability, falsifiability and sample selection. However, the data is true for the panel that it monitors (5000 homes) – but whether you can extrapolate this to the population is somewhat doubtful, and very ‘unscientific’.
Luckily, media buying is not brain surgery, but it costs more money, so it should be subject to the same, if not better processes.
cui bono?
Try and buy space next month and see tell me if you are successful. If the ratings are to be believed, it should 30% easier than this time last year. It’s not. When the only thing that is changed is the way that you measure then it’s the measurement that is wrong. Base your buy on last 4 weeks and accept that performance per $$$ may be down but response will still circa the same.
In the end we have to stop quibbling about the buy and trust the creative. Because we all now know how to buy enough eyes to make it work. If we don’t then it’s time to step away; get out of the kitchen or move to Zimbabwe!! Now their is a place where your $ is not worth 1/2$ this year.
Yours Truly
R. MUGOBWE