Consulting and working from home may be your idea of personal nirvana, and bully for you if your life is such where that’s a desirable choice. I’m not quite so fortunate and at the rate this industry and world are going, I’m extremely dubious that’s ever going to change. And that’s even with others actually fiercely determined to take steps that, in theory, might reopen doors for meritocracy to once again be a significant determinant into who gets opportunities and why. Some battles of “ism” are fought harder than others.
What I really miss the most is the opportunity to collaborate face-to-face–or, heaven forbid–virtually with others who are informed, impassioned and outspoken about worlds we’ve invested our lives into learning as much about as possible, did our absolute best to lead our superiors down paths we strongly felt were the best for our businesses and educate our subordinates as to how to follow suit. These days, with no such staffs to support, the best we can do is provide those perspectives and frameworks via efforts like these. hoping against hope that someone of consequence will pay enough attention to the lessons we’ve learned, the relevance they have to today’s issues and perhaps try and make their own situations somewhat better in the process.
One such like-minded fellow is Steve Sternberg, whom I first crossed paths decades ago during my very brief tenure on the ad agency side of the business. Sternberg rose to prominence on that side of the equation leading TV analysis teams at once-significant companies like Magna Global, Bozell and TN Media and eventually crossed over to the “dark side” when ION Media tried to become a true broadcast network competitor with ad-friendly content just around the time when such effort as UPN and the original WB were drowning in debt with niche demo strategies that were creatively eclipsed by cable and, eventually, streaming. I’d occasionally see him at industry gatherings for Nielsen and the “4 As” and whenever we’d be at a common panel session or even occasionally in a breakout session I’d always marvel at his attention to detail and his candor, if for no other reason it sometimes made me look timid by comparison.
So I was particularly jazzed when Steve included me on a select list of colleagues who got an advance look at a special edition of the white paper he has authored for years humbly titled THE STERNBERG REPORT–one he’s actually cultivated enough to attract paying subscribers and advertisers. And my own interest was piqued when he rattled off the selling points on his LinkedIn feed:
I’m going to publish a new report titled, A Brief History of Television Audience Measurement (and why nobody really wants it to get “better”)
This report will cover several topics, including:
· How and why Nielsen is an industry-mandated monopoly.
· Are legacy research companies nimble enough to keep up with rapid change?
· Why virtually no one really wants more accurate TV/video audience measurement.
· When research started taking a back seat to marketing.
· Why alternatives to Nielsen have failed to sustain industry support.
· Can samples still measure the TV universe?
· Why industry committees traditionally don’t accomplish much.
· Does big data = more accurate data?
· How to determine the accuracy of Nielsen (or anyone else’s) ratings and actually improve audience measurement.
I’ve covered some of these issues in these musings already, and to be fair some of them may ultimately matter more to folks who have at some point had some actual skin the game. But even if you’re merely a consumer or observer who’s frustrated by why your favorite sources of entertainment continue to make decisions that leave you scratching your heads, the war stories and cautionary tales he tells in this report are more than worth your time and investment.
One in particular that brought back very warm memories for me was his recap of what led up to point number four–when research started to take a back seat to marketing. We were in theory on opposite sides of the debate but were both equally amazed at what became the result, a story which Sternberg perfectly captures with detail and snark:
In 2006 and 2007, Nielsen held a series of industry-wide meetings to
figure out how to report DVR playback and commercial-minute ratings.
The biggest debate at the time was not on methodology, but rather on
what to report. Buyers (advertisers and their agencies) wanted only
live viewing to be used as marketplace currency. Sellers (broadcast, cable, syndication) wanted a
full seven days of delayed DVR viewing included in the reported ratings.
The final meeting on the subject, in which the C3 compromise was established, was the first time that
Nielsen had invited top research, buying, and sales executives in the same room to discuss audience
measurement methodology and related business issues. This was also the first time that business
concerns overrode the necessity for validating research methodology. And most significantly, it was
the moment that Nielsen shifted away from being a pure research company – at the following year’s
national client meeting, Nielsen actually proclaimed that getting a product to market was now
more important than validating the research beforehand.
And if you want to know why I’m so hard on who’s running the store now, it would be those meetings where effectively the concept of doing things right was pushed to the back of the line where those sentiments were sowed, and where Nielsen’s theoretical objectivity was exposed as merely that. Ever since, they’ve been playing catch up with those building better mousetraps, and even now as they are finally bringing to market something somewhat closer to their competitors’ (at least, that’s their plan at this writing) they continue to make moves far more related to their own bottom line than those of the industry they purport to serve.
Sternberg’s releasing the full report to the general public next week via MediaPost, a publication he’s a regular contributor to. It’s a breezy read for anyone who has even a mild interest in these subjects, and I know he’d much prefer you read it under his banner so he can more fully monetize your engagement–ideally with a subscription to THE STERNBERG REPORT moving forward (If you happen to know someone capable of sponsoring it with an exclusive front page ad, he’s apparently seeking that as well).
When I could afford it, I got it. If you’re in a position to do so and don’t already, I encourage you to consider doing so. He’s apparently got real scale. I’m admittedly envious.
Until next time…