It”s an unfortunate reality of the media business calendar that the come-to-Jesus moments for those whose livelihoods rely on hard numbers occur around the times of the holidays themselves. Such results are usually received around the time that the “hard eight” weeks of the advertising year come to an end–the ones where a goodly number of those who still choose to invest in old school media place a disproportionate amount of their dollars and weight. And let’s just say a preponderance of them are kind of feeling like they’ve just gotten a few extra lumps of coal in their stockings.
THE CURRENT’s Chris Brooklier spent a disproportionate amount of time of his own this week addressing these results and the temperature of the room, and it’s clear the phrases “peace on Earth, good will toward all mankind” were likely nowhere to be found. Here’s how he handled the basics:
Ratings across 158 TV networks are down this year by an average of 18% to 30% under Nielsen’s new Big Data + Panel measurement, the Video Advertising Bureau (VAB) told The Current. The declines in the highly prized 25 to 54 demographic — now at levels not seen in 23 years when compared with panel-only measurement — break down three ways: an 18% drop overall, a 23% decline for cable networks and 30% plunge when news and sports programming are excluded. VAB President Sean Cunningham said the organization began uncovering these issues in late October after digging into the data. He added that Big Data + Panel shows unusually high variance, overreporting or underreporting ratings by roughly 20%. Some networks, he said, are experiencing statistical aberrations across as much as 60% of all viewing hours. This misreporting — especially for the valuable 25 to 54 demo — has major implications for both buy and sell sides. Incomplete, unstable measurement suppresses CPMs for publishers, draining ad revenue for the already shrinking traditional TV ecosystem. On the buy side, agencies struggle to plan, forecast or trust audience guarantees. “
But it’s not just that the numbers are down–in Cunningham’s esteemed purview, it’s what he sees as the fact they are wrong despite years of promises and vows that Nielsen was finally ready to handle the challenges of accurately measuring an industry sector that was hell bent on trying to keep pace with its self-reliant and tech-driven competitors who had all the buzz and were continually cleaning their clock in extracting significant cash out of their share of a mulit-billion dollar pie. We’ve mused about these pinky swears several times before so this should seem familiar to many of you. It’s certainly a tune that Cunningham has sung before, and this week his needle was certainly stuck in that groove:
“There is an enormous structural defect sitting in the trading currency where the 25 to 54 demographic has been systemically crushed by all of the biases inside of the way Nielsen’s calculating Big Data + Panel,” Cunningham told The Current. “There are many publishers who need a second truth set [but] are being asked by the legacy provider to not only continue to pay ultra-exorbitant rates for their service, [the one] that’s going to put them out of business,” Cunningham said. “You can’t have 20 to 35% annual losses and expect to be in business 12 quarters later.”
He’s not alone in those complaints, as in a separate piece later this week Brooklier found a coupla Deep Throats of sorts who had Cunningham’s back:
A source working at a major TV network told The Current that they believed the VAB’s concerns were legitimate, noting that it moved into Big Data + Panel — fully adopted by Nielsen in September— knowing there could be challenges. “As we’ve continued working with the data, and after reviewing the VAB report, we’re seeing additional discrepancies that deserve a closer look,” the TV network source said.
“What I’ve heard is a lot of small cable networks are getting killed in the new data,” an industry veteran embedded in measurement told The Current.
These are similar gripes to many I and many of my peers used to go on the record with folks like Brooklier to amplify and clarify. We’d emerge like a papal conclave from in-person sessions at conventions seeking fresh creamer to kill the taste of stale hotel coffee while reporters followed us around like we actually were important. In an era where these sessions typically occur over Zoom and employers are far more interested in prioritizing the results of their own money-losing streaming platforms those still in the game have practically no choice but to remain anonymous if they hope to keep their well-paying gigs.
If you look at the rostrum of those who do put their public punims out there on the VAB website as members of the board of directors you begin to get a clearer picture of those who are feeling especially at risk. Ad sales leaders from linear-centric companies like GAC, A & E, Crown Media, FOX, GSN, AMC, Nexstar and Scripps as well as distribution platforms like Spectrum, Comcast and DIRECTV. Sure, a couple of chaps from those with some skin in the game like Universal, Disney and Paramount. But do note that Paramount’s representative is on the way out, and Universal’s is spending a good deal of his days trying to put lipstick on the pig of castoffs and rebranded networks now inexplicably called Versant.
Notice who’s not on that list? Amazon, Warner Media, Netflix and Google. The entities driving the news cycle and business models that are increasingly making those board members endangered species. And yes, the companies that Nielsen has chosen to partner with on the very enhancements to their methodology that now seem to yet again not delivering the promised results.
So that may explain why Nielsen is dismissing these observations in a similar fashion as any Karoline Leavitt press conference of late might. Per Brookier again:
Nielsen disputed the findings, arguing that comparing Big Data + Panel to panel-only measurement is an invalid methodology. The company said the analysis is incomplete without out-of-home ratings, live and same-day ratings and digital in TV ratings measurement, which counts digital viewing on TV screens.
“This report is seriously flawed and manipulated,” a Nielsen spokesperson told The Current. “From what we have seen, the VAB incorrectly pulled our data, and the bureau does not know how to do a proper ratings analysis. The VAB is wasting the time and money of its members.”
Nielsen countered that the flaw lies in the VAB’s measurement approach, arguing that time-period data is inappropriate for analyzing NFL games and that program-level data should be used instead. Nielsen also cited an internal test covering the same month of viewing, which included same-day ratings and showed gains across more than 70 networks.
Notably, the overall number of hours with 20% variance in the VAB report was very low. However, there were twice as many hours with a 20% variance in the 18 to 34, 18 to 49 and 25 to 54 demos compared to the 55 and older demo.
Knowing what I know about the skill sets and core competencies of the few rank and file that remain in positions of consequence, let alone the increasingly desperate demands of their managers, I tend to believe that Nielsen may have a point. And we well know we operate in a world where facts are so often an afterthought–lately, especially.
But forget for a moment the potential implications of all of this on the 2026 upfronts, which once the holidays are over the planning process begins in earnest for, The real fun and spotlight could come a lot sooner.
On the first Monday of the year Versant will be listed as a separate NYSE entity, just four days ahead of the de facto deadline for the Warner Discovery shareholders to officially vote on their intended merger with Netflix. The elephant in that room is the fact that the WBD linear networks would stay in the family in a similar manner to how the Versant portfolio–and the reimagined FOX–have already been. Whatever way Versant’s needle moves in those first few days of ’26 may have an outsized effect on how the WBD tide turns. And we know how much is at stake on those decisions. Lord knows just about every Substacker and paid platform of consequence has devoted a LOT of handwringing to that.
There will undoubtedly be a LOT of questions being asked at that point, specifically as to what factors may drive those verdicts from the investment community. Most who cover that world don’t know or care what or how Nielsen measures things now or then, but they do know the brand. We know how Cunningham feels about all of this, and understandably at that. It sure wouldn’t hurt for him to urge a few of those board members–especially those with oversight of something like Versant–to speak up in his defense at that seminal moment. It’s evident they no longer desire or empower those who actually look at the data to speak up. We might actually be surprised how savvy and credible some of them could be if they were given the same shot we once had.
In the meantime, savor the holidays and do enjoy an eggnog or two. The alcohol could come in very handy in the weeks ahead.
Until next time…