Nielsen delays national sample weighting

'Unfortunately, over the last four months we have seen the numbers bounce all over the place. One month a number is up; the next it’s down; the next, there is no change. No one was expecting this kind of inconsistency, and we all had a whole raft of questions.'

Nielsen delays national
sample weighting

Puts off a full year after networks question data

By Thomas J. Watson

    When is making much-needed improvements not such a good idea?
    Apparently when they threaten to disrupt the lives of many or all concerned.
    That, at least, is the conclusion reached by Nielsen Media Research, which last week agreed to delay for a full year, until September 2003, its plans to weight its national television sample.
    Nielsen was planning to begin weighting its panel this coming September to compensate for shortfalls in various demographic groups, notably among younger viewers and smaller families.
    Nielsen and much of the industry had been planning for such changes for the past several years.
    Nielsen decided to postpone implementation after a number of broadcast and cable networks, as well as some advertising agencies, asked for more time to determine exactly what the changes would mean.
    "We are ready and had originally planned to implement weighting this fall," says Anne Elliot, vice president of marketing communications for Nielsen Media Research.
    "But over the past few weeks many of our clients have said they need more time before the 2002-03 upfront season to assess the full impact that weighting will have on rating delivery."
    Although upfront sales for primetime programs normally do not begin until early summer, upfront sales for other network dayparts, syndication, and cable often start as early as April, with planners drawing up advertising strategies for some clients as early as February and March.
    Because upfront sales cover four quarters of advertising time, a postponement meant delaying the new methodology a full year.
    Those requesting the delay say they did so because they were not happy with the test results they've been seeing from the new system.
    "Nielsen started supplying us with test data last October," says Tim Brooks, executive vice president of research for Lifetime cable network.
    "Unfortunately, over the last four months we have seen the numbers bounce all over the place. One month a number is up; the next it’s down; the next, there is no change. No one was expecting this kind of inconsistency, and we all had a whole raft of questions.
    "For once the broadcast and cable networks were rather united in wanting to delay implementing these changes until we can better understand what is happening."
    Another who is seeing a need for the delay is Bruce Goerlich, senior vice president and director of research for MediaVest Worldwide.
    "Upfront sales are based on guarantees," observes Goerlich. "Everyone wanted to be comfortable with the numbers being used. We at MediaVest had concerns not only about the lack of consistency in the test data but about the fact that some of the data had to be reissued because of errors.
    "We are also concerned about the way the weighting is being done to the cable universe. When you add in the fact that the TV business in general has been in an upheaval this past year, waiting seemed to be the prudent thing to do."
    But not everyone thinks the postponement is a smart idea. Stacey Lynn Koerner, senior vice president and director of broadcast research at Initiative Media, says she is disappointed with Nielsen’s decision.
    "The networks and sales people are merely running scared," she says. "The economy is so bad right now, everyone is being conservative. Change is always threatening."
    Koerner says concerns over the data are inflated.
    "The data we looked at was not all that different. When there were variances, they were tiny, maybe one-tenth of a rating point. Admittedly, those differences can aggregate, and a tenth of a point is a lot more important for a cable network than a broadcast network," she says.
    "But the bottom line is that the current system is flawed and weighting is long overdue. We hate to see fixing the system being delayed even longer."
     "We are committed to doing this," says Elliott. "It will happen for 2003. In the meantime, we will take the coming year to provide clients with in-depth impact reports, so that everyone will be comfortable with the new system long before it is actually in place."

-Thomas J. Watson is a Los Angeles writer and a contributor to Media Life.

Printer-Friendly Version | Send to a Friend
Cover Page | Contact Us