Nielsen recently announced that it was delaying plans to incorporate out-of-home viewing into its regular ratings reports, which had been scheduled to start with the upcoming fall TV season. There was an immediate backlash from the broadcast networks, and Nielsen quickly reversed itself. It is now going to include this data starting in September 2020 as originally planned.
The real headline should not be “Backlash from Networks Causes Nielsen to Reverse Itself,” but rather, “Paying for Phantom Viewers – Why is There No Backlash from Advertisers?”
Why would cable networks such as A&E, AMC, Comedy Central, Discovery, Hallmark, ION, Lifetime, and numerous others that would not benefit at all, but would be hurt by Nielsen artificially boosting the ratings of some of their competitors, be in favor of such a move?
I’ve been in this business for more than 30 years, and for most of that time, various networks have been trying to get Nielsen to measure out-of-home viewing, and integrate the data into its standard reported ratings, which the advertising industry uses as marketplace currency. The leading proponents (and potentially greatest beneficiaries) have been ABC/ESPN, ViacomCBS, CNBC, and Turner (now WarnerMedia).
I’m wondering what has happened to the agency research community? Ten years ago (or so), when I was head of Audience Analysis at a major media agency, we would laugh Nielsen out of the room when they periodically would bring up including out-of-home viewing into its standard rating reports (which are used for the buying and selling of advertising). Any junior media researcher (at least those working for more than a month or two) should know that out-of-home viewing in bars and restaurants have virtually no value to advertisers.
Traditionally the networks (sellers) have had the most influence on what types of audience data Nielsen evaluates in supplemental reports or analytical products, but agencies/advertisers (buyers) have ultimately decided what would be included in marketplace currency data. Supplemental reports on out-of-home viewing have been produced for many years, but attempts to include them in regular rating reports have been repeatedly squashed by agency research directors who understood that this data, while interesting from a pure programming standpoint, have little relevance to advertisers. Let’s be clear here. Nielsen’s reason for being is not simply to measure program audiences, but rather to facilitate the buying and selling of commercial time. Why in the world would advertisers pay for extra program viewers who largely do not see or hear their commercial message?
There is no question that major sports – NFL Football (CBS. Fox, NBC, ESPN, NFL Network), College Football (ABC, Fox, ESPN, regional sports nets), NCAA Basketball Tournament (CBS, Turner), Major League Baseball (ESPN, TBS, Fox, FS1, local stations, regional sports nets, MLB Network), NBA Basketball (ABC, ESPN, TNT, NBA TV, regional sports nets), NHL Hockey (NBC, NBCSN, ESPN, local stations, NHL Network), and Soccer (Fox, FS1, FS2, ESPN, Univision, Telemundo, ABC, CBS, beIN) will benefit most. When Nielsen measured in-home program ratings, I could understand the argument that out-of-home program ratings should be included (I disagreed, but I understood the argument). But in a C3 and C7 world, where the goal is to get as close to commercial minute ratings as possible, including bar and restaurant viewing makes no sense.
Anyone who has ever watched sports in a bar or restaurant knows the sound is either off or impossible to hear and understand, and when the commercial comes on you turn your attention away from the TV. In short, the opportunity to see and hear a commercial message is far less than in an in-home setting (and in many cases, nonexistent). And let’s not forget that if an advertiser buys a commercial and the station or network loses the audio feed, the advertiser will typically get some sort of make-good, either in the form a free ad time or cash back.
Proximity to a turned on set is not the same as viewing, and is not the definition that applies to in-home viewing. Right now, for example, my wife is watching TV in the same room where I am writing this report. Were we a Nielsen household, she would be counted as a viewer while I would not. I am not paying any attention to the TV. But if we were outside, the portable device would include me as watching the program. In addition to these obvious drawbacks, when you are in a sports bar, there are multiple screens that have commercials at different intervals. I could be the same distance from three or four different screens, even though I might be watching only one or two of them. Would I be counted as watching all four screens? The whole idea of measuring commercial minute viewing in a sports bar is ridiculous.
There are some out-of-home venues where viewing should be measured by Nielsen and counted by advertisers. Data from college campuses has been available for several years. Viewing in hotel rooms would certainly be valuable to advertisers, as would the increasingly popular mobile viewing on smartphones and tablets. I’m not sure how I feel about TV viewing being measured at work – I often had the TV tuned to CNN or CNBC with the sound off. But bars and restaurants? Measure them in supplemental reports, and let networks try to sell it as added value. It doesn’t belong as part of currency ratings. I simply don’t understand why any advertiser would accept this, particularly those who buy a lot of sports. And I certainly don’t understand why media agencies are not up in arms.
Comments