1 1 2 NIELSEN MEDIA RESEARCH -----------------------------------------x 3 COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH EXCELLENCE 4 MEETING OF BOARD MEMBERS -----------------------------------------x 5 March 11, 2009 6 1:00 p.m. 7 8 Concierge Conference Center 9 New York, New York 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 REGENCY REPORTING, INC. 22 Certified Court Reporters & Videographers 23 425 Eagle Rock Avenue 575 Madison Avenue 24 Roseland, NJ 07068 New York, NY 10022 25 www.regencyreporting.net (866) 268-7866 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 3 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: RICHARD ZACKON, Facilitator 4 IRA SUSSMAN, and MIKE HESS, Vice chairs 5 MICHELE BUSLIK NANCY GALLAGHER 6 MARK GREEN JEAN GOLDBERG 7 SHARI ANNE BRILL STEVE STERNBERG 8 COLLEEN FAHEY-RUSH CERIL SHAGRIN 9 DAVID POLTRACK SUSAN CUCCINELLO 10 PAT LIGUORI BETH ROCKWOOD 11 BRAD ADGATE MATT ROSS 12 BILL McDOWELL MICHAEL LINK 13 MICHAEL NATHANSON ALEX CORTISELLI 14 MIKE PARDEE NOREEN SIMMONS 15 KATE SIRKIN BETH UYENCO 16 17 PRESENT BY PHONE: JACK WAKSHLAG 18 GEORGE IVIE MARK KALINE 19 JOANNE BURNS DAN MURPHY 20 MICHAEL ORGERA BARBARA SINGER 21 ROBERT IVINS NATALIE KOZER 22 SCOTT BELL 23 ALSO PRESENT: 24 ROBERT M. LEVINE, Court Reporter 25 3 1 MR. HESS: For those who are 2 here, this is Mike, and in person as well as 3 telephone. This is Mike Hess substituting 4 for Ira, who's substituting for me. I call 5 the meeting to order. 6 I think that, Richard, you're not 7 going to have a bell, but you said you're 8 going to keep tough time on this because we 9 want to finish on time. 10 MR. ZACKON: We have a lot we're 11 trying to squeeze in into three hours. And 12 we may run a little long. And we want to 13 make sure it all gets heard. We have 15 14 people here. We have Shari Anne Brill just 15 arrived. We have 16. We're short of a 16 quorum by two. So as soon as two people show 17 up, we'll have a quorum. 18 MR. HESS: Count the people on 19 the phone. 20 MR. ZACKON: Joanne, this will be 21 a good time to chat with George, but we'll 22 all hear you. 23 MS. BURNS: That's why I'm being 24 obtuse. It's the document you sent me I'm 25 trying to reply to. 4 1 MR. ZACKON: I don't need a 2 reason to be obtuse myself. 3 MR. HESS: Couldn't we begin to 4 cover the agenda or not? 5 MR. ZACKON: We can speak to it. 6 But we don't have a quorum yet. And Ira is 7 at the beginning. So without Ira, and I even 8 had an award for Ira today, which we may not 9 present to Ira today. 10 MR. HESS: He may not call. 11 Anyone on the phone not yet 12 identified himself or herself? Just so I can 13 confirm. We don't yet have Michelle, Laura, 14 Susan. Who was that? 15 We're waiting for Bob Ivins, Mark 16 Kaline, Pat Liguori. Chat lightly people. 17 MR. KALINE: Rich, that's Mark 18 Kaline. 19 MR. ZACKON: Thank you. And 20 Susan, we now have a quorum. We can 21 officially begin. Very good. 22 MR. HESS: So Richard, as both 23 timekeeper and facilitator, do you want to 24 start off or do we have to skip an item? 25 MR. ZACKON: We need either Ira 5 1 or the two committees be put in the front to 2 make sure we got them in. Neither of them 3 are here. 4 Let me just go over the agenda 5 just so you know why I'm so concerned with 6 time and how much we have. We have a 7 Steering Committee report. And our acting 8 chair who isn't acting right now. He's more 9 pantomiming. Ira is not here. And we need 10 to one, vote Mike Hess back on to the 11 Council. And I'd like to have a quorum 12 because it could be a close vote, Mike. 13 MR. HESS: I fully understand. 14 MR. ZACKON: And after he's once 15 again a formal member of the Council, then we 16 can reinvest him in his whole as chair, if he 17 chooses to take on the role of chair we 18 should see. 19 MR. HESS: And as I indicated at 20 the start, I promise not to raise taxes if 21 elected or support any new bailouts. 22 MR. STERNBERG: I vote, yes. 23 MR. ZACKON: I think there are 24 several companies here that might want those 25 bailouts. 6 1 MR. HESS: At least not with CRE 2 money. 3 MR. ZACKON: I apologize. We had 4 a tradition of being timely. 5 Colleen just arrived. 6 MR. ZACKON: I'm going to 7 apologize because we may need to run a little 8 late. Because we seem to be starting a 9 little -- not seem to be -- we're starting a 10 little late. 11 MR. HESS: Do we have any extra 12 on new business? 13 MR. ZACKON: We have a point or 14 two under new business. 15 MS. BRILL: Welcome everyone. 16 This is Shari Anne Brill from Carat who is 17 also chair of the media consumption and 18 engagement committee. And, as you all know, 19 we have been through a series of meetings and 20 going to have a couple of meetings throughout 21 this month. 22 A VOICE: Hold on. I just got a 23 reply from Ira. He apologizes. And said 24 he's on his way. So he will be a little 25 while. Let's proceed without him. 7 1 MS. BRILL: Will do. And so, 2 again, we welcome everyone. It looks as if 3 I'm opening up today's meeting. I would, 4 first of all, like to acknowledge all the 5 amazing work being done by our committee 6 members on the media consumption engagements 7 committee. I would also like to acknowledge 8 media, actually committee members who are not 9 part of the Council who have been also 10 working very hard to bring our great work to 11 fruition. 12 I would like to thank the Council 13 For Research Excellence for their 14 participation in a meeting that took place on 15 February 28th and for the great follow-up and 16 feedback that we've had since regarding 17 refining our study as we take it more public. 18 Just to recap for those of you 19 who have already seen this information and 20 for those of you who have not had the 21 opportunity, I would like to review our 22 findings, our key findings from the video 23 consumer mapping study. These were the 24 findings that were presented to the CRE on 25 February 28th. Key finding, number 1, and 8 1 this is one of the most interesting findings 2 that we had seen, the real "wow" statement of 3 our study so far. Although the competition 4 for consumer screen media time vary across 5 all age groups, their total screen time was 6 strikingly similar, except among those adults 7 aged 45 to 54, whose screen time was actually 8 the highest of any other age group. Which 9 was a big surprise to us, that it actually, 10 the early baby boomers who are engaged in the 11 most media content. 12 The degree of concurrent screen 13 media exposure, also referred to as media 14 multitasking was equivalent for all age 15 groups under 55. 16 Finding number 3, our study 17 confirmed that over 99 percent of Nielsen's 18 three screen time is television. And all of 19 you should be pretty familiar with the 20 Nielsen three screen report. Even among 21 those younger adults aged 28 to 24, 22 television sell 18 to 24. Television still 23 represented over 98 percent, another truly 24 amazing finding. Live television. But all 25 video time by a large margin followed by DVDs 9 1 with DVRs right behind. 2 The study also suggests that 3 computing has displaced radio as the second 4 most prominent media activity. Radio is now 5 number 3. And print is in fourth place. 6 Finding number 6. New HDTV 7 ownership first set or second set led to 8 higher television exposure. So some of this 9 increase could be temporary. And, actually, 10 this is something that's worth further 11 exploration. This is very interesting, 12 learning about high def TV. 13 Finding number 7. Early DVR 14 owners spent far more time with DVR playback 15 versus the more recent acquires. 16 Finding number 8. A higher 17 percentage of television time was spent as 18 sole medium compared to computers, print, 19 audio. DVR playback time is even more likely 20 than live television to be utilized as a sole 21 medium. 22 Finding number 9. Television 23 users are exposed to an average about an hour 24 a day of live television ads and promos. It 25 was only done with live television, by the 10 1 way. 2 And our 10th finding is that we 3 have learned that serious caution needs to be 4 applied when it comes to. 5 A VOICE: I'm here. 6 MS. BRILL: Finding number 10 is 7 Shari, how are you. Welcome. 8 So serious caution really needs 9 to be applied when it comes to determining 10 self-reported data for media usage. 11 Television was substantially underreported. 12 And online video, mobile video was 13 substantially overreported. 14 We have another presentation. 15 MR. ZACKON: Continue, I'm sorry. 16 MS. BRILL: I know we're limited 17 for time. 18 MR. ZACKON: No. I might need to 19 break it up because I want to take care of 20 some other stuff. But you can continue. 21 MS. BRILL: I will do this and 22 then we'll go back to the parliament. 23 As you know, you may know or may 24 not already know that tomorrow we are 25 presenting the findings of the video consumer 11 1 mapping study to top management at Nielsen. 2 They have informed us that they see great 3 value in the work that all of us are doing, 4 not just our committee, but the entire 5 Council. And because they value the work 6 we're doing, we are anticipating a very 7 impressive roster of attendees tomorrow. And 8 I put up the list of names. All but two are 9 definite. So we're going to have quite an 10 amazing presence at tomorrow's meeting. 11 And, finally, because top 12 management people have a lot to do on their 13 plate, we are going to limit the findings 14 that we show them. So we're only going to 15 focus on six of the ten. And if time permits 16 we will get to more. 17 So the ones that are grayed out 18 are the ones we probably won't get to 19 initially. But if time and interest permits, 20 we will. So there we have it. I guess we'll 21 turn it back to the business at hand and then 22 we'll continue. 23 MR. ZACKON: Let me first in a 24 most ceremonial way to acknowledge certain 25 people here as is our want. We have perfect 12 1 attendance on the CRE since day one. Let's 2 see. Susan, perfect attendance. Very good. 3 And Ceril, perfect attendance. And Nancy, 4 perfect attendance. 5 A VOICE: Somebody talking 6 because I can't hear anything? 7 MR. ZACKON: I'm sorry. I'll 8 come back there. Hold on. Hello. 9 MR. HESS: Let the record show 10 Richard is canvassing out stars. 11 MR. ZACKON: And for stepping up 12 to the role of chair above and beyond the 13 call of duty, Ira Sussman. Shall we bend the 14 star. This is the red badge of courage for 15 Ira. I tried to get a purple heart if you 16 know what's been going on the last few weeks. 17 But they didn't have them. 18 MR. SUSSMAN: And these are 19 weapons. So don't start up. Apologize for 20 being late. 21 MR. ZACKON: We'll start with the 22 Steering Committee. Just so you know, we're 23 a little disorganized here since we need to 24 get the invites out in a timely way. And we 25 can't get the invites out until we vote on a 13 1 logo as the Council. So we're trying to 2 balance a lot of things. And we can't do 3 that until Kate shows up. We have them here. 4 But they're a thing to show. 5 So first order of business is 6 there's a certain gentleman in the room, a 7 Mr. Michael Hess who is here under what 8 you'll appreciate, Mark Kaline, the Mark 9 Kaline Rule. Which says that a chair, really 10 any Council member who's between can be here. 11 And Mike's seat was given up from OMD and 12 applied once again to join us from Carat. He 13 applied to the Steering Committee. And, Ira, 14 what did the Steering Committee decide about 15 that? 16 MR. SUSSMAN: We didn't miss a 17 beat. Mike was rejoined to the Council as a 18 member and he'll be sharing a seat at Carat 19 with Shari Anne. 20 MR. ZACKON: In what's called the 21 Bruce Goerlich-Kate Sirkin Rule, where two 22 people under certain circumstances share a 23 seat. But the Council needs to endorse Mr. 24 Hess to rejoin our presence. So does anyone 25 want to move welcome Mike Hess back again. 14 1 A VOICE: I will. 2 MR. ZACKON: We all in favor of 3 having Michael Hess rejoin us. 4 (En masse, aye.) 5 MR. ZACKON: Mike, welcome back. 6 Now, Ira, we have another 7 important piece of business. You have been 8 acting chair. 9 MR. SUSSMAN: Acting chair. And 10 the next thing that we want to do is invite, 11 if we all agree, invite back Mike Hess to 12 take over the chair seat. 13 MR. ZACKON: Before we do that, I 14 just want to acknowledge Ira, who up until 15 1:02 today has done an absolutely flawless 16 job. Not only has been a great chair. He is 17 a remarkable bench at any number of times 18 over the last few years, has just stepped 19 into what is required. He's the chair of the 20 Steering Committee. He's the vice chair of 21 the Council. And he stepped into the role 22 when Mike moved companies. So I just want to 23 acknowledge him for that. Thank him 24 personally for that on behalf of the Council. 25 Thank him for that. But he's ready to give 15 1 up his chairmanship's duties if the Council 2 wants to vote in Mike Hess who's a member of 3 the Council now back as chair. 4 So does anyone want to, Ira's 5 stepping down as acting chair. We need a 6 chair. Anyone have a name they'd like to put 7 forth? 8 MS. LIGUORI: I'd like to 9 volunteer Mike Hess. 10 MR. ZACKON: Is there a second? 11 MS. GALLAGHER: I second. 12 MR. ZACKON: All in favor. 13 (En masse, aye.) 14 MR. ZACKON: Any opposed? Very 15 good. Will you gentlemen switch seats and 16 name tags. Okay. Welcome back. 17 MR. HESS: Thank you very much. 18 MR. ZACKON: Now, so Kate, we've 19 been juggling. And thank you. You're just 20 in time because invitations are waiting for 21 Nielsen clients and they're waiting because 22 we have three versions of them with different 23 logos up top. And in an august body of 24 graphic arts experts will choose which one 25 we'll go with. So if you can pull up the 16 1 communications committee slide and the 2 initial piece of that. 3 Shari, thank you for your 4 flexibility in jumping in and out like that. 5 MS. BRILL: No problem. 6 MS. SIRKIN: What a multitasking 7 concurrent viewing group of people you are. 8 I think most people will have in front of 9 them the brief of the logo; is that correct? 10 If not, invitation. It's the page 11 afterwards. 12 MR. ZACKON: I'm not sure if it 13 was distributed. 14 MS. SIRKIN: Maybe it's just in 15 the dec then. Maybe we can go to the -- oh, 16 thanks, okay. The logo brief is now on the 17 screen. Hopefully the people on Webx can see 18 it as well. If many people can remember, 19 buyers and several broadcasters and 20 Cablevision. And reading from the logo 21 brief. Just approving what we're all doing. 22 I think what's most important is what would 23 we like them to think about the CRU. It's a 24 forward-thinking influential group of 25 experts. And the singlemost persuasive 17 1 idea -- 2 A VOICE: I'm not sure where 3 you're sitting relative to a mic, but you're 4 coming in and out. 5 MS. SIRKIN: I'm sitting right 6 next to one. But it's even nearer now. The 7 theory is the modern authoritative influence 8 of standards that mark Anne's measurement 9 information investigation and illuminate best 10 practice, they should believe in it. Because 11 it's an independent council of Nielsen's 12 senior level clients and strictly focuses on 13 Anne's measurement. I'm not going to read 14 the rest of it. 15 What I'd like to do is just move 16 to the next three logos. What you're going 17 to have to do today is choose between these 18 three logos. They've been put together by 19 volunteers from the committee. I'm not going 20 to talk about who did each one. But like you 21 to look at them and vote on their merits. 22 They're all lovely. If we had three 23 different councils we can choose them all. 24 But we can't. We have to choose one. And we 25 have to choose it quickly or else -- Rachel 18 1 is kicking me under the table -- he sent me 2 at least seven E-mails today, telling me it 3 needs to be done by 1:30. And then we need 4 to get hot to Nielsen so that they can send 5 this out. 6 So I'm going to show you the 7 three. I'm not going to talk about them 8 individually because I don't have details on 9 all of them. But just look at them. Think 10 about this brief. And think about which one 11 you think reflects the brief best. This is 12 option 1. And the brief is that it would 13 work in black and white and color. I'll go 14 backwards and forwards. 15 This is option 2. And this is 16 option 3. I think I'm going to be able to go 17 backwards. So 2 again and 1. 18 MR. ZACKON: We had close to 10 19 total submissions. These were narrowed down 20 from the 10. 21 MS. SIRKIN: Right. And refined 22 based on feedback from some experts in the 23 states. 24 MR. ZACKON: I had wanted to do 25 kind of a silent bidding on it. But I think 19 1 based on the speed, the time that we have to 2 make it and technology available, we should 3 just do a show of hands. An aye from the 4 people on the phone. So I'm going to request 5 votes for number 1, first of all. Hands. 6 MR. HESS: Okay. I will count as 7 chair. Keep your hands up. I counted 12. 8 MS. SIRKIN: Any on the phone? 9 MR. HESS: On the phone vote for 10 number 1? One, two, three, four on the 11 phone. Okay. 12 MR. ZACKON: I remind Shari and 13 Mike they share a vote here. 14 MR. HESS: Shari, did you vote 15 for number 1? 16 MR. ZACKON: I'm just reminding 17 you. I'd rather not say. 18 MS. SIRKIN: Option 2, hands up. 19 Option 2? 20 MR. HESS: Okay. 21 A VOICE: I like it. 22 MR. HESS: Seven. 23 A VOICE: And I do too. 24 MR. HESS: Eight? 25 MS. SIRKIN: Option 3? 20 1 MR. ZACKON: On the phone. 2 MR. HESS: Anyone on the phone 3 for option 3? 4 MR. IVIE: This is George on the 5 phone I'd like to cast one. 6 MR. HESS: For number 1? 7 MS. SIRKIN: Thank you, George. 8 MR. ZACKON: I thought you don't 9 vote, George. You're putting yourself out on 10 this one. It's your choice. 11 MR. IVIE: Whatever you want to 12 do. 13 MR. ZACKON: Fine by me. 14 MR. HESS: I end up getting 15 15 and a half for number 1. 16 MR. ZACKON: So that's the 17 winner. 18 MR. HESS: And eight for number 19 2. So number 1 is the winner. 20 MR. ZACKON: Kate, do you know 21 who to contact there on Nielsen on that? 22 MS. SIRKIN: You'd like me to do 23 that immediately? 24 MR. ZACKON: I think so. A lot 25 of people in this very room are getting on my 21 1 case to get them out. Otherwise, I'm going 2 to put them on your case and you can take 3 your time. 4 MS. SIRKIN: I will get them out 5 quickly. 6 MR. ZACKON: Thanks, Kate. 7 MR. HESS: And for everyone who 8 submitted -- 9 MR. ZACKON: Just put up the logo 10 again so the Council can see who it is. 11 That's not who we are. That was a big 12 mistake. Very good. Thank you. 13 MR. SUSSMAN: Also, just so you 14 know, the reason for us voting on this as we 15 did was to get an invitation out in the 16 client meeting at the end of the month. But 17 just so you know, if you love this one, and 18 now that we all love this one, if you think 19 that maybe CRE should be darker or something 20 after today, we still can make some 21 fine-tuning to it. But we needed to get 22 something decided and out immediately. So 23 over the next week or so we can still, if you 24 have any ideas, but this is the one that 25 we're going to go forward with. 22 1 MR. ZACKON: As facilitator, I 2 was simply concerned we spelled CRE 3 correctly. 4 MS. BUSLIK: What about Council? 5 MR. ZACKON: Okay. Kate, should 6 we go on with the communications or should we 7 go to the Steering Committee and then see. 8 MS. SIRKIN: I don't mind. 9 MR. ZACKON: Kate, if we can do 10 the other thing, you can't get on. I'll send 11 an E-mail out. Not to worry. 12 MR. HESS: Do they have the same 13 order? 14 MR. ZACKON: They know which one 15 is number 1. 16 Shari, why don't we go back to 17 your piece. And, again, I thank for your in 18 and out business in all this. And that way 19 we can bring that to completion. Right now 20 the order is less important. So please go 21 right ahead. And you may get an extra couple 22 of minutes as a result. 23 MS. BRILL: Okay. Everyone, I'm 24 back. 25 Where we last left off I did 23 1 review the findings that we shared to date 2 and the February 28th meeting and at the 3 meeting on March 12th. 4 What's happening next is I just 5 want you all to know that the findings that 6 we're sharing are not necessarily a dictate 7 for what will be shared at the client 8 meeting. There's so much information in this 9 database. It's very rich. There was such a 10 huge competition for time over what we deemed 11 we could show and get into in the time 12 allotted. But I think we may have a bit more 13 time to work with for the March 26th event. 14 And I would love to confer with committee 15 members on a call Friday to see if we could 16 possibly make some additions or swap 17 something out. Because to add something in, 18 something will probably have to be 19 subtracted. 20 We do have a Friday call. It's 21 scheduled, anyone who wants to weigh in, 22 2:30, can call. I will send out an E-mail 23 with her call in number and information for 24 any Council member who would like to 25 participate on Friday's 2:30 phone call 24 1 which usually lasts about an hour, okay. 2 Moving forward, the 3/26 event is 3 moving along rather nicely. We have a lot of 4 excitement around the event. We have 5 representatives from Ball State 6 University/Sequent Partners who have actually 7 offered to even videotape the entire event. 8 We're really excited about how elements are 9 coming together. And I don't want to 10 overstep my bounds with the communications 11 committee, but it is moving forward. 12 I'm very happy that invites will 13 be going out. And I can't believe that this 14 big event is just two weeks from now. So, a 15 lot to look forward to. And still a lot of 16 work to do in its preparation. 17 Moving back to our study 18 findings, I do want to acknowledge our 19 research partners Ball State 20 University/Sequent. And they in turn wish to 21 acknowledge us for the great participation 22 we've had to date. Our contract calls for a 23 lot of work to be done. We actually put out 24 a very detailed punch list and a review of 25 that. And potential next steps should be in 25 1 your folders. It's a six people document. 2 And it's entitled, "Tapping The Extraordinary 3 Potential Of The VCM Database." 4 As I said, this is a very complex 5 database. A lot of work has been provided to 6 date per our punch list and a lot of 7 additional work was requested on behalf of 8 Council and committee participants. There 9 are still additional analyses that could be 10 done. And another overarching issue is the 11 fact that this database is actually the 12 property of Nielsen. So there are those 13 issues to work out. 14 We also have, because part of our 15 objective was to guide video measurement in 16 the future and look at what Nielsen is 17 currently doing, there are a whole plethora 18 of issues surrounding what is currently 19 measured and captured and what is currently 20 not measured and captured. And how do we go 21 forward from here. 22 Clearly, that is a debate in and 23 of itself. And I have heard that there will 24 be a formation of a committee to work with 25 those types of methodological issues directly 26 1 with Nielsen. But, more importantly, in the 2 short term, there are many additional 3 analyses that we would like to see. And I 4 would encourage the Council to review what's 5 been done to date and come to us with any 6 ideas that you may have which we will talk 7 about on Friday's phone call. 8 The reason being is that, you 9 know, this analysis is not easy to just tap 10 into it. It's not as simple as doing an IMS 11 run. It's a very cumbersome database to work 12 with. And, currently, I am requesting that 13 the Council vote for an additional $100,000 14 to cover the cost of these extra analyses. 15 Because there's definitely a lot of rich 16 database mining that's to be had. 17 So right now, without any further 18 ado, because I know we're on a tight 19 schedule, could I have a show of hands in the 20 room over whether we can get that additional 21 $100,000? 22 MR. ZACKON: Before we do, I 23 think there should be a formal motion on that 24 and discussion on a vote before that. 25 MR. HESS: I agree. What are we 27 1 getting for the 100,000? 2 MR. SUSSMAN: What's the period 3 of time that that will cover? How long will 4 they be doing extra work for us? 5 MS. BUSLIK: And will we have 6 access to it. 7 MS. BRILL: Again, complicated 8 issues. But right now the team with Sequent 9 Partners has statisticians available who are 10 very comfortable working with the database 11 and know how to get information out. So for 12 now it's really to cover those costs. 13 MR. LINK: Here's what I would 14 suggest. Just as in the past, what we have 15 been doing, you come up with a list of items 16 that you would like them to look at. And be 17 fairly broad. And then ask them for a cost 18 for doing that work. What you absolutely 19 don't want to do is back in and say we've got 20 a kitty of 100,000 bucks and what are we 21 going to get for that. Do it the other way. 22 Let them come back then. They should come 23 back with either hours or amount of hours 24 that they can spend on this type of thing. 25 MS. BUSLIK: I was on one of the 28 1 ideas that I had when I saw the list that you 2 paired down to six, I think one of the key 3 findings from this research should be there's 4 more to mine in it. And maybe that will 5 spark that this is only the top of what's 6 available, the top of the iceberg, the tip of 7 the iceberg. And that may be one of the key 8 findings. That this is so rich that we will 9 need. And that will spark the additional 10 money, whatever, and analyses that needs to 11 be done. 12 MR. HESS: Is there a certain 13 time-bound business to that. I got the 14 sense, I attended the presentation at Nielsen 15 a couple of weeks ago, unless that's a 16 different recommendation, I gotthe sense from 17 Sequent that because of some fieldwork, et 18 cetera, we actually have to make the decision 19 sooner rather than later. Is that true? 20 MS. BRILL: Well, there's only so 21 long that they can hold their team in place 22 to do this work. Because they may move on to 23 other projects at other organizations. 24 That's why this additional little vote is 25 really crucial and time-sensitive. 29 1 What I can also do for all of 2 those of you who are interested, I can 3 circulate the very detailed punch list of 4 what has been completed to date. What was in 5 scope with what we asked for and what had 6 been determined that was out of scope. 7 MR. STERNBERG: Shari, can I ask 8 a quick question. We spent a lot of money 9 for this study. And wouldn't we think that 10 it's their responsibility to provide us with 11 the data in the form that we can access it 12 ourselves and mine the data ourselves? I 13 mean, we paid $3.5 million for this study for 14 more than just the top 10 findings, you know. 15 So there's that that. There's a database 16 that we can access. And if we have to spend 17 an extra $100,000 or $200,000, whatever, just 18 so that they can access the data that they 19 already should be providing for us. I'm not 20 sure I understand why we can't get the data 21 in a usable form. 22 MR. ZACKON: Can I address some 23 of my sense as facilitator here. There was 24 actually a time for that. Shari asked 25 members at the committee are they complete. 30 1 And everyone on that committee agreed they're 2 complete. 3 I don't disagree with you, Steve. 4 But it's now the horse is out of the barn. 5 We told them we're complete. Time for what 6 you are saying was a week or two ago. 7 I think there's another way to 8 approach it here. I think we can get someone 9 working with Nielsen, not for Nielsen. 10 They'd have to work for us at the Council, 11 trained in that database. We don't have 12 anyone now trained in that database. And I 13 think it's worthwhile, I think, to pay some 14 if to Sequent/Ball State so that that person 15 fully understands that database. And then 16 that person becomes our expert working for us 17 at a much lower rate than what their proposal 18 was. There may be certain complexities. 19 It's a very complex database. And I think 20 you'd agree. So there may be certain things 21 to get at. We're going to need deeper cuts 22 than what we could probably find a database 23 person to do. But in this economic 24 environment, I speculate someone in this room 25 might know someone who might be in a good 31 1 position to support us for a fee on that. 2 So my sense is the money would be 3 well spent to have Ball State train someone 4 who works with Nielsen who's keeping the 5 database on their systems. And then we look 6 to go forward that way. They put forth a 7 proposal for about 200,000. 70,000 a month 8 for three months. 9 My sense was we can't spend 10 anything unless the Council approves it. And 11 maybe we can get some money to bootstrap 12 until June so that we can get started. But 13 my recommendation, get started, is get 14 someone trained on how to use it. And then 15 all the requests that come in from people on 16 the Council and other Nielsen clients can 17 come in. And then we can manage that as best 18 we can. And Shari's committee can set up a 19 way to do that. 20 MR. HESS: Okay. Since it 21 involves money, let's handle this in kind of 22 a formal parliamentary way. 23 First of all, is there more 24 discussion? And then I think, Richard, 25 you're not, thanks for the comments. I think 32 1 probably in a formal sense we need somebody 2 else from the CRE to actually make a motion. 3 So when somebody's ready to make a motion. 4 Ceril? 5 MR. WAKSHLAG: Okay. This is 6 Jack. 7 MR. HESS: Okay. 8 MR. WAKSHLAG: There was an RFP 9 and a response to the RFP. And I guess in 10 many ways, I mean, having done this kind of 11 stuff before, many of us have done this stuff 12 before. The question is do we believe that 13 all the obligations that have been set up for 14 them to bring in, and agreeing in a way with 15 Steven, all the obligations that were set in 16 and out, the RFP which were accepted by all 17 parties has been satisfied. I remember I was 18 at the IRB. That a database would be 19 provided. If not, then we're now treading 20 new ground. 21 A VOICE: I do believe that it 22 was said in the RFP we would own the data. 23 So would that not imply a database? 24 MR. ZACKON: We do own the data. 25 And the data had been turned over. I held in 33 1 my hand a very small flash drive worth $3.5 2 million. It's been turned over. But that's 3 not a database business easily queried. 4 There needs to be some work to take that 5 through the next step. I don't think it's a 6 $100,000 worth of work. 7 MR. WAKSHLAG: Who was looking to 8 make sure that all the specifications that 9 might be reasonably assumed to be complete 10 according to the RFP and subsequent documents 11 have been complete? 12 MR. ZACKON: I made that request 13 of Shari and asked her to make that to 14 members of the committee. And we gave the 15 committee time to respond to that. And 16 you're on that committee and Steve's on that 17 committee and Shari's on that committee. And 18 no one on that committee said, no, we're 19 still waiting for X. 20 MR. WAKSHLAG: Okay. 21 MR. HESS: The checklist was 22 submitted. And I followed along on the 23 E-mails and everybody said yes. Nobody said 24 yes, but... 25 MR. ZACKON: That doesn't mean we 34 1 can't make a further request of them. It 2 doesn't mean that they might be willing to do 3 so. 4 MR. WAKSHLAG: Richard, if we're 5 paying them $3.5 million, now I'm hearing 6 what Steven said. But obviously, from their 7 side, this job ends today. 8 A VOICE: I know we all 9 commented, but I don't know. I will speak 10 for myself. I have not had a chance to 11 review in letter and law, the RFP. Have the 12 othere committee members done so to Jack's 13 point? And, if not, can someone volunteer to 14 do that to see whether it has been fulfilled 15 completely? 16 MR. HESS: Richard, have we 17 already formally given them a yes? 18 MR. ZACKON: Believe me, I took 19 my lawyerly care to put it back to the 20 committee to get a ruling. Because this is 21 precisely the kind of issue that tends to get 22 resolved in this way. And I wanted to make 23 sure. And granted time for the committee to 24 step up and say wait a second. And no one 25 said wait a second. 35 1 So the question is, and I don't 2 think we're in a really bad place about it. 3 Frankly think they did a lot of things that 4 weren't in the profile. I think there's a 5 workable way around it. But we have told 6 them complete. We're holding back a small 7 final payment until they present to the 8 client meeting to Nielsen tomorrow and the 9 client meeting on the 26th. 10 MR. WAKSHLAG: I'm okay with 11 that. 12 MS. SIRKIN: I have one further 13 suggestion to Richard. And that is pay them 14 a sum of money based on the results needed to 15 create a database that we can all use 16 individually. That we can have on a flash 17 drive ourselves as opposed to having three to 18 Nielsen, we have two routes. One is train 19 somebody to do it and two is create a more 20 usable database that we can hold. play with 21 it to our heart's content. We're all 22 researchers. We do that kind of thing. 23 MR. ZACKON: When you say "we," 24 the members of the committee sit privileged 25 to other Nielsen clients who say I want to 36 1 get in on that. 2 MS. SIRKIN: I don't think so. 3 MR. ZACKON: Ceril, you wanted to 4 say something. 5 MS. SHAGRIN: I just want to 6 emphasize what Michael said and what you said 7 in terms of what we really need is for one 8 who is trained to access the database and run 9 reports, whether, long term, whether they 10 create something that is a subset of the 11 database, or some way to let individual 12 clients do it. But we need to have somebody 13 independent of the Ball State people or we 14 will always be dependent on them every time 15 we want to access it or get more information. 16 So what I would like to propose 17 and I'll make a motion just so we can move on 18 it, is that we find out how much it will cost 19 us to get someone trained who will then 20 report in to this committee to continue to 21 access data and continue to allow us to learn 22 from it. 23 MR. HESS: Does everybody 24 understand that motion? I'm going to try to 25 rephrase. And then correct me if I'm wrong. 37 1 Ceril moves that we find out how 2 much it would cost us to get someone trained. 3 That person, you didn't make it explicit, 4 that person should not come from Ball State 5 or Sequent, just someone to get someone 6 trained. 7 MS. SHAGRIN: To hire then. 8 MR. HESS: So the motion is just, 9 actually the action step is find out how much 10 it would cost us to get someone trained? 11 MR. ZACKON: And I would say find 12 out what their hourly rate would be to 13 continue to do queries to get us that 14 database. 15 MR. HESS: Ceril, are you happy 16 to add that? 17 MS. SHAGRIN: I'm happy to add 18 that. 19 MS. LIGUORI: Its seconded. 20 MR. HESS: It's been seconded. 21 All those in favor, brief in the beginning 22 how much it would cost us to get someone 23 trained and their hourly rate. That's not to 24 put them to work. Find out how much to get 25 them to train. It's a cost behavior. Raise 38 1 your hand for that or not on the phone. 2 A VOICE: Yes. Agree. 3 MR. ZACKON: Let me ask so that 4 we can move forward. We can find out. This 5 Council is not meeting again until June, 6 right. And we probably don't want to lose 7 that much time. Should we then put out by 8 E-mail a vote? In other words, we'll come up 9 with a budget and we'll put it out. And the 10 Council will vote by E-mail to expend that 11 amount of dollars at least through June. 12 MS. BUSLIK: Do we have money? 13 MR. ZACKON: We have $900,000, 14 roughly, in our kitty. 15 MR. HESS: Richard, what you just 16 said, do we need to put that into a formal 17 motion as well? 18 MR. ZACKON: As long as we agree 19 by E-mail, Ceril's committee will come back 20 with a recommendation. We found this person. 21 Ball State/Sequent is spending that amount of 22 dollars to get them trained. We have a slew 23 of issues and we're going to go ahead and 24 tackle it and request this amount of money to 25 do it. 39 1 MR. ADGATE: Richard, does the 2 CRE have a -- 3 MS. SIRKIN: I know who could do 4 that. What's the database in? 5 MR. LINK: That's unclear. 6 MR. ZACKON: Ball State EM. 7 MR. LINK: We've been waiting for 8 someone to work with them. It's just now 9 literally housed on a server. 10 MR. ZACKON: We'll probably put 11 it on Access or some software database 12 import, some into Excel. 13 MR. HESS: We actually didn't get 14 the nays on the vote. I think we have to 15 finish the vote. Okay. So we saw the hands 16 that were up. In the room, any nays against 17 that proposal? Okay. And what about on the 18 phone; any nays? Okay. 19 Colleen. 20 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: If Nielsen owns 21 the database and this is such a rich database 22 that we can be analyzing for two years, I'm 23 just trying, I understand that you're 24 looking. We wanted to consider having 25 somebody that's independent and not employed 40 1 by Nielsen to do this data mining. But I'm 2 just wondering if that could just escalate 3 over a period of what the number of years, 4 over a number of years we're taking some sort 5 of an hourly rate. 6 I don't see why we wouldn't want 7 Nielsen to take responsibility for some sort 8 of data mining in-house there. 9 MR. LINK: I think we can do 10 both. Certainly after tomorrow's meeting 11 that's one of the things we want to present. 12 It is making sure we have the right kind of 13 resources internally work with the database 14 as well. 15 A VOICE: Our my concern is over 16 the years. Years from now it will be old 17 data. So we need to move it and analyze as 18 much as we can quickly to act upon it now. 19 Because it's a fluid type of data. 20 MR. ZACKON: If I can suggest 21 something. I don't want to offend our 22 Nielsen sponsors. I, from time to time, 23 heard clients, from members, people on this 24 Council, about how quickly Nielsen moves on 25 requests for things. So we may want to have 41 1 our own person there able to do that. 2 MR. LINK: I can see both, having 3 both resources. Because that facilitates a 4 number of things. 5 A VOICE: I still vote for having 6 some kind of a database that we can 7 individually -- 8 MR. LINK: I do want to answer 9 that, address that because this is the first 10 time we've crossed this bridge with a major 11 data set with this group. And we do need to 12 go back and look at what the rules are for 13 using the database. I think it's pretty 14 clear. We can be used for CRE purposes so 15 this group can decide how they want to mine 16 that type, to have this. But what we need to 17 be very cautious about is handing out drives 18 for some people and goes out and uses it for 19 their own particular purposes. So there do 20 need to be some rules and guidelines around 21 there. And all the other data sets cropping 22 up among the group here. 23 MR. HESS: I appreciate that's 24 Nielsen. But Kate, you want, you're pretty 25 insistent on that. Put it in the form of a 42 1 motion. 2 MS. SIRKIN: I would like to 3 investigate the possibility of creating a 4 database that's easy to use for regular 5 researchers, not necessarily SQL researchers. 6 Continue to do analysis on behalf of our 7 companies. 8 I want to be clear to your point 9 that I'd like to have some use, not 10 necessarily for the CRE presentation. I 11 don't know it's possible or not. But that's 12 the motion I would like to raise. 13 MR. HESS: That was a long 14 motion. And Richard and others, we can check 15 exactly what the rules are. But I think we 16 should convey, and we've done this in the 17 past, we've conveyed to Nielsen a sense of 18 the Council, a formal vote. And then that 19 doesn't mean that if it happens it's against 20 the rules. But at least you know what the 21 Council said. 22 So that was a very long motion. 23 So I'm just going to say let's vote on Kate's 24 motion to create a short version or a version 25 I think everybody understood and followed. 43 1 And that is in addition to the motion that we 2 just passed. 3 MR. ZACKON: Just as I look at my 4 stakeholder here as the Nielsen client 5 community, whenever we satisfy our companies, 6 we also mean the companies of taken Nielsen 7 clients, not just the members of the Council. 8 MR. HESS: So we expand the 9 motion to include that. Not just the CRE 10 members, but any Nielsen client. 11 So everyone in favor of that 12 motion raise their hand? Okay. Opposed? 13 A VOICE: Opposed. Can I 14 explain? 15 MR. HESS: I'm sorry. In favor 16 on the phone? 17 A VOICE: I'm in favor. 18 MR. HESS: One, two, three, four. 19 And now opposed in the room? There's one 20 vote opposed on the phone. Opposed. 21 MR. ZACKON: Okay. 22 MR. HESS: We can have a 23 discussion in a minute. Let's just finish 24 the voting process. So Kate's motion 25 carried. 44 1 MR. ZACKON: I'm going to request 2 the discussion be taken at another moment. 3 We have so much on our agenda today. We know 4 that it's many. We know their points of 5 view. And I would request either at the 6 meeting on Friday of the committee, the 7 conversation can be continued. We're not 8 going to act on this immediately. We're 9 going to propose it to Nielsen. 10 Shari, there was one other piece 11 so that people in this room would like to 12 know. And we've requested for a couple of 13 minutes at the client meeting, the March 14 meeting for the president of Ball State. 15 Does anybody have a problem if the president 16 of Ball State says a couple of words on the 17 industry economic ties? 18 MS. BUSLIK: Does Nielsen appear? 19 MR. ZACKON: We'll find out. 20 MS. BRILL: Actually, there is 21 one more quick thing. There is far more to 22 this database that we have been given than 10 23 key findings. We just needed something to 24 present. But we have a wealth of slides that 25 have been given to us as an appendix that go 45 1 far deeper than what I showed you today. 2 So I just wanted you to know that 3 there is, that what we already have is far 4 deeper than what I put up there today. 5 As a final thought, if one of the 6 things I'd like the Council to give some wait 7 to, is the possibility of executing a third 8 wave of research which would give us some 9 longitudinal information now. It's not 10 really realistic to get a vote today because 11 we don't have money in the treasury to 12 probably support a third wave. But I just 13 wanted to put the concept out there to go 14 back and reinterview some of these 15 correspondents doing the observation 16 technique to see if there are any 17 year-to-year longitudinal changes. Because 18 right now we just have a snapshot in the 19 spring and the fall. 20 MS. SHAGRIN: Shari, do we have 21 access to all the charts? 22 MR. ZACKON: They will not be 23 made available until after the 26th. After 24 the 26th all the presentations, the written 25 text, and all the appendicies which is huge, 46 1 it will keep you and your people busy for 2 quite a while. 3 MS. BUSLIK: Are they going to be 4 distributed at the 26th? 5 MR. ZACKON: We're looking to 6 make them available after the 26th through 7 the website. The timing is still up in the 8 air because we want our website looking good 9 enough to send people there. But it will be 10 within a week or so after that, yes. 11 MR. HESS: Richard, just for the 12 record, because I just realized most of the 13 things we've voted on all have yes votes 14 because we have a transcriber auditor, if you 15 exclude me. 16 MR. ZACKON: It was far in 17 excess. We decide by majority. And it was 18 like 85 percent. 19 MR. HESS: That's enough for the 20 record. 21 MR. ZACKON: We don't need 22 matching. 23 A VOICE: My concern was I said 24 nay. There were no opposing viewpoints. And 25 I would like to put out there for people to 47 1 consider and then we can table it. But we 2 only have a one-way conversation. 3 MR. ZACKON: Understood. We only 4 allowed 30 minutes for this topic. We really 5 have to stay on time. I'm sure you have an 6 interest in the communications piece of it. 7 Ceril's got a report to give. 8 It's not the last word. I suggested that 9 those points of view be expressed at the 10 meeting on Friday. And we can come back. 11 The Council hasn't voted a nickel yet. They 12 said they're going to look at a proposal. 13 MS. CUCCINELLO: I have a 14 question on the event on the 26th when this 15 data's presented. I think we're all really 16 excited about it in the room. I think 17 there's great information. I'm fending off 18 my bosses looking for more information on 19 that after they read that little blurb in Ad 20 Age, wherever it was. What you're actually 21 saying is we're not going to have the data 22 delivered to us to anyone on the Council 23 until after the 26th. 24 MR. ZACKON: We can put it out 25 for the 26th. Shari, make a note to your 48 1 committee. We're just concerned about 2 getting stuff to the press early. That's the 3 issue. So on the 26th it's available to 4 anyone here. You people evidently don't mind 5 a sloppy-looking website. We just want to 6 make sure we look good to the rest of the 7 world. 8 MS. BRILL: Either on the morning 9 of the 26th or maybe when I get back from the 10 presentation I can E-mail you the PowerPoint. 11 MR. LINK: Just want to be clear. 12 It's an 80-meg file, the report and the 13 appendicies. 14 MR. ZACKON: We can provide a 15 link, set it up with a link. 16 MR. LINK: A lot of E-mail 17 servers are going down that date. 18 MR. ZACKON: Another question. 19 MS. UYENCO: Just thinking about 20 the potential of doing further waves. It 21 seems to me like it might be productive to 22 get the answer to that question before we try 23 to understand what to do with the database 24 and how to release that. 25 MR. ZACKON: That question being 49 1 should we do another wave? 2 MS. ROCKWOOD: Well, I just, in 3 terms of making a decision bout the analysis 4 work on the waves that have already been 5 done, it might be more productive to 6 understand whether we're going to do a third 7 wave before we go back and think about how 8 we're going to analyze -- 9 MR. ZACKON: In terms of timing, 10 we would need to do a waiver either in the 11 spring or fall coinciding with what we did. 12 We would need to decide by this May if we 13 wanted to do Fall '09. We have a little more 14 time for Spring 2010. So 2010. So that's 15 the issue there. And I don't know that the 16 Council feels ready to vote on another wave 17 before May. 18 MR. HESS: In the meanwhile, 19 we've waited. Just for, analytically, we 20 waited a long time for this. So even if some 21 of it is no longer evergreen, I would still 22 like to do this. 23 MR. ZACKON: The learning that 24 comes out of this analysis can inform an 25 additional wave if we were to do that in the 50 1 spring. We do lose the opportunity to do it 2 in the fall. If people would like to do it 3 in the fall, want to move quickly as soon as 4 Nielsen releases more money, if they do it, 5 you know, that's a possibility. 6 MS. ROCKWOOD: I think that's at 7 least worth considering if we're going to 8 learn and take actionable information away 9 from this research. You know, stopping for a 10 year is not a real good road map for doing 11 that. 12 MS. LIGUORI: Richard, I think in 13 order to make that decision, at least for me, 14 I'd like to see the data and what we do with 15 it. Because, you know, first we need to get 16 the costs and get the setup for the person 17 who's going to run the other reports, the 18 additional reports for us. But until I know 19 what this is showing, I don't know if I want 20 it again. 21 MR. ZACKON: If I can suggest, 22 we'll know differently how the industry 23 reacts after the 26th. If there's a lot of 24 interest, Nielsen may be willing to put up 25 some additional money. Nielsen on its own 51 1 might choose to fund the third wave, apart 2 from the Council funding. So after the 26th, 3 I say if people are interested, we should 4 communicate amongst ourselves by E-mail. And 5 if there's money and the majority wants it, 6 then there's still time to do a third wave in 7 the fall of '09. 8 MS. BRILL: Just one more thing. 9 The advantage of doing a wave in fall of '09 10 is that we'll probably have a greater 11 opportunity to go back and observe those 12 respondents who have already participated in 13 the previous two waves. So it would be truly 14 longitudinal. 15 MR. ZACKON: Let me ask, sir, is 16 your committee willing to give up its time 17 for more discussion on this topic. And if 18 the answer's no, we'll go right to your 19 committee. 20 MS. SHAGRIN: I want to make sure 21 we have enough time for Tim's presentation 22 because it's not fair not to have that. I 23 need just a few minutes to set it up. But I 24 want to have time for Tim's presentation. 25 MR. ZACKON: So, Shari, can we 52 1 complete this for now? 2 MS. BRILL: Yes. 3 MR. MURPHY: Richard, if I can 4 add one other thing. It feels like we're 5 putting the cart before the horse kind of to 6 your point. But I'd love to be able to get 7 to the end of all the presentations and kind 8 of look at all my chips and figure out where 9 to place my bet. 10 MR. ZACKON: Very good. Thank 11 you, George. 12 MR. HESS: On the phone. 13 MR. MURPHY: That was Dan, not 14 George. 15 MR. ZACKON: Thank you, Dan. It 16 was so wise I thought it was George. 17 MR. HESS: I believe that he is 18 exercising my prerogative as newly elected 19 chair. 20 Richard, I'm going to say if we 21 want to give out gold stars for attendance, 22 then we should at least before we move on to 23 the next phases, acknowledge not just the 24 great work of the committee, but also the 25 entire Council. I mean, people, we got 53 1 together three and a half years ago, and we 2 didn't know how we were going to work 3 together. We needed people on the opposite 4 side of the desk to make something happen. 5 We did. And I think somehow give ourselves a 6 round of applause or whatever. I think we 7 should acknowledge that we actually did come 8 together three and a half years ago. Get 9 money. Not just get money from Nielsen. Use 10 the money wisely. And we're now ready to 11 take something out to the industry. 12 And let's face it, our industry 13 hasn't necessarily always been known for 14 great collegial work together. And we pulled 15 it off here. So, Mark Kaline, during his 16 chairmanship, also should be acknowledged. 17 Really everybody can take a 18 self-congratulatory round of applause. I 19 want to read that into the record. 20 MR. ZACKON: So for Council 21 members in the room, on the phone, out of 22 work, retired, whatever, thank you all for 23 really great work. 24 By the way, I do plan at Nielsen 25 tomorrow to make the point to Susan Whiting 54 1 that one of the smart things they did was 2 find a way to get lots and lots of time from 3 their clients at no additional payment to do 4 all the work that this Council does. 5 Oh, I'm sorry, Kate. Next. We 6 pay on even numbered years. I'm sorry, Kate. 7 So thank you all. 8 Ceril. 9 MS. SHAGRIN: Non-response 10 Committee. The good news is that there is a 11 light at the end of the tunnel. All of the 12 data has been analyzed. Tim is going to 13 share with you the analysis that was 14 conducted by the Nielsen folks. And we 15 decided that we would let Nielsen be 16 responsible pretty much for making sure the 17 data collection went well and that they could 18 then do their own analysis of the data. 19 But we would get an independent 20 overview from the professors at the 21 University of Michigan and Maryland. And 22 they will be presenting to this Council and 23 eventually to an industry group at a future 24 date. And that future date will probably be 25 shortly after. We want to get done with Ball 55 1 State data first. And not take anything away 2 from either one of these huge research 3 endeavors. 4 So I'm just going to give you 5 some highlights from the executive summary on 6 the diary review from the professors and 7 graduate students. And then I'm going to let 8 Tim do the detail review of the Nielsen 9 conclusions. 10 But just highlights from the 11 executive summary, their feeling is that 12 non-response study made use of innovative 13 research methods. And there was no evidence 14 of they found no evidence of non-response 15 buys in the viewing estimates. This is on 16 the diary side for 11 of 14 data parts. And 17 they found no evidence of response buys in 18 viewing estimates. 19 A VOICE: Somebody's got a blast 20 near a microphone. 21 MS. SHAGRIN: I moved mine. But 22 I'll put it in my lap. 23 They found no evidence of 24 non-response in the viewing estimates for 11 25 of the 14 dayparts and for nine of the 16 56 1 networks that they analyzed. But they did 2 find that Nielsen post-stratification 3 adjustments would successfully dampen 4 non-response buys for two of the seven 5 measures that they analyzed. 6 But the rest of the measures, 7 even after all of the weighting and 8 adjustments, there still was some 9 non-response buys for four of the networks. 10 Actually for six of the networks. They 11 managed to do some adjustments to get that 12 down to four of the networks. So when they 13 come to do their presentation they will show 14 you the dayparts. They will show you the 15 analysis. And they will show you the 16 networks for which there was non-response 17 buys in the diary. And then comparing that 18 with the non-response buys with the meter. 19 The reason that we don't have the 20 metered report is that when my committee saw 21 the data presented by professors and graduate 22 students, we asked whether or not they had 23 taken into consideration or could take into 24 consideration any non-response buys that was 25 caused by the faulty in the meter households. 57 1 Because in the diary sample you have good 2 diary keepers, bad diary keepers. You have 3 the whole picture. 4 But in the meters we just looked 5 at the households that responded and the 6 households that didn't cooperate in terms of 7 being in the sample and add a layer of what 8 happens. When you add to that faulting and 9 differential faulting and there was a delay 10 in getting the fault information which I did 11 receive this week from Nielsen and which I 12 have already forwarded to the professors. 13 And we have, you know, we have one problem 14 with that. And that is because of the delay 15 in getting the faulting information, we lost 16 the graduate students. 17 So there will be, if we want them 18 to analyze the faulting, there will be some 19 additional costs for paying a couple of 20 graduate students to do that analysis. I 21 don't have the amounts. I don't think it's 22 going to be a lot of money. But there is a 23 cost involved. 24 Richard, you may have some idea. 25 MR. ZACKON: I don't. But, in 58 1 fairness, that was outside of the original 2 scope of work. 3 MS. SHAGRIN: That was definitely 4 outside the original scope. They've done 5 everything they were supposed to do. They 6 put up with whatever they had to do. They've 7 gone into great depth with the report. I 8 have literally an inch of data of reports on 9 just the diary side which I shared with 10 Nielsen. And I'm sure the metered side will 11 be equally detailed. 12 So we've gotten a lot of it. 13 There's a lot of information. There's a lot 14 of information in terms of how adjustments 15 help and don't help. I think you're all 16 going to be very pleased with the information 17 we've got and the learning we're getting from 18 it. But, personally, I think that it will 19 be, it's worth some little bit more expense 20 and time to overlay that with the faulting 21 information. But I just sent the data to 22 them this week. People just got it. And I 23 don't know how much more it will cost. But 24 it's graduate students, paying for one or two 25 graduate students to do the analysis. 59 1 I'm going to turn this over to 2 Tim. I do want to let you know that Nielsen 3 and the professors and graduate students that 4 worked on this are going to present in April 5 or May with Nielsen primarily talking about 6 the methodology and the profession, and 7 students talking about the results and the 8 findings from this analysis. And we 9 certainly want to have our meeting with all 10 of you before that. Before the April 11 meeting. So we'll be working on a date with 12 Richard. 13 MR. ZACKON: We're looking for an 14 event kind of like we did a couple of weeks 15 ago with Nielsen in late April, early May 16 where the findings at initial in the 17 non-response side will be given. 18 MS. SHAGRIN: And I'm looking for 19 any volunteers. Even though we're almost 20 done, we still want to put together all the 21 analysis. We need to talk about how we share 22 the data and how we worked with the results 23 of those data in terms of things Nielsen 24 could be doing to eliminate some of the 25 non-response buys. 60 1 I'll warn you ahead of time. I 2 lose members on my committee mostly because 3 they're no longer in the industry. But I'm 4 open for any volunteers. And if anyone's 5 interested in helping wind up this project, 6 please let me know because there are only 7 very few of us left. And with that, I'll 8 turn it over to Tim. 9 A VOICE: But the ones that are 10 left are tough. 11 MS. SHAGRIN: You bet. Sometimes 12 I forget I have a day job. 13 MR. ONLEY: Ceril, is it better 14 for me to stay here or you want me to stand 15 up and present? 16 MS. SHAGRIN: However you want to 17 do it. 18 MR. ONLEY: Stay by the mic. I 19 don't speak very loudly. So I probably 20 should stay here. 21 Before we get started, I actually 22 asked the two other people from Nielsen to 23 join us by phone. One is Natalie Kozer. She 24 actually managed this project for Nielsen, 25 rather extensive project. I asked her to 61 1 join us in case of any detailed questions 2 that she can respond to. The other person is 3 Scott Bell. He's a vice president in 4 statistical research for Nielsen. And his 5 group is actually responsible and did the 6 analysis. So I asked him to join us, again, 7 in case there's any detailed question. So 8 Scott and Natalie, are you on the phone? 9 MR. BELL: Yes. 10 MS. KOZER: Yes. 11 MR. ONLEY: So moving on, moving 12 on. Here we go. Actually, we're going to 13 just a portion of the analysis that we're 14 doing. So it's really related to the first 15 objective. We're going to show our 16 comparisons of the tuning levels that we saw 17 between the cooperators and non-cooperatives. 18 Not only the meter sample research we did, 19 but also the diary sample. But there's also 20 two other objectives that we're working on. 21 The second one is really to look 22 at the validity or the differences in 23 characteristics and viewing that we see among 24 those that cooperated to the non-response 25 buys study versus the entire sample. We 62 1 think that's important because the 2 non-response study, the home that responded 3 to that survey is really supposed to reflect 4 the entire sample. So we wanted to do some 5 comparisons of varying characteristics, 6 response rates to make sure that that portion 7 of the sample have responded do reflect the 8 total sample. 9 And then the third objective, 10 actually, this will be an ongoing project for 11 my buddy Michael here. And that will really 12 look at the questions that were responded to 13 to see if they may guide us to improve 14 cooperation among our samples in the future. 15 I'm really just going to address 16 objective 1. Tuning analysis. Really what 17 we were trying to do here is quantify 18 differences in the tuning metrics, comparing 19 the cooperators to the metered samples of all 20 the diary samples to those, to the total 21 sample of those that did not respond in terms 22 of comparison groups. 23 We have cooperators from the 24 metered panel that also responded in the NRB 25 study versus the total sample that responded 63 1 to the non-response, the pilot study. That 2 would include cooperators from the metered 3 sample as well as those that refused or left 4 the panel due to refusal over time in terms 5 of the diary sample. 6 We would compare the non-response 7 buys study responses among those that were in 8 temperature during the diary measurement 9 versus the total sample. The total sample 10 would also include those who returned the 11 diary not usable. It would include those 12 that did not respond and did not return the 13 diary, as well as those that were households. 14 And yet, we couldn't even mail them because 15 they didn't cooperate on the recruitment 16 call. 17 And the analysis includes, again, 18 we'll use those that responded to the NRB 19 study in terms of their viewing behavior, as 20 well as the demographics that were required 21 for comparison purposes. So some people that 22 actually responded certainly were not usual 23 because they neglected to provide tuning 24 information. 25 In terms of the tuning analysis, 64 1 we really compared three issues. The first 2 one was looking at the responses but just 3 adjusting them for the differences in 4 probabilities of selection. Among the 5 metered and the diary samples, we actually 6 specified the sample size for the cooperators 7 and the non-cooperator groups in order to 8 have a large enough sample so we would 9 analyze them separately. So we have to add 10 just that probability as a selection and take 11 that into analysis. 12 We also did some adjustment, a 13 limited adjustment related to non-resonse. 14 So when you see the results, particularly the 15 diary side, those that were unmailable from 16 the diary approach, their response rate to 17 the NRB study was very low because we 18 couldn't even reach them. As opposed to the 19 cooperators from the FNSI diary measurement, 20 their cooperation rate for the non-response 21 buys study was in the high 80s or 90 percent 22 range. 23 So we had to adjust for that 24 non-response difference. But that waiting 25 was really limited. But then the other thing 65 1 we did an analysis to was add an additional 2 weighting to actually take into account what 3 we do. Again, our samples say we actually 4 did post-stratification weighting on several 5 characteristics. So we wanted to quantify 6 the impact of that weighting on the 7 differences in the tuning estimates. And 8 you're going to find some pretty interesting 9 results in that regard. 10 But then the third thing we did 11 is because we did this production weighting 12 that we do today, we actually lost some homes 13 because it actually requires more responses 14 to the survey than needed for analysis one. 15 So we add an analysis or added a tabulation 16 of those homes that actually responded to 17 those weighting control characteristics that 18 were needed for analysis too. 19 Moving on. We looked at live 20 plus playback tuning as collected in the 21 non-response survey. We looked at several 22 dayparts. And those really are based on the 23 calendar day. And it's based on local time 24 to the household responding. And we looked 25 at the percentage of hours typically tuned or 66 1 viewed during a particular daypart. And 2 that's really a household response as well as 3 we have householder responses. Percentage of 4 hours tuned and reviewed yesterday. Again a 5 specific daypart. Again, household or 6 household respondent. As well as average 7 hours tuned per day for the householder. And 8 then percentage of householder whose tuning 9 frequency to a given station is daily. And 10 then householders is really a census 11 definition which is considered the owner or 12 the renter of the home that we surveyed. 13 We can go through this slide 14 pretty quickly. Just kind of a caveat that a 15 lot of these results depend on the 16 consistency or accuracy of the responses to 17 these questions. Which is, in some case, can 18 be difficult. I mean, do they issue? All 19 the respondents really understand typically 20 the same as other respondents. A little 21 caveat that some of the results could be a 22 function of the accuracy of the responses. 23 Moving on to the results. Just 24 looking at the distribution of the 25 cooperators to the survey and unweighted 67 1 basis. The results, 58 percent of them were 2 cooperators from the metered measurement. 3 Again, this is the meter sample results of 4 which, again, 42 percent were refusers from 5 the metered measurement. On a weighted 6 basis, again taking into account the 7 probability of selection, it's weighted back 8 a little bit to reflect the 52 percent versus 9 48 percent. Okay. 10 So the first one is question 26 11 in the survey. And they were asked to record 12 hours the TV is turned on during a typical 13 weekday, Monday through Friday. So the top 14 table actually reflects the sample sizes and 15 does give you an idea of the response rate. 16 In total, for the full NRB sample selection, 17 we selected 100,000 cooperators from the 18 metered sample and 1,300 refusers from the 19 metered sample for a total of about 2,300. 20 In terms of responders, we got 904, about 90 21 percent of the cooperators and about 51 22 percent or 661 of the refusers from the 23 metered measure. Obviously, the refusers 24 were much more difficult to get cooperation 25 from. 68 1 Looking at the comparisons of the 2 tuning estimates, again, this is average 3 percent of hours where the set is tuned by 4 daypart. Just going for the first daypart, 5 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.. Among the 6 cooperators, about 31.6 percent tuning of 7 that daypart. For the refusers, it was a 8 little bit more, about 33 percent. And, in 9 total, it was about 32.3 percent of the 10 daypart was tuned. So that would be in 11 addition. And the index is really the total 12 tuning measured divided by the cooperators. 13 And that index for that was 102.3. So the 14 total sale about 2.3 percent higher tuning 15 levels than the cooperators. And we created 16 that standard error, which is 2.3. And then 17 provided a probability or a significance 18 level of .33. 19 Now, we went through these 20 results. We assumed that 95 percent level of 21 significance. So in our interpretation, a P 22 value would have to be less than .05 to be 23 considered as significant. A significant 24 difference. So you can see that across all 25 the dayparts, at least for this question for 69 1 the metered sample, that none of the 2 differences between the cooperators and the 3 total sample are significantly different. 4 Going on to the next question. 5 Now, this question was really to record the 6 hours the TV was tuned yesterday. Yesterday 7 recall question. You see similar cooperators 8 rates, a little bit higher for this 9 particular question. And then going, again, 10 looking at tuning measures, here you see most 11 dayparts are not significant, but the only 12 one I guess is borderline significant would 13 be that 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. daypart with 14 an index of close to 109. And P 9 is a 15 little bit over .05. But it's borderline 16 compared to the other dayparts. 17 MR. HESS: What's the very last 18 one. 12 to 12. 19 MR. OLNEY: Yes. 12 a.m. to 12 20 a.m.. The next they were asked to record the 21 hours the TV was on. I'm sorry. Record the 22 number of hours that the owner or renter 23 viewed in the average day. 24 You can see here for the 25 cooperators it was about five hours, refusers 70 1 about 4.8 hours for a total of about 4.9. 2 There's an index about 97.3, P value of about 3 .28. So you get a fairly high P value. 4 Concluding that there's really not a 5 significant difference in that tuning level 6 for this question. 7 Going on to the recording hours 8 of the homeowner/renter now viewed during a 9 typical weekday. Again, very similar 10 comparisons. And again, we're not seeing a 11 significant difference in this tuning level 12 between cooperators and total. Probably the 13 largest difference for the 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 14 p.m. daypart. 15 Going on to question 30. 16 Question 30, again, recording hours that the 17 owner-renter viewed yesterday. Again, fairly 18 high cooperation rate among cooperators. A 19 little lower among refusers. But again, 20 we're not seeing, at least when the meter's 21 sampled, significant differences in this 22 yesterday recall viewing levels among the 23 owner-renter. 24 Then we looked at the individual, 25 I guess, station or network responses. And 71 1 we're asked to record the stations that the 2 owner-renter watching on a daily basis. And 3 such that these are the sample sizes 4 associated with that question for like ABC. 5 It was one of the choices, 824 respondents 6 responded to that question. They either 7 said, yes, they watched on a daily basis, or 8 no, they don't watch ABC on a daily basis. 9 But they responded one way or the other. 10 About 82 percent of the sample 11 responded to that one specifically. You can 12 see some variation across the different 13 networks. Some were responded to a little 14 bit higher rate among the cooperators. Then 15 again, you'll see a little bit lower 16 cooperation rate to the question among the 17 refusers. But, in total, about looks like an 18 average about around 60 percent of the 19 responses to those questions. 20 Going on, looking at the actual 21 viewing levels to each of those, again, in 22 most cases, you don't see significant 23 differences in the level of viewing to each 24 of these networks, with three exceptions. 25 One is Fox. One is CNN. And one is HBO. 72 1 We analyzed those further. There 2 we go. One thing we did, there wasn't an 3 option to indicate that they did not receive 4 an individual network. So we took a look at 5 the effect of excluding those from the 6 tabulation. Again, this is a change in the 7 sample size by excluding those homes that 8 claim that they did not actually receive CNN 9 or did not receive Fox or did not receive 10 HBO. Fairly substantial drop when you look 11 at HBO. 12 Going on and looking at the 13 comparison by excluding these homes. We'll 14 start with CNN. The original comparison was 15 21.4 percent viewed it daily among the 16 cooperators. 28.7 among the refusers. And 17 24.9 in total. So there was a significant 18 difference. 19 By excluding those that claimed 20 they did not receive CNN, we see a reduction 21 in that index from 116.5 to 109.2. Still 22 borderline. Significance of a .06 P value. 23 But the exclusion of those that claim that 24 they did not receive the network did reduce 25 that index. 73 1 Looking at Fox you see similar 2 results, just not quite as large of a 3 difference. Where the index was reduced from 4 106.3 to 106 by excluding those homes that 5 did not receive Fox. 6 And lastly, with HBO, probably 7 the largest difference you see that the 8 original index including those homes is 9 143.1. But then was reduced by 113 by 10 excluding those that did not receive HBO. 11 And it's also not statistically significant 12 in a .23 P value. 13 All right. Moving on to look at 14 the effect of our weighting that we used to 15 adjust for non-response in our samples. 16 Again, there is somewhat of a loss in sample 17 size because of the weighting that requires 18 additional characteristics to be collected 19 from the home. And some people just did not 20 respond to those questions so they had to be 21 excluded. But not if not too bad of a drop. 22 Looking for CNN, we have 1,337 23 homes originally. That they dropped 1220. 24 We see a similar relationship with the other 25 two. This is table A's, a little confusing. 74 1 Let me explain. I'll use CNN as my example 2 here. The CNN TA-1. That was the original 3 comparison that we did that only applied the 4 probability of selection weighting and some 5 minor adjustment for non-response. 6 The CNN TA-2 is the agent, the 7 additional post-stratification weighting that 8 we do normally when we produce our audience 9 assessment. Again, the purpose there is to 10 adjust for non-response. And the middle one 11 is actually the same as TA-1, except what we 12 did is we removed those homes that were also 13 excluded from TA-2. So that really is the 14 better comparison here. It takes no account 15 in difference of the weighting, but still 16 uses the exact same homes in both 17 tabulations. 18 So looking at CNN, looking at the 19 TA-1R line versus TA-2, you see a slight 20 increase in the index going from 116.8 to 21 122.2. Both are significant differences. 22 Did not much effect there for CNN using our 23 weighting. 24 Similarly, with Fox, again, 25 making those same comparisons we have 107 75 1 versus 108. Again, we don't see much effect 2 of the weighting on the audience estimates. 3 But for HBO they did seem to have 4 some benefit there where the index 145.7 and 5 increased to 135.1. 6 By using the weighting that we 7 do, if I recall, the university folks saw 8 similar relationships when they did the 9 analysis as well. So going on to the 10 station. Some follow-up questions we had 11 related to the stations receivability. 12 There is actually some concern 13 that we had related to the accuracy of the 14 question related where people answered they 15 did not receive a particular network. And 16 you're looking at the cooperator columns. 17 The first column percent did not receive. 18 These are the percent that said they actually 19 did not receive each of the networks. So you 20 can see 2.7 percent of the homes said they 21 did not receive ABC. It increases on as you 22 get into like Univision and the cable 23 networks. It's a little bit higher 24 percentage who are claiming that they did not 25 receive that particular network. 76 1 We also asked about if the home 2 had cable or non-cable. And identified if 3 they were broadcast-only. So these are the 4 percentage percent of people. Among those 5 that said responded to the ABC question, they 6 are, 19.8 percent responded they were 7 broadcast-only. And we did that for each of 8 those networks as well. 9 And one thing you can see here is 10 that the percent that are broadcast-only 11 among cooperators is fairly substantially 12 larger than what you see among the refusers, 13 which one would not necessarily expect to see 14 that. So among the non-response, if buys 15 study homes that provided a valid response to 16 those questions, on average, even on a 17 weighted or unweighted basis, about 17 18 percent claimed that they were 19 broadcast-only. But if you compare it to the 20 February 2008 universe estimates that we 21 provide, we're showing less than 12 percent 22 or broadcast-only. So it's kind of 23 indicating that there's an overstatement of 24 not receiving these channels or claim that 25 they were broadcast-only homes. And this is 77 1 important. Because if any home that 2 considers it broadcast-only, obviously they 3 don't receive a cable station and would 4 impact the results. 5 So we did some additional 6 analyses that we're going to share with you 7 in the remaining slides here. 8 The first thing we did was just 9 compare the response that indicated they did 10 not receive each of these networks to the 11 national people meter sample. If the 12 response was accurate you would expect them 13 to be approximately the same. As you can 14 see, for virtually all the networks except 15 for, I think, HBO, the percent that claim 16 that they did not receive each individual 17 network was larger than what we saw among the 18 national people that we're sampling and 19 statistically larger. If you look at the P 20 sample they're quite small. 21 The other thing that we looked 22 at, again, is percent that were 23 broadcast-only. Among the cooperators that 24 had valid responses to the question, we 25 showed about 20 percent claim that they were 78 1 broadcast-only. Which is significantly 2 higher, about 17.3 percent, than we saw among 3 our homes during March 2007. 4 We also have show, I guess, which 5 would indicate an increase in the 6 broadcast-only penetration. But if you look 7 at the actual universe estimates in March 8 2007 versus February 2008, it actually 9 declined. Again, another indication that it 10 might be overstating not receiving particular 11 channels. That's really our conclusion. 12 That there is some response error related to 13 that question. And we should consider that 14 and take that into account. 15 This is essentially the same as 16 the previous question. That we do, there is 17 some evidence that there is some non-response 18 there associated with that question. And 19 some overstatement of not receiving some of 20 the cable channels. 21 Going on to the diary sample, 22 again, we see a distribution of the sample 23 here as well on an unweighted and weighted 24 basis. And you see the original response is 25 about 32 percent from the in tab homes, from 79 1 the diary measurement. And after weighting 2 to reflect the few where distribution of 3 these homes they were weighted down to about 4 26 percent. You see the business difference 5 is the unmailable. Again, these were very, 6 very difficult to locate and get the 7 cooperation from. So they tended to be 8 weighted up more than the other homes. 9 MS. SHAGRIN: Wasn't there an 10 assumption that a lot of them weren't home? 11 MR. ONLEY: Yes. Many of them. 12 These are, just many of these people are just 13 homeowners that hadn't answered the many 14 probably not in service or even households. 15 Looking at the viewing 16 comparison, again, this is question 26, I 17 asked them to record when the TV is on during 18 the typical weekday. Again, you can see the 19 sample sizes there in total across all the 20 groups. About 9,000 sample size in which we 21 were able to complete a little over 300. 22 Looking at those that were in tabs from the 23 diary measurement, obviously we had a fairly 24 high response rate. About 86 percent. The 25 relatively turn that it was not usable 80 1 because of their entries were about 67 2 percent responders. And those who did not 3 return, we were able to get about 69 percent 4 of them. 5 The lowest response rate that we 6 talked about earlier was unmailable for 7 recording measurement. But looking at 8 comparisons of the viewing levels, the index 9 in this case, we do show the viewing levels 10 for each of the strata, the non-response 11 strata. But the index is really based on the 12 total viewing level divided by the NTEM. You 13 can see the 6 to 10:00 a.m. index about 9.8. 14 Obviously, very close to 1:00. And indicate 15 a not significant level in the viewing level. 16 Where we did see a significant difference was 17 in the 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. daypart which is not 18 totally surprising. 19 MR. HESS: Do you think that you 20 should examine that 11:00 to 1:00 because now 21 it's showing up two or three times? 22 MR. ONLEY: Yes. 23 MR. HESS: You go is not 24 significant, not significant, significant. 25 Maybe there's something there. 81 1 MR. ONLEY: Actually, 11 p.m. to 2 1 a.m. daypart has been, I guess, not a 3 concern of interest for quite sometime. 4 Particularly from a diary measurement 5 standpoint. I think there are some issues 6 with recording entries in the diary at that 7 time. So I agree. Yes. I think it's 8 definitely something that we should look into 9 further. 10 Going on to the next question 11 here. Again, they're recording their hours 12 the TV was on yesterday. Again, most were 13 not significantly different than now. Their 14 prime time were 8 to 11 daypart, does show a 15 significant difference. 16 Moving down to question 28, which 17 is the number of hours the owner-renter views 18 in the average day. There the index was 19 99.6. Very close to one seeing differences 20 in the viewing levels. Then looking at the 21 owner-renter viewing on a typical weekday. 22 Now we see the areas of 23 significant differences. Again the 11 to 1 24 a.m. daypart pops up. But also that 4 to 25 8:00 p.m. daypart shows a significant 82 1 difference in the weekday viewing levels as 2 well. 3 Then moving on to the 4 owner-renter viewing yesterday, again, got 5 similar results. Taking a look at 11 p.m. to 6 1 a.m. daypart, showing a significant 7 difference, as well as the 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. 8 daypart as well. And then on to, again, 9 looking at the individual stations that are 10 watched. 11 MR. HESS: Can I just ask one 12 just techie stat question. I'm checking the 13 time. Can you go back to where you had all 14 those indexes just one slide ago? Yes. That 15 one. Given that the index is always lower in 16 a 938, 989, so on. Isn't that itself 17 something, I don't know if you guys looked at 18 it, but there is a statistical measurement 19 that says individual things might not be 20 significant, but when you pool them and 21 they're all in one direction, that could be 22 signaling something as well. 23 MS. SHAGRIN: You see a lot in 24 the details. Because some of the detail 25 tables that I've looked at, even though 83 1 they're not statistically different, they are 2 going in the same direction. 3 MR. ONLEY: Right. 4 MR. HESS: My point is there 5 actually is a stat test that you can do when 6 you get five or six things in a direction and 7 themselves, each individual one is not 8 significant, but you can look at, I don't 9 remember the name of it, but it's a test for 10 multiple comparisons or something like that. 11 MR. ONLEY: Yes, yes. 12 MR. HESS: That might be worth 13 doing. Because those are all in a certain 14 direction. And I think that that should give 15 you pause about, you know, saying not 16 significant, not significant, when almost all 17 of them are in that direction. 18 MR. ONLEY: Exactly. 19 MS. SHAGRIN: In the data that's 20 more detailed data that we'll be sharing at 21 the meeting dedicated, we'll have more time. 22 You'll see there's a lot of differences just 23 in the characteristics in the households. 24 MR. BELL: You do expect there to 25 be some correlation because these are all the 84 1 same homes contributing to all these 2 dayparts. Society they're not independent. 3 MR. HESS: True. 4 MR. ONLEY: Thanks, Scott. Took 5 the words right out of my mouth. That was 6 Scott Bell on the phone. 7 Moving down, looking at the 8 individual station comparisons that were 9 watched daily, again, this was just the 10 sample size and the percent that responded to 11 each of those questions. 12 Looking at the viewing 13 comparisons, again, we've not seen a lot of 14 them significantly different, but again, like 15 you said, there is some correlation there. 16 But the two that did come out significant 17 among the diary comparison was for NBC and 18 for TLC did show some significant differences 19 there. So we followed up on those. And 20 again, did a similar analysis where we did 21 exclusion of those that they claimed they did 22 not receive the individual channel and see 23 the effect on that. So there was some 24 reduction of the sample size because they did 25 not necessarily respond to that question. 85 1 Moving on to the comparison of 2 the viewing. Looking at NBC again. We're 3 comparing those that that we included, those 4 who claimed they did not receive the channel. 5 And then we also did it where we excluded 6 those that claimed they did not receive the 7 channel. And you don't see much impact on 8 the index going from 91.7 to 92.9. So 9 excluding those that did not receive the 10 channel really had little impact on the diary 11 sample. You see a little bit reduction for 12 TLC. Again, significant. 13 Five minutes? 14 MR. ZACKON: And that includes 15 discussion. 16 MR. ONLEY: All right. We'll 17 move on, quickly. 18 This is again the comparison of 19 the adding the weighting that we do in a 20 production environment as well. And you can 21 see in this case, for the 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. 22 in the daypart, you do see some reduction in 23 the index by doing the post-stratification 24 weighting. Although it is still 25 significantly different, it didn't produce 86 1 the index. 2 Again, certainly for the prime 3 time or the 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. daypart, again, 4 you do see some reduction in the index, 5 actually further away from one in this case. 6 And again, still the significant difference. 7 Not a lot effect of the post-stratification 8 weighting. Again, looking at the 4 to 8 p.m. 9 daypart for the typical weekday owner-renter 10 viewing. And again, we did that same 11 post-stratification weighting. From 4 to 8 12 p.m. you can see the index is closer to one 13 by doing that post-stratification weighting 14 and actually no longer significantly 15 different. You can see maybe not as drastic, 16 but a similar change from the 11 a.m. to 1 17 p.m. daypart from the index goes down from 18 128 to 115. 19 Looking at owner-renter viewing 20 yesterday, again, doing the same 21 post-stratification weighting, you really 22 don't see too much impact for the 10 a.m. to 23 1 p.m. daypart. But for 11 a.m. to 1 a.m. 24 you do see some reduction in that index by 25 doing the post-stratification weighting. 87 1 Then looking at the NBC and TLC 2 comparison, again, looking at the effect of 3 the post-stratification weighting, here you 4 do see some effects with NBC. The index went 5 from 90.7 to 94, which is no longer 6 significantly different from one. And again, 7 also for TLC, you see the index going from 8 129 down to 101.07. Again, no longer 9 significant difference by using the 10 post-stratification weighting. 11 We may want to skip this part. 12 MR. HESS: We have two minutes. 13 MR. ZACKON: I think we needed to 14 set up time, an alternative time that this 15 group can join maybe Ceril's committee. You 16 may want to put out a note. There's just not 17 enough time today. 18 MS. SHAGRIN: And I think it's 19 important that there were different 20 assumptions made for missing data between the 21 university evaluation and the Nielsen 22 evaluation. And I'd like them to come and 23 share those different assumptions. Because 24 in the case of the diaries study, they found 25 five networks where there was statistical 88 1 significance between the refusers, the 2 responders, and the non-responders. And no 3 matter how they tried to do adjustment 4 weighting, including the Nielsen standard 5 weights and trying some other ways of 6 weighting, they couldn't get rid of it, the 7 four of them. So there's a lot of data here. 8 It's very rich. I want to have the 9 opportunity to share a lot of the details 10 with you and let you look at the analyses. 11 Not only the ones that Nielsen did, but the 12 ones that the graduate students and the 13 professors did. So we will set up a meeting 14 that's just going to go over the non-response 15 buys study. 16 I think it's important that we 17 get the adjustment also for the faultings, so 18 that we can take a look at the meter. 19 Because one of the differences between the 20 meters and the diaries. The diary takes that 21 into consideration because we use no good 22 diary. People that sent us no good diaries. 23 And I think we have to do the same thing on 24 the metered side. So we'll set something up 25 and we'll do a Webcast or something. 89 1 MR. ONLEY: I'm sorry. Can I 2 just add one thing, Ceril. In terms of the 3 effect of the faulting homes that you 4 mentioned, we're also planning to do a study 5 using our in-panel telephone quiz that we 6 started recently. Where we're actually 7 calling homes at a randomly selected minute 8 and comparing the viewing from that call to 9 viewing buttons pressed on the meter. 10 So that will also allow us to do, 11 using that telephone phone coincident with we 12 can use put levels on that date. And compare 13 it to non-in-tab homes and in-tab homes. It 14 will take a little time to do that study. 15 MS. SHAGRIN: And ours are going 16 the same way. 17 MR. HESS: Okay. Right now, 18 Richard, we're right on time. 19 MR. ZACKON: We're getting back 20 on time. 21 The gold stars today were owned, 22 earned by Nancy Gallagher and Pat Liguori 23 who'll get to re-earn their gold stars by 24 helping us quickly catch up. And we'll start 25 with universe estimates. 90 1 MS. GALLAGHER: Universe 2 estimates. We're making a lot of progress 3 now. Which is great. It was a very slow and 4 bumpy start. But things are really rolling 5 now. Everyone's received. 6 MR. ZACKON: One second. Excuse 7 me. Thank you, Tim. I don't mean to be 8 rushed there. But we're so far behind, have 9 a lot more to look at. 10 MS. GALLAGHER: Everyone's 11 received a copy of the final draft of our 12 questionnaire. And if you have any comments, 13 anything you want added, really, get back to 14 me before Friday morning. Because Friday 15 morning is our deadline for sending it, 16 giving the okay to send it in for testing. 17 Not the final questionnaire. But it's the 18 graph to go into cognitive testing. 19 And, as you all know, the big 20 effort in this study is in crafting questions 21 that can actually get people to control 22 digital cable versus, you know, standard 23 cable and HD and things like this. 24 So a lot of work went into 25 getting the questions into the shape they're 91 1 in now. But we're really open for anyone's 2 opinion. Well, tap in expertise as we've 3 been doing all along. So really, if you have 4 any suggestions or comments, please do get 5 back to me. So if we, once we do approve the 6 questionnaire to go into testing, then it 7 will go into testing. You'll be translated 8 into Spanish as well. It will go into 9 approval for testing. We're hoping to kind 10 of give the sample designs solidified by the 11 end of the month, so we can start sample 12 selection next month. Then we're going to 13 start doing the cognitive interviews. Do the 14 reviews. And basically we're hoping to 15 actually get out into the field with the 16 field staff all trained by, you know, 17 midsummer, end of July, beginning of August. 18 One thing with this is, and this 19 is where it's the time and effort and expense 20 really lies. We wanted to eliminate as much 21 sample buys as possible, between the way 22 we're doing our samples and the way Nielsen 23 does their area probability sample in the 24 market. So it is an area probability sample. 25 And it will be an in-person interview at the 92 1 home. 2 So short of going into the home 3 and actually looking at the equipment, we 4 then would actually do the Nielsen 5 methodology. We're trying to do everything 6 we can to come up with ways you can actually 7 ask these questions and get some sort of 8 independent universe estimate rather than 9 just what's seen in the sample by actually 10 looking at the equipment. 11 So it's a very long involved 12 process. Everyone should have received the 13 time line. If everything goes as scheduled, 14 and there's no wood in this room to knock, 15 we're hoping to have our results out for 16 first quarter next year. And this, by the 17 way, another good thing is that we're not 18 scheduled to go into the field until the end 19 of July. So we should miss any digital 20 convergence confusion. 21 And we also did add, have a 22 digital conversion box to convert to digital 23 in towards the equipment we're getting a 24 universe estimate on. Because originally 25 that was not in the scope that since we are 93 1 going out after it, let's delve major in the 2 scope to find out how many homes that we find 3 with those boxes on. So I think that's the 4 short version. And, you know, the long 5 version is you all have the questionnaire. 6 You all have the time line. 7 We've lost three committee 8 members so far to job changes. So if anyone 9 wants to join the committee, we have 10 openings. 11 MR. ZACKON: We've been putting, 12 from time to time, we put questionnaires out 13 for the full Council. And the questionnaire 14 always gets improved when people contribute 15 their thoughts to it. So there's an explicit 16 request there. Take a look at it and get 17 back to me, back to Nancy. 18 MS. GALLAGHER: Really, like to 19 thank Michael and Christine at Nielsen who 20 have been putting a lot of effort into this. 21 She's really been really, really, really 22 helpful. 23 MS. BUSLIK: The phone calls are 24 really difficult. 25 MR. ZACKON: What was that, 94 1 Michelle? 2 MS. BUSLIK: The phone calls are 3 really difficult. 4 MS. GALLAGHER: It's getting a 5 lot better. 6 MR. ZACKON: Anything else you'd 7 like to request of the Council. 8 MS. GALLAGHER: No. Just 9 feedback on the questionnaire. Really poor. 10 Every time we talk to a different group we 11 got better input. The more people we talk to 12 on this the better I think we'll be. 13 MR. ZACKON: Thanks for picking 14 up what was a tough start with our research 15 provider there. But did a good job in 16 turning that around. 17 Pat. 18 MS. LIGUORI: Richard. Set Top 19 Boxes. As you recall, what we're doing is 20 we, you know, as the industry becomes more 21 and more enamored of the measurement of set 22 top boxes we are trying to gather information 23 about really how this works from soup to nuts 24 in terms of not just the data being 25 collected, but also how it's processed and by 95 1 who. And what the technical capabilities 2 are. So that's the project in a nutshell. 3 There are two handouts that 4 you've got. One is a time line which, while 5 Nancy's goes forward, mine is a summary of 6 where we've been since last April. Our 7 current position as of March '09 is we are 8 this close to finalizing our questionnaire. 9 We've been working with our hired guns, Tim 10 Brooks, Stu Gray, and Jim Dennison. And the 11 subcommittee we worked very hard over the 12 last few months putting together the 13 questionnaires. And we're at the point where 14 we have already sent it out to several of the 15 full Council members for their final, for 16 just another fresh eye on the questionnaire. 17 And later this week, or next 18 week, we'll probably, the subcommittee will 19 review with Richard and our partners those 20 last suggestions. But this project is the 21 questionnaire is short, but the problem is 22 there are four of them. 23 And if you pick up the STB data 24 hierarchy page, this will give you some 25 indication of why there are four different 96 1 questionnaires. When we started looking at 2 the companies that we needed to or that we 3 wanted to solicit information from, we 4 realized that they have different, you know, 5 functions. They fit in different places in 6 the food chain. There are the data owners 7 which basically would be the -- I have that 8 somewhere -- the Charter, the Comcasts, et 9 cetera, TiVo. The device makers, whatever 10 Scientific Atlanta became. I guess it's 11 Cisco and Motorola. Data creators like Navik 12 and Invidi. Physical World. Data creators 13 like TR, NTrak. Nielsen, TRA. Then the 14 processor, Donovan Star Meter and Telnar. 15 So some of these, some of these 16 companies fit into multiple categories. So 17 they will likely get multiple questionnaires 18 because we talked about having one 19 questionnaire that would cover all. And 20 opted, decided not to. That that might be 21 confusing in how they answer, you know. I'm 22 an aggregator on this question. I'm an owner 23 on that question. 24 So we're going to go with the 25 separate questionnaires. But the exact point 97 1 that we need help at now is getting contact 2 names. Richard sent out an E-mail on 3 February 24th to everybody with the attached 4 list of our target companies. And it would 5 really help if any of you could provide us 6 with names of who would be a contact, if not 7 the person who would be, you know, answering 8 questions about the set top boxes and the 9 role of their company. Someone who might 10 open the door and get us to those people. 11 We've crafted a letter of 12 introduction from Mike as chair of the CRE 13 introducing what the CRE is, what the set top 14 box committee is attempting to do and who our 15 consultants are. And that will go out almost 16 like a little prepack to, you know, establish 17 some context for the people that we'll be 18 speaking with. So, if anybody, again, maybe 19 I'll just re-send that letter that you 20 sent -- 21 MR. ZACKON: Yes. 22 MS. LIGUORI: -- to everybody. 23 And please think, because we only have just a 24 few names on the list. 25 MR. ZACKON: Pat, if you could 98 1 coordinate that with Donna. And, by the way, 2 people haven't met you Donna. I was so 3 confused. Donna worked with Paul Donato. 4 Working with us now. And this was just a 5 wonderful way to set up this meeting. Thank 6 you, Donna. If you would coordinate that 7 with Donna, instead of getting a lot of 8 E-mails to the Council, we can work on one 9 E-mail and send her that when we do that. 10 MS. LIGUORI: And other than 11 that, we have not lost any members on our 12 subcommittee. 13 MR. ZACKON: Which in your case 14 is a problem because it's so large. 15 MS. LIGUORI: That's it. 16 MR. ZACKON: Anything else? 17 We're catching up quickly, which is great. 18 MR. HESS: Steering Committee 19 next. Ira. 20 MR. SUSSMAN: Okay. Steering 21 Committee report. We had a call a couple of 22 days ago on the 5th to deal with some issues. 23 Number 1, we discussed the website which is 24 going to be overhauled in time for the end of 25 the month before our presentation, our client 99 1 meeting. 2 We had two vendors giving us 3 bids. One being Brian Secora with New 4 Visions had done some work for us in the 5 past. We called in somebody else to give us 6 a bid. And it was kind of fortunate because 7 now those two points are closer together. 8 And we're going to continue on with Brian and 9 his group who will be working on both design 10 and implementation of a new website. And he 11 promises if we cooperate, he'll get his work 12 done in time for the big launch. 13 We then talked about membership. 14 And we had kind of -- 15 MR. ZACKON: Before we go there, 16 Michael, raise your hand so people know who 17 you are. 18 Michael Nathanson has stepped up 19 to spearhead our website efforts working with 20 Kate's committee. Working with Joanne Burns 21 in the November 26th. Just so people know. 22 Did we talk about the money for 23 that yet, or is that coming? 24 MR. SUSSMAN: We can talk about 25 it. Michael Nathanson will coordinate. I 100 1 was trying to be like quick. 2 MR. ZACKON: We've caught up. So 3 catch your breath. 4 MR. SUSSMAN: The two bids came 5 in decided to go ahead with a quote of 6 $16,600 for taking our current website and 7 giving us a new look which is kind of flow 8 from our logo and look real nice and spiffy. 9 And kind of have layers that to be able to 10 handle what we needed to handle at the end of 11 the month. And that is coordinating with 12 Brian. And we already have a pretty good 13 relationship. And there's been great 14 communication between the two of them and 15 everyone else. So I think we're in a good 16 place. 17 MR. ZACKON: A good change will 18 be saying Richard why does the website stink. 19 You can say now say Michael, why does the 20 website now stink. But we want to have it 21 spiffy for the 26th. 22 MS. SIRKIN: I think it needs to 23 get the content. 24 MR. ZACKON: The content we have. 25 We need to get it on there. 101 1 MR. SUSSMAN: Content we have has 2 not been updated in a while. 3 MS. SIRKIN: I looked at it the 4 other day. 5 MR. SUSSMAN: The next thing we 6 talked about was membership. We had 7 basically three conversations. One was about 8 getting Mike back. And we voted his 9 reinstatement to the Council as a 10 recommendation to the Council. And, as I 11 said before, Michael shared company 12 membership with Shari Anne Brill. Probably 13 since they both participated at a very high 14 level they'll probably be at all our 15 meetings. But we discussed the fact that 16 they still need to cover, Mike still have to 17 come to every meeting. Because he's 18 important to be sitting right there. 19 MR. ZACKON: Otherwise, you will, 20 Ira. 21 MR. SUSSMAN: That's what I mean. 22 Number 2, Henry DeVault is no longer with the 23 ABC TV Networks. We have reached out to 24 ABC/ESPN. Pat's been in discussions 25 internally to some of those people to kind of 102 1 see who is the appropriate person to 2 represent that company. As you all know, the 3 seat goes with the company. We're trying to 4 get that seat filled. The priority would be 5 to get somebody from ABC before ESPN, because 6 they represent a broadcast network and we're 7 trying to fill that seat again. 8 Two other letters of interest 9 were received for membership. One kind of 10 spurred a lot of conversation. ARF. And 11 Craig Google applied, gave us a letter of 12 interest. We had a discussion as to if it 13 was appropriate for the ARF to hold a seat. 14 There's been some interesting missteps of 15 communication. And we're not sure if it's 16 appropriate or not. 17 The other one was Mitchell Oscar 18 from MPG. We ended up shelving this for now 19 because we also remember that it was decided 20 to only determine if we would invite new 21 members in our full board meetings. So we're 22 kind of holding those out there. 23 I think the conversation as to 24 the appropriateness of the ARF seat is 25 something that we always want to discuss. I 103 1 don't think we have time right now. Unless 2 anybody has any -- 3 MR. ZACKON: If someone has a 4 point of view. 5 MS. SIRKIN: I think we should 6 have the ARF with a seat. I think the MRC is 7 on a seat. And I think a lot of what they're 8 trying to do in the New Media Council to fix 9 things, it's appropriate they don't try and 10 duplicate what this group of people are 11 doing. And it's important for them to know 12 as well. That would be my vote. 13 MR. SUSSMAN: And that was one of 14 the points brought up. The other side of it 15 was MRC kind of holds a different place in 16 that they are so tied to Nielsen that it was 17 appropriate for them to be tagging along. 18 And kind of is a little bit different. 19 Originally, we went back to what was the 20 purpose. And who was invited by Nielsen to 21 this was clients of Nielsen. And ARF really 22 isn't a client. Who makes up ARF? Is their 23 makeup kind of different than some of the 24 other organizations? So it's definitely 25 worth a full discussion and a vote. But it's 104 1 not necessar to do it now. 2 MR. LINK: I can add one thing. 3 I did have our legal folks check just from 4 that angle. And they said according to the 5 charter there's nothing prohibiting it. So 6 it would be a matter of the Council deciding 7 do you feel it's appropriate to invite them 8 in. 9 MR. HESS: On the positive side 10 can you talk a little bit about why Craig 11 wants to be on it, or what they bring to the 12 party or why they want to be on the Council? 13 MR. SUSSMAN: Craig sat in on one 14 of the workshops with the video mapping 15 committee. Craig kind of brings a different 16 perspective. He's new to the ARF and kind of 17 brings a more positive relationship possibly, 18 or a new relationship there. There seemed to 19 be some baggage and some missteps in trying 20 to get some stuff done with them up to that 21 point. You know, it's possible that Craig 22 could be perfect to be our liaison. It was 23 also brought up that Tim Brooks was 24 originally representing the ARF because he 25 was -- they weren't looking for a cable 105 1 representative. They were looking for 2 somebody who was representing the DMC of the 3 ARF. So there is some precendent. There's 4 two sides to the matter. And then there's 5 the timing of it. 6 MR. HESS: How do you want to 7 handle that one, is that a Steering Committee 8 recommendation to the full Council? 9 MR. SUSSMAN: We did not complete 10 our discussion. We didn't come to a 11 suggestion. At the Steering Committee I 12 think we had a good discussion. I think for 13 the next meeting we can bring to the full 14 Council with a recommendation. But again, 15 there isn't really, if we go by our, I don't 16 know if it's policy, but what we decided just 17 to maintain new membership in the fall which 18 would be two meetings from now. 19 MS. BUSLIK: There was one other 20 part of the discussion. There was one other 21 part of that discussion, at the time, which 22 was what does the ARF really do in terms of 23 research. And how they would dovetail with 24 what we do or preempt or take "advantage" 25 isn't the right word, of the things that 106 1 we're doing. And not let it come to 2 fruition. 3 I think one of the great things 4 that's happened so far is we've done a 5 research project and we have results. And 6 I'd hate to see that momentum sort of get 7 lost because someone takes part of it or does 8 something or other ideas. I think that was 9 part of the discussion as well. 10 MR. SUSSMAN: If you recall, it 11 might have been two years ago, I can't 12 remember the time, the ARF actually came to 13 us with a proposal for funding of a project. 14 But they didn't want to give up control of 15 the project. And our belief was any project 16 that is done is done totally within the realm 17 of the CRE. And we control it. 18 So we weren't looking to fund 19 outside projects. I think that left them put 20 off a little. So, again, that's why I said 21 maybe Craig is the difference. Oh, I think 22 that's why we're still uncomfortable, yet 23 open to discussion. 24 MS. LIGUORI: Why don't we leave 25 it, you know, as you say at the full Council 107 1 meeting for the end of the year. That will 2 give you X many months to see how the 3 relationship with Craig develops. And since 4 he's new at ARF, you know, there's a lot of 5 unknowns. So give it time. 6 MR. ZACKON: By the way, there 7 are five available positions at this point on 8 the Council. Recent additions. With Mike's 9 seat being shared with Shari, we now have 10 five potential seats. Candidates. People 11 want to do it. Work it through Ira. Have 12 them see Ira. The Steering Committee can 13 lead that conversation. 14 MR. HESS: Are those seats 15 divided up by industry? 16 MR. ZACKON: The Steering 17 Committee will look at that. We try to keep 18 a certain balance. Bylaws don't require a 19 hard-and-fast balance. 20 MR. SUSSMAN: Other thing that we 21 did say was that new members meaning somebody 22 that was not originally, it wasn't a company 23 that was originally part of every company 24 that's in. If you leave the company, we said 25 that, yes, we would try to replace you during 108 1 the same year. 2 So, for example, Henry left. 3 We're trying to replace him during the year. 4 New members outside of that are additions 5 we're going to look at again in the fall and 6 see what we need at that time and reach out 7 at that time. 8 And our third point was funding. 9 Moving along. There were a number of 10 administrative items which we found may 11 require funding in the short-term besides the 12 website. The CRE was looking for new logo 13 designs. We came to one today. Hopefully, 14 the logo was being created pro bono. So 15 whose baby that was, thank you very much. 16 MR. ZACKON: Thanks to everyone. 17 We were able to afford pro bono. 18 MS. SIRKIN: Also some very good 19 designers as part of the committee. So if 20 anyone needs one for a wedding... 21 MR. SUSSMAN: Speed things along, 22 without having to get any money for that, 23 there have also been some discussions about 24 the need for a free lance PR person to be 25 hired on an as-needed basis. What I found 109 1 sitting in that seat for a little while is an 2 amazing amount of work being done by a very 3 few people. And it's not that it's their 4 daytime job. I'm just amazed by how much we 5 got done. And there's still a lot to do for 6 this one event. 7 And going forward, I think, you 8 know, I think there is good reason to be 9 looking at either somebody. I mean we're 10 relying on Nielsen for a lot also from their 11 PR people. So going forward I think we 12 really need to think about hiring somebody on 13 a free-lance basis to help us as needed 14 create a relationship with them. They know 15 what we need. And is that something you want 16 to talk about today or try to get approval. 17 MR. ZACKON: We can. I need to 18 interrupt a meeting. With a special word 19 from our invite people. Kate, there are 20 still issues with the invites. So if we want 21 to get them out today, we do need to get take 22 care of that. 23 MS. SIRKIN: Okay. 24 MR. SUSSMAN: One, I think we 25 need to put it out there. But we really 110 1 don't have an idea of what that costs or any 2 candidates. So we can't really vote on the 3 approval of that. We can get a sense if you 4 agree that we should look there. And then we 5 can interview some, you know, get some 6 candidates. 7 MR. ZACKON: We have funds. The 8 website's going to cost some funds. And has 9 the Council voted approving those funds. The 10 Steering Committee kind of put it's neck out 11 on behalf of the Council because we had to 12 move on it. But the Council should support. 13 MR. HESS: I'm not sure we voted 14 on it. Do you want to move it? 15 MR. SUSSMAN: I move that we go 16 ahead and pay these guys when they do the 17 work of $16,500. 18 MR. HESS: Okay. All in favor of 19 16,500. Second? It's been seconded. Raise 20 your hands if you're in favor. 21 (En masse, aye.) 22 MR. HESS: On the phone. Anybody 23 left in cyberspace? 24 A VOICE: I'm sorry. I had to 25 get it off mute. Aye. Yes. This is Laura. 111 1 Aye. 2 MR. HESS: Any nays? Don't want 3 to approve, okay. Motion carries. 4 MR. SUSSMAN: I put a motion 5 forward that we actually go looking for and 6 getting an estimate on a PR person and find 7 out what it would cost. And then decide if 8 we go ahead and do that. 9 MR. ZACKON: Jessica's committee 10 has some names. But they won't go forward if 11 we don't have funds for it. The thinking was 12 if we want independence from Nielsen, while 13 they've been very helpful, we should have our 14 own person handling our PR. 15 MR. LINK: Have there been 16 essentially duties kind of listed out? What 17 are these that you're looking for? 18 MR. ZACKON: She's putting 19 together an RFP to get a person. But I want 20 to make sure we have support from the Council 21 that it will be free-lance for the work done. 22 MR. HESS: If she's already 23 putting the RFP together, we probably 24 actually don't have to vote. 25 MR. ZACKON: If the person comes 112 1 back, she's unable to say yes to them. She 2 hasn't put the RFP out. 3 MR. HESS: Another motion. So it 4 sounds like we do need to have a motion now. 5 MR. ZACKON: If we want her to 6 put an RFP out... 7 MR. HESS: You want to move that? 8 MR. SUSSMAN: Motion to put an 9 RFP for the PR support for the CRE. 10 MR. HESS: Seconds, okay. Raise 11 your hand if you're in favor of the RFP being 12 put out. 13 MR. ZACKON: What a cooperative 14 Council. 15 MR. HESS: On the phone I'll just 16 take the nays. Any nays on putting out the 17 RFP? And what about in the room? Okay. So 18 I think I have minus two minutes. 19 So two more things. Industry, 20 one of the members questioned if the Council 21 was taking on to many projects considering 22 the number of members available to 23 participate. And the desire of a member 24 company to participate in multiple projects. 25 So what we're doing is putting a lot of 113 1 strain on each of our companies and each of 2 us in order to get this stuff done. 3 I think we're doing some great 4 stuff. The Steering Committee decided that 5 there are non-Council members who are also 6 currently great resources to some of the 7 committee work that's being done. And should 8 be continued to be sought out. 9 So while we really didn't answer 10 that question, if we're doing too much or too 11 strung out from all this, we did suggest that 12 an announcement be made at the Nielsen client 13 meeting about the availability of 14 participation. So we'll have the entire 15 Nielsen client constituency out. And we can 16 suggest if they want to get involved they 17 should reach out to us. 18 So, continuing, one last thing. 19 Richard suggested a new subcommittee. Here 20 we go. But it's a really good one. And we 21 also have somebody who raised their hand to 22 lead after their other almost a new 23 subcommittee to be coordinate between the CRE 24 to assure, where applicable, the results 25 implicated to Nielsen's. 114 1 Michael agreed that this 2 committee should work together to suggest 3 ideas to Nielsen and may take new ideas to 4 Nielsen going back to the Council for further 5 investigation. 6 Beth Uyenco has raised her hand 7 as being the lead liaison working for as many 8 as you want. But three or four people at 9 minimum to kind of work with her in taking 10 some of our learning. And the way we see it 11 is that somebody from the video mapping 12 committee would work with Beth and that group 13 to help integrate some of that learning with 14 Nielsen. Somebody from each of the 15 committees would represent that committee 16 going forward to work with Nielsen to make 17 sure that this work isn't in a vacuum. And 18 really gets used by Nielsen. And if Nielsen 19 has some ideas or questions, it could follow 20 back to create new research projects with us. 21 MR. ZACKON: Michael, do you want 22 to speak for a moment? Sorry to put you on 23 the spot. Because I know that the CRE is 24 becoming bigger in Nielsen's vision. Just 25 how that might work and might relate to what 115 1 you are up to. 2 MR. LINK: Right. There are 3 actually kind of two things that are at work. 4 One is I don't know. Just a little inside 5 baseball. Nielsen has become one Nielsen. 6 There are subcommittees. All of the folks 7 that are involved with measurement science 8 all now report to Paul Donato. Whereas, 9 before, just several months ago, everybody 10 was kind of still in their own little 11 subgripes. 12 What that's really done, it's 13 helped to galvanize that entire measurement 14 science group. Talking about TV, online, 15 mobile, global, consumer. All of those folks 16 are really together. So there's a real 17 opportunity there to now see some synergies. 18 And those of us who are on that 19 leadership team are putting together what the 20 one, two, three year plans are. And 21 actively, very actively put the MRC in as 22 part of the dotted line, as part of the 23 feedback group. In particular, with the 24 methodology group and the statistical group, 25 we have this actually as part of our action 116 1 plan. So it's not just something we talk 2 about. It's actually integrated there. 3 In terms of this particular group 4 internally, we've actually already been 5 working on who identifying who those four, 6 five or six key people might be that would, 7 that are in positions to martial resources 8 and be able to see where we can get things 9 done. So it wouldn't be just myself. 10 Certainly Tim Dolson's on that group. And 11 then some folks from online and a couple of 12 other places. Kind of those key folks that 13 have the keys to some of the resources. 14 Again, all of this because we do 15 see the value in taking the learning that we 16 very briefly heard together. Feeding them 17 back into some of the processes so we can do 18 things better. So there's a number of fronts 19 here where the CRE is very front and center 20 with our active plans moving forward. 21 MR. ZACKON: So this is not a 22 committee that's going to vote to do more 23 search. It grows to take the findings from 24 the research we're doing and continue with 25 Nielsen's front door knocking so that the 117 1 vision for what we're here for is realized. 2 MR. HESS: Good idea. 3 MR. ZACKON: So Beth Uyenco with 4 just a little bit of arm-twisting managed to 5 put her hand up. 6 MR. SUSSMAN: And also if I put 7 my hand up. So that's two. She would do it. 8 MR. ZACKON: If anyone would like 9 to lead that. Beth, you're free to suggest 10 yourself as the leader and you're free to 11 suggest yourself as a participant. And you 12 don't have to do it here. But if you want to 13 do it here, we'll have the names and record 14 it. 15 My sense is about five or six 16 people. If there aren't going to be intense 17 meetings like some of the research 18 communications committee, but there's going 19 to be regular ongoing dialogue with Nielsen 20 actually to make things happen. So that's 21 what we're looking for here. 22 MR. SUSSMAN: That's it for the 23 Steering Committee. 24 MR. ZACKON: I'd like to be able 25 to tell Nielsen tomorrow that the Council's 118 1 endorsed that idea. And Nielsen has it so 2 we're ready to go together. It's a place 3 where we kind of come together. 4 MR. HESS: Do we need a vote or 5 just kind of a sense of the committee? 6 MR. ZACKON: My sense of the 7 committee when there's a volunteer who leads 8 it, someone joins it. And then when you need 9 money you come back here. 10 MS. BUSLIK: I think the 11 suggestion you make as each committee comes 12 through the point where each subcommittee 13 should have someone on that committee is a 14 natural. Because that's the loop. And I 15 think that's terrific. So maybe as we or if 16 we do develop new subcommittees, there will 17 be volunteers to go on it. 18 MR. ZACKON: An example being in 19 Shari's, in the meeting subcommittee there's 20 that whole measured/unmeasured issue. And 21 this is the kind of issue for this committee 22 to take on. What Nielsen ought to be doing 23 here ought not to be left to that committee 24 to who did the research to move the results. 25 That's the logic. 119 1 So, thank you, Ira. You've 2 re-earned your star. Thank you. 3 MR. HESS: I think the 4 communications committee. Yes. Kate's going 5 to do it. 6 MS. SIRKIN: Okay. Just let me 7 check. 8 MR. ZACKON: By the way, in the 9 background, so you know, there's a good bit 10 of issue. Jessica who heads that committee 11 is on vacation with her children is 12 nonetheless engaged and trying to move 13 forward to get these invitations out. 14 MS. SIRKIN: And I can speak for 15 Jessica. She's truly not on vacation. She 16 spent most of yesterday tying decks, 17 downloading things on hotels that don't have 18 good wireless and sorting out the invitations 19 now. 20 MR. ZACKON: She's on vacation 21 from that Bromley thing. 22 MS. SIRKIN: Can we have the 23 clicker? 24 MR. ZACKON: Put up the 25 communications. 120 1 MS. SIRKIN: We've actually gone 2 through quite a bit of it in updates from 3 other people. So we should be fairly short, 4 okay. 5 This is one thing that should be 6 in everybody's packet. So you can have a 7 read identity. I understand this is going to 8 be available to everybody as the client meets 9 on the 26th and also will be available on the 10 website. This is Charlotte's piece of paper. 11 So everybody has kind of the sheet to know 12 what it's about. The language. Talking 13 about the membership proceedings and the call 14 value. Many people have commented on this 15 one. Unless there's something that somebody 16 absolutely doesn't like other than major type 17 of, we really are not looking for a lot of 18 feedback. 19 MR. ZACKON: The core values. By 20 the way, there was a question whether or not 21 the core values ought to be put on the fact 22 sheet. So they're here now. They may not 23 stay visibly on there. 24 MS. SIRKIN: If they come out, we 25 can probably create T-shirts everyone can 121 1 wear. Joking. So take a look at them. 2 Memorize them. Take them to bed with you. 3 The website update. We had a little bit of 4 that from Ira. This is a more formal 5 update. Starting design. 6 The new logo decided today that 7 the inspiration for the look of it. For 8 March 26th it should be fully functional with 9 the exception of others that will come later 10 on. Probably in April. If anybody asks for 11 the perspective of things on the website, 12 please read that back very quickly. That 13 will allow us to get that done very quickly. 14 PR resources. Ira again 15 mentioned that. It's become clear that the 16 limited both talent and availability around 17 of the people around this committee and 18 Nielsen, we don't have enough resources in 19 this area. So we're trying to get some 20 free-lance help. 21 And, Joanne, are you still on the 22 phone? 23 MS. BURNS: I'm here. 24 MS. SIRKIN: You want to take the 25 VCM PR strategy and the event at the 122 1 conference call? 2 MS. BURNS: Ah-hah. 3 MS. SIRKIN: I'll click when you 4 need me to. 5 MS. BURNS: You can click. 6 MS. SIRKIN: I've clicked. 7 MS. BURNS: Okay. Thank you. 8 We'll break down the summary. I'll go 9 briefly. We have discussed some of it with 10 you. First section is the PR strategy. 11 There's a comprehensive list of trades, both 12 consumer and industry, that have been 13 developed. Academia as well. And will be 14 pushing out the press release for this. 15 The first draft of the press 16 release is done. The second is this week. 17 Ira actually sent this this morning. So the 18 calls over those involved we'll review. 19 Final press release will go out the morning 20 of the event. But to create -- can you hear 21 me because I'm going back and forth between 22 telephone and looking at this. 23 MR. ZACKON: You're fine. 24 MS. BURNS: To create more 25 interest and hype for the event, select 123 1 publications will be contacted shortly after 2 the invite goes out. So either tomorrow or 3 by the end of the week. And they will be 4 spoken to one-on-one about the March 26th 5 event. And they'll be contacted again 6 immediately just before the event. 7 And the idea here is we've been 8 talking about that accidental leak into Ad 9 Age actually created, though not controlled 10 by us, some interesting conversation. So now 11 in a controlled environment, we want to reach 12 out to some key publications to raise the 13 interest and awareness of the events leading 14 just up to it. 15 All Council members are invited 16 to join in a call this Friday immediately 17 following this meeting. You'll get an E-mail 18 blast. It's 3:30 Eastern Time. And for 19 brevity's sake here, we're saying we'll have 20 a detailed strategy plan. Most of it, not 21 all of it is mapped out. So if you'd like to 22 participate in the finalization of those 23 plans, the call-in information will be sent 24 out to you this Friday. 25 And there's one remaining 124 1 question as to the current press release and 2 any future press releases, whether people 3 that are quoted should just be listed as CRE 4 member or you have their title and the 5 company that they work for listed. 6 One school of thought in CRE only 7 is that we all blend together and just one 8 organization. And we all stand singularly as 9 the CRE. The other school of thought is if a 10 message that we're trying to get out is that 11 the CRE is a body of people divergent in 12 company, experience, and title, then we 13 should include the titles with the press 14 release. So that's an outstanding item which 15 I'll just bring forth now. And we can 16 discuss it for those that join in the call on 17 Friday. 18 Next slide. 19 MS. SIRKIN: You've got it. 20 MS. BURNS: Here we go. March 21 26th event. A good deal of CRE members have 22 volunteered to be greeters. Once again, a 23 reminder. It will go towards another 24 conversation we'll have towards the end of 25 the meeting is that we tend to sometimes lean 125 1 on Nielsen. And if we can't have it both 2 ways, if we are to be an independent group, 3 then we need to act independently. 4 So when it comes to an event like 5 this, Nielsen has been terrific. But we need 6 volunteers from this CRE to perform functions 7 that we might ordinarily think Nielsen would 8 do. So in this case greeters. We need 9 people in the building meeting those coming 10 in, guiding them for security and then up to 11 the elevators and where to go when they get 12 there. So think about the eight volunteers 13 who have stepped forward for that, both on 14 the NCE committee and outside of that 15 committee. Signs will be posted throughout 16 the event leading people to the actual place 17 where the meeting will take place. 18 Thank you, Jessica, for 19 organizing those. Lunch has been decided 20 upon. And the RSVPs will indicate whether 21 you're attending just the meeting or lunch 22 and the meeting, so that we can get a firm 23 head count for quantity of food. The event 24 will be audiotaped and videotaped. Thank you 25 Ball State for stepping forward on the video. 126 1 And the presentation will be made 2 available, as we said here earlier, 3 immediately following the 26th event as you 4 had all voiced wanting to be able to have 5 that right after the event. So we urge you, 6 actually before this, and it will be, the 7 plan is to post it. Next. 8 MR. ZACKON: Joanne, go back to 9 the other one. I took the word immediately 10 out of there because we have to decide when 11 we're going to be able to do that. I 12 understand the concern. And when we announce 13 to the industry generally that it's available 14 even to non-Nielsen clients. Because if it 15 goes on the website it's available to 16 everybody. And that's a critical question 17 that people may want to weigh in at this 18 meeting here. 19 It's one thing to make it 20 available to Nielsen clients. We can do that 21 by a link from the Nielsen website targeted 22 to a spot on our website. But to make it 23 available more broadly, and if I can take a 24 second and I'll tell you a thought I had, and 25 I'd love to hear what the committee says. 127 1 We've been in conversations with 2 the ARF, and not successful in getting our 3 information out at their March event. Susan 4 Whiting and Dave Calhoun are on day one on a 5 panel at the ARF for March 30th. And if the 6 Council were to agree to it, Susan or Dave 7 could announce that the Council and Nielsen 8 jointly is making those studies available to 9 anyone who wants to go to the CRE website. 10 The downside is it's an Nielsen 11 announcement, not a Council announcement. So 12 some people may not want that to happen. The 13 upside is it's a place to have that happen. 14 So that's why the word immediately was taken 15 off. And the Council wants to weigh in on 16 that. It would be great. 17 MS. BUSLIK: Are you going to 18 have something somewhere someone is going. 19 Are you going to have something where if 20 someone wants to download the presentation or 21 the information that they will have to 22 register? 23 MR. ZACKON: We haven't set that 24 up at this point. 25 MS. BUSLIK: Is that a thought? 128 1 MR. ZACKON: It's a good one. 2 You might want to join the PR and the 3 discussion on Friday. That's a good issue to 4 bring up on the call on Friday or shoot an 5 E-mail to Shari or Joanne. 6 MS. BRILL: I actually have a 7 question too, I'm thinking. This is Shari, 8 hi. I wanted to put forward that all 9 documents that do get loaded onto that 10 website be in PDF so they can't be altered. 11 MR. LINK: Very good point. 12 MR. ZACKON: Carrying the CRE on 13 it. 14 MR. LINK: That's good. And also 15 make it less than 80-megabyte. 16 MS. BUSLIK: Are we ready to use 17 the registered trademark? 18 MR. ZACKON: Our website does not 19 have a registration at this point. 20 MS. BUSLIK: Our logo. Were we 21 thinking of registering that logo? 22 MR. ZACKON: I don't think 23 anybody is going to steal our valuable logo, 24 even though we paid millions for it. 25 MS. BUSLIK: That's not what I 129 1 mean, to have that little R on there. 2 MR. ZACKON: We'll have a 3 copyright for the data and the logo will 4 appear on it. 5 A VOICE: Registration. And it 6 goes to accumulating points here. While 7 registration is a great idea, it would 8 require manpower for someone to obtain the 9 requests and decide whether that person 10 should be accepted in for registration or 11 not. 12 MR. ZACKON: Right now we don't. 13 It's open. One thought we had is putting up 14 a blog opportunity there and inviting 15 comments. That requires someone to manage 16 that. Although one is invite members of the 17 Council to include their comments on any 18 study we put up there and include them on the 19 website. 20 So if you have a point of view, 21 if you don't agree necessarily with the 22 findings, you're free to put that up there 23 with your name on it. But what's the sense 24 of how we should make this available on to 25 Nielsen clients and on the Web? 130 1 A VOICE: The challenge for us is 2 anyone can get it, whether a Nielsen client 3 or not. 4 MS. BUSLIK: Right. I think 5 that's the point, as long as they put their 6 name down. 7 MR. SUSSMAN: Are we talking 8 about the presentation from that's being 9 given to clients? We're not talking about 10 the extended appendix with all the findings. 11 A VOICE: That will be revealed 12 on the 26th. 13 MR. SUSSMAN: That's going to be 14 in the press release every place else too. 15 That's fine. 16 A VOICE: You're going public on 17 the TV anyway. 18 MR. POLTRACK: I don't think -- 19 it's going to get into the press. They're 20 going to interpret it one way or the other. 21 We're better off having people have the 22 entire thing rather than relying on the press 23 interpretation of it as their own source. 24 MS. SIRKIN: I agree. The 25 challenge that we have if we put it out there 131 1 and we still have to have a conference, the 2 opportunity. If it's out there already, that 3 accomplishes that. 4 MR. ZACKON: We have some 5 conferences already scheduled. There's a lot 6 of room for mining that data to get 7 conferences past June. 8 MS. SIRKIN: If we have the money 9 and the data. 10 MR. ZACKON: If we have the data, 11 we have the money. 12 MR. POLTRACK: What's the ARF 13 doing? It really surprises me. Because this 14 thing's going to be in all of the press on 15 three days before their conference. It's 16 going to be a major topic over what was 17 there -- 18 MR. ZACKON: I'll tell you the 19 conversation. I frankly had the most 20 frustrating conversation I've had in three 21 years with this Council last Friday with the 22 ARF. Since October we have provided them 23 information on our methodology. And every 24 time we provided it they put up another 25 question about it. So there's some issue 132 1 there. And, frankly, I don't think goes to 2 the data. For whatever reason, they've not 3 been cooperative. 4 I said on the call, I said, look, 5 these data have been vetted by 30, 35 of the 6 leading minds in the research industry. Many 7 of whom sit on the board of the ARF. We're 8 not trying to sell something here. We're not 9 a research company. We have findings we're 10 happy to share. And I didn't manage to move 11 the ball down the field. Which is one reason 12 why Craig Google may be a great partner to 13 work with. We don't know. But they weren't 14 open. We're strictly trying to get somewhere 15 in their June conference. That's the 16 position with the ARF. 17 A VOICE: And that was with 18 Rubinson and Bob. 19 MR. ZACKON: Bob was not on the 20 call. 21 A VOICE: Who's chairman of the 22 board nowadays? Is it still Artie? 23 MR. ZACKON: Stephen Kim. 24 MR. POLTRACK: But I think we can 25 talk. I don't think we're talking about 133 1 presenting the data there. Because we would 2 have presented it on the 26th. But like a 3 roundtable multi-client panel on the what 4 does this mean kind of thing, seems to be 5 something that that would be a major event of 6 great interest and probably, I don't 7 understand why the ARF would not want to do 8 that. 9 MR. ZACKON: We reached out to 10 some members who are on the board or close to 11 the board there. Not reached out to you, 12 Dave. Haven't moved the ball. 13 MR. SUSSMAN: This may not be 14 Friday. Just a case point. I don't know if 15 we actually want to put the presentation up 16 on the website for everybody until we 17 actually do the four presentations I think 18 that we've already promised. 19 Why would somebody care to see an 20 NCTA when it's already been on the press and 21 exposed every place. Maybe we put a 22 moratorium on that, at least until the 23 obligations we have are fulfilled. 24 MS. SIRKIN: With the exception 25 of we need to see it and have the data. 134 1 MR. ZACKON: We can keep that 2 internal. Michael's been in conversation 3 about setting up a private space on our 4 website for members of the committee. 5 A VOICE: The thing is, though, 6 and I hear what you're saying, Ira, I'm 7 mulling it over. That makes a lot of sense. 8 But I also know the reality. Even if we 9 allow it just to the committee people, unless 10 there's the form of an MDA, if you will, that 11 will still get out there. 12 MR. SUSSMAN: That's different 13 from putting it out there. I'm not as 14 worried if it's put out there. Just about 15 anybody in either of those audiences will 16 have a likelihood of seeing it as opposed to 17 just getting a copy. 18 MR. McDOWELL: I would like to 19 comment. I, for one, would like to see as 20 much of this data exposed as possible. 21 There's so much data here that we're only 22 going to be showing a fragment. 23 MR. SUSSMAN: We have one 24 presentation so far. That's going to be 25 given variations of that one presentation 135 1 over the next few weeks that there's going to 2 be a monitor. So I'm just worried about just 3 like giving it all up before. Somebody going 4 to upstage it at one of those other events. 5 And they're going to be old news. 6 MR. HESS: Regarding what are you 7 in favor of putting up there? Just to be 8 really clear, what are you in favor versus 9 not? 10 MR. SUSSMAN: I would just say 11 that maybe we'll just say that as of April 12 15th that will be up on the CRE website. 13 Just enough time to fulfill those obligations 14 we have in the marketplace. 15 MS. SIRKIN: That won't be 16 everything. 17 MR. SUSSMAN: Just that original. 18 MR. ZACKON: What we presented on 19 the 26th with potentially a video because we 20 are videotaping that event. 21 MS. BUSLIK: That would be good. 22 A VOICE: I think Ira's concern, 23 and I hear him because we've got space at 24 NCTA and CTAM. I think they're assuming that 25 this would not be available to the whole 136 1 world. That's why they're putting it on 2 their agenda. 3 MR. SUSSMAN: I think so. 4 MR. ZACKON: What's after CTAM in 5 terms of a schedule? There's an application 6 in May. 7 A VOICE: There's a calendar 8 date. 9 MS. LIGUORI: You're into the 10 upfront in May. 11 MS. BRILL: Speaking of ARF, 12 there is a pretty good chance that we will be 13 on for measurement 4.0. But another one that 14 we may possibly gain access to and I think, 15 Kate, you had alluded to this, that maybe 16 there'll be a cancellation, that possibly we 17 can get into Esomart. And then in September 18 we're going to be at an academic conference. 19 MR. SUSSMAN: Previous to those 20 we'd have more information to present. 21 MR. ZACKON: The academics is 22 more methodical. 23 MS. SIRKIN: The challenge that 24 audiences are facing around the world. I'm 25 on the program committee. And I'm going to 137 1 that. So it could be just a cut-and-paste 2 job. 3 MR. ZACKON: It would be great if 4 the Council had a sense of when we would put 5 up the presentation on March 26th on the 6 website to make broadly available in PDF form 7 with a copyright indicator, I think. 8 MS. SIRKIN: I think that's after 9 CTAM. 10 MR. ZACKON: After CTAM in the 11 first week of April? 12 MS. BRILL: Just a suggestion. 13 What about just even loading up 14 those 10 findings? We don't show the data 15 behind it. We just have the statement, kind 16 of like what I showed you today. 17 A VOICE: That's a great idea. 18 MR. HESS: When you put that up 19 for the 26th? 20 MS. BRILL: Yes. 21 MR. WAKSHLAG: Joanne, make a 22 note of that. That's great. 23 MS. BUSLIK: Fancy then. 24 MR. NATHANSON: Not black and 25 white. 138 1 MS. LIGUORI: You know the 2 intention to have future reporting on 3 different information taken from the study. 4 because if that's the case. 5 MR. ZACKON: Yes. 6 MS. LIGUORI: Then I don't know 7 that it would be wise to have the entire 8 thing made available to the entire industry 9 by popping it on the website. Especially if 10 there's discussion about going into another 11 wave. 12 MR. ZACKON: The other wave would 13 wait. We're only going in depth on six of 14 the 10 findings. So there are additional 15 findings plus all the appendices, the other 16 information. I just received a report this 17 week. And it was an interview with the 18 observers in the case to see what they 19 learned by their observation. 20 Now, about the methodology. So 21 there's a lot of rich information that we're 22 not presenting on the 26th. And what we're 23 saying is at most we would put up what we 24 present on the 26th. 25 MS. SIRKIN: We're all going to 139 1 get access to that type of information. 2 MR. ZACKON: Oh, yes. 3 Absolutely. 4 MR. McDOWELL: When will the 5 report be published, you know, the written 6 report? 7 MR. ZACKON: We have a copy of 8 the written report. It's not yet been 9 finally approved I don't think by the 10 committee. After that proofing and sometime 11 after the 26th, then that will be up to the 12 committee how to release that. 13 MS. SHAGRIN: The least it would 14 go to members of the committee. 15 MR. ZACKON: Start with members 16 of the committee. Then come to the Council. 17 And then the Council will look and decide 18 what to do with it. 19 MS. SIRKIN: The Council will get 20 it. I'm feeling really lost, not knowing 21 much about this, except for the 10 findings. 22 It's too exciting for that. 23 MR. SUSSMAN: I agree, Kate. I 24 guess I voted to release it because it really 25 seems like a good idea. But the other side 140 1 of that is it's a lot of value to the CRE. 2 And a lot of money was spent on that. 3 There's two sides of it. Maybe for X amount 4 of time we use it as a kind of PR for the 5 CRE. And we have a few waves of release of 6 information before it goes out to everybody. 7 I don't know if it's fair to do that and have 8 the Council have more information than other 9 clients. I don't know. But that's kind of 10 the conversation around, that there's value 11 in holding back and there's value in making 12 it free to everybody. So that's the way to 13 talk about it. 14 MR. HESS: Pat just mentioned the 15 upfronts. If you really get those findings, 16 that should really have some implications on 17 some of your upfront strategy in TV versus 18 digital and so on. I feel like, darn it, 19 we've been working on this for three and a 20 half years. 21 I realize I represent a point of 22 view and there's another point of view that 23 says hold it back. But to represent for a 24 second the point of view of let's get it out 25 there, I too have had bosses ask me what is 141 1 it now that you and Shari have been working 2 on. When can you share it. 3 I don't mean to make it a company 4 thing. But I think at the industry level 5 this is explosive, dynamite data. And I 6 think we shouldn't sit on it. We should 7 release it carefully because of these. But 8 this is industry learning. And some of us 9 should use it for the upfront to at least 10 make us smarter. At least get it out there 11 for that. 12 A VOICE: If the CRE is to build 13 up its reputation for having and live up to 14 the claims of the press release, this being 15 one of the most extensive, exhaustive, 16 comprehensive studies, full disclosure will 17 support that. 18 And then my other thinking is 19 that there's just so much there, anybody 20 picking up on it will grab onto a couple of 21 bites here and there. You can't possibly 22 report on all of it. There's just so much. 23 And we're supposed to be trying to spread the 24 word of the results of this study. 25 MS. SIRKIN: So I think we need 142 1 to be very clear and careful about when we 2 say everybody. We've got Council. We've got 3 committee. We've got Nielsen clients. And 4 we've got everybody. I think if we're 5 walking into the upfront and only the Council 6 has access to it, it's an unfair advantage to 7 the rest of the people who are going to 8 participate in the upfront. 9 MR. POLTRACK: What's the 10 obligation to Nielsen? Don't we have an 11 obligation to Nielsen? They funded this. 12 Now we're going to withhold it? I would 13 think, you know, they give us total editorial 14 control. But I would think they would have a 15 point of view about the distribution and 16 dissemination of this information once it's 17 made public. 18 MR. ZACKON: One thing that did 19 occur to me the work of the people on the 20 Council and their companies allow them to do 21 this, there may be some window that they get 22 to work with this data before it's generally 23 released to Nielsen clients. 24 However, they're the stakeholders 25 here for whom we're doing our work. 143 1 Nielsen's been pretty good, Dave, in terms of 2 letting us disseminate, not the raw data, but 3 our findings and interpretations. 4 MS. LIGUORI: So the question I 5 have is three months from now, let's say all 6 of us are at some major industry gathering 7 and somebody has gone on, accessed the data, 8 processed it into some sort of presentation 9 and is in front of the world using the data 10 that this study sweated over. 11 I'm not saying that it shouldn't 12 be available were we going to be comfortable 13 with whomever does whatever and we don't know 14 how they will present, skew. I mean, that's 15 all I want to know is that if we're going to 16 be comfortable with that happening to our 17 data, then by all means, it should be 18 available. I don't know. I don't know what 19 the answer is to that question. 20 MS. BURNS: Let me fully qualify 21 what you're saying, Pat. Because it actually 22 harkens back to my earlier concern. When you 23 say data, do you mean as interpreted as for 24 the findings that are in the report? It's 25 already been interpreted that here's the 144 1 factual finding or are you talking about the 2 raw data. That's exactly my concern. 3 MS. LIGUORI: The raw data. The 4 raw data. 5 MS. BURNS: Some on the panel on 6 the group rather had a lot of back and forth 7 as to how we interpret it until we all 8 consented to make the point. 9 MR. LINK: I'm going to go back. 10 I will tell you there will be very strong 11 pushback to make sure that raw data are not 12 released broadly and widely. 13 MS. BURNS: That's my concern. 14 Because it's subject to everybody's 15 interpretation. That's why I weighed in 16 earlier. 17 MR. LINK: The group here to the 18 heart's content of deciding what we want to 19 run. And it comes through the group. And 20 everybody decides these are the right tables. 21 Let's push these out. That is all well and 22 fine. But the raw data itself will not be 23 available outside of the CRE. 24 MR. STERNBERG: We can't control 25 how people use or interpret the data anyway. 145 1 You shouldn't even try. You're going to go 2 to the upfronts this year. And once there 3 comes up, every single network on the upfront 4 is going to be saying the CRE says television 5 is great and don't go online. And they're 6 going to interpret it however they interpret 7 it. As long as they source the CRE and they 8 source the stuff that we did, I think it's 9 going to get out there anyway. 10 MS. SHAGRIN: Let's not forget 11 that this is really exciting data. It's 12 breakthrough. It's information that nobody 13 had before. But it is based on the snapshot 14 with a very small sample. And while we're 15 very excited about it and we think that it 16 gives us guidance, you know, I think we have 17 to put some caveats on in terms of how you 18 can use it. 19 I think everybody hears it is 20 going to be very interested and they're going 21 to be looking at it and they're going to be 22 talking about it. But it's a step one. It's 23 insights. We have to be really careful 24 because people will say that this is endorsed 25 by the CRE. 146 1 A VOICE: Always traded E-mails 2 talking about statistical significance. A 3 number of you, I remember Horst, Mike, Steve, 4 Jim Spaeth as well. It's like the sample 5 size is only so big. And it's only so many 6 markets. And you can't really -- it's not 7 that project I believe. 8 MR. ZACKON: Mike, as the chair, 9 and you love statistics, you might want to 10 put a point of view out kind of how the 11 industry might use this. Run it by the 12 Council. 13 MR. HESS: I'll be glad to write 14 one. Now is not the time to bring it up. 15 But there are plenty of significant 16 statistical findings. There are separate, 17 anytime you do statistical inference there's 18 really the two things you have to do. One is 19 you have to address significance that's 20 driven by sample size. Whether or not you're 21 sampling procedures are okay. 22 Then the second one is your 23 ability to actually make the inference or to 24 project. And this is where the six markets 25 versus some other number of markets comes 147 1 into place. And I'll be glad to do that. I 2 won't cover it now. But yes, definitely. 3 MS. BURNS: The original question 4 was what do you release, when do we release 5 it, and how much do we release. 6 A VOICE: I think we're saying 7 the full report gets released after CTAM. 8 MR. ZACKON: That seems to be the 9 agreement. It will be on the website. 10 There'll be a website, a PDF. They can 11 notify them. Anything will be quoted 12 incorrectly. 13 MR. SUSSMAN: The full report is 14 what was presented at the client meeting. 15 MR. ZACKON: What was presented 16 at the client meeting? 17 MR. ZACKON: That's not the 18 appendix. That's not everything else. This 19 group of people can digest that over the next 20 several months and then decide what we want 21 to do with it. 22 MR. SUSSMAN: And the appendix I 23 think becomes property first of the Council 24 to decide what is the next wave of 25 information that goes out further. Because 148 1 as Michael said, we need to not control the 2 data but as much control how it's presented. 3 A lot of work went into those 10 points. And 4 there was a lot of debate. And they may not 5 have, we might not have agreed at the 6 Sequent's point of view to begin with. So we 7 need to as a group need to be smart about it. 8 We're representing the industry as far as 9 their research I think. 10 MS. BUSLIK: Can I ask a dumb 11 question? 12 MR. ZACKON: A dumb question? 13 No. 14 MS. BUSLIK: What's Ball State 15 going to do with this? What is Ball State 16 going to do? 17 MR. ZACKON: They have no rights 18 beyond, you know... 19 MR. HESS: Rights. 20 MR. LINK: They have been asked 21 permission and been given the permission to 22 do the couple of conferences and given the 23 abstract. And that's fine. 24 MR. NATHANSON: Richard, what are 25 you going to take away of that data. When 149 1 you leave on the 26th, people in the 2 audience, what do they have in their 3 possession? 4 MR. ZACKON: On top findings, 5 working with Sequent to make it a four-sheet. 6 They keep making it an eight-sheet listing, 7 the results of what we showed there. 8 MR. NATHANSON: Why don't we post 9 that to make an even playing field? 10 MR. ZACKON: Anything in the 11 press kit will be passed out. 12 MR. NATHANSON: And at the CTAM 13 post what you need to post. 14 MR. ZACKON: Shari makes a note 15 of that, Joanne. 16 MR. McDOWELL: At what point are 17 we allowed to do it internally with our 18 company? 19 MR. ZACKON: I would say the 20 26th, I think. 21 MR. McDOWELL: After the 26th 22 with our company. 23 MR. ZACKON: We'll make sure 24 people on the Council have access to it. 25 A VOICE: You have to. Because 150 1 if it's going to hit the press, that's what 2 they're going to be asking. Anyone who knows 3 anything about it, what they know about it. 4 MR. ZACKON: Everyone on this 5 Council has access to it. By the way, I got 6 a note just notice from Bill Molt from 7 Sequent to let it know, Council know how 8 appreciative they are of the events here at 9 the study. It's really a wonderful kind 10 conversation we're having right here now. 11 No, stupid. We're really thrilled with what 12 we have. And we're eager to get it out there 13 in some appropriate way. 14 Bay the way, Joanne, that's why I 15 took out the word immediate on that because I 16 didn't know who would be immediate. But we 17 should announce that on March 26th that 18 Council should announce that at that event 19 that it will be available on the website 20 after that date. 21 MS. BURNS: What we are showing 22 on the 26th, is that not abridged from what 23 was shown a couple of weeks ago? 24 MR. ZACKON: Yes, it is. It's 25 somewhat less than because -- 151 1 MS. BURNS: Right. I just want a 2 clarification. So that's why, now let me 3 say, so we have small, medium, and large. 4 Small is going to be issued. The top 10 kind 5 of Letterman list. And that's necessarily 6 after the conference. 7 MR. ZACKON: Yes, yes. And that 8 be on the website and that will be in their 9 takeaway. 10 MS. BURNS: When is the medium 11 report which is shown on the 26th? 12 MR. ZACKON: After CTAM. 13 MS. BURNS: When I say the full 14 report then -- 15 MR. ZACKON: You mean all the 16 appendices? We're talking about it. We 17 don't know yet. 18 MS. BURNS: Not just the 19 appendices. But we have the full report 20 shown to the Council two weeks ago. That 21 one. That's not appendices. That was the 22 large one where everyone said fascinating. 23 Got to cut it down for the 26th. 24 MR. ZACKON: We're cutting it 25 down for the 26th. We can make that 152 1 available. I don't know that we have the 2 time in this conversation decide that piece, 3 Joanne. 4 MS. BURNS: Right. I'm just 5 putting it on the table. I wanted to 6 clarify. There's small, medium, and large. 7 Then there's appendix. So we have the 10 top 8 for just for note purposes. The top 10 going 9 out on the 26th. The medium report which is 10 what is being shown on the 26th at the CTAM. 11 We still have to decide on the full report. 12 MR. ZACKON: That's correct. And 13 the full report includes the appendices and 14 everything else. 15 MR. HESS: Who could handle that 16 structurally on a short term? Maybe the 17 publicity committee, communications. 18 MR. ZACKON: This brings us into 19 the next topic. I just want to put something 20 out. This was a group of people that we 21 brought together because we're really great 22 researchers who love this stuff. And 23 suddenly we're event planners and 24 communication specialists, all these other 25 issues, graphic designers. And I think we're 153 1 doing a great job of it. But we're 2 challenged by it. 3 And I want to thank Joanne Burns 4 who stepped up to help us out. But I just 5 acknowledge the challenge of, one, the time 6 to do this and the coordination efforts 7 involved for people to do it. So just a big 8 thank you for everyone who stepped up to do 9 it. And sometimes we step on each other's 10 toes in this. 11 I said to, I think, Shari, this 12 is like 30 people getting together. It's the 13 first week of their job for everybody. So we 14 really haven't learned how to work well 15 together. Given that, I think we've done a 16 great job. But how we manage this now is an 17 issue for all of us. 18 One request I have is please be 19 mindful on cc's that not everyone needs to be 20 copied of everything. That people need to 21 know and people can request to know. But not 22 everyone has to know everything. 23 I'm happy to receive any E-mail 24 people want to send me. And it's a good idea 25 and it covers your butt. And I think that's 154 1 an appropriate job for the facilitator. But 2 not every conversation has to include 3 everyone else. And beyond that, there is, as 4 in any other distribution, a small number of 5 people doing the bulk of the work. And kind 6 of now's the time for all good people to come 7 to the aid of the Council. 8 And we don't have good standards 9 about what does it mean to be on a committee. 10 How hard you have to work to hold the job. 11 We do have rules about the meeting. We've 12 got some issues here in terms of people who 13 are not here today. 14 Joanne, you had a point of view 15 on that you want to share? 16 MS. BURNS: Yes. I would just 17 like to reach out for my fellow committee 18 members. And, as Richard said, this has been 19 a learning curve. And it's through this 20 process, I kept asking, well, what are the 21 rules and stipulations? What kind of help 22 can I get? What can I expect? And the 23 answer was, "We don't know. Good question." 24 So I would like to put on the 25 table that while we have fleshed out what it 155 1 means for participation in the CRE as a 2 general Council, that when you're on a 3 committee that we flesh that out too, so that 4 the work does get more evenly distributed. 5 MR. HESS: Any other comments on 6 that? So I keep hearing references to 7 Friday. So there's Richard or Joanne, 8 there's a meeting on Friday that's going to 9 address some of these? 10 MS. BURNS: It's just the PR 11 strategy. 12 MR. ZACKON: There's two meetings 13 on Friday. And all Council members are 14 invited because we knew we wouldn't have 15 enough time to address these issues. At 2:30 16 is a regular weekly meeting of the 17 communication, of the media consumption 18 engagement committee. And then at 3:30 is a 19 communications PR conversation about that. 20 So if anyone wants to attend who's not on 21 either group wants to include themselves in 22 that, that's fine. 23 MR. HESS: How do you do that? 24 MR. ZACKON: Don's putting out 25 the phone number for everybody. 156 1 MS. BURNS: Can I put on the 2 table though just to conclude this thought, 3 sounds like it might be kind of like we need 4 a motion to agree so we have commitment to 5 address this and not let it drop. 6 That, I guess, Richard, 7 ultimately then the Steering Committee that 8 will work towards redefining the commitment 9 to an obligation to working on that 10 committee. Where does that go now? 11 MR. SUSSMAN: We can take it up 12 there. I understand what you're talking 13 about. Some of these committees have 25 14 participants who are involved when it's fun. 15 And then there are certain parts that are a 16 lot harder to get involvement on. I'm not 17 sure how to address that. But we can raise 18 that and bring some ideas to the Council. 19 MS. BRILL: I just want to second 20 Joanne's motion that this really needs to be 21 addressed. There are people who are doing a 22 lot and people who aren't doing that much. 23 And in planning this event, you know, I want 24 to thank everyone who has stepped up. But I 25 wish, you know, that we could have gotten a 157 1 bit more. 2 MR. HESS: Now, as chair, I have 3 to take that comment seriously. 4 Are you actually seconding a 5 motion or was that a figure of speech? I 6 mean, is there a motion on the floor? 7 MS. LIGUORI: I thought there 8 was. 9 MS. BRILL: To move this issue 10 forward? 11 MR. HESS: And you second. 12 Joanne, could you restate -- 13 MS. BURNS: Yes. 14 MR. HESS: -- the actual motion? 15 MS. BURNS: I would like to put 16 forth that we probe into, investigate and 17 come up with the stipulations for being part 18 of the committee. 19 MR. HESS: How should that 20 probing be done, or is that not part of the 21 motion? 22 MR. ZACKON: What she's saying is 23 that the Steering Committee should take it up 24 and come back to us in the next meeting with 25 some specific proposals. 158 1 MS. BURNS: I'm happy to 2 participate. And having lived through this I 3 know where the weaknesses and strength are. 4 MR. HESS: Now that there's a 5 motion on the floor and seconded, we have to 6 vote on that. So all in favor here in the 7 room of taking it into the Steering Committee 8 as Joanne just said, okay, and on the 9 telephone. Anyone opposed? Anyone in the 10 room opposed? They may have missed it. 11 Okay. The motion carries. 12 Ira. 13 MR. SUSSMAN: That's fine. And 14 you know, and the point of this again, 15 issues, I think we kind of created this small 16 company that we all don't have our positions 17 quite defined. And we really need to really 18 define, especially like within the committee 19 how do you participate. And there's levels 20 of participation. But we expect. Just like 21 we expect everybody to participate in at 22 least a committee, what is that participation 23 defined at? It's not just showing up here; 24 it's really working. 25 MS. LIGUORI: Richard, there may 159 1 be some confusion, especially with the 2 communications committee, because I think the 3 phone conference call with them you had asked 4 all the subcommittee chairs to be part of it. 5 So there may be some thinking that the chairs 6 who participated in that first as chairs are 7 on the committee, when, in fact, they really 8 aren't. 9 MR. ZACKON: So you've not been 10 receiving notices on the committee? They 11 haven't been participating? 12 MS. LIGUORI: I haven't been 13 participant on that because I just attended 14 as the chair. I offered the logo and 15 whatnot. But I have my own committee I'm 16 working on. 17 MR. ZACKON: When it comes to 18 send out a white paper, all get active again. 19 The same way Joanne stipulated in there as 20 the media consumption. 21 MS. LIGUORI: I'm still doing the 22 calls. But have not been able to go beyond 23 the calls. 24 MR. SUSSMAN: Just a last point, 25 I think that the chairs of each of these 160 1 committees tend to do an extraordinary amount 2 of work. Everybody that says I will chair a 3 committee ends up pulling together all the 4 meetings and then doing most of the moving. 5 I just hope that these chairs 6 become kind of groups of leadership as 7 opposed to Pat chairing the STB, requires 8 more than Pat doing most of the work. 9 Comment. 10 MR. ZACKON: We gave short shrift 11 to a couple of topics. I want to make sure 12 everything gets addressed. 13 Joanne, you had an issue about 14 the database. And Ceril we really rushed 15 through the non-response there at the end. 16 So I'd like to make sure both of you have an 17 opportunity on either of those issues to put 18 forth. 19 MS. BURNS: Well, I think I did 20 then because then Pat kind of opened the door 21 for me. My concern is that if you put the 22 raw data in people's hands, you're really 23 subject to interpretation. And then I think 24 that the credibility, which to some degree 25 even I just heard here our own Council 161 1 members were questioning really falls apart. 2 And I know being on the BVC there 3 and the NCE committee, we all wrestled quite 4 a bit on everyone of those points beyond the 5 10. Every point in the media presentation 6 and the largest, how to properly state it. 7 What is the interpretation? Are we reading 8 this right? 9 So I shudder to think, to give 10 the raw data out there to everybody. 11 MS. SHAGRIN: I think we have to 12 set a precedent and we need to think about 13 that as well. Because in this case, you 14 know, we want to give a lot of data because 15 we want people to be excited about it. And 16 we know that there's going to be press on it. 17 And we all want to dig in the data a little 18 bit or a lot. But once we set the precedents 19 about providing all detail and every bit of a 20 study or research project we do, that may not 21 be in the best interests of any of us who are 22 of The Nielsen Company. I think they have an 23 opportunity to respond to some of these 24 things and say, well, here's our plan for 25 going forward depending on that. 162 1 A VOICE: The motion that Kate 2 asked for all the data. 3 MS. SIRKIN: I didn't ask for all 4 the data. I asked for some creation of a 5 database that we could use to dig into more 6 of the data. I wasn't expecting the 7 respondent level data. I was expecting some 8 summarized. 9 A VOICE: I was thinking you 10 meant all. 11 MS. BURNS: If it's we as in 12 control by the CRE versus within the CRE 13 versus the CRE members taking it back to 14 their company, that's where I had a concern. 15 I love the idea of hiring a freelancer and 16 having the checklist and controlling as the 17 CRE Council, okay, now control these, come 18 back with the findings. So we're controlling 19 the continual flow of information rather than 20 setting it free. 21 MR. ZACKON: Ceril, was there 22 more discussions on the non-responses? I 23 think we cooked that. 24 MS. SHAGRIN: In a fashion. I 25 don't think we can cover it in five minutes. 163 1 Think you and I will schedule a date and do a 2 Webcast. And we'll present a lot of the data 3 that we have both on the meters and the diary 4 side. 5 MR. ZACKON: Of the people in the 6 room, when you do upfront, horrors begin. So 7 we'd like to avoid that. 8 MR. SUSSMAN: There's one 9 tomorrow. 10 MR. ZACKON: So we're already in 11 the upfront season, okay. We'll do our best 12 and try and schedule it. Include as many 13 people. 14 It's 3:59, Mr. Chair. 15 MR. HESS: Let me say just one 16 thing. I'd just like to thank everyone. 17 It's such a wonderful group. If you knew, I 18 work very closely with a lot of people. It's 19 a real treat 98.8 percent of the time. If 20 there is a time, there's a bottle of booze to 21 take care of it. I want to thank the people 22 I work with. It's really wonderful. 23 MR. HESS: With that light 24 finish, can I get a motion to adjourn? 25 A VOICE: So moved. 164 1 MR. HESS: Anyone opposed? 2 MR. ZACKON: So moved. 3 MR. HESS: Once again, we finish 4 on time for the eighth time in a row. 5 (Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m., the 6 meeting concluded.) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 165 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 STATE OF NEW YORK ) 4 ) ss. 5 COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) 6 7 I, ROBERT M. LEVINE, a Certified Court 8 Reporter and Notary Public of the State of New 9 York, do hereby certify that foregoing Proceedings, 10 taken at the time and place aforesaid, is a true 11 and correct transcription of my shorthand notes. 12 I further certify that I am neither counsel 13 for nor related to any party to said action, nor 14 in any wise interested in the result or outcome 15 thereof. 16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 17 hand this 16th day of March, 2009. 18 19 20 21 ROBERT M. LEVINE, CCR 22 23 24 25