0001 1 2 NIELSEN MEDIA RESEARCH --------------------------------------------x 3 4 THE COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH EXCELLENCE 5 --------------------------------------------x 6 March 23, 2007 7 10:00 a.m. 8 9 Millennium Broadway Hotel 10 145 West 44th Street 11 New York, New York 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 REGENCY REPORTING, INC. 22 Certified Shorthand Reporters & Videographers 23 425 Eagle Rock Avenue 575 Madison Avenue 24 Roseland, NJ 07068 New York, NY 10022 25 www.regencyreporting.net 1-866-268-7866 0002 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 3 MARK KALINE, Chairperson RICHARD ZACKON, Facilitator 4 MIKE HESS 5 GEORGE IVIE HOWARD SHIMMEL 6 NANCY GALLAGHER IRA SUSSMAN, 7 MICHELE BUSLIK CERIL SHAGRIN 8 PAUL DONATO HENRY DeVAULT 9 COLLEEN FAHEY RUSH DAVID POLTRACK 10 DAVID GUNZERATH SUSAN CUCCINELLO 11 TIM BROOKS JEAN GOLDBERG 12 (VIA PHONE): 13 SHARI ANNE BRILL 14 PAT LIGUORI JOANNE BURNS 15 MELVA BENOIT BRUCE GOERLICH 16 JESSICA PANTANINI JOANNE BURNS 17 DON GLOECKLER LYLE SCHWARTZ 18 JONATHAN SIMS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0003 1 March 23, 2007 2 MR. ZACKON: Thanks for being 3 here this early on the west coast. Shari is 4 here on the phone. Tim is here. Joanne? 5 MS. BURNS: I'm here too. I will 6 be right back. 7 MR. ZACKON: Joanne Burns. I 8 think there was a family situation there. 9 Michelle Baslik is here. Vicky, 10 Vicky Champlin. Susan is here. Henry. Paul 11 is here. Nancy is here. Don Gloeckler is 12 not here. Bruce Goerlich is here by phone. 13 Jeanne is here. 14 MS. BENOIT: I am. 15 MR. ZACKON: David Gunzerath is 16 here. Mike Hess is here. George Ivie is 17 here. Mark Kaline is here. Someone just 18 joined us on the phone. 19 MS. BENOIT: That was Melva. I 20 was just disconnected. 21 MR. ZACKON: Welcome back, Melva. 22 Rick Kielty is not here. Pat 23 Liguori here. Jessica here. Dave Poltrack 24 here. Colleen not yet here or not here. 25 Lyle Schwartz. Ceril is here. Howard is 0004 1 March 23, 2007 2 here. Jonathan. 3 MR. SIMS: Yes. On the phone. 4 MR. ZACKON: Welcome. 5 MR. SIMS: How are you, Richard? 6 MR. ZACKON: Welcome. We're just 7 taking final roll here. 8 Ira is here. Steve Sternberg is 9 not here. Jack is not here. And Alan 10 Wurtzel is not here. 11 I have to, before we begin, 12 acknowledge the people with perfect 13 attendance. 14 MR. GLOECKLER: Don Gloeckler 15 just joined. 16 MR. ZACKON: Hey, Don. Welcome. 17 People with perfect attendance who before 18 today is Tim Brooks, Susan Cuccinello, Henry 19 DeVault, Nancy Gallagher, Mark Kaline, Pat 20 Liguori, Ceril Shagrin, Howard Shimmel and 21 Ira Sussman. 22 I have an acknowledgment. There 23 may be some for people on the phone. We'll 24 check the records. 25 MR. KALINE: Good morning, 0005 1 March 23, 2007 2 everybody. While Richard's finishing the 3 acknowledgments, I'd also just like to say 4 thank you to everybody who's made their way 5 here on another Friday afternoon. I 6 certainly do appreciate everybody who comes 7 in from out of town or calls in on this. And 8 I also appreciate equally the people who are 9 New York based who make the time to be here. 10 I know we've all got a million 11 things to do. So, you know, this is 12 important. And it's our first meeting since 13 the Nielsen annual client meeting. And I 14 thought that went very well. Our work was 15 very well received. And the feedback I 16 received from a number of people who attended 17 those meetings was very, very positive. And 18 they're looking forward to the results of a 19 lot of the work that will come out of this 20 council. So thank you all for the hard work. 21 And we'll continue to move forward. 22 With that I think I'll just turn 23 it over to Mike Hess who'll run through some 24 of the steering committee items on his 25 agenda. 0006 1 March 23, 2007 2 MR. HESS: Thanks, Mark. And 3 good morning everybody. Can you hear me 4 okay? Yes. Okay. 5 We have a number of items to talk 6 about, bylaws issues on membership. The fact 7 that we actually need a secretary or possibly 8 better put, a secretary-treasurer, and then 9 the elections that will be coming up in June. 10 A VOICE: Hello? 11 MR. HESS: Is that better? 12 MR. ZACKON: Did someone just 13 join us there? 14 A VOICE: It just went blank for 15 a second. Sorry. 16 MR. HESS: I'll make sure I talk 17 right into the mic. 18 On the bylaws we sent out a copy 19 of the bylaws to everybody a day or two ago 20 that reflected changes that various people on 21 the steering committee and others gave, both 22 in November as well as just recently. 23 Richard and I worked with Mannana 24 to make sure that one specific topic in 25 Article IV, Section 1 that I'll just read it 0007 1 March 23, 2007 2 out loud since it's very short that 3 represented a specific change. It's on page 4 6 if you have your copy. 5 For restrictions on activities, 6 all research sanctioned, commissioned and/or 7 conducted by the Council shall be focused on 8 research related to video or to video as it 9 relates to multimedia. So that's the update 10 that reflects the broadening that we really 11 discussed at the last meeting on December 12 1st. So I did not get any comments in the 13 last 24 or 36 hours on the bylaws. 14 Is there any discussion at this 15 point? 16 MR. IVIE: How about just 17 questions? 18 MR. HESS: Yes, George. Sure. 19 MR. SIMS: Mike, a minor little 20 thing. It's more of -- and I've actually 21 found at meetings this works -- there is a 22 note about not using cell phones. And maybe, 23 actually, this worked, a fine of $100 to be 24 donated to the Museum of Broadcasting. 25 MR. HESS: Okay. 0008 1 March 23, 2007 2 MR. SIMS: Actually, we actually 3 find that in management meetings if you do 4 that that's a donation to a charity. That 5 really makes people not use their 6 BlackBerrys, et cetera. 7 MR. HESS: Do you want me to 8 insert that into the bylaws? 9 MR. ZACKON: The Museum of 10 Broadcasting votes aye. 11 MS. SHAGRIN: Ceril is turning 12 off the sound. 13 MR. HESS: George, you had a 14 question or comment? 15 MR. IVIE: Well, I just wanted to 16 ask a question about on page 7, Section 3 17 there's a reference to an annual report by 18 the committee. 19 MR. IVIE: It's not very detailed 20 obviously. But I just wanted to understand 21 because I don't recall any discussion on 22 that. And I could envision an annual report 23 prepared by this committee being a fairly 24 high profile thing. It could be. So I just 25 want to understand the attention, how that 0009 1 March 23, 2007 2 would be prepared, who would prepare it, et 3 cetera. Have we explored that at all? 4 MR. HESS: Now, we have, as Mark 5 just indicated, we have reported at the 6 Nielsen client meetings in two successive 7 years. So I remember last year and then this 8 year. I wonder if that would suffice. I'm 9 not sure if there's a further written 10 document. We have not discussed that, 11 Richard. 12 MR. ZACKON: Let me step up to 13 say that is something I considered. And I 14 think it's now something I ought do because 15 it's in our bylaws. And I think that annual 16 meeting may be the place where that gets 17 distributed. But I think there should be 18 something fuller than what's presented there 19 in writing. Like a text report. It's on the 20 Website. So I would be happy to do that. 21 And before that becomes the official report 22 it would need to be accepted by the Council. 23 So I'll take care to have that in advance of 24 the next meeting. 25 MR. HESS: When does the fiscal 0010 1 March 23, 2007 2 year end? Is that a calendar fiscal or do 3 you operate on a different fiscal? 4 MR. DONATO: We operate on a 5 calendar. 6 MR. HESS: Calendar. So this is 7 either due now because the fiscal ended, or 8 given we haven't accepted the bylaws yet, it 9 would be due next April. 10 MR. DONATO: Would you call a 11 necessary entity for a council -- is this 12 provision put in by Mannana? 13 MR. ZACKON: Yes. 14 MR. DONATO: What we probably 15 should do is find out the minimum. Because 16 it references financial accountability. And 17 I presume is there -- 18 MR. HESS: Talk in your mic. 19 MR. DONATO: How's that, better? 20 I was saying I suspected that 21 this was put in by Mannana to make this a 22 legitimate entity council. And therefore, is 23 there probably are certain necessary 24 reporting items that we need to just 25 investigate. And I have a feeling this isn't 0011 1 March 23, 2007 2 the kind of thing that, I think that the 3 presentations at the national client meetings 4 are very newsworthy and report the good 5 stuff. And I think that this is probably 6 just what is necessary to make it a Council. 7 MR. HESS: Okay. 8 MR. ZACKON: I'll follow-up with 9 Mannana on that case. 10 MR. HESS: Anything further on 11 that? 12 I assume that we're not, George, 13 you didn't bring it up, an order to strike or 14 amend just to ask about it. 15 MR. IVIE: Just to clarify. I 16 wanted to just understand the importance of 17 it, what the intentions were. 18 MR. HESS: Mr. Brooks. 19 MR. BROOKS: Yes. Could I ask a 20 question here. And I think we discussed this 21 earlier, and pardon me if I missed something 22 here, but the charter of the Council... 23 MR. HESS: These other bylaws. 24 MR. BROOKS: These are the bylaws 25 which specify, you know, membership and 0012 1 March 23, 2007 2 termination and joining and all that kind of 3 stuff. The question regarding the report 4 brings up the matter of the openess of this 5 Council. And the fact that everything we do 6 is supposed to be on the record, I believe. 7 Is that in another document other 8 than this? 9 MR. HESS: We have, you mentioned 10 charter. We do have a copy of the charter. 11 MR. ZACKON: But your question is 12 a good one. We have worked that way. We 13 still are working that way. We might not 14 have codified it in the chart or in the 15 bylaws. 16 MR. BROOKS: It's someplace. 17 MR. ZACKON: I think that's where 18 it is. 19 MR. IVIE: There is a section on 20 transcription and reporting, right. 21 MR. HESS: Section 14. 22 MR. ZACKON: All meetings shall 23 be recorded and transcribed made available to 24 the member of the Council's Website. 25 MR. BROOKS: Are they on the 0013 1 March 23, 2007 2 Website? 3 MR. ZACKON: They're all on the 4 Website. 5 MR. IVIE: I read that and said 6 that's pretty open. 7 MR. ZACKON: George said it was 8 pretty open. 9 MR. HESS: Sounds open to me. 10 And, in fact, they are. 11 MR. BROOKS: But that would be 12 codified in the charter, not in the bylaws. 13 MR. ZACKON: It's in the bylaws. 14 MR. HESS: That's in the bylaws. 15 MR. ZACKON: Council or I found 16 them in the bylaws. Section IV, page 13. 17 A VOICE: If you can speak a 18 little louder that would be great. 19 MR. ZACKON: We're referencing 20 Section 14, Article I of the bylaws which, in 21 fact, calls for the transcripts put on the 22 Website. 23 MR. HESS: Right. And they are 24 there. 25 MR. ZACKON: Which is MRC 0014 1 March 23, 2007 2 accredited for being open. 3 MS. SHAGRIN: And it includes the 4 clause about withholding any information 5 that's deemed to be proprietary which I think 6 that's to be in here. Because afterall, 7 Nielsen is funding this. And there may be 8 some things in there that, from a competitive 9 standpoint, the results they don't, you know, 10 that Nielsen deems as proprietary. So that's 11 covered in there as well. 12 MR. HESS: I know that all the 13 transcripts are there because in order to 14 prepare for this meeting, Richard and I had 15 to go back and reread the transcript from the 16 December meeting to make sure we really had 17 all our ducks in a row. So they definitely 18 are there. 19 MR. BROOKS: Well, this is a 20 transcript of the meetings that we're holding 21 right now. My understanding, and Ceril, 22 maybe this is what you were just saying, was 23 is that everything this Council does is 24 supposed to be open. Are there things that 25 this Council does or studies this Council 0015 1 March 23, 2007 2 executes or finds that this Council might 3 have that are not open? 4 MR. ZACKON: We've opened the 5 committee meetings, the discretion of the 6 Chair of the committee to any Nielsen client 7 who comes to the committee Chair to attend. 8 That's up to the committee Chair. We don't 9 necessarily record or transcribe each of the 10 meetings themselves. 11 MR. BROOKS: Well, I'm talking 12 not only the meetings, but I'm talking about 13 the findings. We're having findings coming 14 out in the field now. That having from the 15 beginning of this, that this is supposed to 16 be open and not hide anything that we find. 17 So are we doing that. 18 Are we posting findings in the 19 field? 20 MR. ZACKON: Well, the one 21 finding we've had so far from the field, Ira 22 has put up on the Website. I believe that we 23 put that up. I believe that's an issue I 24 talked to Mike about for the steering 25 committee this whole issue of disseminating 0016 1 March 23, 2007 2 findings new to us. And my sense is it ought 3 not, you know, each committee might want to 4 do something a little different. But there 5 should be some standard approach to the 6 steering committee's suggestion, here's what 7 we ought to do with findings. 8 MS. GALLAGHER: Can I suggest 9 that the findings go on Website but something 10 that's password protected. All the members 11 of the Council have. But the presentation 12 does not. 13 MR. BROOKS: Why wouldn't the 14 press? 15 MS. GALLAGHER: Because if we 16 don't want, if you're worried about certain 17 findings, certain password findings -- 18 A VOICE: Oh, that went into the 19 is record. I don't care. Let it be on the 20 record. Do you know how many things that 21 they -- 22 MR. KALINE: Misinterpret. 23 A VOICE: They're not 24 researching. 25 MS. GALLAGHER: If you're 0017 1 March 23, 2007 2 concerned with everything out there and being 3 open, a password protected section, that's 4 the way to avoid that. If you want 5 everything open, that's fine too. 6 MR. HESS: Can I just cut in 7 here. Since we're talking about the bylaws 8 right now this discussion is relevant if 9 we're heading in the direction of saying, 10 okay, somebody's going to move that the 11 bylaws not be accepted until we make an 12 insertion of that sort. 13 If we're not talking about the 14 bylaws and we accept them as is, but we still 15 want to talk about password protection, et 16 cetera, then we should have a separate 17 discussion. 18 MR. BROOKS: I'm quite open to 19 having a discussion under another heading if 20 that's appropriate. But I think it's an 21 extremely important discussion to have. 22 Because password protection first, the press 23 can't be trusted. We can't let them see 24 certain things. I'm very uncomfortable with 25 that. 0018 1 March 23, 2007 2 My understanding and feeling with 3 talking to my colleagues this Council is not 4 widening out. That's partially due to people 5 not asking and trying to find out. But also 6 it's because we don't publicize these things. 7 And I'll leave it to up to the Chair whether 8 this is the appropriate place for that 9 discussion or not. But I would like to have 10 that discussion. 11 MR. HESS: I think that it is 12 appropriate to talk about vis-a-vis are the 13 bylaws complete enough so that we can accept 14 as is. Because I was about to have a 15 discussion, move that we accept the bylaws. 16 On the other hand, and I want to 17 get a legal opinion here, Richard, playing 18 the role of Mannana who I know is not here, 19 do you think that this is of sufficient 20 import that we need, even though we have 21 Section 14 that talks about openness, et 22 cetera in reporting, do you think we need to 23 insert another section? Of course that means 24 another round of bylaw revisions. 25 MR. ZACKON: I don't think that 0019 1 March 23, 2007 2 it flies in the face of anything here. What 3 I would suggest is that question be taken up 4 by the steering committee. They can come 5 back and recommend an amendment to the bylaws 6 at that time. 7 MR. HESS: Okay. 8 MR. ZACKON: I think we would be 9 served by approving these bylaws. I don't 10 think we're going to have findings prior to 11 the next meeting. The one thing we will have 12 will be the initial pilot study from the 13 meeting consumption test. 14 So are you comfortable that it 15 reverts to the steering committee to come up 16 with a procedure, recommend it back to the 17 Council, and, if need be, modify the bylaws 18 at that time? 19 MR. BROOKS: Yes. As long as we 20 have a place to discuss the openness issue. 21 MR. HESS: And also, I think 22 David Gunzerath mentioned at the last meeting 23 that we should make sure that for a meeting 24 like that, the steering committee, assuming 25 we actually have a meeting as opposed to an 0020 1 March 23, 2007 2 E-mail exchange of information, then I would 3 let everybody know about the steering 4 committee meeting so everybody could attend. 5 The steering committee has votes, but 6 everybody can attend. 7 I think that's an important 8 enough topic we probably should have a 9 meeting. Perhaps Nielsen would give us a 10 venue to have that meeting. And we'll let 11 everybody know in advance. And we'll 12 recommend it, therefore, as an amendment to 13 the bylaws. 14 MS. SHAGRIN: And it may not need 15 to be an amendment to the bylaws. It just 16 may be a procedure that really falls within 17 the bylaws. But it's a procedure that this 18 group agrees to. 19 MS. GALLAGHER: Because it 20 already says in the bylaws that the steering 21 committee is permitted to redact from the 22 transcripts what they consider proprietary 23 information. I was just suggesting this of a 24 way of making that information available on 25 the Web to the rest of the Council, rather 0021 1 March 23, 2007 2 than redacting it totally, you know. 3 MR. BROOKS: Right. The 4 difference between the minutes of the meeting 5 and findings of the Council. 6 MS. GALLAGHER: Yes. Also, and I 7 don't know we're thinking this was something 8 that was proprietary. But it could be, you 9 know. 10 MR. HESS: So we have an action 11 step. 12 MS. GALLAGHER: If you've got an 13 RFP out there, maybe you don't want guys 14 going and seeing how much money was allocated 15 for the last RFP. I don't know. 16 MR. HESS: I think we're 17 convinced. 18 MR. GUNZERATH: Can I ask a 19 question. I think a lot of this discussion 20 touches on a point. Should there be a 21 reference within the bylaws themselves to the 22 purpose and philosophy of the Council? I 23 don't believe that's in there anywhere. 24 MR. ZACKON: It was put in the 25 charter. 0022 1 March 23, 2007 2 MR. HESS: Right. 3 MR. ZACKON: And we followed 4 Nielsen's attorneys in terms of the charter 5 and the bylaws. The two of them are the 6 documents which represent who we are. 7 MR. GUNZERATH: How those two 8 documents relate to each other formally. 9 MR. ZACKON: The charter says who 10 we are. The bylaws says how we work. 11 MR. HESS: And we operate. 12 MR. SHIMMEL: Richard, Section 14 13 doesn't address how we handle working 14 committee meetings. 15 MR. ZACKON: Correct. 16 MR. HESS: That's right. 17 MR. SHIMMEL: And, you know, the 18 way it's written, all meetings of the Council 19 shall be recorded and transcribed. We're not 20 transcribing working committees. 21 Should there be something in here 22 that says minutes of working committees shall 23 be recorded and posted on the Website? 24 MR. ZACKON: Or all meetings of 25 the full Council should be transcribed. We 0023 1 March 23, 2007 2 add the word "full", that's this body. 3 MR. IVIE: There's almost a 4 certain danger to taking working committee 5 minutes, which could have a lot of hare-brain 6 stuff in it. I throw it out myself, all that 7 stuff. So I think you should be careful. 8 MR. KALINE: It's not a report of 9 the full Council anyway. 10 MS. GALLAGHER: It kind of 11 becomes an onerous burden. 12 MS. BASLIK: What you get is the 13 end result. 14 MR. HESS: So if we can move 15 ahead, we have a full agenda. 16 I'd like to move that the bylaws 17 be accepted as written with one exception; 18 that the words "full Council" be inserted in, 19 where is it, in Section 14, first line. The 20 proceedings of all meetings of the full 21 Council shall be recorded. Let's put that 22 in. 23 MR. GUNZERATH: I second. 24 MR. HESS: Okay. 25 Would all the ayes raise their 0024 1 March 23, 2007 2 hand? Okay. And I see some hands being 3 raised in cyberspace. Would the ayes who are 4 not present just give a voice vote. 5 (Whereupon, the members via phone 6 voted aye en masse.) 7 MR. HESS: Would the nays be 8 represented by voice vote both here as well 9 as in cyberspace. Any nays? All right. So 10 that the bylaws then are accepted with that 11 one change. 12 MR. ZACKON: Mike, before we go 13 on, we actually have two new eyes in the 14 room. Colleen Fahey Rush is here, has joined 15 our Council for the first time. That's 16 e-y-e. So welcome Colleen. 17 MS. RUSH: Thank you very much. 18 MR. ZACKON: Colleen is with MTV 19 Networks. 20 MR. HESS: In case we didn't 21 know, two new eyes, not two new people. 22 Taking me a while to do the advanced math 23 here. 24 Let's go to membership because 25 there are a number of items to discuss there. 0025 1 March 23, 2007 2 At the last meeting on December 1st we had 3 agreed as a Council that the steering 4 committee would come back with a slate of 5 names to be voted on today. 6 The reason we didn't do that is 7 that several of our members, notably Henry, 8 first came up with the critique that when the 9 steering committee was trying to vote on a 10 slate individually, the individual members, 11 they noticed that in some cases the names on 12 the slate were actually people that they did 13 not know. And so several of you did 14 apparently know people, so you were able to 15 vote. Others did not know. And Henry and 16 others then made a recommendation that before 17 we generate a slate, we actually get, and 18 this makes sense, a bio. Some kind of 19 description of who the people are, what their 20 credentials are. 21 And then I think we had further 22 discussions, suggested that we, in addition 23 to the bios, we get information on why people 24 would actually like to serve on the CRE. And 25 how they thought that they could further the 0026 1 March 23, 2007 2 goals and objectives of the CRE. Both, I 3 think, good ideas. 4 And, so consequently, we do not 5 have a slate to present to you today. But I 6 would like to suggest a procedure that the 7 steering committee has agreed with by E-mail 8 over the last few days when we realized we 9 weren't ready to come up with a slate. And 10 that is let me mention the categories for 11 which I do have names. And then there are a 12 number of categories that came out of a great 13 discussion this group here had on December 14 1st. We have some new categories for which I 15 don't have names. And then there's also one 16 old category for which I need some names. 17 So let me quickly discuss those. 18 I know, I don't mean to be vague, we actually 19 have names. We have three names already for 20 the category of local broadcast. I won't 21 read those names, just review right now we do 22 have them. We also have two names from rep 23 firms. And we also had four names that came 24 in, didn't really fit the categories, that 25 I'm going to call at-large. 0027 1 March 23, 2007 2 In addition, however, we need 3 several advertising names. I would like at 4 least two or three names nominated for 5 advertisers. We're short on that. And then 6 the four new categories that were suggested 7 by this group last December were we need a 8 couple of names or nominations for MSO, for 9 that category. Another category was Mobile. 10 Third new category was Internet. And then 11 fourth category was Gaming. 12 So we need advertiser names just 13 because even though we do have advertisers on 14 the Council, we still would like some more. 15 MSO, Mobile, Internet and Gaming. Those were 16 new categories that we need some names for. 17 A VOICE: Mark, I'd also like to 18 suggest that we consider ensuring that of 19 those categories, that there are folks that 20 have multicultural or diverse backgrounds, a 21 function of segmentation. 22 MR. HESS: Agreed. I believe in 23 the charter one of our goals is diversity. I 24 think that the way we've talked about 25 handling the issue of diversity within the 0028 1 March 23, 2007 2 Council is not to specifically say that 3 there's such and such a slot, say, 4 Asian-American slot, but rather that we hope 5 to obtain diversity through the submission of 6 names for the categories that we've 7 identified. 8 A VOICE: Correct. I just want 9 to make sure that we are holding true to 10 that. 11 MR. HESS: I appreciate that. 12 No. Absolutely. 13 Richard, did you want to add 14 something? 15 MR. ZACKON: What we're saying is 16 if you know people who represent particular 17 market segments that otherwise might not be 18 represented here and who best, and who fit 19 one of those categories, even if they don't, 20 if it's an advertising person or a media 21 person it's important that we take into 22 account the needs of those pieces in the 23 marketplace. 24 MR. HESS: The procedure I'd like 25 to suggest is that if you have names in those 0029 1 March 23, 2007 2 five categories, I'll just repeat them one 3 time. Advertiser, MSO, Mobile, Internet, or 4 Gaming, please send me an E-mail with your 5 suggestions. 6 But then, in addition, if you 7 believe that the person that you're 8 nominating would be interested, please ask 9 that individual to send a short bio. I'm 10 thinking a paragraph long. A short bio plus 11 a statement of interest in what he or she 12 might be able to do for the Council. 13 I would like those names by the 14 middle of April. Then at the end of April I 15 will have a steering committee meeting where 16 we will, in fact, determine a slate from the 17 names that are submitted. Because we, 18 actually for the first three categories we 19 have multiple names for what will turn out to 20 be one slot in each category. So we'll 21 determine a slate from that. 22 And then since our next meeting 23 is not scheduled until June, I also recommend 24 that the slate, I will send this slate out to 25 the full CRE by E-mail so we can actually 0030 1 March 23, 2007 2 vote for that slate, thumbs up or thumbs down 3 by E-mail by the middle of May. 4 One of the main purposes for that 5 is when we have our June -- Richard, I don't 6 know if it's still an offsite, but the big 7 June meeting, we'll talk about that when we 8 have our June meeting. Then I'd like to have 9 all the new members present as opposed to 10 using that day to vote. I think it would be 11 ideal if the new members were already there. 12 So that's the procedure I suggest. 13 Any discussion on that? 14 MR. BROOKS: Yes. A question 15 about that. Just as a matter of sensitivity, 16 if you're asking us to approach people, I 17 assume that any member of this Council 18 individually approaches someone should 19 position it as we think that the Council 20 should consider you for this as opposed to a 21 promise of joining it. Because it could be 22 rather insulting to the person otherwise. 23 MR. HESS: It's definitely not a 24 slam-dunk, right. So for local broadcast, 25 for example, we have three pretty solid names 0031 1 March 23, 2007 2 based on the feedback I've gotten from you. 3 But in terms of openings, one. So we would 4 only be able to select one of those three. 5 For at-large we have four pretty good names 6 and we can select one. So, yes, be duly 7 sensitive. 8 MR. BROOKS: These should go to 9 you. 10 MR. HESS: Please send them to 11 me. And then I will distribute to the 12 steering committee. And again, ideally, I 13 would, I mean, you can do this in whatever 14 sequence you're comfortable with. But if you 15 just want to send me the names saying, hey, 16 here's somebody who's interested. I'm not 17 sure you have to send me the bio blank right 18 away. But if they are interested then we 19 should get the bio and statement of interest. 20 Because then by the end of April, I'd like to 21 have that by about mid-April. But by the end 22 of April I want to have a steering committee 23 meeting where we develop a slate from that 24 list for all eight categories. The three for 25 which I have names and the five for which I 0032 1 March 23, 2007 2 need names. So all eight categories. 3 Richard, we have 30, 31 members 4 on the Council now. If we get those eight 5 and I think four advertisers, we may have two 6 openings. And that will bring us to 39. 7 MR. ZACKON: We have 30 8 currently. 9 MR. HESS: 30. So that would 10 bring us to 30, 39. Eight categories. But I 11 think we need two advertisers or we'd like to 12 have two. Those would bring us to 39. We 13 would have flexibility with one. Since our 14 rules indicate we can have 40. 15 MR. IVIE: Does the requirement 16 for a bio and a statement of contributions 17 sort of imply that you should have that for 18 everybody that's currently sitting on the 19 Council? 20 MR. ZACKON: Well, statement of 21 contribution, no. I think we're all 22 grandfathered and grandmothered in. The bio, 23 we do have a space on the Website for 24 people's bios. Not everyone submitted. And 25 I invite everyone to submit and put their bio 0033 1 March 23, 2007 2 up. 3 MR. HESS: I think, again, the 4 main purpose of that bio was because people 5 were correctly saying, could be a good name 6 but I have no idea who he or she is. 7 MR. IVIE: I get you. 8 MS. SHAGRIN: The original group 9 was really Nielsen selected. 10 MR. HESS: Correct. Okay. 11 Anything else on membership? 12 Then obviously that will appear in the 13 minutes of the meeting. And I will send a 14 reminder out as well in early April to get me 15 those names. Thank you. 16 Moving to the next slot, Richard 17 reminded me that our bylaws indicate that not 18 only do we have the positions of Chair and 19 Vice Chair, but we also have an open position 20 of Secretary. So this is two comments. 21 One to invite somebody to step up 22 for secretary. And then second, Richard and 23 I also discussed that we would like to make 24 that secretary treasurer because there could 25 be a role for an officer of the Council to do 0034 1 March 23, 2007 2 periodic reviews of the financial situation 3 of the various committees because we are 4 spending big bucks at this point. 5 And so there should be an 6 opportunity for an officer to say, okay, 7 where does this committee stand in terms of 8 the numbers. Where is this. Total them up. 9 Not a very difficult duty. But nevertheless 10 one that an officer of the Council should 11 have. So we're talking about that as 12 secretary-treasurer. 13 Richard. 14 MR. ZACKON: If I can say 15 something. That is largely a ceremonial 16 role. Rebecca really does the job and does 17 it well as secretary of this group. And so 18 the job of secretary would be reading the 19 transcript when it comes back after the 20 meeting. And just looking through, making 21 sure it's okay. Probably checking in once 22 with Rebecca before the meeting or me. So 23 it's largely ceremonial. And we need one 24 because Mannana has said so. 25 MR. HESS: Richard, is that 0035 1 March 23, 2007 2 something that we need to vote on today or 3 could we do that in conjunction with the next 4 topic which is the election? 5 MR. ZACKON: Well, the election 6 will happen in the next meeting. 7 MR. HESS: Right. 8 MR. ZACKON: If someone today 9 wants to step up and say I'll do it, that 10 would be great. 11 MR. HESS: Anybody want the 12 ceremonial role? 13 MR. ZACKON: I have lots of 14 straws. Some of them are shorter than 15 others. 16 MR. HESS: How about one of our 17 newer members? 18 MR. ZACKON: How about one of our 19 missing members? 20 MS. PANTANINI: Since reviewing 21 the notes and checking in with you before the 22 meeting -- 23 MR. ZACKON: Exactly. 24 MR. SHIMMEL: But also, Richard, 25 I think there may be some conversations 0036 1 March 23, 2007 2 regarding budgets and finances to Mike's 3 point. That part might be less ceremonial 4 and a little bit more work. 5 MR. ZACKON: What we're looking 6 to, Howard, came to me that we should make 7 our finances, we're beginning to spend real 8 money now. So there ought to be some kind of 9 quarterly report -- 10 MS. PANTANINI: Sure. 11 MR. ZACKON: -- made available to 12 this meeting. And before that report is 13 presented to that meeting, this person would 14 look at it. There might be a phone call with 15 financial people with the individual 16 committees. I'm happy to do the legwork on 17 that. But someone needs to stand as a member 18 of the Council that I stand, that's okay. 19 Was that Jessica who stood up there? 20 MS. PANTANINI: Yes. 21 MR. ZACKON: Thank you, Jessica. 22 MR. HESS: Since we have a 23 volunteer, can I quickly move -- 24 MR. BROOKS: Seconded. 25 MR. HESS: Richard, did you want 0037 1 March 23, 2007 2 to say something? 3 MR. ZACKON: And just to be 4 thinking now, at our meeting which we'll talk 5 about later in June, it's time for what for 6 us is an annual election/re-election of 7 Chair, Vice Chair. 8 And, Jessica, you really are only 9 stepping into the position until June. 10 MS. PANTANINI: Oh, okay. 11 MR. ZACKON: I appreciate your 12 dedication. 13 MR. HESS: So we have a move and 14 second. All in favor of Jessica as 15 secretary/treasurer say aye. 16 (Whereupon, the present members 17 voted aye en masse.) 18 MR. HESS: Opposed? 19 Welcome, Jessica. 20 MS. PANTANINI: Thank you so 21 much. 22 MR. HESS: Thanks for signing up. 23 Thanks for stepping up. 24 Well, we've indirectly, I think, 25 talked about the last item which is not even 0038 1 March 23, 2007 2 on the chart it looks like, or the handout. 3 And that is just a reminder that we will have 4 elections in June at our June meeting for -- 5 MR. ZACKON: All our officers. 6 MR. HESS: All our officers. 7 Including secretary, as you just said. 8 MS. GALLAGHER: Do we have a date 9 for the June meeting? 10 MR. ZACKON: We do. Talk to 11 Rebecca afterwards. It's the last item on 12 there. The item that's listed at 11:30. By 13 the way, I'm working to get us out of here by 14 noon today. So work with me. 15 MR. HESS: Then that ends the 16 steering committee meeting. I would like to 17 thank the members of the steering committee 18 who took time from busy work to respond and 19 make recommendations. With respect to the 20 names, I think we're going to end up in a 21 good place if we follow this procedure. Then 22 we will have the new members already onboard 23 in June which I think is great. So thanks. 24 MR. KALINE: Any other topics 25 under the questions for Mike? If not, we'll 0039 1 March 23, 2007 2 move over to Ceril who'll talk about 3 nonresponse. 4 MS. SHAGRIN: I have good news 5 and I have bad news. And I apologize to the 6 members of my committee. I apologize to the 7 members of my committee who have not yet 8 heard the bad news since I just heard it. 9 The good news is that there's 10 seven versions of the questionnaire and 11 they're all either in some form of completion 12 or being worked on because separate 13 questionnaire for in-person, for 14 self-administered, for phone and diary and 15 meter. And the questions have all been 16 finalized. It's just taking those questions 17 and formatting them so that they make sense 18 for the data collection mode. And all of 19 that is being worked on and is pretty much 20 now on schedule with the first questionnaires 21 going out the beginning of May. 22 The bad news is I learned just 23 this week that the cost for doing this is 24 going up. And I want to make sure everybody 25 understands a little different than the RFPs 0040 1 March 23, 2007 2 that we have done where we sent out an RFP 3 and gotten costs back in and picked the 4 supplier. 5 In this case we decided that we 6 would let Nielsen be the supplier in terms of 7 doing the actual questionnaire work and work 8 with academics to make sure that we were on 9 the right track and to analyze the data. And 10 when Nielsen gave us the costs for doing this 11 they assumed that they were going to do all 12 of the in-person fieldwork. Because of all 13 of the other activities that Nielsen is now 14 involved in, they do not believe that they 15 can do that fieldwork. So they are now 16 planning on using RTI to do 100 percent of 17 the in-person fieldwork which means 18 additional costs. 19 Because when Nielsen was doing 20 it, since our agreement with them is that we 21 pay their out-of-pocket costs but we don't 22 pay any additional costs, the total cost for 23 doing this went up by half a million dollars. 24 I said to the folks at Nielsen, well, what 25 happens if the committee doesn't agree to 0041 1 March 23, 2007 2 this? Does that mean we're not going to do 3 it? It's your fault. You gave me the costs. 4 If you were an outside supplier I'd make you 5 stick with them. I don't know what the 6 answer to that is. 7 But in the course of this 8 conversation I asked Howard to confirm that 9 Susan's commitment to fund this committee 10 with $2-1/2 million every year meant that 11 there would be an additional deposit to the 12 treasury of this committee in June, June is 13 it or July of this year? 14 MR. SHIMMEL: Well, the way the 15 deposits have worked in the past there was 16 one endowment in June of '05, a second one of 17 June of '06. 18 MS. SHAGRIN: So there would be a 19 third in June of '07? 20 MR. SHIMMEL: We're still trying 21 to find, to track down exactly what 22 commitment Susan has made in terms of ongoing 23 funding and whether it is $2-1/2 million each 24 and every year. 25 MR. DONATO: Don't read anything 0042 1 March 23, 2007 2 negative. We just haven't had the 3 conversation. And it's unfortunate that we 4 couldn't have it before today. But we we're 5 shooting from the hip whatever I would say to 6 you on that. We just have not had that 7 conversation with Susan. And we will as soon 8 as it is possible to get back to you on it. 9 MR. HESS: Paul, do you believe 10 there's a written record of that? I remember 11 specifically that at last year's client 12 meeting, Susan said, even announced they're 13 re-upping. You're re-upping for year 2. And 14 that was very explicit. Everybody heard it. 15 I never heard a year 3 statement. 16 MR. DONATO: There's clearly the 17 spirit to keep the Council going. And 18 obviously takes money to keep the Council 19 going. I've not had any other conversation 20 that would permit me to say any more than 21 that. But the spirit of when the Council was 22 formed, obviously, with that it would 23 continue on an ongoing basis. And it's 24 obviously going to cost money to do that. 25 MR. BROOKS: A question, Ceril. 0043 1 March 23, 2007 2 You said that the fielding will start the 3 first week of May which is a little over a 4 month away. 5 Is this project proceeding on the 6 basis of this new financial reality before we 7 find out what the funding reality of the 8 Council is? 9 MS. SHAGRIN: If the Council does 10 not agree to the additional expenditure, then 11 we will hold up doing the initial mailing 12 because there is no point in doing the 13 initial mailing if we do not have funding to 14 do the in-person part. But that delays this 15 again for a long period of time. 16 MR. HESS: What's the mechanism 17 though that would get us the extra 500,000? 18 Is the mechanism only Susan's agreeing to 19 extend another 2-1/2 million, or is the 20 mechanism to take monies from year 2? 21 MS. SHAGRIN: Well, we have 22 monies from year two. And one of the 23 questions that I asked when I first learned 24 about this, are there any other projects that 25 are currently in process that would be 0044 1 March 23, 2007 2 delayed if that money came from year 2 funds. 3 The answer I got from Richard was to the best 4 of his knowledge it would have no impact. 5 MR. SHIMMEL: And, Ceril, I 6 supported what Richard said. We don't 7 believe that just spending the additional 8 500,000 will have any impact on other 9 spending that we're going to do in year 2 10 really, extending through the end of this 11 calendar year. 12 MR. ZACKON: If I can be clear 13 there. The Ball State project's a pretty 14 sizable chunk of change. If we choose to go 15 forward, which we're likely to, not committed 16 to after the pilot test, the actual 17 out-of-the pocket spending in that is likely 18 to fall into calendar year '08. But when 19 this committee votes on it there's only going 20 to be so much of a pile of money in the 21 treasury. And we'd have to commit to that 22 carefully. So if money were moved from the 23 treasury to this project, then it would limit 24 what's possible in the Ball State study 25 unless Nielsen in June comes up and ups for 0045 1 March 23, 2007 2 additional. 3 MR. BROOKS: Personally, I'd like 4 to see in one place just where our finances 5 stand on this. Maybe it's good that we have 6 a treasurer now. 7 MR. ZACKON: We do. 8 MR. BROOKS: I believe this was a 9 $1.6 million project prior to this. 10 MS. SHAGRIN: 1.5. 11 MR. BROOKS: So now it's a $2 12 million project. 13 MS. SHAGRIN: $2 million project. 14 MR. BROOKS: Like you said the 15 Ball State could be a $2 million project or 16 more. 17 MR. ZACKON: Or more. 18 MR. BROOKS: Susan's going to 19 speak to us. I would not like to admit to 20 something now, de facto, which de facto 21 eliminates the possibility of doing other 22 things which we're expecting to do. 23 MR. DONATO: I'll try to get an 24 answer for you within three weeks on the '08 25 funding, or obviously -- 0046 1 March 23, 2007 2 MR. BROOKS: If that means 3 putting a stop on fielding on this, I think 4 we have to do that. We have to know our 5 finances before we can go forward on this 6 because it's a large chunk of change. 7 MR. GUNZERATH: If I can just 8 make a comment. I think we ought to have a 9 reasonable discussion about this. Because I 10 understand Nielsen's situation. But we've 11 been moving forward with a commitment based 12 on information that we've given. And 13 essentially you guys have chosen to 14 subcontract the work out now. And, you know, 15 it doesn't seem to me it should be tied 16 directly to the addition of '08 funding. I 17 think we ought to have a reasonable 18 discussion on how we can proceed based on the 19 commitments that have been made to date. 20 MS. SHAGRIN: And there's been an 21 incredible amount of work that's been done so 22 far. And that work was done because we were 23 expecting to go forward on a budget. Which 24 we accepted the budget that Nielsen gave us. 25 And the fact that you choose to use your 0047 1 March 23, 2007 2 resources in other ways, which I understand 3 that you have, you have good reasons to do 4 so, unless you are willing to add the 5 additional funding in 2007, which it was my 6 understanding was a done deal, I agree with 7 everybody. I don't want everyone else's 8 project to be impacted because this one's 9 costing more. But I also hate to delay this 10 project considering all of the effort that's 11 been put into it and how close we are to 12 getting some really good information from it. 13 MR. DONATO: I don't think 14 anybody wants the project delayed. We're in 15 an odd situation that, you know, we're 16 funding the Council. So, to us, it's sort of 17 it just seems crazy that we would be expected 18 to pay the additional costs outside of 19 whatever funding the Council has. 20 We're going, that sort of kind of 21 violates the spirit, pro bono spirit in which 22 the whole Council was set up. My hope is 23 that I can come back to you very quickly with 24 a decision on '08. And what '08, what that 25 permits you to do is to vote on this, knowing 0048 1 March 23, 2007 2 that it's not going to impact anything other 3 than if you pull the trigger on Ball State. 4 Apparently, most of the funding 5 comes in '08 anyway. That would be funded 6 out of the '08 decision. 7 MR. POLTRACK: I would recommend 8 that when you address this with Susan, you 9 look at it and say, I mean, obviously the 10 best alternative would be the agreement to 11 fund the full $2.5 million again for 2008. 12 But a second fall-back position 13 would be to fund the extra $500,000 on top of 14 the original, the 2007 commit. So that we 15 can go forward with this project without 16 impacting anything else. So Susan's in a 17 position to go for the whole 2.5 million now. 18 We can ask for just the extra 500. But it 19 would be considered 2008 contribution. And 20 not asking for more money to fund what's 21 already committed. 22 MR. DONATO: I am confident we 23 will find a way to make this work. 24 MS. SHAGRIN: If we were using an 25 outside supplier we wouldn't be in this 0049 1 March 23, 2007 2 situation because we would say that's your 3 problem. You signed a contract. And I 4 understand, you know, when this commitment 5 was made you weren't into A2-M2 and all the 6 resources that are required for that program. 7 Nor do I think that you should delay that 8 program for this. But they're intertwined in 9 terms of the quality and the success you have 10 in the A2-M2 from the learning of this 11 research. 12 The big problem with a delay is 13 that the schedule, the RTI is prepared to go 14 out to do the in-person this summer. And in 15 order for that schedule to be made, we have 16 to do the mailing so we can get and do all of 17 the mailing. And trying to get it done to 18 limit the number of in-person interviews that 19 have to be done, and so, if we delay, then we 20 have to see when we can get into the RTI 21 schedule again to get the work done. They 22 are available and able to start, I think, in 23 June to do the in-person. Which means we 24 have to get the first mailings out no later 25 than May. 0050 1 March 23, 2007 2 MR. POLTRACK: Since we bypassed 3 the RFP approach since we thought we were 4 going with Nielsen doing this, right? 5 MR. DONATO: Yes. 6 MR. POLTRACK: Are we assured 7 that the $500,000 is a competitive and 8 reasonable amount for this part of the 9 project or is this a price we're getting from 10 someone who thinks they already have the 11 contract? 12 MS. SHAGRIN: That's the price 13 they got from RTI. They negotiated the 14 contract, the deal with RTI. 15 MR. POLTRACK: So I would then 16 ask Nielsen that question: Is this something 17 that was the best deal we could make, or was 18 this a deal that was made without any 19 competitive consideration? 20 MR. DONATO: I think it was the 21 best deal. But we can always go back and 22 challenge that. There are two things to do. 23 One is to resolve the funding issue. And 24 Ceril, well, I think we'll be able to do that 25 in a way that doesn't delay the study. 0051 1 March 23, 2007 2 And the second is to go back and 3 rechallenge the costs. See if we can get a 4 better deal. 5 MR. DeVAULT: I don't have a mic. 6 So Richard will restate, like he always does 7 anyway. 8 Two points. Number 1, while this 9 may not delay the funding for this particular 10 issue 11 A VOICE: Hi. 12 MR. ZACKON: Did someone just 13 join us? 14 I'll restate Henry's comments. 15 MR. DeVAULT: But the first point 16 I wanted to make is that -- 17 A VOICE: Your mic again. 18 MR. DeVAULT: While this may not 19 impact this particular study, it could have a 20 significant impact on any additional 21 initiatives that we may want to plan for next 22 year, particularly -- 23 MR. ZACKON: While this may not 24 impact this initial study, it may impact 25 subsequent studies that we plan this year or 0052 1 March 23, 2007 2 next year. Any future study. 3 MR. DeVAULT: Yes. 4 A VOICE: So anything outside of 5 what's being planned, including the UE 6 estimate, too? 7 MS. GALLAGHER: Yes. 8 MR. DeVAULT: Particularly with 9 new members coming on. They may have ideas 10 or initiatives that they may want to get off 11 the ground. And this could thwart those 12 initiatives. So that's one point. 13 The other point is that I think 14 that it's up to the committee to go back and 15 to, as David suggested, evaluate RTI to make 16 sure that -- 17 A VOICE: Hello. We can't hear 18 you. 19 MR. ZACKON: I'm going to repeat 20 what Henry said said. 21 MR. DeVAULT: It's a very short 22 window, Ceril, but I mean we have to make 23 sure that RTI is going to do the type of job 24 that we expect them to do. Because in some 25 cases in the past they have not been as good 0053 1 March 23, 2007 2 as we had hoped that they would be. 3 MR. ZACKON: Henry's suggesting 4 that we return to the nonresponse committee 5 for review out of some concern with past work 6 of RTI. 7 MR. DONATO: Although, I would 8 say RTI probably, but by most people who know 9 the circumstances is the most qualified to do 10 this. And I acknowledge the issues that we 11 had with RTI a couple of years ago. But I 12 believe and MRC believes that those issues 13 have generally been taken care of. So I 14 think we'll be hardpressed to get somebody 15 who will do as effective a job. But 16 certainly let's have the conversation. 17 MR. ZACKON: Paul, is there a 18 date by which -- 19 MR. DeVAULT: I think it's just 20 due diligence on the part of the committee 21 that they investigate RTI, whoever they are. 22 MR. ZACKON: Henry just asked for 23 due diligence on the part of the committee. 24 MR. DONATO: That's fine. 25 MR. ZACKON: Paul, is there a 0054 1 March 23, 2007 2 date by when we can expect you to come back 3 to us at least regarding the 500,000? 4 MR. DONATO: I'm hearing we need 5 to know this within three weeks. So before 6 that. 7 MR. ZACKON: So by three weeks 8 we'll have a response back? 9 MR. DONATO: Yes. 10 MR. ZACKON: Ceril, does that 11 work for you and our ability to go forward? 12 MS. SHAGRIN: Well -- 13 MR. DeVAULT: Is that going to 14 give you enough time to thoroughly vett RTI? 15 MR. DONATO: That's a different 16 story. 17 MR. DeVAULT: That's a question 18 for Ceril. Because at one point you had 19 Nielsen doing the research. Now you have 20 RTI. Is the committee as comfortable? And 21 the answer is, no, because I'm on the 22 committee. 23 MR. ZACKON: Henry's question to 24 the subcommittee, is it possible for the 25 committee to be -- 0055 1 March 23, 2007 2 MR. POLTRACK: Henry, why don't 3 you come here and sit. You're doubling the 4 time of the meeting. 5 MR. ZACKON: Henry, there's a 6 seat right here with the mic. 7 MR. DeVAULT: That's all right. 8 I won't make any more comments. 9 MR. ZACKON: The committee in 10 parallel can go down the track of due 11 diligence while the committee's dealing with 12 finances. 13 MS. SHAGRIN: I will call a 14 scheduled committee meeting for next week and 15 get everybody's input from the committee. As 16 I said, as I apologized when we started, this 17 just happened. I had no way of getting the 18 committee together before this meeting. 19 I feel strongly that this is an 20 issue that Nielsen needs to resolve. Because 21 we counted on them to deliver what they 22 promised to deliver. And I'll get the 23 committee together, hopefully, this week. I 24 mean, this next week. 25 MR. KALINE: I think we laid out 0056 1 March 23, 2007 2 all these projects on a wall that we wanted 3 to do. We identified the critical ones we 4 thought were the ones we wanted to get out of 5 the box. This is certainly one of them. We 6 wanted to make every attempt and do the due 7 diligence we need to do to make sure that 8 this progresses. We can't do it 9 irresponsibly. So we have to find out 10 whether we're covered on budgets. 11 But I think the intent of the 12 Council, and everybody is agreeing here 13 around the room is in agreement. That we 14 really want to keep this moving, if at all 15 possible. What we don't want to do is make a 16 mistake that's either going to jeopardize the 17 quality of what we get or jeopardize down the 18 road, to Henry's point, some other projects 19 that might be equally as valuable. But, you 20 know, because of the funding, additional 21 funding we're pinched so -- 22 MR. BROOKS: Could I make a 23 request of the Chair or perhaps this is the 24 facilitator. And I apologize for adding more 25 work here. But we have a number of studies 0057 1 March 23, 2007 2 going on now in different stages, including 3 this one, of course. And I think it would be 4 very helpful for me at least, as a Council 5 member, to have a document which comes out. 6 Yes, a flowchart. 7 MR. ZACKON: You have it right in 8 here. I just prepared it as you spoke. If 9 you look in the handouts there is such a 10 document which was prepared. 11 MR. BROOKS: Was that 12 distributed? 13 MR. ZACKON: Yes. It's in your 14 little -- that's it. 15 MR. BROOKS: It was E-mailed this 16 morning. 17 MR. ZACKON: Let us look at the 18 different projects side by side. 19 MR. BROOKS: I'd like to add the 20 dollars. 21 MS. SHAGRIN: I think the dollars 22 should go in where they're going to be paid. 23 MR. KALINE: Right. 24 Calendarization of the dollars. 25 MR. BROOKS: Obviously in the 0058 1 March 23, 2007 2 future can be distributed a day or so before. 3 A VOICE: Our budget is calendar 4 year or is it a fiscal? 5 MR. SHIMMEL: It has been in the 6 past June through May. But I think it would 7 work much better if we can get onto a fiscal 8 budget and budget for '08 based on needs for 9 '08. 10 MR. HESS: To that point, if I 11 could add the question, do we have a $5 12 million budget or do we have two $2.5 million 13 budgets in light of this conversation? 14 MR. ZACKON: Yes. 15 MR. HESS: Yes. It's an and/or 16 question. 17 MR. ZACKON: I've been assuming 18 there's $5 million, some of which has already 19 been spent. Not much has actually been 20 allocated, but some. 21 MS. SHAGRIN: On this project I 22 think the only thing that has actually been 23 paid has been, and not all of it has been the 24 academic portion where we actually did, like 25 where Nielsen actually did like a grant to 0059 1 March 23, 2007 2 the universities to pay the graduate 3 students. But other than that, nothing else 4 has been paid. 5 It's all in, all of the costs 6 going forward were really in the incentives 7 and in the mailings. And in the actual 8 out-of-pocket costs were in-person is data 9 collection which now has this added amount 10 because they are going to have to farm it 11 out. 12 MR. ZACKON: Ceril, on another 13 note with the project, when will the rest of 14 the Council see the questionnaires? 15 MS. SHAGRIN: I thought I sent 16 you the questionnaire and you distributed it 17 to the Council. But I'm not sure. 18 MR. ZACKON: Has there been 19 distributed to all of the Council? I don't 20 know. I was awaiting word from you before I 21 distributed anything. 22 MS. SHAGRIN: I will be happy to 23 distribute the final questionnaire. I think 24 what I will distribute, if everybody's okay 25 with that, is the questionnaire itself. And 0060 1 March 23, 2007 2 that right now what's happening is they're 3 modifying it. Not in terms of the questions 4 being asked, but in terms of the flow for 5 something mailed out. You do in-person 6 versus you do it online versus, you know, all 7 the different versions. So they're all being 8 worked on now. But I will send you the basic 9 questionnaire. I thought I had sent it. 10 MR. ZACKON: That's fine. And 11 we'll distribute it. We won't put it on the 12 Website. It's a little bit premature for 13 that. But distribute it to members of the 14 Council. 15 MR. KALINE: Okay. Let's move 16 on. Thank you very much for the discussion 17 on that Ceril. Let's move on to Shari Ann. 18 Shari Ann, are you still on the 19 phone? 20 MS. BRILL: Yes, yes, yes. 21 MR. KALINE: I don't know if 22 Steve's with us. 23 MS. BRILL: Steve can't make it 24 today. And under any other circumstance I'd 25 be there in person. But I got home at 3:30 0061 1 March 23, 2007 2 in the morning so... 3 MR. KALINE: The floor's yours. 4 MS. BRILL: Hi everybody. Good 5 morning. 6 The Ball State University Sequent 7 Partners pilot on the media consumption study 8 is in the field as we speak. We should have 9 results coming out of the field, I'd say, 10 mid-April. And during the latter part of 11 April and May we will review them based on 12 the agreed success criteria that we had set 13 forth. And I apologize. Because thinking 14 about it now, I probably should have 15 redistributed what our original success 16 criteria was. But I think I can take you 17 through it based on my notes. 18 One of the first issues that we 19 had was the ability of our study of the pilot 20 to demonstrate that they could bring in a 21 representative sample. Specifically, can our 22 sample size of 50 respondents account for 23 different target groups of interest 24 represented proportionately to the local 25 universe to be able to capture Spanish 0062 1 March 23, 2007 2 language dominance, African-Americans, and 3 urban respondents, advance video technology 4 users. And the ability to bring in Nielsen 5 for turnover sample household individuals. 6 And, Howard, if you are here, I 7 would love it if you can speak to that a 8 little bit more. 9 MR. SHIMMEL: Sure. The process 10 we ended up working on and finalizing with 11 Ball State is a couple. There's a couple of 12 steps. The first step is, and remember, 13 because we were dealing with a limited 14 geography where Ball State could do the 15 observations, we ended up utilizing both 16 forced turnover, set meter households in the 17 Indianapolis markets, forced turnover people 18 meter homes, national meter homes that fall 19 in the market, and also diary households in 20 the Indianapolis market. 21 The process we went through, we 22 actually sent, we identified the sample. We 23 sent pre-mailing letters notifying them, 24 notifying the household of the study with 25 some background of the project and an FAQ 0063 1 March 23, 2007 2 document. We then about two weeks after the 3 mailing called the homes. And one of the 4 things we want to be very careful about is 5 being very clear about our role in the study 6 versus Ball State. And also recognizing, you 7 know, the privacy commitments we make to our 8 panelists. 9 So the calls we made to our 10 households, we're basically asking the 11 household whether we had their permission to 12 give their contact information over to Ball 13 State. If a household said yes, or if a 14 household said yes, we then handed that 15 record over to Ball State. And they worked 16 through the same process with those 17 respondents that they worked through with the 18 sample that they fielded, which was random 19 sample from the Indianapolis market. 20 We ended up mailing 750 21 households. We were able to get 56 22 households willing to cooperate, yes, it's 23 okay to give my information to Ball State. 24 And as you'd expect, it's more skewed to 25 meter than diary. And these numbers we're 0064 1 March 23, 2007 2 going to finalize these numbers. But of 40 3 metered households we got nine to agree. Of 4 700-some-odd diary households we got 47 to 5 agree. 6 So, you know, I think, generally, 7 and I think one of the things that will be 8 really interesting to look at is Ball State's 9 agreement rate and how it compares with the 10 sample we provided. But you clearly see that 11 metered households where there's more 12 credibility, better relationship are more 13 likely to agree to cooperate. 14 MR. BROOKS: Was the 15 noncooperation, explicit noncooperation, or 16 they didn't answer? 17 MR. SHIMMEL: A combination of 18 both. I mean, we worked through making, I'm 19 not sure the number of attempts, but we made 20 multiple attempts to try to get these homes 21 on the phone. So it would be a combination 22 of some households we couldn't get in touch 23 with, but other households said no, please 24 don't provide my information. 25 MR. BROOKS: So you can't give it 0065 1 March 23, 2007 2 any quantification? 3 MR. SHIMMEL: We can't now. But 4 we can once we get through the whole process. 5 MS. SHAGRIN: So this was just 6 people not agreed to allow to give their 7 names; just agreed not to do it. 8 MR. SHIMMEL: That's right. 9 MR. DeVAULT: That number was 56 10 out of 750? So that's like a 7 percent 11 cooperation rate. 12 MR. SHIMMEL: So far. I think 13 that's one of the key points to compare that 14 to what Ball State was able to generate with 15 their own random sample. Because remember, 16 they completed ten or some odd observations 17 themselves. 18 MR. ZACKON: Yes. They've not 19 really been fully forthcoming with that 20 number. But my sense is it's lower than your 21 number. 22 MR. DeVAULT: Wait a minute. If 23 we're talking about a response rate of like 24 less than 7 percent. Is everyone comfortable 25 with that figure? 0066 1 March 23, 2007 2 MR. BROOKS: There are multitudes 3 of questions here not answered. I'm on the 4 committee. And this is the first I've heard 5 of it. And I don't know how much of that was 6 inability to reach the home or get a response 7 from the home because we can't quantify that 8 yet. I don't know exactly what Nielsen told 9 the home, the reason for giving. Maybe you 10 can elucidate us on that. 11 MR. POLTRACK: That's also a 12 cooperation rate of initial Nielsen 13 cooperators. So we're down to a really, 14 really low number here. 15 MR. DeVAULT: I just wish that 16 before you guys proceed that you're 17 comfortable with this cooperation rate. 18 MR. ZACKON: Henry, for the 19 record, before this proceeded, this Council 20 needs to vote the funds. All the Council 21 voted the funds for was for the pilot study 22 which you will learn. 23 MR. IVIE: That is why we picked 24 the pilot study rather than go forward with 25 the whole study to understand the cooperation 0067 1 March 23, 2007 2 rate. 3 MR. SHIMMEL: One of the things 4 we'll work with Shari Ann and with the Ball 5 State people to do is to provide an overall 6 sample evaluation. So you're able to see the 7 random respondents that they recruited versus 8 the different cells of NMR response. And 9 then just be able to compare response rates 10 across those three groups. 11 We need to tabulate that data, 12 you know. And some of, we're actually going 13 through the second mailing of our sample as 14 we speak. 15 MR. ZACKON: In terms of timing, 16 we're looking to return with the results of 17 the pilot study analyzed so that this Council 18 at its June meeting can vote whether or not 19 it wants to go forward. 20 MR. BROOKS: But I'm not going to 21 jump to any conclusions because there's so 22 much I don't know about this, maybe I missed 23 a meeting of the committee or something. But 24 this is the first I've heard of that. I 25 don't know what was asked. I don't know what 0068 1 March 23, 2007 2 the breakdown of the so-called refusers are. 3 I don't know all kinds of things about this 4 yet. So I'm not ready to recommend anything 5 to the Council based on this. 6 MS. GALLGHER: In details. 7 MS. SHAGRIN: Do you or somebody, 8 Shari, somebody know the random sample that 9 the non-Nielsen sample that Ball State 10 recruited? 11 MS. BRILL: Say that again. 12 MS. SHAGRIN: Richard referred to 13 10 homes that Ball State recruited that were 14 not prior Nielsen homes; is that right? 15 MR. SHIMMEL: That's right. 16 MS. SHAGRIN: And the frame for 17 those 10 homes. And is there a way to 18 calculate any sort of response rates for 19 those 10 homes? In other words, do they 20 randomly pick 100 and get 10, or how did they 21 get the 10? 22 MS. BRILL: I guess that's a 23 question I'll have to bring back to them. 24 MR. ZACKON: They've not yet 25 reported that too. 0069 1 March 23, 2007 2 MR. POLTRACK: Also, Howard, 3 you're expecting to compare those 10 to the 4 other 15. I mean, why? I mean, that's 5 totally meaningless. You are going to 6 compare 10 homes. You're going to match them 7 demographically. It's ridiculous. 8 MR. ZACKON: Actually, those 10 9 homes were selected as high technology homes. 10 So they were selected in different methods. 11 MR. POLTRACK: Was there any 12 incentive offered to these people? 13 MR. SHIMMEL: It's $150 for the 14 day. And then another $50 if they do the 15 follow-up. David, I think the point is if 16 we're going, if the Council approving the 17 full study, to what extent does that need to 18 rely on Nielsen households versus what extent 19 can that be a random population. And one of 20 the determinants would be do you generate a 21 much higher cooperation rate using Nielsen 22 homes and also then can you somehow link data 23 data you're observing to past viewing data 24 that we capture. 25 MR. POLTRACK: I understand that. 0070 1 March 23, 2007 2 I just don't think you're going to be able to 3 make a decision based on a recruitment of 10 4 homes. 5 MR. IVIE: You mentioned that 6 Ball State may not be totally forthcoming 7 with the cooperation rate information, the 8 response rate information. 9 A VOICE: Can you speak up a 10 little bit. I'm sorry. I don't hear you as 11 well. 12 MR. IVIE: Richard mentioned that 13 Ball State might not be quite totally 14 forthcoming with all the response rate 15 information and cooperation rate information. 16 I think we should make it clear 17 to them that that's a major criteria, the 18 purpose really to doing this pilot. So if 19 they can't come up with that information, 20 it's not likely they're going to be able to 21 go forward with the full project. 22 MR. ZACKON: I agree. My 23 experience has been, regarding the earlier 24 studies, their representations to me have not 25 been satisfactory. What the cooperation rate 0071 1 March 23, 2007 2 is and how they calculate it. 3 The understanding, the whole, the 4 primary point of this pilot study was will 5 people play. And can we measure them. And 6 so the question will people play is the one 7 that's up right now. We would need to know 8 that. This is the first I'm hearing these 9 numbers as well. 10 MR. KALINE: We don't want to 11 release anything that's going to get shot 12 down immediately because it's based on 10 13 homes or based on something like that. We 14 need more transparency. 15 MS. BRILL: It's mostly a check 16 that we can get them. I mean, you would have 17 to, I mean, to apply that kind of rigor on 18 this, I don't know, they should disclose 19 more. I agree. But I don't think at this 20 point a pilot study that's just based on 50 21 people should be held up to standards that 22 you would do with other, you know, nationwide 23 currency data. It's a completely different 24 type of panel. 25 MS. GALLAGHER: That's the 0072 1 March 23, 2007 2 purpose. 3 MS. BRILL: This is a completely 4 different type of study. It's not a panel. 5 MR. POLTRACK: We have to make a 6 decision based on these 50. And the question 7 is do we have enough to make the decision 8 going forward. 9 MS. GALLAGHER: That was the 10 purpose of the pilot study. 11 MR. ZACKON: It's not the 12 findings about what we find out about media 13 usage that we're looking for for these 50. 14 It's how we're able to recruit them. 15 Evidently, not well. But we'll see. 16 MS. BRILL: We'll get into Ball 17 State at another time. 18 MR. SHIMMEL: Shari Ann, you and 19 I should work on this. We can create a 20 compilation of all of the materials that were 21 used, both the stuff that Ball State sent out 22 themselves and the stuff that NMR sent out. 23 So you can see exactly how we're positioning 24 the study. We'll prepare and distribute all 25 of that. 0073 1 March 23, 2007 2 MR. BROOKS: The committee needs 3 to go over this. This is really 4 irresponsible, to some degree, to put out 5 little bits of information like this and jump 6 to conclusions on it. I'm not ready to make 7 a conclusion on it. It may be that the whole 8 thing will work or maybe something else. But 9 I've got to see exactly what happened. 10 MS. BRILL: We all do. And 11 that's the whole point of the pilot. 12 MR. BROOKS: Right. 13 MS. BRILL: When we go over the 14 results and when we report back to us. So 15 can we move on? 16 MR. ZACKON: We don't have too 17 much more time for the media consumption, 18 Shari Ann, unless there's something the 19 committee's aware of the success criteria 20 they represented. They've been distributed 21 or even on the Website. 22 So if you can share with us what 23 we need to know until we see the results of 24 the pilot, that would be, I think, best. 25 MS. BRILL: We're going to get 0074 1 March 23, 2007 2 results back hopefully latter part of April. 3 We'll do an analysis to the best of our 4 ability. We'll clear up those sample and 5 response rate issues. 6 You know, we'll compile the 7 materials that Ball State used for 8 recruitment and along with Howard and his 9 team. And, you know, June 23rd we'll have a 10 detailed report of findings and what we've 11 learned from the pilot. And hopefully we can 12 ask for both to go forward. 13 MR. ZACKON: Thank you, Shari 14 Ann. Any other discussion now on media 15 consumption? It will be a lively next 16 meeting of the committee. 17 MS. BRILL: I'll send out an 18 E-mail to our committee to set up a date for 19 when we'll have our next phone call. 20 MR. ZACKON: I would check in 21 with Ball State first. Let's make sure 22 they're ready to present. 23 MS. BRILL: Definitely. 24 MR. KALINE: Let's move on to 25 Ira. 0075 1 March 23, 2007 2 MR. SUSSMAN: Okay. I'll be 3 fast. Market place practices report. This 4 committee completed a very inexpensive 5 marketplace report which highlighted a number 6 of issues that buyers or sellers which 7 highlighted a number of issues that buyers, 8 sellers, researchers found to hinder good 9 marketplace efficiency and best practices. 10 The goal of the committee 11 originally was to uncover questionable 12 practices and issue a report suggesting best 13 practice. Much of the report findings were 14 local and somewhat illogical in nature. 15 Nielsen then announced their 16 A2-M2 in the middle of our reporting and 17 their initiatives to increase electronic 18 measurement should substantially change the 19 local market and also the focus of this 20 committee and the report. 21 At the same time, alongside the 22 original report findings, many new issues 23 have developed such as better understanding. 24 That we need better understanding of such a 25 request by second-by-second TV measurement, 0076 1 March 23, 2007 2 commercial ratings, TV, Internet, 3 integration. 4 There's a number of other issues 5 out there that are very important and part of 6 industry discussion. With that happening, 7 the committee needed to decide if we should 8 just go into hiatus while some of these 9 things work their ways out or to change 10 course. And I want to thank the committee 11 for its decision to push forward. 12 What we're going to do, which 13 still doesn't cost any money is issue an RFP 14 asking for submissions on work that would 15 take one or more up-to-date buy/sell markets 16 and kind of expound on it. 17 I think the overall purpose is to 18 generate new ideas which support the original 19 goal of the subcommittee. And think if 20 there's something out there that somebody 21 comes up with as opposed to just within this 22 room would be a good next step. 23 The RFP would ask for submissions 24 on work that would take one or two days. 25 Buy/sell marketplace issues to provide 0077 1 March 23, 2007 2 analysis and perspective. And ultimately a 3 user-friendly reporting instrument 4 highlighting factual information about the 5 topic. Visual explanations as opposed to 6 just a dry report, showing implications for 7 various practices possibly, and a point of 8 view on best approach. 9 We would target this RFP to 10 outside consultants, industry specialists, 11 and academics. And as we go forward we'll 12 love to have a list from you people in the 13 room. Any names that you can suggest that 14 might have the ability to do this. 15 And one of my thoughts is they 16 might even act as a general contractor 17 bringing in Nielsen and bringing in academics 18 and kind of working as a group depending on 19 the topic bringing in the right people to 20 answer it. 21 RFP request will request the 22 scope of the consultant's proposal. Which 23 issues are issues they want to handle. 24 Process for implementation, description of 25 reporting mechanism. How they plan to 0078 1 March 23, 2007 2 communicate, distribute. And a mechanism to 3 deal which we thought very important for 4 future issues as they came up. 5 To really keep a pulse on the 6 marketplace. Make sure that the topics that 7 they're addressing are the most important 8 topics in the industry. And not try to just 9 go too deep or too wide. And, basically, 10 that's it. 11 Some other thoughts. No, that's 12 it. We're tight. So I don't think there's 13 anything really to discuss today unless 14 anybody has ideas on anything as far as this 15 RFP. 16 Go, Henry. 17 MR. DeVAULT: Shouldn't the 18 committee identify the issues that you want 19 studied as opposed to getting RFPs from 20 suppliers about what they think should be 21 studied? 22 MR. SUSSMAN: I think so. One 23 thing I had forgotten to mention, we are 24 going to issue number 1, the report as 25 background for what was found in the initial 0079 1 March 23, 2007 2 study. And I think we are going to highlight 3 those issues that we believe are most 4 relevant that have come up since that report. 5 If somebody comes back and says I have a 6 great idea on this. It is up to us. I don't 7 want to say don't do it. Well, decide if 8 it's important enough to be addressed. 9 So I don't want to, at this 10 point, we've, you know, the few of us 11 speaking on this, have come up with our own 12 ideas. And I don't want to stop people from 13 coming up with a great idea on how to, you 14 know, look at a marketplace issue that maybe 15 we didn't identify. It doesn't mean that we 16 will accept any RPs and run forward with 17 them. What I'm hoping is to come up with 18 ideas and through that have further 19 discussions with whoever the consultant or 20 vendor is on what we think is the best thing 21 to do. So it's really very early steps to 22 kind of finish in the marketplace. Because 23 otherwise we are kind of stuck on next steps. 24 We didn't want to push forward in a way just 25 to force a best practices document out there 0080 1 March 23, 2007 2 based on what we learned or to be too strict 3 about it. And this is really a way of we 4 found that some of the other RFPs actually 5 got some great ideas on what might be done. 6 So that's kind of our way of saying, here's 7 the topic. This is what we want to do as a 8 purpose. Does anybody else out there have a 9 great idea on how to actually implement that. 10 And I think we do need to provide a lot of 11 feedback on the issues that are most 12 important. 13 MS. BASLIK: Remember, I think 14 what we found very interesting, what we found 15 initially was very interesting even though 16 people can be doing research when you're on 17 the seller side and the buyer's side, two 18 entirely different perspectives on the data, 19 how the data is used. It was really, it was 20 eye-opening for those of us who participated 21 to see this. Because we would have assumed 22 that you use the information the same way. 23 And you really don't. They are just 24 different needs. 25 MR. DeVAULT: That's how come I 0081 1 March 23, 2007 2 thought you guys might have been in a 3 position to direct the research more so than 4 because you were so familiar with the results 5 and understood the issues that it might be 6 advantageous for you to identify certain 7 areas that you really think should be, you 8 know, delved into. I don't disagree with 9 your approach. And understand the merit of 10 that approach. I just think that and it's up 11 to your committee, but maybe you might want 12 to have two approaches. On the one hand you 13 say these are two or three things we really 14 want to have. And then we're open to 15 suggestions for alternatives. 16 MR. SUSSMAN: Thank you. Because 17 we kind of concocted this yesterday. No, not 18 literally. But really, what we're looking 19 for is that kind of input. And one of the 20 things we need to go back to is the original 21 report and say what's changing with A2-M2. 22 And let's not go chasing down any solutions 23 on things that hopefully will work themselves 24 out in the next 18 months to two years. But 25 there are some issues that probably need to 0082 1 March 23, 2007 2 be brought forth in the local area. At the 3 same time there's a lot of issues that are 4 kind of popping up on the national arena that 5 were not touched by that original project. 6 So maybe it is a two-pronged approach. So 7 absolutely. That's why we bring it to this 8 committee. Because you guys have good ideas. 9 MR. SHIMMEL: Ira, just to get 10 some mileage out of the work that's already 11 been done. Cathy Crawford mentioned the four 12 As was started, had a group looking into the 13 area of data management posting. It may make 14 sense for you to reach out to her and share 15 what's already been done. 16 MR. SUSSMAN: Absolutely. 17 MR. IVIE: I was just going to 18 mention that there's a lot going on behind 19 the scenes there, Ira. And we're actually 20 spending a lot of time on this at the MRC; 21 the use of Nielsen data for the reliability 22 of that. How that plays into the agency 23 marketplace. And the accountability that 24 they're now being held to by auditors of the 25 agency actions. And, you know, we're looking 0083 1 March 23, 2007 2 at things like what kind of tools should 3 Nielsen be providing to the marketplace to 4 assist in that process. And think that would 5 be a good area. 6 MR. SUSSMAN: If there's a 7 parallel to this it would be we've discussed 8 in the past where, for example, the ARF 9 wanted one of their projects to be, you know, 10 they wanted us to fund one of their projects. 11 I think this might be a situation where the 12 four As actually doesn't have funding. So 13 maybe we can work in conjunction with 14 something that's coming out of the four As. 15 If they have a proposal to bring forth, maybe 16 we can work together to that end. 17 MR. KALINE: Not to muddy the 18 waters, but there's one thing to say how do 19 the buyers and sellers use the data. But 20 there's a whole new emerging segment of users 21 out there called media auditors who are out 22 there judging agency performance, and 23 therefore, client performance based on 24 Nielsen numbers. 25 And I can tell you when you get 0084 1 March 23, 2007 2 underneath the skin of the methodology 3 they're using, they're not making 4 schedule-to-schedule comparisons. They're 5 not doing things, you know, it's broad 6 rotation type comparisons to a pool of 7 advertisers. And you don't really see. So 8 no one's auditing the auditors. 9 So I just throw that in as 10 another marketplace event that's going on 11 that is probably not as important as 12 initially important as -- 13 MR. SUSSMAN: Actually, Mark, I 14 think that is the impetus of this, of this 15 committee came from the pressure that 16 auditors were putting on the buy/sell 17 process. So it's absolutely part of the 18 equation. 19 MR. KALINE: Okay. 20 MR. ZACKON: Are we ready for 21 universe assessments? 22 MR. KALINE: I think so. Take it 23 away, Nancy. 24 MS. GALLAGHER: You can see we've 25 been very busy. And you've all received a 0085 1 March 23, 2007 2 copy of our RFP. One of the big decisions we 3 made which I personally love is to scale in 4 such a big project. So we decided to scale 5 it down to manageable area. And to use 6 Nielsen LPM market so we can actually compare 7 findings to what Nielsen has observed in 8 their sample. So it kind of gives us some 9 realm of something to compare the findings 10 to. Which can only really be done in an LPM 11 sample where there's installers in the home 12 calibrating sets and everything. 13 So ideally, we would like to do 14 Dallas because it has high ethnic, high 15 satellite, kind of everything you want in a 16 test. And the people in San Francisco 17 there's far too many techies who might know, 18 you know, too much. But we prefer Dallas. 19 We'll entertain from any other market because 20 I didn't want to only get Texas people 21 replying to the RFP. You know, I want to 22 keep Boston on there because of BU, or one of 23 those schools wanted to participate. I 24 certainly wouldn't, you know, I would 25 dissuade them from doing Boston because of no 0086 1 March 23, 2007 2 ethnic. But at least I can get them, try, if 3 their proposal was great, talk them in. 4 What we would really love to do, 5 but I am sure since there's money things 6 looking a little iffy, if we got what we 7 considered two really good proposals that 8 differed, I would love to do them both and do 9 a comparison and get best practices. But 10 that's a discussion for way in the future 11 because we haven't issued the RFP yet. And 12 at the moment we don't even know if we're 13 going to get funded. But anyway, I have to 14 have the RFP approved to send out. 15 MR. ZACKON: No. 16 MS. GALLAGHER: Oh, I don't? In 17 that case we'll be sending the RFP out next 18 month. And if anybody has any suggestions 19 for, you know, a distribution mechanism for 20 it, we are more than open to them. Because 21 we really don't know. I've talked to a 22 couple of your deans of colleges of 23 communications and stuff. And gotten some 24 ideas. But I'm really looking for ways to 25 get this thing fairly widely distributed. 0087 1 March 23, 2007 2 MS. BASLIK: Someone who's not 3 already using another project so that we're 4 getting, maybe learning even in that how they 5 do things differently. 6 MR. ZACKON: If you didn't hear 7 Michelle on the phone, she's suggesting that 8 we use someone not already on one of our 9 projects. 10 MS. SHAGRIN: To Nancy's point of 11 the possibility of having two people do it, I 12 think that that in itself would be an 13 incredible learning in terms of the validity 14 of the methodology and the validity of the 15 data if we had two separate people doing, 16 collecting the same information. And we can 17 take that and also compare it to the Nielsen 18 sample information. We'd have a good feel 19 afterwards as to how good some of this is. 20 MR. ZACKON: And for some of the 21 questions we can compare to census data. 22 MS. SHAGRIN: Yes. 23 MS. GALLAGHER: It specifies in 24 the RFP that for certain questions we require 25 them to use the same questions the census 0088 1 March 23, 2007 2 asks. 3 MR. POLTRACK: Nancy, you might 4 want to look at the Marketing Science 5 Institute, MSI, for distribution. Because 6 they have, all the top academics in the field 7 are all members of the Marketing Science 8 Institute. 9 MS. GALLAGHER: Right. Thank 10 you. 11 MR. IVIE: Can I just interject 12 one thing about this proposal. I think 13 there's still an open question associated 14 with it, not as far as the RFP goes. The 15 idea of best practices and universe estimates 16 and who does that is an open question. And 17 should other rating services beyond Nielsen 18 be allowed to participate in this project? 19 This goes across rating services. And I know 20 this committee is focused on television, is 21 focused on funding from Nielsen. But 22 universe estimates is a question that goes 23 across many services. 24 So we're looking to Nielsen to 25 provide an answer to that in terms of are 0089 1 March 23, 2007 2 they open for other rating services to join 3 into that project, participate in funding, 4 and seek the benefit of that. 5 MS. SHAGRIN: What makes the most 6 sense to do the test first and then after, 7 because eventually in order for this to be 8 meaningful, you're going to have to go out 9 and do a total U.S. and do multiple markets. 10 So it seems to me that not expanding this 11 during the initial test phase and then after 12 you say, hey, this is the methodology, this 13 is the company, then perhaps Nielsen would 14 want to expand it because the cost of doing 15 it nationally may be, you know, so great that 16 they would want to have others involved. 17 MR. IVIE: I agree. That's why I 18 said not for the RFP stage. But beyond that, 19 we have an open question, I think, with 20 Nielsen. Related to eventually this could be 21 beneficial to involve other rating services. 22 MR. ZACKON: I was present at the 23 committee meeting where that was discussed. 24 I brought it to Paul Donato. And he said 25 he'd get back to us on it. So it's an open 0090 1 March 23, 2007 2 question as well. 3 MR. DeVAULT: Nancy, in terms of 4 the scope of universal estimates, are they 5 limited to television? 6 MS. GALLAGHER: Actually, on the 7 RFP there's a whole list. We're requiring 8 television. We would also like cell phone 9 and MP3 player-type thing. But we would 10 accept if they only did the television 11 Internet portion, you know. But we would 12 love the mobile too. 13 MR. DeVAULT: Okay. Thank you. 14 MS. GALLAGHER: But the other 15 thing, the sets and the Internet and stuff 16 are really household level things. Once you 17 get into the mobile devices, you have to do 18 it at a person's level. So they really might 19 be slightly differing methodologies. 20 MR. DeVAULT: In terms of the 21 television, how fine are you going to go 22 down? 23 MS. GALLAGHER: We have HD set. 24 HD receive over air. HD receive via capable. 25 HD receive via satellite. Internet at home. 0091 1 March 23, 2007 2 Broadband at home. DSL at home. WiFi at 3 home, satellite. VCR, VCC. DVD, DVD 4 recorder, DVD player-only. Brand cable, 5 digital cable. 6 MR. ZACKON: Was the 7 interviewer -- 8 A VOICE: I also have another 9 one. Apple introduced this little thing 10 called Apple TV which allows you to move your 11 content from iTunes on your desktop to your 12 nice big beautiful TV screen. So at $300 a 13 pop, I think that device could be a 14 game-changer in how people move platforms 15 from place to place or move content from 16 place to place. 17 MS. GALLAGHER: Does that only 18 work with Mac? 19 A VOICE: No. It's actually set 20 up to work with iTunes. But has nothing to 21 do with whether you have a Mac or a PC. It's 22 literally taking, you have to subscribe to 23 iTunes, you know, the same place that will 24 give you your video downloads and your music 25 downloads. And you can just transfer that so 0092 1 March 23, 2007 2 you can watch a music video that you 3 down-loaded to your iPod or that you brought 4 down to iTunes and just move it from watching 5 it stream on your computer to having it 6 stream on your 60-inch plasma. 7 MS. GALLAGHER: How about device 8 to moving content from computer to TV? 9 A VOICE: Yes. 10 MS. GALLAGHER: Because I don't 11 want to get into brand names. Then you got 12 to ask for a sling box on this and that and 13 everything else. 14 A VOICE: Yes. 15 MS. GALLAGHER: I'm trying very 16 hard to avoid brand names where possible. 17 The iPod is like Xerox. 18 A VOICE: Yes. 19 MR. KALINE: Unless they want to 20 co-fund. And then we'll entertain it. 21 MR. ZACKON: Nancy, 22 congratulations to your committee. It sounds 23 like there's been a breakthrough there, what 24 you're up to. And you're not yet at the 25 uh-oh stage because you haven't yet chose a 0093 1 March 23, 2007 2 supplier. 3 MS. GALLAGHER: Yes. We're still 4 under budget. 5 MR. KALINE: You want to talk 6 about that? 7 MR. ZACKON: I'll talk about the 8 next item. And I stole the name off 9 somewhere on the Internet. I don't think it 10 violates their trademark, which was, "taking 11 time to think." Which is something that in 12 my conversations with people we really don't 13 get enough of to do. 14 There was a meeting held between 15 the first two meetings of this Council '05 16 held at Nielsen by the steering committee 17 which people actually did take some time to 18 think. We'd like to be able to replicate 19 that, but with the full Council this time. 20 And the idea is at our next meeting I'm not 21 calling it an offsite, so it would probably 22 be in a space like this. 23 So for this group it will 24 probably be onsite and here in New York. And 25 the group sat last time about five hours. 0094 1 March 23, 2007 2 And we can have dinner afterwards so we can 3 have some socializing. It would not be on a 4 Friday so people wouldn't be held up. We 5 have to set the date. It would be sometime 6 in June after most of the upfront clear time 7 on our calendars to be able to do that. And 8 it would include the new members, assuming we 9 include the new members, and really take 10 time. 11 A lot has happened since this 12 group formed two years ago. There is now 13 something called the Nielsen Company which 14 wasn't there then. There are a lot of 15 marketplace issues which weren't there then. 16 There's a lot of technology which wasn't 17 there then. 18 And it seems appropriate that we 19 are able to take some time to think and talk 20 about, gee, where might this Council want to 21 take its next research. Now, we may know by 22 that point. We have some additional funding 23 that remains open. But even with the 24 funding, we have to do that. 25 Now, part of the meeting would be 0095 1 March 23, 2007 2 a meeting like this. And it seems like we'll 3 have the results in from the Ball State study 4 so that we'll be able to decide there. But 5 we'd be looking beyond our current studies 6 and beyond our current purposes in what we 7 might do as a Council. 8 So that's the idea. It would be 9 probably 12:00 to 5:00. There'll be food 10 served. And we'd ask people from out of 11 town, as best they can, if they can come in 12 for that. Because lots more gets created 13 when everyone's together. 14 By the way, in terms of 15 attendance, we are at our highest ever today. 16 We're at 77 percent attendance here. We've 17 been hovering around 75 percent the last few 18 meetings. But it would be great if people, 19 if the New Yorkers could trek across town to 20 join us and the people from out of town join 21 us. 22 And if the Council is in 23 agreement that we ought do this, I'd like to 24 get some volunteers to. And we don't have to 25 meet in person in this meeting, but to 0096 1 March 23, 2007 2 speculate how we might want to lay out that 3 meeting, to design that meeting in advance to 4 work. 5 So this is really a two-part, 6 Mark. One, are we committed to do that, and, 7 if so, who might want to step forward to 8 support the planning effort. 9 MR. HESS: Richard, just a 10 question. Besides the elections and regular 11 business, what are the objectives with 12 respect to what we are going to make time to 13 think about? 14 MR. ZACKON: One thing would be 15 future research projects at the Council. And 16 two, there have been some thoughts about 17 things beyond research on the Council that 18 might be appropriate. Maybe some training 19 education for the industry was one which was 20 suggested. Things that won't take a lot of 21 the budget that we're talking about but might 22 produce a lot of value in terms of basic R&D 23 thinking within the industry. 24 MR. SUSSMAN: I think the other 25 thing we're talking about on this was we, in 0097 1 March 23, 2007 2 our first steering committee meeting, we had 3 a big list of projects. And I think it would 4 be important to go back with the full Council 5 to that list. See if any of those issues 6 really come up. 7 We also talked about low-hanging 8 fruit at the first meeting. Are there any 9 less expensive quicker projects that the 10 larger Council really wants to commit to? 11 MS. PANTANINI: Seems to me we 12 can do some ideation around what we think our 13 main objectives should be. And then that in 14 correlation with a firm budget begin to 15 prioritize what our focus should be for the 16 coming year. 17 MR. ZACKON: That was our 18 treasurer speaking. Thank you, Madam 19 Treasurer. 20 MS. PANTANINI: Yes. I am 21 excited. But I for one, I can't speak for 22 all of us, but I think you're doing a great 23 job so far. 24 MR. ZACKON: You've just been 25 endorsed, Jessica. 0098 1 March 23, 2007 2 MS. PANTANINI: Gee. Thank you. 3 MS. RUSH: There might be time to 4 take the opportunity to sort of figure out 5 just to assess what's worked well and what 6 hasn't worked well in terms of just processes 7 and communication and timelines and 8 timetables that, you know, that have been 9 underway for the past two years to fine-tune 10 them so that things operate really smoothly 11 and quickly moving forward. 12 MR. ZACKON: Very good. So are 13 we in agreement that we ought proceed with 14 this and devote about five hours to it? 15 MS. PANTANINI: Yes. 16 MR. KALINE: I think it's time 17 well spent. 18 MR. ZACKON: Who would be willing 19 to step up to work to design such an effort? 20 And I would particularly invite some people 21 who are not yet on committees as a 22 requirement really for the Council. But 23 anyone who's up to thinking. Colleen? Thank 24 you. 25 MS. RUSH: Sure. 0099 1 March 23, 2007 2 MS. PANTANINI: I will. 3 MR. ZACKON: Jessica. 4 MR. BROOKS: This is a phone 5 meeting. 6 MR. ZACKON: Ira, Tim, George. 7 Anyone on the phone? 8 MR. SCHWARTZ: I'll do it. 9 MR. ZACKON: Lyle, you're here. 10 MR. SCHWARTZ: I can hear you. 11 The phone is not working too great. 12 MR. ZACKON: In that case we're 13 at 81 percent. So we have Colleen, Jessica, 14 Ira, Tim, George and Lyle. 15 Howard? That's great. We have a 16 think tank. 17 MS. SHAGRIN: To design the think 18 tank. 19 MR. ZACKON: How we spend these 20 five hours and kind of lay out the day, we'll 21 solicit everyone's input after we come out 22 with some initial design. If anyone didn't 23 step up but had some thoughts about it, 24 please E-mail me. Call me. Let me know. 25 And we'll go from there. 0100 1 March 23, 2007 2 Mr. Chair, any other comments, 3 new business? 4 MR. KALINE: I think I'll ask the 5 Council. Any knew business? 6 I think we've been kind of 7 talking about it all. Any thoughts? Anybody 8 on the phone with questions or ideas? 9 MR. HESS: Just one thing 10 occurred to me. In a different committee I 11 serve on Apollo which is a Nielsen-Arbitron 12 JV. I know most of you know about it. We've 13 recently taken a position, I mean, frankly to 14 think about publicity and what to publicize, 15 whatnot, and so on. So I don't want to talk 16 about Apollo here. But rather, should this 17 committee accept as we get close to beginning 18 to report findings, should we kind of take a 19 formal position on publicity? 20 Is it is true, per the earlier 21 discussion, anyone, I guess any reporter, 22 whoever wants to can go to our Website now 23 and read all about us? But not to say that's 24 actually saying here's our publicity plan. 25 That just occurred to me moments ago. Just 0101 1 March 23, 2007 2 bringing it up now. 3 MR. BROOKS: That's a good 4 subject for June. 5 MR. ZACKON: Noted for June. 6 MS. GALLAGHER: That's also 7 something Nielsen's people would want to have 8 an initial say in. 9 MR. BROOKS: Not just the press. 10 The rest of the industry representing here. 11 A VOICE: And also what are we 12 allowed to share with our own colleagues? 13 You know, because this is our day jobs. But 14 a lot of our management is very curious about 15 what we're doing. So maybe we should address 16 a mechanism for dealing with that as well. 17 MR. HESS: Richard or the 18 committee that just signed up, maybe we can 19 just say publicity would be one of the big 20 issues discussed that day. 21 Let's make sure, Richard, how did 22 you put it? Take time to think. That we 23 make enough time to think. 24 MR. ZACKON: That's how I stole 25 it. Taking time to think. 0102 1 March 23, 2007 2 MR. HESS: Take some time to 3 think about publicity then. 4 MR. KALINE: Okay. Anybody else? 5 Okay. I guess we're adjourned. 6 (Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the 7 meeting adjourned.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0103 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 4 I, ROBERT M. LEVINE, CM, a Shorthand 5 Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State 6 of New York, do hereby certify: 7 That minutes hereinbefore set forth is 8 a true record of the proceedings. 9 I further certify that I am not related 10 to any of the parties to this action by blood or 11 marriage, and that I am in no way interested in the 12 outcome of this matter. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set 14 my hand this_______day of__________________2007. 15 16 ____________________ 17 ROBERT M. LEVINE, CM 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25