1 1 2 -----------------------------------------------x 3 MEETING OF 4 THE COUNCIL OF RESEARCH EXCELLENCE 5 -----------------------------------------------x July 28, 2005 6 10:15 a.m. 7 8 9 10 Marriott East Side Hotel 11 140 Lexington Avenue 12 New York, New York 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 REGENCY REPORTING, INC. 20 Certified Shorthand Reporters & Videographers 21 425 Eagle Rock Avenue 310 S. Juniper Street 22 Roseland, NJ 07068 Philadelphia, PA 19107 23 575 Madison Avenue 24 New York, NY 10022 25 www.regencyreporting.net 1-866-268-7866 2 1 2 A P P E A R A N C E S: 3 BOARD MEMBERS: 4 RICHARD Zackon, Facilitator 5 MARK KALINE, Chair, Global Media Manager, Ford Motor Company 6 AMBER ROBERTS, Assistant 7 TIM BROOKS, The Advertising Research Foundation 8 JOANNE BURNS, Exec. VP Marketing, Research and New Media 9 20th Television, Fox 10 SUSAN CUCCINELLO, SVP of Research, TVB 11 HENRY DeVAULT, SVP Audience Analysis, ABC, Inc. 12 PAUL DONATO, SVP/Chief Research Officer, Nielsen Media Research 13 BETSY FRANK, EVP, Research and Planning, Viacom's Cable 14 Networks, Film and Publishing 15 NANCY GALLAGHER, SVP News Sports and Affiliate Research, NBC Universal 16 PAT LIGUORI, VP of Research, ABC Owned Television 17 Stations 18 LYLE SCHWARTZ, SVP, Media Director of Broadcast, Mediaedge:CIA 19 CERIL SHAGRIN, SVP Corporate Research, Univision 20 HOWARD SHIMMEL, SVP, Client Insights, Nielsen Media 21 Research 22 ARTHUR SALISCH, Comcast Spotlight 23 IRA SUSSMAN, VP Research & Insight, CAB 24 RICK KEILTY, SVP Television Group, Belo Corporation 25 KATE SIRKIN, Global Research Director, Starcom Mediavest 3 1 2 A P P E A R A N C E S: (cont'd) 3 SHARI ANN BRILL, VP, Director of Programming Services, Carat 4 VICKY CHAMPLIN, Director Media Planning, Anheuser Busch 5 6 (Present via phone.) 7 PERIANNE GRIGNON, Director of Media Services, Sears, 8 Roebuck and Co. 9 STEVE STERNBERG, EVP, Director of Audience Analysis, Magna Global 10 JACK WAKSHLAG, Chief Research Officer, Turner 11 Broadcasting 12 DAVID POLTRACK, EVP, Planning & Research, CBS 13 DAVID GUNZERATH, VP, Research and Planning, NAB 14 MICHELE BUSLIK, AAAA Media Research Committee, TargetCast TCM 15 16 A L S O P R E S E N T: 17 ROBERT M. LEVINE, CM 18 Court Reporter 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. KALINE: I think we'll go 3 ahead and get going everybody. First of all, 4 good morning. I think it's morning. I 5 started off it was yesterday in my travels 6 here. So I apologize. I've asked Richard to 7 kick me to see if I seem to drift off 8 somewhere because I started about 1:00 this 9 morning eastern time. Good news, I'm here. 10 Bad news is you get to see what I wore 11 yesterday. 12 First of all, thank you very 13 much. This is our second board meeting. 14 We've got some pretty exciting things I think 15 to do today to carry on the mission of this 16 council. 17 But, first of all, we have a 18 special guest. Susan Whiting has joined us. 19 And I'd like to ask Susan if she wouldn't 20 mind, since there was a little bit of 21 activity yesterday in our nation's capital, I 22 thought I'd ask her here just to address the 23 group. And maybe give us a couple of 24 insights on how yesterday went for those of 25 us who didn't get a chance to see it. 5 1 2 MS. WHITING: Thank you, Mark. 3 Can you hear me on the telephone? 4 MS. GRIGNON: Go ahead. 5 MS. WHITING: Well, first of all, 6 I just wanted to on behalf of nielsen thank all 7 of you for your time in this group because I 8 did actually reference this group yesterday 9 in my testimony at the Senate. And I think 10 it's a really, really important step forward. 11 It's a big step for us. But it's an even 12 more important step for the industry to get 13 everybody around the table and try to come up 14 with a number of ideas that can move media 15 research forward. So we're committed, as you 16 can see, to helping you as a group get that 17 done. I'm really excited about it. And I 18 think you make a big difference going 19 forward. So that's first. I wanted to say 20 that. 21 And secondly, yes, there were a 22 number, absolutely. Ceril was also a witness 23 in the hearing yesterday at which George Ivie 24 who may not be here. We have several of us. 25 Senator Burns was at the hearing for I think 6 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 it was a little more than two hours. 3 MS. BURNS: No relation. I go 4 through this all the time. No relation. 5 MS. WHITING: And it was about a 6 broad range of topics, even though the topic 7 was a fair rating batch. There was testimony 8 from Pat Bolen from Gale Metzger, from George 9 Ivie, from Ceril, from myself and Cathy 10 Crawford representing, obviously, my chair, 11 but also a broader constituency. 12 And I think the thing I can say 13 is that a lot of different points of view got 14 out on the table, as you would expect from 15 all the different people speaking. And a lot 16 of the focus was about voluntary code of 17 conduct and the MRC and their accreditation 18 process. It was not supposed to be a hearing 19 of local people meters because we said we 20 already had that hearing. But of course it 21 did get back to that many times. 22 It was a packed room which you 23 couldn't see if you were watching on the 24 computer. Packed. There were lots and lots 25 of people. A lot of interest in the House 7 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 and Senate. But only one senator asking 3 questions. And that was Senator Burns. 4 Senator Stevens who heads the committee 5 showed up for about ten minutes I think. 6 You can hear the testimony and 7 read it on the Web site from the committee. 8 But, basically, I think you had one side 9 saying mandatory accreditation because that's 10 the only way to assure that Nielsen won't put 11 new things into the marketplace without the 12 proper review. And you had another group of 13 people, particularly the advertisers, saying 14 the people meters for 15 years. So let's get 15 on with it. And then you had the MRC saying 16 they wanted the process to be adhered to and 17 here's what we're doing about it. And, of 18 course, a lot of other voices as well. 19 So I think that's pretty much the 20 broad sense of it. I believe Senator Burns 21 ended by saying, well, while he still felt 22 he'd push for legislation, he was open to the 23 terms. And since the Senate goes on and 24 Congress goes on recess now for August, we'll 25 see what happens when they come back in 8 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 September. I don't expect we'll be quiet, in 3 the background. But there were lots of 4 voices expressed in the last week and on all 5 sides. 6 And I think the real point from 7 Nielsen's review, and I'll reiterate my point 8 is that the process needs to focus on the MRC 9 on the voluntary side, and it does need to be 10 stronger and the code of conduct has to be 11 worked through. We're committed to that. I 12 think that's where we came out on the last 13 public meeting. A lot of questions. A long 14 hearing. A lot of other things going on on 15 the Hill. So, therefore, there weren't a lot 16 of other senators involved. We don't have a 17 hearing scheduled in the House for the House 18 bill. But I wouldn't be surprised if that 19 occurred. So that's where that is. 20 Most importantly, I think, and I 21 did reference this group because I think one 22 of the things that came out of our task force 23 recommendations and the MRC and the ARF and a 24 number of other places was that there should 25 be a better way for our clients to 9 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 participate in guiding research. And so this 3 was one of the things we actually mentioned 4 in our commitment. 5 That brings you back to why 6 you're here today. And if you have any 7 questions, I'll certainly take them. But I 8 don't want to take time away from you. 9 MS. FRANK: I'm sorry for not 10 knowing. Is there an appreciable difference 11 from the Senate bill. 12 MS. WHITING: It's much shorter. 13 And it doesn't get into as many of the 14 details. It basically says that if you don't 15 reach agreement between a ratings service and 16 the MRC and if there are issues, go to 17 binding arbitration. But it doesn't get into 18 any detail really how the process works. So 19 they're different, but both about 20 accreditation. 21 MR. KALINE: Any questions on the 22 phone? Okay. Go ahead. 23 MS. FRANK: I have one more 24 question. I don't know if you're able to 25 answer it. I read one of the online things 10 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 this morning. Gale was very vocal, I take 3 it, about the need for regulation. 4 MS. WHITING: Yes. Gale was 5 vocal about a number of things. And one of 6 them was regulations. And, I mean, there 7 were a number of, frankly, one of the most 8 interesting comments that was made, and I 9 don't remember because it was a pretty 10 impressive person who made it, but it wasn't 11 me, was about the fact that the device of the 12 people meter was one of the reasons there 13 were different fault rates. And that people, 14 certain people couldn't operate them as well 15 as others. 16 MS. SHAGRIN: Gale said it. 17 MS. WHITING: And I have to tell 18 you the whole back of the room behind me just 19 kind of went huh-huh-huh-huh. That was a 20 pretty inflammatory statement. And I think 21 you're going to read about it. Because it 22 was pretty inflammatory. But basically he 23 said, yes, there should be regulation because 24 how could it get any worse. I think that 25 would be the quote, right. 11 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MS. SHAGRIN: Well, all in all, 3 having been to both hearings, last year's and 4 this year's, I thought this year's was far 5 less confrontational and more information 6 shared. I think Senator Burns felt he knew 7 more after the hearing than he knew before 8 the hearing. Not that the people that were 9 testifying didn't care. But the emotion was 10 good emotion instead of the anger that was 11 there, I thought, a year ago. 12 MS. WHITING: It was much more 13 conversational than a year ago, yes. 14 MS. BURNS: What are the next 15 steps? What can we expect to read and hear 16 about it? 17 MS. WHITING: I don't know. I 18 would assume that a number of different 19 congressmen and senators will be discussing 20 the hearings and looking at the results. And 21 you'll be able to read the written minutes of 22 that. And we'll see what happens in 23 September. Obviously, get involved in it 24 and let you know what we know. But a lot of 25 voices were expressed in the last week on all 12 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 sides of this issue. And I think that that 3 has given the Congress lots more information. 4 So I think that's very, very hopeful. 5 MR. BROOKS: What's the future of 6 the independent testing? 7 MS. WHITING: The independent 8 task force which made all the 9 recommendations, a lot of recommendations 10 were meeting basically about once a quarter 11 to update them. So there's, all of our 12 updates are posted on the Web site. And 13 they're just going to make sure that we keep 14 doing what we said we would do. So we'll 15 probably meet with them several times a year. 16 And we'll every quarter issue a status 17 report. 18 MR. BROOKS: So it stays in 19 existence? 20 MS. WHITING: At least until they 21 feel comfortable that we've done what we said 22 we would do. Yes. 23 MR. KALINE: Any other questions? 24 Thank you, Susan, for taking the time to 25 come. We didn't do roll-call because I 13 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 didn't know how long you could stay. So 3 thank you very much for the time. And 4 certainly you've had a full week already, 5 that's for sure. 6 MS. WHITING: Thank you. 7 MS. FRANK: Take the weekend off. 8 MR. KALINE: Thank you, Susan. 9 Can we just at least find out 10 who's on the phone for my benefit. You may 11 have already done roll-call. 12 MS. GRIGNON: Perianne Grignon 13 from Media Services, Sears. 14 MR. KALINE: Thank you very much. 15 MR. WAKSHLAG: Jack Wakshlag. 16 MR. KALINE: Others? No. Why 17 don't we go around the room real quick just 18 so everyone knows we're here. 19 MR. DONATO: Paul Donato from 20 Nielsen Media Research. 21 MS. LIGUORI: Pat Liguori from 22 ABC Television Stations. 23 MR. SUSSMAN: Ira Sussman from 24 Research & Insight, CAB. 25 MR. SALISCH: Art Salisch sitting 14 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 in for Jonathan Sims, Comcast Spotlight. 3 MR. SCHWARTZ: Lyle Schwartz, 4 Mediaedge. 5 MS. FRANK: Betsy Frank from 6 Viacom. And David couldn't be here so I 7 guess I'm representing David as well. 8 MS. GOLDBERG: Jean Goldberg from 9 Warner Bros.. I'm sitting in for Bruce 10 Rosenblum. 11 MS. BURNS: Joanne Burns, 20th 12 Television as you know. No relation to the 13 senator. 14 MS. CHAMPLIN: Vicky Champlin, 15 Anheuser Busch. 16 MS. SHAGRIN: Ceril Shagrin 17 Univision. 18 MS. CUCCINELLO: Susan 19 Cuccinello, Television Bureau of Advertising. 20 MR. KEILTY: I'm Rick Keilty with 21 the Belo Corporation. And I'm here 22 representing the television operators cause. 23 MR. KALINE: Mark Kaline with the 24 Ford Motor Company. 25 MR. Zackon: Richard Zackon. 15 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MS. GALLAGHER: Nancy Gallagher, 3 NBC Universal. 4 MR. SHIMMEL: Howard Shimmel, 5 Nielsen. 6 MR. GLOECKLER: Don Gloeckler, 7 Procter & Gamble. 8 MR. DEVAULT: Henry DeVault, ABC 9 Television Network. 10 MR. BROOKS: Tim Brooks, 11 Lifetime. And representing the ARF. 12 MR. KALINE: Well, again, welcome 13 everybody. And I'm happy to be here, that's 14 for sure. We have, I guess, to start things 15 off this morning what I'll call just some 16 general council issues, and the first of 17 which is changing this from a board to the 18 council. The steering committee kind of got 19 into that little discussion. I think it was 20 Don's suggestion, actually, that said, I 21 think we're more of a council than we are a 22 board. So with that, you know, if there's 23 anybody who disagrees with that, let us know. 24 But we see ourselves as The Council For 25 Research Excellence. And there's really no 16 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 board within the council. So it's just a 3 matter of being clear. Especially when it 4 comes to outside communications. Because 5 there are enough boards and enough steering 6 committees and things like that to keep 7 everybody gainfully confused about the whole 8 thing. 9 And I guess one of the other 10 discussions that we had coming out of the 11 steering committee was does the steering 12 committee continue to operate after we 13 identify projects, after we, for 14 recommendations of the board, is that a 15 standing committee that we want to continue 16 to have in operation. Or once we set up some 17 projects, do we put all of our attention on 18 the projects. And then, perhaps, if next 19 year comes around, we form another steering 20 committee and go forward. So I don't have a 21 particular point of view on that, one way or 22 the other. But, you know, if anybody has any 23 thoughts about it I'd like to just talk about 24 that for a little bit. 25 MS. BURNS: Isn't it a little 17 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 premature? Play it by ear. 3 MR. KALINE: Play it by ear. 4 MS. BURNS: It's a valid thing to 5 consider. But we have to get the first 6 project up and running, and then decide is 7 there a need for the steering committee to 8 meet. 9 MS. SHAGRIN: I don't think 10 anyone on the steering committee, 11 particularly me, wants any more meetings to 12 go to. On the other hand, I like to know 13 that that group still exists, so that when 14 you need them you can use them. 15 You know, we did some work on a 16 meeting. We did some even better work or 17 maybe enhanced that work with a phone 18 meeting. And we may find that you need 19 something like that before we want any of 20 these meetings to make these meetings more 21 effective. 22 MR. DEVAULT: It sounds like the 23 steering committee, in effect, the executive 24 committee continues, I think, maybe for some 25 time being. But I think we need to be clear 18 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 on if this committee works on, what will its 3 functions be. 4 MR. KALINE: Good point, okay. 5 We wanted to at least pose the question so 6 that people can think about that. Certainly 7 we welcome thoughts as we go along. I think, 8 you know, Joanne's point is a little bit 9 premature to decide one way or the other. 10 But ultimately, you want to make 11 sure we have clarity. And everybody's roles 12 and responsibilities, you know, for what 13 everybody's doing. So as we begin to have 14 more of these meetings, we want to make sure 15 that, you know, we're not stepping all over 16 each other with different committees and 17 different task forces and all that kind of 18 good stuff. So think about that. 19 And the suggestion to keep it 20 going I think are good ones. And certainly 21 until we get at least a target group of 22 projects under our belt to analyze and move 23 forward, I think it's probably worth at least 24 keeping the group together as a body. 25 MR. KEILTY: I would just add 19 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 that it seems in addition to the suggestions, 3 that obviously Nielsen has a role in the 4 future of the council. And I think as we 5 hear what is going to be proposed, we don't 6 necessarily know the time frame or length of 7 how that's going to play out. And I guess I 8 would just add it would be interesting to 9 hear what Nielsen has in their vision about 10 how this council should proceed. 11 MR. DONATO: Is it appropriate to 12 talk now? 13 MR. KALINE: Sure. 14 MR. DONATO: I actually would 15 almost feel more comfortable talking about 16 that as we went later into the day, having 17 sat through the steering committee meetings. 18 And I know that in some of those documents 19 there's sort of a time frame laid out in 20 terms of what we hope to accomplish and some 21 quick research projects to get some traction 22 successes and multi-term research projects. 23 But I think what would happen is 24 towards the end of the day as you all begin 25 to identify what projects, we'd really want 20 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 to adopt and move head on, maybe then I can 3 provide some comments on. That was my forum. 4 Our view to direct answer to the 5 question is that we, number 1, hope that this 6 continues in years to come. Number 2, we've 7 laid out and I think it's in your packet, 8 sort of this time line that has things 9 happening as soon as the fall. And the 10 project's running all the way through to next 11 year. The kind of one-year anniversary. And 12 we hope that time line, sometime between now 13 and then, we sort of have the steering 14 committee meet again, pull together and come 15 up with a new set of projects that will bring 16 us into next year. 17 MR. KALINE: Okay. Any other 18 comments on that particular subject? We'll 19 move forward. 20 I just wanted to let the group 21 know that we're going to be joined by a few 22 other council members as well as members of 23 the four As for part of the meeting 24 beginning, I believe, at 11:10. 25 MR. Zackon: 11:10? 21 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. KALINE: 11:10. That will 3 probably be when we're discussing some of I 4 guess the outcomes of the steering committee 5 meetings that we've had, some of the projects 6 we've identified. But just so everybody's 7 aware, there'll be some folks on the phone as 8 well as some other members of the four As 9 who, I believe, are going to join in. 10 MR. Zackon: One other other 11 thing, Mark. In response to Kate's concern, 12 Shari Ann, do you want to introduce yourself. 13 We do have a late agency arrival. 14 MS. BRILL: I apologize for my 15 grand entrance. Not enough for me to go 16 around lately. Anyway, for those of you who 17 don't know me, I'm Shari Ann Brill. I am VP 18 Programming at Carat. And I am responsible 19 for all our research and programming 20 initiatives of the organization. And I wish 21 I could be everywhere at once. So I'll be 22 willing to give you all of me now. 23 MR. KALINE: After the perfect 24 people meter we'll work on that clone 25 machine. We can all use one of those, that's 22 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 for sure. 3 So after about 11:10 we'll be 4 joined by some other members of the four As 5 and other council members. Also have on the 6 list of, I guess, general council issues, the 7 need to have the dates that you are 8 unavailable in September submitted so that we 9 can begin to identify the next meeting for 10 this council, as well as the possibility of 11 putting together a dinner or something in the 12 evening prior to so that we can all get to 13 know each other just a little bit better. 14 And talk a little bit more one-on-one versus 15 being in a big round table setting. 16 So with that, Richard, you field 17 all those. 18 MR. Zackon: Yes. Some people 19 have already submitted dates. And agree that 20 if we can get it, I don't know if we can get 21 it today, it would be great if we could. But 22 given how busy everyone is, the earlier we 23 can get that. If we can get that by tomorrow 24 that would be great. And that way we can 25 pick a date in September that has the fewest 23 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 number of unavailable people. And what we 3 thought was the night before, particularly 4 for people coming into town, just get 5 together socially. 6 MS. FRANK: Who should that go 7 to? 8 MR. Zackon: To Amber or myself. 9 Or if you have a calendar here, just write it 10 down and give it to us. 11 MS. SHAGRIN: The dates available 12 or unavailable? 13 MR. Zackon: The clear dates you 14 can't make it. For those of interest, the 15 Jewish holidays are not until October of this 16 year. It's the 1st of Tishre, actually. 17 It's late. 18 MS. FRANK: I would imagine you 19 have some unavailable dates in September? 20 MR. Zackon: I do. I'm getting 21 married on the 18th in September. You're 22 invited to watch it live on the Web. We're 23 webcasting the ceremony. It's 24 jane&richard.com. 25 MS. GOLDBERG: Do we have to send 24 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 a gift? 3 MR. Zackon: I'm not kidding. We 4 are webcasting the ceremony. You're all 5 invited. I have little cards printed up. 6 And anyone who wants to join us virtually, 7 you may. 8 MR. KALINE: A virtual guest 9 list. That was more than I bargained for 10 with that comment. But that's great. 11 Congratulations. 12 MS. BURNS: Do have a block to of 13 time available? 14 MR. Zackon: That will be my 15 honeymoon; a discussion of these issues. 16 MR. KALINE: That's a sad 17 statement. But if you could just let Amber 18 know either today or E-mail Richard and Amber 19 on that, that would be terrific. With that, 20 I think in the packet is a listing of R&D 21 projects that the team had promised to put 22 together for the group. A little bit more of 23 an explanation on what's going on currently 24 with Nielsen. 25 Paul, with that I turn it over to 25 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 Paul or the team. 3 MR. DONATO: We provided this. 4 There's been some discussion as to whether we 5 should actually do a presentation. And the 6 concern was we have 25 pages of R&D projects. 7 A presentation would consume at least an hour 8 of this meeting. So we had sent the packet 9 out in advance. 10 And I think the plan is it's been 11 organized essentially by type of research 12 project in a way that could be slotted into 13 the various proposals that have been made. 14 So that if one proposal is on weighting we've 15 taken all of the R&D projects together, that 16 would be sort of in that area. 17 And, therefore, as we envisioned 18 breakouts later today to discuss those 19 individual proposals, they can turn and 20 reference that section that has the R&D 21 project which are in the related areas, that 22 there won't be any duplication unless the 23 packet, there's an addendum with a few more 24 research projects that have not been fully 25 documented. But at least have the names of 26 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 them in that as we go back, we sort of have 3 so many people doing R&D at Nielsen that even 4 this morning another R&D project that is not 5 on either of these lists came up. 6 Just so you know, you're aware of 7 it, there's another R&D project related to if 8 you give people more incentives, does that 9 affect one type of television equipment they 10 buy or cable services they subscribe to. And 11 two, does that affect, say, how often they 12 leave the home and what the conduct levels in 13 that house are. 14 So we expect, actually over the 15 course of the discussions today there may 16 even be one or two or three more undocumented 17 research projects. We try to organize it in 18 a way that if you're in a break-out team in a 19 certain area, all you have to do is look at 20 that area of this section. So you will be 21 able to do it. 22 And Howard Richman and I will 23 kind of be floating in the break-out groups. 24 So that if there's any specific questions 25 there'll be somebody that can answer it in 27 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 more detail about a particular project. 3 MR. KALINE: Okay. Any questions 4 on that at this point? Did everybody get the 5 packet? And make sure we all have that. 6 It's pretty extensive stuff. Okay. With 7 that, we'll move on to what I'll call the 8 vision for the television landscape that the 9 steering committee had put together. 10 Turn it over to Don Gloeckler if 11 you're ready, Don, to give a report on the 12 steering committee. And then we'll kind of 13 talk about the vision which came out of that 14 whole discussion. 15 MR. GLOECKLER: Thanks. I am 16 representing Mike Hess who couldn't be here 17 today and was called off on other work, as we 18 heard before. It's tough to be in two places 19 at one time. 20 First, let me say it's a pleasure 21 to be on the team. I wasn't able to attend 22 the first meeting of the committee in June. 23 I was able to be a part of the steering 24 committee meeting. And would like you to 25 know how collegial that meeting was. I think 28 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 all of us on that committee found that to be 3 a stimulating day. And I think we got a lot 4 accomplished in a relatively short period of 5 time well-reflected in the notes here from 6 Amber and Mike. I won't read the notes, but 7 I'll try to highlight what's important here. 8 Basically, the steering committee 9 did come up with one major proposal as we 10 were chartered to and then several minor 11 proposals as Mark just indicated. Important 12 things like we should get together socially 13 before the next meeting. Trust that didn't 14 take up a major part of our time, that 15 meeting. But the major proposal is what is 16 outlined in the document that you have in 17 front of you. 18 Most importantly, I think, is 19 this concept that we felt as the steering 20 committee that we should come back to the 21 council with a list of very general topics. 22 Call them buckets of work, media consumption, 23 emerging technology, nonresponse as listed 24 here. With a few thoughts about what those 25 might be, what that work might represent. 29 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 As I look through the list again 3 in preparation for this meeting, it seems to 4 me, some of those may be analyses, some of 5 those may be studies of information or 6 secondary research. Some may actually result 7 in some sort of experiment. Perhaps even in 8 market. But I think there could be a variety 9 of action coming out of these various topics. 10 What's in parentheses were some 11 of our thoughts on what that topic might 12 represent, but by no means should be 13 considered a definition of the topic. It 14 really is our expectation that the members of 15 the committee will self-select topics of 16 interest to them. The major buckets there. 17 And then as a subcommittee representing that 18 bucket, define it. 19 What is the work that proper data 20 use might spawn. What's the right way to 21 study that. And how would this subcommittee 22 who's looking at proper data use, if there is 23 a subcommittee that does that, how would they 24 propose to study that. And what is it they 25 would propose to study. 30 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 So later on today, as Richard or 3 Mark will point out, we'll have an 4 opportunity to break out into groups based on 5 these various topics, and actually begin the 6 work of defining what that work looks like 7 and what it will actually study. 8 It is the expectation though of 9 the steering committee, or really proposal I 10 guess at this point, these are all proposals 11 to be approved by the broader group. It's 12 proposed that every member of the council 13 serve on at least one of these committees. 14 In other words, no member of the 15 council can be a passive member. We really 16 expect active participation, or proposing 17 that anyway. You can't have a project 18 without committee members. So in order for a 19 project to go ahead to be even qualified for 20 consideration we're expecting that there has 21 to be at least two members including the 22 leader to be on the committee. 23 As indicated and as I mentioned 24 before, the committee will articulate the 25 questions that will be answered in what I 31 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 kind of consider good Procter & Gamble 3 research design. It's not only the 4 objective, but how are you going to use the 5 results. What's the expectation for using 6 the results after you do something. These 7 committees would then come back to this 8 committee with proposals. This is the 9 subcommittee, for example, on sample. And we 10 are proposing X project for such and such a 11 purpose to be used for such and such a 12 purpose. And this is the cost estimate that 13 we have for running that research. 14 That will come back to this 15 committee. We'll look through all those. 16 Review all of those. And then make decisions 17 on how many projects to actually go ahead 18 with. The steering committee felt like it's 19 likely that from this list maybe no more than 20 three to six projects would actually be 21 initiated. But again, that remains to be 22 seen. 23 MS. BURNS: To be determined in 24 the year? 25 MR. GLOECKLER: That's correct. 32 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 Over the course of this year. Thanks. 3 You'll notice one project at the 4 end, which is out-of-the-box research ideas, 5 we kind of left that open. We weren't so 6 bold as to say we thought of everything that 7 could be thought of. And so we left that 8 open as sort of a catchall; that there must 9 be something we have forgotten that might be 10 brought out. 11 And I don't know how you want to 12 handle that Richard and Mark. I don't know 13 if you want to take a little time to think if 14 there's another bucket that we should have. 15 Otherwise, maybe everybody ends up in a room 16 looking at out-of-the-box research. And 17 nobody goes to the other box. So we may want 18 to think about how we do that. 19 We also propose though that since 20 some of these projects are likely to take 21 months, we felt like we should get something 22 accomplished sooner, more quickly. Sort of 23 low-hanging fruit. And with that, we 24 recommended first one on the list as media 25 consumption. We blasted that out a little 33 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 bit. And it's on your handout with an 3 objective and a use of results and timing. 4 The thought was -- 5 MS. BURNS: What are you looking 6 at? 7 MR. GLOECKLER: This is the 8 handout labeled "Proposed Research Selection 9 Process." 10 MS. BURNS: Okay. 11 MR. GLOECKLER: And on page 2 of 12 that point, number 6, one small project on 13 the order of about $100,000, the proposal was 14 that this low-hanging fruit project would be 15 one to achieve a whole list of understanding. 16 Whether current consumer practices. And then 17 the results and timing would be to try to 18 have that in time for 2006 planning. Gain 19 greater direction for other future research 20 development projects. 21 We just stuck $100,000 on that as 22 a placeholder. But we felt it was something 23 that could be accomplished quickly and be 24 valuable to the team, to the industry. And 25 help with the other, kind of get the other 34 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 projects kicked off. 3 Also on the document was sort of 4 a proposed timetable for this initial project 5 as well as whatever other projects we select. 6 If you walk through that timetable it's 7 basically saying this first project is sort 8 of a fast-track project would be in proposal 9 stage in August. It would be funded in 10 September. And the objective would be to 11 have results back no later than December. 12 Whereas, the other projects, 13 whatever those are, the subcommittees would 14 meet in August, provide a status report at 15 the September meeting. Really get into RFPs 16 and funding in the October-November timing. 17 And start work December, kind of 18 December-January timing with the hope to have 19 as much of that work completed by the end, 20 certainly the fiscal year, P&G's fiscal year. 21 Kind of the end of June timing. 22 So with that I think we've kind 23 of laid out for you there the proposal of the 24 steering committee. And there are obviously 25 a lot of subproposals in there. There's the 35 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 proposal that every member of the committee 3 work on at least one project. There's the 4 proposal that we create these subcommittees 5 who then determine what the work looks like 6 and work to recommend back to this 7 subcommittee. And then I guess also there's 8 a proposal of sort of the schedule; how it 9 might play out. And the proposal of the one 10 small project. 11 So, Mark, I think, probably, the 12 work at this point would be to kind of take 13 those pieces and discuss each one. And I 14 don't know how you wanted to handle voting. 15 Or if we need some kind of reaction from the 16 committee to accept or reject that proposal 17 or augment that proposal. But I think that's 18 kind of where we are at this point. I would 19 call that the steering committee's report. 20 MR. KALINE: Okay. 21 MS. LIGUORI: I just wanted to 22 suggest one topic. I don't think it's out of 23 the box. But I think it should be on here 24 somewhere. The respondent level data. How 25 valid is it. How will it be used. But more 36 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 importantly, the validity of it. 3 MR. KALINE: I think in listening 4 to Don's terrific rundown of what the 5 steering committee did and some of the things 6 we need to think about, certainly I think one 7 way to handle this is to see what the members 8 of the council, where they gravitate to in 9 terms of their buckets of interest. 10 I think we pretty much can sift 11 through the 13 buckets and come up with a 12 shorter list to start off with. And 13 certainly if there's other topics or studies, 14 that might be considered as part of this 15 council, we want to welcome suggestions. 16 Because we certainly don't claim to know it 17 all. So, you know, I guess I'd leave that 18 one more open for the day because as we talk 19 about certain buckets, you may find that 20 there's offshoots or related subjects or 21 projects that would need to be done prior to 22 even getting into that particular piece of 23 research before you can even get there. So 24 just want to, you know, perhaps suggest that. 25 The other topic I was thinking 37 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 about is, as we go, who handles the quick 3 hit. You know, the fast track project. Does 4 the group feel that that should be a separate 5 group. You know, I don't know if it's the 6 steering committee. But, you know, it's a 7 separate group that we have to say, okay, 8 this is a project I would like to sign up for 9 and something that I think would be valuable 10 to the group. 11 Tim. 12 MR. BROOKS: That proposal 13 sounds, it's obviously very broad base. It 14 sounds like it overlaps with a great deal of 15 work in areas and places. And if we proceed 16 with that, I think it would be helpful to 17 have a group that is familiar with those 18 sources. 19 The studies, the CTAM studies, 20 tracking studies, overlaps with that. Or 21 studies that individual companies, ESPN has, 22 and so forth. And learning from studies and 23 data that's already out there. 24 Media in action can really inform 25 us. Allow this study to build on what's 38 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 known, rather than watch, I think, all our 3 ideas would be that short term has something 4 to hit the press with, something that was 5 accomplished quickly. 6 So if as we look at whatever that 7 study is, there's either something to inform 8 or it gets more focus. That's fine. The 9 real idea of that was to come up with an idea 10 of something that might be more politic. 11 Might be more consumer based. Might be 12 something that we could turn around quickly 13 and show some momentum from this committee 14 while working on longer, heavier, more 15 difficult projects. So whoever works within 16 that section has a lot of leeway on what that 17 means. 18 Personally, I would be in favor 19 of the study. I want a study that has 20 purpose to it. Focus groups in the press. I 21 wouldn't want the first thing that comes out 22 of this council to be something that's 23 inherent -- 24 MS. LIGUORI: It seems to me 25 that one of the topics here as people have 39 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 been speaking, collapsing these things. And 3 some of them collapsed, actually four of them 4 have collapsed into one group. But in light 5 of not producing something for many months 6 and feeling frustration, there is one 7 category that is very important. And 8 probably something can be done with it 9 reasonably quickly. That would be proper 10 data use. 11 We've discussed many times the 12 misuse of data; whether it's cable or 13 whatnot. My concern is respondent level data 14 which some people are already using. And I 15 think it would serve the industry well to 16 have some sort of guidance about, these are 17 the types of data you will be getting, 18 whether it's measurement from Apollo or 19 whatever. And here are some guidelines. 20 MR. KALINE: Sounds like an 21 interesting conversation. 22 MS. BRILL: I agree that what you 23 had suggested was important. But I also 24 think that our first project since it will 25 have all the media attention, for lack of a 40 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 better term, be sexier. Because I think, you 3 know, it just seems that so much, so many 4 users of data in the industry really don't 5 care how the data is obtained. And they only 6 are interested in using it correctly. We are 7 because we deal with these issues all the 8 time. But for something that will get us 9 noticed. 10 I'm almost thinking back to that 11 initial idea about the multimedia study. But 12 I would like to append that by suggesting 13 it's more of how people use a TV study. And 14 I would incorporate some of those emerging 15 technologies because they're not emerging. 16 They're here. 17 So I remember when I was on a 18 SMART committee, there was a group called, 19 there was a subcommittee called APPUCD. And 20 we were a group that tried to figure out ways 21 to better understand the way viewers interact 22 with their television sets. You know, right 23 now there's a VOD going on. People have 24 DVRs. What is the decision tree? How are 25 they interacting with program lists? What 41 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 leads them to go to maybe linear channels 3 versus going to a non-linear environment? 4 I know it's kind of broad and 5 rough, how I'm laying it out. But I think 6 somewhere we understand how viewers are 7 behaving with TVs. How consumers behave with 8 their TV and their equipment. I think the 9 more we can bring to the quantitative data 10 that we get from Nielsen -- 11 MS. FRANK: I think to Tim's 12 point earlier, that's really what the CTAM 13 tracking study in the last two ways has been. 14 And I think Tim will agree that getting press 15 for it has been very challenging. Because I 16 don't know how counterintuitive you would 17 have to come up with, you know, to get 18 somebody to say I never would have thought of 19 that. That's worth putting out there. 20 So, I think, you know, I think 21 while all the things, Shari Ann, that you've 22 mentioned are really important. And I think 23 we do need some better sense of what the 24 motivations are and what the demands and the 25 expectations are for a lot of the new ways 42 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 that we can use television. We really need 3 to probably have some realistic expectations 4 of if being newsworthy is part of what we're 5 looking to do you know. It would really have 6 to be something that was not out there. 7 MS. SHAGRIN: When we talked 8 about this at the steering committee, at 9 least my perception of where we were going 10 with this was, yes, to have something we can 11 get accomplished before the end of the year 12 or at least get in the field before the end 13 of the year. 14 But the reason for it was not in 15 my mind to get press. The reason for it in 16 my mind was if we understood better how 17 people interacted with television, we would 18 do a better job in terms of prioritizing all 19 the other projects. And get better direction 20 in terms of writing requests for proposals on 21 the other projects. Because we would be 22 addressing those things we learn on how 23 people use television. 24 So, yes, we might or might not 25 get press on it, but it to me was part of the 43 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 foundation to get the best out of all the 3 rest of the projects. 4 MS. BURNS: I would like to 5 second and third that theme and to make this 6 point. I am dying to get my hands on the 7 Lifetime study and the CTAM study. And I 8 think one of the problems is the media is not 9 covering it because they see a biasness in it 10 if it's a CTAM study or Lifetime study. This 11 is an unbiased group. It's supposed to be 12 representative of the entire industry. 13 So, Tim, I completely agree. And 14 if Lifetime's willing to open up a chair and 15 CTAM's willing to open up a chair, we can get 16 a running headstart in doing this research by 17 using those people and using that data that 18 was associated with it. 19 But I agree with Ceril, that the 20 foundation for everything else is first 21 starting with understanding our consumer. 22 And then we can launch off of that. But the 23 problem, again, and me stating it is -- I'll 24 give you an E-mail. If you want to share, 25 please share it. But the problem, it's 44 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 somewhat proprietary. And we're more of a 3 global group. 4 MS. SHAGRIN: We may be able to 5 use pieces of that. 6 MS. FRANK: Do you want to agree. 7 That's the deal. 8 MS. BURNS: I don't want to bank 9 on that. 10 MR. KALINE: You don't want to 11 reinevent it as you learn along the way. 12 MS. LIGUORI: If you think of our 13 name, The Council For Research Excellence, I 14 think we can establish, and we need to 15 establish an identity. Otherwise we're just 16 another, you know, acronym or some name that 17 people will make assumptions. 18 So I'm going to come back to my 19 point; that if we are The Council For 20 Research Excellence, we are audited to 21 establish some guidelines or make them known, 22 and let the industry know. Because, I mean, 23 think about it. We've got Internet. 24 There are so many different 25 measurement things that are being measured 45 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 and how our own medium is being measured that 3 is different from it was ten years ago. And 4 do we sit by and, you know, it's great to do 5 all these other things. I want to do them. 6 Trust me. But shouldn't we make some 7 statement about how responsively these things 8 should be used. 9 MS. BRILL: I second that. I'm 10 thinking sexy interesting press releases 11 versus real responsible data releases. And 12 I'm going for option No. 2. I think both of 13 these projects have merit in terms of the 14 short term. Every day I have conversations 15 with people who are begging for the kinds of 16 guidelines you're talking about to show their 17 clients or to teach people how to use our 18 medium. And I think that's a very valid 19 point. 20 MS. SHAGRIN: It doesn't have to 21 be one or the other. It doesn't have to be 22 tied together. 23 MS. CUCCINELLO: That doesn't 24 seem like something that could cost a lot of 25 money. It could cost something. But it's 46 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 not a high cost item. Absolutely. It's got 3 a lot of merit. 4 MR. DONATO: I like that a lot. 5 For the data use, that's a few months sort of 6 work. September, October. Maybe October, 7 November kind of timing. And then this other 8 one. I support Ceril's point of view. That 9 this foundational piece of research, I think 10 would be very helpful to get us all grounded 11 in agreement, kind of where we are. Nod our 12 heads together on that. Yes, I don't think 13 it has to be one or the other. I think it 14 could be both. 15 MS. CUCCINELLO: I think when we 16 talked at the steering committee, just 17 remember this correctly, we did say we would 18 take any learning we could from any studies 19 that are out there already as a foundation 20 for moving ahead. So, you know, save some 21 money there. 22 MS. SHAGRIN: And you say, well, 23 if you figure out how people who have time 24 shifting capability use it and watch TV and 25 interact with TV and you project that's going 47 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 to grow, then you can dimension that. You 3 have to be addressing the needs for the best 4 measurement of that. Because that's growing. 5 But we have to understand the differences in 6 order to know what's most important in these 7 lists. 8 MS. SIRKIN: I think if you look 9 at the best paths of data, that will help 10 with the expectations about what we needed to 11 do, really expectations what we might have to 12 do with that as well. So it's very 13 complimentary. 14 MS. BURNS: Well, then part of it 15 is also you can go both ways. Sometimes when 16 I'm asked to look at respondent level data 17 what I am say is you're having me focus on 18 something that is really not a big issue. 19 There isn't a large sample for it. It's 20 really not a big issue. We shouldn't even be 21 trending it because the trend looks like it's 22 not going to be an issue for some time. 23 So if we learn what is more 24 prevalent with the consumer, then we know 25 when we're looking at respondent level data 48 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 what is more important and less. And then 3 comma to Betsy's point, is it centralized 4 information or not. But I'd like to respond 5 back to my company and say I don't even know 6 why you're focusing on this right now. 7 You're curious, yes. But it's not a big 8 issue; is that true? You instead should be 9 looking at this area. That's correct. The 10 area we need to worry about in terms of -- 11 MS. SIRKIN: We probably need to 12 build some research data in. 13 MR. KALINE: If I could... 14 MS. BURNS: To your point, it 15 sounds like both. And can we fast track both 16 or do we need to pick? 17 MR. KALINE: I don't think that 18 there was a limitation on fast track 19 projects. I think it was just more along the 20 lines of, you know, everybody's got a day 21 job. And how many committees can we set up 22 to do whatever it is. 23 But if the group feels that both 24 of those are valid, and it sounds like it 25 does, you know, we should dimensionalize both 49 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 and get people to sign up. 3 And to Tim's point, I think what 4 Tim was saying very politely was that there 5 are people in the room who have more 6 experience on some of these projects than 7 others. And it shouldn't just necessarily be 8 a group from the steering committee or from 9 some other group because they came up with 10 the idea. It should gravitate to the people 11 who have the wealth and knowledge and 12 background in those. Maybe experiences with 13 studies that are similar. 14 MS. FRANK: I think one other, 15 you know, aspect of this, and given the 16 timing of that, this is going to be a year 17 when Nielsen is going to be introducing DVR 18 measurement in January. And, you know, 19 making the respondent tape more readily 20 available this fall kind of calls for both 21 pieces of it to understand what, you know, 22 the usage of new technology is. 23 And at the same time, I know that 24 you know, assuming that to some degree 25 whatever it is still remains unknown, it's 50 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 unlikely to have an impact on defining 3 television time by next year. We need to 4 have some better guidelines I think to be 5 able to appropriately advise what should and 6 shouldn't be the use of these. At least for 7 the first year of them. 8 MR. KALINE: I think that was 9 actually discussed in the steering committee 10 too, was to again not to the press that Ceril 11 mentioned, it was more to think about the 12 planning cycle that we're in naturally. And 13 then, of course, the upfront cycle, and 14 things of that nature. 15 The idea of trying to lead that 16 process with some very, you know, initial but 17 nonetheless important findings that this 18 group would come out. And then, of course, 19 be more involved with some other studies 20 along the way, you know, that we could unveil 21 towards the end of the summer. 22 MR. Zackon: If I can intrude for 23 just a second, at 11:10 just a couple of 24 minutes from now the four As are going to 25 join us by phone where the two of our 51 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 members, Michele Buslik and Steve Sternberg. 3 So if we could, and we may be 4 able to do it within that context, I really 5 felt it would be important to include them 6 with as we go through these items, really 7 Steve and Michele, to select which committees 8 we'd like to begin to establish and get a 9 sense. 10 It sounds like there are two 11 possible fast track issues on the table here. 12 And I just wanted to set this conversation up 13 so when they join us in just a couple of 14 minutes we're ready to just take a look at 15 these 13 items now, 13, 14, or 15, depending 16 on the count. And just people consider who 17 would like to, one, step up to leadership. 18 And which activities would you like to 19 participate in. 20 And I think that will determine 21 which of these we go forward with. Because 22 if there's not much interest for leadership 23 and not much interest for participation, it's 24 probably not one of the first projects that 25 the counsel's likely to do. So that way they 52 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 can join us and fill out our roster. Thank 3 you. At some point they'll come in on the 4 phone and tell us they're here. 5 MR. BROOKS: A question about 6 that. If we're talking, it sounds like 7 interest in these two areas as fast track. 8 Are we now talking, in addition 9 to that, maybe eight others or something, or 10 do we do those? 11 MR. Zackon: I think so. I think 12 it's the media consumption which I think is 13 the one we're talked about at the steering 14 committee, and then the proper data use. 15 Either of those or both of those could be 16 fast-tracked. 17 MS. GALLAGHER: Thinking of two, 18 for example. Emerging technologies is close. 19 A lot of these things really can be 20 consolidated in these areas. 21 MR. DEVAULT: But, Tim, in terms 22 of emerging technology, what we wanted to do 23 is media consumption now and then emerging 24 technologies. What it will look like five, 25 ten years from now. So that we're looking at 53 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 the landscape now and in the future. And we 3 might differentiate. So if we're looking for 4 any exclusives in the future, we'll have some 5 kind of idea of what that landscape in 6 particular would look like. 7 MR. BROOKS: I understand. What 8 I'm thinking of, if I had to pick right now 9 which of those two are you most interested 10 in, I can't distinguish. 11 MS. BURNS: Let one join into the 12 other. They're continuous. 13 MR. BROOKS: Right. They may 14 diverge. 15 MR. DEVAULT: A lot of these 16 things at some point overlap. That was one 17 of the problems that we had on the steering 18 committee. Because, you know, they are so 19 linked together. 20 MR. BROOKS: Right. And if you 21 had one group of people working on media 22 consumption in another room someplace, you 23 wouldn't want them on technologies. You 24 don't want two groups working at 25 cross-purposes. 54 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. DEVAULT: Well, one of the 3 things that happens is because you -- just 4 take emerging technologies, for example. 5 That's a large and generic, you know, area by 6 itself. That it's up to the committee to 7 decide what at their point we didn't think it 8 was appropriate for the steering committee to 9 specify to the working committee what element 10 they should be working on. That's where we 11 left it as such. 12 The other thing in terms of also 13 asking the various committees, you know, when 14 we come back together in September and each 15 committee is going to do a presentation 16 concerned with what they would like to go 17 forward with in terms of a specific generic 18 area, we can see if there's overlap at that 19 particular time and then we can decide 20 whichever we're doing. 21 MS. WHITING: Also the media 22 consumption project could inform which 23 emerging technology is the most important up 24 and coming. Then do TiVO or BillPhone or 25 whatever projects it is, kind of laying out 55 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 the characteristics of the marketplace. We 3 are joining together. One might inform. 4 MR. BROOKS: It's the sequence 5 for us to find out something about media 6 consumption then, then that informs. 7 MR. Zackon: Excuse me. If I can 8 ask, are the four As on the phone yet? Have 9 we been joined by the four As? Not yet. 10 MS. LIGUORI: Does it make sense 11 to collapse some of these first and then pick 12 as Henry was saying. 13 MR. Zackon: Welcome. 14 A VOICE: Is that Richard? 15 MR. Zackon: We're welcoming each 16 other to each other's meeting. 17 MS. LIGUORI: First, since I've 18 got media consumption, emerging technology, 19 and complete measurement, as well as 20 measurement technology all together, and if 21 you look at those as they interrelate with 22 each other, then perhaps we'll be able to 23 pick a point of focus that will involve 24 different aspects of these things. But at 25 least it will be a complete analysis of 56 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 whatever it is we come up with. 3 MR. Zackon: If I can just provide 4 a little context for the four As. 5 Clara, I sent you yesterday, I 6 think you got the list of the topic areas. 7 A VOICE: We have the numbers. 8 MR. Zackon: There's discussion 9 right now. Maybe some of these might be 10 consolidated. And what I'm hoping that we 11 can do in this twenty minute window is to 12 have Steve Sternberg and Michele Buslik 13 participate in this discussion as if they 14 were here. Because we're going to be looking 15 for people to step up to participate on the 16 committees that we decide to go forward with. 17 So we're just ourselves at the point of 18 wondering should this list be consolidated or 19 shifted somehow. 20 MR. DONATO: Richard, I think 21 Pat's suggestion is interesting. I think if 22 you consolidated, one thing to keep in mind, 23 if you consolidated three or four of these 24 and the subcommittee goes off and looks at 25 them, they may come back and say there are 57 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 actually two or three projects coming out of 3 this. So consolidation doesn't necessarily 4 mean we reduce the number of projects, if, as 5 we continue on, we may find they separate out 6 again. 7 MS. BURNS: Separate out or zero 8 in on. Let's collapse it. And then in doing 9 this, this should be the primary focus and 10 secondary. 11 MS. SHAGRIN: There might be. 12 Another way of doing this, instead of 13 addressing all of the projects in today's 14 meeting and splitting up and thinking about 15 all of the projects, as I've been listening 16 to the conversation, it seems to me that 17 there are three projects, that it should be 18 simultaneous. 19 And maybe those are the three 20 projects that we work on, get Don or near Don 21 by the end of the year. That would be the 22 media consumption, the proper data use, which 23 includes in its respondent data and the 24 emerging technology. Because we need to know 25 what the five-year outlook looks like, what 58 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 it's going to look like, or our vision for 3 the future in terms of what technology is 4 going to be available in the home. 5 We learn then how people that 6 already have some of that technology are 7 using it. And we look at what is the best 8 way, the responsible way to use the different 9 kinds of data that we will be able to collect 10 as a result of these technologies. Once we 11 have that, that enables us then to dimension 12 the importance of some of these others. 13 Then you go into the measurement 14 be technology in terms of what kind of 15 measurement technology you're going to need 16 to capture it. So I think all of those 17 become the foundation for each of those. And 18 could make the second group of committees far 19 more effective once they have that data in 20 their hands. 21 MR. KEILTY: Mark, I think that 22 Ceril makes a very good point. I would just 23 generally ask the question, where do the 24 folks who are not responding currently to 25 this, whatever sample that's out there, fit 59 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 into that equation? It seems to me that 3 regardless of whatever platform we're talking 4 about, the sample base is so small today and 5 we're leaving so many people on the table 6 basically. And I just don't know in what 7 sequence. It seems to me that's a huge issue 8 for everybody. 9 MR. SALISCH: That's the basis of 10 research excellence. You have to believe 11 that you leave the sample as the basis. 12 MR. KEILTY: If samples are low 13 today for whatever reason, you probably could 14 speculate as to why. And certainly emerging 15 technology has an awful lot to do with that I 16 would suspect. I don't know whether that 17 follows these preliminary studies or whether 18 that gets incorporated into those studies. 19 Or just where all that is if it's into that 20 sequence. 21 MS. SHAGRIN: Well, obviously, 22 nonresponse could be the fourth thing that 23 would be worked on simultaneously. Then if 24 we were to do that, we have to very much 25 cooperate with Nielsen's addressing such 60 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 reponse. I agree with you. I overlooked 3 that in terms of foundation study. 4 MS. LIGUORI: I think in media 5 consumption you might find nonresponse. 6 Especially, I mean, if media consumption is 7 going to involve the emergent media, we're 8 going to find that people interact with these 9 things differently and may want to be 10 measured or not measured. So there is a 11 place that may be it; that may not be it. 12 But I'm just throwing that out as an idea. 13 MR. KEILTY: I just didn't know 14 the scope of that whole project. That seems 15 to me with the different platforms that we're 16 talking about. That's a huge issue. 17 MR. SALISCH: Nonresponse bias 18 has always been an issue ever since 19 sampling's been around. 20 MS. BURNS: I'm almost thinking 21 that what you're talking about is real, but 22 it's after the fact. The before fact is what 23 are they consuming. Is TV a part of it or 24 not a part of it. Should we be measuring it. 25 So, yes, the universes are small 61 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 for some of these technologies. Is this 3 technology something that should be 4 incorporated into the universe space or not. 5 Yes, they're small, because we don't know how 6 much of an impact it is right now, and 7 weather Nielsen should fold it into the TV 8 measurement. 9 To me, I'm looking at this and 10 it's not all about TV measurement what we're 11 studying here. We're studying media 12 consumption, of which TV measurement is part 13 of it. Should any of this media consumption 14 be folded into our UE or separately issued. 15 Yes, some of the UEs for this are small. And 16 I don't believe they ultimately belong to 17 part of our UE. 18 I'm sitting here thinking. 19 Television is ubiquitous. You can get it via 20 satellite. You're getting it on you're 21 cellphone. You're getting it on the 22 Internet. Should we be measuring that part 23 of the TV sample or not. I don't know. 24 First let's study that media 25 consumption. And then decide whether it 62 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 should be part of television. 3 MS. LIGUORI: We also should see 4 what Nielsen is doing, I think. We've been 5 talking about these things and some of them 6 may be on Nielsen's list. 7 MR. Zackon: If you look on the 8 document, on the handouts, there's a sheet 9 there which I was just able to produce last 10 might which identifies each of the groups 11 that we identified on the steering committee. 12 And then the Nielsen's studies relative to 13 that group. It's called Nielsen R&D projects 14 related to topics identified by the steering 15 committee. So we didn't have a lot of time 16 to study that Nielsen document. So in the 17 working groups we can at least see which are 18 relevant. 19 MR. DEVAULT: I address Joanne 20 for a second because we have a document here, 21 "Vision Of Television Landscape 2010" in 22 which we tried to identify a lot of the 23 issues that you had addressed there. And 24 this would be kind of like an outline for 25 landscape study. 63 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 I think one of the things that we 3 have to do is really to define it. What are 4 we talking about, viewers' interaction with 5 television in terms of, I mean, Nielsen has a 6 self-defined definition of television 7 leadership. 8 MS. BURNS: As of today. 9 MR. DEVAULT: As of today. And 10 going forward to want to continue that, do we 11 want to have different definitions. I mean, 12 if you look at personal people meters, by 13 definition, if you can hear a television 14 that's their definition de facto. So that's 15 one of the things that we would probably have 16 to consider as far as the landscape in 2010 17 and in the emerging technology. 18 MS. BURNS: Which gets us right 19 back to understand consumption before you 20 measure it. 21 MS. GALLAGHER: First thing you 22 need to know is basically what portion of 23 television viewing is actually the Nielsen 24 set at home over a certain size even 25 encompass. And how much smaller is that 64 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 going to be ten years from now. That really 3 is a critical measure. Because as that 4 guideline it's going to be that more 5 important to measure even the basic TV 6 viewing. That's not counted in the current 7 system. 8 So I think it is important to get 9 that. 10 MR. DEVAULT: We didn't go over 11 proper use of data because that was not the 12 low-hanging fruit project that we had talked 13 about. But certainly the landscape setting 14 kind of outlined here. And I think that that 15 gives people a dimension of what we were 16 thinking about, both in terms of to the point 17 as well as we can possibly learn. 18 MS. FRANK: Ceril, when you went 19 through those three or possibly four broader 20 areas, I'm still not sure why you separated 21 the consumption from emerging technology. 22 MS. CUCCINELLO: That was last 23 time, no? 24 MS. FRANK: Did you separate 25 them? 65 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. KALINE: She did. 3 MS. SHAGRIN: I didn't separate 4 them. 5 MS. FRANK: You didn't. I'm 6 sorry. 7 MS. SHAGRIN: But what I said was 8 that when we break up into groups and, you 9 know, the number of active participants 10 available participates is smaller, not 11 larger, and that's generally what happens, 12 rather than try to get ten things going at 13 one time, let's focus initially on those that 14 are the foundations. And the foundations to 15 me are how is media being consumed today. 16 And in looking at that, based on the 17 different types of technology available today 18 in different types of homes. And then what 19 are the different technologies. And then 20 where do we see that technology growth being 21 in five years. So that if what we found, my 22 example was if what we found was that people 23 who could watch television on their 24 cellphones did half their viewing on their 25 cellphones, and that was going to grow from a 66 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 5 percent penetration today to a 25 percent 3 penetration in five years, it's really, 4 really important for us to know that and to 5 plan for it. 6 MS. FRANK: Right. I 7 misunderstood. I thought you were separating 8 those. So you clarified it. 9 MR. STERNBERG: I think that we 10 have no idea what's going to happen five 11 years from now. Anything we're doing on 12 cellphones is going to be in five years. 13 That's ridiculous. All the predictions that 14 people are making now what the media 15 landscape is going to be today I think is 16 completely wrong. I don't think we should 17 start out by saying what it's going to be 18 five years from now. 19 MS. BRILL: I would like to add 20 this comment. I'm sorry. Are you still 21 speaking, Steve? This is Shari. 22 I really think it's important to 23 understand how consumers are using media now. 24 Because to them it's not new technology. 25 It's part of their lives. And the way 67 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 consumers are interacting with their TV and 3 all of the newer consumer technologies, I 4 think it's important to understand what 5 they're doing. And how they embrace it is 6 going to be a footprint for what happens down 7 the line. But we need to get the footprint. 8 MR. KALINE: I think you need to 9 identify the trends and project perhaps 10 where it might go. It doesn't mean you have 11 to have a crystal ball. But it means you 12 have to have a way of setting priorities for 13 either new measurement, you know, techniques, 14 you know, things that Nielsen could be doing 15 to gather what that new definition of video 16 viewing is. That might not even be 17 television viewings. And setting those kinds 18 of priorities. 19 MR. DONATO: There are also some 20 fairly well-credentialed technical advisors 21 that agreed to serve on the technical board. 22 Maybe you can actually have your cake and eat 23 it. You have good press and get good press 24 out of this first study. This study that 25 you're talking about certainly could generate 68 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 some press. 3 MS. BUSLIK: This is Michele 4 Buslik. I also want to add a little bit 5 about one of our main objectives. 6 Build platforms that are capable 7 of adapting to change. We may not have 8 thought of something that's going into the 9 future. But the technology has not been 10 static. 11 MS. BURNS: We're all saying the 12 same thing. 13 MR. KALINE: I think we're all 14 saying the same things. 15 MR. SCHWARTZ: Guys, we can only 16 judge what's going on now. We shouldn't 17 measure what's going to happen in five years. 18 It isn't here. I think what we need to do is 19 be as broad as possible so we get an 20 understanding of all dimensions of software. 21 Because it's not TV, it's the programming. 22 So we get to all dimensions of the software. 23 Then it's up to us in our 24 individual areas to then start saying, okay, 25 this projects to this. This is going to grow 69 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 to that. You can't measure something that's 3 not out there. So all we can measure is the 4 technologies and the environments that are 5 here today. And to understand in our own 6 measurement where we think that's going to go 7 and how we're going to utilize it in our own 8 areas. 9 So we're talking about the same 10 thing. We're not disagreeing with each 11 other. So why don't we just agree that we're 12 on the same page and put that on the table 13 for a vote. 14 MR. KALINE: Why don't we then 15 take a look at the three buckets, I guess, 16 that have been identified. And see if we 17 can't get people to, you know, perhaps 18 identify what area they might be interested 19 in volunteering for, being the data usage, 20 emerging technologies, and media consumption 21 together, as well as the area of 22 non-respondents. 23 MS. BURNS: Can you put the three 24 buckets up there? 25 MS. BUSLIK: Richard, this is 70 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 Michele again. 3 What is the timing? But what I 4 would like you to do if at all possible, if 5 at the end of the day, give us the agenda for 6 the measurements. 7 MR. Zackon: People are nodding. 8 I think what you requested was captured. I'm 9 far from the microphone. 10 MR. SCHWARTZ: They asked when we 11 get to a concensus that we share what we're 12 doing. 13 MR. Zackon: Absolutely, 14 absolutely. Michele and Steve, I invite you 15 step up at this moment, which is really why 16 we made this connection, to choose what you 17 want to choose. 18 One is proper data use. These 19 are all fast track areas. The second one was 20 media consumption/emerging technology. And 21 the third was non-respondents, nonresponse. 22 And so what we're looking to do is form three 23 working committees now. And invite people in 24 which of those areas, if any. They would 25 like to step up. 71 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MS. BUSLIK: I'll get back to you 3 later this afternoon. 4 MR. Zackon: Okay. Steve? 5 MR. STERNBERG: Emerging 6 technology. 7 MR. Zackon: Right. Thank you. 8 We have our first volunteer. 9 MS. FRANK: Okay. You're the 10 leader, Steve. 11 MR. Zackon: I'll fill you both in 12 on what happened today and how these groups 13 are constituted. Thanks Steve. Thanks 14 Michele. 15 MS. BUSLIK: Thank you. 16 MR. Zackon: Thanks to everyone on 17 the four As for working with us on this. 18 MR. KALINE: To go back to, I 19 guess, an earlier point... 20 MS. BURNS: Do we have the 21 originals on the line? 22 MR. Zackon: Jack Wakshlag's still 23 with us. Perianne? 24 MS. GRIGNON: Yes. 25 MR. Zackon: Anyone else on the 72 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 line? 3 MR. GUNZERATH: David. 4 MR. Zackon: Hi, David. Sorry. 5 MR. KALINE: I guess to go back 6 to an earlier point, if there are folks who 7 have already invested some portion of their 8 career or recent experience on any one of 9 those areas that could lend either a 10 headstart or whatever, then I would encourage 11 those folks to identify themselves in that 12 area. 13 MS. LIGUORI: Have we determined 14 that those are the three buckets that we're 15 focusing on for certain out of all of this? 16 I'm just curious. 17 MR. Zackon: I think we're about 18 to. The opportunity now is to vote with our 19 feet as to would we want to work on these. 20 And if people step forward, then we might as 21 well get started. If there's not an interest 22 then I think we've determined that's not the 23 place to start. 24 MR. GLOECKLER: We're not saying 25 these are the only things on this list in the 73 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 world. It's the first quick hits. 3 MR. Zackon: If someone says 4 there's another area I want to get started on 5 right away, I invite someone to step up and 6 say they're ready to take a look at that. 7 MS. FRANK: I would join Steve 8 Sternberg on media consumption and emerging 9 technology again, given the study that we've 10 been producing for the last seven or eight 11 years. 12 MR. Zackon: Great. 13 MS. BRILL: I too. 14 MS. BURNS: Joanne Burns. 15 MR. SALISCH: Jack said she'd 16 like to join. 17 MR. Zackon: Media consumption, 18 emerging technology. 19 MS. CUCCINELLO: And I'll join 20 in. 21 MR. Zackon: I have Jack, Joanne, 22 Sheri, Tim, Steve, Tim, Betsy, and Vicky. 23 MS. GALLAGHER: That tends to be 24 a group problem. We have to really right now 25 be sure. Everyone's going to volunteer for 74 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 the first project. Then when you get to the 3 next step they have no more time left. 4 MR. Zackon: We're not limited. 5 We're not limiting after the project's 6 complete. We're free to participate in 7 others. 8 MS. GALLAGHER: I know. But I 9 think we need to be careful. 10 MR. Zackon: Judicious. 11 MS. GALLAGHER: We have to have a 12 long-range view as well as a short-range view 13 so that we can come up with a balance. So 14 everyone jumps on the short-range view and 15 the long-range view dies a natural death. 16 MR. SUSSMAN: The division of the 17 landscape of 2010 and the purpose of that, 18 kind of going back to Jack's original vision, 19 to measure anything else we do against this. 20 Where do we want to end up with research or 21 how we measure media in the future. So I 22 think anything we look at needs to be in that 23 context. 24 MR. Zackon: Ira, that work was 25 done already. To get that started it might 75 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 be a good starting point for that media 3 consumption group. 4 MR. SHIMMEL: I think it's 5 important. I like where Ceril was going in 6 that. If we could, if this group could spend 7 the first year doing all of the foundational 8 research and filling in the blanks on this 9 page and then thinking about, you know, in 10 '06, '07, doing then some of the 11 methodological research about how you're 12 going to measure the vision that we agreed 13 on, that would be a huge success. And I 14 think actually that would give some focus 15 here. Because, you know, this list's long. 16 And, you know, and it's a little unfocused. 17 One of the things I think we've 18 got to be careful about is it's more than 19 just media consumption and emerging 20 technology that's going to, you know, that's 21 going to impact the future. We have 22 demography. We have marketplace issues about 23 what's going to be transacted off of. 24 So I wanted to, let's be careful 25 about getting too, too narrow in focus right 76 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 now. It may be that there are more issues 3 that we should have on the short-term agenda. 4 MS. LIGUORI: So many people are 5 interested in media consumption. And it is 6 broad. What if we take that as the umbrella. 7 And from that media consumption there is the 8 emerging technology aspect. So a subgroup of 9 the umbrella will dive into that. There's 10 the measurement of it. A subgroup can dive 11 into that. But we'll all be under the media 12 consumption umbrella. Because in a way, I 13 mean, even responsible use, everything comes. 14 We wouldn't have use if we didn't have media 15 consumption. We wouldn't have measurement. 16 MR. Zackon: Although, speaking 17 for you, if I may, I said, speak for you in 18 your interest with the measurement of proper 19 data use, that is something that could happen 20 parallel to this. 21 MS. LIGUORI: There are prongs of 22 media consumption. 23 MR. BROOKS: It might be that the 24 media consumption group would have a meeting 25 and naturally kind of divide into groups. 77 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 And people have done some real work on DVRs, 3 perhaps move to do that. Or some people that 4 have done home. It sounds to me like the 5 group needs to meet and decide what its 6 theses are. 7 MS. LIGUORI: Unless you take, 8 moving along on your idea, if you take the 9 media consumption and divide it by certain 10 types of media, because we've got DVRs, I 11 mean, that's a whole 'nother different thing 12 than cellphones. And then within those 13 subgroups you deal with, this is the media 14 and the various aspects. This is the 15 emerging. This is how we anticipate it 16 growing. This is how we anticipate 17 measurement. We do a little, a comprehensive 18 overview of one aspect of media consumption. 19 Another committee does the same thing on a 20 different aspect of media consumption. 21 MR. SUSSMAN: If you do it 22 media-based or you do it consumer-based 23 because consumer-based will cross all the 24 different medias with that. 25 MR. KALINE: I think from an 78 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 advertiser's perspective we're looking for 3 people to pull it all together for us and try 4 to make sense of it. 5 MS. CHAMPLIN: I would echo that 6 completely. 7 MR. KALINE: You may get into the 8 project and decide what we're going to do 9 with the data. And you may end up with a 10 study that's more directional planning of 11 planning benefit than it is actually the 12 hard, you know, currency type measure of that 13 particular, you know, technology, or whatever 14 it happens to be. 15 MS. SIRKIN: But the long term 16 view should be to cover that area. 17 MR. KALINE: It may identify what 18 are the emerging trends or things that we 19 need to, from a measure standpoint, design 20 research or techniques to address and capture 21 how we're going to do it. And is there a 22 multimedia type of measurement to it. 23 MS. FRANK: I have a question: I 24 guess from what I've been reading, there was 25 a big meeting or a series of meetings over 79 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 the last couple of weeks from a lot of 3 industry organizations regarding ROI, and 4 coming up with some way to quantify ROI. 5 Specifically for television, which seems to 6 have the hardest problem in doing that. You 7 know there's this commercial impact is one of 8 the points in the steering committee. Not 9 something that Nielsen has been addressing. 10 And I guess I'm not, I'd like to 11 understand from people who were at those 12 meetings what is being done there. And are 13 we ignoring something that is so critical to, 14 you know, the long-term viability of 15 certainly television. 16 MS. SIRKIN: I can tell you 17 what's happening on the committees and the 18 direction that's being taken. Not much is 19 actually being done on all these kinds of 20 meetings. Things like that. 21 The question has been raised that 22 RFPs are no longer and are going to be the 23 best measurement that we have to try to 24 predict return on investment. The best 25 measurement is a model to look at to evaluate 80 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 media because people are changing the way 3 they use communications. It's going to be a 4 combination of what the media vehicle brings 5 with what the ad or communication or 6 editorial or product placement, whatever it 7 might be, brings. And that the two of those 8 working together strongly is better than 9 either working on their own. And is there a 10 measurement that we can create that 11 identifies those two pieces together. And 12 that's as far as we go. 13 MS. BURNS: Isn't part of that 14 how do you measure it unless you first 15 understand how it's consumed? 16 MS. SIRKIN: Absolutely. 17 MS. BURNS: How you figure out 18 the return of investment is until you 19 determine how the consumer is interacting 20 with their text message, so what? 21 MS. FRANK: So it's not we're 22 going at different directions. 23 MS. BURNS: And you won't know 24 how to measure ROI until you first 25 understand. 81 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. SHIMMEL: But don't you have 3 to do them simultaneously? Because on one 4 hand, you know, the issue that Kate brought 5 up is do you have to go more than beyond, do 6 you have to go beyond counting heads? 7 MS. FRANK: Right. 8 MS. BURNS: What's frustrating me 9 is people are trying to come up with models 10 how to measure it, when they don't understand 11 how people are using it. 12 MS. SIRKIN: I don't think it's 13 people individually are doing lots of things. 14 MS. FRANK: There's enough 15 consumer behavior that we probably in all our 16 organizations that we are doing and that we 17 do have. You know, I don't think, I would 18 say we have no idea how people are using it. 19 But it just feels like this is something that 20 is so current, that is so out there. 21 Notions of, you know, of 22 advertising which is so vital to all of the 23 people sitting at this table that, you know, 24 I just like to make sure that doesn't get 25 lost in the shuffle. Or that we don't assume 82 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 someone else is doing it when it's really 3 part of -- 4 MS. SIRKIN: That's one of the 5 reasons I want to be part of this group. So 6 that I sit on enough committees to find out 7 what you don't need to do because someone 8 else is doing it. 9 The next stage of the engagement 10 project is to have the people who are doing 11 work in that area already which is the MPA, 12 TV. Lots of people are doing it. Have them 13 come and present their thoughts on it. And 14 what the industry is not wanting is seven 15 different methods of measurement again that 16 are all proprietary by those organizations. 17 So I'll definitely be back when it gets into 18 the specific areas. Make sure that there's 19 no overlap. 20 There's also another committee 21 that I'm on which is the ARF multicultural 22 measurement initiative. It's probably not 23 the right title. But that's going to be 24 working on the nonresponse one. So, again, 25 I'll be back. 83 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MS. SHAGRIN: But moving slowly. 3 MS. SIRKIN: They're all moving 4 slowly. There's no way to be quick on those 5 two committees so... 6 MS. SHAGRIN: To go back to -- 7 MR. KALINE: The list. The list 8 and volunteers. 9 MS. SHAGRIN: With the caveat 10 that I'd love to have a little interaction 11 with the media consumption group because I've 12 done a lot of that work as well, I'll take on 13 nonresponse. 14 MR. Zackon: Thank you. 15 MR. BROOKS: Kind of the reverse 16 on that, particularly nonresponse is 17 something if that includes incentives and 18 things we're talking about. 19 MR. DONATO: What I was hearing 20 was that insufficiency of collapsing all 21 kinds of media consumption. How the media is 22 used and emerging technologies. Isn't there 23 sort of a parallel efficiency in terms of 24 putting together a lot of the more 25 methodological issues? 84 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 Nonresponse can be how to improve 3 response rates. Nonresponse can be very 4 important. I mean, it's one of the two 5 things that Nielsen's always identified as 6 probably the biggest impact on the numbers 7 can be, what about the other 50 percent that 8 we don't measure? What are their behaviors? 9 It can be a lot of things. And is there an 10 inefficiency in putting those all together in 11 kind of the statistical methodological 12 interests, and then partition that out of the 13 two or three segments. 14 What you're really then doing is 15 creating an hierarchical structure to the 16 research project. There's kind of the 17 consumption. Sort of almost its objective is 18 to produce the non-nations of that kind of 19 seminal work in terms of where things are 20 going in consumption. And then the 21 methodological stuff which is the kind of 22 stuff that Nielsen does. But it allows this 23 community to basically make decisions on what 24 research is done, including to be honest 25 without being flip about it, the nonresponse 85 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 studies, studying 50 percent who are not 3 measured. 4 I mean, if you want to talk about 5 results that have impact and impact the 6 numbers, it's probably that study. So it's 7 almost a suggestion that maybe there's a 8 third. I don't know if there's a third area 9 here. But at least that kind of gets it all 10 down. 11 MS. SIRKIN: That's only one 12 measure by the trend. Next one, you have to 13 measure, and the third one is how to use it. 14 MR. DONATO: Maybe that's it. 15 MR. SUSSMAN: The other one going 16 on in the background, this whole council and 17 the budget started in April. And we have 18 $2-1/2 million to spend by next April which 19 you kind of think of that time line of where 20 the money that's available and how we might 21 spend it. 22 MR. KEILTY: Mark, I was just 23 going to say I would like Ceril on the 24 non-reponse. 25 MS. CUCCINELLO: You can add me 86 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 in that bucket too. 3 MR. SALISCH: And Jon. 4 MR. Zackon: Is Jon on there? 5 MR. SALISCH: I agree with what 6 Paul said. Frankly, nonresponse is directly 7 the sample with measurement technology and 8 modeling. They're all, there's intertwining 9 there that really is very, I'm not sure that 10 they should be separate. 11 MR. Zackon: These groups are 12 allowed to speak to each other and this 13 council. We're not placing strong silos 14 between them. And with the Web there's a lot 15 of opportunity for creative exchange. You 16 don't have to be meeting with a group to get 17 reports in terms of what happened. 18 MR. BROOKS: Maybe there's some 19 way to be like observer status or something 20 in one of the other groups that you're not on 21 if you're also interested in that. 22 MS. SHAGRIN: I'm assuming that 23 each of the groups is going to report back at 24 the next full meeting or at other full 25 meetings, if it's not the next. At which 87 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 point we certainly have -- 3 MS. BURNS: Share information. 4 MS. SHAGRIN: -- an opportunity 5 to add to or, if necessary, critique, why are 6 you doing that. And let the committee 7 convince us that that's the right thing to 8 do. So I think a lot of give and take. But 9 allowing us to focus on three different 10 projects and get them both, get them all 11 going. Because as previously said, 12 ultimately, they all contribute to a better 13 measurement service. 14 MR. Zackon: The design of today 15 is we'll break at lunch into those groups and 16 then report back after lunch. So certainly 17 they won't have gotten so much. But at least 18 some initial thinking about this can be 19 carried forward. And if you're not in a 20 group, you have to have lunch by yourself. 21 MR. BROOKS: Richard, just a 22 process matter. Would it make sense as these 23 groups form and presumably meet, rather than 24 the people who are not in each group waiting 25 for the next council meeting to find out what 88 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 that group is, that there be some kind of 3 report after each meeting that it has 4 something so that we could be kept informed. 5 It would mean that we can have timely input 6 and know when the next council meeting in 7 advance a lot more. 8 MR. Zackon: Amber and I will take 9 care of that in the same way we do in the 10 steering committee to get back and say what 11 the steering committee's up to. Is that 12 workable, by the way? Because we got out 13 within a few days as to what the steering 14 committee is doing. So we will do that for 15 each of these groups. 16 MS. BURNS: We agree. 17 MR. KEILTY: I would also like to 18 volunteer John Reardon, not with us today. 19 But I just feel that he would love to be part 20 of the nonresponse project. 21 MR. Zackon: If I can speak for 22 Dave, which I hesitate to do, he identified 23 nonresponse as a key issue. So I'm going to 24 put him in parentheses with John Reardon as 25 let's check this. He might want to join 89 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 that. And he's free to decline. 3 MS. GOLDBERG: If you need 4 another member I'd like to join that also, if 5 there's not too many. 6 MR. SHIMMEL: There's a 7 logistical issue regarding these groups. 8 We've gotten requests from noncouncil members 9 to participate on these working groups. So 10 if we could actually talk about that and how 11 we would notify people of the opportunities, 12 we're okay with that. Just to broaden the 13 involvement. 14 MR. DEVAULT: Richard, I would 15 like to go on nonresponse. 16 MR. Zackon: Is anyone 17 nonresponding to nonresponse? 18 MS. SIRKIN: I'll go on whichever 19 one. 20 MR. Zackon: Is data use a 21 nongroup now? Because so far no one has 22 stepped up right now. 23 MS. LIGUORI: I will do it if 24 there's interest in doing it; the proper data 25 use of the emerging technologies that could 90 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 be impacted by nonresponse. 3 MS. FRANK: Well, we can all go 4 in. 5 MR. Zackon: Kate, are you willing 6 to step up at least for purposes of today? 7 MR. DONATO: Modeling really 8 belongs in data use. I don't think, I know 9 model-like terms and conditions put in 10 nonresponse, but a little more data use. 11 I'll participate in that. 12 MR. Zackon: Right. We have three 13 committees with at least three members each. 14 MS. SIRKIN: That's fine. But to 15 Howard's point, people have come up. I've 16 gotten some E-mail in communication. People 17 who are not on the council would like to be 18 involved in some way. And while they may not 19 have a voting opportunity at the end to 20 choose the projects, my sense is there's 21 probably a lot of wisdom, knowledge and 22 experience that could be brought to bear. 23 And so when we talked about the 24 steering committee, I think the sense was 25 it's up to each of those committees how they 91 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 might want to include other people. But if 3 there's some general sense, it would be great 4 to discuss that. And these would be Nielsen 5 clients. Or if they're not Nielsen clients, 6 a determination made. 7 MR. BROOKS: As a chair of the 8 council at the ARF which ostensibly has 150 9 members of which 15 or 20 show up, I do think 10 we certainly should be open to bringing in 11 experience from the outside. But I think it 12 ought to be to become a member there has to 13 be some kind of actual participation. It's 14 easy to say I want to get all the E-mails 15 and never be here. 16 MS. SHAGRIN: I'd almost rather 17 see us have an initial meeting that we're 18 going to do this action in order to sort of 19 see where we're going. And at that point we 20 might identify we can use some extra people 21 to do some of the digging, some of the 22 research. 23 MS. SIRKIN: Then we might have a 24 list of the appropriate people to pick from. 25 MR. SUSSMAN: I have a 92 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 suggestion, and I don't mean to, I think that 3 in order to join a committee you need to be 4 invited. And, for example, if consultants on 5 the outside can't invite themselves in to 6 participate in a committee, that the 7 stakeholders are here; not people who are 8 trying to make money off the stakeholder. 9 MS. SIRKIN: There's no payment 10 for work. 11 MR. Zackon: Don't tell her no. 12 Although if they bid on a project ultimately, 13 that's a different situation. So should it 14 be left to the members of this council on 15 each committee to decide who helps, might be 16 appropriate to join that committee? 17 MR. KALINE: I think your 18 question now, what each of these projects, 19 the dimensions of it, you're going to find 20 out where you need outside help, if you do. 21 Anyway, that's part of the process. 22 MR. BROOKS: To be clear, members 23 have to be users of research, not suppliers. 24 MS. GOLDBERG: Sure. 25 MS. BURNS: And no bias. 93 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. Zackon: This has been almost 3 too easy. 4 MS. LIGUORI: We can make it 5 harder if you like. 6 MR. Zackon: No. Thank you. 7 One piece we didn't do and maybe 8 we do before lunch is the landscape vision 9 statement that was towards a landscape vision 10 statement. It was felt, it came up at our 11 first meeting that we might have some picture 12 five years from now. And it might be a good 13 idea to share the work that was done with 14 everyone before the committee meeting. And 15 they may want to take that further or not. 16 So that's a piece of business. Ira has 17 agreed to step up. Mike's not here. 18 MR. SUSSMAN: Sure. 19 This kind of came about, as I 20 said, out of an idea, whatever we work 21 towards should have a vision of where we want 22 to be in the future. What is that perfect 23 measurement service. Or how are we going to 24 deal with the future as we see it. 25 We came up with you probably 94 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 about eight or nine buckets that were then at 3 the steering committee kind of melted down to 4 six. And then, like we did today, it's 5 probably three. But started off with 6 contents. And that would be either 7 programming as scheduled or time shifted. 8 And we had a lot of conversations about what 9 these things mean. 10 So, either ask questions or 11 definitely your input is welcome. The 12 content would be either program or 13 advertising. The programming being as 14 scheduled. The time shifted versus 15 advertising, which is wherever it might show 16 up. Be it signage, product placement, 17 30-second spot, linear or nonlinear. 18 And the next would be delivery of 19 a TV signal which brought in all the 20 different distribution technologies, be it 21 wireless or over the phone or what have you 22 to the equipment. So kind of the technology 23 of distribution versus the equipment that the 24 person is using to receive it. Understanding 25 that. 95 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 And then we were talking about 3 linking to other media. So if you're 4 watching a TV ad and you clicked and you were 5 brought into an Internet site or something 6 like that. So all about the delivery of the 7 signal. 8 And then we got into a discussion 9 about audience. And that goes in a lot of 10 different areas. I think audience was 11 originally three or four different topics. 12 And we realized that there was demography. 13 Understanding population changes and also 14 understanding the pieces of demography down 15 to the smallest population. 16 The source of the viewership from 17 an audience perspective. The type of 18 receiver they're receiving it which differs a 19 little bit than the delivery of the TV 20 signal, although they cross-reference each 21 other. 22 The data granularity. The viewer 23 experience. How are they. And that goes to 24 the engagement studies that are going on. 25 Location in or out of home, wherever you can 96 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 be. 3 Then the social environment. Are 4 you viewing or watching with other people or 5 by yourself, or how does that work. 6 Then we moved on to the bucket 7 measurement technology. How will that look 8 in the future. We originally said, but then 9 that's one measurement there. There's the 10 idea of portable personal passive, whatever 11 that is, without giving it a product name 12 today. But it's something that is used as 13 hardware to measure wherever you are and 14 whatever media is. 15 And then the software side of 16 that. Then we've discussed the marketplace. 17 And from a buyer-seller transactional 18 perspective, will there be differences in 19 what the marketplace looks like. One was the 20 future of the upfront. But there was also 21 the conversations as data and technology and 22 measurement change, will the marketplace. 23 Will it become more of a transactional base 24 like the stock market or however. And How 25 does that affect in a roundabout way what 97 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 future measurements might we need to adapt to 3 that marketplace. 4 And then the investment of 5 research. We realized within our own staffs 6 if there's more data will we need to 7 staff-up. Or if we have more people will we 8 be able to do more. And will that kind of 9 create a demand on more and better research 10 or data in the marketplace. 11 Just thinking out there what will 12 media research look like in the future. And 13 then that will also inform Nielsen and their 14 staffing and how much they were going to need 15 to step up in order to respond to this new 16 environment. 17 And then the environment of the 18 TV landscape in the future. Things like 19 responding cooperation, privacy issues, which 20 keep getting harder to get people to work 21 with us. Regulation of research. What will 22 be the role of MRC. We had a little 23 conversation with that in the last few days. 24 Industry efforts such as AMI. 25 Permission marketing and global marketing 98 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 linked to the data. So the idea of this was 3 to begin to create a vision of the landscape 4 out there as how to measure where we're going 5 with all of our other projects. And if we're 6 addressing the future of television. 7 MR. KALINE: I think it's just 8 fundamentally important to have a guiding 9 star. I think he may not know what the 10 promised land looks like. You may not have 11 any way of really being accurate. But I 12 think we get so caught up in the 13 here-and-now, and we're this close to 14 everything, that if you lose sight of what 15 the long-term trends and changes are, you'll 16 never be able to hit the mark, I don't think, 17 down the road. 18 And we're talking about shifts in 19 small degrees, I think, in many cases. But, 20 you know, it's almost like everything, it's 21 not a destination, it's a journey. It will 22 evolve as this group continues to evolve. 23 But I think it's an important thing for us 24 to, you know, have whether it's part of a 25 mission or whether it's part of an ongoing 99 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 you know, just it's almost like something you 3 keep in mind with every project that you set 4 out to do. 5 MS. SIRKIN: I think the one 6 thing, something about cost effectiveness we 7 left out. We have continued to see our 8 Nielsen bills go up at the rate faster than 9 our revenue and income is going up for the 10 next five or ten years. I think at some 11 point we need to be able to make decisions on 12 what's perfect; how much that costs and what 13 might be good enough. 14 MR. KALINE: The business 15 sensibilities. 16 MS. SIRKIN: I don't think we've 17 ever had to talk about that. The MRC hasn't 18 looked at that. We don't have a user group 19 that looked at that on Nielsen costs. We 20 certainly don't have a say on how much media 21 research is done. 22 MS. FRANK: I think one 23 suggestion that I would make is to not call 24 this television landscape. And to really 25 broaden it to be, you know, if you don't want 100 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 to broaden it enough to be the whole media 3 landscape, at least the video landscape or 4 something, you know, there is, I mean what we 5 see in all the research that we're doing is 6 that for the consumer. And I would also urge 7 that the audience piece be at the top of the 8 list. Because by understanding, audiences, 9 you may not know how fast e-phones are going 10 to gain acceptance, but we can sure see what 11 kids are doing with phones. And it can take 12 you in a new direction. But I think the 13 whole notion of silos, boundaries, borders, 14 here's what I do on the television, here's 15 what I do on the PC, that's all crumbling. 16 MS. SIRKIN: We call it visual 17 engagement. Never mention national/local 18 ever again. 19 MS. FRANK: Never. Or even in 20 home or out of home. So I think the more we 21 can broaden this and -- 22 MR. KALINE: It's more of a 23 consumer viewership landscape than it is a 24 technical expertise. 25 MR. KALINE: Okay. 101 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. Zackon: There was one other 3 piece before we break for lunch that might 4 inform the committee. I mean Howard and Paul 5 and people there put together a technical 6 advisory board, some 30 senior people who are 7 available to these committees to support the 8 subcommittees in their work. And this list 9 is not complete. I know one was I got a call 10 yesterday. We had already printed this up. 11 It was late in the day. Others will be 12 added. 13 Howard, you can add a little bit 14 about the technical advisory panel. 15 MR. SHIMMEL: The body's to have 16 access to experts outside of media research 17 that we can call on for specific topic areas. 18 We've gotten a tremendous amount of response. 19 The response as we've reached out to these 20 people have been great. Everybody we've 21 asked has actually agreed. There are a 22 couple of people who are still, we're just 23 going through the final details. You know, 24 you'll see that as it relates to each of our 25 categories. 102 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 Media consumption, Mike Bullfrom 3 MIT. Joe Touro from Annenberg. As it 4 relates to nonresponse, Clyde Tucker from the 5 Bureau of Labor Statistics. We basically 6 just have access to these people. 7 Nielsen will be paying them out 8 of our own funds on a per diem basis, 9 separate from the 2.5. But, quite honestly, 10 you know, we think this is going to add a lot 11 of value and some new thinking beyond what we 12 bring. And hopefully this list will be 13 bigger. And if there are other people you 14 think we can reach out to, please let us 15 know. 16 MR. BROOKS: I think this is a 17 great resource. One comment I would make on 18 this list. There's one person I know on this 19 I worked with speak to. I would want to 20 know, have some guidance as to who on here 21 might help. Since I don't know them. I 22 don't know their work. Everybody's got a 23 great system. So is there some sort of 24 guidance mechanism? 25 MR. Zackon: There's nothing 103 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 formal. I would at this point speak to Paul 3 or whoever on his staff, he's out of the 4 room, whoever on his staff reached out here, 5 to answer that question when the topic comes 6 up or an area comes up. 7 MR. SHIMMEL: Yes. Because, 8 well, I think after today's meeting, send 9 them a note with the initial focus. And then 10 maybe we can get back some ideas to figure 11 out who the best line would be. 12 MR. BROOKS: Maybe one of them 13 can say if I can help in this area or you can 14 tell us. 15 MR. Zackon: Good idea. 16 MR. SHIMMEL: We will do that. 17 MR. KALINE: I'm wondering if 18 there may also be some clients who have, you 19 know, whether it's a Sony or whether it's a 20 Hitachi, or somebody like that who have 21 people who are in the R&D for their products 22 that are developing things that we haven't 23 even dreamed of yet for use in the consumer 24 landscape that might be helpful now. 25 Somebody who might be able to reach out that 104 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 way, you know. I think about that. 3 MS. SIRKIN: The people at c-Net 4 know everybody. They're really good guys on 5 television impact. 6 MR. KALINE: Okay. 7 MS. SHAGRIN: Invite Scott Brown. 8 He seems to have his finger on what's going 9 on with technology to come to the next 10 meeting. Sort of give us an update on what 11 he sees that's out there. And what the 12 industry projections are for each of those 13 technologies. 14 MR. SHIMMEL: Scott and also Bob 15 Grove. 16 MR. KALINE: That's a good 17 thought. 18 MR. Zackon: It's 12 o'clock. 19 Amber, it seems like we're going 20 to need three separate locations for these 21 groups. 22 MS. GALLAGHER: I have a 23 question. These are, like, the only three 24 things that are going to be discussed. 25 MR. Zackon: Unless you have 105 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 another one that you want to. By the way, if 3 you've not stepped up, there's no reason why 4 you couldn't just join in the conversation at 5 this point, without any commitment that 6 you're on that committee ongoingly. 7 MS. GALLAGHER: I'm getting the 8 feeling that the scope's been narrowed to 9 these three areas and there's never going to 10 be another area. 11 MR. Zackon: It's that we separate 12 out a time horizon and short-term projects 13 that we're trying to do now. 14 MS. GALLAGHER: Nonresponse is 15 short term. 16 MR. Zackon: Let's start again. 17 These are the first ones we're taking on. 18 There's no sense that the others wouldn't be 19 taken on. The only thing lacking is someone 20 stepping up, saying I'm ready to take it on 21 right now. I'm ready to talk about it right 22 now. These are the ones that gathered 23 interest. 24 MS. CUCCINELLO: These are 25 foundations for the next phase. 106 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MS. SHAGRIN: Doesn't mean if a 3 person has a burning need to get started on 4 one of the others projects, I want to start 5 working on it now, and as I get information 6 from these other committees I'll build it 7 into my plan. 8 MR. Zackon: Exactly. Does that 9 address -- 10 MS. GALLAGHER: I just really 11 wasn't clear that it's like, you know, it 12 just wasn't terribly clear that it's kind of 13 being narrowed at the moment. These are the 14 only areas of discussion. 15 MR. Zackon: This is where we're 16 starting. It seems to be where the energy is 17 to start. 18 MR. KALINE: And I think there 19 was the feeling that some of these encompass 20 a number of the numbered projects on the 21 list. And can possibly be a bigger bucket 22 that would be identified broken out. And, 23 you know, perhaps, you know, detailed more 24 closely on what that would be. So it may be 25 that there are things that fall out that you 107 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 say, okay, we didn't cover that as part of 3 this project. It needs to be a separate 4 project. But no less important or valuable. 5 MR. GLOECKLER: I think it would 6 be helpful, Mark, to ask the three groups as 7 they break out to look at the broader list, 8 just as you suggested there and figure out 9 which of the other topics fit into their 10 bucket. And maybe even think about where 11 that fits in a time line. 12 We would suggest we start now 13 focusing strictly on nonresponse defined as 14 XYZ, and, you know, by January another group 15 should be thinking about a sample, whatever. 16 However it breaks out. So that we can think 17 about the work more realistically as well. 18 MR. KALINE: I think too, it's 19 also not just the buckets that are on the 20 list. It's also where is Nielsen going. Do 21 they already have initiatives that have 22 already been outlined, but maybe don't have 23 the traction right now that are maybe clumped 24 into a certain area. 25 MS. FRANK: Can I ask a question 108 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 at the risk of preempting anything on the 3 agenda? It just feels a little soon to be 4 breaking out. I mean, it's not a huge group. 5 Does it make any sense, say we have three 6 hours left, we take one hour for each and the 7 whole group contributes to the best way to 8 move forward? 9 MR. Zackon: It's up to you. 10 MS. FRANK: I've got a second. 11 MS. BURNS: Can I second that? 12 MR. Zackon: You have a second? 13 MS. BURNS: And after this the 14 group goes off on its own. 15 MR. KALINE: It's an outline 16 perhaps. Maybe identifies issues. 17 MS. FRANK: It seems like it's 18 still early enough that we want to get 19 everybody's good thinking on where we go. 20 MS. CUCCINELLO: That's a good 21 idea. 22 MR. Zackon: Should we divvy up 23 time? Should each of these groups be equal 24 time would be the first question I would ask 25 the three groups for now. 109 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. KALINE: Keep some 3 discipline. 4 MR. Zackon: 45 minutes a topic. 5 MS. BURNS: Go to 3:00. 6 MR. Zackon: We have until 3:00. 7 We don't have to go to 3:00. 8 MS. BURNS: It gives us a little 9 wiggle room. 10 MS. SHAGRIN: Then sort of where 11 do we go for now? Maybe give the committees 12 about 15 minutes to break up and sort of 13 decide where they're going to be. 14 MR. Zackon: That's a good idea. 15 By the way, I acknowledge everyone there was 16 no reason for the bell today. So it's been 17 really great. 18 MR. KALINE: Close enough. 19 MR. Zackon: Is lunch outside? 20 MR. KALINE: We're going to break 21 for lunch right now. 22 MS. BURNS: Individually or the 23 committee? 24 MR. KALINE: Vote on it. Put the 25 menu up on the board. 110 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. Zackon: Why don't we take a 3 15-minute break and restart the conversation 4 in about 15 minutes and you can eat and talk. 5 MS. BURNS: A working lunch. 6 (Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., a 7 luncheon recess was taken.) 8 o0o 9 AFTERNOON SESSION 10 12:45 p.m. 11 MR. KALINE: Okay, I thought we'd 12 go ahead and get going. So we can kind of 13 keep to the idea of 45-minute sessions on 14 each of the three buckets that we've kind of 15 identified here. First I want to just say 16 thanks to Betsy for the suggestion. I think 17 it's a great suggestion. Kind of open it up 18 to the collective thinking of the group to at 19 least get some thoughts out on the table 20 regarding each. 21 What might be the nature of the 22 work that's done? What are some of the 23 issues that need to be taken into account 24 when addressing each one of them? How might 25 the information be used? You know, are there 111 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 any quick ones in these areas that we might 3 be able to take advantage of? And is there 4 anything that Nielsen's already doing that we 5 can parlay or other work that people are 6 doing that we can parlay into some quick 7 learning from the industry? 8 So you want to pick one? What do 9 we want to start with? Start with 10 nonresponse. 11 MR. Zackon: I think Kate handled 12 it very nicely when she said what are the 13 actions? How do we measure? How do we use 14 the data? That's a certain logic to that. 15 MS. SIRKIN: What's the 16 environment. 17 MR. Zackon: What's the 18 environment? How do we measure it? How do 19 we use the data so the issue on the table is 20 media consumption and emerging technologies? 21 And what might be measured? What might be 22 some low-hanging fruit there? 23 Do we want to take that landscape 24 piece, Pat? 25 MS. LIGUORI: I just wanted to 112 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 ask if there is absolutely anything else 3 anybody wants before we commit to the three 4 buckets. I mean, it's almost like a speak 5 now if anyone's got an idea. This would be 6 it. 7 MR. DONATO: How about if we 8 reserve the right to have a fourth bucket and 9 other things, TBD. 10 MS. BRILL: There are quite a few 11 people that aren't here today. 12 MR. Zackon: This is not the last 13 word. 14 MR. GUNZERATH: Can you just 15 reiterate the three buckets? 16 MR. Zackon: The buckets, the 17 first is media consumption and emerging 18 technology. The second was nonresponse. And 19 the third was proper use of data. 20 MR. GUNZERATH: Okay. Great. 21 Thanks. 22 MS. FRANK: I would say, you 23 know, maybe not make it another bucket. But 24 I still like to go back to the idea of 25 something on ROI. And doing some, you know, 113 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 using some of this money to fund some 3 research that could get the industry closer 4 to some sort of metric or at least valuation 5 before too much time, before DVRs are in 6 like, you know, instead of 20, 80 percent of 7 homes. And nobody thinks that television 8 advertising is -- 9 MR. KALINE: Worth it. 10 MS. FRANK: So that would be my 11 speech now. 12 MS. SIRKIN: What about for 13 today? 14 MS. FRANK: Close these doors. I 15 can't hear. 16 MR. DEVAULT: Would that be media 17 in the sense that what we have now is some 18 kind of limiting in terms of this if we're 19 looking at the metrics. Would that in and 20 itself? 21 MS. SIRKIN: The second being how 22 to measure it. 23 MS. BURNS: I love when you say 24 bucket. 25 MR. Zackon: Boo-kay, boo-kay. 114 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MS. BURNS: I'm sorry. I love 3 it. 4 MS. FRANK: I think to that 5 point, to Henry's, that probably could fall 6 into, you know, as long as people keep top of 7 mind as really an important element of 8 keeping the medium going for at least a 9 couple of years longer. Maybe it belongs in 10 all of them as just part of the thinking. 11 MS. SIRKIN: Perhaps another way 12 of thinking about this is trying to work on 13 some kind of global. Get along with that and 14 then coming here to the question of funding 15 for that. 16 MS. FRANK: I think that's 17 probably a good idea. Rather than 18 duplicating efforts that are already taking 19 place. 20 MR. KALINE: With the related 21 task force. 22 MS. SIRKIN: Others will be 23 invited in so that the conversations as a 24 group. 25 MS. BRILL: I have a question on 115 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 the ROI. Is that going to take it, 3 increasing the global load. I know I'm not 4 supposed to say national/local. If it's on 5 the rise and the ANA used to field a study, I 6 think, I guess it was with the four As and 7 AHA used to do really analysis. Was it CMR? 8 There hasn't been one in years. 9 MS. SIRKIN: It won't 10 specifically. But it will be trying to 11 measure what the consumer is supposed to. 12 MS. BRILL: Right. And if 13 increasing length or commercial sort of 14 impact that ROI for advertising. And not 15 just commercials. There's a lot of 16 promotional material too. Station IDs. 17 Often getting a position. So I'm hoping 18 maybe that somewhere. I don't know where it 19 belongs. 20 MS. SIRKIN: My guess is it's 21 going to be a more generic hypothesis 22 measurement to allow people to measure their 23 own sort of thing. 24 MR. BROOKS: Environments, as I 25 understand it here, media consumption and 116 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 emerging technologies, what we found in our 3 DVR studies is the way that people handle 4 that is kind of a program. So just looking 5 at -- 6 MS. SIRKIN: The DVR. 7 MR. BROOKS: -- the DVR numbers, 8 sure. Just looking at how much there is, 9 missing how they're together. And you could 10 have a thousand commercials and they still 11 filter through. Increasing the power to do 12 that. So the old measure of how much there 13 is absent, how much you use. 14 MS. BRILL: Yes. I think there's 15 a place for everybody. I just wanted to make 16 sure. 17 MR. DEVAULT: If the steering 18 committee meeting, when we're talking about 19 one of the things we wanted to try 20 differentiating when looking at the landscape 21 is, what is the value of product placement, 22 as opposed to having that product being 23 integral to the theme of that particular 24 program. Those are some of the tools that 25 may be developed in terms of developing some 117 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 kind of ROI model. 3 MS. BRILL: Oh, good. Thank you. 4 MR. SHIMMEL: But I wonder, 5 Betsy, if what Kate is working on is one 6 piece of what you're talking about. I mean, 7 if someone came and created a new measurement 8 system now, I don't know that they'd focus on 9 program versus commercial. Don't know that 10 they'd focus on strict headcount measurement 11 versus engagement or product sales, or some 12 other metric that is really reflecting what 13 the advertiser is looking for with that 14 advertising spot. 15 So I wonder if there's not room 16 for a broader sort of study of, you know, 17 talking to advertisers say five years from 18 now, what do you think you're going to be 19 transacting video content based on, you know, 20 and then finding out where those engagements 21 sit within that, relative to product sales or 22 other stuff, other methods. 23 MR. SUSSMAN: I always get hung 24 up on the ROI conversation and what is the 25 purpose of the advertising. And that still 118 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 varies. What is the role of the commercial, 3 the content itself? Is it a good commerical 4 or a bad commercial? Is this long term or 5 short term? Is it branding versus DVR? 6 In the background you can't 7 define what an ROI model is in a generic 8 sense. 9 MS. FRANK: But I think we have 10 to. 11 MR. SUSSMAN: The value of TV. 12 MS. BURNS: We absolutely have 13 to. Which is why we have to study it before 14 we can measure it. 15 MS. FRANK: Which is why besides 16 creating a separate group, and we have to see 17 where the other group that's working on this 18 comes out, it's just something that we 19 shouldn't lose sight of as we look. 20 MS. SIRKIN: Sort of thinking 21 about the same metrics in the future as we 22 have today. 23 MS. BURNS: Which is why you guys 24 are saying all three groups need to have this 25 in front of them to know that our research is 119 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 pointing at this. 3 MS. GALLAGHER: I can't remember 4 who said it. But the important thing is to 5 build platforms capable of changing. That's 6 really it. Kind of do this research and 7 identify what we think the platforms are 8 going to be. But we know that's not what the 9 platforms are going to be. 10 MS. SIRKIN: At least we'll raise 11 the question. 12 MS. GALLAGHER: Have built in a 13 certain amount of flexibility that hopefully 14 can be adapted to how reality somehow comes 15 out. 16 MS. SHAGRIN: Ideally, if we can 17 sort of dimension need for quick change 18 versus need for slower change, because if you 19 put too much flexibility into anything, it 20 doesn't do anything well. 21 MS. GALLAGHER: Then there's what 22 you're used to measuring in the future, what 23 it should be measuring now. Or what are the 24 shortfalls that exist now that could be 25 corrected to some extent. 120 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MS. SHAGRIN: One of the sort of 3 examples is for too many years VCR use has 4 been incorrectly measured because it's 5 measuring record and not play. And with AP 6 meter there is the ability to switch that. 7 But it would require a 100 percent rollout of 8 AP meters, which ultimately may happen, but 9 isn't going to happen right away. 10 And one of the things that we 11 could be looking at in media consumption is 12 how important is that. In today's world how 13 important is it that you could measure play 14 and not measure record, or are people not 15 using their VCRs anymore as much as they are, 16 because now those who are heavier users of 17 your VCRs are now DVRs. And VCRs are only 18 being used to purchase tapes or rent a tape. 19 MS. SIRKIN: We need to 20 distinguish between the scale of the impact 21 of decisions that we make about those 22 play-back rules that we're seeing today. 23 MS. BURNS: But to Ceril's point, 24 it might not be worth the time, money, and 25 energy to change it. 121 1 2 MS. SHAGRIN: That was my 3 example. If we're talking about this, you 4 know, five years ago, I thought it was a 5 major issue in terms of being able to do 6 play. Today I'm not sure it's much of an 7 issue because I don't know how much recording 8 is going on. 9 MS. SIRKIN: The question is we 10 don't know. 11 MS. SHAGRIN: We need to start. 12 MS. BURNS: Which goes back to 13 understand how we use them. 14 MS. GALLAGHER: That's something 15 that's probably fairly easy to study. 16 MR. DONATO: It is. We've had 17 conversations about it. We've had 18 conversations with the four As as to Ceril's 19 point because it is the wrong way to measure 20 VCR. But our thinking is probably by the 21 time we would make change to the software, it 22 would be far along. 23 MS. SHAGRIN: Which is the point 24 I was making. Which is those are the kinds 25 of things we really need to rule out. 122 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MS. BURNS: You showed VCR 3 consumption. And like for the first time 4 it's been trending down after all these years 5 of trending up, which just gets us back. 6 MS. LIGUORI: Ultimately, if it's 7 going to be phased out by the DVRs, it really 8 is just a matter of time before you pick a 9 penetration level below what it is now. 10 MR. DONATO: Since I think it's 11 studying data which are available, I don't 12 think it's just an extensive study for us to 13 do. It's a very small study. 14 If what the group wants is a 15 report that says how significant is it and 16 when is it likely to extinguish itself, that 17 doesn't feel like a very big project. 18 MR. Zackon: Should I be noting 19 possible projects on the board? 20 MR. DEVAULT: Is this extending 21 beyond our 2.5? 22 MR. DONATO: It's possible. 23 I don't really think there's 24 any -- there's no field studying existing 25 data. 123 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. KALINE: Is there anything 3 about the consumer behavior though? 4 MS. BURNS: That's what Ceril 5 was saying. Even though they're there, 6 they're not being used in the same way. 7 MS. SHAGRIN: The other thing 8 that you may be able to provide, Paul, from 9 data that already exists or had existed in 10 the past is one of the things that Nielsen 11 used to be able to do, would be to track 12 usage of new technology in terms of, you 13 know, it sort of peaks, and then after it 14 peaks it sort of goes down. 15 MR. DONATO: Right. 16 MS. SHAGRIN: And we may be able 17 to use some of that information to help us 18 dimension the future. If there's a new 19 technology, you know, what technologies 20 peaked and stayed up versus those that sort 21 of peaked and then disappeared again. 22 MR. DONATO: Which would be 23 useful. 24 MS. BURNS: Put into the 25 technology report. 124 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. KALINE: There are power 3 users of new technology too who use every 4 bell and whistle capable. And then there are 5 those who use the basic functions. And they 6 don't know. They don't read much past the 7 quick start manual that they get in the box 8 to understand how it works. But they're part 9 of maybe the early majority as opposed to the 10 early adopters. And do they stop playing 11 back everything they record on a DVR, you 12 know, as a person. So, you know, and gee, I 13 can do this. I can skip and do others. Does 14 that behavior change over time. 15 MR. SUSSMAN: That goes beyond 16 the penetration level going up. It's the 17 usage and how that changes. 18 MS. SHAGRIN: I think it's the 19 behavior that it's the most critical to us in 20 terms of understanding. If you have the 21 behavior and you have some projections for 22 growth of the technology, you know, then you 23 can sort of dimension how important each of 24 these are and what we need to put most of the 25 research money into, again, to make sure it's 125 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 measured properly. 3 MR. SUSSMAN: They go 4 hand-in-hand, just like the video on your 5 cellphone might be a new and growing 6 technology, but the behavior, the very point, 7 behavior, but the growth of that might be 8 very, very slow. 9 MS. LIGUORI: I don't know. I 10 just have this feeling. But I'm not saying 11 VCR isn't important. But when you consider 12 all that's going on, the first thing that 13 might come out of the committee might be the 14 study of VCR usage. Kind of backwards 15 looking. 16 MS. BURNS: Are they not all 17 building blocks? 18 MR. KALINE: This is just part of 19 the new technology. 20 MS. FRANK: Studios are already. 21 What are they doing on it? 22 MR. BROOKS: I think there are a 23 couple of things you can do. But when 24 something is penetrated, at least with regard 25 to DVRs and high def is now. We've done 126 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 studies on both of those. I think you're 3 deeply enough in that you're starting to get 4 a picture of what non-leading edge consumers 5 are doing with those things. 6 Something like cellphone usage 7 you're probably not at that point yet. But 8 you can do a study where you perhaps populate 9 a group with those and see how they adopt 10 them. What they think of them. That kind of 11 stuff. Take it home for a week, or something 12 like that. It's further out. But you can 13 get some idea. 14 But I think the important point, 15 to get beyond the just rolled out early 16 adoptions, it's very, very early. And not 17 try to project ahead from those. Because a 18 hundred years ago there were people who were 19 adopting brand and some of that stuff's gone 20 away. And what they did was not what 21 everyone else was doing. 22 MS. SIRKIN: You can say what a 23 worst and best case scenario is. Only thing 24 that we do have, but not assume that it's 25 going to be. 127 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. BROOKS: You can actually 3 release that. Take something very new. Show 4 it to a wider group in the right kind of 5 context. 6 MS. FRANK: Or go to the market 7 like the U.K. where that's exactly what 8 they're doing. You know, we've been foolish 9 not to take advantage of the fact that, you 10 know, it's more egocentric, that we are if 11 it's not in the U.S., it's not going to 12 happen. But, I mean, something like mobile 13 phones you have to go -- 14 MS. SIRKIN: Or Japan. 15 MR. KALINE: Scandianavia. 16 MR. BROOKS: At the end of the 17 show about four, five years ago. But back 18 when that was -- 19 MS. FRANK: They're still doing 20 it in the U.K.. 21 MR. BROOKS: Some probably are. 22 But we showed that to some wider group. And 23 the learning we got was even if we had this 24 it's not what I want it. That's not why I 25 watch television. There's interesting 128 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 learning on that, I think, showing very new 3 things to a broader group. 4 MS. SHAGRIN: And the other side 5 of that is to go back and look at 6 technologies that didn't appear to be 7 important before to see if they're important 8 now. And what's the price point at which 9 penetration grows, which some of the experts 10 could tell us. 11 But some of us work with Nielsen 12 on a group or still are. It started out 13 being a concern on how much was going on PCs. 14 And the research that Nielsen did said not 15 enough to worry about it. So let's not worry 16 about it. Well, every once in a while you 17 have to revisit it and say is that still true 18 today. 19 MR. BROOKS: Yes. You have to be 20 careful. But I think in the near term, if 21 you do that, remote controls didn't take off 22 until the '80s, I guess. And that's because 23 television shows, something that wasn't 24 appropriate or needed for the television 25 distribution system in the '50s, made sense 129 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 in the early distribution system of the '80s. 3 MS. FRANK: I got to tell you 4 something. You probably know this because of 5 the other hat that you wear as a historian of 6 the medium. But there's this new book out, 7 have you seen it, that is like all the 8 marketing from television from like the '50s 9 on mostly print ads, on how television -- I'm 10 sorry. I'm losing you all. But television 11 sets were marketed. And, you know, people 12 with evening gowns, you know, inviting people 13 into their homes to watch television. 14 MR. KALINE: The new consoles. 15 MS. FRANK: It is such a 16 wonderful -- I commend it to all of you 17 because it's just such a wonderful 18 perspective on the last 50 years of the role 19 in television in our lives and in our 20 culture. 21 And there's one that actually was 22 a magazine ad that ran about encouraging 23 parents to get television sets because their 24 children were at a competitive disadvantage 25 in the school because their friends would be 130 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 talking about television shows that they 3 didn't know about. 4 And they had, I swear to you, at 5 the bottom, like a doctor who was doing this. 6 How important it was to a developing child's 7 ego that they, you know, not be -- it's a 8 riot. If you haven't seen it, you have to. 9 MS. BURNS: Do you know what the 10 name of the book is? 11 MS. FRANK: I'll E-mail it to all 12 of you. 13 MS. BRILL: Even though all of us 14 think they're kind of antiquated, they're 15 probably still in 80 percent of homes. And 16 on higher rated prime-time shows their 17 contribution is still pretty significant. If 18 you look at the VCR core numbers, in many 19 instances it's higher than the average rating 20 for cable network. So if we're going to look 21 at VCRs, I would look at the impact of taking 22 that record portion out of the audience 23 description that's currently being done. 24 The final episode of Rent which 25 wasn't that long ago got a 1.1. And 24 is up 131 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 there also. So there are some shows that 3 still show a high level of VCR record. 4 MS. SHAGRIN: Which may speak to 5 the need to measure the play or not. 6 MS. BRILL: Or take it out 7 altogether. 8 MS. SHAGRIN: Or take it out 9 altogether. 10 MR. Zackon: Is there value to 11 look at the level just of time-shifting 12 behavior irrespective of the medium it's used 13 to shift the time? Is that the time we want 14 to look at? 15 MS. BURNS: Yes. In global 16 category. 17 MS. SHAGRIN: But you have to be 18 able to delete it from the medium. Then go 19 five years. 20 MS. BURNS: But in a broader 21 category, time-shifting is a great, broad 22 category. Then you go down from there. 23 MR. Zackon: There's a lot of ways 24 to approach that quantitatively as well as 25 qualitatively. 132 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MS. BURNS: So much of what we've 3 been discussing here boils up to 4 time-shifting by medium and by location. 5 MR. Zackon: I think things to 6 write on the board. 7 MS. BURNS: Actually, VCR goes 8 underneath that. It's one of the many. 9 MS. SIRKIN: I think that the 10 distinction we need to make is that the 11 decisions were made both VCR and playback and 12 headcount, that as a program rating versus 13 the ease of the consumers is really where is 14 a difference. They're significantly 15 different. 16 If you look at VCR playback 17 versus commercials which you can do in the 18 UK, you can look at that data versus people 19 use the fast-forward on the VCR or the TiVO. 20 It's significantly different. It's the 21 commercial behavior as well as the program 22 behavior. 23 MS. BURNS: Slash, program versus 24 commericals, yes. 25 MR. Zackon: If I missed something 133 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 before, we'll put it up there. Reorganize 3 it. 4 MR. SUSSMAN: Richard, are we on 5 topic 1? 6 MR. Zackon: We're on audience 7 consumption of media. I had media 8 consumption. 9 MR. SUSSMAN: Is that the 10 emerging technology, or are we still adding 11 things? 12 MR. Zackon: Those two were 13 brought together for this conversation. So 14 I'm just taking all comers. 15 MR. BROOKS: You need VOD. It's 16 under time-shifting. 17 MS. BURNS: Time-shifting, not 18 original content. 19 MR. SALISCH: Exactly. There's 20 very little original programing. Let me 21 rephrase that. There's very little linear 22 programming that's being given to MSOs to 23 post on VOD. 24 MR. BROOKS: The assumption we've 25 been making, we want to study these things 134 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 early so that as they spread, presumably it 3 will spread, get populated with new shows, 4 what happens? 5 MR. SALISCH: One would believe, 6 well, one would possibly believe that it 7 would be sort of a DVR-type exercise without 8 having to do it. Without having 9 physically -- 10 MR. BROOKS: I don't know. I'll 11 tell you, there are assumptions going into a 12 DVR study. We don't know. 13 MS. GOLDBERG: I just saw the 14 commercial for HBO VOD. And I thought, you 15 know, she showed all the programs that were 16 available and things like that. And, you 17 know, I noticed my little, okay, now it's 18 going past movies. And it's definitely going 19 into programming. 20 MR. SALISCH: Some of the stuff 21 we've done, we've looked at. And you would 22 believe that the main touchpoints of VOD 23 would be, say, people who have HBO on Monday 24 morning when the Sunday might programming 25 becomes available, or when in football season 135 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 when NFL, when NFL networks football, capsule 3 games comes on on Tuesday mornings, yet we've 4 shown that most usage is on Saturdays. Which 5 makes sense. Instead of going to block, you 6 have people are sitting at home and worked 7 movies on VOD. 8 MS. GALLAGHER: Original concepts 9 being developed for VOD. HBO has a lot of 10 content that they're doing for the VOD 11 market. As it becomes metricable, that may 12 become a whole new media strain. 13 MR. SALISCH: Same as 14 advertisements. 15 MS. GALLAGHER: May get a lot of 16 it. 17 MR. SALISCH: A lot of advertiser 18 showcases. A lot of it automotive. I don't 19 have to tell Mark about that. 20 MS. GALLAGHER: VOD is not just 21 time-shifting. 22 MR. SALISCH: Right. 23 MR. BROOKS: One of the findings 24 both ways, this would be of the CTAM study so 25 far of VOD, was that 30 percent of those who 136 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 tried it said it didn't work sometimes. And 3 we never -- 4 MS. FRANK: There's a lot of 5 problems. 6 MR. SALISCH: Those weren't 7 Comcast. Those are the others. 8 MR. BROOKS: They weren't meaning 9 literally it doesn't work. Call up, said we 10 can't find it. Or maybe it means something 11 else. Or maybe it's programs. 12 MR. KALINE: Or you don't have 13 the box. 14 MS. BURNS: Tim, to a much 15 earlier point, to what extent can we use or 16 can the CTAM report be looked at? 17 MR. BROOKS: I think the first 18 goal, personally, of this committee ought to 19 be a scan of the literature. See what it can 20 get access to. Maybe who buys the CTAM study 21 or maybe CTAM shares its study. Or something 22 like that. 23 MS. GALLAGHER: I suggest you 24 look overseas as well. There's a lot of 25 Ridder studies. There's a lot of European 137 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 studies. 3 MR. BROOKS: And, if necessary, 4 buy all the studies if they're very relevant 5 to it. 6 MR. DONATO: Right. 7 MS. BURNS: Because there are 8 some questions that beg another question that 9 we can learn like you just brought up. 10 Others that we probably went, hmm, I don't 11 know. Really, let's verify that. Or it 12 could open up a whole other door. 13 We're literally starting with a 14 blank piece of paper here; literally and 15 figuratively. 16 MR. Zackon: Given the people 17 around this table I've learned are pretty 18 busy with their jobs, is there something that 19 would be put out as a request for proposal, 20 maybe some academic institution that views 21 that literature? 22 MR. BROOKS: I think that if the 23 group just pools their knowledge, first of 24 all, if somebody takes good notes we could 25 learn a lot. And then maybe, yes, you go 138 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 beyond that and contact major organizations. 3 I don't know. 4 MR. Zackon: Just a secondary 5 research project of collection. 6 MR. BROOKS: I wouldn't hire a 7 professor from Ohio State. Not to pick on 8 Ohio State. 9 MR. Zackon: What about a 10 professor from Annenberg who's already agreed 11 to participate? 12 MR. BROOKS: Yes. 13 MS. BURNS: To acquire and go 14 through the study. We don't need to reinvent 15 the wheel. We just need to perfect it. 16 MR. KALINE: An understand what's 17 being done about it. 18 MR. BROOKS: There'll be a lot of 19 literature in this area. 20 MR. DEVAULT: The standard 21 operating procedure, whichever committee to 22 just have a literature search, so that 23 they're building upon research as opposed to 24 reinventing research. 25 MS. BURNS: So that's what that 139 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 last bullet is. 3 MR. Zackon: Just a possible task 4 for that committee to do a literature view. 5 MS. BURNS: To require review and 6 things. 7 MR. Zackon: Lay it out in some 8 coherent manner. 9 MS. BURNS: That should be done 10 early. Sooner rather than later to give us 11 direction. 12 MS. SHAGRIN: I would think we 13 also want to learn more about how people 14 consume television just off of their plain 15 old set. 16 MR. Zackon: Traditional viewing? 17 MR. KALINE: Traditional 18 environment. 19 MS. SHAGRIN: Traditional 20 environment which may not be the same. 21 Viewing may not be the same. Are they 22 multitasking? Do they pay any attention? 23 MR. DEVAULT: Ceril, would that 24 be like an ethnographic study? 25 MS. SHAGRIN: That certainly 140 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 could be part of it. I wouldn't say that's 3 the only thing to do. But certainly that's 4 part of it. 5 MR. Zackon: Maybe Ford automobile 6 wants to participate in an automobile viewing 7 study. 8 MR. KALINE: Well, cellphone use 9 and whatever. 10 MR. SALISCH: Title radio and 11 GPS. 12 MS. BURNS: Your car has become a 13 media entertainment center. 14 MR. SUSSMAN: I would add onto 15 that multitasking thing also social 16 environment. So if you're dealing with other 17 technology in the room. I think it's all 18 interesting. 19 MR. Zackon: These are the issues 20 we had. I think we have that somewhere here, 21 one's location, viewing experience. 22 MR. BROOKS: One of the things, I 23 keep coming back to CTAM, but one of the 24 things I try to get was what happens in mega 25 channel environments? 141 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 In other words, if somebody has a 3 lot of channels available, which is 4 increasingly the case but is not entirely the 5 case now, how do they navigate? How do they 6 find where they go? Watch neighborhoods? Do 7 they even care what's on channel 100 or 200 8 if they're already spending their time 9 someplace else to determine that? How do 10 they move around? What devices do they use? 11 Because Nielsen needs to know that. 12 MR. SALISCH: And IPG, most IPGs 13 you can go in. I know that the one that 14 we're using or that Comcast is using, the TV 15 Guide, one you can go in and search a movie. 16 Doesn't make any difference what channel; 500 17 or Channel 2. Doesn't make any difference. 18 Same thing, but a sporting event. 19 MS. SIRKIN: But are people using 20 it? 21 MR. SALISCH: My kids are. 22 MS. FRANK: I had a 23 voice-activated one, NCES. This was the 24 scariest thing I've ever seen. 25 MR. BROOKS: Then you have to 142 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 look at socioeconomics. 3 MS. SHAGRIN: Absolutely. They 4 also consume. 5 MR. Zackon: I have down here -- 6 MR. KALINE: Navigate 500-channel 7 landscape. 8 MS. SHAGRIN: This group has a 9 common need to understand. The value of 10 television and how it's consumed by different 11 groups is very important. 12 MR. DEVAULT: Ceril, one of the 13 things when you talk about television 14 consumption -- 15 MS. BURNS: Sorry. Ceril just 16 said something quietly: I think it's worthy 17 at its highest level, the value of 18 television. 19 MS. SHAGRIN: Yes. Because 20 that's what we're all interested in, is the 21 value of television and how different groups 22 consume television and consume the 23 advertising they're in is important to all of 24 us to understand. Important that it's 25 measured. But important for us to understand 143 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 because you get them to consume more by 3 understanding those that aren't than those 4 that are. 5 MS. FRANK: Except the word 6 television, I mean, you know, at the risk of 7 sounding like our former president, the 8 definition of television starts, I mean, it 9 feels very limiting at a time when more and 10 more video is being consumed on things other 11 than a television. 12 MS. SHAGRIN: I agree with you. 13 When I say television, I mean the content of 14 the way it's delivered more than the device 15 on which it is seen. It's television 16 centerpiecing. I hear you. I just don't 17 know. 18 MR. SALISCH: Video consumption. 19 MR. DEVAULT: We're talking about 20 video consumption. They have to talk about 21 the totality of the consumption. Because 22 where, once again, we don't want to limit 23 ourselves to the household, which is so 24 much -- 25 MS. SHAGRIN: Absolutely, 144 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 absolutely. 3 MR. DEVAULT: Right now we're 4 moving to cellphones. We're talking about in 5 cars. A lot different other venues. So we 6 have to count the totality of consumption. 7 MS. CHAMPLIN: Not to forget how 8 to pole television viewing. 9 MS. SHAGRIN: That's a real 10 challenge in my view. 11 MR. BROOKS: Also how you view. 12 Five-inch screen. We're talking a lot of 13 screens smaller than that. I'm not even sure 14 kitchens. Who knows if that's changing and 15 how to achieve that. 16 MR. Zackon: How big a deal is 17 HDTV? 18 MS. BURNS: Not yet. But yet 19 doesn't mean anything. 20 MR. SALISCH: What's a big deal? 21 Is 5 percent a big deal? Is 10 percent a big 22 deal? 23 MS. LIGUORI: There's pressure to 24 produce more and more in HDTV. 25 MR. Zackon: So 2010, is that a 145 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 big deal? 3 MS. GALLAGHER: What are the 4 issues that impact that it exists? 5 MR. SALISCH: Everything you read 6 is that when the price point comes down it's 7 going to become more ubiquitous. Everybody's 8 hearing when the Chinese market opens up and 9 they're going to flood the U.S. market with 10 HD sets. 11 MS. GALLAGHER: Would you want to 12 research the adoption thing, or would you 13 want to research does it change behavior? 14 MS. FRANK: I would think does it 15 change behavior. Because there are people 16 out there that would think it changes 17 behavior. 18 MS. SHAGRIN: Also how is the 19 digital spectrum going to be used? Is it 20 going to be used mostly for high definition, 21 or is it going to be a lot of multicasting? 22 MS. GOLDBERG: Goes back to 23 program availability, just like when cable 24 came in, you know? 25 MS. SHAGRIN: It's part of the 146 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 environment we have to study. 3 MS. GOLDBERG: Everybody thought 4 cable was going to take over. And then there 5 wasn't enough product to go ahead. 6 MS. LIGUORI: One of the things 7 that's going to impact viewing is how 8 expensive it is for the consumer to view. 9 I mean, we're talking about if 10 you want to now have -- everyone has to have 11 digital cable by whatever it is. Digital 12 cable is far more expensive. VOD is going to 13 cost money. HDTV. So, you know, in terms of 14 we're talking about behavior, it seems on 15 both the consumer end and in terms of 16 purchase, as well as behavior of viewing. 17 And that includes nonresponse to some degree. 18 So, I think if we're studying 19 things you have to include how the ability to 20 view is going to be based on income. 21 MS. GOLDBERG: The middle class 22 is being squeezed more, economically. 23 MS. LIGUORI: We're talking about 24 buying digital desktop boxes to those who 25 can't afford them. And, you know, that's 147 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 going to limit audience. 3 MR. KALINE: Subscription 4 overload. I mean, if you bought every 5 program that you could buy out there, whether 6 it's your gold package on your cable, your 7 TiVO sponsorship, I mean, your TiVO package, 8 your cellphone package, your satellite radio, 9 at some point in time it's like 2 or $300 a 10 month. 11 MS. LIGUORI: Is it going to 12 impact certain groups more than others? 13 MR. KALINE: Right. 14 MS. LIGUORI: Which means not 15 only are they not viewing, but they're not 16 going to participate in surveys. Young 17 people who are in their own apartment, and 18 you can barely pay the rent and eat. I mean, 19 men will go buy the TV stuff. The women will 20 buy clothes. No one will eat. 21 MR. SUSSMAN: I also suggest 22 this. This is a household measure. It's a 23 person or a set measure. There's going to be 24 a primary TV in the house that might have 25 everything, big screen. And people might 148 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 view movies in groups there. But in their 3 individual TVs they might be doing 4 differently. But the in-home environment. 5 So it's got to go beyond a household 6 penetration. 7 MR. BROOKS: Some indication of 8 HDTV encourages. 9 MS. BURNS: I'm sorry. I can't 10 hear you. 11 MR. SALISCH: 3 to 5 grand for 12 one set. 13 MS. SHAGRIN: The best set has 14 the most features which is why having some of 15 the experts predict price point changes 16 becomes very important. When VCRs were 17 1,000, 1,500, about 2 percent of the United 18 States homes had them. When they got down to 19 $100, penetration is 90 percent. 20 MS. GOLDBERG: And they break, 21 they buy a new one because it's cheaper. 22 MS. BURNS: DVDs we bought our 23 parents. Don't spend the money on it. I 24 went to CostCo. After all the rebates it's 25 $16. They said here's your DVD. 149 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. Zackon: You could get it 3 cheaper. 4 MS. BURNS: Now you tell me. 5 MS. FRANK: Didn't someone get 6 trampled to death over that? 7 MR. Zackon: Just point of 8 reference. You've got six minutes on this 9 topic so... 10 MR. BROOKS: Did we cover the 11 media interaction. Because Internet PCs are 12 50 percent co-located with television. And 13 yet the interaction between them that is 14 watching TV and at the same time on the 15 Internet seems to be pretty low. And TV 16 viewing is at an all-time high, despite the 17 fact that of these other distractions and 18 games, and so forth. 19 MS. BURNS: In the broader 20 category of multitasking, whether it be your 21 computer or your cellphone or to understand 22 the multimedia simultaneously usage. 23 MR. BROOKS: Multimedia 24 interactions by demographic, age by age 25 group, by equipment. 150 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. SUSSMAN: I have another one 3 in the realm of these new technologies, new 4 measurements that might change the definition 5 of viewing to being in the room and being 6 able to hear. 7 Can we mention something about 8 the dimension of tentativeness or even the 9 fact that you're in the room, communication 10 value, or who's within hearing distance? 11 How do you get about the value of 12 the new measurement called personal metering? 13 I can't say that. How do you get around that 14 if we change to -- 15 MR. SALISCH: Besides hearing it, 16 pressing a button, or writing it down on a 17 piece of paper. 18 MR. SUSSMAN: If you go to a 19 passive measurement that says I was close 20 enough to hear the audio, what is the value 21 of that as opposed to the ideas or something 22 saying that they were in the audience. 23 MS. BURNS: It comes again under 24 the umbrella of multimedia usage 25 simultaneously. 151 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. KALINE: It's almost a new 3 definition of attentiveness in a way. 4 Because if you're in a multitasking 5 environment, you might not have your eyes 6 peeled to something all the time. It doesn't 7 mean you're not. Because if you do it, 8 especially the undercoats are going on at the 9 same time. 10 MS. LIGUORI: Do we now ask 11 Nielsen to tell us what percentage of people 12 are hard of hearing in the market. Because I 13 mean... 14 MR. KALINE: What? 15 MR. Zackon: Somebody had to. 16 MR. DONATO: You know, I'm not 17 sure that all works with respect to our 18 agreement. Right now I know our agreement 19 restricts us from providing information to 20 you on R&D that we do with Arbitron, unless 21 it's mutually agreed to provide it to you. 22 MS. SIRKIN: You need to go to 23 Arbitron. I think they have to reach out to 24 all of these companies. 25 MR. DONATO: If you want to 152 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 pursue it, that's fine. But we really need 3 to have Arbitron here to have that 4 discussion. 5 MS. SHAGRIN: Not exactly related 6 to Arbitron though. And the study is getting 7 really very big and very broad. And we 8 probably won't be able to do everything. But 9 it would be great to be able to understand 10 audio exposure only. 11 If you think about any sort of 12 measure, regardless of who's doing the 13 measurement, total viewing picture and 14 out-of-home, if an audio code is going to be 15 used and Nielsen's using, you know, a type of 16 audio code, if an audio code is going to be 17 used and the whole definition of exposure 18 changes, how effective is audio exposure that 19 has been inflicted rather than chosen? 20 MS. LIGUORI: I like inflicted. 21 MR. KALINE: Inflict a lot of our 22 views with that. 23 MS. GALLAGHER: Also, how much 24 viewing is missed, to go back to what Pat 25 said, because of non-audio exposure. It's 153 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 not just hard-of-hearing people. It's people 3 in their offices watching the sets on mute, 4 of people whose husbands say, honey, just put 5 that on mute. 6 MR. SALISCH: Or vice versa. 7 MS. GALLAGHER: There is a lot of 8 video-only viewing too. 9 MS. SHAGRIN: There's video only. 10 And there are people who have that are 11 sight-impaired who watch a lot of television. 12 They're listening, but they're seeing their 13 own visions as they do in life. 14 MR. BROOKS: One other aspect I'd 15 like to put on here. It's going to be 16 difficult to get that. But it's extremely 17 important. 18 When we're going into some of the 19 things like VOD, and, well, commercial 20 avoidance and DVRs, that kind of thing, we 21 tend to be in an area where we can measure 22 behavior now better than we ever could. We 23 we kind of get an absolute picture now. And 24 what we don't know is how did that compare 25 with what went on before, for example. 154 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 Commercial avoidance is a great 3 example of that. Because we had no measure 4 of it for what, 40 years or 50 years, or 5 something. Now we're beginning to have a 6 measure of it. But we don't really know if 7 there's less, more of it, or less of it than 8 there ever was. 9 And to some extent you can 10 segment your sample if you do a study and 11 take people who have them and people who 12 don't have them. But you need to have 13 benchmarks. Because otherwise you're going 14 to come up with some dramatic results, 15 inflammatory results that seem like, oh, my 16 God, the sky's falling. But compared to 17 what? 18 In fact, there may be no change 19 at all. There may be a change. But you've 20 got to have some basis for comparison. So I 21 just caution that we maintain, as best we 22 can, the basis for comparison. 23 MR. Zackon: Behavioral benchmark, 24 actually. 25 MR. SHIMMEL: One of the great 155 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 ideas you had before was the idea of 3 introducing some of this technology into 4 people's homes. You have the ability with 5 studies like that to have benchmarks so those 6 people prior to the introduction -- 7 MR. Zackon: It's 1:30. And we've 8 spent 45 minutes on this topic. Ready to 9 move on? 10 Second piece was about 11 nonresponse. 12 MR. GUNZERATH: David here. I've 13 got to go in just a minute or two. But can I 14 throw something out there on this particular 15 subject? 16 MR. Zackon: Please. 17 MR. SALISCH: Shoot. 18 MR. GUNZERATH: Given the growth 19 of the technical advisory panel, he did a lot 20 of work at the University of Michigan on 21 nonresponse bias and response propensity of 22 people, trust those predicted model based on 23 their response activity in an incentive 24 program. 25 It seems to me that we're in a 156 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 good position to see if there are any 3 possible collaborations with parallels with 4 the work, pursuing what Nielsen found with 5 what potentially we want to do in this area. 6 And I suggest that as a council we might want 7 to approach him and see if there are any 8 opportunities out there for us. 9 MR. Zackon: Noted. 10 MR. SUSSMAN: That's a good idea. 11 MR. DONATO: Just to start the 12 ball rolling, the business nonresponse 13 objective we could undertake is what are the 14 characteristics of the other 50 percent? 15 MS. SHAGRIN: I have an idea of 16 how to find that out, if Nielsen's willing to 17 cooperate, at least in the LPM market. Use 18 prepack. And you got very high response on 19 those prepacks. 20 What I would like this committee 21 or the subcommittee to be able to do, would 22 be to get the prepacks of the acceptors basic 23 and the refusers and also alternates, so we 24 can expand it. But starting out with the 25 basics and try to see if there is any common 157 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 characteristic between the acceptors and the 3 refusers. I think you have more information 4 than anyone ever had before in terms of the 5 characteristics of those two groups. 6 That doesn't violate any 7 confidentiality because there's nothing on 8 them. You can blank out the actual address 9 or sign that. You already have contracts 10 which say we'll never contact a household. 11 But somehow or other be able to use that to 12 really understand you have some key 13 characteristics of those. 14 And then Richard had a second 15 suggestion in terms of so use that to try and 16 understand the basic characteristics of 17 cooperators and refusers. We also might be 18 able to get one of the cable systems to 19 cooperate with us and give us, let's say, 200 20 names that we could contact and ask them to 21 participate in a research project. And then 22 get the viewing pattern from the acceptors 23 and the refusers. We'll never bother them. 24 We'll never contact them other than the 25 initial phone call. We'll be able to see if 158 1 2 there's any difference in the viewing 3 patterns. 4 And then, third of all, be able 5 to take the refusers from the prepack and use 6 them as a panel to try to see what it would 7 take to get them to accept, and what their 8 reasons were for refusing. 9 MR. DEVAULT: Ceril, why not 10 expand that as opposed to prepacks and just 11 go to the national sample. And say we have a 12 thousand households that reject it on the 13 national samples, we come up with 14 representatives of various parts of the 15 country and pay them a whopping incentive to 16 give us the reasons why they did not agree to 17 participate in the sample. 18 MS. SHAGRIN: We could do that. 19 And we may end up doing that. My thought was 20 that without having to contact any of them 21 because there is already, there's already 22 basic information collected in the prepacks, 23 so we don't have to contact them. They've 24 already agreed to fill out the prepack. And 25 Nielsen was very, very successful at getting 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 very high cooperation among those households. 3 We can, without having to get another, 4 contact them at all, develop some basic 5 characteristic information and comparisons; 6 acceptors and nonacceptors. 7 Ultimately, we're going to want 8 to get more information about the refusers as 9 to why they refuse, what we get them to 10 accept. But we have a panel that we could do 11 that with. 12 MR. DEVAULT: Okay. 13 MR. DONATO: I think that -- 14 MS. SHAGRIN: I'm trying to save 15 money. 16 MR. DONATO: It's a low-cost 17 experiment. We collect most of that data 18 already. We obviously could get access to 19 it. It's a bona fide project. 20 MR. SHIMMEL: May be one of the 21 things we consider. Filling in with Experion 22 or Axiom data for additional variabilities 23 that we don't have in the prepack. 24 MS. SHAGRIN: We may wind up 25 doing that. Let's start with the known, to 160 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 collect it. And then as we look at it and 3 say okay, what else can we learn about them. 4 But I think it's a wonderful way to get 5 started very quickly, and learn a lot that we 6 don't know. 7 MS. GALLAGHER: As a corollary, 8 this is kind of in the realm of nonresponse. 9 It's not really nonrespondents. It's people 10 who aren't in the sample frame to begin with. 11 Because if you look at the local markets 12 beyond the small group of AP markets, it's 13 the telephone sample. And more and more 14 people, especially young people do not have a 15 LAN line. They are not eligible to be in 16 that dialing pool. And in some of those 17 local markets, Vegas leaps to mind, this is 18 probably a huge source of sample bias. 19 MS. SHAGRIN: 18 to 24-year-olds, 20 it's a huge. Those living alone and not 21 buying LAN lines. 22 MS. GALLAGHER: Most of the 23 people I know. My niece and nephew's under 24 25. They just have a cellphone. They 25 broadband and cellphone. 161 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MS. BRILL: A lot of people I 3 started working with, they don't even have 4 home phones. 5 MS. GALLAGHER: People at work 6 don't have cellphones. They just have LANs. 7 This is going to be, this is a problem that's 8 really here right now in the local sample. 9 MR. DONATO: They're using an 10 address-based frame. A lot of ways to 11 approach this. And we also have the 12 cellphone one, which are a number of both 13 academic and government institutions. 14 So, I guess my comment would be 15 to dedicate resources to studying the impact 16 of nonrepresentation on a frame is obviously 17 a very good thing. Cellphones will play a 18 large portion of that. Any time it's a 19 telephone base sample. 20 We can contact Arbitron. Find 21 out what they're doing and useful. That it's 22 a frame they were using. And they are 23 including cellphones. So maybe they'd be 24 willing to share some of that data. 25 MS. SHAGRIN: Are you asking in 162 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 the metered samples, you know, which ones 3 have a LAN line? 4 MR. DONATO: Right. 5 MS. SHAGRIN: Because you're 6 bringing your own line. 7 MR. DONATO: That's right. 8 MS. SHAGRIN: So there might be a 9 source of households that are no longer in 10 the sample that we could. 11 MR. BROOKS: What percent is 12 that? 13 MR. DONATO: What percent is 14 what? 15 MR. BROOKS: What percent don't 16 have LAN lines? 17 MR. DONATO: I thought it was 18 about -- I don't know the answer from our 19 samples. I thought it was something about 5 20 percent. Does that sound about right? I 21 thought it was about 5 percent. 22 MS. SHAGRIN: I would also guess 23 that there are a higher percentage of the 24 nonresponders. 25 MR. DONATO: They are. It's 163 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 younger. 3 MS. SHAGRIN: You can't call and 4 make an appointment. They're not home that 5 much. 6 MR. DONATO: I mean, as any of 7 these projects, I mean, it's not just a 8 literature review. It really is a review of 9 all research which is in progress right now. 10 A lot of people are doing a lot of different 11 things. 12 To kind of Mark's comments in the 13 first meeting, this could actually be kind of 14 a model for the industry. If you went to 15 Arbitron and asked them to share whatever 16 they had, or anyone who's doing any work on 17 it, it would be a significant benefit to the 18 industry. 19 And the cellphone summit which is 20 both industry and academia, you know, and 21 maybe some of the experts that we have in our 22 technical community, we really got to know 23 through that cellphone seminar. I'm sure 24 they'd be willing to come in and speak for a 25 half hour. 164 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. Zackon: That was something 3 that was held already, Paul, the cellphone 4 summit. 5 MR. DONATO: It's something we 6 launched about a year ago. We've had a 7 couple of meetings. And it basically is the 8 research community getting together trying to 9 figure out how to define standards for 10 measuring cellphones. 11 MS. FRANK: Isn't the challenge 12 then, I mean, once you figured out the 13 characteristics of these people is to since 14 they have effectively told you they don't 15 want to have their media usage measured in 16 any way is how to figure out what their media 17 usage is and see what the bias in the current 18 system is? 19 MR. Zackon: That was the idea I 20 offered earlier, is you take a panel of 21 people with set top boxes. You contact them. 22 You don't have to do anything after that. 23 Ask them would they be willing to participate 24 in a study. And then you just look at the 25 set top usage difference between those two 165 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 groups. 3 MR. Zackon: How clever. 4 MS. SHAGRIN: We're saving a 5 million of the 2.5 million for everything 6 else. 7 MR. Zackon: As a place to start. 8 MR. DONATO: We have to spend any 9 money. 10 MS. SHAGRIN: We're going to ask 11 you for a discount. 12 MR. SHIMMEL: One of the thoughts 13 that Richard and I kicked around relative to 14 the idea you have one segment; that is, 15 permission for a diary. You have one segment 16 that's permission to use a set meter and 17 another one that's permission for a people 18 meter. So you're able to see all of the 19 tools we use in terms of evaluating. 20 MR. Zackon: One-year, two-year, 21 three-year participation of the sample to 22 measure other variables. 23 MR. BROOKS: I don't have a sense 24 that many of the noncooperators are true 25 refusers; that is, I don't want this measure. 166 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 And how many are because it's inconvenient 3 for me. Is it the wire? Is it because it's 4 the wrong time. 5 MS. SHAGRIN: That's exactly 6 where I said, first we want to look at the 7 characteristics. And then we want to use the 8 refusers as a panel to go back to and try to 9 find out more about why they refused and what 10 would get to. 11 MR. BROOKS: Because you'll never 12 get 100 percent of the refusers. 13 MS. SHAGRIN: But you get some. 14 MR. BROOKS: You get enough of 15 the people who are true refusers. 16 MS. SHAGRIN: And you get to 17 characteristics about the ones who are 18 refusers because you know something about 19 them. 20 MR. Zackon: Henry, there's two Ps 21 in whopping. 22 MR. BROOKS: Is this the place 23 where incentives come in? 24 MR. Zackon: Exactly. 25 MR. BROOKS: Because clearly, 167 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 Nielsen is now moving towards the use of 3 incentives, differential incentives. These 4 are the incentives for non-cooperating groups 5 which are in many cases lower socioeconomic 6 groups. 7 MR. DONATO: Probably the most 8 significant is the use of people we call 9 contingent incentives as part of a program 10 called person coaching plus. It's basically 11 behavior modification. You go into a 12 household, and these are high-faulting 13 households, and you explain the problem 14 associated with faulting. And you set up a 15 program whereby you sensitize them to fault 16 levels. And you pay a higher incentive if 17 they help you maintain lower fault rates in 18 the house. 19 How does that work? It's not 20 just about pressing buttons, okay. A minimum 21 amount of this whole fault rate issue is 22 about pressing buttons. It's about somebody 23 moves the TV or something happens to their 24 phone service. Having the households call us 25 beforehand or right away. Because they know 168 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 that the household. It's likely to fault 3 based on our technical description of what 4 causes a fault. 5 And it's contingent. Because if 6 either heavy-viewing faulting households, if 7 they were faulting at a rate of 40 percent, 8 if they can improve that rate to 80 percent 9 they'd get a special bonus. If they can 10 improve it to 85 percent, they get more of a 11 bonus. 90, even more of a bonus. 12 And the initial numbers in the 13 first two months are really very dramatic. I 14 think the average fault rate with these homes 15 was about 37 percent. We cut it in half in 16 the first month. 17 So, I guess the moral of the 18 story is tell people you will pay them for 19 keeping homes in tab, they actually work to 20 keep their home in tab. And then the 21 question arises, does that have any impact on 22 their behavior. 23 MR. BROOKS: This gets right to 24 the points I was talking about. Many of the 25 measures that Nielsen is undertaking 169 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 understandably are about making the sample 3 procedures work as the structure now. What 4 we as buyers and sellers need to know is is 5 the data accurate when it comes out the other 6 end. Not the machine, but the data. So 7 influence this could have. 8 And I'm particularly concerned 9 about the larger and larger incentives for 10 those who would be most motivated to become 11 Nielsen employees, if you will. To keep the 12 incentives coming. And I think most of the 13 incentive studies that I've ever seen done in 14 the past is the fairly narrow range. One, 15 two, $2, $5. That sort of thing. If we're 16 going to a world maybe talking about $50 or 17 $100 for something, for somebody on food 18 stamps, that could be something that in some 19 way would want them to keep the money coming. 20 I know what your telemarketers do 21 about not changing behavior. But human 22 nature, when checks are coming in because you 23 do things to focus on TV or maybe their sets 24 are on more than before, that's what as a 25 user I worry about. And I want to structure 170 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 a study that gets at that in a much bigger 3 way. 4 MS. LIGUORI: At the last 5 meeting, wasn't that one of the things that 6 we discussed? That would be valid to look 7 into, not only at what point do the 8 incentives, how at what point did they 9 increase and become more effect 10 advertisement. But at what point do they 11 begin to include viewing behavior? I mean, 12 that seems -- 13 MR. BROOKS: Right, right. I'm 14 just saying you have to think big in these 15 things. If you think the business incentives 16 that you contemplate giving now at any one 17 time is a hundred dollars, I would do 18 something that went up to 5,000. 19 How high do you have to go? How 20 much, rather than a kind of narrowly 21 what-are-we-doing-right-now basis? I think 22 we're learning a lot more about this. 23 MR. DONATO: We are on the high 24 end of the scale that you're talking about, 25 $100. The diaries for meter homes we're 171 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 paying a lot of money. We're not paying a 3 hundred dollars a year for metered homes. 4 MR. BROOKS: That's more to the 5 point. 6 MS. LIGUORI: Maybe that's 7 something that we should seriously consider 8 doing a serious study on. 9 MS. SIRKIN: A study on behavior. 10 MR. DONATO: Now, there is some, 11 this is one of the projects that is not on 12 your list but sort of turn around with 13 another project that somebody is working on. 14 We do have something scheduled 15 for September which is as you increase the 16 level of incentive to a household, does it 17 impact the kinds of cable service that they 18 subscribe to; whether they buy TiVO or 19 something like that. 20 Under the assumption that if you 21 pay people enough, that actually would change 22 their television configuration that would 23 likely to have a impact on their viewing. If 24 somebody is buying TiVO, $500 more, that's 25 something to be concerned about. 172 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 We built a database analyzing it. 3 And we're expecting to have our initial 4 result in September. If we don't see any 5 evidence that a change is, what hardware use 6 that you buy, purchase, subscribe to, then I 7 suppose the second phase of that question is 8 well, okay, but does paying this money let's 9 say make you more likely to go out to Arthur 10 Treacher rather than watch TV at home. Does 11 it have an impact on hot dogs? 12 MS. BURNS: How about if you 13 incentivize. This goes to the study with 14 product as opposed to cash. Now you're not 15 allowing them to buy TV. 16 MR. DONATO: That's more 17 traditional according to census work 18 according to TiVO. So far, every, we joke, 19 but I thought it was actually Arbitron. 20 Maybe it was. When I was at Arbitron we 21 studied a catalog. And there were VCRs and 22 other hardware in the catalog. The truth is 23 almost every study that has ever been done by 24 incentives says that cash is the most 25 effective incentive. Now, you would step 173 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 back. 3 MS. BURNS: True. But I 4 understand $500 could allow you to avoid 5 something as it relates to media consumption 6 that you might not otherwise afford. 7 MR. DEVAULT: Also address cash 8 in a different way in the sense that you give 9 minimal payments throughout this to determine 10 while they're in the sample. And then would 11 give them a larger incentive once they leave 12 the sample. And that would, may be a 13 different way of looking at it. 14 MR. DONATO: It will probably be 15 less effective. But these are all the kinds 16 of questions. We've done enough research now 17 to know. Because one of the things that is 18 contained in here, pay every six months. And 19 the first one cost you plus is monthly 20 person, I'm sorry, that's the monthly payment 21 to the household. We're also studying 22 personal incentives. We don't pay for the 23 household, but separate checks to each 24 individual. 25 Suffice it to say, there are 174 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 dozens of variations for the incentive plan 3 which you can use. And I think the question; 4 they're two dimensions to the question. 5 Which is the most effective and that doesn't 6 have any impact on the television viewing. 7 And that's the bottom line we're talking 8 about here. 9 MR. DEVAULT: Paul, above and 10 beyond that, you had mentioned coaching on 11 several occasions. I think that's the very 12 point. And it would be, I think, valuable to 13 understand the value of coaching as opposed 14 to incentives or any other initiatives that 15 you guys may come up with. Or to look at 16 other initiatives besides coaching and 17 incentives. 18 MS. LIGUORI: With the incentives 19 it's interesting. Because you can look at it 20 in terms of how X amount, the payment amount 21 impacts different age groups or regions or 22 whatnot. You can also look at it in terms of 23 the tasks that they're being able, that 24 they're being requested to do; whether it's 25 push a button or carry a device. And these 175 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 are all things that we're facing now in terms 3 of noncooperation with set meters, people 4 meters, PPMs, whatever, diaries. That it 5 just seems that it's something that can be 6 done and has real application in terms of the 7 results. 8 MR. SUSSMAN: You also have 9 incentives which you're discussing about 10 increasing incentives to reduce fault rates. 11 Also, what level of incentives do you need to 12 reduce nonresponse? How do we get more 13 cooperate advertisers in the panel is another 14 side of it. 15 MR. DONATO: Sort of the inside 16 Nielsen look at things, if you take a look at 17 all the different initiatives that we have in 18 place, is to get cooperation and what they 19 cost to do. I don't know if I have an exact 20 number. But we could probably wind up paying 21 a lot more money if we sort of scrapped all 22 of the soft initiatives and just went 23 straight put it all into cash. 24 Now, is that a good thing to do? 25 I don't know. You know, I don't know. But 176 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 you have to sort of wonder if you're willing 3 to pay every household, say, $600 a year or 4 more and drop most of the other, all the 5 mailers and door hangings, everything else, 6 has that got a much better payback. 7 MR. BROOKS: It might have a 8 better payback in terms of cooperation. 9 MR. DONATO: True. 10 MS. SIRKIN: Those kind of 11 things, unless we get the answer. 12 MR. DONATO: And we do get some 13 answers, but there's a limit, right? To be 14 perfectly honest, the whole thing with 15 personal coaching plus, we had a whole formal 16 test design and test group. So we can 17 demonstrate how much was due to coaching, how 18 much is due to incentives. 19 But like this, for us there's a 20 war going on out there. And we had to do 21 something with fault rates as quickly as 22 possible. So we thought we didn't have time 23 for this. But all of the audience out there 24 do it. And try to test it as we're doing it. 25 We're doing it in a limited number of markets 177 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 for a limited number of households. And so 3 we have a limited amount of negative impact. 4 It was having a negative impact. Although 5 the first two or three months' worth of data, 6 that it was good snuff. That being said... 7 MR. Zackon: Paul, there's the 8 issue of nonreponse goes beyond TV audience 9 measurement. 10 What about the literature review 11 generally that's using nonresponse and 12 polling and marketing research? 13 MR. DONATO: There's a ton of 14 literature on the subject. 15 MR. Zackon: Any of the people on 16 that panel you think are particularly 17 well-positioned? 18 MR. DONATO: Yes. There's a 19 number. And I think David mentioned Bob 20 Grove. Bob is probably one of the leading 21 experts in the country on nonreponse. I 22 think Bob is doing some work for Arbitron 23 right now. And, I mean, the very first 24 meeting about studying non-response people 25 ought to contemplate contacting Bob and 178 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 seeing what the plan is. 3 MR. DONATO: Grove. Shady grove. 4 MS. SHAGRIN: That's the same 5 one. Bob Grove. 6 MR. KALINE: Paul, is there 7 anything that you have done globally on 8 nonresponse in other markets, or is it a U.S. 9 phenomenon? 10 MR. DONATO: There is almost, 11 there's very little research/development done 12 internationally, really, and television 13 audience measurement. There's some stuff 14 that's done out of the U.K.. Not a lot. 15 There was a little bit that Volpe has done. 16 Very little. But there's very little 17 international R&D. 18 Case in point. Everywhere in the 19 world people use prompts in television. Most 20 people use time-based prompts except for 21 something I did in South America which was 22 not a very offensive study. There was no 23 research done anywhere on what the impact of 24 using a 10, 20, 30, 40-minute prompt is. But 25 the whole world uses it. 179 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. Zackon: I guess negative 3 incentives is not a good idea? 4 MR. DONATO: Well -- 5 MR. Zackon: Cattle prods. 6 MR. BROOKS: We joke about a 7 certain country that does that in Europe. 8 MR. DONATO: For all the 9 discussion you can get chair D to this 10 project, it's kind of two parts: What about 11 half the ton measured and how do you actually 12 improve it? And there is a lot of research 13 already done, and clearly, identifiable 14 experts in the field like Bob Grove. So this 15 committee actually should be pretty 16 successful in putting together a program it 17 wants to pursue. 18 Have we exhausted the topic for 19 now? 20 MR. KALINE: I think so. 21 MS. SIRKIN: The ARF as well 22 control things. 23 MS. SHAGRIN: It indicates, as 24 difficult as 15 copies of the RFP were sent 25 out, they got eight responses. 180 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. BROOKS: At some point the 3 ARF and the AMI were running along a parallel 4 track. 5 MR. DONATO: What is AMI? 6 MR. BROOKS: Audience Measurement 7 Initiative. 8 MR. DONATO: Previously known as 9 the "entity?" 10 MR. BROOKS: Yes. 11 MR. Zackon: The entity. 12 MR. BROOKS: I assume there's 13 communications between the groups. 14 MS. SHAGRIN: There will be. 15 MR. KALINE: That there has to 16 be. 17 MS. SHAGRIN: We have people that 18 are on multiple committees which helps the 19 coordination. And eventually, the projects 20 are going to get sort of -- 21 MR. BROOKS: That's kind of where 22 I was going. I mean, the state that that's 23 at now, my understanding. 24 MS. SIRKIN: Well, they don't 25 have money. 181 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. BROOKS: They have a 3 proposal. And they have an area they want to 4 investigate and an outline how it would be 5 investigated in the name of money. 6 MS. SIRKIN: I keep asking where 7 the money is coming from. 8 MR. BROOKS: Maybe that's 9 something we should undertake. We have to at 10 least open some communication. 11 MR. Zackon: Which is the whole 12 idea of alliances throughout what we're 13 doing. 14 MR. BROOKS: Again, it's buyers 15 and sellers who market information. 16 MR. Zackon: The third, maybe not 17 last item we had was use of data, proper use 18 of data. 19 MR. SUSSMAN: I have some notes 20 on kind of levels of looking at it. We need 21 to look at it based on where the numbers are 22 coming from, be it LPM, meter diary, diary, 23 RLD, by source. Need to look at it 24 nationally versus locally. I'm thinking from 25 a data user's perspective how it's used. 182 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 Need to look at -- Paul brought up this 3 model -- probably does via desktop modeling 4 versus fusion. Something like that. 5 MR. Zackon: What was that, 6 fusion? I'm sorry. 7 MS. LIGUORI: Respondent level 8 possibly. 9 MR. SUSSMAN: Ultimate 10 statistical basis, I don't know if, but a lot 11 is based on statistics. So I don't know how 12 much of it is, you know, Nielsen has done 13 some work on sample and visibility of the 14 numbers. Maybe it's built on that. Maybe 15 it's separate from that. 16 And then it gets right down to 17 best practices of use as opposed to not just 18 will the data hold up. But what is the kind 19 of proper use in the marketplace. Does it 20 make sense or not. 21 MS. SIRKIN: And how is that 22 changing the -- 23 MS. LIGUORI: It seems that all 24 the things we have access to we have little 25 CDs and databases, sourcing out the window. 183 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 I mean, basically things go into Excel, and 3 you can make up your own numbers. And at 4 what point, you know, where is that going? I 5 mean, are we running the risk of having 6 salespeople in there that front users of 7 this, who would be most of it. At what point 8 does data integrity go out the window. 9 MS. GALLAGHER: I would say 10 that's 1974. 11 MS. SHAGRIN: Maybe '75. 12 MR. DEVAULT: There is an issue 13 that hasn't been mentioned. That's one of 14 definition. And that's going to become even 15 more profound when we go for the first 16 streams of data in January. So I think that 17 becomes a big issue. Not only in terms of 18 what a rating is, but also in terms of a lot 19 of common terms that we have here. 20 MS. GALLAGHER: Because the 21 source line is going to become half a page. 22 MS. SIRKIN: Anyway... 23 MR. SALISCH: It's going to be 24 like the lease statements. 25 MS. GALLAGHER: You really are 184 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 going to wind up with dueling numbers where 3 everyone can make the same claim based on the 4 different strings. 5 MS. LIGUORI: Some NPOWER people 6 who were exploring NPOWER on a local basis. 7 So if respondent level comes to a local 8 basis, I mean, everybody can pretty much 9 create the set of numbers that works for 10 them. So how will business be done with all 11 these. 12 MR. SUSSMAN: It comes down to 13 one of the agencies kept asking for more data 14 down to the level that we can look at it 15 anyway we want to look at it. Don't make me 16 buy consumption. Let me see what's 17 granulated. 18 Now that that's coming through, 19 there is no process or guidelines or best 20 practice on how to do that data. So say I 21 want to look at something specifically. I 22 shouldn't look at it at the most granular 23 level. I need to look at it at a level that 24 makes sense in the marketplace. So now that 25 we have more data available, we have to 185 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 measure. 3 MS. SIRKIN: Words initially in 4 the contract, I think, but there was a review 5 of the way. 6 MR. SUSSMAN: Even if you take a 7 look at, LPM market comes up, now you have 8 overnight data daily. You know, is that 9 something that should be used the way some 10 people are using it for certain rating 11 levels, you know. 12 MR. SALISCH: You mean posting on 13 a daily basis? 14 MR. SUSSMAN: Posting. 15 Forecasting and posting on a respondent 16 person. Whatever. All of that. 17 MS. SIRKIN: I think some of the 18 marketplace will decide. 19 MR. SUSSMAN: They're already 20 doing it. Right. And they're the market 21 that are doing unreasonable things right now. 22 MS. SHAGRIN: And it may be 23 things like you always have to give a sample 24 size. Because you can do an analysis that 25 looks very, you know, very good, very 186 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 detailed has the Nielsen Media Research on it 3 comes from Nielsen. And it's been sent to 4 respondents in Target. There's nothing as 5 you get one respondent, you can run a bunch 6 of analyses. 7 MS. LIGUORI: We're seeing that 8 now in the people meters. You look at some 9 of the demos that we pull an overnight for a 10 teen demo, or men 18 to 24, and you'll see a 11 block, 10 quarter hours, 12 quarter hours for 12 the same rate. It's the same person. It's 13 one person delivering a 1.3. So how valued 14 is that? And then with subsampling taking on 15 greater importance, we're talking about even 16 smaller samples. And are their guidelines 17 that need to be established for that. 18 MS. BURNS: Can I just ask, I'm 19 sorry if I'm the only one lost here, but this 20 is all to me, it's extremely, extremely 21 important but falls under policies and 22 procedures that we do need to decide in this 23 industry as we use this granular level 24 research. I'm not quite sure what we're 25 researching here. 187 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. SUSSMAN: The other thing 3 that might inform that. 4 MS. BURNS: What's our research 5 project? 6 MR. SUSSMAN: In order to 7 understand what's good and not good you need 8 tools to do that. And one of the things that 9 Howard's working on is Nielsen if I charge 10 $100 for this market in this demo, this 11 sample size, this is my standard error. So 12 there's a deliverable. So that I think that 13 we need not only a guideline, but tools to 14 help us understand what is reasonable and not 15 reasonable. 16 MS. SIRKIN: Tools to help the 17 individual in the modeling. So it's not a 18 piece of fieldwork. It's going to be an 19 application or a best practice. 20 MR. Zackon: Might a deliverable 21 be a text that makes these issues clear to 22 people who use the data? 23 MR. SUSSMAN: They do. 24 MR. Zackon: Whether or not they 25 actually follow through is policy. But at 188 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 least here's the issues involved and here are 3 the -- 4 MR. KALINE: That might be an 5 instance too where you might want to take 6 something like that as a recommendation to 7 the ARF, get their endorsement. 8 MS. SIRKIN: A recommendation on 9 the software. 10 MS. SHAGRIN: And there are a lot 11 of software houses now that are out there 12 with systems that use Nielsen data. 13 MS. SIRKIN: Doesn't match 14 Nielsen data. 15 MS. LIGUORI: They weigh, 16 calculate it, and produce the ratings. 17 MS. GALLAGHER: Nielsen data 18 doesn't match Nielsen data. 19 MS. LIGUORI: This is true. 20 MS. GALLAGHER: NPOWER runs the 21 exact same. Market breaks. And you can sit 22 there, and, hey, which one do I want to use. 23 So there's no standard even there. 24 MS. SHAGRIN: If you want to know 25 where the problems are in the NDI sample, 189 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 just run NPOWER. 3 MR. Zackon: Anything else about 4 the use of data? Okay. 5 MR. KALINE: What about improper 6 use of data? 7 Sometimes you don't know what you 8 don't know until you see how it's being 9 misused, right? 10 MS. GALLAGHER: You usually know 11 it when you see somebody else misusing it. 12 MS. GOLDBERG: When you started 13 doing the runs. 14 MR. KALINE: Don't know what 15 pornography is, but I know it when I see it. 16 MS. LIGUORI: Did you want to 17 include in that -- this came up at the MRC -- 18 and if it's under proper use of data, when 19 television stations use the Nielsen data or 20 anybody else's for on-air announcements, 21 sourcing it, do we go through elaborate 22 sourcing on air, or, you know, do we want to 23 establish some sort of on-air print, 24 whatever, sourcing guidelines. Or suggest 25 that something be established since we're 190 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 probably not the group to establish the 3 guidelines. Perhaps we should. 4 MS. GALLAGHER: The broadcast 5 network guideline. 6 MS. LIGUORI: And the stations 7 are, you know... 8 MR. DEVAULT: Or do we follow the 9 guidelines; not that we circumvent the 10 guidelines. 11 MS. GALLAGHER: At least we have 12 them. 13 MR. Zackon: If we're free to 14 throw out stupid ideas, how about a bit of 15 research. Some research just seeing what is 16 the level of sophistication data in the 17 industry. Does somebody want to look at? It 18 may be humbling, but it may guide us to a 19 higher level. Stupid idea. Erase it. 20 MS. SHAGRIN: In most cases. 21 MS. FRANK: Did we reference, I 22 know Henry mentioned it, but did we reference 23 the three streams that are, shouldn't that 24 be -- 25 MR. Zackon: We mentioned it under 191 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 terms of standardized definitions. 3 Definition of standards, yes, e.g.. 4 MS. LIGUORI: Did we discuss the 5 improper use of the data by seniors? 6 MR. BROOKS: The term, proper use 7 is sort of loaded, implied here that a first 8 step would be a review of how data is being 9 used. 10 MR. KALINE: That's what I was 11 going to suggest how it's being misused. 12 MR. BROOKS: I don't want to use 13 that term. Just how it's being used right 14 now, so you know. 15 MS. LIGUORI: When you came up 16 with the topic, what did you discuss? This 17 was your proper data use, responsible to use. 18 What were you thinking? What 19 were you thinking about? 20 MR. Zackon: In fairness to Tim, 21 he wasn't one of the used. 22 MS. LIGUORI: Sorry. 23 MS. BRILL: I've got one. Cable 24 members using coverage area ratings and not 25 national ratings in sales pieces and 192 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 confusing our buyers. 3 MS. GOLDBERG: As long as they're 4 labeled. 5 MS. BRILL: Without labeling it 6 and being very nebulous about what, in fact, 7 they really represent. 8 MR. BROOKS: That's one point of 9 view. There are other points of views. 10 MS. BRILL: Not even sourcing the 11 presentation. 12 MR. SUSSMAN: The idea originally 13 was, I believe, having more to do with proper 14 sample size and granularity of data. And 15 what is the proper level or proper 16 aggregation of ratings that should be used, 17 you know, as opposed to misused -- 18 MR. BROOKS: Right. 19 MR. SUSSMAN: -- in the 20 buyer-seller discussion. 21 MR. BROOKS: Yes. And a lot of 22 business issues. Business set up the rules. 23 MR. SUSSMAN: This is more on a 24 statistical basis than a -- 25 MR. BROOKS: For this group. For 193 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 this group it's more hopefully we just talked 3 about what is going on. How much use is 4 there this way or that way. How much posting 5 is done on demographic versus minute versus 6 hour demographics. Different way of posting 7 it. 8 MS. GALLAGHER: Also to keep, if 9 you're looking, seeing how much more 10 fractionalization. Which comes out the other 11 side. How much more fractionalization is 12 there going to be. And what adjustments are 13 going to need to be made to, you know, make 14 sure that the data still has some 15 reliability. 16 MS. SIRKIN: Valid use is a 17 proper use. 18 MR. SUSSMAN: Not only that, but 19 reporting ability. Future reportability of 20 the data. 21 MR. Zackon: Say it again. 22 MR. SUSSMAN: Future 23 reportability. Just because we're collecting 24 it. Say VOD down the line. Collecting at a 25 transaction level what is a reportable. 194 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. BROOKS: It's close. It's 3 close. 4 MR. Zackon: Sometime when you 5 were proposing a study of current practices? 6 MR. BROOKS: Yes. That's the 7 place to start with for me. Because 8 otherwise you see the whole world's going one 9 way and I see it going another. And who 10 knows. 11 MS. BRILL: I'm just talking 12 about how I'd like to see more truth in 13 labeling or clarity in labeling. 14 MR. BROOKS: Labeling is another 15 part of it. And that would be part of the 16 review; what is the label, in fact. 17 MR. Zackon: You can do a study of 18 published ads about media. 19 MR. BROOKS: Exactly. 20 MR. Zackon: Take 200 ads at 21 random. 22 MS. LIGUORI: Also, you might 23 want to ask, we can identify these problems 24 and report on the validity. But there really 25 is no enforcement. And I don't know that 195 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 there ever can be or would be. This is kind 3 of 210 markets in a thousand-plus stations. 4 And I wouldn't know how you would enforce it. 5 But should that be addressed. 6 MR. Zackon: I think we render a 7 service if there's someone on the phone. 8 MR. DEVAULT: No. I was going to 9 ask a question. Would you propose that we 10 look at statistical guidelines for, you know, 11 developing data to be used that you have to 12 have at least, you know, a sample size of 250 13 to report on this demographic? I don't know. 14 MS. LIGUORI: I think what we 15 have to do is first see what we find in our 16 search as we go around and find how people 17 are misusing the data. And then based on 18 that. 19 MS. GALLAGHER: Not using. It's 20 creatively using. 21 MS. LIGUORI: Creatively using 22 positioning. Whatever. 23 MR. KALINE: Advantageous use. 24 MS. LIGUORI: Based on what we 25 find, then either come out with some 196 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 statement that can be backed up by some of 3 the statisticians and methodologists on the 4 list or suggested guidelines or whatever. 5 But whatever. Just to also inform people 6 that just because it's a common practice 7 doesn't mean it's good or it's right or it's 8 valid. 9 And I think there's a lot of 10 people who in the recent 16 months or so, I 11 mean, look, everyone's talking about LPM and 12 fault rates. And how many people really know 13 users. How many people have actually sat in 14 the MRC meetings. Who are talking about 15 these things. I laugh when our salespeople 16 start talking about LPM problems last year. 17 They're just parotting. And they don't have 18 any kind of understanding. 19 And the more I look around at 20 people that I deal with, whether they're 21 researchers or salespeople or management, the 22 more scary it is that they have little 23 understanding of basic research. You don't 24 add shares. You don't average shares. 25 MR. DEVAULT: Yes, you do. 197 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. KEILTY: It also seems if we 3 establish our standards that the ARF or the 4 four As would probably want to move into that 5 process because it seems to me if you're 6 establishing or making a recommendation for 7 the industry, it would seem like those 8 industry organizations who are part of all 9 this would also want to be involved in this. 10 MS. LIGUORI: Absolutely. 11 MR. Zackon: Once again, it's an 12 area where alliances would play a pretty big 13 part, okay. 14 More? Do we want to handle the 15 mechanics of it? Seems like there's three 16 topic areas now that people have divvied up. 17 I would ask if there's someone who might want 18 to step up for each of those areas and to 19 manage a group. And Amber and I would 20 certainly support the effort. 21 MR. SUSSMAN: I'll do one. 22 MR. Zackon: Excellent. We have 23 one buyer and one seller. 24 MR. SUSSMAN: Did I say which one 25 I'm on? 198 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MR. Zackon: Data use. We have 3 Kate's on there. Will you continue? So we 4 have a buyer and a seller. Okay. 5 MR. SUSSMAN: I have no 6 inventory. 7 MS. LIGUORI: I'll be the seller. 8 I'm the seller on that committee. 9 MR. Zackon: In the media 10 consumption, Jack, in his absence might end 11 up being it. But we have Joanne. We have 12 Shari Ann. We have Tim. We have Steve. We 13 have Betsy and we have Vicky. Someone will 14 say. I'll manage, at least for now. 15 MS. BRILL: Why don't we 16 volunteer Steve. 17 MS. FRANK: Didn't he volunteer? 18 I'm sure he said. 19 MR. Zackon: Volunteer to be on 20 that. Didn't necessarily volunteer to lead 21 it. He didn't step forward. Okay. That's 22 fine. I'll follow up with him. 23 MS. FRANK: That's probably, in 24 all fairness, he wasn't here for the 25 conversation. 199 1 2 MR. Zackon: All fairness is not 3 one of the requirements. Actually fairness 4 is. So does someone here want to step up? 5 Well, is it out of necessity? 6 MS. BRILL: I'll work with Steve. 7 MR. Zackon: Great. Thank you. 8 MS. FRANK: Two buyers. I don't 9 know. 10 MR. Zackon: We have Jack on 11 there. Joanne on there. We have Tim on 12 there. Betsy. And we have Vicky another 13 buyer. 14 And the third group was the 15 nonresponse. Under that, Poltrack, Dave 16 Poltrack and John Reardon should be careful. 17 But we have Ceril, Rick, Susan. Jon's not 18 here so he should be careful too. Jean and 19 Henry. 20 MS. SHAGRIN: I'll do it. Unless 21 somebody else wants to do it, I'll do it. 22 MR. Zackon: You've done it. 23 MR. KEILTY: I don't know if 24 Betsy volunteered. 25 MS. SHAGRIN: She can have it. 200 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MS. FRANK: No. I volunteered 3 David. 4 MR. DEVAULT: Okay. So it's 5 David. 6 MR. Zackon: Well, thank you. 7 Ira, Shari Ann, Ceril. And 8 Steven, wherever you are. I think we've 9 achieved what we've laid out. Just let me 10 check on the agenda. 11 MR. KALINE: We're done. 12 MR. Zackon: I think we are. 13 MS. SHAGRIN: Other than the 14 excepts. 15 MR. Zackon: So it's open to the 16 council. Any next steps the council sees. 17 There's agreement for kind of a night before 18 in September when we meet next. 19 MS. BURNS: You have to tell us 20 where you're registered. 21 MR. Zackon: Are we included, Mr. 22 Chair? 23 MR. KALINE: I think so. Any 24 other open issues, thoughts? 25 MS. FRANK: Is the idea that 201 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 people who are chairing each of these teams 3 will contact. 4 MR. Zackon: We'll work with them. 5 We'll arrange it. And then we'll work with 6 people on the committee. 7 MR. KALINE: Amber and Richard 8 will get the summary, who's on each team. 9 Everybody has everyone else's contact 10 information. 11 MR. Zackon: It's on there. Is 12 the contact information handed out? 13 MS. ROBERTS: Yes. 14 MR. DEVAULT: I just want to be 15 clear in terms of our next step. We're going 16 to have a meeting in September. And at that 17 meeting what will be expected of these 18 working groups? 19 MR. Zackon: Good question. 20 MR. KALINE: Well, the intent 21 when we came into the room was to identify 22 the fast track projects and have the report 23 out at least on that, if not a summary on 24 some of the buckets. 25 So I think the idea here would be 202 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 to maybe put together some framework for 3 these on what the intent of the research 4 would be. Maybe some thought as to what kind 5 of learning would come out of it. And maybe 6 what extra resources or outside experts might 7 be needed to help complete it. 8 MS. BURNS: Richard, is this 9 because I did not take notes -- 10 MR. Zackon: This will all be 11 taken. Probably Amber already has it done. 12 She's very good. 13 MR. KALINE: Does that answer 14 your question, Henry? 15 MR. DEVAULT: Yes. But my 16 follow-up question is how extensive of the 17 dimensioning do you want to expect? 18 MR. Zackon: If I can suggest, I 19 think identifying some possible projects 20 beginning some priority amongst them may be 21 some measure of the cost and the timing. 22 Because we'll end up putting all these out 23 for bid for the most part. So I think by 24 September it's reasonable to identify that. 25 Particularly in each of those areas. Is 203 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 there a fast-track candidate? 3 MR. DEVAULT: So you want us to 4 be well down the road, kind of like on these 5 initiatives? 6 MR. Zackon: Yes. I'd probably 7 say like a couple of meetings, further down 8 the road I think than the steering committee 9 got. And I think the steering committee did 10 a good job in moving its traffic. We don't 11 expect proposals coming in by September. But 12 I think we'd be ready to put out RFP. Begin 13 preparing RFPs would seem reasonable. 14 MR. DEVAULT: Well, at this 15 meeting then, for example, the response 16 committee whatever, are they supposed to come 17 back with guidelines or initiatives that the 18 broad council would review, and either make 19 suggestions on or vote yea/nay, or what's 20 going on? 21 MR. KALINE: I think that's what 22 we would hope to get out of the meeting. 23 MR. DEVAULT: It sounds like a 24 lot. 25 MR. KALINE: How much we can 204 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 dimensionalize the cost is a big issue 3 without putting out the RFPs. 4 MR. Zackon: It would be great if 5 the reports could come in advance of the 6 meeting so people could review them prior to 7 the meeting. 8 MR. DEVAULT: How far in advance? 9 MR. Zackon: At least a week. At 10 least a week. 11 MS. BURNS: Which is if I can 12 follow your thinking, making me want to lean 13 more toward the end of September than the 14 beginning. 15 MR. Zackon: That's fine. 16 MS. BURNS: Are we on the same 17 page here? 18 MR. SHIMMEL: The other issues 19 that we talked about in the steering 20 committee is around these three topic areas. 21 Do we want to reach out beyond 22 this group to Nielsen clients, academia, 23 people on the tech committee and beyond on 24 their ideas to research about around these 25 topic areas. 205 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 MS. FRANK: Didn't we say that 3 would be after? 4 MR. SHIMMEL: In terms of their 5 participation on the working committee, but 6 as it relates to framing the ideas that we're 7 really going to devote our attention to, it 8 wouldn't hurt, I think, to have a broader 9 input. I was thinking about sort of a 10 similar process to what ARF does in terms of 11 paper and conferences. 12 MR. Zackon: We can put out 13 something and have people submit something on 14 the Web site. 15 MS. SHAGRIN: Those who are 16 interested will get on the Web site. And if 17 somebody's interested in contributing or 18 providing any idea, they can do it via 19 E-mail. 20 MR. Zackon: Exactly. 21 MS. SHAGRIN: And then we can 22 decide whether that makes sense or not. And 23 at a minimum require say we're already doing 24 that and thank you for your suggestion. 25 MR. Zackon: It won't bounce to 206 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 the chair first. Let it come to the Web site 3 and then we'll farm it out. 4 MR. DEVAULT: Is this plan too 5 aggressive in this context, because people, 6 it's the summertime, a lot of people are on 7 vacations. And once we get into late 8 September we're talking about the new season. 9 So a lot of us, it's going to be 10 preoccupation. 11 So I'm just simply asking, given 12 what you're expecting of the committee in 13 terms of having open, sounds like discussions 14 with the industry, doing the literature 15 search, and all the steps, plan too 16 aggressive. 17 MR. Zackon: I don't know that 18 we're looking to have a literature search 19 complete by the next meeting. But identify, 20 begin collecting the literature. 21 MR. DEVAULT: Why would we have 22 an outline of the plan if we don't know all 23 the literature yet? 24 I mean, if we have project 25 proposals that you requested, we would need 207 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 to have all of the literature search so we 3 can go through that and make sure we're not 4 duplicating anything, complimenting. 5 MS. SHAGRIN: Could the 6 literature search on each of these three 7 areas be initiated by you? I don't know. 8 MR. DEVAULT: We can farm it out. 9 MR. Zackon: That's my thinking on 10 the literature. 11 MR. SHIMMEL: We can do that 12 tomorrow. We can get that started. 13 MS. SHAGRIN: At a minimum if 14 there's way too much or whatever, you could 15 contact each of the chairpersons and say 16 here's all the stuff. Do you want us to go 17 after all of it. Or do you just go to 18 someone and say bring back everything you can 19 find on this subject. And then let the 20 committees go through it all. 21 MR. Zackon: Let's talk to the 22 people. There are probably people on that 23 technical panel we would turn to first. 24 MR. SUSSMAN: Richard, the next 25 thing to do, there were 40 people in the room 208 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 the first time. How do we find out how and 3 get them to cooperate to be part of these? 4 MR. Zackon: We'll put out an 5 E-mail to whoever it was. Like I said, it 6 may not be one of these. These aren't the 7 last items. 8 MS. GALLAGHER: You have to be 9 clear on that. 10 MR. SUSSMAN: The opportunity. 11 MR. Zackon: Exactly. 12 MS. SHAGRIN: I think we have to 13 sort of say there are people who are on the 14 committee who habitually do not show up 15 either on the phone or in person. That we 16 have to wonder about their value to this 17 committee. And then when they show up three 18 meetings down, if it's catch-up time. 19 MR. Zackon: I think that's a very 20 reasonable and important question. I would 21 suggest that's the sort of question the 22 steering committee might want to make a 23 recommendation on. 24 Also, it was great having Artie 25 here today, but we kind of had a policy of 209 1 Meeting - July 28, 2005 2 nonreplacement. So if you can't make it, you 3 can't make it. And we're happy to have the 4 contribution. But I think that's another 5 kind of steering policy the steering 6 committee might rule on to recommend. 7 MR. KALINE: Are we done? Any 8 other questions? 9 Thanks, Henry, for that insight. 10 That was good. Okay. Well, with that, we'll 11 adjourn. 12 (Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the 13 meeting adjourned.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25