0001
 1   
 2   
 3   
 4                  THE COUNCIL FOR
 5                RESEARCH EXCELLENCE
 6   
 7   
 8   
 9                   AUGUST 8, 2007
10   
11   
12                         Omni Hotel
13                         21 East 52nd Street
14                         New York, New York
15                         12:20 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
16   
17   
18   
19   
20   
21                REGENCY REPORTING, INC.
22     Certified Shorthand Reporters & Videographers
23     425 Eagle Rock Avenue      575 Madison Avenue
24     Roseland, NJ 07068         New York, NY 10022
25     www.regencyreporting.net       1-866-268-7866
0002
 1   A P P E A R A N C E S:
 2   
 3   BOARD MEMBERS:
 4   MARK KALINE, Chairperson
 5   SHARI ANNE BRILL
 6   TIM BROOKS
 7   JOANNE BURNS
 8   MICHELE BUSLIK
 9   SUSAN CUCCINELLO
10   PAUL DONATO
11   COLLEEN FAHEY RUSH
12   NANCY GALLAGHER
13   DON GLOECKLER
14   JEAN GOLDBERG
15   DAVID POLTRACK
16   GEORGE IVIE
17   RICK KEILTY
18   PAT LIGUORI
19   JESSICA PANTANINI
20   CERIL SHAGRIN
21   HOWARD SHIMMEL
22   STEVE STERNBERG
23   
24   
25   
0003
 1   A P P E A R A N C E S  (Continued):
 2   
 3   KATE SIRKIN (via telephone)
 4   VICKI CHAMPLIN (via telephone)
 5   IRA SUSSMAN
 6   JACK WAKSHLAG
 7   RICHARD ZACKON
 8   REBECCA MITCHELL
 9   
10   
11   PRESENTERS:
12   MIKE BLOXHAM
13   JIM SPAETH
14   BILL MOULT
15   MICHAEL HOLMES
16   
17   
18   
19   
20   
21   
22   
23   
24   
25   
0004
 1            MR. ZACKON:  Unfortunately, I
 2     want to acknowledge Rebecca for the
 3     toys.  I question the rocks.
 4            Welcome, everyone.  Thanks for
 5     getting here on a hot day, a muggy day,
 6     travel restricted day and still get here
 7     for a long day.  I think the agenda --
 8            A SPEAKER:  Kate Sirkin has
 9     joined you.
10            MR. ZACKON:  Welcome.
11            MS. SIRKIN:  Hi.
12            MR. ZACKON:  You missed nothing.
13     It is tough getting around the city
14     today.
15            MS. SIRKIN:  I'm glad I'm not
16     there.
17            MR. ZACKON:  How about I turn it
18     over to Mark.
19            MR. KALINE:  I think we're going
20     to have people joining throughout the
21     process this afternoon as they arrive
22     via whatever mode of transportation or
23     via phone.  I just want to thank
24     everybody for making the effort to get
25     here.  I think it is remarkable that any
0005
 1     meeting gets started within a half hour
 2     within the original start time the way
 3     things are going within the city today.
 4            We do have a full agenda.  There
 5     would be a lot of healthy discussion
 6     around some of the issues and I look
 7     forward to that.  So with that, I think
 8     I'll just try to cut it short and let's
 9     get to some of the committee reports.
10            MR. ZACKON:  We did a survey and
11     I thank Colleen for doing the bulk of
12     the work on that.  There was a sense of
13     reduce the amount of time for the
14     committee report at the meeting.  No one
15     thought we were spending too little
16     time.
17            We have one big issue.  Media
18     consumption and engagement.  The other
19     ones will go quickly.  There are reports
20     in here which I'll talk about in a bit
21     and the bulk of what today is about is
22     not just a business meeting, but sit
23     back and think meeting where we look at
24     how we're doing, what we should be doing
25     differently or maybe not doing,
0006
 1     et cetera.
 2            So our first committee is the
 3     steering committee.  And Mike is not
 4     here.  I'm going to tell you this is how
 5     quickly we will go.  If anyone wants
 6     more information, if you look in your
 7     packet -- if you look in your packet,
 8     I'm going to wait just so you know for a
 9     couple minutes before we take roll
10     because people are still coming in.
11            I believe we have Colleen and
12     Kate on the phone, is that right?
13            MS. RUSH:  Colleen is here.
14            MS. SIRKIN:  Kate is here.
15            MR. ZACKON:  If we have more
16     phone people we will ask.  It was Tim
17     Brooks' suggestion that maybe we have
18     something like a briefing for these
19     meetings.  This was my first cut attempt
20     at a briefing book.  There are five
21     pages, one for each committee.  Those
22     are the issues as best as I know where
23     they stand.  I do not speak for the
24     committee chairs on any of these.
25            We can go forward as a practice
0007
 1     and have them reviewed and updated by
 2     the committee chair to provide them to
 3     you in a more timely basis.  So, by way
 4     of the briefing book, I can tell you the
 5     issues on the steering committee and at
 6     the last meeting we voted through the
 7     bylaws, so that's complete for the
 8     steering committee.
 9            The issues are still membership
10     and what new areas of research the
11     council will take on, and those are
12     issues we will speak to today and will
13     be followed up by the steering
14     committee.
15            If there is someone from the
16     steering committee that would like to
17     add something to those, members Susan,
18     Henry, Don, Pat, Ceril, Ira and Jack.
19     By the way, I noticed in our bylaws that
20     we require 11 people on the steering
21     committee; so, it would appear that some
22     people can step up and participate on
23     the committee.
24            Howard, I think you're a member
25     of that committee and I don't know if
0008
 1     you're listed.  So that's the steering
 2     committee.  Anything else to be said
 3     about the steering committee?
 4            You've done a good job.  Very
 5     good.  Thank you.
 6            Next committee is our
 7     Nonresponse, Nonresponse Bias Committee,
 8     and that's the committee that Ceril is
 9     chairing.  If you look on the second
10     page that lays it all out.  Ceril, I'll
11     ask you between -- we'll talk after the
12     meeting, if we could get something that
13     addresses these meetings and updated.
14            MS. SHAGRIN:  No problem.
15            MR. ZACKON:  But the floor is
16     yours.
17            MS. SHAGRIN:  Well, in terms of
18     this committee, it is -- the project has
19     been closely monitored.  I actually get
20     a detailed project status report every
21     two weeks and that tells me exactly
22     what's going on and what's working and
23     what isn't working and if there are any
24     problems.  We had a follow up meeting
25     with the professors to make sure we're
0009
 1     all on the same track in terms of the
 2     analysis.  And we'll have another
 3     meeting to discuss in more detail some
 4     of the analysis that the professors are
 5     going to do.
 6            And so let me share with you some
 7     really good news, which is that we are
 8     exceeding the expectations in terms of
 9     the response rates that we thought we
10     would get.  And when Paul Labrochus
11     wrote the proposal and he estimated what
12     kind of response rates we would get, he
13     estimated on the cooperating basic
14     metered households we would get
15     57 percent response rate from the
16     mailings and 79 percent with the
17     in-person recruitment.
18            To date, with just first and
19     second metered mailings, we have an
20     84 percent response rate, which means
21     we'll do fewer in-person response rates.
22            MR. ZACKON:  That's thunderous
23     applause.
24            MS. SHAGRIN:  On the reviewing
25     basic which I find even, you know, we
0010
 1     estimated 43 percent response rates and
 2     right now, to date, the actual is at
 3     50 percent, and we expect these response
 4     rates to increase because the second
 5     mailing has just been out for a short
 6     period of time.  This is just on the
 7     first group of households.  If it
 8     continues that way, as we do more
 9     turnover households, I'll be really
10     happy.
11            And the goal for the diary
12     dispense rates was 80 percent.  Response
13     rate in total would be in-person and, to
14     date, we are at 69 percent which, again,
15     I think is very positive, given the
16     status that we're at.
17            So the good news is it is very
18     closely monitored by Nielsen, as well as
19     by the committee, and so far things are
20     working well.
21            MR. ZACKON:  Ceril, I apologize,
22     it is not in your kits.  I thought it
23     would be included.  We do not get a
24     bi-weekly report.
25            MS. SHAGRIN:  Right.  We were
0011
 1     going to share the last one and I didn't
 2     bring it.
 3            MR. ZACKON:  I'll see if Rebecca
 4     can get that.
 5            MS. SHAGRIN:  I can e-mail it if
 6     people are interested.
 7            MR. ZACKON:  So it is there.
 8     Good job.
 9            MS. SHAGRIN:  I didn't see it as
10     I was looking through because it wasn't
11     attached.
12            MR. ZACKON:  Right.
13            MS. SHAGRIN:  If you look at that
14     at your leisure, you can see how
15     detailed that report is and I get that
16     every two weeks.  So if there is a red
17     flag, we can meet or we can address it
18     and we can take care of it.  We are
19     planning on having the process audited
20     by Ernst & Young and we still have to
21     work out the details of that audit.
22            MR. ZACKON:  In terms of timing?
23            MS. SHAGRIN:  We're on schedule.
24            MR. ZACKON:  In terms of budget?
25            MS. SHAGRIN:  We're on schedule.
0012
 1            MR. ZACKON:  Congratulations.
 2            MR. GLOECKLER:  Better response
 3     rates might come in under budget.
 4            MS. SHAGRIN:  We might come in
 5     under budget.  That was the last piece
 6     of the budget that Nielsen threw at us.
 7     Because the original proposal was in
 8     person and now we're using RTI.  So the
 9     fewer RTI calls that have to be made,
10     the less the cost will be.
11            MR. IVIE:  Of course, you just
12     gave us the whammy.
13            MS. SHAGRIN:  I know that.
14     That's why I didn't say that.  Too soon
15     to tell.  I won't commit to it.  I am
16     glad they're less than we expected;
17     therefore, the cost will go up.
18            MR. ZACKON:  We had coals ready
19     to rake you over in that scenario.
20            MS. SHAGRIN:  I was prepared to
21     go out and do the final stuff myself.
22            MR. ZACKON:  That's good news,
23     indeed.
24            Just a question.  Is there a
25     snowball's chance in New York City today
0013
 1     that we'll have something to show at the
 2     client meeting, Nielsen's client meeting
 3     in February from this study?
 4            MS. SHAGRIN:  I believe we will
 5     have some initial findings for that.
 6     That's part of it.  We'll certainly be
 7     able to talk about differential response
 8     rates.
 9            MR. BROOKS:  Could I ask for more
10     on the time line?  Obviously, there's
11     nothing on the report here about it.
12            MS. SHAGRIN:  I will be happy to
13     update the time line and give it to you.
14     I did not bring the detailed time line
15     with me.  I know they're scheduled to
16     start the in-person call in September.
17            MR. BROOKS:  Is there a field
18     period for that?
19            MS. SHAGRIN:  There is a field
20     period for that.  Part of it is we did
21     the turnover homes that we have, so now
22     there is more homes that we have to do.
23     So there's the first group of homes and
24     the second group of homes.
25            I do have the detailed time line.
0014
 1     I will verify with Nielsen that there
 2     are no changes to that time line and
 3     then I will e-mail it so you can all get
 4     a copy.
 5            MR. BROOKS:  What is the target
 6     for the completion of the whole thing?
 7            MS. SHAGRIN:  I'm sorry, but I
 8     don't remember the exact date, Howard.
 9     I think it is the end of 2008 before we
10     have everything.
11            MR. SHIMMEL:  Last mailing, the
12     last group of sample that we're using
13     accepting basics is going to be mailed
14     in the beginning of October.  It is
15     going to be people who exited the sample
16     in September.
17            MS. SHAGRIN:  Right.
18            MR. SHIMMEL:  It is going through
19     the first process, first mailing, second
20     mailing, sending RTI.
21            MS. SHAGRIN:  All the analysis
22     done by the end of 2008.
23            A SPEAKER:  Vicky Champlin is
24     joining your conference.
25            MR. ZACKON:  Welcome, Vicky
0015
 1     Champlin.
 2            A SPEAKER:  Actually, it is
 3     Karen.  I'm calling for Vicky Champlin.
 4     She will join you in just a few moments.
 5            MR. IVIE:  I think a key step in
 6     the process is the data analysis plan,
 7     if I remember correctly, you guys are
 8     still working on.
 9            MS. SHAGRIN:  What we're doing
10     with data, there was a meeting held.
11            MR. ZACKON:  I apologize to the
12     people on the air.  We can't do business
13     with commercials on the air.  Thank you,
14     even though we're in that business.
15            MS. SHAGRIN:  We did have a
16     session with Nielsen and the professors
17     and I attended that session to talk
18     about the analysis that was going to be
19     done, how they were going to analyze the
20     data, what data was going to be shared,
21     and then there was a follow-up meeting
22     between the professors and Nielsen in
23     terms of determining the criteria for
24     analysis.
25            The next step is supposed to be
0016
 1     Nielsen presenting to the professors or
 2     to the academics exactly what they plan
 3     to analyze.  And then after that, we
 4     will get from Bob Groves and his group
 5     what they plan to analyze.  And as soon
 6     as that first step is done, then we want
 7     to get the whole committee involved in
 8     reviewing the plans for analysis.
 9            MR. ZACKON:  We're going to come
10     back to the meeting consumption and Ira
11     before he goes.  I have some mea culpas
12     to make to the room.  This is Richard.
13            First, we had a conversation at
14     the last meeting about an annual report,
15     which I only remember was promised when
16     I read through the transcripts in
17     preparation for this meeting.  So I
18     don't have it for this meeting, and I
19     will get that out by the end of the
20     month.  That is an annual report for the
21     first two years.  I'll modify it to make
22     it a calendar year.
23            Second thing, there are two RFPs.
24     I'm a bottleneck if you want to know
25     what it looks like, between Nielsen's
0017
 1     lawyer and Nielsen's communication
 2     department.  I'm going to end that
 3     bottleneck and Ira's RFP will
 4     accelerate.  I promise all my best
 5     efforts to have them out.
 6            The last piece, and this is not
 7     so much an apology.  People requested
 8     minutes of the meetings which I think is
 9     a smart idea, even though we have full
10     transcripts.  We will have minutes of
11     this meeting out.  I'll take the
12     transcripts and have minutes prepared
13     going back for at least two or three
14     meetings.  We'll have that as part of
15     the formal report and part of the
16     report.
17            I apologize.  We will do better.
18     And to show how much better, we'll
19     showcase Ira Sussman's marketplace
20     issues.  It started off to try to
21     understand marketplace issues, to see if
22     we could do some research to help
23     improve some of the conditions that we
24     have been seeing, especially on the
25     local level.  We had somebody do a
0018
 1     professional interviews, focusing on
 2     local TV and viewing professionals to
 3     see the top issues, to identify any and
 4     actually act upon any of those.
 5            Most of the topics that came back
 6     were around problems with diaries.
 7     Since that, Nielsen has announced
 8     electron measurement in the market, so
 9     it kind of changed or the focus or
10     importance of that, should we spend
11     money on some diary issues that are
12     supposedly going away.  It may relieve
13     some issues, it may create some new
14     ones.
15            We were thinking about this group
16     going on hiatus, and rather than doing
17     that, we posted the results of those
18     interviews on the website so everybody
19     has access to see what we achieved from
20     that, from our committee.  But as the
21     next step, we decided to put an RFP out
22     requesting proposals on projects which
23     can go ahead, cross the gamut in the
24     RPF.  We're identifying a number of
25     topics that are of interest.  But
0019
 1     letting suppliers come to us with what
 2     would they like to research, that might
 3     help with practices, as opposed to the
 4     group coming up with great ideas.
 5            We're putting it out to the
 6     industry and put together a research
 7     proposal and maybe, hopefully, by the
 8     end of the summer or early fall, look
 9     through a number of those and see if
10     there is anything that merits spending
11     some of this R&D money.
12            That's where we are today.  We
13     have a draft of the RFP in the kit for
14     review.  Once we get approval on that,
15     we will send it out and move forward on
16     evaluating some projects that might be
17     of value early next year.
18            Any questions?  I'm not spending
19     money.  Nobody is asking questions.
20            MR. BROOKS:  Congratulations to
21     the committee.  I believe you completed
22     the study and had it posted.  Would
23     there be some value, perhaps, in being
24     more proactive in releasing this data to
25     the first wave, in your opinion, to the
0020
 1     larger community that we represent out
 2     there?
 3            MR. SUSSMAN:  It is available to
 4     anybody that goes on the website.  As
 5     far as if we want to do it through a
 6     press release, probably we want to take
 7     a look at it and see if it is in the
 8     right format.  It may not be the way we
 9     would like to send something out, but if
10     everybody thinks that's valuable, we can
11     look at how do we package that to get
12     some play.
13            MR. BROOKS:  Transparency was a
14     value of this conversation.  I think its
15     operations are pretty dense or opaque to
16     most Nielsen clients and those who
17     aren't represented in this room.
18     Anything we can do to show the Nielsen
19     client base, the buyers and sellers,
20     what this group is accomplishing, I
21     think would be good.  Obviously, it
22     should be better.  Posting on the
23     website is good for a step and I think
24     it would be more proactive.
25            MR. ZACKON:  You raised a couple
0021
 1     valid points.  Should there be a
 2     publicity committee which decides what
 3     gets put out?
 4            MS. BUSLIK:  No.
 5            MR. BROOKS:  Personally, I'm not
 6     sure that press releases and trying to
 7     drum up press is necessarily the right
 8     way to go.  But communications to a
 9     broader base of Nielsen clients, buyers
10     and sellers, I think, is, and some
11     professionals who can help with that.
12            MR. ZACKON:  That is what I
13     meant.
14            MS. BUSLIK:  They do that.  It is
15     always written up and A2/M2 initiative
16     updates.  It is written up about what
17     the council has done.  I'm somewhat
18     concerned about press releases because
19     they always get misinterpreted by
20     certain people, and I think then we're
21     at the point of answering, that becomes
22     a job for us, no, you didn't determine
23     this correctly.
24            But as far as I know, Nielsen is
25     always writing about the different
0022
 1     things that are happening on the
 2     council.
 3            MR. ZACKON:  Steve.
 4            MR. STERNBERG:  As far as I know,
 5     nobody I know in the industry than us
 6     has any idea what the council is doing.
 7     I hear all the time is that council
 8     still in existence?  Are you doing
 9     anything?  Very few people put out what
10     the Nielsen puts out, because they don't
11     really say anything.
12            If we have one or two people in
13     charge of doing that like a corporate
14     communication type of thing, we would be
15     in charge of handling the type of press
16     that we get and, you know, we could
17     certainly gear it to what we want the
18     press to cover.
19            MR. LIGUORI:  Would it help
20     instead of burying our stuff in one of
21     their longer multi-press releases, that
22     we request that they put it out
23     separately so at least we're in the
24     headline as opposed to page 3?
25            MR. ZACKON:  Let me suggest if
0023
 1     I'm going to do an annual report, which
 2     I said by the end of August, wouldn't
 3     that be something Nielsen could take and
 4     appropriately communicate with and
 5     anyone on the council could feel free to
 6     do that.  Maybe it should be geared for
 7     that purpose.
 8            MR. SHIMMEL:  Richard, you and I
 9     should have a conversation with Jack
10     Loftus or Karen Watson about creating a
11     communication partner for the council.
12            MR. BROOKS:  I believe there are
13     quarterly updates.  Monthly, pardon me,
14     which are distributed to the whole
15     client base.  I don't know monthly, but
16     I would say more than once a year, maybe
17     quarterly or half a year or something
18     like that.
19            MR. ZACKON:  We're going to put
20     out regular minutes after these
21     meetings.  Maybe those minutes should be
22     referenced in communication about the
23     site.
24            MS. BURNS:  I agree with Pat.  It
25     needs to stand alone.
0024
 1            MR. ZACKON:  It should stand
 2     alone.
 3            MS. BURNS:  Yes.  It could be in
 4     addition to an A2/M2, but its own form.
 5            MR. STERNBERG:  Could I make one
 6     comment?
 7            MR. ZACKON:  Please.
 8            MR. STERNBERG:  I would just
 9     think that since the council is supposed
10     to be an independent, quote/unquote,
11     organization, I don't like the fact that
12     Nielsen should be the ones to comment on
13     what the council is doing.  I think it
14     should come directly from the council.
15            Nielsen is funding the council.
16     This was set up as an independent.  It
17     will look as though Nielsen is in charge
18     of what the council is doing, which
19     isn't really the case.
20            MR. ZACKON:  It is a Nielsen
21     client base.  We may want to extend
22     communication beyond that.  But they're
23     deserving of what is going on.
24            Are we in a position of releasing
25     that to that list?  I think we would
0025
 1     send it to Nielsen, release of that list
 2     and we could have our own list.  I would
 3   
 4     and not Nielsen letterhead.  That's the
 5     dynamics of how you get it out.  That's
 6     fine.
 7            Are we good there?  Are you ready
 8     to go to the next committee?
 9            And Nancy is not here to accept
10     my apologies, so I apologize anyway.
11     Nancy and her committees, RFP, is there,
12     as well.  That really sits in the same
13     place.  We need to accelerate that.
14     There's no budget against that because
15     we haven't heard from them in terms of
16     what it would cost.
17            I think we're catching up.  By
18     the way, we have a backup room across
19     the hall if the pounding from the
20     jackhammers gets too tough in here.  So
21     we're hoping not to have to move.
22            Just to quickly go through
23     attendees.  Shari, you're here.  Tim,
24     Joanne, Michelle, Susan is here.  Vicky
25     is on the phone.  Colleen is here on the
0026
 1     phone.  Don is here.  Kate is on the
 2     phone.  Jean is here.  George Ivie, Mark
 3     Kaline, Rick Keilty, Pat Liquori,
 4     Jessica, and Jack are here.  Lyle is not
 5     here.  Ceril and Howard are here.  Steve
 6     Sternberg and Ira.
 7            So that's who is here now.  We're
 8     ready in that case, unless there's other
 9     comments to take on the Ball State and
10     Sequent Partners study, and we have
11     allotted an hour and you have 61
12     minutes.
13            MS. SHAGRIN:  I need one of those
14     minutes to ask on the University's
15     estimate since Nancy is not here, it
16     says that the RFP is prepared and ready
17     for release pending final legal review.
18            MR. ZACKON:  That's the one that
19     I said this is what a bottleneck looks
20     like.  I need to be between the two
21     groups.  That's mine.  Don't blame
22     Nancy.
23            MS. SHAGRIN:  All right.
24            MR. ZACKON:  Steve and Shari.
25            MR. STERNBERG:  We are actually
0027
 1     very excited right now.  We are ready to
 2     make a recommendation to the full
 3     council on whether we should proceed
 4     with the full study from Ball State and
 5     Sequent the observational study that
 6     they recently completed, the pilot
 7     study.
 8            Shari is going to take us through
 9     a very brief intro and then we're going
10     to let Jim Spaeth and Mike Bloxham give
11     an overview of the results of the pilot
12     study and the proposal for the full
13     study which we expect to be followed by
14     a vote.
15            MS. BRILL:  Good afternoon,
16     everyone.  I am really exited to be here
17     today and because of what I'm going to
18     be talking about and, secondly, from a
19     transportation standpoint, I'm doubly
20     excited to be here.  It seems whenever I
21     have to be at a meeting, bad weather
22     follows.  It is good to see all of you
23     here and I look forward to sharing this
24     with you.
25            Observations from the pilot study
0028
 1     were very compelling.  So we unanimously
 2     and wholeheartedly recommend to the
 3     Council for Research Excellence that it
 4     vote to move ahead for the full study.
 5     What are we trying to accomplish here?
 6     I'll tell you.
 7            If you recall when we first
 8     formed the council, our committee,
 9     rather, the mission of it was to improve
10     above TV and audience measurement
11     through comprehensive and ongoing study
12     of media consumption.  I would say about
13     a year and a half ago we circulated an
14     RFP to the industry and specifically our
15     committee sought to one dimension the
16     current conception of media focusing on
17     TV and video, how it is changing and
18     will change over time in order to
19     propose the optimal form of video media
20     measurement.  And this was why we had
21     awarded the pilot in the first place.
22     Because we know that asking people to
23     self-report their media behavior use and
24     their usage provides a poor reflection
25     of reality.  Increasingly, the amount of
0029
 1     actual media exposure is missed by
 2     current indicated services.  We know
 3     that multi-tasking simultaneously usage
 4     group versus solitary group occur.
 5     There is rampant usage of portable and
 6     media use and out-of-home usage of media
 7     and that's currently missed or not
 8     measured completely.
 9            We know that the observational
10     approach will best lead to a blueprint
11     for better measurement, and this is the
12     only approach we have seen that doesn't
13     rely on the past behavior or relies upon
14     electronic measurement of what device is
15     in use.  It is going to tell us what
16     people are actually doing at a given
17     moment in time.  It captures their
18     behavior as it is happening.
19            So we didn't want to commit
20     $3 million at first without having
21     confidence that the technique was
22     workable.  This was what we wanted to
23     do.  We wanted to establish a map for a
24     video media usage.  What is it now and
25     how it is changing?  We wanted to know
0030
 1     what it will mean for the future.  What
 2     are the implications for media
 3     consumption and engagement?  How will
 4     this enhance audience research
 5     techniques that are out there?
 6            And Nielsen has said that this
 7     council's work would help guide their
 8     initiatives in A2/M2.  Many reasons
 9     exist to proceed.  None of us can afford
10     to do this individually within our own
11     organizations.  This approach will
12     overcome business self-interest because
13     we really put our business interests
14     aside to come together for the common
15     good and advance industry learning.
16     There's no design for anyone to have a
17     competitive edge over anyone else.  The
18     media landscape, as we know, is not even
19     just fragmenting, it is segmenting and
20     splintering.  Everybody isn't getting
21     every device anymore.  So how can this
22     research guide Nielsen to improve its
23     own measurement.
24            Well, first of all, how
25     significant is the media usage that is
0031
 1     not currently picked up by Nielsen.
 2     This will help prioritize Nielsen's
 3     focus.
 4            MR. STERNBERG:  There are a lot
 5     of potential ways that we believe this
 6     study can really help improve Nielsen's
 7     own measurement.  We just came up with
 8     three or four off the top of our heads.
 9     But once the data comes in, many, many
10     more options, opportunities, I think,
11     will develop.
12            MS. BRILL:  One of the key issues
13     is multi-tasking, how much and what type
14     of multi-tasking is actually occurring.
15     Could possibly sole and dual or primary
16     and secondary media usage be separate
17     Nielsen categories for analysis?  Should
18     Nielsen instructions on what constitutes
19     viewing change as they instruct their
20     membership panel?  How does media
21     ten-second increments different from
22     one-minute increments?  Is there an
23     urgency for Nielsen to provide more
24     granule ratings as part of its regular
25     ongoing measurement?
0032
 1            So what are we going to be voting
 2     on today?  We are recommending a
 3     two-phase observational study with the
 4     potential to review after wave one.  The
 5     sample will range between some 350 and
 6     500 respondents per wave.  The cost will
 7     not exceed 3.5 million, contingent upon
 8     Nielsen funding a third year.
 9            MR. STERNBERG:  And we thought we
10     might hear as early as today whether,
11     indeed, they were funding a third wave.
12            MS. BRILL:  The first wave.
13            MR. DONATO:  There is a reason I
14     look like this.
15            MS. BRILL:  The second wave would
16     commence October 2008.  So to conclude,
17     today is August 8, vote yes, and the
18     statement was provided by the Media
19     Consumption Engagement Committee.
20            And now I would like to turn it
21     over to the representatives from Ball
22     State University and Sequent Partners.
23            MR. BLOXHAM:  Thank you very
24     much, Shari.
25            Good afternoon, everybody.
0033
 1     Firstly, before I get going, I know I
 2     have 20 minutes or we have between us 20
 3     minutes to present what we have for you
 4     today.  And we have, I think, wisely
 5     followed the advice of our committee in
 6     making best use of this, and we're going
 7     to be holding back of going through any
 8     detail of the data that was actually
 9     captured from the pilot, largely because
10     50 people, clearly, it is not the data
11     that is of value, it is the process of
12     going through this and what we learned
13     from the process.
14            You have already received the
15     report of the pilot which contains the
16     data that we did generate, so that is
17     available to you.  Also, before I go any
18     further, it would be remiss not to
19     acknowledge and thank Shari, Steve and
20     the committee for their guidance and
21     help as we run through this.
22            Richard Zackon, from our point,
23     has done a great job as a facilitator
24     and Howard Calvin and the team at
25     Nielsen.  Our experience working with
0034
 1     them and the guys and girls down in
 2     Florida has been exemplary.  It would be
 3     wrong not to mention that.  I'm going to
 4     take pot luck which moves forward.
 5     Excellent.  As you know, it was all the
 6     way back when on the 8th of September
 7     when the note was finally given to the
 8     pilot after the RFP process, and I will
 9     not go into detail.
10            The pilot was to be the first
11     step.  We were out in the field and
12     applied this method seven times in three
13     years.  However, this committee had
14     particular requirements and objectives
15     and they needed to be tested to be sure
16     that this would deliver against the
17     methodology.  So we did that test in the
18     single market, Indianapolis.  DNA 50
19     person methodologically oriented pilot.
20     The success criteria established by the
21     committee in consultation with ourself,
22     and we set some of our own goals around
23     some of the numbers we wanted to
24     achieve.  And those were based in terms
25     of stratifying the sample based on
0035
 1     available data about incidence of
 2     population and so forth amongst the
 3     different groups, and we wanted to try
 4     to represent within the sample.
 5            Just going through these quickly.
 6     What were the overall requirements
 7     representing the key target groups.  And
 8     I won't go into detail.  We wanted to
 9     maximize, capture their media data
10     through observation member and recall
11     the next date what media they had
12     consumed after the observation.  We
13     wanted to deliver the data that was
14     relevant and going to be able to
15     effectively address the issues that the
16     committee is setting out to address.
17     So, fundamentally, this was all about
18     methodological feasibility.  Can we do
19     it.  The breaking it down, can we
20     recruit the sample that is required and
21     can we capture the data that is deemed
22     of relevance.  Does the instrument that
23     we have devised work for this purpose.
24     And then, clearly, any objective, any
25     product, rather, has to carry the
0036
 1     objective that we learned from the
 2     experience, and we do all that we can to
 3     cherry pick whatever learnings there are
 4     and to avoid weaknesses that we might
 5     identify in any future roll-out or
 6     expansion, specifically with regard to
 7     the objectives of the study.
 8            Well, the good news in the
 9     headline, the success criteria met to
10     the satisfaction of the committee.  The
11     sample represented the topics of
12     interest.  Spanish language dominant.  A
13     mix of African-American, inner city
14     subjects.  We didn't just want to find
15     that all we could do is recruit more
16     affluent participants, for example,
17     advanced video technology users, and
18     these were defined as having to own at
19     least three of a range of different
20     video enabled devices from DVRs, video
21     capable i-Pods and cell phones.
22            That was one of the criteria.
23     And also individuals from FTO and
24     households.  We wanted to have what
25     would be deemed as a robust average
0037
 1     observation across all video and media
 2     locations.  We got an average of 13.5
 3     hours of observed time, and then when we
 4     took into account the recall data, i.e.,
 5     the questions that our observers asked
 6     about what have you done with regard to
 7     media use in the 40 minutes that you
 8     tell me you have been awake before I got
 9     here.  And then the recall data the next
10     day to say after I left, how long were
11     you up for.  What media did you use, if
12     any.  Where we concluded that the
13     average went up to 16 hours.  And within
14     that we got the incidence of use of
15     different media, time spent with those
16     media, where they did that and current
17     media exposure and so forth.
18            Obviously, that wasn't just for
19     video enabled devices or, for that
20     matter, video audio devices.  We were
21     capturing non-video devices and
22     functions, as well.
23            Another criteria, the subjects
24     would have to complete the observation
25     in a day.  The committee rightly wanted
0038
 1     to be sure that we were not rolling out
 2     a larger subject where a significant
 3     portion of the people were bored halfway
 4     through the afternoon.  I had enough.
 5     Go away after half of the afternoon.  We
 6     had 50 complete the full observation
 7     data.  A hundred percent, which is good,
 8     and that correlates with our broader
 9     experience.
10            And then, obviously,
11     demonstration, collection of useful
12     information on the unobserved latest
13     parts of the day.  There was the
14     question, how many people would comply
15     with the requirement to take the call to
16     give us useful information when we
17     called them back the next day.  And we
18     achieved all 50 of respondents'
19     participation in that.  And the detail
20     there is 48 of them gave us information
21     about their media use, 2 said they
22     didn't use any media after we left the
23     house, which is entirely feasible.  It
24     wasn't that they didn't comply.  They
25     did.
0039
 1            We also found -- I can't remember
 2     who came up with the idea.  It was good.
 3     To say let's try to validate what we get
 4     out of this.  It stacks up and is
 5     logically at least.  We did a
 6     comparison, a regression analysis
 7     against the NSI Indianapolis data
 8     looking at Monday through Sunday,
 9     average 18-plus half-hour segments, and
10     we got a very good reading.  .97 for
11     February and .94 for May, which we were
12     both pleased by and, frankly, slightly
13     surprised by.  It is a relatively small
14     sample against a larger sample.
15     Nonetheless, that is the data we worked
16     with and it was encouraging.
17            The other factor was observe a
18     training and quality control.  The
19     committee wanted to feel that they were
20     sufficiently confident and had good
21     grounds to be confident in those
22     processes.  And both Richard and Shari
23     visited us down in Monsey and saw that.
24     And we took them through the materials
25     and other members of the committee and
0040
 1     they were deemed to be thoroughly robust
 2     and well managed.
 3            The second part was emotional
 4     uses and gratifications.  Instrument
 5     personality profiling needed to be felt
 6     to be able to deliver useful relevant
 7     information.  And the overall conclusion
 8     was that obviously, if drawn from a
 9     larger sample, it could be valuable to
10     put alongside the observational data.
11     So a key learning out of the pilot to
12     summarize, the data, the process, and so
13     forth, all suggest, really, if similar
14     data from a larger sample, a projectable
15     national sample, this process when
16     scaled up would squarely address the
17     objectives of the committee.
18            The real additional learning and,
19     for my money, the greatest learning, I
20     guess, because we have gone through this
21     process a lot of times and we felt that
22     was the top line of the first paragraph,
23     we weren't surprised by that.  But this
24     was the stuff that was really valuable
25     to us.  This came out of the
0041
 1     collaboration with Nielsen.  We got a
 2     lot of learnings about the recruitment
 3     process and we were aware and we will
 4     talk about it at the last meeting, there
 5     was a lot of discussion about response
 6     rates before the information was in.  We
 7     have the information and Jim will take
 8     you through that.  We took learning out
 9     of that process through collaboration
10     with Nielsen and also consultation with
11     Professor Grove's groups and the
12     University of Michigan.  Took their
13     input to the whole process to define
14     ways in which not only we might want to
15     view the whole issue of response rates,
16     but also we can take steps to improve
17     response rates and get a level of
18     confidence about what we could achieve
19     going forward.
20            With that in mind, I'm going to
21     hand over the speaking to the taller,
22     better looking, Mr. Spaeth.
23            MR. SPAETH:  In this way, as Mike
24     just said, this is the new learning for
25     us.  This technique was never done for
0042
 1     us.  The seven times previously it was
 2     done, all done on a purpose of sample
 3     recruiting specific groups for specific
 4     purposes.  And, in the best of our
 5     knowledge, searching the literature, no
 6     one has reported on doing an observation
 7     study on a random basis.  All the
 8     methodological learning that we built
 9     over decades or telephone research
10     doesn't apply here.
11            We do know as the task becomes
12     more challenging, longer interviews,
13     harder to recruit segment, consumer
14     segments, that response rates tend to
15     decline.  This is a pretty amazing
16     request of the respondent, but,
17     nevertheless, we have people do it.
18            Here is the way the process
19     works.  There is a pre recruit mailer
20     sent by Nielson which explains the
21     study.  Telephone recruit for the
22     initial agreement, the calls made by the
23     Nielsen RIs.  Then the agrees are passed
24     on to Ball State for scheduling.
25     Three-step process.
0043
 1            Top line, what did we find.  We
 2     found that 47 percent, just short of
 3     half of the predesignated sample, were
 4     not contacted.  One of the reasons, it
 5     was quite a while since they were in the
 6     Nielsen sample.  The telephone numbers
 7     were not probably still accurate and so
 8     forth.  And a number of them not
 9     contacted because at a certain point the
10     sample size was filled and we didn't
11     continue to make phone calls.  Take half
12     off the table to begin with.
13            Of the hundred percent, 43.8
14     percent did not agree to be contacted by
15     Ball State.  One of the reasons for that
16     and possibly the key reason for that was
17     Nielsen's own best practices and
18     recruiting were not applied.  There was
19     a legal concern about liability, and
20     Paul can speak about it at length, I'm
21     sure, or not.  I'm just kidding.  There
22     was some real concerns and there was
23     really no persuasion involved in the
24     recruitment process.  With a very plain
25     vanilla, did you get the letter, would
0044
 1     you like to participate, we'll give your
 2     name to Ball State.
 3            MR. DONATO:  When we recruit for
 4     the very first time, there is an element
 5     in the recruiting script, we will not
 6     give your name to anybody and you will
 7     not be recruited for other purposes.  So
 8     legal counsel said we have an obligation
 9     to contact the people first to ask them
10     if they wanted to be contacted.
11            MR. SHIMMEL:  Other issue is that
12     we're concerned about playing a harder
13     role than selling cooperation.  It is
14     not a Nielsen employee who is doing the
15     observation.  So we're concerned about
16     the liability if something were to
17     happen where somebody's DVR got broken,
18     who would bear that responsibility.
19            MR. SPAETH:  Right.  I did not
20     say a non-legitimate concern.  There was
21     a concern.  There was little persuasion
22     applied here.  47 percent we didn't
23     contact.  48 refused.  The good news of
24     those names that were passed to Ball
25     State, 77.8 percent agreed to be
0045
 1     scheduled and were observed.
 2            Here is the way the numbers break
 3     down.  If you want to take the harshest
 4     possible look in the interest of
 5     transparency, the harshest possible look
 6     would be here is a total predesignated
 7     sample.  Here is the 35 people
 8     interviewed.
 9            There were 15 hours interviewed
10     by Ball State using different
11     techniques, ten high-tech users and five
12     Spanish language dominance.  Of the 35
13     recruited, you calculate a frightening
14     4.5 response rate.  It is reasonable to
15     say those with bad phone numbers
16     wouldn't be included, and I think
17     because the recruitment was cut off
18     before completed, I would say take the
19     non-contacts off the table.
20            Working with the people, Nielsen
21     was able to contact -- we had quite a
22     few who refused for the reasons we
23     talked about, which gives you 7.8
24     percent response rate.  Still not
25     fabulous.  And, again, to look of those
0046
 1     that Ball State was able to connect
 2     with, 77.8 percent agreed to be
 3     scheduled and, for the most part, well,
 4     half roughly, more than half of the
 5     people who refused Ball State, I was
 6     busy at the time, there was an
 7     indication with more flexibility we
 8     could schedule them more successfully.
 9     That gives you cause for pause.
10            We were happy when Nielsen did a
11     nonresponse study.  These are former
12     Nielsen cooperators.  We have the
13     historical data.  You can ask yourself
14     was there any difference in the
15     historical viewing data.  According to
16     the test Nielsen applied, there was no
17     bias found.  There was no clear bias
18     between cooperators and non-cooperators.
19     That said, I have to point out it is a
20     small sample.  It would have to be a
21     strong bias to observe one.
22            The check that was able that
23     could be applied at this point showed no
24     reason for concern in terms of bias, but
25     that's not really enough.  Again, this
0047
 1     was the real learning here about first
 2     time having done this on a random basis.
 3     So now what do you do.  There was a lot
 4     of consultation with Nielsen.  We went
 5     to the University of Michigan, spent a
 6     day with Bob Groves and his Ph.D.
 7     students and came up with a number of
 8     ideas.  Some obvious, but some not so
 9     obvious.
10            So recruit the former Nielsen
11     cooperators closer to their date of
12     turnover so we have more good numbers
13     and the Nielsen experience is fresher in
14     their minds.  Increase incentives and
15     you'll see in a moment the significant
16     of increasing in incentive.  Use Nielsen
17     equity with respondents.  There is more
18     clearance to be more persuasive and
19     refer to the Nielsen experience in the
20     process of recruitment.  Permit the RIs
21     to have written persuaders.  Here is
22     what they have if they have concerns or
23     questions, to try to be more successful
24     in the recruitment.  And Ball State to
25     be more flexible in scheduling so people
0048
 1     who have a busy week, you don't say, no,
 2     I'm sorry, but you say, how about next
 3     week.
 4            The thing not obvious, and this
 5     one takes a minute to get your head
 6     around, was Bob Groves' biggest
 7     contradiction was, in my opinion, to use
 8     the Nielsen sample for its strength and
 9     to use the Ball State data for its
10     strength.  We have a high quality sample
11     to start with, and so, we have changed
12     the sample design now to stratify the
13     sample by known drivers of viewing, by
14     gender, by age, probably presence of
15     children.  We're still thinking about
16     those.  Household size, one of those
17     factors that we know drives viewing
18     data.  So when you have the sample
19     strata, you're picking from the fully
20     enumerated sample.  You can pick.  You
21     minimize your concerns about bias and
22     drawing from a high quality sample to
23     begin.  Then bring in the Ball State
24     data within the context of that sample,
25     the richness of the data collected.  You
0049
 1     have measured occasions which are
 2     observed.  So occasions, viewing
 3     occasions side by side with the Nielsen
 4     metered viewing, so you do a number of
 5     the analysis that Steve and Shari talked
 6     about.  You can understand unmeasured
 7     occasions, what are the occasions when
 8     people are using video and whatever
 9     platform, an iPod or cell phone or
10     television somewhere else.  That is
11     simply not being measured.  And you can
12     understand not just the viewing
13     occasions current measured or unmeasured
14     but the value of those occasions.
15            I will mention, not going to take
16     the time to explain and it is awkward,
17     it is in the handouts that were sent out
18     in advance, and that is a number of ways
19     to understand the value of the exposure.
20     But one, I am particularly fond of, the
21     six degrees of behavioral engagement.
22     It is looking at whether the moment of
23     exposure was only watching video,
24     watching video while were engaged in
25     some life activity, watching the video
0050
 1     while you're involved with some other
 2     media.  Whether you're giving video your
 3     primary or secondary attention and also
 4     whether there is life activity going on
 5     at the same time.  You can partition all
 6     these viewing experiences into six
 7     different types of classic situations.
 8            One, television or video is the
 9     only thing you're doing.  You would
10     expect, and it is just an expectation,
11     you would expect high attention.  The
12     other extreme, you're washing the
13     floors, the television is -- you're
14     reading a magazine, the television is
15     fully in the background.  It is getting
16     very little attention.  You can start to
17     understand not just the number, the
18     quantity of occasions measured and
19     unmeasured or the nature of the
20     relationship between the two measured
21     sets of data, but also the value of the
22     exposure, we thought that was very
23     important.  And when you think of this
24     being the media consumption, that's the
25     occasions and engagement, that's the
0051
 1     potential step.
 2            Anyway, okay.  So what do we
 3     propose going forward is a prerecruit
 4     mailer, a letter from Nielsen that
 5     leveraged the Nielsen experience.
 6     Provide more info about Ball State, but
 7     with an insert so more information or,
 8     frankly, more information pictures of
 9     the observers in action.  Mentioning
10     those who participated in the past
11     enjoyed it.  Quotes from the pilot
12     participants.  And these are based on
13     Nielsen recommendations which we think
14     are great and will really tap expertise.
15     A $30 incentive would go in the
16     prerecruit mailer.  That is an
17     additional expense, but will get some
18     attention, to some degree cooperation at
19     that step.
20            The telephone recruitment.  The
21     Nielsen RIs will leverage the Nielsen
22     relationship.  Prepare persuaders for
23     common questions.  Cite satisfaction for
24     previous participants.  The incentive
25     went from $200 to $300 total.  So it is
0052
 1     a 50 percent increase.  That should
 2     help.  $500 for initial refusers, and we
 3     budgeted for that for about 20 percent.
 4     I think between the prerecruit
 5     incentive, the 50 percent increase in
 6     incentive, the 150 increase for initial
 7     refusers, plus the ability to leverage
 8     some of the Nielsen relationship.  I
 9     think it is fair to say an improvement
10     in response rates.
11            We don't know what it will be,
12     but we'll learn a lot as we go along.
13     At the Ball State step we can schedule
14     observations with greater flexibility
15     and check to ensure that the data that
16     they have selected is expected to be a
17     typical date.  It is not Super Bowl
18     Sunday or anybody's wedding, but a
19     typical day.  The rest of the procedure
20     as we have done in the past, reminder
21     calls and so on.  This is an experiment,
22     a mind experiment, a thought experiment.
23     This is not to be a suggestion of what
24     would happen, but if you said for a
25     moment what might happen.  If there was
0053
 1     a 10 percent reduction in refusals to
 2     Nielsen, and maybe that is ambitious, I
 3     don't know, here is the response rate we
 4     started at 7.7.  10 percent improvement.
 5     At the scheduling step it could take you
 6     to a response rate just north of
 7     20 percent.
 8            I don't know if that's going to
 9     happen and I'm not going to say that it
10     will not happen.  It is a first step of
11     a number of experiments as we really
12     learn how to do this in a random
13     process.  There is a lot of learning
14     here, but I think we have good
15     ammunition to include the situation.
16            I want to sum up the pilot
17     experience.  We met the predefined
18     success criteria, the observation and
19     survey data.  We didn't talk about the
20     survey data, but there is a uses and
21     gratifications and personality profiles
22     and so on.  We have demonstrated in
23     pilot data which you had that they
24     offered the potential to squarely
25     address the media consumption and
0054
 1     engagement commitments objectives when
 2     taken from a larger sample.
 3            We have clear steps that we agree
 4     that will lead to some degree to higher
 5     response rates, can't say what.  We have
 6     input from the survey research center,
 7     led us to revise the sample logic and
 8     use it for what it is best for.  And the
 9     Ball State data, what it is best for.
10     We have to say, as Mike said, we had
11     extraordinary cooperation from Nielsen
12     and that abodes well for success.
13            So what do we propose to do?
14     Here is the objective, if you remember
15     that.  We propose a number of
16     deliverables.  These are taken off the
17     RFP and we can do that and do that and
18     that.  The clear and important mapping
19     consumers' use of time and, again, it is
20     in the pilot report.  A map of the day
21     media used, reach of each media and time
22     spent with each media, and broken out in
23     any number of ways.  Simultaneous media
24     used.  Observed not remembered.
25     Multi-task with non-media activities and
0055
 1     the cross between those two, broken out
 2     by as many ways as the sample size will
 3     permit, which is an important question.
 4     Broadband access and other technology
 5     dimensions, ownership or access of newer
 6     technologies, as well.  We want to
 7     understand the way this is influencing
 8     behavior.  Do we not break it down as to
 9     people with DVR's for two years, people
10     one to two years, people that don't have
11     one.  How does the behavior, sample size
12     permitting, we can do all of those
13     things.
14            Another thought there is to
15     measure the same people over time.  This
16     proposal has the same respondents
17     measured twice in different points in
18     time.  We're basically beginning to
19     track the same people over time.  If we
20     keep doing that, we would have clear
21     within subjects comparison of how
22     individual's media usage changes over
23     time.  We're looking through the survey
24     instruments, media satisfaction and
25     engagement.  I mentioned the 6 degrees
0056
 1     of behavioral engagement, solitary
 2     versus social viewing, consumers'
 3     motivations for viewing.  Pretty much
 4     everything you asked for.  The shift,
 5     time shifting, using of technologies,
 6     advertising related behavior.  Because
 7     we're coding in increments whether the
 8     consent is ad or promotional content,
 9     promotional content and on the issue of
10     how each component might be measured.
11     The survey is going to really map out
12     all this happens, how much of it happens
13     and how important it is and a lot of
14     detail how consumers are using it.  It
15     is not going to tell us what the
16     technology should be exactly for
17     measuring it.  I think it will point to
18     what is necessary and the right question
19     is always more than half of the --
20            MR. BLOXHAM:  That's what we know
21     about once we start digging into the
22     data, we know there will be other stuff,
23     as well.
24            MR. SPAETH:  We will be looking
25     at personality types, uses of
0057
 1     gratifications, and how that impacts
 2     media choice.  Tim's idea, looking for
 3     projections, looking at cohort analysis.
 4     And I said if we were to measure the
 5     same people over time, we will do it
 6     twice, if we continue that, we will have
 7     a very clear trajectory of adoption and
 8     behavior issues.
 9            To get very specific and, again,
10     it is in the proposal document that you
11     have has these details.  There has been
12     some work with the committee and I
13     wouldn't pay attention to the costs in
14     the back of the book.  We're working
15     through those details and Shari showed
16     you what the proposal is for today, so
17     don't be too concerned with that.  We're
18     looking at 17 different life activities.
19     These are meant to fit into the American
20     time use study, and that provides some
21     interesting opportunities.
22            Measuring use in all locations
23     coded into seven categories; home, car,
24     public transit, work, school, home,
25     other home.  Guest viewing as a
0058
 1     measurement of viewing in others' homes
 2     and other locations for whatever is left
 3     over.  Seventeen media, we're capturing
 4     all video, DVR, VCR, web, which would
 5     include video, streaming video on the
 6     web, computer media, which would include
 7     video, mobile phone, portable video like
 8     an iPod, digital transfer uploading,
 9     downloading cinema.  I am not sure
10     whether you want to include that.  We
11     want to capture the full picture in
12     which these media fit.
13            You might be interested in where
14     is it coming from or where is it going.
15     That would be helpful, as well.  These
16     are just -- the top lines there are up
17     to seven subcategories within.
18     Self-report, that's the observation
19     data.  The response fill-in
20     self-administered questionnaire and then
21     send back.  Including permits, uses and
22     gratifications and emotional uses, as
23     well as traditional uses and
24     gratifications.
25            Just to wrap up in the seconds
0059
 1     remaining, if you stop and think about
 2     this, this is really an interesting
 3     first.  We'll be working with the
 4     committee on the exact scope and shape
 5     and size, but I think even the smallest
 6     proposed sample that we might conduct
 7     would deliver a truly unsurpassed -- and
 8     we threw that word around a lot --
 9     consumer concentric, that's thrown
10     around a lot.  I don't know anything
11     more than that data based cross platform
12     video audience measurement.  And we
13     thank you for the opportunity.
14            MR. ZACKON:  On the phone, we're
15     communicating on the phone with Vicky
16     and Kate.
17            MS. RUSH:  Yes.
18            MR. ZACKON:  Very good.  Thank
19     you both.
20            Thank you, Jim and Mike.  And
21     there's time for questions.
22            MS. SHAGRIN:  Would the cost be
23     lower, by lower meaning not just a
24     couple hundred dollars, would the cost
25     be lower if instead of trying to do this
0060
 1     nationally, you use the local people
 2     meter samples which are part of the NTI
 3     sample, and you did this in New York, LA
 4     and Chicago?  That gives you east coast,
 5     west coast and central, it gives you
 6     America with a lot of public
 7     transportation.  One with long driving
 8     communities and one with a sort of
 9     midwestern middle of the road.  Thinking
10     about having enough sample, we would
11     have it in those markets.  And I thought
12     it might be a way to do all this.  Still
13     have the same sample size, but perhaps
14     reduce costs because the travel is so
15     much a part of this.
16            MR. SPAETH:  You are either a
17     mind reader or a step ahead.  That is
18     exactly the discussions this past week.
19     The sample has to be clustered.  You
20     can't manage an observation study that's
21     dispersed in that kind of sense.  You
22     need a small number of sampling
23     clusters.  And we are in the midst of
24     thinking about the markets because we
25     want people meter turnover folks, as
0061
 1     well.
 2            MS. SHAGRIN:  Those three markets
 3     give you three very different types of
 4     capability.  It gives you the urban, it
 5     gives you apartment lovers, it really
 6     gives you Blacks, Hispanics.  Just gives
 7     you a very broad range, even income
 8     wise, which is why I'm suggesting --
 9            MR. SPAETH:  We will work that
10     out with the committee.  The idea is so
11     good, it has aroused the poltergeist
12     above us.
13            MR. ZACKON:  With a jackhammer.
14            MR. IVIE:  Firstly, I want to
15     thank you guys for your straightforward
16     presentation of the components of
17     response rate to your study, to your
18     pilot study.  I appreciate that.  The
19     question I have is not related to
20     response rate, so you will be happy to
21     know that.
22            In using the Nielsen sample as
23     the frame essentially for your
24     selection, the national sample you get
25     kind of saddled with Nielsen's success
0062
 1     in installing councils that have certain
 2     technologies, and I noticed one of the
 3     components of your analysis, I wrote it
 4     down, is ownership or access to new
 5     technology.  And so since you're looking
 6     at turnover in Nielsen households,
 7     Nielsen's ability in the past maybe a
 8     year ago or more to meter those
 9     technologies plays into whether you will
10     observe them in your sample.  I am a
11     little concerned about that.  I'm
12     talking about the details of that.  I
13     think that's something you need to talk
14     to Nielsen about.
15            MR. DONATO:  It is easier to
16     number, what the number of DVR samples
17     in the home.
18            MR. IVIE:  How many DVR homes did
19     you have in your 50 sample because
20     those were prior Nielsen homes.
21            MR. SPAETH:  Right.  We also
22     indicate, we didn't go into the details
23     because of the time, but we recruited
24     ten, the committee specifically wanted
25     us to recruit ten high-tech individuals.
0063
 1     We had a list of devices from DVRs and
 2     iPods and video enabled cell phones and
 3     so on.  There had to be at least three
 4     of that list to qualify as high tech,
 5     and they were recruited on a purpose
 6     basis just to make sure we had those
 7     people to measure their activities.
 8            It is a good point that we need
 9     to think about what we might be missing
10     and do we need to supplement the
11     benefit.  The great benefit of drawing
12     the Nielsen sample, generally what we
13     consider very high quality, is that we
14     have the Nielsen measurement to utilize
15     in the analysis, as well.
16            MR. BLOXHAM:  We have the data of
17     the Nielsen households that had DVRs and
18     other devices.
19            MR. IVIE:  In the 30, 35, 35.
20            MR. BLOXHAM:  Yes.
21            MR. IVIE:  Are you proposing to
22     incorporate the side sample of the homes
23     or does that go away?
24            MR. SPAETH:  We were thinking it
25     would go away.  That is a topic the
0064
 1     committee could consider.
 2            MR. DONATO:  It is lot less
 3     necessary, giving the timing that we
 4     went into field with A P started
 5     measuring your DVRs.  I expect by that
 6     time you would get into field, it might
 7     not be an issue anymore.  It is easy
 8     enough to document.
 9            MR. SHIMMEL:  George, your point
10     is a valid point.  I think part of the
11     trade-off we're going to have to deal
12     with is, you know, how tightly
13     clustered, how many markets, is it
14     something like Ceril recommended, or how
15     fresh is that sample.  And, you know, it
16     is balancing and I think one thing we'll
17     have to know is that if we need to go
18     back in time, and we still may need to
19     go back 12 months, 18 months, two years,
20     just to meet the sample sizes we need.
21     If we get a 15 percent response rate and
22     we're looking for 500 completes, we need
23     to start with about 3,000 households.
24            But I think that becomes a
25     checkpoint that if we have an FTO home
0065
 1     from two years ago and it is the dollars
 2     because of DVRs, that should not
 3     qualify.  So I think your point is very
 4     valid.
 5            MR. IVIE:  I think you can get
 6     around it, but I want to make sure
 7     you're thinking about it.
 8            MR. POLTRACK:  When you do
 9     research of this scope, one of the tests
10     you spent a lot of money on research is
11     whether the results are accurate.  I
12     guess it is a question more for the
13     Nielsen representatives.  You have seen
14     the design of the study and you have
15     seen the results of the pilot.  Do you
16     feel that there's something there that
17     is actionable or if it holds up in the
18     full study.  And looking at it from your
19     perspective, looking at the study, do
20     you see specific objectives or goals of
21     Nielsen that might be served by the
22     study.
23            I just don't want this to be a
24     study that makes a great ARF
25     presentation and gets New York Times
0066
 1     advertising column and then goes away,
 2     and that's really going to be Nielsen's
 3     initiative that's going to determine
 4     that.  I want to know what is the
 5     Nielsen's perspective.
 6            MR. DONATO:  Everyone is familiar
 7     with A2/M2, and I think that detailed
 8     this as sort of a quasi quantitative
 9     study with very close observations, very
10     useful information.  I think that the
11     $64,000 question is, you know, would we
12     look at other methodologies to kind of
13     round out the picture.  So the answer is
14     yes and no.
15            We have looked at results of the
16     study.  I think the understanding, the
17     duplication and behavior and
18     cross-platform is very important.  We
19     would probably look at other
20     methodologies, to be honest, to
21     understand from a more quantitative
22     perspective what was going on out there.
23     But, yes, I can see how we could react
24     to this.
25            MR. WAKSHLAG:  One of the
0067
 1     thoughts that the committee had was if
 2     this is funded by us and we're in four
 3     markets, there's nothing that precludes
 4     Nielsen from feeling about a study of an
 5     alternative possible methodology.  You
 6     know, I'll make it up, a personal diary,
 7     that's not what I mean.
 8            MR. ZACKON:  Good choice.
 9            MR. WAKSHLAG:  They could pick
10     other alternative methodologies.  Phones
11     to lay a parallel to this to see what
12     happens.  This gives an interesting base
13     at other methodologies, you can look at
14     various response rates, you can look
15     patterns to see if there is a
16     consistency or inconsistency at the
17     data.  If there is consistence and it is
18     much cheaper, that's great news.
19            MR. DONATO:  We're going to have
20     to take care of that noise.
21            I don't think that we would use
22     personal diaries.  Electronic diaries
23     more likely.  We have done a lot of
24     other investigation in the other
25     industries.  Pharmaceutical industry has
0068
 1     made progress in terms of use of time
 2     kind of data in switching over from
 3     paper diaries to electronic diaries.
 4     PDAs with prompts go a long way to
 5     solving the glitches that are inherent
 6     in current paper diaries.  You read my
 7     mind kind of, Jack, without getting into
 8     too much idea, we have ideas of how we
 9     might do something, but from a slightly
10     more quantitative point of view, I would
11     describe this as a kind of half
12     qualitative and half quantitative.  And
13     there are other more quantitative ways
14     of doing it.
15            You look at it like you look at
16     focus groups and survey research.  Focus
17     groups, you're there, you're asking
18     detailed questions, you know how to put
19     the results into perspective.  And
20     survey research has its limitations, but
21     it comes about the same questions from
22     another angle.
23            When I said before that we would
24     like to look at multiple methodologies
25     if you were to go ahead with this, we
0069
 1     would look at this as that sort of
 2     detailed information, highly granular.
 3     I don't want to call it a focus group.
 4     It is more quantitative than a focus
 5     group.  And we would look at that for
 6     that perspective, and then we very well
 7     might do something like Jack suggested,
 8     and that is having the more quantitative
 9     thing.
10            MR. ZACKON:  We allocated an hour
11     for this piece and 15 minutes to
12     deliberate it if we were to begin now.
13     So I want to make sure, having been
14     informed there's other questions of Ball
15     State or Sequent, now is the time to do
16     it.
17            MR. POLTRACK:  One more question.
18     The Ball State people, full
19     participation, and I guess the one
20     reservation I had about the technique
21     which evidently did not show up in the
22     pilot is the cooperation in the
23     workplace with the employer of the
24     people, and you did not run into any
25     situation where your access to a
0070
 1     workplace was blocked or partially
 2     blocked.
 3            MR. BLOXHAM:  I believe that's
 4     correct, Michael.  Do you want to --
 5            MR. HOLMES:  We had good
 6     cooperation from employers' workplaces
 7     in our previous studies.  We recognize
 8     that this may differ slightly in parts
 9     of the country.  There are certain kinds
10     of workplaces like surgical theaters,
11     that sort of thing.  However, one way
12     that's dealt with, a person says I work
13     in a foundry, insurance reasons, you're
14     never going to get in the door.  We say
15     can we interview on a weekend day.  We
16     balance that against our observation
17     across the day.  There is certain
18     places, workplaces where we are unlikely
19     to get cooperation.  I will have to say
20     I have been remarkably pleased in the
21     various studies that we have run with
22     the cooperation we have received so far.
23     There was an airline pilot within the
24     sample that we observed this time
25     around, obviously not in the cockpit and
0071
 1     not on a day of work.  We got that level
 2     of affluence and that profile.
 3            MR. BROOKS:  It doesn't sound
 4     like instances there is media use.
 5            MR. BLOXHAM:  I would hope not.
 6            MR. POLTRACK:  They're always
 7     listening to music.
 8            MR. BROOKS:  Including from a
 9     place where media is, have you run into
10     anybody?
11            MR. HOLMES:  We had so few cases
12     where we have not worked out either
13     access to the workplace or the person
14     volunteers.  We don't know why they said
15     we would like to be observed on a
16     weekend, but it might be because of the
17     nature of their workplace.
18            So, we really don't have a pool
19     of workplace refusers to draw upon to
20     say here is the kind of workplaces we're
21     not going to get in to.
22            MR. BLOXHAM:  Which is good news.
23            MS. SHAGRIN:  It might be in the
24     data that we have.  Of the 50 people
25     that you had, were they equally
0072
 1     distributed across the seven days of the
 2     week?
 3            MR. SPAETH:  Yes.  Within five to
 4     nine.  Between five to nine each day of
 5     the week.  Seven is the average.  We
 6     gave leeway, but they were distributed
 7     in that proportion.
 8            MR. HOLMES:  We found one of the
 9     harder days to recruit from and one of
10     the days that had nine is Sundays.
11            MR. SPAETH:  Five.
12            MR. HOLMES:  Yes.  Five for that
13     day.  The issue there is, is that one
14     place where you exercise your greater
15     incentive to make sure that you have
16     that.  It is a very important day for a
17     number of media; so, we want to make
18     sure it is adequately represented.
19            MR. IVIE:  I have a question but,
20     first, I would just say I think the
21     observational issues you have at the
22     workplace are probably coming out in the
23     4 or 7 percent response rate, you just
24     don't agree to participate in this if
25     they work in a place that is difficult,
0073
 1     I would think.  I'm not sure, but that
 2     would be my suspicion.
 3            My question, I want to go back.
 4     I thought David's first question was
 5     particularly important in terms of how
 6     Nielsen might learn from this data.
 7     The way I'm taking away, Paul, that was
 8     kind of a luke warm answer.  You didn't
 9     seem very excited.  I was expecting you
10     to say we're studying meters and this
11     might give us some information about how
12     people use small electronic devices
13     during the day that we could learn from.
14     I didn't hear that necessarily.
15            MR. ZACKON:  Before you answer,
16     do we want to have this conversation
17     with the vendors present or can we
18     continue this conversation within the
19     council?
20            MR. IVIE:  It doesn't matter to
21     me.
22            MR. ZACKON:  My sense was that we
23     deliberate and vote amongst ourselves
24     recognizing that we're being recorded
25     and there will be a transcript.
0074
 1            MR. DONATO:  I have a proposal in
 2     the interest of elevating research
 3     principles, not vendors.
 4            MR. ZACKON:  Research partners.
 5            So are there other specific
 6     questions of Jim or Mike or Bill or
 7     Michael?
 8            MR. POLTRACK:  One other thing.
 9     The original plan that there was going
10     to be an attempt to recruit outside of
11     the Nielsen.
12            MR. SPAETH:  That was just the
13     pilot.
14            MR. POLTRACK:  In the pilot.
15     And it was aborted, I guess.  Was that
16     because it was found to be not workable?
17            MR. SPAETH:  No.  We recruited 35
18     participants through Nielsen using a
19     random process.  We recruited -- Ball
20     State recruited 15 directly using the
21     techniques they have been using to get
22     the ten high tech and the five Spanish
23     language dominant.  You answer in a
24     vague way, can they be observed
25     successfully with the language issues or
0075
 1     all the technology.
 2            MR. POLTRACK:  I guess I'm going
 3     to -- obviously, is the issue we're
 4     making a big concession by using the
 5     Nielsen, all these cooperation rates are
 6     taken on the fact that the initial list
 7     is cooperators to begin with.  So by not
 8     going outside the Nielsen cooperator
 9     base where that is a major compromise of
10     the study, was there any experience
11     trying to do that, to go to incorporate
12     some sample outside of the Nielsen base?
13            MR. MOULT:  Can we get a better
14     sample with Nielsen and non-Nielsen
15     individuals for theory?
16            MR. POLTRACK:  One is basically
17     yes, that is as the first part.  The
18     second part is even if we recognize that
19     the Nielsen cooperators solves problems
20     and makes the study more efficient,
21     should we do a separate mini sample or
22     something outside of just not, you know,
23     if we're going to spend this much money,
24     why not get a sub-sample of people
25     outside the base just to see if there's
0076
 1     any significant differential.
 2            MR. MOULT:  We could do that in
 3     design.  Our opinion was the best sample
 4     is with Nielsen households or
 5     individuals.  And in some ways this
 6     dovetails with the other project that
 7     you're doing on nonresponse which
 8     addresses, separately addresses that.
 9     It is conceivable to include people but
10     we don't think it will improve the
11     strength of the sample.
12            MR. DONATO:  I would agree.  This
13     is a cold call.
14            MR. WAKSHLAG:  They did seven
15     studies based on cold calls.
16            MR. HOLMES:  We recruited 412
17     successfully, 394 successfully, but we
18     only report data on the longest 350
19     days.  Because at that point we had not
20     refined our measurements for the other
21     parts of the day.
22            We have experience doing that.
23     It is a different beast from what we
24     proportioned here.
25            MS. BRILL:  I would like to add
0077
 1     something here.  One of the advantages
 2     of recruiting from the retired Nielsen
 3     sample is that we can also benchmark the
 4     observations against their historical TV
 5     and video usage.
 6            MR. ZACKON:  Do you have a
 7     concern that we have sufficient time
 8     amongst ourselves to discuss and decide
 9     the issue?
10            MS. BURNS:  I want the room to be
11     comfortable in getting any questions
12     asked.
13            MR. ZACKON:  Questions we have of
14     our four research partners we can
15     research.  The first one is coming back
16     is Paul.
17            Are there other questions?
18            MR. SHIMMEL:  I have one
19     question.  This sort of gets to the
20     point of if this study were to be
21     approved, do you want this to be random
22     projectable to the average adult, 18
23     plus, or something different?
24            Do you have a sense from the
25     data?  I know it is only 50 people.
0078
 1     There are certain people by the nature
 2     of consumed are very TV centric.  There
 3     are other people very out-of-home device
 4     centric, and it seems like the more --
 5     if there were a way to screen for this
 6     end of the pendulum, that would yield
 7     much more insight than paying money to
 8     interview people who 95 percent of the
 9     time they watch TV and in home and
10     they're captured in technology.
11            Can you address that through this
12     study or maybe through some of the other
13     observational research you have done?
14            MR. HOLMES:  Our segmentation,
15     you do see that that segment of the
16     person who is heavily at home watching
17     TV and you already know about that.
18     I'll leave it to the rest of the team to
19     comment to make sure that we don't
20     over-balance.
21            MR. SPAETH:  One of the things
22     that we saw in the sample, we recruited
23     ten high-tech folks but total 50 sample.
24     We saw a significant amount of
25     cross-media use, cross-video usage,
0079
 1     significant amount of out-of-home
 2     viewing and usage.  You know, it is hard
 3     to say what the benchmark should be.  We
 4     showed usage on video iPods.  No usage
 5     on video cell phones we have to say, but
 6     I'm not surprised at that.  We did see
 7     portable DVD players.  We saw a wide
 8     array of different kinds of media usage
 9     in that sample.
10            MR. HOLMES:  It is in the report
11     that you received, the breakout.
12            MR. STERNBERG:  Can we add five
13     or ten minutes to the deliberation
14     process?
15            MR. ZACKON:  We already have.
16     What I'm trying to do it to make best
17     use of these four experts.
18            MR. KALINE:  This is the time to
19     do it.
20            MS. SHAGRIN:  I have one question
21     that sort of gives some added value if
22     you can do this.
23            You were monitoring or observing
24     and recording on a second-by-second
25     basis.
0080
 1            MR. SPAETH:  Ten seconds.
 2            MS. SHAGRIN:  Will you be able to
 3     take your data for these observations
 4     and match that actual ten-second data --
 5     do you know what they are watching?
 6            MR. SPAETH:  We reported it as
 7     program or watchable.
 8            MS. SHAGRIN:  You are reporting
 9     it as program or commercial?
10            MR. SPAETH:  Right.  Not the
11     exact.
12            MS. SHAGRIN:  If we have an exact
13     time where we could match it, it would
14     give us some significant insight as to
15     how people actually watch commercials or
16     change channels or don't watch
17     commercials on a far more granular basis
18     from anything we looked at before.
19            And when I think about how we
20     would use this data and how Neilsen
21     would use this data, that's been my
22     concern from day one as to how valuable
23     is it.  If we could do that, that adds
24     some new value to this data.
25            MS. BURNS:  Jim, if I recall
0081
 1     correctly, you were going to record
 2     program or commercial not specific
 3     because we were afraid of altering
 4     habits because we were letting, I'm not
 5     recording the actual show, just that
 6     you're watching a program.
 7            So we can get your answer and
 8     that was the intent, just not on a
 9     specific program basis because we want
10     them to watch naturally.
11            MR. BLOXHAM:  One specific
12     breakout is putting that information
13     alongside the information relating to
14     distribution of attention, so when
15     somebody is visually fixated on the
16     screen, we know they're watching.  On
17     the other hand, if they're looking at a
18     newspaper and alter attention we can
19     record that.
20            So you would have a breakout for
21     program versus advertising time against
22     that kind of measurement, that's one
23     thing that comes to mind as an output.
24            MS. SHAGRIN:  But you wouldn't
25     necessarily know that they saw ten
0082
 1     seconds of this commercial and then
 2     changed to a different channel?
 3            MR. BLOXHAM:  If basically it
 4     came out of a programming into
 5     advertising, that would be captured.  At
 6     some point they switched channels and
 7     went into programming, it would be
 8     recorded as programming.
 9            MS. BURNS:  It is generic
10     program, generic commercial, as opposed
11     to specific.
12            MR. BLOXHAM:  If after 20 seconds
13     they flipped.
14            MS. GALLAGHER:  Would we know it
15     was a flip or 20 seconds worth of
16     commercial?
17            MR. BLOXHAM:  We wouldn't know
18     for sure.
19            MS. SHAGRIN:  You're not going to
20     get what you want.
21            MR. BLOXHAM:  We have conducted a
22     separate study which got into that level
23     of detail to ask that of one, any one
24     media in a study.  Looking at so many
25     different media is overly burdensome on
0083
 1     the observer and, frankly, compromises
 2     our ability to capture the data.
 3            MR. SPAETH:  It is another study.
 4            MS. SHAGRIN:  Fine.
 5            MR. HOLMES:  Behavioral levels of
 6     engagement and how those are associated
 7     with program content versus ad content,
 8     that is possible.
 9            MR. ZACKON:  Other questions for
10     our research partners?
11            MR. BLOXHAM:  Propeller heads,
12     please.
13            MR. ZACKON:  Anyone on the phone?
14            MS. BURNS:  Are you still on the
15     phone?  I'm wondering if they're on the
16     phone.
17            MR. ZACKON:  I personally want to
18     thank our four research partners.  We
19     have grown close working on this
20     project.  Thank you for excellent work
21     on this, on the preparation.
22            MR. BLOXHAM:  Thank you.
23            MR. SPAETH:  Thank you.
24            MR. MOULT:  Thank you.
25            MR. HOLMES:  Thank you.
0084
 1            MR. ZACKON:  I assume that
 2     presentation we can e-mail out after
 3     today's meeting.
 4            MR. BLOXHAM:  On the back there
 5     are appendices of that data that you
 6     have in the white data which is attached
 7     at the end, you have access to that.
 8            MR. ZACKON:  We have our copy of
 9     the current proposal.  So it is time to
10     discuss the formal motion.  If you want
11     to repeat the formal motion, Shari or
12     Steve.
13            George, you had a question of
14     Paul.  You're not off the hook.
15            MR. DONATO:  I thought we
16     restored order.
17            MR. IVIE:  It is not a hook.
18            MR. DONATO:  In the last minute I
19     kind of jotted down six dimensions that
20     I think is probably worth considering.
21     One is a sample representation -- it is
22     what it is.  I would assume that we may
23     come in with about a 10 percent response
24     rate, maybe, and, you know, whether it
25     is 5 or 10 percent, you have to sort of
0085
 1     take this kind of information for what
 2     it is.  Just like you take focus group
 3     information.  It is one view of the
 4     data.
 5            There's some diagnostics that we
 6     can do that will help us understand
 7     whether or not the sample is leading us
 8     in the wrong direction.  But, as I said
 9     before, you know, the data will be
10     useful and valuable and I don't mean to
11     understate it in any way.  It is one
12     snapshot and we wouldn't predicate what
13     we do in A2/M2 certainly based on just
14     this data, although this data may
15     generate hypotheses that we might want
16     to test and focus groups sometimes
17     generate hypotheses that you want to
18     test.  I will try to make this quick.  I
19     will chew up all the time.
20            MR. ZACKON:  Good idea.
21            MR. DONATO:  Long term, two
22     trials here.  We're kind of interested
23     in understanding how this works through
24     time.  Maybe it is a little bit of a
25     limitation.  But it is over time and
0086
 1     whatever else we would do to understand
 2     cross platform usage and things like
 3     engagement.  Other methodologies, sort
 4     of longer term.  Combined, I think they
 5     give you a fuller picture than either
 6     one separately.
 7            Instrument bias.  I am a little
 8     worried about the instrument bias but
 9     all instrument bias.  People meters have
10     instrument biases.  Direct observation
11     has instrument bias.  Focus group has
12     instrument bias.
13            My bigger concern is, I referred
14     to this before as a magnifying glass,
15     and you get really close and you see
16     what people are really doing.  But
17     almost to your point, Ceril, I'm not
18     sure, I'm not a hundred percent sure
19     that this is the magnifying glass for
20     commercial versus program.  I wonder if
21     people knew that they were being watched
22     whether they would view commercials
23     differently or programs differently.  I
24     don't know.  That would be a question I
25     would ask.
0087
 1            In some cases, I almost think I
 2     might look at tuning data for that.
 3     Then I had a thought, what about if
 4     someone was carrying around a device
 5     that listened for audio which has legal
 6     problems or codes or signatures and,
 7     therefore, you wouldn't have to even be
 8     worried about recording.  Just kind of a
 9     thought of enhancing it.  As we think
10     about our quantitative approach, that is
11     something that we would do probably.  A
12     PDA, prompting periodically for specific
13     behaviors and -- but then also, you
14     know, we have a couple of devices ready
15     for codes and signatures portable and
16     probably signatures, not codes.  You
17     know, this way would afford movie
18     theaters.  The observers would carry
19     such a device which would improve maybe
20     the quality of this study.
21            Engagement, this is sort of --
22     we're looking at various measures that
23     would actually electronically get to
24     engagement.  And I would be interested
25     in seeing the data just to help me
0088
 1     understand how those electronic measures
 2     would work.  Would it launch a program,
 3     no.  But it would give guidance in terms
 4     of how various electronic measures of
 5     the engagement would work.  It would say
 6     among a sample of people, this is how
 7     they're using multiple media together.
 8            When you're designing your
 9     electronic measurements, make sure you
10     can capture those.  At the end of the
11     day, you can reduce it down to a single
12     debate, single issue, and that is, you
13     know, the data have value.  I think the
14     data have significant value.  The
15     question is, if the data have the value
16     necessary to basically kind of take up
17     all the funds for whatever period of
18     time it is.
19            And I think what you really have
20     to think about, how you want to allocate
21     all your money.  I should answer the
22     question on funding.  Unfortunately, I
23     don't -- I spoke to Susan as recently as
24     last night.  What I will tell you in our
25     thinking, there's no change in thinking.
0089
 1     You know, we have new owners, we have to
 2     present the budget.  We haven't
 3     presented the budget.  I can't promise
 4     you anything.  I can say we're not
 5     thinking anything differently.  So I
 6     would add that on the basis of that sort
 7     of best information I can provide, and
 8     so, that really is what it comes down.
 9            Is that how you want to spend all
10     of your research funds for whatever
11     period of time, or do you want to look
12     for something which you want to kind of
13     modify the study.  They're all in the
14     proposals.  You may have options that
15     you didn't have as recently as
16     yesterday.
17            MR. STERNBERG:  I would like to
18     make a comment.  I think to some degree
19     we're having the wrong conversation
20     here.  I think that our industry has
21     reached a point right now where there's
22     very little research being done.  I
23     think that most of the research that is
24     being done, people don't believe in.
25            When you see a study from
0090
 1     somebody that says media usage is down,
 2     I don't know how much people believe
 3     that.  Part of the problem right now is
 4     that a good portion of the industry does
 5     not trust Nielsen data, does not believe
 6     in the Nielsen data.  Nielsen is putting
 7     out data covering the industry as a
 8     currency without doing any real research
 9     to determine whether it is valid.
10            So to even say use this device or
11     that device or this thing that Nielsen
12     comes up, that's not the purpose of what
13     we're doing.  The purpose of what we're
14     doing, one of the purposes is to say
15     there's all this other bogus or what we
16     think might be bogus research out there.
17     Is it going in the right direction or
18     wrong direction.  Research is not
19     designed for precision.
20            You are never going to get a
21     precise answer from a study like this.
22     You're going to get guidance and it will
23     tell us these five studies say this, but
24     this observational technique we think is
25     better.  Nielsen is saying this, but
0091
 1     this is saying something else.  So it
 2     will lead us into what else needs to be
 3     researched and possibly what else
 4     Nielsen needs to be doing, which I don't
 5     see happening.  And I see us going
 6     without a study like this, continuation
 7     on this path of just worse and worse
 8     mediocre research.
 9            And I really believe something
10     like this is necessary to get us back,
11     at least to try to get us back on the
12     right path.
13            MR. ZACKON:  I'm going to take a
14     stand for the council.  We have a
15     project on nonresponse bias which I
16     think does directly take on validity.
17     So I don't know that there's no
18     research.
19            MR. DONATO:  With all due
20     respect, I don't see how this gets to
21     Nielsen validity.
22            MR. POLTRACK:  Steve, it also
23     comes back to the point I was asking
24     them about, to the extent that senior
25     management and the others feel that they
0092
 1     want to look beyond Nielsen or have any
 2     questions about Nielsen, what concerns
 3     me about the study, it is so big and it
 4     is so expensive and so comprehensive,
 5     yet it starts with Nielsen cooperators.
 6     And I think I could go, if my management
 7     says how much confidence do you have in
 8     the Nielsen system, I can't use this
 9     study really to defend the Nielsen
10     system because it starts with Nielsen
11     cooperators.
12            I think what is missing here is
13     some attempt anyway to have a
14     sub-segment of -- I guess the Nielsen
15     people, you gave them the list of
16     cooperators.  Could you also give them a
17     list of noncooperating basics to try to
18     recruit.
19            MR. DONATO:  I suppose we could.
20     But my personal professional judgment is
21     I'm less worried about the difference
22     between the cooperators and the
23     non-cooperators.  I don't know how 500
24     observations for two days is going to
25     tell me whether I'm measuring television
0093
 1     or not.  I think it is illuminating and
 2     highlights issues that can be very
 3     useful for the understanding of how to
 4     measure multiple media, but do people
 5     really believe in a household -- what
 6     are you going to do, come up with a
 7     rating level from the sample and compare
 8     it to what we do?
 9            MR. POLTRACK:  I think a
10     practical situation I can give you.  We
11     have, since the beginning of the work on
12     people meters and everything, one of the
13     things that we have highlighted is that
14     the current measurement system is
15     deficient at the hours of high activity
16     in the home when people return to the
17     home and are reestablishing themselves
18     in the home.
19            Now this little pilot project
20     that was the area of the greatest
21     differential in viewing where the pilot
22     said it was showing a much higher level
23     of television viewing during that four
24     to seven time period.  So right there, I
25     think that's something.  And I guess it
0094
 1     also has to do with whether we spend all
 2     this money on this general area or
 3     whether we try to pick out certain areas
 4     that are more relevant and focus a
 5     little bit more on certain areas and not
 6     try to be as global as the study is.
 7            I mean, you know, they're going
 8     to go out of their way to measure mobile
 9     video as part of this thing.  We know we
10     do research all the time.  There is no
11     mobile video going on right now.  How
12     much effort are we going to be making to
13     measure mobile video at this point in
14     time?
15            MR. DONATO:  If you want to use
16     it for that purpose, you would be better
17     off having homes that still had people
18     meters in it.  I know you have to get
19     away from the observation bias.  You
20     could see how people were attracting
21     with meters.
22            Here is a legitimate question.  I
23     don't mean to sound offensive.  Would
24     you consider observation without meters
25     in the household to be a better
0095
 1     benchmark against which to compare
 2     ratings, or would you consider the
 3     telephone coincidental which is
 4     currently going on and been proposed to
 5     the industry as an ongoing validator
 6     better?  And both have limitations, I
 7     understand, but right now there is a
 8     coincidental going on and we'll publish
 9     the first results and we'll make a
10     decision as an industry to continue as
11     an ongoing validator.
12            MR. GLOECKLER:  It seems like a
13     different question.  This isn't designed
14     to validate.
15            MR. DONATO:  I agree completely.
16     Somehow that is the avenue of debate
17     that we got into that this will validate
18     Nielsen ratings.
19            MR. LIGUORI:  It seems to me that
20     as I'm listening to this, there are too
21     many expectations of the study.  It is
22     exciting to listen to them and it does
23     generate other questions.  But in its
24     simplest form, I thought what we were
25     looking at was how people -- how
0096
 1     people's behavior is changing in terms
 2     of the devices that are used.
 3            I never saw this as, you know,
 4     somehow a report card or, you know,
 5     comparing the viewing that was done on
 6     these devices to anything that you do at
 7     Nielsen.  This was more behavioral.  And
 8     it was a first step and it was to
 9     benchmark, because as we go forward and
10     the devices became more pervasive
11     throughout homes, we would have a basic
12     point at which it started and to see how
13     it has evolved.
14            It just seems like there are too
15     many things being expected of this first
16     study.
17            MS. BURNS:  You're right on
18     target.  Read the mission statement,
19     because the sense that I'm getting here
20     is too many broad interpretations of
21     what really is a focus study.  So I
22     would like everybody before we vote to
23     once again understand the mission
24     statement and what we're trying to get
25     out of this, which is not validation,
0097
 1     which is not challenging Nielsen, and it
 2     isn't the sole purpose, everybody in
 3     this room using quantitative and
 4     qualitative, we never make a decision on
 5     one sole methodology.
 6            If you could reread the mission
 7     statement so we can put out of this and
 8     not ask of it something we're not
 9     intending.
10            MS. BRILL:  Thank you.
11            I would like to refocus the group
12     on what our original intent was.  The
13     mission of our committee and the study
14     is to improve and involve TV and video
15     audience measurement through
16     comprehensive and ongoing study of media
17     consumption.  It is really to inform
18     learning for the first time to get a
19     blueprint of how consumers are
20     interacting with devices wherever they
21     may be throughout their day.  We never
22     had anything of this scale before.
23            And, also, I would like to
24     reiterate what was in our RFP.  Our
25     committee sought to, one, to mention the
0098
 1     current composition of media focus on TV
 2     and video and how it is changing and
 3     will change over time in order to
 4     propose the optimal form of video media
 5     measurement.
 6            MR. ZACKON:  Ira.
 7            MR. SUSSMAN:  I think the purpose
 8     of this is great.  I think my concern is
 9     the cost of doing this in light of other
10     things that might want to be done.
11            When we first talked about doing
12     this and really understand the whole
13     breadth, that's a great study.  But when
14     you start looking at the advertising
15     dollars that are at risk or being played
16     in a lot of these areas, I think, you
17     know, focus on where the investments are
18     around learning, there might be -- I
19     understand why we went this way, I'm
20     just concerned about the amount of money
21     that's being pushed at it.
22            MS. BRILL:  This amount of
23     money --
24            MR. ZACKON:  Actually --
25            MS. BRILL:  -- it is not a
0099
 1     secret.  It is something that was
 2     mentioned up front when we first
 3     presented our proposal to the committee
 4     last September.  And that is why we
 5     voted to first do a pilot, to see if
 6     this observational technique would be
 7     viable on this grander scale.
 8            MR. GLOECKLER:  Is there a way to
 9     split the cost over two calendar years
10     instead of having to fund this all in
11     one year?  Maybe it is already planned
12     that way.  Do you make it so it cuts
13     across two years?
14            MR. POLTRACK:  It is proposed.
15            MR. STERNBERG:  Nielsen dog eared
16     a year of funding.
17            MS. BUSLIK:  I had a question.
18            It seems to me this thing grew
19     somewhere and maybe I didn't attend a
20     meeting, but I got lost somewhere.  We
21     have gratification scales that I'm not
22     quite sure how we're going to use them,
23     what they really mean and not the
24     engagement.
25            Maybe we can still do the study
0100
 1     but eliminate some of the nuances to it,
 2     because I would rather see some of the
 3     information really blown out and
 4     analyzed by them and giving us some real
 5     direction, rather than to ask a
 6     bazillion questions.
 7            So I'm looking at the gratis
 8     scale and I can't imagine how I'm going
 9     to use, I pity when I watch this program
10     or this type of show, I feel anger, I
11     feel love.  I mean, how is that going to
12     help us understand how television or any
13     of the new technologies are used.
14            So could we maybe pull back some
15     and maybe save some money and do
16     something additionally with sample
17     that's not part of the Nielsen sample,
18     if you think that's important.
19            MR. ZACKON:  Steve, in part, in
20     response to what you and Shari were
21     saying, when this was first proposed
22     there was a number as low as 1.8 million
23     in which we could get two ways.  People
24     may have bought in based on that.  Now
25     we don't have that lower level.  It is
0101
 1     not surprising that people are struck by
 2     a cost increase.
 3            MR. STERNBERG:  I think initially
 4     we mentioned that we would need two
 5     years of Nielsen funding.  I think the
 6     1.8 kind of went away quickly.
 7            MS. GALLAGHER:  That was never
 8     mentioned.
 9            MR. WAKSHLAG:  The answer is we
10     certainly should go back and express any
11     concerns that the committee has on the
12     value of these scales.  I mean, it is a
13     classic way of segmenting the
14     marketplace into saying I have people
15     who use TV for X and TV for Y and those
16     type of particular scales and analyze
17     and create personality types.  And
18     that's, you know, if there's little
19     value in that, I'm not sure how much
20     incremental cost that really is.
21            Collecting the data from these is
22     not the cost.  The cost of collecting
23     the data from understanding is paying
24     the observers to collect the data and
25     the cost of the management.
0102
 1            MS. BUSLIK:  The management has
 2     to be the hours that they devote to
 3     analyzing this segment of the study.  I
 4     mean, so I'm not sure -- fine, I
 5     understand segmentation, but what can we
 6     get out of that.  How can we apply that
 7     to the future.
 8            MR. POLTRACK:  We're doing this
 9     research now.  Anytime you do this
10     research, you need a sample of thousands
11     to apply that kind of study, that kind
12     of study.  It is not the kind of
13     segmentation that really works with a
14     small sample like this.
15            MR. WAKSHLAG:  I agree, if you do
16     these types of analysis, you need more
17     of a sample.
18            MR. BROOKS:  I think everybody
19     has focused on, people in the room, and
20     gotten a breakthrough of understanding
21     of something in their career.  I suggest
22     to the group that you step back a little
23     bit.  This is an illusionary study.  It
24     is not a syndicated study done every
25     year or every month.  It is just too
0103
 1     expensive a methodology.
 2            But once a decade, once there is
 3     a major change in what the media map is,
 4     trained observers watching a broad range
 5     of people actually using these media and
 6     how those media intersect with each
 7     other seems to me a basic study that we,
 8     as users, we need to understand that and
 9     we can go down self-reporting and go
10     down hunting people meters, go down
11     whether the set is on or not, but on an
12     occasion like this, this started from
13     two words, media map.
14            What is the media map in 2008?  I
15     think it is probably the only
16     opportunity any of us are going to have
17     in quite a while to step back and get
18     that kind of basic understanding of
19     what's going on.  I think it has to
20     inform you because you understand better
21     how your clients, how your consumers are
22     using different media and how those
23     media interact with each other.
24            MS. RUSH:  I think every day in
25     our home what consumers are doing with
0104
 1     media and what they're doing, I think
 2     the study would be very important in
 3     terms of understanding those behaviors
 4     because these questions are impossible
 5     to answer at this point.
 6            MR. DONATO:  I almost think the
 7     benefit goes the other way.  In theory
 8     what is unique is the observation and
 9     that's the thing you're never going to
10     have among 10,000 persons or households.
11     So you have this unique data.  And now
12     regarding the gratifications questions
13     and the ancillary data that you collect,
14     you should be intending, be able to
15     predict what is unique in this study.
16            So there are certain things that
17     you can ask that somehow are predictive
18     of or correlate with observations so
19     that then you could go outside of
20     observation and ask that of much larger
21     groups and kind of trust your
22     regressions, trust your predictions and,
23     therefore, say, you know, that's the way
24     a larger quantitative -- I'm not
25     articulating very well.  Try to predict
0105
 1     through questions what you see in
 2     observation.  Then you get a much larger
 3     sample.  You ask the same questions and
 4     it is if you have the observation for
 5     the larger sample.
 6            MS. RUSH:  I understand, got to
 7     save the last half hour, Paul.
 8            MR. WAKSHLAG:  The reservation I
 9     have about the study in general is, and
10     I'm going to talk about it in some
11     depth, is that it will give me a media
12     effort today.  It doesn't give me a
13     media map of two or three years from
14     now.  I will observe what people do in
15     their households today and then go back
16     into the marketplace eight months later
17     and, you know, if all of the sudden
18     there is a huge increase or change in
19     the kind of technologies people have
20     between the first of the year and
21     October, then I might be able to project
22     something into the future.  Or I can
23     look back and talk about so and so
24     people had DVRs and they bought DVRs or
25     had DVRs for a similar length of time.
0106
 1            The one reason I like doing
 2     January and October, I'm looking for
 3     robust findings.  I like the results to
 4     be whatever I observe in January to also
 5     hold true when the television season
 6     begins and baseball is on in October.
 7     And if I find the same things in this
 8     two months, I have much more confidence
 9     in a solution that covers multiple
10     seasons.  So in one way I thought maybe
11     we should wait January to January.
12            No, I'd rather test this thing in
13     various situations.  But the other
14     thing, you know, I'm going to talk about
15     a study that Don knows and some of the
16     others have used.  We're not exactly
17     sure exactly how we're going to design
18     wave two of this study.  We can go in
19     and do the exact same thing we did in
20     wave one and observe these people again,
21     or we could adopt another study which
22     I'm familiar with and which I've
23     discussed with the other members of the
24     committee.  Don is familiar with it
25     because his company sponsored it.
0107
 1            Time Warner, Pepsi, P&C, funder
 2     of the study that these guys -- media
 3     acceleration project.  What they did was
 4     a small sample of 50 people.  And we
 5     gave them a credit card.  A credit card
 6     allowed them to go to Best Buy and buy
 7     from a catalog of products people who
 8     were designing the study had gone
 9     through, and we would subsidize the cost
10     of that purchase to the tune of 50 cents
11     on the dollar.  So they could go to Best
12     Buy and they could buy a wireless P.C.,
13     you know, wireless modem, et cetera,
14     et cetera, which they might not buy for
15     a couple of years because it cost too
16     much.  Or a video iPod.  The media
17     acceleration project is because we try
18     to reduce the cost barrier for new
19     technologies to the kind of things.
20            MR. ZACKON:  I'm going to step
21     in.  If you could bottom line.
22            MR. WAKSHLAG:  There were some
23     observations that were useful.  They are
24     profound observations.  The people who
25     bought iPods, they didn't spend time on
0108
 1     video, even though they bought video
 2     iPods.  What they did do was spent a lot
 3     less radio time.  That is important to
 4     my business and your business to know.
 5            In fact, I just read this morning
 6     CBS radio concerned about the
 7     demographics of radio because he said in
 8     this article that I read that young
 9     people are starting to migrate to these
10     other platforms and he's comfortable
11     changing the CBS affiliate in this
12     market to a 35 to 54 radio station.
13            So that happened.  People who
14     bought games with this money spent a lot
15     of times with games and that came at the
16     expense of a lot of other stuff.  Almost
17     everything.  People who bought wireless
18     laptops spent less time on the internet
19     than they did before.  This was a three
20     wave site.  Why did they spend less
21     time?  Because they didn't have to go
22     off to a separate room where they had to
23     turn the thing on and sit there and
24     spend time with it.
25            Now, I'm not saying these rules
0109
 1     are definitive, but it does give us an
 2     option in terms of looking at the data
 3     and seeing which way to go with wave
 4     two.  I believe the study -- and if we
 5     don't want to do it here, I'll find
 6     another way to do it.
 7            MR. ZACKON:  Are we being asked
 8     to vote today?
 9            MR. WAKSHLAG:  No.
10            MR. LIGUORI:  One of the things
11     you should consider is that there is
12     likely to be a shift, a pretty big
13     shift, in my opinion, come February 17,
14     2009, because everything that's portable
15     is digital.  And for those -- and to
16     assume those that don't have that in
17     their home are the downtrod and the poor
18     is missing a segment that just doesn't
19     have everything connected that may chose
20     to spend their money on a portable
21     device instead of having another set.
22            So there is going to be a major
23     change.  Now do we say wait, or do we
24     say let's benchmark what's happening now
25     and then see what happens then?
0110
 1            MR. ZACKON:  So there's a lot we
 2     could continue to discuss it.  We could
 3     spend the rest of the day discussing.
 4     It is up to the group how to do it.
 5            Shari, Steve, do you have a
 6     particular motion you would like the
 7     committee to move on hearing based on
 8     what you're hearing?
 9            MS. BRILL:  I just want to steer
10     the committee back to what the council,
11     as to what our vote is based upon today.
12     Is there any more discussion or should I
13     say that?
14            MR. ZACKON:  Why don't you say
15     what we're here to vote for.
16            MS. BRILL:  Two-stage
17     observational study with the potential
18     to review after our stage one.  A sample
19     ranging between 350 through 500 people
20     per wave.  The cost not to exceed 3-1/2
21     million, contingent upon Nielsen funding
22     a third year.  And that's the top level.
23            The next phase would begin
24     January 2008 with a second phase
25     beginning October.
0111
 1            MS. SHAGRIN:  A second specific
 2     question to that statement, is for some
 3     reason Nielsen doesn't fund a third
 4     year, what happens?  It says contingent
 5     upon.  Does that mean we don't do the
 6     second phase?
 7            MS. BURNS:  The second phase is
 8     voted on.  After we see the results of
 9     the first, we'll decide.
10            MR. WAKSHLAG:  It is a two-phase
11     study.  We'll have to talk about how
12     small the sample should be.
13            MS. SHAGRIN:  I'm looking, can we
14     cut costs by limiting it to three
15     markets?  You know, does that bring the
16     cost down to 2.8?
17            MR. ZACKON:  We currently have,
18     from my calculation, this is in your
19     packet, $3,294,000 is available.  That
20     doesn't assume the universe assessments
21     going to be funded, the marketplace
22     practice is going to be funded.  That's
23     just based on what is approved.  3.3
24     million available of Nielsen's
25     contribution.
0112
 1            MR. SHIMMEL:  I think it is
 2     important in terms of what you are
 3     voting on today, it is 350 or 500 X
 4     Nielsen sample.  I would think if a
 5     decision was to have a hundred high-tech
 6     people outside the NMR sample, the cost
 7     would be different.
 8            MR. IVIE:  I thought that wasn't
 9     in the plan.
10            MR. WAKSHLAG:  That's not in the
11     plan.
12            MS. BURNS:  They anticipated a
13     higher cooperation rate.
14            MR. SHIMMEL:  I understand that.
15            MR. WAKSHLAG:  It is not the
16     committee's recommendation.
17            MR. SUSSMAN:  The proposal is a
18     two-wave plan.
19            MR. ZACKON:  There is a problem
20     if the second phase doesn't move
21     forward, that is 300,000.
22            MR. STERNBERG:  There is a
23     termination fee.
24            MS. SHAGRIN:  But is the 3.5
25     divided by 2 plus 300 the amount we are
0113
 1     committing to the first phase?
 2            MS. BURNS:  No.
 3            MR. STERNBERG:  3.5 is committed.
 4     If Nielsen funds the next year, that's
 5     for the full two phases.
 6            MR. ZACKON:  The committee
 7     requests two-way funding.
 8            MS. SHAGRIN:  I understand.  I'm
 9     just trying to say if it doesn't happen,
10     what is the exposure, how much of the
11     money that is already allocated would we
12     lose.
13            MR. BROOKS:  Remember, this is a
14     ceiling amount.  The committee wanted to
15     be -- to get the maximum amount.  The
16     committee is upset about the cost, too,
17     and we had a fiery meeting with the
18     partners about that, as a matter of
19     fact.
20            MS. BURNS:  And they're still
21     sharpening their pencils.
22            MR. WAKSHLAG:  I was going to ask
23     George if this is possible, that's the
24     maximum amount the committee is
25     requesting to be approved.  Obviously,
0114
 1     if Nielsen does not come forward with a
 2     third year of funding, the project would
 3     have to come in at a lower amount.
 4            MR. STERNBERG:  I think one
 5     question is also if Nielsen does not,
 6     are we now committing the 3.2, 99,
 7     whatever it is available to this.
 8            MR. ZACKON:  Everything remaining
 9     is what you're saying.
10            MS. BUSLIK:  I would like to
11     suggest that the committee go back and
12     discuss this again with the partners,
13     asking them for some alternatives that
14     do not eat up the 3.5, which may scale
15     it back, and give you the option of
16     doing first wave to see what comes out
17     adding additional things.
18            MR. WAKSHLAG:  If we chose not to
19     do a two-wave study, the cost of the
20     first wave is --
21            MR. STERNBERG:  2.6 million.
22            MS. BUSLIK:  I would like them to
23     come back and go back to them even for
24     the first wave and have them repencil
25     and re-erase some numbers, maybe scaling
0115
 1     back to some degree.
 2            MR. ZACKON:  There is a motion on
 3     the floor to fund 3.5 million contingent
 4     on Nielsen funding a third year.
 5            MS. BRILL:  Up to 3.5.
 6            MR. BROOKS:  Maximum.
 7            MS. BRILL:  We're still
 8     negotiating with them.
 9            MR. POLTRACK:  Minimum is 2.6.
10            MR. ZACKON:  2.6 gets you 400
11     people for one event.
12            MR. POLTRACK:  If the study goes
13     forward and we do phase one only, we
14     have to pay 2.6.
15            MR. KEILTY:  Plus the 300,000.
16            MR. ZACKON:  That includes it.
17            MR. LIGUORI:  Does spending the
18     3.5 preclude other studies?
19            MR. ZACKON:  Yes.
20            MS. GALLAGHER:  That precludes
21     all of the studies.
22            MR. WAKSHLAG:  Wait.  The 3.5
23     assumes another year of funding from
24     Nielsen of an additional 2.5.
25            MR. STERNBERG:  I would like to
0116
 1     make another motion.
 2            MR. WAKSHLAG:  There would be
 3     another $2 million if something else --
 4            MR. ZACKON:  Jack, one second.
 5     He would like to revise his motion.
 6            MR. STERNBERG:  I would like to
 7     propose that we're voting on funding 3.5
 8     million contingent on Nielsen funding a
 9     third year.  If Nielsen comes back and
10     does not fund the third year, we revote
11     so that you are not committed to use all
12     the funds that are available to the
13     entire committee at this point.
14            Our committee has discussed
15     extensively whether we wanted to do a
16     two or one-phase study.  We decided we
17     didn't want to propose a one-phase
18     study.  I would much rather at that
19     point vote to fund 2.5 if another 1.5
20     comes into the till.  If not, we take a
21     revote.
22            MS. SHAGRIN:  When do you think
23     there will be a definitive answer?
24            MR. DONATO:  I'm hoping in a
25     month.  Our budget cycle got moved back.
0117
 1     I can't guarantee.  If it is not a
 2     month, it won't be two months.
 3            MS. SHAGRIN:  What is the latest
 4     we can start?  That means that we really
 5     can't start the project.
 6            MR. STERNBERG:  We are going in
 7     the field in January.  There is time
 8     before we proceed.
 9            MS. GALLAGHER:  They have to hire
10     observers and stuff.  I assume they have
11     a certain amount of lead time that
12     they're going to require.
13            MR. BROOKS:  They originally
14     proposed this fall, and because of the
15     timing, this delayed it to January.
16            MR. ZACKON:  So a no vote might
17     not reflect on the value of the study.
18     It might simply say that we're not ready
19     to decide that at this meeting.  Is that
20     correct?
21            MR. LIGUORI:  Yes.
22            MS. BUSLIK:  That's not his
23     proposal.
24            MR. ZACKON:  What I'm saying to
25     the people, are you still open to this
0118
 1     but not ready at this meeting to commit
 2     that no is an appropriate vote.  If you
 3     are open to commit, that's yes.
 4            MS. BURNS:  No, I would like, no,
 5     don't even bother working with them to
 6     refine the cost or, no, we're not
 7     prepared to vote today are two different
 8     things.
 9            MR. ZACKON:  The latter is what
10     we're saying.
11            MR. WAKSHLAG:  There is a bad
12     idea for a study versus or we should do
13     it contingent on Nielsen's coming
14     forward with 2-1/2 million.
15            MS. GALLAGHER:  Or it is not a
16     bad idea for a study but the cost is
17     such that people might want to consider
18     some other alternatives.
19            MR. ZACKON:  Yes vote with
20     Nielsen putting up the money commits to
21     this study, those two events happening,
22     the study continues.
23            MR. WAKSHLAG:  Plus the costs
24     come.  I'm going to ask George and
25     Nielsen actually, because none of us are
0119
 1     financial experts.  We don't know what
 2     per diem costs for data collection are,
 3     but we look at it on an occasional basis
 4     that Y & R, can we recruit Y & R to
 5     review in detail.
 6            MR. ZACKON:  E & Y.  Y & R has
 7     been on the study.
 8            MR. WAKSHLAG:  Can we get E & Y
 9     to agree and review and make
10     recommendations on the costs of this
11     study and also the Nielsen, whoever does
12     this kind of costing at Nielsen, so we
13     know -- we want to make sure that we're
14     getting the price at the right price.
15            MR. ZACKON:  If I can be clear.
16     What would the mechanism be to agree to
17     price?  How does that happen if this
18     group doesn't agree?  Is there a
19     subsequent vote on the final price or
20     the chairman looks at it and says fair
21     price?
22            MR. IVIE:  If you can get a
23     hundred thousand dollars or 300,000 out
24     of the price, I'm not sure that changes
25     the picture.  I think we're being overly
0120
 1     complex.  As somebody who votes all the
 2     time, stuff very difficult to
 3     accomplish, I can tell you we're being
 4     overly complex.
 5            I think the motion that has been
 6     made, we either approve the study
 7     contingent upon Nielsen funding, and if
 8     they don't fund, we come back and talk
 9     again, or you don't like the study.  So
10     you have those two options.  To me, that
11     makes sense.
12            MS. GALLAGHER:  I don't like the
13     way that's worded.  It is not like it is
14     okay, it is a good study, we fund if
15     Nielsen comes up with the money or we
16     don't like the study.  It is not
17     necessarily that someone doesn't like
18     the study.  It might be that they don't
19     think there is $3 million of value in
20     there.  It might not mean that.  It
21     might mean the study doesn't have
22     $3 million worth of value.
23            MR. ZACKON:  Somebody has to say
24     this has been negotiated fairly and I
25     want to know how that process is clear,
0121
 1     otherwise, we need to come back to this
 2     group for a vote, which I would like to
 3     avoid.
 4            How would that be determined,
 5     just a say so the committee says.  The
 6     steering committee gets involved.
 7            MR. IVIE:  That's what I would
 8     do.  Jack was saying Nielsen would get
 9     involved.  I could bring in some people
10     and then it goes back to the committee
11     with that information, I would say
12     that's okay.  You know what your maximum
13     exposure is here.  I'm just trying to
14     speed things.
15            MS. PANTANINI:  I agree.
16            MR. IVIE:  Poor choice of words.
17     If you don't like the proposal for any
18     reason, you just vote no.
19            MR. ZACKON:  Are we ready for a
20     vote?
21            MS. CUCCINELLO:  Pat brought up a
22     change happening in '09.  I know this is
23     two phases, one in January, one in
24     October of next year.  Is there any
25     flexibility or do we want to discuss
0122
 1     whether the second wave could take place
 2     after the transition, or is this
 3     something the committee, Shari and
 4     Steve's committee don't want to talk
 5     about?  Again, it is as is?
 6            MR. BROOKS:  I've had
 7     conversations with people about what's
 8     going to happen and I won't say I am an
 9     expert.  What I'm hearing is that the
10     government is bending over backwards and
11     politicians are trying to make this
12     seamless and harmless, rather than make
13     it cataclasmic for voters, which is what
14     they're concerned about it.  Hence, the
15     vouchers that allow people to buy boxes
16     and that sort of thing.  We'll never
17     know until it happens.  But the sense,
18     at least, is that this so-called huge
19     transition may not be as
20     earth-shattering as it seems right now.
21            The government is going to try to
22     do everything to make sure that people
23     are able to get their signals and
24     screens.
25            MR. WAKSHLAG:  There will be lots
0123
 1     of research spent against that issue.
 2            MR. ZACKON:  So this is not
 3     promise that this promises second stage,
 4     that's what we're voting on.  If that's
 5     a concern this is going to bring the
 6     second phase in October.
 7            MR. POLTRACK:  I would like to
 8     put another perspective on this.  If we
 9     are, in effect, asking Nielsen -- I want
10     everyone to realize we are mortgaging
11     our future a little bit here.  There are
12     a lot of things happening in a year or
13     two that 2.5 million a year was designed
14     to address.  And we will be mortgaging
15     our future if we're getting the next
16     Nielsen contribution already eaten up.
17            My perspective right now is that
18     I would like to vote on whether we want
19     to do this study with the current
20     funding -- out of the current funds that
21     we have and not dip into the future
22     Nielsen investment.  If the study is
23     really worthwhile, we do have
24     $3.2 million.  I would propose that we
25     do the study and that we try to
0124
 1     negotiate the price down so that we can
 2     do it within the current 3.2 million and
 3     we don't mortgage our future to get it
 4     done.
 5            MR. ZACKON:  Steve, would you
 6     accept that in your motion or the motion
 7     as is?  By my calculation, we have about
 8     three point -- almost 3.3 left.  That
 9     precludes a university estimate study
10     until Nielsen endorses and --
11            MR. STERNBERG:  That would be
12     acceptable if the vote also includes if
13     Nielsen does fund the third year, that
14     $300,000 comes back in as a potential.
15            MR. ZACKON:  You might get more
16     in the third year.
17            MR. STERNBERG:  Whatever.  If
18     we're talking about 3.5 as a limit and
19     3.2 is available now, you're not talking
20     about eating up the third year's budget.
21     You're talking about $300,000 of out of
22     2.5.
23            MS. BUSLIK:  We don't know it is
24     2.5 million.
25            MR. DONATO:  There's 500,000 that
0125
 1     was committed to finish the nonresponse
 2     study.
 3            MR. ZACKON:  Which may be less
 4     from Ceril, but no promises.
 5            MR. DONATO:  500 of that not yet
 6     committed to 2.5 is already spent.
 7     Susan already committed to 500.
 8            MR. LIGUORI:  Aren't you going to
 9     get a cost for the study up front and if
10     it comes in at 3.2, that's the final
11     price.  You're not in another year going
12     to do something, you're not going to add
13     something to it, not given the size of
14     the waves.
15            As far as the second wave in
16     October '08, I don't see a problem with
17     that because you would have to wait
18     until, I think, a couple months after
19     February '09 to get a read on it.  So I
20     think in order to get a better picture
21     of the pre-period that the timing is
22     fine on this.
23            MR. ZACKON:  Steve, you're going
24     to be able to get 350, maybe 4
25     negotiated at the price in our current
0126
 1     budget that's available.  I think it is
 2     responsible to vote on what we currently
 3     have.  If you want to make this
 4     contingent on future spending, you're
 5     free to make that proposal.
 6            MS. SHAGRIN:  The only advantage
 7     to making it contingent on future
 8     spending, that if there is no further
 9     commitment, then you haven't committed
10     to all the dollars that are there and
11     there is no other project that can go
12     forward.
13            MR. STERNBERG:  I would like to
14     hear from the rest of the committee, but
15     I think we should vote contingent on the
16     3.5, if not, come back.  I also believe
17     regardless of what they're talking
18     about, to me, it is inconceivable that
19     they won't fund another year.  I just
20     can't believe that.
21            MS. GALLAGHER:  They're being run
22     by a GE guy now.
23            MR. STERNBERG:  Seriously, I
24     think if they came back and did not fund
25     another year, this committee will be
0127
 1     seen as a sham and they're almost forced
 2     to do it.  I would be amazed if they
 3     didn't fund another year.
 4            MS. GALLAGHER:  I wouldn't bet
 5     the ranch that way.
 6            MR. ZACKON:  To complete this
 7     matter, your recommendation is that.  Is
 8     that what we're voting on, or are you
 9     willing to recommend funded out of
10     current year's funds.
11            MR. STERNBERG:  Unless the
12     committee disagrees, I think we should
13     vote on this.
14            MR. WAKSHLAG:  3.2 versus 3.5.
15     As a member of the committee, if the yes
16     is to 3.2, we'll get them to 3.2.  If we
17     can't, the money is not spent and then
18     we have to come back for the other 300
19     anyway.
20            MR. BROOKS:  As a member of the
21     committee, I don't have a problem with
22     them.  The best way to approach this --
23            MR. STERNBERG:  The 3.2 we are
24     voting.
25            MS. GALLAGHER:  I do have one
0128
 1     question.
 2            MS. SHAGRIN:  Nothing else.
 3            MS. BURNS:  All right.
 4            MR. SUSSMAN:  I suggest that we
 5     go for the 3.2, which is what we have,
 6     contingent on Nielsen funding the third
 7     year so we can see a light on other
 8     projects, this wouldn't be the last
 9     project we ever did.
10            MS. BURNS:  I second Ira's
11     motion.
12            MR. ZACKON:  We have two motions
13     on the floor.  We should vote on Steve's
14     first.
15            In favor of Steve's motion is
16     spending --
17            MR. STERNBERG:  3.2 and
18     contingent on Nielsen funding, and if
19     they don't, then we come back for a
20     revote.
21            MR. ZACKON:  You're staying with
22     3.2 in your proposal contingent on the
23     Nielsen's funding?
24            MR. SUSSMAN:  Mine was spend what
25     we have, assuming that we're getting
0129
 1     more funding to do other things
 2     contingent on a third year of funding.
 3            MR. STERNBERG:  I am adamantly
 4     opposed to 3.2 contingent.  3.2 approved
 5     or 3.5 contingent.
 6            MR. SUSSMAN:  I'm thankful that
 7     you are worried about the cost and all
 8     upset and you're negotiating a new
 9     number.  I'd rather know what that
10     number is before we vote.  I mean, you
11     keep saying that it has to be not to
12     exceed 3.5, and you don't have any sense
13     if 3.2 is doable.  You want that
14     300,000.  That is loosy goosy with the
15     numbers.
16            MS. BRILL:  We are going to do
17     our due diligence to make sure that this
18     study is fielded at a reasonable price.
19            MR. SUSSMAN:  We spent 45 minutes
20     on $10,000 at the last meeting and we're
21     talking about $300,000.  I think it
22     is -- we should know what our bottom
23     line number is before we vote on this, I
24     think.
25            MR. KALINE:  Bring it to a vote.
0130
 1            MR. ZACKON:  Steve's motion is as
 2     on the board, is that correct, Steve and
 3     Shari, that's the motion on the floor,
 4     not on the board, not on the floor.  All
 5     in favor?
 6            On the phone in favor?
 7            MS. RUSH:  Aye.
 8            MR. ZACKON:  Six.
 9            All opposed?
10            So that motion doesn't pass.
11            So, Ira, do you have a motion?
12            MS. BUSLIK:  $10,000.
13            MR. SUSSMAN:  I think there is
14     value in this.  I think most of us want
15     to go ahead with it.  I think we would
16     be comfortable knowing what the budget
17     is.  My motion is that you get back a
18     tighter budget and if it is 3.4, we know
19     what it is 3.4.  We send out an e-mail
20     and get a vote.  I would like to know
21     what we're guaranteed or get that down
22     what we're really spending.
23            MR. ZACKON:  Your motion is at
24     there be another negotiation with the
25     vendor and come back and let the
0131
 1     committee vote by e-mail?
 2            MS. BURNS:  Can I say that only
 3     the people in this room and on the phone
 4     can vote.  I don't think anybody that
 5     missed this entire conversation --
 6            MR. ZACKON:  We could make a
 7     requirement that they agree to read the
 8     transcript before they vote.
 9            MS. BURNS:  Yes.
10            This is a very rich complex
11     decision and I'm concerned for somebody
12     absentee voting rather than attending.
13            MR. ZACKON:  Here are the people
14     not here.  Melva is not here.  Maternity
15     leave, she had a child.  Henry DeVault
16     is not here.  Mike Hess is not here,
17     unless he joined by phone.  And John
18     Sims is not here.  Lyle Schwartz is not
19     here.  I apologize.
20            MR. LIGUORI:  I didn't vote on
21     the first proposal because I thought the
22     second one was 3.2 contingent on Nielsen
23     funding the third year.
24            MR. ZACKON:  If that's the case,
25     then that motion should go forth.
0132
 1            Mr. Chair, is that right?
 2            MR. KALINE:  I think so.
 3            MR. ZACKON:  The vote is 3.2
 4     million contingent on Nielsen funding
 5     for a third year.  If they don't fund
 6     it, we're still able to afford it.
 7            All in favor of that option,
 8     raise your hand.  That option pretty
 9     carries.
10            Anyone constitutionally opposed
11     to that?
12            MS. GALLAGHER:  What is the
13     motion exactly?
14            MR. ZACKON:  3.2 million
15     contingent on Nielsen's funding a third
16     year, which means if they didn't, they
17     would still pay for it.
18            MS. GALLAGHER:  Isn't Nielsen
19     funding at a level or Nielsen kicking in
20     50 cents?  It needs to be a tad more
21     specific.
22            MS. BRILL:  We don't know.
23            MS. SHAGRIN:  You're right.
24            MS. GALLAGHER:  You guys just
25     voted to fund this if Nielsen gives $2.
0133
 1            MR. ZACKON:  Paul is that kind of
 2     guy.
 3            MR. DONATO:  We can't see hands
 4     up on the phone.
 5            MR. POLTRACK:  It depends how you
 6     define a third year.
 7            MR. BROOKS:  Assume a comparable
 8     year.
 9            MS. GALLAGHER:  How many things
10     that you assume about charges on your
11     Nielsen contract.
12            MR. ZACKON:  So we'll take that
13     vote.
14            All in favor of assuming a
15     minimum of 2.5 million for the third
16     year and on the phone?
17            MS. BRILL:  What was the vote
18     after the sound effects?
19            MR. ZACKON:  The vote that is
20     happening is that approval for the study
21     going forward needs to be negotiated
22     with the partners, but going forward at
23     3.2 million, contingent on Nielsen
24     funding another 2-1/2 million for the
25     third year.
0134
 1            MS. BURNS:  What if it is 2
 2     million?
 3            MR. STERNBERG:  We just voted.
 4            MR. ZACKON:  We voted on 2.5.
 5            MR. WAKSHLAG:  3.5.
 6            MR. ZACKON:  No.  We voted on
 7     Nielsen putting up 2.5.  We voted on 3.2
 8     for the study.
 9            MR. STERNBERG:  We voted on 3.2
10     contingent on of Nielsen funding the
11     third year.
12            MR. IVIE:  The vote was that we
13     would fund the study with the existing
14     funds that we have, which is 3.2
15     million, contingent on the fact that
16     Nielsen puts up a reasonable amount or a
17     comparable amount of funding for the
18     following year, I believe.  And it
19     doesn't have to be exactly.  If it is
20     2.3, that's all right.
21            MR. ZACKON:  Our votes are
22     audited by the MRC.
23            MR. IVIE:  These voting things
24     are very tough.
25            MS. SHAGRIN:  This is a subject
0135
 1     we spent so much time and people are
 2     voting without certain assumptions.  I
 3     think you should identify exactly what
 4     we thought, some of us thought we were
 5     voting on.
 6            MR. IVIE:  Do you want me to
 7     restate that?
 8            MR. ZACKON:  Yes.
 9            MR. IVIE:  We're voting on
10     funding this project with the available
11     funds we have today, which is
12     approximately 3.2 million, so
13     negotiating with the research partners
14     to make that work.
15            MS. SHAGRIN:  At no more than --
16            MR. IVIE:  At no more than that,
17     contingent on the fact that Nielsen
18     funds the CRE next year with a
19     comparable contribution, approximately
20     2-1/2 million, plus or minus, in a sum.
21            MR. ZACKON:  Eloquently stated.
22            MR. WAKSHLAG:  Can I ask for an
23     amendment?  You can move the amendment
24     up or down.  We commit to 3.2 million.
25     Putting this on the table as an
0136
 1     amendment, we commit to 3.2 million
 2     whether the Nielsen puts the money or
 3     not.  Using up all the funds, because
 4     you are going to have to sit there and
 5     say, gee, is there something coming down
 6     the pike, that I think had more value
 7     than this.  And the answer is I don't
 8     know.
 9            I have been on this committee for
10     how long and we spent two million.  I
11     don't know what ideas are coming down
12     the road.  I don't know how much we will
13     like it or not.  I'm suggesting use up
14     the 5 million on this study.
15            MS. BURNS:  That's my concern.
16     Next year whether Nielsen does it or
17     not, it's not like we have been
18     producing a lot of product coming out of
19     this committee.  And by the time we
20     decide what the next project is, sending
21     out RPFs, you're into next year anyway.
22            I don't know if there is another
23     opportunity.
24            MR. WAKSHLAG:  So there is an
25     amendment and we vote on the amendment.
0137
 1            MR. POLTRACK:  There is a
 2     practical aspect, we voted 3.2 million,
 3     subject to interpretation of Nielsen
 4     funding next year.  The hypothetical,
 5     everything that everybody dealing with
 6     very minimal funding for next year.  If
 7     they do, we're out of business.  So what
 8     do we care.
 9            The reality is even Nielsen is
10     going to continue to fund this operation
11     or the operation will disappear.  I
12     don't think there's any downside in not
13     specifying what the level of Nielsen
14     funding is.  I think what we voted on
15     covers it.  Realistic, it covers what
16     they're going to do.  And the
17     interesting aspect of this whole thing
18     is especially is the way we structure
19     this Nielsen sort of, I believe, gets to
20     veto.
21            Nielsen's funding, they're really
22     now funding this project as opposed to
23     funding a general research, because if
24     Nielsen does choose not to fund anything
25     more, then, in effect, they're saying
0138
 1     they're not interested in this project.
 2            MR. SUSSMAN:  I second that
 3     proposal.  Because if Nielsen doesn't
 4     come back with more money, we're out of
 5     business.  If they do, we get to do
 6     other things.
 7            MS. SHAGRIN:  There are already
 8     things that are being worked on.
 9            MR. WAKSHLAG:  My amendment says
10     make a choice now.
11            MS. SHAGRIN:  The statement is
12     there's nothing else in the works and
13     the only reason there's nothing else in
14     the works is because we're waiting for
15     funding.
16            MR. ZACKON:  So the motion is to
17     remove the contingency statement?
18            MR. WAKSHLAG:  Correct.
19            MR. ZACKON:  Any question?
20            MR. STERNBERG:  The problem is if
21     we don't go with Jack's amendment, we
22     can't do anything.  They can't start
23     this project until Nielsen comes back
24     and that could be six weeks from now or
25     two weeks.
0139
 1            MR. ZACKON:  That's not what I
 2     think he said.
 3            MR. POLTRACK:  Go to 3.2 million
 4     with no contingency.
 5            MR. STERNBERG:  If we don't do
 6     that, we have to wait.  I am in favor of
 7     Jack's amendment.
 8            MR. ZACKON:  Nancy, was there a
 9     question over there?
10            MS. GALLAGHER:  No.
11            MR. ZACKON:  This is the last
12     comment before the vote.
13            MR. SHIMMEL:  Can I offer another
14     approach for your consideration and
15     there are rocks here, so you can throw
16     them.
17            Is there a reason that it would
18     make sense to delay the vote for 30
19     days?  At that point we have a decision,
20     hopefully, on funding, Paul, and also
21     lest the pencil sharpeners come back,
22     here is a price to do it, two points at
23     350, two based at 450 and 500 and you
24     pick one.  The difference between 300
25     and 500 would fund maybe other projects
0140
 1     that may not be funded.  And I think it
 2     is everybody's decision whether is the
 3     value of the initial 150 or 100
 4     respondents worth sacrificing something
 5     else.
 6            MR. STERNBERG:  Howard, there
 7     would be no difference between that and
 8     voting on 3.5 contingent on Nielsen
 9     funding.  3.5 is the top limit to begin
10     with.
11            MR. ZACKON:  There is a
12     difference.  There is a difference.
13            MR. WAKSHLAG:  The motion on the
14     floor is 3.2 million.
15            MR. ZACKON:  Without a
16     contingency.  We're revising the
17     previous vote.  The motion on the
18     floor --
19            MR. LIGUORI:  The question was do
20     we have funding for the nonresponse
21     study that is separate and apart.
22            MR. ZACKON:  Yes.  We have
23     access.
24            MR. SUSSMAN:  We have on the
25     table, we have an idea it is completely
0141
 1     funded anything new out of next year's
 2     budget.
 3            MR. ZACKON:  That's correct.
 4     That's what Jack is proposing.
 5            MR. SUSSMAN:  And it is August.
 6            MR. ZACKON:  We're using up the
 7     budget with this study.
 8            MS. GALLAGHER:  Define "new."
 9            MR. ZACKON:  That's the motion on
10     the floor.  All in favor of that motion,
11     raise your hand and say aye.
12            SPEAKERS:  Aye.
13            MR. ZACKON:  14.
14            On the phone, aye?  So the motion
15     carries.  So we're funding at 3.2 out of
16     existing funds.  We are funding this out
17     of existing funds which we can do until
18     it is negotiated.  I'm involved in the
19     process.  There's going to be a time
20     that comes when someone looks at that
21     proposal and deems it worthy.  And what
22     is the mechanism this group proposes for
23     fund worthy to use a Seinfeld
24     alternative.
25            MR. SHIMMEL:  You mean
0142
 1     negotiated?
 2            MR. ZACKON:  Yes.
 3            MR. IVIE:  It has to be less than
 4     3.2 million.
 5            MR. ZACKON:  That's all that is
 6     required.
 7            That's clear.  Okay.  Very good.
 8            Should we take a break now?
 9     We'll come back.
10            (Whereupon, at 3:04 p.m., a
11     recess was taken.)
12            MR. ZACKON:  Back on the record.
13            As the facilitator, I have all
14     kinds of jobs.  That was hard work to get
15     through and I acknowledge the seriousness
16     to get through.
17            MR. KALINE:  And acknowledge the
18     committee for the work that they did.
19            MR. ZACKON:  And acknowledge the
20     committee for the work that they did.
21            We have two other procedural
22     issues to address, and then we have a
23     little bit of time that we will have
24     left.  We'll have to think quicker.
25            The first is membership, and the
0143
 1     council has not come through with offers
 2     of names for members.  We put this issue
 3     out at the last meeting and people said
 4     they would submit names and we didn't
 5     get names.  We don't need the names
 6     spoken here.  My request is while we sit
 7     here, why don't we write down some names
 8     in the following categories, people you
 9     know.  And the strongest thing we need
10     are for Nielsen client advertisers to
11     participate in this council.  They keep
12     us better behaved.
13            MR. KALINE:  That was obvious
14     from the last one.
15            MR. ZACKON:  We're looking for
16     advertisers' names.  There is a pad
17     there in front of you.  Do you know the
18     names of some Nielsen client advertisers
19     who you would love to see on this panel.
20     We're looking for an MSO.
21            MS. SHAGRIN:  We aren't going to
22     have one after this year.
23            MR. ZACKON:  We think we are.
24     Maybe we should wait to extend the
25     invitation until Nielsen makes the
0144
 1     announcement.
 2            MR. DONATO:  Nielsen client,
 3     given that it is really the Nielsen
 4     company, this council has to make a
 5     decision to what extent it is willing to
 6     sort of go -- not go beyond media but
 7     consumer centric measures of media that
 8     as an organization we have a lot of
 9     advertising clients, not just those
10     clients who are clients of Nielsen
11     media.  And so, if they are not media
12     clients who would have an interest in
13     media, a/k/a Nielsen clients, that's
14     fine with us.  But it is your council
15     and your charter.
16            MR. ZACKON:  You're looking to
17     extend the purview of the council.
18            MR. DONATO:  We are not looking
19     to.  So when you say Nielsen client, now
20     there are a lot of Nielsen clients that
21     are not necessarily clients of Nielsen
22     Media Research.  If I were on this
23     council, I wouldn't want to dilute the
24     media focus of the council; however,
25     consumer centric media is sort of a
0145
 1     really important topic to us and many of
 2     our clients have said it is one of the
 3     most important topics, developing
 4     consumer centric measurement of behavior
 5     and, therefore, if you choose to go into
 6     it that way, that's fine with us.
 7            MR. ZACKON:  I don't get to vote.
 8     This council was developed by Nielsen
 9     Media Research.
10            MR. DONATO:  Right.
11            MR. ZACKON:  You're saying
12     consider broadening that.
13            MR. DONATO:  That you can
14     consider it.
15            MR. POLTRACK:  Can we get another
16     2.5 million?
17            MR. ZACKON:  That might be a good
18     issue for the steering committee to take
19     on and think about.  In the absence of
20     that, while we're still operating with a
21     behest for Nielsen Media Research, we
22     are also looking for advertising, MSO,
23     internet, gaming and mobile and areas of
24     business.  And we're down woefully on
25     our concerns with multi-culture and
0146
 1     diversity because we've had an exodus of
 2     our specialist, not wholly but in part.
 3     I see Jessica and Ceril looking at each
 4     other.
 5            MS. PANTANINI:  We're all alone.
 6            MR. ZACKON:  We don't have Asian
 7     American.
 8            MS. PANTANINI:  Academia.
 9     Academia.
10            MR. ZACKON:  If they're not a
11     client, then academic or association or
12     something not in the industry.  My
13     request is in the next few minutes if
14     you would jot down names of real people
15     and where they work.
16            MS. SHAGRIN:  There were some
17     names submitted to Mike Hess.
18            MR. ZACKON:  We have some names
19     but we didn't get many additional names
20     to fit this.  There were not a lot of
21     names and I requested, Howard and Paul,
22     Nielsen might reach out and know these
23     names.  If I go to Nielsen, who would I
24     speak to?
25            MR. SHIMMEL:  We did that.  I
0147
 1     sent a bunch to Mike.
 2            MR. ZACKON:  Maybe there's more
 3     than I had seen.  It seems like we were
 4     under-represented with the possibilities
 5     we had.
 6            There is another question for the
 7     steering committee.  I did include the
 8     attendance records but they're less than
 9     stellar.  There may need to be some
10     replacements.  I am asking for names or
11     if not names, speak to this person.
12     They will be able to recommend someone
13     to you in that area.
14            MS. SHAGRIN:  If you're looking
15     for another station person, I know Gary
16     Corbett is interested.
17            MR. ZACKON:  That would be great.
18     I know and like Gary.  Write his name
19     down.  Anything else to be said now?
20            I'll pass these on to Mike.
21     We'll approach them, we'll tell them
22     their name is mentioned, if they're
23     interested in applying for membership,
24     present a small bio what they can
25     contribute.  They'll have a report and
0148
 1     decide if this is something you want to
 2     join or not.
 3            We might pen that until we know
 4     if there is a future for that council.
 5     And then the next issue are officers
 6     because we did not meet in June, we're
 7     meeting later, it proved to be a busy up
 8     front and terms have expired for our
 9     chair.
10            MS. BURNS:  We didn't meet in
11     June?
12            MR. ZACKON:  No.
13            MS. BURNS:  That was '06.  Sorry.
14            MR. ZACKON:  So the term of the
15     chair, the vice chair and the
16     secretary/treasurer who had stepped in
17     for just a couple months, Jessica, her
18     term expired without actually having to
19     fulfill any work.
20            MS. PANTANINI:  I did absolutely
21     no work.  I would recommend it to
22     anyone.
23            MR. ZACKON:  You did it well.  I
24     think since Warren G. Harding.
25            MS. PANTANINI:  I said to
0149
 1     someone, am I supposed to be doing
 2     something?
 3            MR. ZACKON:  Now you'll have an
 4     opportunity to do something.
 5            MS. PANTANINI:  Great.  Thank
 6     you.
 7            MR. ZACKON:  Having said that, I
 8     know that our chair is willing to serve
 9     in another year, if asked.  I know our
10     vice chair is willing to serve in
11     another year.  Mike Hess.  I don't know
12     if our hard-working secretary/treasurer
13     could step up for another year.
14            MS. BUSLIK:  There's 3.2 million
15     in it for her.
16            MR. ZACKON:  Anyone is free to
17     nominate anyone on the council or
18     themselves.
19            Let me just say something.  I
20     appreciate Mark having been there
21     throughout.  When things get tough,
22     that's where I go.  This guy has a big
23     stick and gets us moving.  That's not to
24     say you should or should not vote.  It
25     is to say that I thank you for all you
0150
 1     provided.  Your very presence provides a
 2     lot, so, thank you.
 3            (Applause.)
 4            MR. LIGUORI:  Since we don't know
 5     if we're going to be in existence for
 6     another year, should we vote?
 7            MR. KALINE:  Vote to extend.
 8            MR. LIGUORI:  Yes.
 9            MR. ZACKON:  We are still
10     responsible for these studies in the
11     field and media consumption committee
12     has a responsibility of managing this
13     study.  The nonresponse has
14     responsibilities of managing its study.
15     So in that sense, yes, we still have a
16     structure.  Whether we're funded for
17     additional research is the issue we're
18     waiting to hear about.
19            MR. LIGUORI:  So this may be our
20     final year.
21            MR. ZACKON:  It may or may not
22     be.
23            MS. BUSLIK:  Can we get two
24     years' funding at one time?
25            MR. ZACKON:  Assuming that there
0151
 1     is at least forward looking activity, at
 2     least for the next year, whether
 3     additional funds appear or not, is there
 4     a nomination amongst the members for a
 5     chair for this year group?
 6            MR. BROOKS:  I nominate Mark.
 7            MR. ZACKON:  I hear Mark's name.
 8            MS. BURNS:  I second.
 9            MR. ZACKON:  Another name?
10            Mark, it would appear that Mark
11     is asked to serve another year.  And,
12     Mark, would you agree?
13            MR. KALINE:  I would agree.
14            (Applause.)
15            MR. ZACKON:  Mike Hess is not
16     here.  He had a meeting that came up.
17     He let me know he was available.  As a
18     lesson in not missing a meeting, should
19     we simply vote on Mike being co-chair
20     for another year?  And if anyone has a
21     concern or another name, we open that
22     up.
23            MS. PANTANINI:  I nominate Mike.
24            MS. GOLDBERG:  Second.
25            MR. ZACKON:  By acclamation, yes.
0152
 1            Very good.
 2            Now, Jessica, now that we have
 3     pencils to be sharpened, as
 4     secretary/treasurer, what I plan to have
 5     someone do is reduce the transcripts to
 6     minutes and make sure they're in line
 7     and read them and see if it is your
 8     recollection.  And we'll need to begin
 9     more finally working with the Nielsen
10     financial people in getting estimates
11     like this more formal.
12            Would you be willing to step up
13     for a new full year as
14     secretary/treasurer?
15            MS. PANTANINI:  Sure.
16            MS. CUCCINELLO:  I nominate
17     Jessica.
18            MR. ZACKON:  Wouldn't the world
19     be great if things like that happened
20     all the time.
21            Is there a second?
22            By acclamation.  Yes.  Very good.
23     That was quick.  We're catching up on
24     time.
25            Thank you all for your goodwill.
0153
 1            Let's go back to the agenda.  I
 2     think this was the think kind of part of
 3     the day.  Appreciative inquiry is when
 4     you stop and pause and reflect on what's
 5     working rather than as researchers, our
 6     general sense of things that aren't
 7     working.
 8            MR. BROOKS:  Before you start on
 9     that, you mentioned previously I thought
10     attendance.  Was that reported on?
11            MR. ZACKON:  The attendance is in
12     there.  We can take -- I thought I gave
13     to Mike, the steering committee, to take
14     action on people whose attendance is
15     fallen below the required amount.
16            MR. BROOKS:  It goes as zero
17     here.
18            MR. ZACKON:  That is as low as it
19     can go.  I think rather than the full
20     council --
21            MR. BROOKS:  It is a process.
22            MR. ZACKON:  My sense there --
23            MR. BROOKS:  What does the
24     process require?
25            MR. ZACKON:  The requirement is
0154
 1     not missing one meeting during a year.
 2     Anyone missing two meetings during a
 3     year is in jeopardy of leaving the
 4     council.  I realize I didn't do that and
 5     I commit to go forward.
 6            MR. BROOKS:  The steering
 7     committee is not contacted for that.
 8            MR. ZACKON:  Last time I wrote
 9     letters to those taken off in the first
10     round and told them in the letter, if
11     you would like to remain on the
12     committee, ask to reapply and you will
13     be considered.  That would seem to be
14     the process.  I didn't want it hidden.
15            MS. SHAGRIN:  There were some
16     names on here that were on last year's
17     list, as well.
18            MR. KALINE:  I think I wrote the
19     letters to the advertisers.
20            MR. ZACKON:  Okay.
21            MR. KALINE:  So not to put
22     anybody in a precarious position.
23            MS. SHAGRIN:  Is somebody going
24     to notify Mike that we need to have a
25     steering committee and act on this?
0155
 1            MR. ZACKON:  Yes, I will.  The
 2     steering committee should meet two weeks
 3     before each of these meetings and hear
 4     whatever presentations they're going to
 5     make before prime time.
 6            MS. BURNS:  Weren't we going to
 7     talk about replacements?
 8            MR. ZACKON:  We don't have
 9     replacements.  If you can't be at a
10     meeting, you can't replace yourself.
11            MS. BURNS:  Someone leaves the
12     industry that they represent.
13            MR. ZACKON:  Right.  We need new
14     names for that.  We either stay or be
15     reconsidered by the steering committee.
16     You can participate on the committee but
17     not on the council.
18            MS. BURNS:  Isn't that what we
19     were going to do, does the seat stay
20     with the NAB or does someone else -- or
21     does the category open up and find
22     someone?
23            MR. ZACKON:  The seats were
24     created by Nielsen.  So you all have
25     Nielsen to thank that you are here.
0156
 1            MS. BURNS:  It is a waste company
 2     that you represented and the person --
 3            MR. ZACKON:  It is not you.  The
 4     companies that were approached and
 5     recommended names.  If people move
 6     around, the steering committee needs to
 7     find a replacement.  The first place is
 8     probably the same company but not
 9     required.
10            MR. IVIE:  Are you proposing NAB
11     not be pre-approached?
12            MR. ZACKON:  I think they should
13     and that name given to Mike's committee
14     for consideration.  I don't know that
15     the seat is automatically there.  I
16     think that was the decision that Nielsen
17     made.
18            MR. DONATO:  The NAB or some
19     other representative of local
20     television.
21            MS. BURNS:  But not necessarily
22     NAB.
23            MR. DONATO:  It doesn't have to
24     be.  It is your council now.  Local
25     broadcast network.  In the beginning we
0157
 1     were trying to balance.
 2            MR. IVIE:  Ceril represented
 3     local broadcasting.
 4            MS. BURNS:  He is an educator,
 5     too.
 6            MR. ZACKON:  Are we okay with
 7     membership issues and the like before
 8     we --
 9            MR. WAKSHLAG:  I want to caution
10     us to worry about categorizing certain
11     companies and various things.  Dave's
12     company has radio and television and
13     I've got internet and cable.
14            When we say we need an internet
15     guy, CNN.com would be very annoyed if we
16     said there's no internet guy.
17            MS. SHAGRIN:  Same with us.
18     We're radio internet broadcast and local
19     stations.
20            MS. GALLAGHER:  We are, too.
21            MR. LIGUORI:  So everything is
22     already represented.
23            MR. ZACKON:  The biggest
24     potential conflict is buyer/seller.  And
25     there should be some buyer/seller.
0158
 1            MR. WAKSHLAG:  We're all that,
 2     too.
 3            MS. BUSLIK:  Sometimes we buy,
 4     sometimes we sell.
 5            MR. ZACKON:  Appreciative inquiry
 6     is when you look into a topic and see
 7     what's working well.  And we rarely do
 8     that.  We researchers find what's not
 9     well.
10            I would like to begin the
11     afternoon, everyone has 20 to 30
12     seconds, has to be quick.  You can
13     answer one of two questions.  You can
14     answer the question what excites you
15     about research in the current media
16     environment.  What excites you, not what
17     you don't like, not who you don't like,
18     what excites you about research in the
19     current media environment.  Or you can
20     answer the question what has the council
21     done well over the past two years.
22            The idea is designed to present
23     us to things of what we don't like and
24     what's not working.  So you can answer
25     one of two questions, what excites you
0159
 1     about research in the current media
 2     environment or what's the council done
 3     well over the last two years.
 4            MR. POLTRACK:  If you answer the
 5     first question, does that mean you think
 6     the council hasn't done anything well?
 7            MR. ZACKON:  No.  You can answer
 8     both.  Anybody begin.
 9            MR. STERNBERG:  I think what
10     excites me about research today is that
11     for the first time I can remember since
12     I have been in this business, a lot of
13     people that I usually considered on the
14     same side of the aisle have completely
15     different opinions about what we should
16     be doing, where we should be going, what
17     we think about certain types of research
18     and we never saw that before.
19            It creates more robust inquiry
20     and robust conversation to really
21     develop a point of view, because there's
22     so much going on before that we haven't
23     seen before.
24            MR. ZACKON:  Thank you.  That was
25     a good 30-second answer.
0160
 1            Next.
 2            MR. LIGUORI:  What excites me
 3     about research is that our path going
 4     forward is pretty much unchartered,
 5     unlike what we have lived with for the
 6     last couple of years, and scary at the
 7     same time.  But with all that is
 8     happening with technology and what we
 9     know today, we don't know tomorrow, and
10     what we're doing is going to be very
11     different.  So it is scary and exciting.
12            MR. ZACKON:  Excellent.  Ira.
13            MR. SUSSMAN:  What excites me,
14     when I started in this business we were
15     followers, we were just in the back
16     room, and now we're leading the
17     industry.
18            MR. ZACKON:  Thank you.
19            MR. GLOECKLER:  What excites me
20     about media research right now is that
21     the definition of media research is much
22     bigger than I think it was for a long
23     time.  It is not just currency data.  It
24     is expanding in a lot of different
25     areas, which has made the industry far
0161
 1     more interesting.
 2            MS. BURNS:  Dovetailing on that
 3     answer, it is what our committee is
 4     about, beyond ratings, research into so
 5     many other different types of research.
 6     So far beyond television research into
 7     different types.  And it gets into,
 8     again, it is your council, it is
 9     behavioral.  We need to understand not
10     just the data but what led you to report
11     that data, the behavior behind.
12            And I love studying people and
13     knowing how to respond it to in our
14     businesses.
15            MS. GOLDBERG:  I think the
16     excitement of this new generation coming
17     up about different -- they are from all
18     the previous generations and that going
19     into devices and the media behaviors and
20     things like that.  Other than the fact
21     that my eyes sometimes glaze over once
22     in a while at all the stuff, and you
23     step back and take a deep breath.  I
24     think that's really, really interesting.
25            MR. ZACKON:  I'm going to stick
0162
 1     up for my generation.
 2            MS. BRILL:  I have to say I'm
 3     going to speak to what I like about the
 4     Council for Research Excellence.  I
 5     really like the spirit in which we all
 6     work, that we all share a common pursuit
 7     of expanding our knowledge.
 8            MR. ZACKON:  Thank you.
 9            George.
10            MR. IVIE:  I was going to speak
11     to that topic, too.  I think coming into
12     the council, I had some skepticism, but
13     I think what has really worked here
14     well, better than I ever expected, that
15     this is an independent council.
16     Recognizing the funding discussion we
17     just got done with, I do think that this
18     group takes its responsibility seriously
19     and they are considering things
20     independent of the influence of Nielsen,
21     and I think that's great.
22            MR. ZACKON:  Thank you.  Very
23     good.
24            MR. SHIMMEL:  Another thing that
25     makes the council really different, we
0163
 1     have brought together a group of people
 2     with very disparate interests, but
 3     everybody does put their own company's
 4     interest to the side when they walk in
 5     the room.  So if you took everybody's
 6     name tags away you wouldn't know who was
 7     buyer and seller from the discussion.
 8            MS. SHAGRIN:  What I think the
 9     council does well is exhibit passion.  I
10     think everybody on the council has a
11     passion for what they do for good
12     research, and that's what I end up
13     liking about research.  Every day there
14     is a new challenge.
15            MR. ZACKON:  Excellent.
16            Someone else?
17            MR. BROOKS:  From the point of
18     view of historical change, what is going
19     on now and that, in turn, gives us an
20     opportunity to do something that I don't
21     think research has done very well for
22     the last decade or two, which is
23     fundamental research into people's
24     behavior, not just business as usual.
25     Not just furthering a machine that's out
0164
 1     there that was set up years ago, but
 2     taking a much broader look.  Because
 3     right now we can get funding not only
 4     from Nielsen, but our companies want
 5     that.  And I don't think they wanted it
 6     ten years ago.  Now they know they have
 7     to have it.
 8            MS. GALLAGHER:  Also, I think
 9     people are looking at things now, I
10     mean, more things are looked at now than
11     probably have been looked at in the
12     prior 20 years in aggregate.  There's
13     all sorts of new avenues, A impacts B,
14     and how the train moves through
15     everything.  It is just really
16     fascinating to see how the little pieces
17     interact with each other.  It is the
18     media universe has just gotten
19     incredibly large.  It is no longer
20     departmentalized.  It is kind of
21     everywhere.  Especially for those of us
22     who have seen the TV at the gas pumps in
23     California.
24            MR. ZACKON:  Someone else?
25            MS. CUCCINELLO:  I, again, I
0165
 1     think you hear the same thing.  No day
 2     in my company is the same.  Even though
 3     we're in local television, we're
 4     thinking about so many of the big
 5     issues.  What I like about this
 6     committee is that we're not operating in
 7     a vacuum.  You're getting so many new
 8     diverse opinions when we sit around the
 9     table, and it doesn't matter what side
10     of the discipline everybody comes from.
11     It is just a great think tank.
12            MR. ZACKON:  Anyone on the phone?
13     Kate?  Vicky?  Are we not connected by
14     phone?  They didn't get back on.
15            MS. MITCHELL:  We're still
16     connected.  Vicky e-mailed and said she
17     had to drop off, but I assume Kate and
18     whomever else is on.
19            MR. ZACKON:  Anyone else who
20     hasn't spoken up?
21            MR. KEILTY:  I'll say, first of
22     all, not having a research background,
23     it has been particularly exciting and
24     stimulating with you folks.  I think,
25     frankly, the work that we're doing here
0166
 1     at no point in the history of the
 2     industry as important as it is to do,
 3     because our currency is at risk, at
 4     stake, depending on how you want to look
 5     at it.  Obviously, we have one provider
 6     currently who is providing that currency
 7     for us.  It strikes me there's not too
 8     many industries who rely on an
 9     independent third party who produce
10     their product.
11            The fact that we have this
12     committee here to shepherd and hopefully
13     guide them through that process and
14     provide good recommendations, I think is
15     particularly exciting and very
16     appropriate.  And then I guess as far as
17     what the committee has done, I think
18     what we have accomplished with the
19     nonresponse and how that is moving
20     forward is particularly exciting.  I
21     think that will help a lot of people.
22            We did talk at one time in the
23     past about standards of practice having
24     to do with how people will present
25     things.  I'm not sure exactly where that
0167
 1     sits.  I hope that did not get funded
 2     with the vote that we just had, because
 3     I think that's an opportunity moving
 4     forward.
 5            MS. BUSLIK:  I second everything
 6     that everyone has said before, but I
 7     would like to add I think this is a
 8     moment in time that will never happen
 9     again and I'm glad to be a part of this
10     looking toward this moment and what's
11     going to happen in the future.
12            MR. ZACKON:  I'm sure we are all
13     relieved about this not happening again.
14            MR. KALINE:  I think media
15     elevates the role within a company.
16     People are coming to me, can we do this,
17     can you help me with this project.  And
18     it is just something that just didn't
19     exist in the past.  We were executors,
20     not necessarily a part of the strategic
21     engine that runs the company.  And I
22     think that's one of the things that
23     excites me most.
24            I think I'm proud as far as the
25     council, is the fact that given the
0168
 1     talent and the passion in the room, that
 2     the group has worked very collegially
 3     through issues and we've had great
 4     spearhead debate and learned from each
 5     other in some way, shape or form by
 6     hearing these various points of view.
 7            MR. WAKSHLAG:  Jack.  What
 8     excites me about this committee is I
 9     think about what the alternative would
10     be, which would be where would we get
11     the funding to do a nonresponse study
12     and the type of thing that we voted on
13     today.  In the absence of this committee
14     we would be faced with the same old
15     stuff from the same old suppliers doing
16     it in the same way.  That won't let us
17     learn or change any.
18            I'm grateful for the opportunity
19     and the people who sit at this table
20     spending time because they recognize it.
21            MR. POLTRACK:  I think what
22     excites me is that there are a series of
23     long-standing questions about the
24     efficacy of media and advertising that
25     has hung over our heads for no matter
0169
 1     how long we have been in this business.
 2     And for the first time we collectively
 3     seem to be addressing that and,
 4     hopefully, getting some ideas.
 5            MR. ZACKON:  Anybody else?
 6            MS. BUSLIK:  How about you?
 7            MR. ZACKON:  I'll tell you what I
 8     was pleased with, it is nice that we are
 9     able to report back twice now to
10     Nielsen's clients to whom I feel a
11     fiduciary responsibility that we spend
12     the money well and do some research.
13     And the client community on behalf of
14     what we're doing seems pleased with what
15     we're doing.
16            My goal coming in was thoughtful
17     dialogue generating excellent research,
18     and I think it's good.
19            Paul?
20            MR. DONATO:  I get a vote?
21            MR. ZACKON:  Not a vote.
22            MR. DONATO:  I would like to
23     report that I have checked out the noise
24     and they take you on a tour through the
25     kitchen out to the rooftop and you look
0170
 1     down at the big, big yellow crane
 2     drilling the foundation, very soon to be
 3     the building next door.  It's not coming
 4     from above us.  It is a crane drilling a
 5     foundation on the next building lot.
 6            MS. RUSH:  It feels like it is in
 7     my head.
 8            MR. DONATO:  I thought it was
 9     upstairs.  They have the tour down.
10            MR. ZACKON:  That's what excites
11     you about media research.
12            MR. DONATO:  That's what excites
13     me about research.  I did an economic
14     audio analysis.  I think the council
15     should be extraordinarily proud of
16     itself because we have a room of senior
17     people here, all of whom have elected to
18     submit themselves to audio torture and
19     get through the decision-making of the
20     day, which they have done very nicely.
21            And if you think about it, two
22     of -- I don't want to dis other people's
23     projects anywhere else, two, maybe five
24     of the most significant projects that
25     are going on in media research are
0171
 1     probably coming out of this council
 2     right now.  And that's really
 3     significant.  So, congratulations to you
 4     all.
 5            Nielsen Media Research is really
 6     a happy sponsorship of the council and
 7     how it is operated.  Hopefully, we live
 8     forever.
 9            MR. LIGUORI:  And be funded.
10            MR. DONATO:  Though they go hand
11     in hand.
12            MS. GALLAGHER:  The check is in
13     the mail.
14            MR. ZACKON:  So, thank you.  I
15     appreciate your thoughtfulness.  If you
16     look in your packet, you'll see a list
17     that says Initial Topics Identified.
18     This was in a meeting on June 29 by the
19     steering committee, 12 or 14 topics
20     identified as kind of what we see would
21     be appropriate to look at.
22            I remind everybody before
23     following the video, these were the days
24     before A2/M2 and these may or may not be
25     the compelling issues now.  We did some
0172
 1     inquiry.  The issue of the 2009
 2     convergence comes up.  Issues around
 3     commercial minutes, again, I invite you
 4     to limit the focus to methodologically.
 5     But I would be interested in opening a
 6     conversation, and we do not have an
 7     easel in the room, but I'll take notes.
 8            Something we might be able to
 9     focus on.  Assuming there are additional
10     funds for that focus, and if you're
11     willing to invest some time now on that
12     assumption that there will be additional
13     funds, then it would be great for people
14     to speculate.  A lot of these we have
15     taken up.  Media consumption.
16     Nonresponse.  We have taken up proper
17     data use.  We have taken up universe
18     estimates.  There might be more of these
19     issues.  There might be issues that
20     weren't even on the horizon before the
21     Nielsen company.
22            I would like to open it up for
23     thoughts.  Is there something big out
24     there that we should think about?
25            MR. LIGUORI:  The two things
0173
 1     here -- I haven't finished the list.
 2     You mentioned new metrix reporting and
 3     technology seem to go hand in hand.  And
 4     probably, in my opinion, given the
 5     second-by-second data from MSOs and
 6     whatnot becoming available and feeling
 7     acceptable is probably something worthy
 8     of looking into and it is not just the
 9     MSOs.  It is anybody, whether it is for
10     the web, whether you're measuring
11     television on the web or you're
12     measuring the web.  It all kind of
13     relates to each other, especially with
14     Nielsen doing its fusion thing.
15            So technology and the metrix,
16     they're totally interrelated and impact
17     the validity, potential precision, lack
18     of precision.
19            MS. SHAGRIN:  I would like to add
20     to that and say when I look at the
21     measurement technology, I automatically
22     tie it to commercial impact and whether
23     or not or how great the need is for
24     Nielsen to record at a more granular
25     time span than the average minute, so
0174
 1     research that allows us to look at the
 2     difference and what different decisions
 3     we would make if we had average second
 4     or average 2.7 second or half minute
 5     data versus the average minute data, I
 6     think that would be a worthwhile
 7     undertaking of this group as this world
 8     goes into more commercial rating focus
 9     and program rating focus or the
10     combination thereof.
11            MR. ZACKON:  We just voted on
12     ten-second data on the previous study.
13            Other thoughts?
14            MR. IVIE:  Just a clarification,
15     Ceril.  Your concern was you can get,
16     assuming you can get more granular data
17     is, in fact, more valuable.
18            MS. SHAGRIN:  No, it may not.
19     All of the research that was done in the
20     past was, would there be any difference
21     in program ratings one way or the other.
22     And at that time it was absolutely no
23     difference.
24            In today's environment, it may or
25     may not make a difference on program
0175
 1     ratings, but I think there is a
 2     potential that it would make a
 3     significant difference on the version.
 4            MS. GALLAGHER:  And, also,
 5     additional insights could be gleaned
 6     from the more granular, more behavioral.
 7            MS. SHAGRIN:  It gives behavioral
 8     information and it gives everybody an
 9     opportunity to know things about how you
10     create commercials, place commercials.
11            MR. STERNBERG:  I think that's
12     probably the most important thing facing
13     the industry right now.
14            MS. GALLAGHER:  It is.
15            MR. STERNBERG:  Even to the point
16     should there be a change in the way
17     Nielsen measures the minute.
18            MS. SHAGRIN:  That's my point.
19            MR. STERNBERG:  Should it be a
20     majority, I don't know.
21            MS. SHAGRIN:  That's my point.
22     My point is we don't know whether it is
23     changing how you define the minute or
24     the need for Nielsen to report data at a
25     more granular level.  Do they just pull
0176
 1     off any minute that has commercials and
 2     do those at the average second level,
 3     for example, I'll throw that out.
 4            MS. BURNS:  I don't care as much
 5     about the time as the content.  And, for
 6     me, I'm reading about what all you
 7     creative advertisers are doing and I
 8     love it and I can't measure it.  If I go
 9     to Nielsen, it says it is a commercial
10     or a program, but if you've got wraps
11     and donuts and other forms of
12     integration, I read the campaign, I
13     would love to measure it.  I don't know
14     how to.  As we evolve what a commercial
15     is and the types of commercial, it is
16     not getting down to the second interval.
17            I don't care as much about that.
18     I need to be able to segregate the
19     different types of commercials to study
20     them.  I have no way of doing it.
21            MR. ZACKON:  Granularity of
22     reporting time and content.
23            MS. GALLAGHER:  Yes.
24            MS. BURNS:  Type of content
25     versus time, both important, but
0177
 1     different.
 2            MR. ZACKON:  They're separate.
 3            MS. BURNS:  We're all
 4     experimenting with different things,
 5     reformatting all our shows for the
 6     commercial minutes.  But there's
 7     different types of commercial.  We read
 8     about some of these creative ideas and
 9     would love to measure it, and there's
10     literally no way to measure it.
11            MR. DONATO:  Is that because
12     monitors must be adopted to capture
13     that?
14            MS. BURNS:  Not the CW wrap which
15     I'm very interested in.  Can't measure
16     it.
17            MR. LIGUORI:  It sounds as
18     though --
19            MS. BURNS:  Quickly, I'm
20     interested in -- I can't measure that.
21            MR. LIGUORI:  Is a hybrid of your
22     sports service which picks up the
23     exposure and then a rating, you know,
24     because you are creating nontraditional
25     types of messages.  And some of them may
0178
 1     be more into product, they are product
 2     placement or maybe they're not product
 3     placement, but depending on how they're
 4     executed, they may be best captured by
 5     what measures product placement.  And
 6     that's something that Nielsen needs to
 7     look at.
 8            MS. BURNS:  My problem with the
 9     way Nielsen looks at product placement
10     or any other company out there right
11     now, all product placement is created
12     equal as far as the measurements that
13     are out there right now and they're not.
14     Every product placement, not every, but
15     there are so many different types of
16     campaigns.  And just because it is on
17     screen or mentioned or in the script,
18     right now every product placement gets
19     reported the same way.
20            How many seconds it is on the
21     air, foreground, background.  Do they
22     recall it.  So taking that another step
23     further, to me, it's we've got -- not
24     only from an advertiser creativity, from
25     my own promotions, for promoting my
0179
 1     shows, if I learn what's effective for
 2     an advertiser, then I know what is
 3     effective to promote my shows right now.
 4            And all I have are ratings or
 5     recall of an integration.  That's what
 6     keeps me up at night.
 7            MR. ZACKON:  That's the question
 8     what keeps people up at night.
 9            MS. SHAGRIN:  It sounds to me
10     like it is the whole area of commercial,
11     of knowing more about commercial, just
12     in terms of exposure, in terms of
13     content, so that whole area.
14            MS. GALLAGHER:  Alternate
15     formats.
16            MS. BUSLIK:  It is also
17     programming.
18            MS. GALLAGHER:  And promotion.
19            MS. BUSLIK:  The impact of the
20     program has theoretically some impact on
21     your commercial exposure.  It is the
22     whole kit and kaboodle.
23            MR. STERNBERG:  It is also beyond
24     data.  For the first time we're
25     calculating new data is funded data in
0180
 1     ways that we have never done before and
 2     the average, do an average commercial
 3     minute rating one way weighted by the
 4     number of seconds, you get a totally
 5     different look than if you weighted it a
 6     different way.  Especially when you're
 7     talking about fast forwarding and the
 8     current calculation is a tremendous
 9     amount of fast forwarding and still
10     included in the commercials, but we
11     don't know how much.  And nobody can
12     tell us how much and that type of
13     research, I think, is essential to know
14     exactly what's going on.  It is
15     beyond --
16            MS. GOLDBERG:  I think we have to
17     have an amount of time in which to
18     evaluate these data.  I know in network
19     you have -- you can do this from
20     January.  We in syndication, we have to
21     go up front and life plus three with
22     four weeks worth of data in April, not
23     all of which was correct.  And I think
24     just the fact that we don't have
25     evaluation time before we're forced into
0181
 1     these situations is not good.
 2            MS. SHAGRIN:  That's why we get
 3     into the standards of practice that we
 4     talked about earlier.
 5            MS. BRILL:  I know we have been
 6     emphasizing looking at national ad
 7     content, but there's plenty of local ads
 8     on, they are currently being accounted
 9     for as programming.  How differently
10     would it look if we were treating local
11     commercials as commercials?
12            MS. GOLDBERG:  They improve it
13     sometimes.
14            MR. ZACKON:  Other bugs or
15     concerns?
16            MR. POLTRACK:  I think that
17     that's obviously a very important one.
18     Equally important and a real challenge
19     is what I call basically the three
20     screens cross measurement.
21            You know, on the advertiser
22     perspective now and year's moving into
23     the media planning side of the business,
24     the real focus now is how do you
25     integrate internet advertising to the
0182
 1     extent that it is going to be their
 2     mobile advertising and television
 3     advertising and tremendous pressure from
 4     people to measure these collectively
 5     across those three screens.  And that
 6     is, you know, it is a challenge and it
 7     is a danger, because I think that there
 8     are a lot of people, you know,
 9     particularly entrepreneurial people in
10     the internet sector who are trying to
11     fit television into an internet
12     measurement scheme, when television has
13     a far superior measurement system right
14     now.
15            So, you know, a lot of the
16     compromises -- there's a tendency
17     outside of the media research field for
18     compromises in order to get this cross
19     media.  And I think it is very important
20     that we keep this as much as we can
21     within the media research part of our
22     business and not let other people take
23     all of it and compromise the quality of
24     research in doing it.
25            MR. WAKSHLAG:  I agree that the
0183
 1     challenge is to try and get a common set
 2     of metrix that can be applied so that we
 3     can have -- reach and look at, reach
 4     across the screens frequency across the
 5     screens.  Time spent within across the
 6     screens and someone has to sit there as
 7     an expert in measurement and saying --
 8            MR. DONATO:  Isn't that the whole
 9     research plan of M2/N2?  Is there
10     research that would put more money into
11     studying television and internet
12     simultaneously television and --
13            MS. BURNS:  Follow the video.
14            MR. LIGUORI:  Your company, your
15     ratings people or site senses people are
16     pushing the idea that time spent is
17     better time spent in sessions is a
18     better way to measure the internet,
19     which if that's the case and they want
20     to get away from the unique page views
21     because of the way the council meeting
22     packages.  If that's the case, that
23     makes it very comparable with measuring
24     television and across any screen.  So, I
25     mean, there's not enough and I do think
0184
 1     the IAD is behind that, at least they
 2     said that is going to time spent and
 3     sessions.
 4            MR. IVIE:  We're writing a
 5     standard on audience measurement that
 6     involves census and panel audience
 7     measurement and it defines unique time
 8     spent and visits which are equivalent
 9     terminology to sessions.  And it doesn't
10     focus on page views because of new tools
11     like AJAX and Jason and things like
12     that.  That's what is driving ratings to
13     move in that direction.
14            MR. LIGUORI:  You know, maybe we
15     will see some sort of cross measurement
16     of one standard.
17            MR. ZACKON:  I've captured what
18     sounds like three areas.  One is with
19     new technology and metrix, which is what
20     Pat spoke about.  The granularity of
21     reporting time and content.  And then
22     the third is this cross platform, common
23     credible metrix.  And I'm wondering if
24     anyone -- this isn't necessarily a new
25     committee.  Does anybody want to start,
0185
 1     two people interested in these topics,
 2     we could begin to have a conversation,
 3     you know, not here, necessarily.  We can
 4     talk about it.  There's other areas, as
 5     well, but might anyone want to take on
 6     one of those on and who wants to talk
 7     about it or just note them?
 8            MR. IVIE:  I have a suggestion.
 9     I'm not volunteering for anything.  I
10     have a suggestion.  There are a lot of
11     internet standards being written right
12     now and I wonder if it doesn't make
13     sense to bring that into this committee
14     and form a presentation to come up to
15     speed on where that's going.
16            I think it would be good for the
17     committee to hear about it, but also do
18     the IEB and MRC to hear we don't like
19     because of that or whatever.
20            MR. ZACKON:  Who might we speak
21     to?
22            MR. IVIE:  Me and some people at
23     the IEB.
24            MR. ZACKON:  Is there a sense
25     that we should have such an invitation?
0186
 1            MS. GALLAGHER:  I think that is a
 2     good idea.
 3            MS. BRILL:  What is the
 4     invitation?  I couldn't hear you above
 5     the construction work.
 6            MR. IVIE:  The standards being
 7     written now, collaborating to write
 8     standards on measurement on ad
 9     impressions on the internet, clicks on
10     the internet, audience measurement
11     metrix, like unique, sessions and time
12     spent.  And the idea is to bring those
13     standards where they stand, because a
14     lot of them are not finalized, so this
15     is a good opportunity to bring it to
16     this group, present so you guys
17     understand the details of the direction
18     the stuff is moving in.
19            And following Dave's concern, it
20     would be good for us to hear, you know,
21     concerns about this.
22            MS. BRILL:  Absolutely.
23            MS. SHAGRIN:  Have those metrix
24     match media metrix and what needs to
25     change on the other side of it.
0187
 1            MS. BRILL:  What about streaming
 2     issues?
 3            MR. IVIE:  It's already standard.
 4            MR. ZACKON:  Howard?
 5            MR. SHIMMEL:  You may want to
 6     think about the commercial bug being
 7     broaden and including now new
 8     advertising models.  One of the things
 9     that keeps me up at night in a world
10     where Comcast is serving ads to an
11     individual set-top box.  What is the
12     role of the media research, what is the
13     role of agency planners, you know, at
14     the time we all get to retire.  But
15     just, you know, I don't think any of us
16     would think that five years from now
17     we're going to be distributing ads
18     through programs in the same way we have
19     done it for the last 50 years.
20            MR. ZACKON:  All right.
21            MS. RUSH:  I'm just wondering,
22     the cross platform measurement, there is
23     so much talk taking beyond exposure and
24     efficacy or RIO or even engagement.  And
25     that's the one thing that keeps me up at
0188
 1     night.  Something more turnkey and more
 2     syndicated, because it takes an
 3     incredible amount of time and effort to,
 4     on a custom basis for every single
 5     advertiser, every channel on MTV
 6     networks to be mounting these RIO
 7     studies.  And there just has to be a
 8     better way that doesn't produce such an
 9     incredible drain and utter lack of any
10     standardization or regard for what's the
11     best way to do it.
12            I think something we need to be
13     striving for, and I don't know if this
14     committee can defer to that, a cross
15     platform.  That's IAG.  That's got
16     issues attached to it and it is TV only
17     and unbelievably expensive, and you can
18     go on and on.  It is what it is.
19            MR. ZACKON:  It's okay.
20            MR. WAKSHLAG:  A lot of the
21     issues that keep coming up are issues
22     not dealt with.  Dave has worked on a
23     number of research initiatives how
24     advertising works that have answered
25     these questions and they keep answering
0189
 1     the same questions.
 2            We forget that the question has
 3     been answered or that it requires an
 4     update.  So I don't know when the last
 5     time -- when was the last time there was
 6     an update on how advertising works,
 7     Dave?
 8            MR. POLTRACK:  I'm sorry?
 9            MS. SHAGRIN:  He's updating the
10     study.
11            MR. WAKSHLAG:  To me, the RIO
12     thing is the how advertising works,
13     stuff you worked on many years ago.  You
14     talked about last year's ARF.  What do
15     you mean, it doesn't work, and there's
16     no RIO?  We showed you that seven times
17     already.  I don't know how we bring that
18     together again.
19            Maybe all you need is to update
20     it again for us to keep saying
21     television doesn't work anymore, media
22     doesn't work anymore --
23            MS. RUSH:  Nobody wants it in a
24     sweeping way.  They want on your channel
25     in a customized way.  They want to know
0190
 1     about that campaign.  The basic
 2     principles that advertising works has
 3     been proven to your point ad nauseam.
 4            MR. ZACKON:  Colleen, do I hear
 5     you stepping up to lead a dialogue?
 6            MS. RUSH:  I'm not feeling the
 7     room getting behind this at all.
 8            MR. ZACKON:  Okay.  Just
 9     repeating new technology in metrix.
10     Anyone want to join Pat in that
11     dialogue?
12            MR. DONATO:  I was going to ask
13     the people in the room if they wanted to
14     move across the hall.  This noise is
15     driving me crazy.  We had a choice to
16     move to a break out room.
17            MR. ZACKON:  We're going to break
18     out.
19            MR. DONATO:  I was going to ask
20     them to set it up in a U-shape.
21            MR. ZACKON:  Why don't we plan to
22     resume in there.  Anyone want to step
23     up?  I would like to forward that in a
24     conversation.
25            MR. IVIE:  Are the topics closed?
0191
 1            MR. ZACKON:  No.
 2            MR. IVIE:  I don't know if it is
 3     more granular.  There are three other
 4     issues that we're focused on.  One is
 5     the impact of sort of mainstream
 6     non-probability sampling on the accuracy
 7     of measurement.  So there are syndicated
 8     measurement organizations that do
 9     non-probability sample.  What does that
10     mean?  What does that mean to accuracy?
11            MR. ZACKON:  Okay.
12            MR. IVIE:  I don't know if it is
13     relevant to this.  One is fusion, I
14     think was mentioned.  Maybe Pat
15     mentioned it.  But right now we're
16     talking about integrating internet and
17     television, but because we don't have
18     that ready to go, we're fusing data for
19     their other applications.  Particularly
20     with Nielsen ratings that are being
21     fused and I don't know that anybody
22     studied comprehensively how good that
23     is.
24            Then the third one is the
25     interplay of census data and sample
0192
 1     data.  You know, partial census data, I
 2     should say.  You could measure some
 3     set-top boxes in households but not all
 4     of them and sample some information from
 5     a subset of those households.  How good
 6     is that.  Those could be too granular.
 7     We're focused on those three areas.  I
 8     don't know if that resonates with
 9     anybody on the committee.
10            MS. SHAGRIN:  I think the fusion
11     issue becomes very relevant.  Because in
12     many ways, Howard, I -- he's gone.
13            A lot of Nielsen connect is all
14     about fusing various Nielsen own
15     databases.  And I think understanding
16     how good or bad that is is worth it.
17            MR. ZACKON:  So this session will
18     be effective if we have one or two,
19     actually, just hear one another, hear
20     what they have to say, committing
21     ourself to some action or maybe some
22     committee action maybe, if someone says
23     I would like to lead that discussion.
24            MR. LIGUORI:  Can we e-mail you
25     later?
0193
 1            MR. ZACKON:  Absolutely.
 2            MS. SHAGRIN:  It is sort of
 3     balancing our day job with the council.
 4            MR. ZACKON:  That's the last item
 5     here.  That's something to be discussed
 6     at the breakout.
 7            MS. SHAGRIN:  I'm already
 8     struggling with that and I would like to
 9     be on one or two of those committees.
10            MR. LIGUORI:  To Ceril's point, I
11     see the measurement technology also
12     related to the commercial impact to the
13     new metrix.  Those three are
14     inextricably intertwined.  I could have
15     an interest in doing something.
16            MR. ZACKON:  Let me commit to
17     this.
18            MS. SHAGRIN:  Pat and I will give
19     up half our day jobs.
20            MR. ZACKON:  Let me put this back
21     out to people capturing what we did and
22     invite people to step up.  As long as
23     there's two people, there is a
24     conversation.  It may be premature.
25            The last two items we're going to
0194
 1     conduct -- Nancy, if you're one.  This
 2     is a challenge to some groups.  You just
 3     want to go one, two, three.  One, two,
 4     three.  And remember your number.  One,
 5     two, three.  One, two, three.  One, two
 6     three.  One, two, three.  One, two,
 7     three.  One, two, three.  One, two,
 8     three.  One, two and Howard is three.
 9            So there will be three small
10     group breakout rooms.  One group may
11     stay in here.  We'll find another room.
12     Two discussions to reflect on.  About 25
13     minutes to address two questions in the
14     group.  How might we better coordinate
15     our working together, how might we
16     better use our time, our committee work,
17     our structure to be even more effective.
18            And two any ideas about balancing
19     council work with our day jobs.  That's
20     the limiting role.
21            MS. BURNS:  To that end, where,
22     when, how do we hear the survey groups?
23            MR. ZACKON:  Which survey?
24            MS. BURNS:  When we were all
25     polled.
0195
 1            MR. ZACKON:  I have them.  I
 2     could distribute them.
 3            MS. BURNS:  Don't they speak to
 4     this, as well?
 5            MR. ZACKON:  They do.  But what
 6     I'm looking for may be some ideas for
 7     actions, actual things that we can do.
 8     I'm happy to distribute that.  They were
 9     distributed.  There was a committee that
10     helped plan this event.  Colleen was
11     good enough to conduct some interviews.
12     I can report it.
13            Were you part of that committee?
14            MS. BURNS:  Yes, I was
15     interviewed.
16            MR. ZACKON:  Did I not send you a
17     copy of the findings?
18            MS. BURNS:  No.
19            MR. ZACKON:  I thought they went
20     out.
21            MR. SUSSMAN:  It was the second
22     attachment with the agenda.
23            MR. ZACKON:  We can distribute it
24     more broadly.
25            MS. BURNS:  I've been on the
0196
 1     road.
 2            MR. ZACKON:  Let me find the
 3     rooms to go to.  Get together, group one
 4     group two.
 5            Off the record.
 6            (Short recess.)
 7            (Whereupon, a short portion of
 8     the meeting continued without the
 9     reporter present.)
10            MR. ZACKON:  Back on the record.
11            MS. PANTANINI:  If I put somebody
12     in my group who is well-equipped to
13     represent us or my role on a committee,
14     then that person should see it through.
15     Or if I step in and out, it is our
16     responsibility to replace with one
17     another.
18            MR. ZACKON:  The group decided on
19     no replacements at these council
20     meetings.
21            MS. PANTANINI:  Not the council.
22            MR. ZACKON:  Any one of Nielsen's
23     clients can attend the committee.  You
24     can ask the chair, can so-and-so sit in
25     for me that day.
0197
 1            MR. WAKSHLAG:  Nor is there a
 2     rule, if you want to bring someone or
 3     listen in to committee activity who is
 4     part of your team and you want to use
 5     them, contribute your company's
 6     resources to the effort, I don't know
 7     there is anything that blocks that.
 8            MR. ZACKON:  That in effect has
 9     happened with George Ivie and Dave
10     Gutzran who is working in the RMC, could
11     continue in council work without any
12     interruption.
13            MR. IVIE:  That would be an idea.
14     I think it is a good idea.
15            MS. BUSLIK:  The real time
16     consumer is not these meetings.  It is
17     it committee meetings and, in
18     particular, if you chair a committee.
19            MS. BUSLIK:  It is coordinating.
20            MS. SHAGRIN:  It is a lot of work
21     we do ourselves by conference call.  We
22     have to set it up.  We have to send out
23     notes afterwards and, frankly, when it
24     comes to some of the meetings where we
25     have had meetings that haven't been by
0198
 1     phone, everybody is invited, but not
 2     everybody can make the meeting.
 3            So it takes -- it takes a lot of
 4     my time just keeping the project going
 5     and making sure everybody gets involved
 6     at the right level and gets the
 7     information they need.  So it is a lot
 8     of work for a committee chair, I think.
 9            MR. BROOKS:  You have to be
10     realistic.  You have heads of research
11     for large corporations.  A lot of people
12     have a lot of responsibility and that's
13     a strength, but also means that a lot of
14     people here can't really spend a lot of
15     time going to a meeting.  They can add
16     knowledge and background work, they have
17     done the commitment of their company,
18     but you have to have a structure where
19     the coordinating work -- you've been
20     very good at this for one guy -- the
21     coordinating work, the administrative
22     work, the notices and all of that kind
23     of thing is not burdened on that same
24     person who is also running a big
25     research operation.
0199
 1            MR. ZACKON:  How can we spread
 2     that out?  If we have someone designated
 3     to get more of Rebecca's time.
 4            MR. BROOKS:  I've given
 5     suggestions over the years, many of
 6     which you followed up on, thank you very
 7     much, about not just the minutes of the
 8     meeting, but condensing it so that what
 9     we are accomplishing and what we have
10     decided, what we have passed in a
11     meeting, where something stands is
12     condensed.  Everything I write from my
13     management is super condensed, bullet
14     points type of thing.  I think we learn
15     as we go along.
16            Ceril has a very interesting
17     project.  A lot of us think because it
18     was the very first project in some ways
19     and we were not really very informed
20     about how it was going.  Thank goodness
21     she was in charge and we trusted her to
22     keep it going.  I didn't think I was
23     being financially responsible for that
24     because I didn't have the information.
25            Now you've got some reports
0200
 1     condensed on what each committee is
 2     doing.  That kind of boils it down for
 3     us so that we can quickly know where
 4     we're at and what the important decision
 5     points are, could I facilitate, make use
 6     of our busy time.
 7            MR. SUSSMAN:  We don't have
 8     information about the other committees
 9     and we spend time at these meetings
10     catching up on what happened in the
11     interim and then trying to move forward
12     on that, so that is helpful.  But to
13     Ceril's point, being the chair of the
14     committee, I don't know of any other way
15     of doing it.  It falls on your
16     responsibility to make it move forward
17     and get most of the things done and it
18     is difficult.  I don't know how to fix
19     that.  Co-chairs.
20            MR. LIGUORI:  It would seem
21     knowing from other meetings that I try
22     and schedule with people, it would
23     relieve some of the burden on the
24     committee chairs if you could have
25     Rebecca, maybe the chair says we want to
0201
 1     conduct a committee among the
 2     subcommittee and/or whatever committee
 3     and ask her to schedule it.
 4            There is always that back and
 5     forth with e-mails.  And it would
 6     just -- if it saves any time, it is a
 7     good thing.  You know, it is a start
 8     anyway.
 9            MR. ZACKON:  So there is a
10     meeting called, the chair calls Rebecca
11     or someone in that situation.
12            MR. SUSSMAN:  Coordinating
13     calendars.
14            MR. ZACKON:  And there would be a
15     standard conference line that we use, so
16     we always know what kind of number.
17            MS. BURNS:  New technology, being
18     a west coaster trying to hear sometimes
19     when I can't make it in is so
20     frustrating.  I don't need to see
21     people's faces.
22            MS. GALLAGHER:  You feel you're
23     more involved that way.
24            MS. BURNS:  I second what Tim
25     said, that's the way I train my staff,
0202
 1     less is more.  So every report, every
 2     report that we issue has bullet points
 3     with captioned above the bullet point
 4     and the detail behind it.
 5            If you want the detail, it is
 6     there.  We have so much on our plate
 7     right now, and God bless the people who
 8     write detailed reports in this room.  I
 9     don't have time to read this right now.
10     But if I got the bullets, now I want to
11     know more about that specific thing.
12     Less is more.
13            MR. ZACKON:  Regarding seeing
14     each other, that wouldn't happen at a
15     committee meeting but a council meeting,
16     is Web X for these quarterly council
17     meetings?
18            MS. GALLAGHER:  Something so the
19     people in New York really feel a part of
20     the group.
21            MR. LIGUORI:  You pay more
22     attention on Web X.
23            MS. GALLAGHER:  If you're at the
24     phone doing something else.
25            MR. ZACKON:  In fairness, we have
0203
 1     not had a lot of presentation.
 2            MS. GALLAGHER:  Following
 3     discussions, it is really, really --
 4            MR. ZACKON:  Be more sensitive to
 5     that.
 6            Other thoughts?
 7            MS. BURNS:  On our committee with
 8     Ball State, some of those reports were
 9     down to the wire.  Until it came
10     through, I was waiting, waiting,
11     waiting.  Didn't come up on the meeting.
12     Ball State was presenting it.  What page
13     were you on?  Tell me where you are
14     again.  It was hard to follow.  And I
15     want to stay an active member but I
16     can't come in for every one-hour
17     meeting.
18            MS. BUSLIK:  Is there a way that
19     some of the information could be
20     disseminated to us ahead of this
21     meeting?  In other words, I think it
22     would have been very helpful if we had
23     seen of this Ball State what they were
24     going to propose besides handing it out
25     today so we would have looked at or some
0204
 1     of us would have looked at it, so we had
 2     the questions sooner.  We would have
 3     known what to talk about it, talked
 4     about it quicker and got it done.
 5            MR. ZACKON:  It went out Monday.
 6            MS. GALLAGHER:  55 pages and all
 7     those intricate charts.
 8            MR. ZACKON:  Can I recommend
 9     committee chairs own greater
10     responsibility in this regard.  I am one
11     guy and I would like to facilitate as
12     best I can.  If the chairs step up for
13     that purpose.
14            MS. BUSLIK:  Even today's
15     presentation would have been helpful to
16     have that ahead of time, since the
17     questions came up during the
18     presentation.
19            MR. ZACKON:  Okay.
20            MS. BUSLIK:  And, you know, a day
21     ahead is not enough time.
22            MR. ZACKON:  A week?
23            MS. BUSLIK:  Hopefully a week.
24            MS. BURNS:  A week is good.  More
25     than that, you know, you have more time.
0205
 1            MS. GALLAGHER:  You can read it.
 2            MR. LIGUORI:  It's not -- your
 3     real job is done on the weekend.
 4            MS. BUSLIK:  It doesn't have to
 5     be the final.  It could be work in
 6     progress 99 percent done, but it puts us
 7     ahead.
 8            MS. GALLAGHER:  This is what
 9     we're going to talk about, these are the
10     issues we're going to be bringing up,
11     these are the questions we need to
12     address.  Just kind of know what you're
13     getting into.
14            MS. BRILL:  Steve had a
15     suggestion and I really like it.  So how
16     about just instead of doing the whole
17     e-mailing thing, why don't we set up an
18     alerts set up, an FTP site.  Many of the
19     presentations that were sent out were in
20     excess of ten megs and many people's
21     servers reject that as SPAM.
22            What do I do when I'm sitting
23     with a big piece of information that I'm
24     unable to disseminate because people's
25     servers reject that?
0206
 1            MR. ZACKON:  What about password
 2     protection?  Put it there on the
 3     website.  Transparency is move it as
 4     quickly as possible to a public section.
 5     A reasonable time to review before that.
 6            MR. WAKSHLAG:  I think the other
 7     side, as well, there's no reason why
 8     that presentation had to be done today.
 9     They built it that way because they have
10     some graphics in there that's formatted.
11     So if you put it on them to say the
12     presentation can't be more than four
13     meg.  I don't care if you turn it into a
14     pdf.
15            MS. BRILL:  Even pdf is still
16     big.
17            MR. WAKSHLAG:  That's the
18     graphic.
19            MR. ZACKON:  It was originally
20     one presentation prepared for today's
21     meeting and I had a conversation about
22     it.
23            MR. WAKSHLAG:  There's something
24     graphically that's creating the crazy
25     meg.
0207
 1            MR. BROOKS:  All reports, ten
 2     pages or less.
 3            MS. GALLAGHER:  I like that.
 4            MS. BUSLIK:  Eight pages.
 5            MR. LIGUORI:  Also, so if you do
 6     print it, you don't have to go through
 7     and, you know, adjust it for -- I have a
 8     color printer.  I'm not going to print
 9     it in color.  Some of these
10     presentations you have to strip out the
11     background and change the color.  No
12     backgrounds, please.  No backgrounds.
13            MR. ZACKON:  Short elements of
14     style for committee.
15            MS. GALLAGHER:  No backgrounds is
16     big.  They eat up space.  You have to
17     try to strip them out anyway.  You also
18     have that famous black background.  That
19     was the worst.
20            MR. DONATO:  One-sheeter bulleted
21     recommendations for communications.
22            MR. ZACKON:  Yes.  We'll do it.
23            MR. LIGUORI:  When we do post
24     something on our password protected
25     e-mail, send an e-mail.
0208
 1            MR. BROOKS:  Is there any way to
 2     technologically e-mail something on that
 3     site to click on the link and go
 4     straight to it?
 5            MR. ZACKON:  I imagine so.
 6            MS. BUSLIK:  He does that all the
 7     time.
 8            MS. BURNS:  It is much better.
 9            MR. BROOKS:  So you don't have to
10     find the site.
11            MS. BURNS:  Then I go back into
12     the folder, oh, shit, what is the
13     log-on.
14            MS. BUSLIK:  And what's my
15     password.
16            MS. BURNS:  The link is just
17     there and you can do it and remember the
18     password, please.
19            MR. ZACKON:  I'm actually going
20     to suggest something.  I would like the
21     group to speak to Paul and Howard here
22     because they represent Nielsen who are
23     considering whether or not to fund this.
24            In light of --
25            MR. DONATO:  I am really
0209
 1     impressed that you think I can do that.
 2            MR. ZACKON:  I think, however,
 3     they can go back to Susan and whatever
 4     the report is given the increased
 5     demands, which I see are clearly on
 6     everyone on their day job versus where
 7     we were two years ago, we have gotten
 8     heavier.  Can we achieve this?  What is
 9     the commitment in the room to go forward
10     with what we're up to.
11            So, to me, that would actually be
12     a good way to close today, if we went
13     around and you evidently saw some vision
14     what the council was.  You know what it
15     has taken and what it is doing and you
16     realize that your job is a lot busier
17     now, probably couldn't have envisioned
18     it now, but virtually for everyone it
19     is.
20            Is there some statement going
21     forward if they heard or maybe you think
22     they ought not.
23            MS. PANTANINI:  We're here.
24            MS. BUSLIK:  We're here.
25            MR. DONATO:  I don't think so.  I
0210
 1     got it.
 2            MR. ZACKON:  Okay.  There's no
 3     doubt that Paul and Howard communicate
 4     the passion.  And the commitment I would
 5     offer, perhaps would it be helpful if
 6     Susan heard from these people.
 7            MR. DONATO:  I don't know that it
 8     is necessary.  I think if we hit a bump
 9     in the road, yes, but I don't think it
10     is necessary.  Anyone and everyone is
11     welcome to send Susan an e-mail, you
12     know.
13            MS. BUSLIK:  Thank her for the
14     money.
15            MR. DONATO:  Yes.  Send an e-mail
16     how you feel about the council.  I think
17     that would be very useful.  In
18     formulating budgets and all, if she hits
19     a bumpy road, she has a bunch of e-mails
20     from very senior clients saying how good
21     and effective this use.
22            MS. BUSLIK:  I think that we're
23     looking at everything from a very basic
24     metrix that we have to use every day and
25     how we want to see those include to the
0211
 1     very high-tech new stuff that's coming
 2     down the pike.  Everywhere from basic to
 3     way up there.  I think that's good
 4     because we still -- it shows our day
 5     jobs are today stuff, but we're thinking
 6     ahead.
 7            And I think what Ceril said about
 8     commercial audiences and maybe looking
 9     at more granular data, that's today.
10     That's not the three screens that Dave
11     was looking at which is tomorrow, but
12     we've got a basis currency that we're
13     using today that we really need to have
14     confidence in.  And I think Paul heard
15     that.  That is really what this
16     committee is about, from everything to
17     the sample to getting kind of response
18     bias and things like that.  I think it
19     is fabulous.
20            MR. ZACKON:  Other thoughts,
21     other voices, other issues?  We could
22     end whenever.  I just want to make sure
23     everyone has been heard.
24            MR. POLTRACK:  For productive
25     purposes, the council is what the
0212
 1     council is, committee representation.
 2     If you can send delegates that would be
 3     very helpful, but there actually, when
 4     you get into specific projects, there
 5     are people within the organization that
 6     have more hands-on experience and
 7     day-to-day experience in that area and
 8     would be more productive members of the
 9     committee and would welcome the
10     opportunity to participate in the
11     committee and would take the burden off
12     of the members to cover, get involved in
13     these committees.  That would be
14     helpful.
15            That is George's model and I
16     think it works very well.  George is our
17     representative at the committee's
18     meetings.  I don't attend all the
19     meetings.  Jackie does.  She is a lot
20     better representative than I would be.
21            MR. BROOKS:  She is a machine.
22            MR. POLTRACK:  I promise I won't
23     send Jackie.
24            MS. PANTANINI:  Did you say only
25     council members can chair a committee?
0213
 1            MR. ZACKON:  I believe that's
 2     what the bylaws say.  Any Nielsen can
 3     petition to attend a committee.
 4            MS. SHAGRIN:  We have a
 5     non-council member on our committee.
 6            MR. ZACKON:  As a member, not as
 7     a chair.
 8            MS. SHAGRIN:  As a member.
 9            MS. BUSLIK:  We don't --
10            MS. SHAGRIN:  You know, we had
11     him on our website, what the committees
12     were, and he said I would love to be on
13     that committee.  And the bylaws said as
14     long as he was a Nielsen customer, he
15     could be on the committee.
16            MR. IVIE:  I have no problem.  I
17     think he contributed a lot.  So he came
18     to you?
19            MS. SHAGRIN:  Yes.
20            MR. ZACKON:  I think that will
21     bring energy and expertise and life to
22     the committees to do that.  So you're
23     certainly invited to do that.
24            MS. BUSLIK:  As long as the
25     person is somewhat experienced.  This
0214
 1     isn't a training program.
 2            MR. LIGUORI:  That was, I think,
 3     the intent of no substitutions, is that,
 4     you know, not to go back to square one
 5     and, you know, repeat everything.  And
 6     with the MRC it makes sense to have
 7     substitutions because you're starting
 8     with an audit, you know, and, yes, there
 9     is a degree of history that's, you know,
10     helpful to have.  It isn't necessary
11     because you have George or Jim and/or
12     E & Y for history, because we meet so
13     infrequently to have to go back, again,
14     I think that was the intent of how this
15     thing was set up.
16            MR. ZACKON:  That was for the
17     council.  Now we're just making more
18     headway.
19            MR. POLTRACK:  I'm not on any
20     committees and I would never agree to be
21     on any committees.  I cannot possibly be
22     on committees.  I have to rearrange my
23     schedule just to get to these meetings
24     and I could never do that.
25            MR. DONATO:  In theory, I don't
0215
 1     have to be a council member, doesn't
 2     that give you permission to have
 3     non-council?  Pretty much anybody could.
 4            MR. ZACKON:  At the pleasure of
 5     the chair.
 6            MR. DONATO:  That's right.
 7            MR. BROOKS:  So is Jackie
 8     available?
 9            MR. POLTRACK:  More than happy to
10     convey the message to her.
11            MR. ZACKON:  I think it would be
12     great if we ended early.  Anyone object?
13            MR. IVIE:  I was just saying
14     there was an idea of a co-chair
15     discussed and does it make sense for all
16     of our committee to appoint really two
17     people rather than one.
18            MR. ZACKON:  I would say for me
19     if each one owns full responsibility,
20     yes.  If the person is going to turn it
21     over to the chair, it makes more work
22     around.  If each person owns it like I
23     have full responsibility for this
24     committee, I don't have to discuss it.
25            MS. BRILL:  I can only speak for
0216
 1     my own experience, Steve and I have done
 2     an awesome job.  Everybody on our
 3     committee owns this committee.  It is
 4     not just the chairs.  It works as well
 5     as it does because everybody on our team
 6     works so well together.
 7            MR. ZACKON:  I will express a
 8     concern for you when the stuff starts
 9     happening that there is real support to
10     make that happen.  I have to speak the
11     truth, I spend about 70 percent of my
12     time on media consumption.  So we'll
13     have more support, people will be fine
14     as more activity starts to happen.  It
15     is a challenge to me personally, so
16     that's great.  Great to hear.
17            MR. POLTRACK:  Well, we spent all
18     the money on media consumption so you
19     don't have to.
20            MR. ZACKON:  Good point.
21            Other comments?
22            Thank you all.
23                 (Whereupon, at 4:30 o'clock
24         p.m., the proceeding was concluded.)
25   
0217
 1                C E R T I F I C A T E
 2   
 3   STATE OF NEW YORK  )
 4                      ) ss.
 5   COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
 6   
 7   
 8        I, CATHERINE M. DONAHUE, a Shorthand
 9   (Stenotype) Reporter and Notary Public of the
10   State of New York, do hereby certify that
11   foregoing Proceedings, taken at the time and place
12   aforesaid, is a true and correct transcription of
13   my shorthand notes.
14        I further certify that I am neither counsel
15   for nor related to any party to said action, nor
16   in any wise interested in the result or outcome
17   thereof.
18        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
19   hand this 14th day of August, 2007.
20   
21                     
                       _________________________
22                     CATHERINE M. DONAHUE, CSR
23   
24   
25