1 1 2 -----------------------------------------x 3 COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH EXCELLENCE 4 MEETING OF BOARD MEMBERS 5 -----------------------------------------x 6 September 17, 2008 7 9:00 a.m. 8 9 The Coleman Center 10 810 Seventh Avenue 11 New York, New York 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 REGENCY REPORTING, INC. 22 Certified Court Reporters & Videographers 23 425 Eagle Rock Avenue 575 Madison Avenue 24 Roseland, NJ 07068 New York, NY 10022 25 www.regencyreporting.net (866) 268-7866 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 3 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: RICHARD ZACKON, Facilitator 4 MIKE HESS, Chairman MARK KALINE 5 MICHELE BUSLIK NANCY GALLAGHER 6 PAUL DONATO MARK GREEN 7 SHARI ANNE BRILL COLLEEN FAHEY-RUSH 8 IRA SUSSMAN CERIL SHAGRIN 9 DAVID POLTRACK LYLE SCHWARTZ 10 HENRY DeVAULT PAT LIGUORI 11 JOANNE BURNS SUSAN CUCCINELLO 12 BARBARA SINGER BETH UYENCO 13 NOREEN SIMMONS TINA SILVESTRI 14 BRAD ADGATE MATT ROSS 15 BILLY McDOWELL MICHAEL NATHANSON 16 ALEX CORTESELLI MIKE PARDEE 17 DAN MURPHY 18 PRESENT BY PHONE: 19 GEORGE IVIE JESSICA PANTANINI 20 STEVE STERNBERG DAVID POLTRACK 21 VICKY CHAMPLIN KATE SIRKIN 22 23 ALSO PRESENT: JOHN BURBANK 24 ANNE SAINI 25 3 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Why don't we get 2 started. We have a commitment at these 3 meetings to actually finish on time. That 4 means we usually try to start on time. 5 My name is Mike Hess. I did have 6 a chance to go ahead around and meet some of 7 the new members. We'll have you look at your 8 agendas here. You'll see in a few minutes 9 we'll actually do introductions. We'll go 10 around the room. We want to introduce 11 everybody. New members. And I'm not sure 12 the emphasis is new. I want to say old. 13 Veterans and rookies, so to speak. 14 How are we doing on the phone? 15 Is the phone connection clear? Can everyone 16 on the phone hear me? 17 All right. Okay. Very good. 18 Well, then we have certainly what definitely 19 looks like a quorum in this room. I haven't 20 counted yet. But for our long meeting we 21 have, as I mentioned to some new members, 22 most of the media meetings are shorter, two 23 or three hours long. So for your very first 24 meeting you get to come to a longer one where 25 we can interact and socialize and learn a lot 4 1 of things. 2 I just have a few opening 3 remarks. It gives me 10 minutes here. But I 4 won't take that long. I wanted to start by 5 saying thanks to the person just one over 6 from Richard Zackon, Mark Kaline who joins us 7 today for his outstanding service, over three 8 years of service as chair of this committee. 9 He'll have a chance to make a few remarks in 10 a few minutes. But why don't we start with a 11 round of applause for Mark, certainly. I'm 12 glad Mark could come today and attend our 13 meeting. 14 As chair of the committee, this 15 is the start of a new school year. It's the 16 star of fall football. Lots of things are 17 starting. And I think it's appropriate that 18 we also start with a new, fully stocked, if 19 you will, committee with nearly 40 members. 20 And so I think this is a really exciting time 21 to serve on this committee again for the 22 veterans. Thanks for that word, Richard. 23 And as well as for the new rookies. 24 I think you'll find that this is, 25 the first three years maybe we're starting 5 1 building, starting to figure out who we were, 2 how we could do it and how to use the 3 funding. And now we're at a truly exciting 4 time. And I think that word is maybe 5 sometimes overused, particularly in the 6 political arena. "I'm excited to be here in 7 Scranton today," and so on. No. But I think 8 when you hear the speakers, the various 9 speakers talk, especially the committee 10 chairs, then you'll see that this is truly an 11 appropriate word. 12 This is an exciting time. 13 Because for one thing we have more committees 14 than ever. We've grown. And growth, I 15 think, is always a signal that we're doing 16 something right. And then beyond growth, we 17 actually have some reporting. So we're very, 18 very close now to having data come out from a 19 couple of the committees. Nonresponse 20 committee and some data on nonresponse. 21 Ceril is sitting right next to me. And also 22 interesting data that some of us have already 23 glimpsed on the multimedia project that is 24 extremely exciting as well. 25 And so, in conjunction with that, 6 1 we actually formed a new subcommittee, the 2 public relations/PR committee headed by 3 Jessica Pantanini. Because we need somebody 4 to actually communicate with the press and 5 communicate through Nielsen and the CRE what 6 the findings are and to do that in an orderly 7 manner. 8 I think some of you have already 9 seen material written in Joe Mandici's column 10 and probably other places that are 11 speculating on what we're up to. And so 12 having a PR committee is something smart I 13 think we did, one or two sessions ago. That 14 we will, in fact, address that. And one of 15 our agenda items today is to actually give 16 Jessica a chance to talk about some of her PR 17 ideas and to have a discussion on that topic. 18 And so, last but not least, I 19 want to thank you for the opportunity to 20 chair this elite committee, this select 21 committee. I really appreciate that. And 22 having served as the steering committee chair 23 and the vice chair for the last several 24 years, I do want to say for the again the 25 veteran members, thank you for your service 7 1 to date. And for the new members, I think 2 you should really feel like you are, without 3 overdoing the fencing, I think you're in 4 select company. Select company because the 5 rules of the game here are we never send the 6 junior people at the meeting. Only senior 7 people, ideally the most senior person from 8 the research department in the company is 9 invited to be on the committee. And if you 10 cannot come, you can't send the junior 11 substitute. So you'll find that the people 12 who you're working with on this committee are 13 absolutely at the top of the field, at the 14 top of their games. 15 And so, in conjunction with that, 16 I want to thank the new members as well who 17 have attended today who I know went through a 18 process of sending in a bio and a statement 19 of purpose and so on. Welcome to the game. 20 Welcome to the work we have been doing that 21 you're going to be part of and the work that 22 we're going to do that we want you to be part 23 of. And, in fact, again, the rules of the 24 game require you to be part of it. 25 You cannot just come to these 8 1 meetings. You also need to be a participant 2 in at least one committee. And so we expect 3 performance from the top group, from the 4 elite. And I think by having people like 5 yourselves working together, we've been doing 6 some good things. And we expect to do some 7 good stuff in the future. So, again, thank 8 you very much. 9 Let's get started with the 10 meeting. I want to start, as the agenda 11 indicates, we have a large group, close to 40 12 people if not exactly 40, depending on how 13 many attend it. And we'll start by going 14 around the room. And then we'll go on the 15 telephone. And I'll leave the people on the 16 phone to kind of sort themselves out in terms 17 of who talks first. I know that's always 18 tough. Maybe alphabetical order if you can 19 figure it out. No? Okay. But what we'll do 20 then is we'll go around the room starting to 21 my right. We'll let Mark -- Richard Zackon 22 is not officially a committee member. He 23 works as a liaison between Nielsen and 24 ourselves. So I'm going to introduce him. 25 Richard's done some really great 9 1 work for us. He is the one that sent the new 2 members the packet. Richard, if you don't 3 mind my introducing you, then I can move on 4 and let Mark Kaline, our outgoing chair 5 introduce himself. And also Mark requested 6 as part of his introduction, it's appropriate 7 to start with him first, I think he wants a 8 minute or two. Most of you have a minute. 9 But I think we're going to give Mark three 10 minutes if he wants that much. 11 MR. KALINE: I don't have that 12 much to say. But that's okay. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Beyond Mark, once 14 we get to everyone else, why don't you just 15 take a minute to describe your background. 16 And then, just as importantly, once you've 17 told us that, tell us really your interests 18 for serving on the committee. And what your 19 plans are as you see them for the new 20 members, for the veteran members, maybe what 21 you've done already. And what you plan to do 22 going forward. So, Mark, please start us 23 out. 24 MR. KALINE: Mr. Chairman, thank 25 you very much. And good morning everyone. I 10 1 just wanted to, first of all, echo Mike's 2 welcome to all the new members of the 3 Council, especially the client members who I 4 know have a million things pressing on their 5 business every day. And it's not like 6 everybody at this table isn't busy. But 7 whenever I attend these things it's always, 8 you know, I wish we had more client 9 involvement. And I think your involvement in 10 providing the vision as well as the business 11 sensability for the type of research we need 12 in the video realm going forward is very, 13 very important. So I welcome you and I think 14 you'll find it a very high-powered, high 15 energy group. 16 I think the work that has been 17 done to date is outstanding. And the fruits 18 of which are really about to be shared. And 19 so I wish everybody tremendous amount of luck 20 as they move forward with this group. 21 I would also like to thank the 22 various members of this Council who have 23 extended well wishes to me as well as a job 24 lead here or there. As you know, I parted 25 ways with Ford Motor Company a little over a 11 1 month ago. And I have been very, very 2 fortunate to have an outpouring of 3 opportunities. So I'm looking at several 4 right now. 5 Paul, I'm happen to report that 6 all of them are Nielsen clients in one way, 7 shape or form, whether they're on the media 8 side or on the agency side or client side. 9 So stay tuned. Hopefully, next time we get 10 together I'll have a title and a company to 11 go with it. 12 So I just wanted to say thank you 13 to everybody. And as long as I can stay 14 involved with this organization, I intend to. 15 Because I think the work is important. 16 That's it on my end. 17 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: My name is 18 Colleen Fahey-Rush. And I run research for 19 the family brands over at MTV Networks. I 20 joined the Committee for Research Excellence, 21 I don't know, under a year ago. And I'm 22 actually now on the steering committee. And 23 I think this is just about the only place 24 that we can swing the kinds of really 25 sweeping studies that can't really be 12 1 afforded by a lot of other bodies. Corporate 2 budgets, et cetera. So I think the work that 3 we're doing here is some of the most 4 important work in the industry. And we need 5 to keep the momentum behind it. And it's up 6 to us. 7 MR. SCHWARTZ: Good morning. I'm 8 Lyle Schwartz from Group M. They asked for a 9 little background. My background is I worked 10 in market research capacities in the print 11 area on the agency side, small agencies like 12 BDDO and Young & Rubicam. In the cable area 13 in A&E Television Networks. And now from 14 going from account planning to media research 15 to implementation research. 16 So what perspective? I'm one of 17 the original members on this committee. And 18 I found throughout the years we've been 19 together it's a tremendous learning process 20 because we get people from all areas, all 21 aspects. So you really learn that even 22 though we look at something from one 23 perspective, there's normally five or six 24 that we might have missed. And it's a 25 tremendous asset for everyone here to 13 1 understand the total concept of what research 2 means, for everyone, from all perspectives. 3 And I echo what Colleen said. 4 This is the only area right now, only way for 5 a group of people of this caliber to get 6 together and really work together and in a 7 non-competitive nature to make the industry 8 bigger, better, and prepared for the future. 9 MR. CORTESELLI: Good morning. 10 My name is Alex Corteselli. I work with 11 Telerep. In terms of my background, I've 12 been with Telerep for 28 years now. The 13 first 28 years, the first 15 as a director of 14 research and the last 13 as vice president 15 and associate director of programming. 16 You know, in terms of what I'm 17 looking forward to in being on the committee, 18 obviously, given my background working with a 19 lot of television stations, committees like 20 the set top box initiative you have going is 21 very interesting to us. And the 22 psychographics are something that we're 23 starting to focus on, as everyone is a lot 24 more. I guess one of the new committees is 25 looking at that. That sounds particularly 14 1 interesting. 2 And, again, as Lyle said, to work 3 with people of this caliber on projects like 4 that is an opportunity that I'm very eager 5 and happy to have. And I'm looking forward 6 to it. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Alex, can I take 8 this opportunity to sign you up? 9 MR. CORTESELLI: Sure. 10 MR. GREEN: Mark Green. I work 11 for the Nielsen company. And my role on this 12 committee is a couple of things. One is to 13 help the committee remain independent of 14 Nielsen. And also to help the committee tap 15 into the resources of the Nielsen company. 16 So when Richard needs help, he gives me a 17 call. And we try to get things organized in 18 a way that's effective to this committee. 19 Another role that I play is 20 offering my insights from my perspective in 21 the industry. Before Nielsen I was in 22 advertising agencies for quite some years. 23 And so on occasion I do offer an opinion, 24 though try to keep things from the point of 25 view of independence. Not over the top on 15 1 the opinions. So there you go. 2 MR. DONATO: Good morning, 3 everybody. My name is Paul Donato. I guess 4 I think of Richard as Nielsen's secular 5 liaison, right. I try to think of myself as 6 Nielsen's spiritual liaison. 7 This looks like a very important 8 meeting. This actually reminds me of the 9 very first meeting. There was a certain 10 excitement and kind of tension. How is all 11 this going to work out. And I think that 12 that has probably got probably more new 13 members than we've seen before. And I think 14 that was very smart work on the part of the 15 steering committee to refresh the 16 organization. 17 For those who weren't at the 18 first meeting three years ago, the first 19 thing we do is kind of give you a sense of 20 why we did this. A little bit later in the 21 morning I'm going to present some of 22 Nielsen's R&D efforts to let you know what 23 we're working on. And we did this because we 24 felt it essentially empowered clients. 25 Sometimes we begin working on 16 1 stuff and people would say I would look at it 2 a different way, or I'd really like to study 3 something that isn't top of your agenda. So 4 by creating this, in a sense, foundation, 5 basically it gives the client community the 6 opportunity to decide, if we are not doing 7 research, it gives them the power to actually 8 conduct that research. And I think it's 9 resulted in a couple of landmark studies that 10 other members have already said would never 11 have been done had we not pulled in together. 12 So look forward to working with 13 all of you. 14 MR. NATHANSON: Thanks. I'm 15 Michael Nathanson from Sanford Bernstein. 16 I'm an outlier here because I work as a Wall 17 Street analyst, not in a media company. And 18 you may say why am I here today. Well, first 19 reason, I don't want to be in my office 20 because, you know, we don't know if we have a 21 job at the end of the day. And losing a lot 22 of money. And besides that, Bernstein was 23 the first subscriber to Nielsen on the 24 Street. In order to have media capacities, 25 we should look at the Nielsen companies to 17 1 get a better sense of trends. Our firm has 2 always been involved in looking at Nielsen 3 and proprietary research. 4 The second reason why I'm here, 5 as you know, the sector is under tremendous 6 pressure from Wall Street. There are a lot 7 of misconceptions or truths, depending on how 8 you see it. And over the past, you know, 9 five, six years, I spent a lot of time trying 10 to understand a lot of the issues which your 11 committees are dealing with. So I was 12 excited to be asked to do this. 13 Our goal at Bernstein is to do 14 long term trend-oriented short research 15 about changes in the sectors, and the fit 16 between our mission at Bernstein and this 17 Council's mission is perfect. So I'm honored 18 to be here. I'm willing to serve on whatever 19 committees you need me. And I think I bring 20 a completely different view of the world to 21 it, which is the outsider's view of an 22 investor looking to make bets into the next 23 three or five years. And whatever outcome we 24 find in these committees and trends that 25 you're analyzing, seeing have direct impact 18 1 on the value of the stocks in which many of 2 you work in. So I'm happy to be here. I'm 3 happy to help. And it's better than being in 4 the office. Next. 5 MR. McDOWELL: Good morning. My 6 name is Bill McDowell. I'm with Raycom 7 Media. Raycom is a company that owns 42 TV 8 stations across the country, if you're not 9 familiar with it. It's one of the largest 10 privately held television broadcasting groups 11 in America, as well as Raycom Sports. A lot 12 of the guys know us from Raycom Sports, ACC 13 and NCAA basketball and stuff. I was with 14 NBC for about 14 years before I moved down to 15 Montgomery, Alabama where we're located at. 16 Great excuse to come back to New York and 17 catch up on my pizza and other New York 18 activities. But I've been reading about the 19 committee here for quite a while. Been 20 excited about, you know, some of the 21 initiatives that you guys have started. And 22 very hopeful that some of these can apply to 23 the local broadcasters, as well as the 24 national broadcasters. So we're very excited 25 about that. 19 1 MR. ROSS: Good morning. Matt 2 Ross from Hearst Argyle Television. My 3 background is in broadcast TV research. 4 Working in the corporate side for Hearst 5 Argyle for their 29 TV stations. Have 6 background at rep firms, TV stations, 7 consulting. But again, broadcast focus. 8 Excited to be here. Certainly 9 honored to be invited to sit on the Council. 10 And what I'm looking forward to and trying to 11 get out of this, and also offer my experience 12 for is as we're hitting this digital 13 transition in February and we all talk about 14 multicasting and having our discussion prior 15 the Olympics and all the different screens 16 out there. How can we as broadcasters, as 17 anyone else in this media industry, how can 18 we be better prepared for understanding the 19 audience and how we're going to measure it. 20 And how are we going to be able to provide 21 better material out there for the audience at 22 large. 23 MS. CUCCINELLO: I'm getting to 24 the point that some people are going to be 25 repetitive now going a third of the way 20 1 through the room. 2 I'm Susie Cuccinello. I'm with 3 the Television Bureau of Advertising. And 4 have been there for a dozen years. And 5 before that I was at the rep side. Also, for 6 about 12 years at Blair Television doing both 7 marketing and real estate research. So my 8 perspective is also very local in focus. 9 There's a lot of them in this row right here. 10 And I remember at the first 11 Council meeting, I was one of the first 12 people on the Council and I'm also on the 13 steering committee. One of the things that I 14 said was most important to me moving forward 15 was, always working on this collective 16 research is wonderful, but we've always got 17 to keep our eye on what's happening five 18 years down the road. And we always have to 19 be focused on whatever we're doing going to 20 give insights to what's happening in the 21 future. And I think that a lot of the 22 projects that we're working on are really 23 giving us those insights or will be as soon 24 as the data is released. 25 So I join both the nonresponse 21 1 committee and the set top box committee 2 because those are the ones that appeal to me 3 most in the local broadcast realm. But every 4 committee that's here is pitting out 5 incredibly wonderful work. 6 And as Colleen said, where else 7 can you get these kinds of minds together and 8 money to fund the project that are going to 9 help us all as we move those five years out. 10 So thank you. 11 MR. DeVAULT: I'm Henry default 12 from the American Broadcasting Company. I 13 had started work in the industry about 40 14 years ago at ABC. I'm a member of the 15 steering committee, as well as the 16 nonresponse committee. And I just want to 17 say that this is a wonderful opportunity for 18 all of us to work together in a very 19 collegiate manner to explore issues that are 20 really pertinent to our industry now going 21 forward. 22 MS. SILVESTRI: I'm Tina 23 Silvestri. I work at NBC-Universal in local 24 media. I work in both NBC and Telemundo TV 25 stations. Also interested in looking at the 22 1 general market and Hispanic research. I'm 2 very flattered to be on the committee. I'm 3 very excited to help spend Nielsen's money. 4 And I'd be most interested in working on the 5 set top box committee. But I'd be happy to 6 serve on the new committees also. 7 MS. GALLAGHER: I'm Nancy 8 Gallagher, also from NBC-Universal. And I'm 9 one of the, I guess, original veterans here. 10 I chair the media universe committee. And 11 I'm also on the set top box committee. 12 MS. SIMMONS: Good morning. I'm 13 Noreen Simmons. I'm with Unilever. I'm in 14 the media group at Unilever. 15 When I first heard about CRE I 16 was very interested in joining for a couple 17 of reasons. First, that the topics that the 18 team was tackling were subjects that were 19 really of interest to us and things that we 20 need to learn about as we diversify our media 21 picks across the channels that are available 22 to us now. So it just seemed to be a good 23 fit in terms of topic. 24 And then when I looked at the 25 panel who were involved in the committee and 23 1 if I didn't know everybody who was here, I 2 certainly heard of everybody by reputation, 3 and I thought to myself, this is a really 4 smart group of people. So if I could be part 5 of that group, that would be a terrific 6 thing. 7 And then I think what I can offer 8 to the group is the client side perspective. 9 A media client side perspective. My 10 background is media planning as well as media 11 research. So I certainly have a good 12 understanding of what it is that we need to 13 know from a research perspective about what 14 it is that we're doing. So I want to thank 15 you for having asked me to join the 16 committee. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks for the 18 flattering remarks. 19 MR. SUSSMAN: I'm Ira Sussman. I 20 represent the cable television advertising 21 bureau of my members, both, all the cable 22 networks. I deal with the national side as 23 well as all the MSOs which is the local side. 24 I'm an original member of the committee. 25 I've been on the steering committee or 24 1 chaired one of the smaller and very important 2 committees. 3 I think what's great about this 4 committee is the fact that you look at all 5 the work that Nielsen's doing. And they're 6 investing this extra money to help do the 7 things that they're not able to do within 8 their regular research. And hoping to share 9 what Nielsen is currently working on. The 10 ability to taking that further and to go into 11 different places that Nielsen just wouldn't 12 be able to invest is also exciting. 13 So besides the projects that are 14 very interesting outside, we're also doing 15 work that's going to help Nielsen do their 16 job better in the future. And I think that's 17 great. 18 MS. BUSLIK: Hi, I'm Michele 19 Buslik. I was one of the original founders 20 of the group. And I work at Target Cast 21 which is a small independent real estate 22 managing and buying shop. And I just think 23 we're just at the cusp of so many changes in 24 the industry. And to be able to work on the 25 research that's going to bring them forward 25 1 is terrific. And I love the exchange of 2 ideas. Because although I think I know 3 everything, I've learned that I really don't. 4 MS. BRILL: Good morning. I'm 5 Shari Anne Brill. And I head up the 6 programing group and also audience analysis 7 for Carat. I'm one of the original members 8 of the Council also. And it's been such an 9 honor and really a thrill. And totally 10 exciting to be doing this work and to be 11 amongst the best minds in the business. 12 What I really like about being on 13 the Council, and I also chair the media 14 consumption engagement committee, we are in 15 the process of doing the video consumer 16 mapping study. And we're just really excited 17 about the learning that we're going to have 18 that we'll be sharing with the Council, 19 clients, Nielsen, and the industry at large. 20 But, more importantly, what I really get out 21 of being here is the opportunity to advance 22 knowledge in the industry and to be part of a 23 group that is so action oriented and is about 24 really doing focused research that makes the 25 industry better. And it's not about, you 26 1 know, advancing, buying or selling. It's 2 about advancing learning. 3 MS. UYENCO: Beth Uyenco from 4 Microsoft. I've read a lot of news 5 information, a lot of the MRE strictly 6 through the press. And I've become very, 7 very intrigued. I was very pleased when I 8 was invited to join the Council. And I am 9 particularly interested in a lot of the work 10 that Shari's doing. Because we've been doing 11 a lot of primary research also at Microsoft 12 where I head up global research team in 13 support of trade marketing and in the 14 business group called advertising publishers 15 solutions. 16 So one of the big things we do is 17 trying to establish what the right way is to 18 evaluate audiences across different 19 platforms. And being Microsoft, there are a 20 lot of things that we're developing. A lot 21 of emerging platforms that we hope to 22 monetize through advertising. A lot of that 23 a lot of that activity underscores the need 24 for really good, a really good understanding 25 of how we measure audiences. The value that 27 1 those audiences bring to advertisers. As 2 well as the differences across those 3 different platforms. 4 So given that, I'm really excited 5 about the work that CRE is doing. And I also 6 hope to roll up my sleeves and get involved. 7 Thanks. 8 MS. SINGER: I'm Barbara Singer, 9 I'm a rookie, first-round draft pick out of 10 Kraft Foods. I'm the director of strategic 11 media information for Kraft, which means that 12 I'm a media research person. And I work a 13 lot with, of course, our media teams as well 14 as our market research folks across the 15 company. 16 My background is in the planning 17 and media research. So I kind of have both 18 hats on all the time. And I'm thrilled to be 19 part of the CRE. Thank you for accepting my 20 bid. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: You were drafted 22 like you say. 23 MS. BURNS: Joanne Burns. One of 24 the original members. I'm excited to be part 25 of this group from the beginning. 30 years 28 1 with rep station networks, syndication. 2 Right now with 20th Television and my network 3 TV. 4 And I would like to take this 5 opportunity to thank Nielsen because this has 6 just been such a fabulous opportunity to have 7 the power of Nielsen behind us, and yet 8 active and independent committee. And 9 research by definition is about learning. 10 And no matter how many years you're in the 11 industry, three, 30, 50, learning never 12 stops. So that's what's been exciting about 13 my career in research is to have that 14 perpetual learning. And this committee has 15 certainly stimulated that. And I think what 16 we do is very important. And, again, thank 17 you, Nielsen. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Introduce yourself 19 as well. 20 MS. SAINI: I'm Anne Saini. I 21 think you received my E-mail in the last week 22 or so. Nice to meet all our new members. 23 I'm your communications liaison and work in 24 that communications department at Nielsen. 25 So I'm here to help you with publicity, 29 1 public relations, communications. Anything 2 that you might need along those lines. 3 MR. MURPHY: Contrary to what 4 Susan was saying earlier, I'm going to change 5 things up. My name is Dan Murphy. I'm 6 senior vice president in online research, an 7 ad organization at Univision. Univision 8 Online. I've been working in online for 15 9 years. I'm an original member of the 10 council. That is the IAB ad operations 11 council. And in that council what we do is 12 we collaborate with publishers, agencies, 13 defenders, to improve the ecosystem. Very 14 similar to the way you're structured over 15 here. 16 We know that fragmentation is 17 very important. We need to increase a lot of 18 things. We can actually make, fuse 19 operations with research tools. And we have 20 a lot of research tools that are not optimal 21 online. So online audience research 22 obviously needs to be improved, ad 23 expenditure, ad effectiveness studies, online 24 survey. All have potential. And, Beth, I 25 did not make note that she's the chair for 30 1 the IAB Research Council. And I'd like to 2 introduce my boss. 3 MS. SHAGRIN: I'm Ceril Shagrin. 4 I think I've been in the business forever. 5 But my background is 27 years at Nielsen and 6 nine years at Univision. I'm a VP of the 7 corporate research division at Univision. 8 Which means I have the fun of getting 9 involved in all phases of media, local, 10 network, cable and online as well. 11 And so this committee is very 12 important to me. I think that those people 13 who have known me for a long time know that 14 quality research is my passion. So every 15 minute I spend is related to improving the 16 measurements of all of what we depend on. 17 And the accuracy of the data we depend on is 18 a moment very well worth it. And always has 19 the highest priority in terms of how I 20 allocate my time. 21 With the others who have already 22 thanked Nielsen, I thank Nielsen for this 23 opportunity. Years ago someone at the agency 24 said to me every one of us should have a 25 drawer full of money that is allocated for 31 1 nothing but good research. And we shouldn't 2 determine in advance what we should spend the 3 money on. We should just know it's there, so 4 that when we want to find the answers to 5 something, we can do it. 6 So thank you for giving us the 7 drawer full of money and for allowing all the 8 very brilliant minds in this room to figure 9 out the best way to spend it. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: We're going to 11 segue now to the folks on the phone. I have 12 no idea how many people there are on the 13 phone. So we'll have to sort yourself out by 14 whoever talks first. Let's get started. 15 MR. STERNBERG: I'm Steve 16 Sternberg from Magna Global. I'm in charge 17 of audience analysis for basically all of 18 interpublic agencies. I've been on the 19 Council since the beginning. And I have to 20 say my enthusiasm has not wavered one bit 21 since then, which anybody who's ever been on 22 a committee knows is very unusual. I'm on 23 the media consumption and engagement 24 committee. And as Shari mentioned, we're 25 working on this video consumer mapping study 32 1 which I really think is one of the best 2 pieces of research I've ever been associated 3 with. 4 And, you know, one thing I'd just 5 like to say is that in today's world of 6 instant answers and online research and all 7 the stuff that people need right away, 8 E-mail, we really need to realize that real 9 game-changing research does take time. It 10 takes effort. It takes imagination. It 11 takes commitment. And it the takes a lot of 12 money. And we're really doing stuff on this 13 Council that could never be done if this 14 Council didn't exist. And I think kudos go 15 to Nielsen for providing the venue and the 16 money to do this. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Steve. 18 Next. 19 MS. PANTANINI: This is Jessica 20 Pantanini with Bromley Communications, one of 21 the original, I guess, council members. I'm 22 part of the committee for UE, as well as 23 chairing the communications committee, which 24 is a new committee. So for all of those of 25 you who raised your hands, I'm sure Richard's 33 1 taking very good notes, a list of all of you 2 who are willing to volunteer. 3 I am also the secretary/treasurer 4 and a new member of the steering committee as 5 well. And I just want to reiterate what many 6 of you have already expressed, which is this 7 is an amazing group of talented individuals. 8 I'm extremely honored to be a part of this 9 group. And I am thrilled about the work that 10 we're doing. I think that it is absolutely 11 going to make a difference in the quality of 12 the research that we see coming forward in 13 the future. But thank you very much. 14 MR. POLTRACK: I'm Dave Poltrack 15 from CBS. Can you hear me? And I'm an 16 original member of the committee. My career 17 has all been basically at CBS after two years 18 of advertising. I joined CBS and have been 19 there for 38 years. I share everyone else's 20 enthusiasm about the work of the committee. 21 And would reiterate that I think the unique 22 thing about this committee is that it is a 23 group of people from all facets of the 24 industry working very collaboratively to the 25 goal of enlightenment and learning. And I 34 1 think that is unique in the way that people 2 that you have come together in this committee 3 has been unique. And it's very exciting. 4 The work that's being done is very exciting. 5 MS. CHAMPLIN: I'm Vicky 6 Champlin. I'm senior director of media 7 strategy at Anheuser-Busch. I've been here 8 at Anheuser-Busch for 23 years. And agency 9 business for about 10 years before that. 10 Also a charter member of the Council. 11 And it has been for me, 12 personally, a privilege to serve on the 13 committee. It has truly been a learning 14 experience for me and my company that I'm 15 currently serving. It's reassuring since I 16 see myself as sort of in the mentoring phase 17 of my career. 18 When I hire a new person to our 19 research area, I tell them it's truly the 20 best of times and the worst of times to work 21 in the media and advertising business. 22 Because just when you have it figured out, 23 the game changes. The goals change. And in 24 terms of what our consumer is doing and how 25 he and she is behaving these days, it's an 35 1 interesting puzzle. And this committee is 2 doing a great deal in this industry to unlock 3 the secrets of solving that riddle. 4 So again, it is a privilege to 5 serve. And I think we can all learn a lot 6 from each other. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else on 8 line or on the phone? 9 MR. PARDEE: This is Mike Pardee. 10 I'm senior vice president of research for 11 Scripps Networks Interactive as we're now 12 known. And we'd all aspects of media and 13 market research and analytics for probably 14 the last 10 years. Before that at Nielsen 15 Media Research for 15 years. 16 I've been active for the past 17 year in the video mapping project which I 18 think is just terrific and I can't say enough 19 good about. And have staff members involved 20 now with both the universe committee and the 21 set top box committee. So we feel like we're 22 getting quite a bit out of this. And 23 hopefully, we're contributing some good 24 thinking as well. 25 I guess the easiest way to 36 1 describe where I and my company fit in all of 2 this is we basically are a portfolio of cable 3 networks, websites and other media and 4 commerce holdings. And are trying to 5 navigate the kind of choppy waters these days 6 of this business. So we're wrestling with 7 reconciling, I think probably our business 8 focus is wrestling with reconciling 9 attitudinal and brand research we do quite a 10 bit of. Everything from understanding how to 11 market our media properties, and, of course, 12 help our advertising clients market their 13 brands. So very attitudinal consumer focus. 14 And reconciling that with metrics of 15 performance and behavior. So the 16 Nielsen-Ball State effort is one really great 17 step in that direction. 18 So very happy to be involved. 19 Very happy to be included. So thank you. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else on the 21 phone? 22 A VOICE: High, Media Group. I 23 just joined. So I'm not quite sure what 24 everyone's doing. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Beyond telling us 37 1 your name. Tell us who you work for. A 2 little bit of your bio. And also what your 3 experience has been on the committee in the 4 past. But also what you expect to get from 5 the committee going forward. 6 MS. SIRKIN: Kate Sirkin. 7 Starcom Research Media Group. And my vote 8 and the hope on the committee is to allow one 9 site, the publishers group, a group that I 10 tried to attend at the meetings was involved 11 with the marketplace practices subcommittee 12 for the first, I think, 18 months. Haven't 13 been involved in one of them in the last, 14 say, nine months. Really interested in the 15 set top box measurements and challenges and 16 practices and issues. We're doing a lot of 17 work with that within that entity. 18 Expectations for the future? 19 Really try to understand how best to spend 20 both our research money within the SG group. 21 And to understand how best to use clients' 22 media dollars, obviously. What the best 23 place is for advertising. And incredibly 24 challenging, but full of opportunities in 25 this new media world that we're all in. 38 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Kate. 2 Anyone else on the phone? 3 MR. IVIE: I don't know if you 4 can hear me. It's George Ivie. 5 THE COURT: Perfect, yes. Great. 6 Go ahead, George. We hear you. 7 MR. IVIE: My connection is a 8 little weak. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: We hear you 10 perfectly, just so you know. 11 MR. IVIE: Well, my name's George 12 Ivie. I'm the executive director of the 13 Media Rating Council. I'm an original 14 participant in the CRE. Maybe even a little 15 more original than that. Because I think, 16 along with Ceril, I was participant in the 17 Congressional hearing where Susan Whiting 18 committed to form and fund this Council. 19 The MRC, I think a lot of you are 20 familiar with Media Rating Council. Our 21 mission is associated with auditing and 22 accrediting research that's in production, 23 being used, or very near production. And one 24 of the reasons why this Council is great and 25 I'm very excited to be a participant in it is 39 1 that it's not about that. It's about R&D for 2 our industry, which is sorely needed. 3 And I send my thanks to Nielsen 4 for their funding and participation. And 5 have enjoyed all my involvement in the 6 Council and learning from all you folks. And 7 look forward to continuing that. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, George. 9 Anyone else? Because every time I think 10 we're done, another name comes up. So is 11 there anybody else out there? 12 Okay. I will introduce myself 13 and then -- I didn't mean to skip over 14 Richard a few minutes ago. I just did want 15 to start with Mark Kaline as our outgoing 16 chair and want Richard to also make a few 17 remarks. 18 I'm Mike Hess, chair of the 19 committee, previously vice-chair and steering 20 committee chairman. And I've been on the 21 committee since its inception. However, I'm 22 awed by some of the numbers I've heard this 23 morning. People serving in this industry 23 24 years, 28 years, and so on. 25 I've been with OMB as global 40 1 research director for the past four years. 2 And that's really been my initial exposure to 3 media research as such. Before, I spent a 4 lot of time on the supply side and the client 5 side doing market research with attitudinal 6 research and behavioral research. So I spent 7 seven years with IOI running their midwestern 8 behavior scan and market testing business. 9 Similar amount of time with Bases, now 10 actually part of Nielsen in opening and 11 running their Chicago office and doing new 12 product forecasts. 13 I've also spent a few years as 14 research director at Clorox and a brand 15 manager at Bristol-Myers. So it's really 16 been humbling, exciting and fun working in 17 media research. I don't have to tell you the 18 reasons why. Because as we went around this 19 room we heard. 20 What did somebody say? The best 21 of times and the worst of times. Yes, it is. 22 I can tell this is an exciting place to be. 23 Because of all the changes going on in media 24 research. Certainly had exposure to media 25 research as a brand manager and as a 41 1 researcher before. But to actually be part 2 of it during a period of intense change has 3 been intellectually stimulating/personally 4 rewarding. And then being able to serve on 5 this committee as a relative rookie has been 6 fulfilling to say the least. 7 So thank you very much for the 8 opportunity to serve. And I look forward to 9 more of the same, especially with this 10 enhanced Council. I'm really very excited by 11 the rookies that came onboard as well as the 12 veteran members who continue to express, you 13 heard it, all that enthusiasm after two or 14 three years of service. Wow. I'm not sure 15 I've ever served on a committee frankly with 16 this much enthusiasm. I think sometimes, you 17 know, I hate to say it, but I think some 18 committees we served on, maybe we go through 19 the motions because we, quote, are supposed 20 to be on that committee. And we do what we 21 have to do. But this committee you heard 22 everybody express the excitement and 23 enthusiasm for the work they have done. And 24 I think that's well-founded. So, again, 25 thank you for letting me serve. 42 1 Richard, how about you. 2 MR. ZACKON: I'm Richard Zackon. 3 I have the real privilege of facilitating the 4 Council. And without a doubt it's the most 5 satisfying professional assignment I've had. 6 I've gotten to draw upon my training as a 7 statistician, as a research methodologist, as 8 an attorney, as an executive coach, as an 9 improvisational comic. The only thing I 10 don't draw much upon is my undergraduate work 11 in religious studies. But I do pay before 12 these meetings. I think we'll do fine. 13 And my role is sometimes drawing 14 interference before people entered the room. 15 I saw a big Nielsen logo on the screen. And 16 it's important that we retain our 17 independence from Nielsen, although we very 18 much appreciate what they provide for us. 19 And more typically is to be a 20 stand for collaboration. My stand in the 21 Council is for dialogue. Typically, when we 22 go to professional meetings like this there's 23 a lot of debate and not a lot of dialogue. 24 And I think that what really makes this 25 Council special is the dialogue and the 43 1 goodwill of the people involved. 2 So it's a pleasure to work. I 3 have a real distinct pleasure now. There's 4 some new members who are old friends of mine. 5 And that just adds to the satisfaction. So 6 thank you all for the pleasure of service. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We're 8 actually pretty much on our agenda time. I 9 think we're just a few minutes late. Before 10 I go over to Paul Donato to provide the 11 Nielsen R&D update, then after that we'll 12 meet to the CMO John Burbank. Maybe the 13 things, just go through the rest of the 14 agenda because I wanted to get right into the 15 introductions. Let's walk through that. 16 I also want to say before I go 17 through the agenda, that Richard said he's a 18 stand-up comic and his sense of humor is well 19 executed. I should tell you before anybody 20 else tells a joke today or uses a four-letter 21 word in the heat of battle, be aware that 22 everything you say is being recorded. That's 23 not to dampen your commentary, but maybe I 24 should have said that at the very beginning. 25 But your comments actually will show up for, 44 1 I guess, the world to see. Anybody who goes 2 to the Council on Research Excellence, don't 3 know the website name off the top of my head, 4 but something like council 5 researchexcellence.com, everything we say 6 will be recorded. So I'm not sure they're 7 editing the jokes from what I can tell. 8 Hopefully they will edit some of the 9 four-letter words that get out. So I just 10 wanted to tell you that. 11 So let's move through the rest of 12 the agenda. I'm excited by the fact that 13 Paul is going to update us on Nielsen R&D. I 14 think that's always been one of the high 15 points of these meetings. Actually, we'd 16 like Paul to do it more often. And then meet 17 John Burbank, the CMO, who will have the 18 steering committee update. 19 MR. ZACKON: Right on cue. 20 MR. BURBANK: You don't know how 21 long I've been waiting out there. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Steering committee 23 and finance committee will give brief 24 updates. We'll have the opportunity for each 25 of the chairs of be established, as well as 45 1 some of the newer committees to give updates 2 as well. 3 We will feed the people in this 4 room. And I think we'll take a break for the 5 people on the phone. I think you can call 6 back in. We'll try to give an exact time 7 that we'll come back on. But ideally, we 8 will adhere to the schedule today. We'll 9 have an update on the important topic I 10 mentioned at the start. 11 Communications is going to be 12 essential to our work going forward. Because 13 in the past we could just kind of work in 14 this room, so to speak. But now we're going 15 to have to really communicate a lot with the 16 outside world. So we've devoted an entire 17 hour for that. We'll talk about video in the 18 Council. As well as the fact we have so many 19 committees now, how should we maybe think 20 about structuring them in the future. 21 Is there overlap between the 22 groups and so on. As always, we have an 23 opportunity for new business. And that means 24 if you've thought of something, new members, 25 established members, veterans, et cetera, 46 1 feel free to bring it up there. We'll try to 2 stay on the agenda so we can actually have 3 time to do that. You can see we've a 4 allotted a few kind of flexible 5 here for committees. And we do plan to 6 adjourn promptly on time at 4 o'clock. 7 All right. Unless there's any 8 conversion. Thank you for the introductions. 9 Again, I love hearing the enthusiasm that 10 everybody has mentioned, both the rookies and 11 the veterans. It's exciting really to hear 12 the veterans express enthusiasm after all 13 these years. But I think you're seeing a 14 reflection of the fact that this work is 15 exciting. And it's our take that some of 16 these projects, I think, individual companies 17 would never do it were it not for the funding 18 available. The numbers are big enough. How 19 many seven-figure projects have we done 20 ourselves. Well, these are seven-figure 21 projects that we're doing in many cases. And 22 it takes something large like this to make it 23 happen. 24 Oh, okay. Brad, your timing is 25 perfect. So if you can find a seat and if 47 1 somebody would give Brad a microphone then we 2 will put Brad right on the spot and ask Brad, 3 we just finished our introductions, so we've 4 been going around the room. And we've also 5 heard from the six or seven folks on the 6 phone. What we'd like you to do, since the 7 timing is just right is introduce yourself, 8 who you work for, a little bit of biography, 9 your past history. And your reason for 10 wanting to serve on the committee. 11 MR. ADGATE: Thank you, Mike. My 12 name is Brad Adgate. I'm a research director 13 at Horizon Media. I've been there for 10 14 years. And I've been doing research for 30 15 years. Starting out working for at Gray for 16 Alan Johnston years ago. And spent 12 years 17 working in sales research. 18 And, like I said, the reason why 19 I wanted to join this is, first of all, it's 20 just a great group of people. And, you know, 21 just a very -- this is, in my opinion, this 22 is the creme de la creme in media research. 23 And I think that, you know, this supports, 24 affords me an opportunity to find out what 25 the industry is thinking from these touch 48 1 points that we have throughout the industry. 2 And just to find out what's going on and 3 what's important. Because it seems like 4 there are a lot of times you have these great 5 ideas in research. And I think we all kind 6 of work in an area where we can't afford to 7 do them. And this gives us an opportunity to 8 kind of like sit around and collectively come 9 up with some really useful projects and find 10 out which way the research industry is going. 11 So that's it in a nutshell, I guess. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Brad, thank you. 13 Perfect timing. 14 MR. ADGATE: Thank you. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Because of what 16 just happened, anybody standing outside the 17 door or about to come in? 18 MR. ADGATE: I didn't see anyone. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: In that case then, 20 without further ado, I would like Paul and 21 then John. So Paul Donato will give us a 22 Nielsen R&D update. And then John Burbank 23 who I think has just walked in, let him 24 introduce himself when he speaks prior to his 25 remarks. 49 1 Paul, take it away. 2 MR. DONATO: Thanks for the 3 invite. And certainly I'm happy to come back 4 with much greater frequency and do these 5 updates. And when I present what I have to 6 present, let's try to make it a dialogue so 7 I'm not speaking at you, showing slides, when 8 I have to present what I guess it's like a 9 classical gas of R&D. It's just like 10 everything in 18 slides. So I'm not really 11 doing justice to anyone. It's kind of like 12 reading the table of contents more than 13 anything else. 14 I would note that the website is 15 researchexcellence.com. The irony of which, 16 that domain name was available three years 17 ago. With that, let's go to the tour. 18 The first thing I want to do is 19 is we're actually doing a lot of work 20 demographically. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Paul, was this 22 sent out to the people on the phone too? 23 MR. DONATO: Yes, it was. 24 We're doing a lot of work 25 demographically, trying to understand what's 50 1 happening mostly in this U.S. market and how 2 that will affect media buying and planning. 3 And I'm going to show you a slide, share it 4 with the Board, explaining why we're putting 5 work in areas like we're putting work into. 6 Such as work product development. Talk about 7 TV, desktop, and P2M2, now known as screen. 8 What we're doing with the conversion panel. 9 Next sampling, there's some 10 really big changes in terms coming up, not 11 just in terms of sampling. Not what just 12 many of you are aware of. I'm going to try 13 to keep my PowerPoint until I get to that 14 point. Rather confusing now. But we're also 15 looking holistically at all of our panels and 16 seeing if there's not a more effective way of 17 using that information, for going out and 18 sampling U.S. population. 19 On sampling, we introduce 20 probably 9 million domestic interviews for 21 about 7 million households in the United 22 States. We probably have more contacts with 23 households than almost anybody except for 24 AdVo and for the census. And that really 25 affords us an opportunity to begin collecting 51 1 that information. However, privacy issues 2 notwithstanding, that's an important issue 3 for us. And use that as an effective sample. 4 And then, finally, new methods for measuring 5 things like television. And some new data 6 collection methods that we're using. Using 7 the cell phone as a data collection method, 8 which I'm really excited about. 9 So, with that, demographic and 10 social trends. What are those trends. 11 Basically, Asian population, baby boomers 12 around the world. Almost any country that 13 was involve in World War II is experiencing a 14 baby boom, not just the United States. 15 Internationally, the mean age in about 15 16 years in Europe, the mean age is expected to 17 be about 46. At this point, that's really, 18 really old. People react. But for a mean 19 age that's quite incredible. 20 You can see the mean age is there 21 in the lower left-hand graph in the United 22 States. And I can't quite see the number. I 23 think that's gone from about 38 to 37 in the 24 United States in the last 50 years or so. In 25 the next 10 or 20 years we're only going to 52 1 age by about two years here in the United 2 States. So global aging is really an 3 important thing for global companies. It's 4 going to occur more in the United States but 5 at a lesser degree than it's occurring in 6 other countries. 7 It's the boomers. And the fact 8 is that the people over 18 to 49 are going to 9 have a lot more money than the people under 10 18 to 49. Which is sort of the first step 11 towards what we think is a migration from 12 more traditionlly age/sex demographics to 13 consumer and behavior-related data. 14 And, finally, the change in 15 American population. I think you've probably 16 heard these statistics before. But in about 17 15 years the majority of the CPG target, the 18 American family, mom, dad and kids, a 19 majority will be multicultural in some way. 20 About half of that will be Hispanic. And the 21 remainder, the biggest growing population 22 right now is, of course, Asian. But that's 23 because they're starting from a smaller base. 24 So that's earlier. If you look 25 at the census projections when non-Hispanic 53 1 whites will be in a minority, it's further 2 out than 15, 20 years. About 25, 30 years. 3 But when you look at the targets of many of 4 the people in this room, it's actually 5 approaching very, very quickly. So what does 6 that mean? 7 Well, lower left-hand box over 8 there. Changing measurement. So we're 9 really looking much more closely at behavior 10 and consumer graphics which is why we do a 11 lot in terms of integrating our databases. 12 We've appointed people to look at 13 not our media panel at the MPM, but the 14 online panels, the home scan panels for the 15 purposes of Hispanic measurement. Doug 16 Darfield has moved from his old position to 17 one now which I have responsibility for, 18 multicultural measurement, plus all of our 19 panels. Traditionally, less important. 20 So, therefore, our top priorities 21 are panel management procedures. And I'm 22 going to talk about some of these changes and 23 the procedures and where that tries to 24 address these issues. 25 Convergence pattern. We've got 54 1 about 2,000 people now with TV Internet 2 measured and they will probably roll out 3 mobile measurement to them. And being able 4 to measure simultaneously in multimedia 5 within the same household is a top priority 6 for us. 7 And, finally, fusion of data 8 sets. We're never going to be able to have a 9 single source measurement that measures TV, 10 Internet, mobile, even three screen. Why? 11 Because to measure Internet properly you're 12 not talking about 20,000, 30,000 households. 13 You're talking about 150,000 households. 14 You're talking about hundreds of thousands of 15 households. So there's always going to be 16 some. And even on the largest TV panel that 17 you can imagine, with the exception, put set 18 top boxes on the side, the largest people 19 meter panel, however you define that people 20 meter, across all local markets, 30,000, 21 40,000, 50,000. Still not enough to measure 22 Internet. Maybe not enough to measure 23 mobile. So data integration techniques are a 24 big part of our R&D and are going to be more 25 and more important. 55 1 I spent a lot of time on that 2 slide. I know I don't have the luxury of 3 spending that much time on the next 17. All 4 this to say our view is that we're moving in 5 the age of panel to a combination of panel 6 and census. In fact, John and I are working 7 on a paper which basically elucidates what 8 you get if you have panel only. What you get 9 in you have census only. And what you get if 10 you have a panel and census combined. It's 11 clear we're moving from an age of measurement 12 to target TG. And what role we all play 13 within this highly targeting process of 14 advertising, that is something that we're 15 spending a lot of time working on. We're 16 moving from demographics to behavioral and 17 from impressions to engagement and to, I'll 18 say, ROI. 19 I think there were a number of 20 people in the room involved with Apollo. I 21 know that many people in the industry were 22 disappointed when either the costs of Apollo 23 could support itself. And I think there are 24 other issues about sample sizes that would be 25 required for smaller brands and stability. 56 1 Well, obviously, when you're working with a 2 variety of censu panels, you have an 3 opportunity to grow sample so large that that 4 no longer is the problem as it necessarily 5 was with Apollo. So we're looking at not 6 alternatives to Apollo, but what would 7 something like that, look like in a highly 8 censused, that's a verb/adjective word, okay, 9 new technology. 10 There's the appropriate level of 11 confusion to communicate here. Very 12 recently, I believe started to send out data 13 tracking. It's a big deal. So we have a 14 team of people monitoring what's going to 15 happen come February. This is just the top 16 line from the most recent report. 17 I think this is the August data. 18 The column on the right basically says that 19 right now if we were to go to DTV nationally, 20 about 8 to 9 percent drop in HUD levels. We 21 have a lot more details behind this. 22 Obviously because of the cable operators 23 reconverting back to analog, that impact is 24 almost entirely over on the broadcaster. 25 So what you probably should do is 57 1 take that 8 or 9 percent, two or three points 2 and double it. And that's basically what the 3 broadcaster rate is. Recently, the team has 4 been doing trending of this. And over the 5 last few months it's moved in the right 6 direction, but not a whole lot. It's been 7 pretty much at that level for the last couple 8 of months. So a lot of work to do. 9 We know and we're working with 10 members of the MRC, I think, who are very 11 interested in everyone is anticipating that 12 this holiday season is going to be a very 13 tough holiday season for intabs, because 14 there's going to be lots of new TVs blocking. 15 We have a plan put together to address that. 16 So, again, this is a Whitman 17 Sampler. There's a ton of detail on this. 18 Many of you have seen Eric Rossi's 19 presentation. If you haven't seen it in 20 three months, you probably aren't aware that 21 things haven't changed that much in three 22 months. But we can come back at your next 23 meeting and do a much more detailed 24 presentation on virtually any one of the 25 things that I'm sharing with you now. 58 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Paul, just a quick 2 question. In the steering committee meeting 3 that preceded this there was a lot of 4 interest in having you present. So we're 5 glad you're here. And, as I jokingly said, 6 present more often. And so my question is do 7 you have time built into your presentation if 8 somebody wants to ask a question? 9 MR. DONATO: Sure. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. 11 MR. DONATO: I really just want 12 to point out what the headlines are. And 13 then we'll reserve the last couple of minutes 14 for any questions. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Also, will we get 16 a copy of this dec or will it be on the 17 website? 18 MR. DONATO: I think you already 19 have a copy of it. 20 MR. GREEN: It's already been 21 sent out, Mike. 22 MR. DONATO: I will be sharing 23 some things with you that I haven't shared 24 outside of the company when the dec goes to 25 the website because the website is public. I 59 1 might edit just a hair only because there's 2 some stuff here that we haven't released to 3 the larger client community, or competitors 4 for that matter. 5 So set top box, you know, we had 6 a team. Many of you knew Pete Doe when we 7 came in. We're building a center of 8 excellence around Pete. Pete has, outside of 9 the whole digital plus platform, people like 10 Jed, Mr. Meyers that you know and Jeff 11 Boehme. Pete Doe has a team, approximately 12 nine people, who are dedicated to doing these 13 fusions. And fusion is one of the techniques 14 that we're using to really model set top box 15 data. 16 I don't want to do a sales pitch 17 on DTV to the plus people. I just wanted to 18 say that we are working with five 19 distributors now, satellite, MOSs, and 20 mobile. So we have an experience of breadth 21 of the data. A lot of the modeling R&D 22 that's going on. 23 Number 1 over there is on and 24 off, as you know. The edit rules for 25 determining whether that set top box, whether 60 1 the TV set was really on and off, at first 2 were incredibly naive. And they have 3 gradually been moving towards more and more 4 greater levels of sophistication. 5 A number of years ago, Next 6 Century Media, I forgot his name. Bill 7 Harvey. He's an old friend. Sorry, Bill. I 8 forgot your name. Don't put that in the 9 minutes, please. But he's doing some of this 10 stuff with Bell Atlantic and DCI. And it's a 11 three-hour rule. If the TV didn't move for 12 three hours, then it must be off. If you 13 think about the requirements and accrediting 14 and what the value of a tenth of rating point 15 is, the three-hour rule is just not going to 16 cut it. 17 We are focusing on, I think, the 18 kind of validation, the stay home analysis 19 anywhere we're working with a distributor 20 where we have an installation, we're 21 comparing what the people meter says compared 22 to what the set top box says to much more 23 precisely finely set of rules. I'll be happy 24 to have Pete come back here and walk you 25 through the detail of what he's doing and 61 1 what he's coming up with. 2 Integration with MPM. This is a 3 little bit of P2M2. But also part of Bruce's 4 team working on how to take that set top box 5 data, integrate it with MPM data as one 6 opportunity for ultimately eliminating the 7 diary and small markets. It's not by itself 8 good enough. Because local markets are all 9 about share of audience to news, local news. 10 And using just set top box households to 11 determine that is not a good way of doing it 12 at all. However, the set top boxes in local 13 markets can be very, very effective in 14 providing data for the small venue cable for 15 which we've always had a hard time measuring 16 because of sample sizes. Okay. Anywhere, 17 any time measurement. It's kind of morphed. 18 There's a listing of all the initiatives 19 online. It's not just the net ratings meter. 20 And I don't even want to go beyond the net 21 site stuff that we're doing. 22 The R&D things that we're doing 23 deal with things like tags or cookie policies 24 or cookie programs. If we really are doing 25 several million online interviews in the 62 1 United States in a year and you've got nine 2 companies who are doing online interviews, 3 and if each of them is dropping a different 4 cookie, that's not an optimum way of doing 5 it. Nor is it really easy to develop a 6 privacy policy that you can communicate with 7 people. So there's lots of discussion going 8 on in terms of who do we coordinate, how we 9 play tag council. So that the Nielsen 10 companies might be able to share information 11 after our client agreement has said that your 12 relationship is with a listed company not 13 bases, not any individual company. So that's 14 a lot of opportunity. 15 I don't want to share with you 16 initiatives that some of you may be involved 17 with that are commercial interests. But 18 obviously there's a concept of kind of 19 sharing. How do you share cookie registered 20 information in a way that does not violate, 21 which is, I don't want to be negative, I want 22 to be positive in a way which appropriately 23 treats personally identifiable information. 24 That's a word that we are using a lot. Chief 25 legal talks about personally identifiable 63 1 information. Unless you absolutely 2 positively have to have it, get rid of it. 3 So that's essentially what's driving our 4 policy, our privacy policy on the one hand. 5 On the other hand, we are Nielsen company. 6 Are we're making all these contacts with all 7 these households. And we actually think that 8 developing a relationship within the Nielsen 9 company is something that our panel 10 participants would like to do. 11 In fact, I'm working with John, 12 our CMO, in terms of what kind of messages 13 now do we give out to population to invite 14 them to become part of Nielsen. More on that 15 in a few minutes. 16 Looking at the clock, just an 17 update on M2M2. The one number I didn't 18 verify, I actually asked someone to identify 19 that for LPM. I think it's six markets, if 20 I've made a mistake on that, I thought I 21 would have gotten verification by now, but I 22 haven't. Out of home. So, you know, we're 23 developing our own meters. 24 We know we do have this joint 25 venture with IMII. We're about to release 64 1 IMII data. For us right now the focus is 2 really on that IMII, understanding the data. 3 Working with you to understand the value of 4 the data. 5 Whether it was worth the cost of 6 doing, setting up what we did out of home in 7 terms of the ratings. We've had some 8 celebrated examples where there is just a ton 9 of out-of-home viewing certain kinds of 10 events. 11 So this is a guess, my gut feel. 12 People are going to look at it. They're 13 going to say that's big enough. That's 14 important enough. That ultimately has to be 15 baked into the ratings. So that will be a 16 conversation that we have with you. And, you 17 know, we're happy to come and share with you. 18 And the out-of-home data and how we interpret 19 it and what that sort of says, what its 20 impacts will be on the ratings PDDT. 21 When we started the M2M2, we 22 didn't have Televidia. We completed the 23 acquisition of Televidia for Nielsen Mobile 24 last year. They, quite frankly, were way 25 ahead of -- remember the little things you 65 1 plugged into, iPods and things like that, 2 well, Televidia was way ahead of us in 3 developing a nondevice metering. So PVDs, 4 personal video devices, their measurement is 5 really going to morph over into Nielsen 6 Mobile's platform. And at last look we were 7 expecting to launch a test panel on the west 8 coast in the fourth quarter of this year for 9 the device meter, mailable meter. 10 We just completed tests in El 11 Paso. The focus was on Hispanic measurement 12 and recruitment. The results have not been 13 reported yet. But reports the techniques 14 that we used were very promising. And we are 15 currently developing a second version of the 16 mailable meter, four panels, which would 17 allow for plug in rather than battery, which 18 we think will bring the cost of measurement 19 down. And will push down the number of 20 markets in which we might be able to have the 21 mailable meter solution. Really, I haven't 22 done much dialing. 23 If I stop for a minute, if 24 there's any question on the first half, 25 another presentation, I'll be happy to 66 1 entertain them. Thank you. 2 MS. GALLAGHER: Do you have the 3 aging of the population, given the aging of 4 the population, especially the boomers, is 5 Nielsen going to start doing more to segment 6 the over 65 audience which now is like this 7 one lump which describes working people in 8 their late 60s and people 102, which is the 9 limit. 10 MR. DONATO: That's a really good 11 point. I can't report on any initial 12 advertisers yet. But why don't you let me 13 take that back to Bruce in the marketing 14 group. 15 MS. GALLAGHER: Before entering 16 that group. 17 MR. DONATO: We're all entering 18 that group in a few years. 19 MR. BURBANK: John Burbank. 20 I was talking to somebody in the insurance 21 business this week. And they told me that 22 for the first time their actuarial tables as 23 they're looking out into the future are going 24 up to the age of 125. So not that very many 25 people will live to that age. But actually, 67 1 if you're an insurance company, you're 2 providing annuities and things like that, you 3 have to actually think, you know, 60-70 years 4 from now, how long will people live. So I 5 think it's a really fair observation. That 6 the 65 and older is just one big lump, it's 7 probably not. 8 MR. DONATO: Given the role of 9 pharmaceuticals now and TV advertising, you 10 know, I think the ad categories will drive 11 that. That's a good point. I don't have an 12 answer for you. But we'll come back with an 13 answer the next time. 14 MS. BRILL: I actually have a 15 follow-up to that. Regarding that older 16 population, they're the group most likely not 17 to have an Internet connection. So now, as 18 part of that segmentation moving forward, I 19 think a really good way to look at that group 20 is their degree of online usage as well. 21 MR. DONATO: That's right. And 22 kind of speaking to that, I didn't want to 23 steal John's thunder, because he's doing a 24 big piece on the convergence panel. So I 25 pulled out all the data. And I didn't think 68 1 he would be here for this line. But you can 2 see. 3 MS. SHAGRIN: On the MMI 4 measurement -- 5 MR. DONATO: Yes. 6 MS. SHAGRIN: -- see I've done a 7 little bit of homework on the MMI meters, et 8 cetera. And I'm pretty impressed with it. 9 But where are you in terms of are you 10 comfortable with the samples that they are 11 using. And are you also comfortable that 12 those samples are not only representative by 13 age and sex, but by various Asian-origin 14 populations. 15 MR. DONATO: That's a good 16 question. If you remember, when we announced 17 the development of the panel we were going to 18 do the national panel first and then work on 19 panels, subpanels specifically. I apologize. 20 Because I don't know where we are with the 21 Hispanic subpanel. I'll have Doug get back 22 to the committee on the status of that. 23 MS. SHAGRIN: If the national 24 panel is not representative enough, then it 25 shouldn't be out there either. 69 1 MR. DONATO: Well, honestly, 2 Ceril, I don't know the answer to your 3 question. I'll make sure that Doug gets you 4 an answer. And whatever limitations or 5 qualifications may exist on the national 6 panel, we'll make sure that those appropriate 7 qualifications are very visible and 8 documented for the public. As we discussed 9 where we go with this. In some ways it's a 10 bit of an experiment whether or not it's 11 something that the industry wants to support. 12 MS. SHAGRIN: But your point was 13 when you people look at some of the 14 out-of-home viewing, it's coming from a panel 15 that is existing now, they're going to 16 recognize a need to incorporate that into the 17 regular measurements. 18 And speaking as a member of this 19 committee and looking at the quality of the 20 research, you can't do that util that 21 out-of-home piece meets the quality standards 22 of your full service. And I think that's 23 true with all of the things that you're 24 looking at in terms of fusion or 25 convergences. 70 1 I agree with you. You can't 2 measure everything from the same panel and 3 get a quality panel. But when you put the 4 pieces together, if any one of the pieces 5 doesn't meet the quality issues and the 6 quality standards, then the whole piece 7 doesn't. 8 MR. DONATO: Okay. Let me have 9 Doug do a report. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Henry also has a 11 question. 12 MR. DeVAULT: Paul, you talked 13 about the multicultural growth in this 14 country. And right now for the Hispanic 15 community, Nielsen is using language spoken 16 as proxy for the amount of the culturization. 17 Going forward are you guys, and 18 knowing the white paper, you identified the 19 culturization, the extent of the 20 culturization is really what you want to 21 account for, are you thinking about moving 22 away from language spoken, into more 23 comprehensive guidelines in terms of the 24 amount of the culturization in various 25 communities? 71 1 MR. DONATO: That's a good 2 question. I think the next step for us, 3 we're looking very closely at the American 4 Community survey. And the questions and 5 language questions that they ask to see 6 whether it would be possible to use that as a 7 source of universe estimates. There's some 8 limitations. I don't know the answer to that 9 question yet. I know that Michael Link has 10 been doing analyses how it will compare to 11 our current language spoken data. 12 I think, Henry, going beyond 13 that, especially given the fact that half of 14 the PG targets or people multicultural, I 15 think that will also be a market requirement. 16 Not just a methodological market. The 17 marketing people are going to want to see 18 that level of detail. So I can't say. 19 What you're doing here with these 20 questions and setting agendas for us moving 21 forward, which is kind of an unintended but 22 positive consequence of this organization, 23 yes, when I talk to the board I talk about 24 multicultural. I talk about being able to 25 measure multicultural better. I haven't 72 1 talked to them about measuring of 2 aculturization. But the next time I speak to 3 the board I'll talk about how in a forum like 4 this, marketers have begun to express the 5 fact that forget methodology and 6 representation, they're just going to need 7 that data to be able to market more 8 effectively. That does give us marketable 9 opportunities. 10 It's a long-winded answer. I 11 apologize. Okay. 12 MR. PARDEE: Paul, Mike Pardee. 13 Just one other I want to throw in there. You 14 were talking about the shift from age/sex to 15 other kinds of ethnic and cultural things. 16 And I'll bring up my perennial question about 17 it still seems to me that there should be 18 important to do a better job of tracking 19 income and wealth and discretionary spending 20 and so forth financials. 21 MR. DONATO: Yes. They're hard 22 questions to ask. But if you go to the 23 experience of the world, which is a big part 24 of our, in the future, master sample on those 25 third-party databases, the kind of the data 73 1 you're talking about because there are 2 financial records. And we have done 3 Experion, Axion, MSG tests in terms of 4 against our households. And looking at 5 demographics that we've collected versus 6 what's in their database. And I think you're 7 going to see that, Mike. But I think it's 8 probably going to come from the Experion. 9 Because that's the data on those databases 10 which are actually the most accurate. 11 MR. PARDEE: Okay. That's great. 12 I didn't realize you were looking at that. 13 So if there's a way that that ties back to 14 the Nielsen. 15 MR. DONATO: I'll touch on it 16 when I kind of get to the master panel I 17 talked about. Anyway, confirm. This is the 18 type of stuff we're doing. Almost 2,000 19 people in a panel we're doing entail, see if 20 you're the heaviest mobile user. Where do 21 you stand in terms of your streaming. Where 22 do you stand in terms of your TV usage. This 23 is just kind of a first pass. 24 John, I don't know if you have 25 any thoughts on whether we might actually be 74 1 coming out with the data. 2 MR. BURBANK: I would expect that 3 we'll have some data to share in the first 4 couple of weeks of October. 5 MR. DONATO: Good. Convergence 6 panel. 7 MR. BURBANK: There's some 8 interesting behaviors that we're exploring to 9 see the relationship of streaming as a subset 10 of Internet behavior and the relationship of 11 television viewing. So there's some 12 interesting stuff. But we're teasing it out, 13 so... 14 MR. DONATO: I saw a couple that 15 were pretty remarkable, actually, okay. 16 Sampling. Talking a little bit about 17 address-based sampling. This master sampling 18 concept. Something we're doing online which 19 is a playbook, address-based sampling. The 20 bottom line is that random digital dial is 21 getting significantly more challenged as a 22 method of recruiting or surveying. It does 23 not represent only homes. Those skew young. 24 Very often multicultural. 25 We've been doing a lot of tests. 75 1 Most recent is in May. Switching over to an 2 address-based list. Which means we start by 3 buying an address listing of every household 4 in the United States. Try to get a phone 5 number. If you can't get a phone number, you 6 mail to those households to try to get 7 demographic and contact information. We are 8 switching our diary service over to 9 address-based sampling. 10 Dr. Link, these are his comments 11 on other changes as a consequence. Yes. Dr. 12 Link. You see a significant increase in the 13 number of younger households recruited. You 14 see an increase in the number of 15 multicultural households into recruit 16 because of cell phone only. And there's some 17 small differences that we see in the human 18 levels as a consequence. Everyone is going 19 to have to do something about RDD soon. 20 It's with some degree of pleasure 21 that I say that some other companies like 22 Arbitron had originally tried to use cell 23 frames to supplement the RDD. And have 24 recently after looking at what they get paid 25 asked them to switch over to do address-based 76 1 sampling. This is a one-hour presentation, 2 PA presentation. And again, you might want 3 to think of these as men U.S. which once to 4 come back and do on every subsequent meeting. 5 We'll take one topic and kind of kick it 6 around. 7 Master sampling. As I said 8 before, sampling. This is a concept. We've 9 done a lot of tests. The concept is we 10 really aren't talking to 7 million households 11 a year here in the United States. How do we 12 do that. We're not going to be changing the 13 TV sample. The way we do the national meter 14 sample will be the same. At least we're not 15 talking about doing anything. What we're 16 really thinking of there will be kind of a 17 hierarchy of samples. Any currency as the 18 top of that hierarchy. We started with where 19 we thought the most opportunity was, which 20 was online. 21 So typically how do people do 22 online sampling now? Sampling, go to third 23 party suppliers like Carat, like Greenfield. 24 They buy a sample. Sometimes you put in 25 demographic requirements. The response 77 1 rates, as you know, are low. They range 2 anywhere from .5 to .2 to maybe 2 or 3 3 percent if you're lucky. Many of our 4 companies don't own that sample, you know. 5 And so with all these contacts 6 why wouldn't we think about beginning to 7 build our own sample resources. And as we 8 started doing testing. So going, you know, 9 from like, take Bases, a household and then 10 doing that in other online interview, we 11 started finding there's actually 12 opportunities to introduce quality. For 13 example, Bases has a ton of demographics 14 analysis. 15 Then we went to, and typically up 16 to this point what we only used was retired 17 households, we haven't used anybody who's 18 active and part of home scan. But we have a 19 couple of million retired names. 20 Ten minutes, okay. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Paul, since we 22 have that interruption, let me add one more. 23 Paul has 10 minutes and then John has 30. 24 And then there will be -- 25 MR. BURBANK: There's no way I'll 78 1 take 30. I'll yield some time to Paul. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: But the point I 3 want to make is right after John is finished 4 then there will be a scheduled bio break. 5 MR. DONATO: I thought we did 6 that when we opened the introductions. 7 MR. ZACKON: That was a 8 biohazard. 9 MR. DONATO: I have another joke. 10 When everybody's going around 11 with their credentials, I thought to myself 12 this must have been what it felt like in 1799 13 when all these guys in Washington sat around 14 and said I was the original signer of the 15 Declaration. They're giving their 16 credentials. I fought with the militia. 17 Sorry. Bad joke. Okay. 18 So here's the concept. We've 19 only done this testing. And we've done it on 20 target household only. Then we go out and we 21 test as if we had this master sample. And 22 somebody needed a sample. And we went to an 23 internal resource rather than an external 24 resource. We already collected a lot of 25 graphics on that person. Now we go out and 79 1 do another survey on that person which we've 2 done. We collect graphics again. We do 3 comparisons. 4 Then there's, actually, I'm not 5 saying it all works out well. I was actually 6 very pleased with the consistency between the 7 demographics on the first survey versus the 8 second survey. 9 My point being, you sort of have 10 this free opportunity to do quality control, 11 but having multiple observations within a 12 household. And so, for example, even things 13 like language use, which are different 14 enough, even if you ask the question, you 15 don't always know if you get the right 16 answer. You really have an opportunity to 17 sort of, I think, approve the overall quality 18 of online sampling when doing it this way. 19 It makes no economic sense to do this if 20 you're talking about one company. But when 21 you're talking about all these companies 22 doing all this work it really does. 23 And the way it works, would work 24 essentially is you kind of create the agency. 25 And some of our companies have experience 80 1 doing this. So it's not like we're doing 2 this from scratch. They have their own 3 procedures by which how they place banner ads 4 on online recruitment. They have models for 5 predicting how much they have to do on a 6 detail basis. And, essentially, we create 7 our own master sample. 8 That stuff would be overlaid with 9 any Claritas, any Experion data. We're 10 working with Experion on essentially 11 overlaying their entire database with or 12 their entire database. So we bring in 13 database. There's an optimizing data 14 algorithm. So this person came to the 15 Nielsen family first as, let's say, a diary 16 keeper. 500,000 a year. Whatever. So they 17 have these demographic characteristics. Know 18 this about them. 19 What's the purpose of this 20 request? The purpose of this request is, 21 let's say it's a consumer survey. And let's 22 say it's supposed to be a nationally 23 representative consumer survey, okay. Well, 24 then I know an early characteristic of all 25 the people who are on my server. And I can 81 1 pull in a national representative survey. 2 And I really think it's better than the 3 Harris's and Greenfields because I've already 4 had a Nielsen survey done with them. 5 And I would pick a household 6 based on how effective the demographic data 7 which we have on file is needed. And also 8 what's the sort of serendipity which goes 9 to -- I changed this slide before -- I think 10 an important part of it is the Nielsen 11 incentive program, this catalog. 12 We have all kinds of different 13 incentive programs across all the companies. 14 But the division is, actually, feels like 15 you're joining up to a Nielsen company. And 16 therefore, like a frequent flier program, are 17 willing to take multiple surveys. 18 MR. DeVAULT: Paul, this almost 19 sounds like you're having professional 20 samples. That would be a big concern. 21 Because one of the areas that you're never 22 going to get to end up getting is full 23 cooperation with those people who are 24 traditionally nonresponders. 25 MR. DONATO: I couldn't agree 82 1 with you more. And there have been multiple 2 papers written that say the way, including by 3 competitors of ours, that say the way it is 4 right now is commerce work papers. 95 5 surveys are favored by 5 percent of the 6 respondents. I look at it. It's an 7 opportunity to identify to exercise some 8 level of control over that. 9 So if, for example, the 10 nonresponse point becomes an issue, that 11 means that you can't fully populate your 12 samples. And you have to monitor how many 13 samples these people have done how often. 14 Because right now, I don't care who you go 15 to, almost any online survey you do unless 16 you're developing your own sample, that's 17 exactly, you don't have any idea what you're 18 getting. But I can guarantee you what you're 19 getting is a heavy, heavy load of those 20 professional survey takers. 21 MR. BURBANK: Paul, it's also 22 important to point out that there are 23 different methods that you can use to engage 24 consumers. So if you're familiar with what 25 IAG does in their rewards TV program, they 83 1 get sample through playing games as opposed 2 to asking questionnaires. So there's 3 different ways that you can approach the 4 consumer to get them engaged. Of course, we 5 do everything aboveboard. And make sure that 6 they're aware of how their responses are 7 being used. 8 MR. DeVAULT: One of the biggest 9 complaints about IAG is it's a 10 nonrepresentative sample because it's just 11 those people who opt in and say that they 12 want to take this sample. It's not 13 representative. And that's why a lot of 14 people endorsed or use the IAG plan. 15 MR. BURBANK: My point is here, 16 not to defend or discuss IAG, but to make the 17 point you can get away from the professional 18 sampler stuff by using different methods of 19 engaging the consumer. It's not just all the 20 straightforward questionnaire that only some 21 people respond to. 22 MR. DONATO: My suspicion is a 23 diary keeper is very different than somebody 24 you can get through river sampling going 25 through Harris. 84 1 Henry, I'm completely agreeing 2 with you. However, it's worse today. The 3 way anybody is doing it today is worse. And 4 this is an opportunity to actually exercise 5 some sort of intelligence over the whole 6 thing. 7 MS. SHAGRIN: So you're going 8 from bad to not so bad. 9 MR. DONATO: We're getting 10 better, I think. I don't know. But, I mean, 11 this is the concept. Look, this is just an 12 R&D. We're doing this now using inactive 13 sample. And my initial reaction to it was, 14 well, I've got repeatable data. At least I 15 believe the demographics. I didn't have that 16 before. 17 MS. SHAGRIN: The stuff about the 18 protective ads, the aging of America, and the 19 change in the target and the new target is 20 going to have a greater percent of 21 non-Internet folks in it and households in 22 it. 23 So how do you adjust the sample 24 to represent them? 25 MR. DONATO: I don't really know 85 1 if the new target is going to have a lower 2 percentage of Internet. 3 MS. SHAGRIN: It will. 4 MR. DONATO: People are flying 5 relatively blind today. And so, you know, I 6 understand what you're taking about the 7 professional survey taker. And that's one of 8 the very reasons I really do believe that the 9 way you get a varied sample like that is to 10 go to sources like diary keepers. 11 How many diary keepers actually 12 think fall into a river sample that is done 13 by Harris or somebody? 14 MS. SHAGRIN: I don't disagree 15 it's better than Harris. I'm just saying 16 that it's still lacking the kind of 17 information or the kind of sample quality 18 that really is needed. And maybe that's part 19 of it and is offset with other things to get 20 you to where it's more usable. 21 MR. DONATO: The ultimate goal is 22 here is the retired sample. The ultimate 23 goal is to maintain a frame of 110 households 24 to Experion. So that becomes the target. 25 And then you find out how many of the people 86 1 you can't get, either through online or the 2 files that John was telling me about, that 3 other providers have. 4 Probably there are files out 5 there with maybe a third to half of the 6 Internet addresses that can be matched 7 against addresses. That's still missing half 8 or more or two-thirds. But still way better 9 than what people are doing right now. I 10 know. Anyway, I really think it's a good 11 thing. 12 And on the right-hand side, that 13 algorithm, it's not just about quality. It's 14 about if I had a week's worth of TV data from 15 this household and then I conducted this 16 consumer survey, how much more available 17 would that survey be without doing anything 18 additional to the person. So it has a lot of 19 product opportunities. 20 I think it's the best approach to 21 raising the quality of online surveys. All 22 of which gets baked into this 160-slide 23 presentation. It's internal right now. 24 Ultimately, we'll have an external version of 25 it. It's the online playbook. 87 1 We've done a lot of work 2 domestically and globally understanding 3 exactly the kinds of things that we're 4 talking about. If you recruit RDD versus 5 online, what are the differences? The 6 results say that, for most consumer, many 7 consumer product categories, they weren't 8 that different. There are some consumer 9 product categories, as you would expect, 10 which really were, I think liquor really 11 stood out for me. On the media side it's 12 completely different. 13 So the online playbook suggests 14 that if you're going to do any kind of media 15 currency, you need to have some kind of 16 benchmark survey against which you will 17 adjust your, you know, mega panel. Call it 18 whatever you want. But the panel that has a 19 couple of hundred thousand households in it 20 which you're not really going to get through 21 probability sampling right now, that needs to 22 be adjusted by some kind of a probability 23 sample. So that will be published in the 24 next couple of weeks. And it's got a ton of 25 data in there. So, I think, and it's a lot 88 1 of the data that you're talking about. That 2 may or may not exist within online surveys 3 biases, okay. 4 New methods. Absolutely home 5 stretch. Three minutes. 6 Electronic Ethnography. We are 7 doing, it used to be R&D, and we're actually 8 doing more path. It's moving R&D to reality, 9 producing the telephone as a data collection 10 device. I don't know if anybody in this room 11 has participated in that kind of survey. 12 I've done a couple of them. I was totally 13 sold on it. 14 Basically, there's an example of 15 one of the phones that we use. That one is 16 non-GPS data. We have these GPS sample 17 phones. It honks every hour. Delivers a 18 series of questions. I won't tell you the 19 questions that we delivered. But they were 20 relevant to the client's interest. 21 It may be a minute every hour. 22 And then at the end of the minute we ask you 23 to take a picture with the camera. It 24 automatically grabs hold the data, pushes it 25 upstream. So every hour we have a data 89 1 capture from every household. For some -- 2 MS. BUSLIK: Can you give us the 3 sample? 4 MR. DONATO: Right. It could 5 work as a phone. But we've not used it as a 6 phone yet. 7 MR. GREEN: Actually, the 8 service, the voice is switched off. So 9 there's no phone service. 10 MR. DONATO: It could be. We 11 could hand out a cell phone. But right now 12 we're only interested as a data capture 13 device. I have to say I thought I would have 14 been bugged like crazy every hour. But it's 15 this Facebook nation kind o thing. Taking a 16 picture is actually reinforcing. And then 17 one of the deliverables that we give. One of 18 their incentives is that we actually give 19 them a journal. It's kind of organized, not 20 quite like a Facebook page. We could. But 21 it's sort of a day-in-my-life. And it 22 actually becomes sort of a fun study to do. 23 And the data is real-time. This is 24 something, a couple of for me when I used to 25 do the old time diary stuff 15 years ago, 90 1 this would replace all that stuff. When I 2 used to do time diary, clients used to 3 really, really like it because it was just 4 sort of placed where the people were and what 5 they were doing. And kind of, you know, when 6 they're thirsty, what are they exposed to. 7 And the data capture is real-time and 8 automatically brings you this kind of data. 9 A VOICE: How many people would 10 you have in a sample? 11 MR. DONATO: I think it varies, 12 typically. 13 MR. GREEN: Yes. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Please use the 15 microphone when you phrase the question or if 16 you don't, then Paul, repeat the question. 17 MR. GREEN: How many people do we 18 have in the sample? The way this is 19 currently being organized in the R&D phase 20 and starting to roll out with, some people in 21 the room actually know what I'm talking 22 about. Sorry, I shouldn't say that. But I'm 23 not a lawyer, unlike Richard. So in this 24 particular case, what we do is we design the 25 sample size based on what the project is. 91 1 And so depending on what types of questions 2 you're asking, where we want to draw the 3 sample from to tie it into other data sets 4 and what type of questions you're interested 5 in, data plays a lot to it. And it also 6 plays into what the duration of the sampling 7 time is. So whether it's a weekend, couple 8 of weeks, and the frequency of questions the 9 styling of questions, et cetera, it all plays 10 together in terms of what the marketing 11 objective is. 12 And so that's kind of a long 13 answer to your question. But if anybody's 14 interested, we can kind of do more 15 presentation on that like all the other 16 topics. 17 MR. DONATO: Keep in mind, like 18 the mobile and the online people are saying, 19 this is your Internet portal to the future. 20 This is your television of the future. Not 21 as much domestically as that is a really true 22 statement internationally. But now you're 23 kind of doing this stuff with people's 24 mobile, Internet and mobile television. And 25 there's a ton of data that you capture. And 92 1 we're thinking how do you actually analyze 2 all this data. And we haven't done it yet. 3 But the responses are text messages. 4 The simplest way to analyze it is 5 actually just rush it through Buzz Metrics 6 which does analysis now on the Web. And will 7 be doing analysis of text messages on mobile 8 phones and pictures as data. It's text 9 messages as data. And so the policies that 10 we're developing with online analysis will be 11 useful for expeditiously analyzing, as 12 opposed to using graduate students doing all 13 the coding. 14 MS. UYENCO: Just for 15 clarification, does that have Web access? Do 16 the clients have Web access to the phone? 17 MR. DONATO: We have not given it 18 to them. But we can if that's what we chose 19 to do. We can elect to have them take a 20 Web-based survey. It's not. We're more 21 structured. 22 MR. GREEN: Right now it's a 23 Web-based survey that we send out via E-mail. 24 But there's a lot of the flexibility here. 25 And so it's all been very much heavily 93 1 customized to specific business needs. 2 MR. DONATO: Lastly, if you 3 Google Go By Vision, this comes up on the 4 very first page of images. So that's how I 5 picked that. 6 As you know, we've got a lot 7 going on. And I didn't want to say our 8 engineers are working on things that you've 9 been hearing for 25 years. Things like 10 passive meters and stuff like that. 11 What our strategy is, and some of 12 our engineers are really busy dealing with 13 everything that you've seen so far, our 14 strategy is to work with outside labs. 15 And it's true that most of this 16 stuff is developed for security purposes. 17 We'll have conversations with really some of 18 the preeminent outside labs. And say, okay, 19 here's what the requirements are. And it 20 can't be more than 100,000 TV sets. We have 21 70,000 TV sets that we're measuring. It 22 can't be a thousand dollar item just to 23 identify persons. I don't want to kind of 24 talk about, speculate. You've seen stuff 25 where we used infrared. You've seen in-home 94 1 radar systems. I just want to let you know 2 that that is still going on. 3 The change is we're not doing it 4 in-house because our people are kept busy 5 doing our core product. But we're having 6 lots of kind of titlating meetings with a 7 number of labs that are showing us some 8 fantastic methodologies that hopefully some 9 day might actually be used. Some day, you 10 know. Speed to the market now. If you don't 11 see this stuff in a couple of three years, 12 you're never going to see it because things 13 are, if they don't have this productized at 14 $100 a unit within three years, it's all 15 technology right. So, okay. And that's my 16 review. And happy to entertain any other 17 questions. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other 19 comments? I think we've had a good 20 discussion. But this stuff is so valuable 21 that you didn't want to interrupt even though 22 we ran a little over. 23 MR. SUSSMAN: I just have a 24 comment or question. It's really exciting 25 all the different things that Nielsen is 95 1 entertaining and R&Ding and all. But as you 2 go into all these different areas, three 3 screen different products that are talking to 4 the consumers, all under the Nielsen company 5 name, I think you have two issues. One is 6 when a report comes out like this three 7 screen report and communicates kind of the 8 size of audience to the three screens to the 9 community without really the understanding 10 that we're talking about different levels of 11 quality. I think we have an issue there. 12 So, on the other side, I think 13 when you start looking at things like Nielsen 14 and other ways that Nielsen is talking to the 15 consumers and your respondents, that we might 16 be how do you keep the quality of Nielsen as 17 it was when we're separating from Hay Nielsen 18 everything else. I think you buy a side of 19 that. 20 MR. DONATO: That's a good point. 21 I'll defer to John. Maybe that's a good 22 segue. John will be handling Hay Nielsen. 23 Maybe too early to talk about it. But John 24 has some ideas on how to use that kind of 25 social networking website. 96 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Before we segue, I 2 think there's another question. 3 MR. BURBANK: I think there's a 4 good question on the theoretical question in 5 people participating in a branded form of 6 research. And how do you keep bias away. I 7 don't know how to resolve that one. And I 8 don't know whether we'll ever be able to 9 resolve it. Because I think that the world 10 is increasing. Consumers today are sharing 11 more and more information. You read about 12 what the possibilities on Facebook and so 13 forth. 14 I think Nielsen has to be more 15 upfront in our approach to consumers. We 16 have to have a brand that consumers recognize 17 and trust if we're going to try to achieve 18 the level of information gathering that we 19 all want. And I think it's a challenge that 20 we have to sort through without the bias. 21 MR. SUSSMAN: For example, I was 22 looking at the Nielsen on the up front. And 23 looking at new shows asking consumers about 24 their thoughts about those shows. If you 25 don't have an equal lineup of programming, 97 1 and it has more shows than somebody else, and 2 those consumers may be talking. And they may 3 also be respondents in your national sample. 4 The Nielsen name used to be very, very quiet. 5 And on the side and very clean. And now I 6 think it's getting very confusing. And it 7 becomes less -- 8 MR. DONATO: We have an ongoing 9 monitoring how many people on Hay Nielsen are 10 actually in the sample. So basically 11 whatever proportion are a quarter of a 12 percent are on E-mails. Then a quarter of 13 our percent of our respondents of those 14 people, I forget what I'm talking about, it's 15 the right representation. 16 MR. BURBANK: I don't dwell on 17 Hay Nielsen because it's probably going to be 18 some significant changes there. 19 MR. DONATO: He's got some 20 thoughts. Come back next time. By that 21 time -- 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Go on. You have a 23 question. 24 MS. BURNS: Not really a 25 question. More a request/statement wrapup. 98 1 You had said earlier, Paul, this 2 is more like a menu smorgasbord. And we 3 really did just touch the surface. So I'd 4 like to propose to our committee chairs that 5 we formalize this. And that for every going 6 forward CRE meeting, that we do pick a single 7 topic and have an in-depth presentation. 8 That would be helpful. It's great. And it's 9 frustrating because you're just scratching 10 the surface. 11 MS. BUSLIK: I would also think 12 that we might have special -- 13 MR. IVIE: Paul, it's George. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Loud and clear. 15 MR. IVIE: I just wanted some 16 things mentioned. That we actually did some 17 work with Nielsen to try to understand how 18 many panelists and diary keepers participated 19 or were exposed to Hay Nielsen. And there 20 are people in the organization, I can supply 21 you with the names, who have that data that 22 pulled it for us. Danny was part of that 23 process. Danny Monstare. And it's a very, 24 very, very, very, very small number. 25 MR. DONATO: I do have access. 99 1 They give me a report once a month. And they 2 actually walk me through it. And we've been 3 monitoring it. And it's supposed to be the 4 same proportion that exists in the 5 population. That's roughly what it is. Be 6 that as it may, I have John. And I have 7 talked about this. And, as I said, he has 8 some ideas. So maybe in the next meeting we 9 can update you what those ideas are. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any other 11 comments? Again, I felt whenever Paul has a 12 chance to talk or anybody from Nielsen, then 13 we keep it going. Because I thought this was 14 productive, especially for the first meeting. 15 MS. BUSLIK: I thought it was 16 great. I would like to recommend that maybe 17 we have a special meeting to delve into these 18 topics. That not wait until our next big 19 meeting. But there's a lot of things to 20 think about. And I agree we should maybe do 21 something in depth sooner. 22 MR. GREEN: For two of the 23 committees we actually had Nielsen present, 24 detailed discussion relative to what the 25 committee was asking about. So I think we 100 1 can do something similar to that, except do 2 the whole menu of discussion points and have 3 the series of. And in that way it doesn't 4 bog down the CRE's regular business as usual. 5 But it creates the opportunity for everybody 6 in the CRE to, you know, imbibe, if you will. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Mark and Michele. 8 Just so we can look at the next one so we 9 have some time slotted for new business. 10 Think about these things that you're making. 11 Then we'd like to get motions put on the 12 floor. Not now. Actually, motions put on 13 the floor. For example, motion. Paul should 14 present on a specific formal topic every 15 single time those things you were talking 16 about. So let's save that for maybe the new 17 business area. And then we'll vote, okay. 18 With that, thank you very much 19 and for the excellent exchange. Hopefully, 20 the rookies saw that we're willing to 21 challenge and put Nielsen on the spot. 22 Paul, as always, thank you for 23 accepting that challenge. 24 It's now my pleasure to 25 introduce, John, I think you're here for the 101 1 very first time. 2 John Burbank, CMO. Tell us about 3 yourself and what your plans are. 4 MR. BURBANK: I don't have a 5 presentation. So discussion is an 6 appropriate slide. I just thought I would do 7 a couple of things here today. One is to 8 introduce myself. And second thing is to 9 offer you my support in everything that you 10 guys are doing in terms of establishing CRE 11 as a credible voice and to take the studies 12 that are going to be coming out of the 13 group's efforts and to promoting them. To 14 the degree that you'd like our help, I'm here 15 to do that. This group is really important. 16 Paul was telling me about it. Just sitting 17 in here and listening to you guys, I'm 18 learning an awful lot. 19 So a little bit about my 20 background. I've been a client my entire 21 career. I joined Nielsen about four months 22 ago. I spent most of my career at Procter & 23 Gamble where I did traditional brand 24 management stuff. A lot of my time marketing 25 disposable diapers. Brand manager on 102 1 Pampers. 2 Then I went off in the cell phone 3 business. I spent six or seven years in the 4 cell phone business. I worked with AT&T 5 Wireless, Singular and the new AT&T. While I 6 was there I was running advertising and 7 marketing for those businesses. As well as a 8 lot of sort of products work; particularly in 9 the areas of new media. So I did a lot of 10 the stuff around text messaging. Ran the 11 American Idol Program for AT&T Wireless and 12 Singular. And did a lot of the early 13 ring-tone development. Worked on all of the 14 video platforms for cell phones. Which is a 15 really interesting sort of the combination 16 between traditional marketing, running 17 advertising, and working on new media stuff. 18 And working with producers of content, 19 whether it's music labels or studios and so 20 forth. 21 And then I left the cell phone 22 business a year and a half or so ago, and I 23 became the chief marketing officer for AOL. 24 And went into sort of what I consider a 25 graduate course on how the Internet works. 103 1 And I was there to help turn around AOL. And 2 we can. I hope it does turn around. But I'm 3 no longer there. 4 And I joined Nielsen about four 5 or five months ago. The role that I have at 6 Nielsen is an interesting one. Because 7 they've never had a chief marketing officer 8 before. One of the questions is what does a 9 chief marketing officer do. I'm still 10 figuring that out. And every day is probably 11 a different answer. But there are a couple 12 of things that we're trying to do. 13 Number 1, we're trying to 14 integrate all of these companies both from an 15 external to present the company externally as 16 one Nielsen which is a big sort of 17 traditional marketing challenge. Getting 18 brands right. Getting communications 19 structured. And so forth. 20 The other thing I do is I spend a 21 lot of the time internally with Nielsen teams 22 trying to aggregate information that's coming 23 from different groups around the company. So 24 whether it's a three screen report or working 25 at convergence panels, what we're trying to 104 1 look at that data and trying to figure out 2 what's really meaningful, what's interesting 3 from a sort of a client perspective versus 4 just data. 5 And then what I also spend a lot 6 of my time on is thinking about competition. 7 Which is probably an unusual thing for you 8 guys to think about. But Nielsen is facing a 9 lot of competition. And if you think about 10 on the online place Tom Score is a very big 11 competitor. You know, when you think about 12 the challenges around our television business 13 around the globe, there's a lot of 14 competition. And we have to be thinking 15 about, what is the role of set top boxes. 16 What is the role of Google going forward. 17 All of these different things that are 18 affecting our business. So I spend a lot of 19 time working with people like Paul to 20 consider what's going on in sort of the 21 greater ecosystem and how Nielsen has to 22 adapt to those changes. 23 Then we do, you know, some basic 24 marketing stuff like advertising. So you 25 folks may have seen The New York Times Sunday 105 1 magazine that we did around the Olympics 2 where we took over the entire Sunday magazine 3 that was related to the Olympics and owned 4 all the advertising in that. That's not 5 something that we are going to do very 6 frequently. But it's something that we'll do 7 on occasion when the opportunity affords 8 itself. 9 So that's a very brief 10 introduction to what I do. I'm happy to be 11 here. Some familiar faces in the room. And 12 if you have any questions or comments, I'd be 13 happy to entertain them. And then I'm happy 14 to be helpful going forward as you guys are 15 thinking about communications that the CRE 16 needs to be engaged in. I'll be happy to 17 give you my advice where I can. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any 19 questions for John? I have one. 20 What's your perspective on the 21 CRE besides just being pleased to be here? 22 MR. BURBANK: Well, I have to 23 admit my ignorance. I didn't think a lot 24 about the CRE until I was prepared to be 25 here. I think it's a fascinating notion to 106 1 be bringing together some of the leaders in 2 the industry and for us to fund this stuff. 3 I hope that Nielsen is going to learn as much 4 as the rest of you are about these big 5 questions. 6 And I think the pushbacks that 7 Henry gave around professional panelists and 8 these things are things that we have to 9 listen to. So it's great to have this group 10 of people who are able to give us feedback. 11 We also have, you know, client 12 roundtables so we bring in people. Some of 13 whom are in the room in here that provide us 14 feedback from a different perspective. But I 15 think to have top researchers both exploring 16 big important topics in the industry and then 17 giving us, you know, hard feedback is very, 18 very helpful. And I think it's a great 19 expression of, you know, one of our three 20 core principles of the company which is to be 21 open. And I think it's a great expression. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks, John. I 23 know there are a number of people on the 24 phone. I want to give you a fair shot. 25 Anybody have a question for John? 107 1 Otherwise, we'll take a break. 2 MR. BURBANK: Of course I've 3 yielded all my time to Paul. So people can't 4 live without asking Paul a question. 5 MR. ZACKON: I actually had 6 invited John here. When I met him I was 7 impressed with him. 8 But the Council, and for the 9 people just joining may not appreciate this, 10 is entering a new phase that we're now 11 building up from our studies data that over 12 the course of the next year we're going to be 13 sharing in one form or another with Nielsen 14 and with the community generally. And I 15 think it was important to coordinate our 16 efforts with Nielsen's communication efforts 17 so that we go about that. 18 A big part of the agenda for 19 today is this whole communications area. So 20 I thought it was just really important that 21 people got to meet John and that John gets to 22 meet people here. 23 And over the next few months, 24 Shari Anne's committee on media consumption 25 and Ceril's committee on nonresponse, and as 108 1 the other studies get going, there's going to 2 be a lot of new issues for us as to how we 3 move forward in communications, both in our 4 own identity and in tandem with Nielsen. 5 MR. BURBANK: Just one 6 observation I think is that I think the world 7 today is more interested in market research 8 than ever before. And I think that you'll 9 find that there's probably an appetite for 10 the work that's coming out here. 11 Just as a couple of points of 12 evidence. Think about Malcolm Gladwell who's 13 a writer who's written a series of books that 14 are very widely read. And even in my kid's 15 high school now they're reading Malcolm 16 Gladwell. And if you think about Steven 17 Levitt who wrote Freakonomics. More and more 18 data is becomng almost popular reading for a 19 lot of people as folks observe all the 20 changes that are taking place in their daily 21 lives. And I want to know how things work in 22 the world. 23 So I think that you should be 24 ambitious in your goals for releasing 25 information that comes out of this group. 109 1 Because I think you'll find a pretty 2 receptive audience, much more so than maybe 3 you would have had 15 or 20 years ago. 4 MS. BURNS: I'm not sure if this 5 falls under future proposal or following up 6 on the invitation to talk about communication 7 right now. So you want to table it or -- 8 MR. BURBANK: Take the risk. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: If you bring it up 10 for John, ask it now. 11 MS. BURNS: I'm assuming John 12 plays a role in this. And Richard, this 13 stems from something we discussed on one of 14 our committee conference calls. And that is 15 that the CRE I don't think in the industry 16 has enough awareness, proper perspective. 17 And the feeling that we are continually 18 moving forward and continually making 19 progress. 20 So I would like to propose that 21 on some form of a regular basis, and we need 22 to decide what that is, that we issue, I 23 don't even want to say necessarily a press 24 release, but a statement to various industry 25 constituencies that talks about what it is 110 1 that we're doing. Because my feeling is when 2 I talk to my peers, the CRE, oh, yes, I heard 3 something about that. What is it that you're 4 doing. And then when you start to tell them, 5 they're, oh, my god, that's so impressive. 6 They didn't realize what you're accomplishing 7 that's important. 8 And I just don't think, for 9 Nielsen's sake, as well as everything that 10 we're doing here, quite honestly, and Richard 11 and I have had this conversation, for me 12 especially coming in from L.A. trying to 13 convince my bosses to let me come here, I 14 said this is important. This is a day I need 15 to take. Oh, Joanne, but you have this pitch 16 and that pitch. You got to get this done and 17 that done. I said, Richard, do you 18 understand who's going to be in this meeting 19 and how important that is. That would go a 20 long way. Because finding time for all of us 21 is so difficult. And I get frustrated that I 22 have to negotiate with my management. And 23 they don't realize the importance and the 24 significance of what's going on here. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Now I can 111 1 figure out. I'm not sure, John, if you were 2 planning to stay. But I think that topic is 3 perfect for the communications committee. 4 MR. BURBANK: I'm not. One thing 5 here is it might be interesting to consider 6 the creation of a blog for the CRE in which 7 both formal releases that come out of the 8 group could be posted and presented. But 9 then it would also be an opportunity for 10 members to, as they have their own personal 11 research issues, they might post things. 12 And you can invite the community, 13 whether it's other people in the market 14 research industry, students, et cetera, to 15 comment and sort of create a community of 16 research around the CRE. That would elevate 17 its awareness. And then, you know, obviously 18 list the membership so that people 19 understand, you know, who each of you are as 20 individuals and what the organization does. 21 MS. PANTANINI: This is Jessica 22 Pantanini. Just very quickly, when we get 23 into the communications discussion later on 24 this afternoon, there's going to be a lot of 25 opportunity for providing your thoughts and 112 1 your perspective on communications, both 2 formal and informal, moving forward. So, at 3 this time, I'm sorry you won't be able to 4 stay and join us for that dialogue later on 5 this afternoon, but I will definitely be 6 reaching out to you. 7 MR. BURBANK: I'm ready to help. 8 MS. PANTANINI: Great. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Jessica. 10 John, you honored your promise to 11 finish quickly. I know you yielded some time 12 to Paul. So let's see. It's about six or 13 seven after 11:00. As a reward, let's come 14 back at 11:15. Let's take more than 15 five-minute break. Let's start promptly at 16 11:15. We'll get moving at 11:15 exactly. 17 (Short recess.) 18 THE CHAIRMAN: We're going to 19 move to the section on steering committee and 20 feedback. I'll make a few comments as 21 steering committee chair. And Jessica, 22 there's a couple of topics that came up 23 actually within the steering committee that 24 Jessica will address. 25 So let me just, I think we can 113 1 probably catch up in terms of the timetable 2 or stay on it by going over the steering 3 committee part. The steering committee met 4 recently. We covered four or five topics. A 5 couple of which Jessica will discuss and with 6 also Richard. 7 First of all, we knew we had a 8 long meeting ahead of us. And so we tried to 9 use your seven hours wisely, especially those 10 flying in from, where is it, L.A.. to make 11 sure we're using the time well for the seven 12 hours we're spending. As I said in the 13 beginning, most of these meetings are two or 14 three hours long. So we want to be 15 respectful of your time when we do meet for 16 seven hours. 17 So the steering committee 18 basically went over and developed an agenda 19 that I think has turned out well. We've been 20 able to get Nielsen input. We'll be able to 21 cover the all-important issue of 22 communications as the company moves forward. 23 And maybe, most important, we had a chance to 24 introduce ourselves and each other. 25 And I hope, by the way, during 114 1 lunch, assuming we're on schedule, you can 2 also take advantage of the opportunity, I 3 know many of you already know each other. 4 But maybe you don't know everyone. So have a 5 chance to meet some of the new members. 6 Because I do think that what we heard this 7 morning, the dynamics of the committee I 8 think is strengthened both by the topics 9 we're covering, but frankly, also by the 10 personal interactions people know each other. 11 They got comfortable working with each other. 12 I think that's really what makes a committee 13 like this works well. The glue that's based 14 on both the relationships as well as the 15 intelligence. So we developed the agenda as 16 part of the committee. We also covered PR, 17 which I want to get to in a minute. Some 18 financial issues that I also want to discuss, 19 as well as bylaws. 20 And, finally, we covered also 21 Richard, Richard Zackon's status. I think 22 Bruce is not with us today. But Bruce 23 Goerlich brought up a point maybe two 24 meetings ago, on whether or not as part of 25 our ongoing quest as a committee for 115 1 independence, whether or not Richard should 2 actually report to us as opposed to Nielsen. 3 MR. ZACKON: Let me say the 4 facilitator rather than Richard. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: The facilitator, 6 yes, is the person. The facilitator. So 7 those are the topics we covered. Let me kind 8 of go through those then step by step. 9 In the case of PR, Jessica, let's 10 cover that then this afternoon as part of the 11 broader discussion on communications. So I 12 just wanted to say that that was already 13 brought up in the steering committee. 14 However, at this point, because we also have 15 an opportunity for feedback, at this time, 16 Jessica and Richard, starting with Jessica, 17 would you lead the important discussion of 18 some financial issues that came up that we 19 discussed in the steering committee. Kind of 20 walk us through that, Jessica. 21 MS. PANTANINI: Surely. 22 Do you have my slides up, the 23 treasurer's slides? 24 THE CHAIRMAN: We'll try to get 25 them. 116 1 MR. ZACKON: Do you have them? 2 MS. PANTANINI: You just have to 3 go to the second slide. And that will be 4 fine. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: The one that says 6 how do we want to manage our funding, 7 correct? 8 MS. PANTANINI: Correct. So 9 basically, the way we really do not manage 10 our own funding at this point in time clearly 11 gives us funding and subsequently manages 12 that funding on our behalf. It makes it 13 very, very easy. And, to my knowledge, 14 whenever Richard has made a request for 15 information as it relates to where we are 16 from a financial perspective, that data has 17 been provided. But the data that's been 18 provided hasn't really been provided in what 19 we would all be accustomed to from a typical 20 financial reporting perspective. 21 So I have spent a little bit of 22 time speaking with Mark Green about setting 23 up a discussion with Nielsen about how we can 24 make sure that we're getting the kind of 25 financial reporting that allows us to really 117 1 understand what's happening with those funds. 2 So that's happening at this point in time. 3 What I'd like to propose -- 4 MR. DONATO: Has this committee 5 met at all with anyone? You know, I've been 6 trying to get a handle on this the last 7 couple of days. And I can understand what 8 you're saying because what I managed to see 9 didn't have a heck of a lot of detail on it. 10 That may be what you're expressing concern 11 about. I understand that concern. I 12 definitely think that it needs to be better 13 reporting. 14 MS. PANTANINI: We are going to 15 set up a call during the next couple of weeks 16 we'll be able to get that done. I just think 17 that there needs to be a little bit more 18 diligence around the financial management of 19 the funding moving forward. 20 But subsequently, my 21 recommendation is that we investigate with 22 emphasis on investigating managing our own 23 accounts. Obviously there's lots of 24 different reasons why. As we heard Mike 25 mention earlier, as it relates to managing 118 1 the facilitation of these meetings, clearly 2 managing the funding for this organization is 3 equally important, if not more important for 4 the overall long-term health of the 5 organization. 6 So, as I said, right now with 7 Nielsen managing our finances, it's super 8 easy, right. Nobody really has to get into 9 it. And there's no operational expense as a 10 result of that. And so we need to really 11 understand what's the benefit and what are 12 the cons at the end of the day should we want 13 to manage our own funding. Either way, what 14 I would like to see is monthly financial 15 reporting with more detail provided to the 16 steering committee on a monthly basis. 17 So, as I said, I'll be working 18 with Mark on that. That pretty much brings 19 us to the level where we're at right now. 20 I'd like to just open up the dialogue and get 21 an individual's perspective on this issue. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: This is Mike. Can 23 I ask the question, Richard? Obviously, we 24 want Nielsen to respond and join as you like. 25 Richard, is anything of what 119 1 Jessica's recommending a bylaw issue that's 2 already kind of addressed for us? 3 MS. PANTANINI: I've actually 4 gone through the bylaws and there's no bylaw 5 issues. There's nothing that mentions 6 funding as pertains to the management of the 7 funding. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank for you 9 reviewing the bylaws. That takes care of 10 that, okay. 11 MR. GREEN: Just one comment 12 further about the bylaws. I mean, depending 13 on where Jessica and the CRE with the 14 assistance of Nielsen comes up with in terms 15 of recommendations, it is possible that some 16 of the recommendations may require a change 17 in the bylaws. Who knows. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: That's kind of 19 where I was going. Like either Nielsen could 20 only ascent and say sure we'll do it. Or 21 maybe, more importantly, if it's not already 22 a bylaw issue, that we can formalize it by 23 putting it into a bylaw. 24 MR. GREEN: So I think once 25 Jessica and whoever wants to team with 120 1 Jessica in addition to myself and the Nielsen 2 company, form the pros and cons and have the 3 discussion, put forward the recommendation, I 4 think at that point it makes sense to have 5 that bylaw conversation. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Again, 7 Richard, or whoever can address this. Is the 8 bylaw formally something that the CRE can 9 vote on, and then based on a majority vote 10 then the bylaw changes even in an issue like 11 this? 12 MR. ZACKON: We create our own 13 bylaws. The way we've been operating is that 14 the steering committee would make some 15 recommendations. Then come back to this 16 group if there are any changes in the bylaw. 17 Just so that what we have done, I've kept a 18 close accounting of what this Council has 19 committed to in funding. And then I've seen 20 only recently from Nielsen's side what's been 21 spent. So I've been working to reconcile 22 those two sets of accounts. 23 MS. PANTANINI: And is there a 24 discrepancy? 25 MR. ZACKON: Well, yes. And 121 1 there's, I don't know that there's a dispute. 2 I'd say there's a difference. The biggest 3 issue was, and probably why Ceril grabbed the 4 mic, so I'll hold onto it tighter, the 5 biggest issue was the spending relative to 6 our nonresponse study. And that had to do 7 basically in that Nielsen has two 8 relationships with the Council. They are our 9 benefactor in providing funding. They also 10 provided, in essence, defender or a partner 11 to us in the execution of that study. 12 So there are some issues there 13 for us as recently as carefully reading our 14 March 23, 2007 transcript. And while we 15 discuss it there, it had not been formally 16 decided by the Council how to deal with that. 17 So I don't know that we're going to resolve 18 it today. But I think we can set up a 19 process by which it is resolved. 20 Oh, Ceril's grabbing the mic for 21 those on the phone. 22 MS. SHAGRIN: For well over a 23 year, before every single meeting I have 24 asked for a reading and a financial status of 25 the nonresponse work, primarily because I 122 1 find that dealing with any outside vendor I 2 would have been getting that information. 3 And I have yet to see any breakdown. 4 We had an issue with additional 5 cost because Nielsen, the original proposal 6 had Nielsen doing the in-person data 7 collection. Because of other demands on 8 Nielsen's staff, that was then contracted out 9 to RTI, with the full understanding when we 10 had that discussion, that any additional 11 costs would be absorbed by Nielsen outside of 12 the normal funding. And I think we had that 13 discussion several times. 14 And when I give my report I'm 15 going to talk about other things that caused 16 overrun, which I believe all were under the 17 control of Nielsen. But had we been getting, 18 had I been getting normal reports back as 19 this is how much is being spent, this is 20 money outside of what was allocated, we could 21 at least have been managing it somewhat 22 better than it was. 23 And so, going forward, you know, 24 we can't undo the problems from the 25 nonresponse piece. But going forward, I 123 1 think it's incredibly important that we have 2 better information in terms of funding. 3 MR. DONATO: There's certainly 4 not going to be an argument here. You know, 5 I spoke with Howard yesterday. I've been 6 trying to get my arms around this the last 7 two days. And I haven't been able to. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Paul, can you 9 clarify who Howard is? 10 MR. DONATO: I'm sorry. Howard 11 Shimmel who was the old Mark Green. Howard 12 Shimmel basically managed the sort of 13 day-to-day affairs of the Council research 14 funds. And Howard, I don't personally know 15 of, and I don't know what you saw in the 16 minutes, I haven't been able to go through 17 the minutes. I thought this was something 18 that was never resolved. I spoke to Howard 19 yesterday about it. He feels, and he's going 20 to pull all the paperwork at the time we made 21 some level of commitment, that I don't 22 even -- I dare not give the numbers for fear 23 I get these completely wrong. And then since 24 that time, the costs either went up. He said 25 the study was also redesigned. So there was 124 1 some part of that cost was a consequence of 2 additional sells. And some part of that the 3 changing costs were not. Just kind of 4 traditional cost overruns. 5 So what I would propose in terms 6 of the information and access to the 7 information, you're absolutely right. I'm 8 frustrated because I couldn't answer your 9 question in two days because I can't get 10 access to the line-by-line detail. 11 In terms of what we said last 12 year, I just want to go through all the 13 minutes and go through all of Howard's 14 paperwork just to see what commitments and 15 whatever commitments we make, obviously we 16 made, we'll obviously fulfill. I just don't 17 want to say anything about it I could absorb, 18 to help, I would. But based on what I'm 19 seeing, not a lot of it is inside. Most of 20 all of the expenses are direct expenses to 21 RTI. 22 MS. PANTANINI: Well, as I think 23 Mike said early on, we're not going to solve 24 this here. But I think there certainly needs 25 to be another conversation. It's just 125 1 underscores the need for having more 2 financial accountability for the Council. 3 Because without information you can't make 4 decisions, or you can't raise a red flag 5 either. And clearly, somewhere along the 6 line here there's been a lack of 7 communication or miscommunication that's 8 occurred. And we need to make sure that that 9 doesn't occur again first and foremost. But 10 we also need to make sure that we are 11 managing the funds properly. Because, I 12 mean, as we've all seen over the years, the 13 types of research that we want to do tend to 14 have a hefty price tag. And every single 15 dollar counts. And we cannot have a 16 situation where we are really running over in 17 one area. And, you know, at the end of the 18 day will not allow us to execute an important 19 piece of research for the Council. So that 20 all needs to be balanced. And that just for 21 me underscores the need to make sure that we 22 solve this financial accountability issue 23 moving forward. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Henry also has a 25 comment. 126 1 MR. DeVAULT: How much money do 2 we have available for future spending? 3 MR. ZACKON: That's a question. 4 Henry asked how much money is available. 5 That's a question I can answer down to the 6 dollar based on what we allocated. And 7 there's a proviso there. We have somewhere 8 between, depending on whether that $500,000 9 gets allocated. We either have available 10 based on the 7.5 million Nielsen provided, 11 the $1,748,788 of available funding, 12 unallocated funding to $2,248,788. 13 Now, there's some additional 14 expenses beyond the overage. And they also 15 need to be resolved. But in terms of what 16 the Council has allocated, it's between 1.7 17 and 2.2 million depending on where that half 18 million goes. 19 MR. STERNBERG: Can I ask a 20 question. When Nielsen approves this money, 21 what happens then? Where does the money go? 22 I mean, does this money go into an account 23 that then exists for the Council, or does 24 Nielsen hold onto money and they keep a tab 25 of just how much money we have if you want 127 1 it. 2 MR. DONATO: By in large, we pay 3 directly whoever the vendor, whether it's 4 Sequent Partners or whether it's Ball State 5 or whether it's RTI, we pay them directly. 6 MS. PANTININI: What he's asking 7 is, is there a separate account established 8 to the CRE. There's been a commitment to 9 facilitate its spending of a certain amount 10 of money to the, you know, the details how it 11 will operate in the future. Obviously, the 12 finance committee will put together some 13 recommendations. And that's how it will work 14 out. But the way it's operated to date is 15 that there's been a number out there that 16 Nielsen's pledged that the CRE can spend. 17 And the allocated part is what the CRE has 18 voted to spend, okay. And then what Nielsen 19 has literally spent is a different number. 20 And we talked about one instance 21 of the different number here in the case of 22 nonresponse. There are other instances in 23 terms of the operations of the CRE, Nielsen 24 has spent money in there which is not being 25 placed against the pledge Nielsen's made to 128 1 the CRE for research. And likewise, the 2 facilitator who does a lot of things gratis, 3 but, you know, there's fees associated with 4 that. 5 MR. STERNBERG: Doesn't any 6 significant amount of money beyond $10,000 7 need to be approved by the full Council? 8 MS. PANTANINI: Correct. 9 MR. STERNBERG: So looking at the 10 minutes resolves this problem completely? 11 MR. ZACKON: What the minutes 12 resolve is what the Council has approved. 13 And that's resolved completely, except for 14 that half million which don't show that the 15 Council has formally approved the increment 16 to the nonresponse study. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: It would be 18 allocated against these funds. 19 MR. ZACKON: Against the 7.5. 20 Also, Steve, Nielsen has covered a good bit 21 of costs for the Ball State study, a lot of 22 internal analysis that we haven't seen. A 23 lot of comparisons of data to their own data, 24 recruitment costs, et cetera. The meeting 25 costs. So there's a lot of other costs. 129 1 MR. DONATO: You will be blown 2 away when you see what we've spent in the 3 last three years on the operation. It will 4 very much surprise you. I will guarantee 5 that. I'm just saying when you try to 6 evaluate whether to take this all in-house, 7 because I understand, I think that's what I 8 would want to do if I were you, when you 9 actually see what the operating costs are, 10 you'll have to think about it. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Actually, that 12 brings up a topic. Paul, when you say 13 "evaluate in-house," is the implication that 14 if we do take it in-house, that that then all 15 of those kinds of expenditures including 16 Richard's fee, let's say, would then come 17 from the current 7.5 million, is that an 18 automatic implication or not? 19 Jessica, you might have addressed 20 this already, but I thought I'd bring it up 21 again for everybody. 22 MR. GREEN: I think the answer to 23 that question is that's part of the scope of 24 discussion that Jessica and the finance 25 committee is going to talk about. There's no 130 1 hard implication there. But the point of the 2 finance committee looking at all the 3 different numbers that are being spent is to 4 understand what extent the finance committee 5 really wants, to what pieces they want to 6 control, what do they want to own credits. 7 I know, Mike, earlier you 8 mentioned the idea of the CRE controlling the 9 facilitator. To me that means paying the 10 facilitator. So maybe not to the CRE. So 11 these things need to get talked about. And 12 Jessica rightly said investigate. So there's 13 a lot to discuss here. But prior talks have 14 to be discussed. 15 MR. ZACKON: We're always 16 sensitive to George Ivie's participation 17 because of his role in the CRE. He's not on 18 the phone at this time. I just want to 19 establish that on that call. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: So we can move on, 21 or Jessica, do you have other topics? I was 22 going to say with respect to this page -- 23 MS. PANTANINI: No. We're done 24 with the finance piece. Then I'll come back 25 later today and talk about the 131 1 communications. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: For the 3 communication. That's great. 4 MS. BRILL: Can I ask a question? 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. I'm 6 sorry. 7 MS. BRILL: I just for one would 8 love to see a summary of what is spent 9 against that 7.5. Because, at least from my 10 recollection, I haven't seen that. I don't 11 know how much money we have to work against 12 for other projects coming up. 13 MS. PANTANINI: That's what we're 14 working on. So that will be one of the 15 pieces that would come out of this next 16 section with Nielsen. 17 MR. ZACKON: Actually, at the 18 March meeting we put that out. That was 19 distributed. It was a handout. That's where 20 I got the numbers that I said. So I do have 21 that. What we hadn't seen, what I hadn't 22 seen until a couple of weeks ago was 23 internally much of what had been spent by 24 Nielsen. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Right. I just 132 1 want to wrap up at this section. Just to get 2 it into the record, Jessica and Mark, what is 3 the actually action step that follows today's 4 CRE? 5 MS. PANTININI: What's happening 6 is Mark and I are sitting in with the 7 financial folks at Nielsen. And then from 8 there we will begin to start to understand. 9 And for both points all of the costs that are 10 behind the scenes that are not currently 11 being paid out of the fund, those can be 12 highlighted, if you will, and we can better 13 understand them and we will work to develop a 14 much better detailed financial report. 15 So that will be an outcome of 16 this current meeting. Based off of that, 17 then what I will do is I will ask for folks 18 in the Council in a committee along with Mark 19 and I to begin to create the pros and cons 20 to, okay, what happens if we decide that we 21 want to take these funds and manage them 22 independently of Nielsen. And what are those 23 implications. So that will be the second 24 Jessica, you have other members of the 25 finance committee and especially members 133 1 here. That takes care of the finance line 2 that came from the finance steering. 3 Richard, you want to talk about 4 that bylaw issue, Mark Kaline issue? 5 MR. ZACKON: There's a few 6 issues. Let me just put on the table in case 7 there's no time today. Normally we would 8 have voted our officers. We voted our 9 officers at this meeting. But we wanted to 10 allow new members an opportunity to see what 11 they liked and didn't like. You know what I 12 mean. Allow people to see what's going on. 13 So we'll be having that at our December 14 meeting, which is December 2nd. We don't 15 have that now. 16 Another note relative to the 17 steering committee. We still have some slots 18 for new members. We have about three, four 19 slots. And we're looking to fill them as 20 well. So if you know people, that will be 21 great. We do try to keep a balance. 22 MS. BURNS: What are those other 23 three slots? 24 MR. ZACKON: What are they? 25 MS. BURNS: For what disciplines. 134 1 MR. ZACKON: It's a hard balance. 2 We can provide that. I wasn't clear we would 3 be discussing that today. We try to keep a 4 balance between buyers and sellers and cable 5 broadcasters and others. We don't have 6 anyone in gaming. We looked at mobile which 7 is an area. 8 MR. DeVAULT: Richard, originally 9 we had someone from education. Someone from 10 Stanford, for example. To the best of my 11 knowledge, we don't currently have someone 12 from the educational environment. 13 MR. ZACKON: That's correct. 14 MR. DeVAULT: That's one of the 15 areas we're going to see to try to fill. 16 MR. ZACKON: That will be up to 17 the steering committee as to how to provide 18 that balance. It's a fair one. The 19 representative we had didn't continue 20 participating. So the bylaw issues are -- we 21 created as a group. And yet, hadn't written 22 up formally what we called the Tim Brooks 23 exception. Where Tim was a member in good 24 standing with the committee and had the 25 audacity to retire. And so we allowed the 135 1 members in good standing who retired to 2 continue participating with committees. 3 Tim's been cheering and been 4 really great participating in that activity. 5 We wanted to make sure because we limited it 6 to Nielsen's clients in case of an academic, 7 we might need to modify as well, or George 8 Ivie for that matter is not a client. That 9 just needs to be written up. 10 I spoke to the lawyer at Nielsen. 11 That's going to get drafted. And so we'll 12 come back with the specific wording of that. 13 But then a new issue arose now called the 14 Mark Kaline exception. What happens when a 15 member or in the case of in Mark's case a 16 chair in good standing is not working a 17 Nielsen client. I don't know that Mark's yet 18 ready to retire. And do we go out, we allow 19 for a bridge for a period of time when he 20 lands back on his feet somewhere else with a 21 Nielsen client. He doesn't automatically get 22 the slot because the slot doesn't belong the 23 individual. It belongs to the company where 24 the individual works. 25 But is there a period in which 136 1 someone can participate, continue to 2 participate. And my sense is you don't want 3 to have to decide that on a case-by-case 4 basis because then it's whose friend, I like 5 it, I don't like it, whatever. We thought 6 there should be some statement in the bylaws. 7 I inquired of the MRC. They don't have such 8 a period. They're dealing with a 9 confirmation. Ours is transparency. That 10 needs to be resolved. And I think the 11 steering committee can. 12 MR. GREEN: Richard, is it worth 13 noting that that question could be asked in 14 two flavors. One is as a Council member, the 15 other is as a committee member. 16 MR. ZACKON: Yes. It can be 17 answered in two flavors. Any Nielsen client 18 can request to be on an active committee as 19 long as the committee chairs agree you can 20 participate. And we have a lot of members do 21 that. 22 Mike Pardee who is now a member 23 of the Council began his participation that 24 way. So it may be certainly that's how the 25 question will be answered. Can they 137 1 participate. 2 MR. MURPHY: If I can, surveying 3 another way, IAB has emeritus status. Some 4 emeritus status. Some served as a role 5 previously. They're allowed to continue 6 after their retirement from the chairmanship. 7 So if someone started as a chair... 8 MR. KALINE: In a nonvoting role. 9 MR. MURPHY: Yes. 10 MR. ZACKON: Those are the bylaw 11 issues. By the way, there's another issue 12 that we really should attend to now. We've 13 been around for a while now. This may come 14 as a shock to you. But your position on the 15 Council is not in perpetuity unless we decide 16 to in our pleasure. So in which case you 17 can't resign. 18 I think the sentence is two 19 years. And it's renewable. So that's an 20 issue where we have to kind of like when the 21 Senate got established, some people were on 22 one cycle. Some people are on another cycle. 23 And that's something we have to set up 24 between now and December. 25 MR. GREEN: Is there an 138 1 independent voting body? 2 MR. ZACKON: This Council votes 3 new members. The steering committee 4 recommends a slate. So initially just for 5 new members, Nielsen chose, in essence, 6 hand-picked who to serve. But now it's the 7 Council as part of our independent effort, we 8 seek to replenish our ranks with new members 9 and how we do that. We're trying to keep our 10 own balance that way. 11 MS. UYENCO: Not an aging panel. 12 So we're not aging the panel. 13 MR. ZACKON: I was pleased to 14 hear people say I'm only going to age two 15 years in the next 20. So thank you very much 16 for that, Paul. That was good news. Well, I 17 guess we age. I don't know. 18 MS. BRILL: So if we go FTO, can 19 we still work on the committee? 20 MR. ZACKON: That would be if 21 you're a Nielsen client, no problem. If not, 22 that's exactly the question for how these 23 bylaws will be worded. 24 MS. BRILL: And also on the 25 bylaws, I skimmed through it. I didn't see 139 1 anything on the subject of attendance. And I 2 think that has to really get enforced. 3 MR. ZACKON: I think that's in 4 the bylaws. I think the attendance, in fact, 5 I noticed this from the steering committee, 6 we may need to comb membership. Because 7 we're required to attend three out of four of 8 Council meetings and be a member on a 9 committee. 10 MS. BRILL: What about 11 participating on committees? That's an issue 12 too. 13 MR. ZACKON: Well, that's up to 14 the chair. 15 MS. BRILL: Being a chair versus 16 working out. 17 MR. ZACKON: Please don't remind 18 me. That's not a requirement, Shari. I 19 would say if the chair feels that a member of 20 the committee, Council/non-Council is not 21 participating, at the pleasure of the chair 22 they're off the committee. And they will be 23 required to join another committee. That's 24 in the bylaws. 25 MR. DeVAULT: Richard, didn't we 140 1 remove some people because of 2 nonparticipation? 3 MR. ZACKON: We had 4 conversations. Yes, we did. 5 MR. DeVAULT: We asked them to 6 volunteer before we -- 7 MR. ZACKON: The closet outside 8 is where the skeletons are buried. Yes, we 9 did. And we'll review that again. I keep 10 track of membership. I'll be able to 11 announce who all the perfect gold star 12 members are. All the people here are perfect 13 gold star members. And a number of the 14 people here retained their gold stars. 15 MS. SHAGRIN: We don't have any 16 requirements in terms of attendance in terms 17 of an in-person attendance? 18 MR. ZACKON: No, there don't. 19 MS. SHAGRIN: Should there be a 20 requirement for at least one attendance in 21 person? 22 THE CHAIRMAN: We can discuss 23 that. Just again, for the new members, and 24 they need to refresh the current members, the 25 way we've been trying to handle some of these 141 1 bylaws issues and membership issues is to 2 have some discussion at this meeting. But 3 then to take it into the steering committee 4 between meetings. And then be the steering 5 committee coming up with the formal 6 recommendation that we then recommend. Or in 7 this case, would recommend December 2nd for 8 the full Council to vote on. 9 So at the last meeting, for 10 example, we voted on the slate that was 11 submitted. And the people who are here today 12 were on that slate. And you're here because 13 we voted for you to come in. But the 14 steering committee developed that slate. So 15 we would handle bylaws issues and new member 16 issues the same way. So, in any event, you 17 wanted to discuss that. Any discussion on 18 that topic? 19 MS. BURNS: Now or later? 20 MS. SHAGRIN: We have an 21 opportunity at least for a minute or two now 22 to, like I said, I think the formal mechanism 23 to put it into action because of the nature 24 of the issue would be for the steering 25 committee to handle it. And then come back 142 1 with a recommendation. But with everybody 2 here it certainly doesn't hurt to have the 3 discussion on, you know, what's the census of 4 the committee of the Council, rather, the 5 full Council that we can then take to the 6 steering committee for debate and a 7 recommendation. 8 Do you think people should be -- 9 I think what is the main point to be here in 10 person at least once as opposed to always 11 calling in. I guess I could start with L.A.. 12 MS. BURNS: Yes. Shari and I 13 were talking about this out in the hall. I 14 come from, coming from L.A., is obviously 15 more of a time and a cost hardship. And I 16 make it my business to try as much as 17 possible. And if I can, I think people from 18 New York can. So I would agree that it's 19 just important. I mean, I knew I couldn't be 20 on the phone for seven hours and participate 21 in this meeting. 22 So I think there's a difference 23 between -- there's a couple of things. 24 There's the quarterly two-hour meeting. 25 There's attendance on a committee because we 143 1 have people that are on committees and saying 2 okay. Well, I'm on the committee. I 3 volunteered. You have to be on the committee 4 or you get kicked out. Then they volunteered 5 and they're still not in attendance. And 6 then I think something like this where you 7 have an all-day meeting, we only do it maybe 8 once a year. So you can't say just one. But 9 if you miss more than one. 10 So, I mean, let's open it up for 11 discussion and establish the qualifiers. But 12 there's committee attendance, quarterly CRE, 13 two three-hour meetings. And then the 14 all-day seminars. And I think that we should 15 definitively have thresholds. You can't be a 16 member in name only. 17 MS. SIRKIN: This is Kate on the 18 phone. I challenge the in-person meeting. 19 This is good to listen on the telephone. 20 It's less about the discussion. And the 21 quality of the sound is actually really good 22 compared to most of the other meetings I 23 conference into. So congratulations, 24 Nielsen, for whatever technology you're 25 using. I think you can join in easily on the 144 1 phone. I think it should be more about what 2 you do in the meeting, whether you're there 3 in person or on the phone. I fly over the 4 world all the time. It's just not possible 5 to make every meeting in person. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Kate. Any 7 other thoughts? 8 MS. BURNS: I'll just be a little 9 speculative of that. People say, hi, I'm 10 here. And when you're on the phone you 11 really just don't know whether they bow out 12 for the rest. What are we going to go do, 13 check in once an hour, people, are you still 14 on the phone? It's too easy to check in at 15 the top of the meeting and then bow out. I 16 appreciate you staying on the line. But I 17 have no idea about anybody else. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Would any of the 19 other people people like to take issue? Are 20 there any other phone people there? 21 MS. PANTANINI: I will tell you 22 only personally, this is Jessica speaking, I 23 have attended most of the meetings in person. 24 And it's probably a longer flight to fly from 25 San Antonio than it is from L.A.. It takes 145 1 me seven hours. That's just not always 2 possible. And so I think that case point, if 3 you've gotten engaged members who really make 4 an effort to be engaged and to be involved, 5 then, you know, needing to take things on a 6 case-by-case basis when it comes to that with 7 the aid of technology, if we can't be on the 8 phones looking at presentations and engaging, 9 then we've got a problem. 10 MR. STERNBERG: As you know, 11 sometimes there are just emergencies that 12 come up. My wife is out of the town this 13 week. I had to take my 9-year-old son to 14 school. I could have come into the city and 15 gotten there at 10 o'clock. But I wanted to 16 be there, so I called in. Ordinarily, I 17 would have been there. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think that 19 Joanne's comment was meant to attack the 20 people on the phone. Because I think we've 21 all, probably almost everybody on the phone 22 have probably used or taken advantage of 23 that. I know I have. I think real world 24 today, I think we do well, given the 25 positions we're holding in our companies to 146 1 attend at all. So I think that if you go on 2 the phone, my opinion is if you're on the 3 phone once or twice because you have to be, 4 then that's what you do. That's just the 5 price we pay. 6 MS. BURNS: I was just making the 7 point of the exception, rather than the rule. 8 Nonattendance is habitual. 9 MR. ZACKON: Nielsen has an 10 annual client meeting. And we have in the 11 past talked about using that as a place where 12 this Council might meet an extra day at the 13 beginning or the end. That's another 14 possibility that would make travel easier for 15 people. 16 MR. GREEN: The other, just to 17 make a side point, I think the proposal on 18 the table is once a year. So the 19 conversation sounds like it's about showing 20 up every time. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, right. I 22 mean on the table in terms of discussion, 23 we're not going to vote on it just now. But 24 I definitely do want to get the sense of the 25 CRE. 147 1 Any other thoughts? What about 2 some of the new members? What do you think 3 now that you're here in person? I know you 4 probably call in on some other committees 5 around. Noreen? 6 MS. SIMMONS: I think it makes 7 sense to have some sort of minimum. But I 8 think to ask people to be in person at every 9 meeting is unrealistic because of times and 10 people's schedules and also for people who do 11 have to travel in. 12 I don't know about anybody else, 13 but Unilever is really looking really, really 14 hard in any of the travel that we do these 15 days is cost of doing business. So it 16 becomes a real challenge. So maybe there's 17 an opportunity if there are some video 18 conference facilities where people who are in 19 a certain area of the country if they 20 physically can't get here, if there is 21 someplace they can go, whether you're in L.A. 22 or whatever and participate that way. But 23 again, maybe one a year at minimum sounds 24 reasonable. But certainly not every single 25 meeting. 148 1 THE CHAIRMAN: So I think that 2 we'll take as a sense of the CRE to the 3 steering committee we'll take the sense that 4 there's a strong recommendation to show up, 5 at least one. So then the question is 6 whether we just make that a suggestion or 7 formalize that. Like in the bylaws we 8 actually say you must attend three out of 9 four meetings of this type. Otherwise, 10 you're off. You must participate in the 11 committee. Otherwise, you're off. 12 So what we'll debate then is 13 whether or not it has to be formal. And just 14 the strongest possible suggestion to at least 15 come to one meeting in person. Because I 16 think we do have to be realistic about the 17 issue of Steve. I can totally relate. In my 18 case, maybe not a 9-year-old. But totally 19 relate to something comes up so you have to 20 do that. 21 Actually, speaking of steering 22 committee, because I'm in a role as chair 23 right now, and I've been happy to serve as 24 steering committee chair for the last couple 25 of years, I really personally don't want to 149 1 have that dual function. Maybe there's not 2 so much a conflict of interest there as just 3 too much power concentrated in one person. 4 So I'm happy to be a chair at this point. 5 But I would like to ask somebody either now 6 or later, not to put anybody on the spot to 7 volunteer as steering committee chair, while 8 I retain, do my role as chair. You can 9 either volunteer now if you want or if you 10 just want to think about it. You don't have 11 to be from the steering committee. But 12 ideally those who have been serving on the 13 steering committee if you want to 14 self-nominate, that would be good. 15 I think that, Richard, we're 16 delaying the votes on the other positions 17 because of what you just said. But for the 18 steering committee let me know if you want 19 the chairmanship. 20 Ira, you want it? 21 MR. SUSSMAN: I'll do it. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: You're stepping 23 up? 24 MR. SUSSMAN: Definitely. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Good. I can take 150 1 one hat off. You know what, there is 2 actually one more topic that Henry just 3 before I leave this has brought up. And that 4 is, Ira, you may want to take this under 5 consideration immediately, I have a good 6 sense of timing here. 7 MR. SUSSMAN: Richard asked me 8 before, if my name came up, everybody would 9 say no. Everybody else would be like taking 10 a step back. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Henry kind of 12 reminded me or pointed out at some point, 13 this connects to the conversation we had a 14 few moments ago about new members. So we 15 have openings for three or more members. I 16 think we ended up in a really good place with 17 the new 12 or 13 people we got. We can all 18 be very proud of the result, but maybe not 19 the process was Henry's point. I think we 20 can probably do a better job. The other one 21 dragged out. I think some of it dragged out 22 for technical reasons. Some of it dragged 23 out because not everybody is always 24 available. 25 In my case I had some conflicts 151 1 that I couldn't put a list together when I 2 needed to and so on. But Henry made the 3 point that for future CRE membership 4 recommendations, which again we've handled in 5 the past as the steering committee has put a 6 slate together and the full Council votes on 7 it. So that would be something that I just 8 want to read into the record right now. And, 9 Henry, would you like to expand on that? You 10 critiqued the process. And I think properly 11 so. 12 MR. DeVAULT: Well, the point is 13 that because this is a relatively new process 14 for us, we don't really have an organized 15 process where -- and we kind of like stumbled 16 along and we got things right -- but the 17 steering committee should just sit down and 18 just have a really rigorous process to 19 address the membership. 20 I think that one of the very 21 interesting points to start at, we have 22 certain members who have been on the 23 committee from the inception and they're 24 scheduled to go off. And so what we have to 25 do is to identify those people who are going 152 1 off the committee, how many spots, and what 2 areas are they. So as we go forward trying 3 to get additional members to the committee, 4 that we replace certain characteristics. And 5 that we are able to flush out some of the 6 characteristics that haven't been addressed 7 in the past. So it's just a process that the 8 steering committee should work on that could 9 be presented at the next meeting and voted on 10 or amended as the committee sees fit. That's 11 my suggestion. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Again, 13 I think we ended up in a good spot. But we 14 definitely would have used a better process. 15 MR. SUSSMAN: We're not actually 16 pushing some people out. Some people might 17 be leaving after the two years. They have to 18 be voted back in. But we're not actually 19 pushing people out, right? 20 MR. DeVAULT: I thought there was 21 almost a mandatory retirement age, you know, 22 in terms of tenure on the committee. Because 23 one of the things that we had talked about is 24 we don't want the committee to become an old 25 boy network. We want fresh blood continually 153 1 coming into the committee with new ideas and 2 new perspectives. 3 MR. SUSSMAN: Also, the topic 4 research person from your organizations that 5 would require ABC giving up a spot, and I 6 don't see that being the case. 7 MR. DeVAULT: What would happen 8 is in the case of my company, for example, 9 there are several different entities there. 10 And, for example, a Julie Piping Carter who 11 does the cable research or Artie Bogrunel 12 Roos who's ESPN can step in at my stead. 13 So it's not that the company is 14 giving up the spot necessarily. But there 15 may be other people with different 16 perspectives and ideas from me that could 17 provide insight to this case to the company. 18 MR. SUSSMAN: I think we'll have 19 to look at that. 20 MR. ZACKON: The bylaws call for 21 a two-year term. And two-thirds of the 22 committee can oppose someone. It's 23 automatically renewed unless two-thirds 24 oppose. And I have the dates. And I have 25 what we decided are the categories in which 154 1 people are agency, advertiser, whatever. So 2 my sense is rather than resolve that here, 3 chair of the steering committee, I think 4 that's an excellent topic that I'd be happy 5 to work with you and provide you what I have 6 for the steering committee. Right now we're 7 looking for a hockey mom who works at an 8 agency. 9 MR. ZACKON: We should review 10 that. And Henry, thank you for restoring the 11 idea. Maybe it would be helpful to have an 12 academic who's a member of the Council. The 13 bylaws call for a Nielsen client. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: If there's no 15 further discussion on that, that will be my 16 last function as steering committee chair. 17 We finished that section. 18 Ira, thank you very much for 19 stepping up. And Jessica, I think you 20 indicated you're done with the finance 21 committee portion. 22 MS. PANTANINI: Correct. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: That would then 24 move us to the committee report section which 25 is, they like to say at certain conferences, 155 1 that's the only thing standing between us and 2 lunch. 3 MR. ZACKON: Although, I would 4 propose lunch is available. We could gather 5 lunch, come back and have our meeting while 6 we lunch and chew quietly. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: So meaning right 8 now? 9 MR. ZACKON: We could. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm getting some 11 yeses from the left side of the room. 12 MR. ZACKON: Let's grab some 13 lunch right now. 14 (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., a 15 luncheon recess was taken.) 16 o0o 17 AFTERNOON SESSION 18 12:15 p.m. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Ceril, we're going 20 to go through the committee reports now in 21 the order that's written out here. 22 George Ivie, are you here? It 23 will be Ceril, Shari, Nancy, Pat I haven't 24 heard from today. So Ceril, I want to give 25 you time to eat some lunch. Ceril's going to 156 1 start us off. 2 Are there any slides we're 3 supposed to look at? 4 MS. SHAGRIN: Yes. All I did was 5 take the reports, I took the reports that you 6 have in your packet and sort of put it in 7 bullet point so we can cover it. 8 Just as a reminder, we are 9 working with folks at Nielsen who are 10 tabulating the collected data and working 11 with graduate students at the University of 12 Michigan and the University of Maryland. 13 They spent a lot of time over the 14 last month with ongoing conference calls 15 determining on agreeing on the analysis plan 16 and how the data was going to be coded and 17 reviewing all of the computations and the 18 questionnaire and the data results. And the 19 concept is that each group -- 20 MR. DeVAULT: For the new 21 members, do you want to give a quick overview 22 of what this project is and what its goals 23 were because they may not be as cognizant, 24 you know. 25 MS. SHAGRIN: Very good 157 1 suggestion. I forgot about how many new 2 people we have. And we've been living with 3 this nonresponse bias product. It was 4 virtually one of the first major projects 5 that was approved by the Council. 6 And it was the concept of the 7 nonresponse bias project to try and determine 8 whether differential response rates really 9 has an impact and creates a bias on the data. 10 And, if so, then what can we learn from this 11 study that would help Nielsen and other 12 research companies improve cooperation 13 amongst various groups. 14 So if there's a particular group 15 that doesn't cooperate, but really doesn't 16 create a bias, that may not be worth doing 17 extra things and if there's another thing 18 where it does make a difference. In order to 19 do this, we went back to prior meter 20 households and prior diary households. 21 There was a lot of discussion as 22 to whether or not we even needed to do the 23 diary piece because Nielsen's moving to LPM 24 samples. But the Nielsen plans still 25 included some of the markets selecting either 158 1 partial data from a diary, so we felt it was 2 important to know the difference between 3 something as a weekly or monthly task and 4 something that is an ongoing two-year task. 5 So we kept the diary piece in there. 6 We also went back to all the 7 households that accepted and households that 8 refused. We developed a questionnaire to 9 learn more about their viewing habits, the 10 kinds of equipment they had in the house, who 11 was in the house to better understand the 12 information we collected was information 13 about the household and general information 14 about their viewing patterns so that we could 15 compare responders and nonresponders to 16 Nielsen's surveys in that way. And determine 17 whether or not there is a bias and what that 18 bias is. 19 Because we were dealing with 20 Nielsen samples, we had to include Nielsen as 21 the supplier to protect the anonymity of 22 sample households, we allowed Nielsen to be 23 the supplier to to collect the questionnaire 24 information. So while we worked 25 cooperatively and collaboratively with the 159 1 University of Michigan and the University of 2 Maryland in developing the questionnaire, all 3 of the data collection was done by Nielsen 4 through Nielsen. 5 And we talked a little bit 6 earlier about overrun and data. The original 7 proposal was Nielsen was going to do all of 8 the data collection, including the final 9 piece which was in person. Nielsen decided 10 that because of other demands, they would 11 outsource the in-person data collection. So 12 now we're at the point where all the data's 13 been collected. And again, the decision was 14 made that we would allow Nielsen to come and 15 analyze the data that both groups would 16 decide on the parameters of the analysis how 17 they would do weighting and what they would 18 consider a valid response. 19 And we engaged graduate students 20 at the University of Maryland, the University 21 of Michigan to actually do the work and the 22 analysis. And they were both being overseen, 23 both groups were being overseen by a 24 professor at each of the groups. Bob Groves 25 at the University of Michigan and Frederick 160 1 Kreuter at the University of Maryland. And 2 the idea was that they use the same 3 parameters. They would both run their own 4 analyses. They would both draw their own 5 conclusions to those analyses. And we felt 6 that there was a potential for very different 7 conclusions because one is an outside group 8 and they would be looking at the data in a 9 different way. 10 The initial, I've got charts up 11 here, but the preliminary meter and diary 12 questionnaire data was provided in March and 13 April of 2008. We couldn't go to metered 14 homes until they were no longer even 15 potential. They were totally out of the 16 sample that nobody would use them for 17 replacement. And the meter questionnaire 18 data set that was collected by mail by Web 19 and in person was delivered to the students 20 in June 26, 2008. 21 But when the folks, when the 22 graduate students started looking at the 23 data, they started to find quite a few 24 errors. And they would question the errors. 25 They went back to Nielsen. Pointed out the 161 1 errors. Nielsen had to go back and rerun the 2 data. And they didn't deliver the corrected 3 data until September 5, 2008. 4 And one concern the professors 5 had relayed to me is that while every error 6 that Nielsen pointed out was corrected, they 7 do not know that whether or not Nielsen 8 pursued the root cause of the error. So they 9 don't know what errors might still be in the 10 data. And they don't know what they will 11 find in the diary data. Because now all 12 they've gotten is a meter data. 13 Another reason for an overrun 14 because now we had to keep the students on. 15 The graduate students were funded through 16 May. And we had to keep the graduate 17 students on to do the analysis. Originally 18 thought that they would be through with the 19 analysis by September because they were 20 getting the data by June. 21 Now they've just gotten corrected 22 data in early September. So it's really 23 important from Nielsen's perspective that 24 when they're working on the diary data which 25 still hadn't been delivered, that they do 162 1 some edit checking to avoid having to do all 2 of this twice. Because the feedback I got 3 was that standard edits should have been in 4 the runs were not applied. 5 MR. GREEN: Ceril, has this been 6 communicated to Nielsen in the communications 7 you had back and forth? 8 MS. SHAGRIN: I just got the 9 latest update in terms of all the errors 10 before this meeting. So I have not. In the 11 Nielsen data they sent back, the data you 12 have, the report you have came from Nielsen. 13 I did not change their words. 14 MR. GREEN: No. I understand 15 where you're coming from. What I'm asking -- 16 MS. SHAGRIN: They're aware. 17 MR. GREEN: The conversation that 18 you're putting in front of the CRE here, I'm 19 wondering, are you asking me something 20 implicitly here to get involved in terms. 21 That's what I'm asking. 22 MS. SHAGRIN: The folks at 23 Nielsen know about the errors. They know 24 what they did. I think it could not hurt for 25 you to make sure that the re-edits are in 163 1 there as they process the diary data. 2 MR. GREEN: Sure, sure. And I'll 3 have that conversation. 4 Did you make a call to the 5 Nielsen team that's working with for the root 6 cause discussion that you mentioned earlier. 7 MS. SHAGRIN: No. Because I just 8 had that conversation with the professor 9 Friday. 10 MR. GREEN: Okay. Are you going 11 to actively have that conversation? 12 MS. SHAGRIN: I will have that 13 call. I will definitely have that call. And 14 if you can just advance it, the first set of 15 tuning estimates requires the respondent 16 level data. And the weight and their 17 schedule for delivery, they were scheduled 18 for delivery September 19th, which, I believe 19 is this week. And for the meter data and the 20 current schedule for the diary data is 21 October 10th. 22 I spoke with the professors and 23 said to them let's not wait for the diary 24 data. Let's go ahead and do all of the 25 analysis on the meter data. Your final 164 1 conclusions, you're going to draw a 2 conclusion based on meters and you're going 3 to draw a conclusion based on diaries. And I 4 don't want to hold it up. 5 So the data from that the 6 graduate students are working on I expect to 7 have preliminary data from them before the 8 end of October. We will have a full 9 in-person committee meeting, at that time, as 10 soon as they give me the firm date. And we 11 will go over the data to make sure that what 12 they are doing and the way they are putting 13 the data together and the way they are 14 presenting it meets the needs of the 15 committee. And if it does, then they will 16 move forward and finalize the data. 17 And we're going to do that 18 independently with them. And then I will 19 offer to do the same thing with the group at 20 Nielsen. I do believe that at this point we 21 have to have independent analyses of this 22 data. And they will compare basic data. 23 In other words, after they're 24 through and Nielsen's through, there's some 25 very basic data, we'll do some comparisons. 165 1 They should be exactly the same. The 2 conclusions may be different. The way they 3 analyze the data will probably be different. 4 But we will meet with the Nielsen folks 5 analyzing the data and the university folks 6 analyzing the data. And when we have a final 7 report I will invite Bob Groves to come to 8 this meeting and present the final results to 9 this group in terms of how did we do from a 10 cooperation standpoint. 11 MR. DeVAULT: Ceril. 12 MS. SHAGRIN: Yes. 13 MR. DeVAULT: When do you 14 anticipate that presentation from Bob Groves 15 will take place? 16 MS. SHAGRIN: I'd like to say 17 it's possible for the December meeting. I 18 think that at the December meeting we can 19 have him present the meter data for sure. I 20 don't know yet about the diary data until he 21 tells me he's got clean data. 22 MR. ZACKON: So you're confident 23 we'll have a summary for the Nielsen client 24 meeting in March? 25 MS. SHAGRIN: I'm confident we'll 166 1 have a summary for the Nielsen client meeting 2 in March. 3 MR. GREEN: Just one other 4 sidebar. We should probably note this 5 relative to communications because the 6 communications discussion is going to relate 7 to how to announce things. 8 MR. ZACKON: Exactly. 9 MS. SHAGRIN: If you would just 10 move to my last slide. You have all the 11 detail in your packet of all the pieces of 12 response rates in terms of how well we did in 13 getting the information and the information 14 that we're building this on. 15 In terms of the diary mailable 16 sample, 87 percent of those who accepted the 17 diary, completed the information for this 18 survey. Among those that were mailed but 19 non-contacted, 77.6 percent cooperated. And 20 among those that refused on the phone, they 21 were mailed a diary anyhow, 79 percent of 22 them cooperated. And there's a breakdown of, 23 you know, detailed breakdown. But these are 24 the top line numbers. 25 Next slide, please. In terms of 167 1 the meter. In the meter, we know exactly 2 everybody who was a basic. We only went to 3 basic. So we have refusing basics and 4 accepting basics. Overall response rate for 5 the metered sample was about 2,000 was 76.4 6 percent. So we have pretty good response 7 rates. And the lowest response rate was 8 among those that were unmailable. So in many 9 cases the reason this response rate is so low 10 was that we never could get an address to go 11 there. We tried. We couldn't get an 12 address. And these were hard core refusers. 13 And even that group we were able to get 16.7 14 percent response rate. So we'll be breaking 15 down some of the results by the different 16 types of households. Then they'll be 17 answering whether there's a bias by the 18 network they tune. 19 We have enough of a sample to 20 break out Black, Hispanic. I think we can 21 break out Spanish-speaking Hispanics by age 22 cells. We all agree. The committee all 23 agreed on the parameters in terms of what we 24 wanted them to be able to break out. And 25 that drove the sample size. 168 1 So, hopefully, we'll have a full 2 report from Bob Groves at least on the 3 metered sample by the next meeting. And 4 somebody had a question. 5 Tina. 6 MS. SILVESTRI: In addition to 7 race and age and all these things, were you 8 able to break out by income level? 9 MS. SHAGRIN: We did some income 10 questions. We did give them parameters. I 11 didn't bring the parameters. 12 Henry, do you remember? 13 MR. DeVAULT: I don't remember. 14 MS. SHAGRIN: But we did give 15 them the parameters. This was all driven by 16 sample size. In other words, originally we 17 said we wanted everything. And then we saw 18 that there's no way that we would have enough 19 money to do that. So we had to collapse some 20 of our desires. I think that we're going to 21 learn a lot from this study. 22 Michele? 23 MS. BUSLIK: Okay. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: For those on the 25 phone there's always a short pause while we 169 1 transfer microphones. 2 MS. BUSLIK: You just talked 3 about the nonaddress information. 4 Considering what faults come out about the 5 use of experience and address, using of 6 addresses, could we get any additional 7 learning of those? 8 There's no way to put them 9 through the Experion data. Forget it. 10 MS. SHAGRIN: We send people out 11 in person trying to find the households. So 12 we know that every effort was made to 13 complete them. I think we have good enough 14 response rate and enough different groups to 15 really determine in terms of bias. But I 16 also think that we will learn among the hard 17 core refusers what it was that got them to 18 accept this. I mean, it's a short survey. 19 But what it was that got them to accept this, 20 I think we have some really, really smart 21 people over at the two universities working 22 on this. And we're going to get some 23 in-depth information from them. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Anything else? 25 MR. ZACKON: I have two 170 1 questions. I remember the original goal was 2 80 percent. This seems pretty close to it. 3 MS. SHAGRIN: It's close to it. 4 MR. ZACKON: I'm pretty impressed 5 what you managed to get people who don't 6 respond to respond. 7 MS. SHAGRIN: There were some 8 cells of the harder core responders that we 9 didn't reach our goal on. But overall, we 10 pretty much got there. And we got there 11 because the initial design said if you can't 12 get them by mail, get them by phone. If you 13 can't get them that way, you get them in 14 person. 15 The design was always that we 16 would not give up. And the very hardest 17 core, it didn't make any difference how much 18 we had to compensate them. If we could get 19 someone to fill out the questionnaire that 20 cost us $250, that was going to happen. But 21 that was in the very original proposal that 22 we all agreed to. And that was in the 23 proposal that was costed by Hanson. 24 MR. ZACKON: The process question 25 I had, have there been regular committee 171 1 meetings? Because I have not been informed 2 by committee meetings. I know in the case of 3 the Ball State study, the media consumption 4 study, there was a weekly meeting in that 5 committee. 6 MS. SHAGRIN: We started out with 7 the committee meeting. But once the data 8 collection process was in place. There 9 wasn't a whole lot to get the committee 10 involved in. Because they were working the 11 program and the design. Now that they have 12 the data, that's why I said we will 13 definitely have -- it's in the last month 14 actually that the two professors have said 15 can we call you if we have any problems. And 16 the answer has been, yes, if you have a 17 problem, you call me. And when they have 18 called me I've sent a note to Nielsen saying 19 I understand that this is a problem. Can you 20 react to it. And that's worked effectively. 21 MR. ZACKON: Are you still open 22 to people? It sounds a little like Rosie 23 Ruiz coming to the finish line. 24 Are you still open to people on 25 your committee who might want to come in and 172 1 participate as you bring this to fruition? 2 MS. SHAGRIN: Well, I'll run that 3 by the rest of the committee. And if they're 4 comfortable with it, that's fine. Certainly 5 getting other people to listen to the 6 analysis and to offer suggestions as other 7 ways for them to look at the data works well. 8 The reason that Bob Groves wants 9 to do this preliminary meeting, it's not 10 going to be final data. It's not going to be 11 clean data. But I want him to sit down in 12 the committee and say are we in the right 13 direction. 14 MR. DeVAULT: Ceril, can you go 15 over once again all these cost overruns. But 16 this committee, just so that everything is, 17 we understand your perspective of all of 18 these cost overruns. 19 MS. SHAGRIN: My perspective on 20 the cost overrun is that the biggest piece of 21 it is the money that was paid to RTI. When 22 Nielsen priced this and the agreement was 23 they would not charge against the money that 24 the CRE had, any internal costs, that the 25 only thing that would go against the project 173 1 was external costs. And that they would do 2 all, 100 percent of the in-person data 3 collection. 4 Because of the accelerated 5 schedule for LPM and other initiatives at 6 Nielsen, Nielsen said we cannot do the 7 in-person data collection. Our 8 recommendation is that we have RTI do it. We 9 had a meeting of the committee with RTI. And 10 RTI gave a proposal of what it would cost for 11 them to do it, which, at that time, was 12 $500,000. That agreement was signed by 13 Nielsen. It was managed by Nielsen. And if 14 the actual cost was more than $500,000, that 15 was a contract that Nielsen had with RTI, in 16 my opinion. 17 So we have brought that up. And 18 then we had to make a donation to the 19 students in order for them, we had to give a 20 grant to the students for them to work on 21 this project. That was funded and included 22 in the cost to go through May. We then 23 extended it from May to September. We are 24 now extending it from September probably 25 until close to the end of the year. 174 1 We don't want to lose graduate 2 students that have been working on this. 3 And, again, those overruns, in my opinion, 4 would not have happened if we'd been on the 5 schedule we were supposed to be on. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sure a lot of 7 people would like to discuss that. But I 8 would say we already have a mechanism. 9 So, Ceril, thanks for making it 10 very clear for all the new members exactly 11 how you view those facts. I think we do have 12 a mechanism though that we don't have to 13 discuss that debate right now. Because that 14 we'll take up in the finance committee like 15 we said. Nielsen reps will be there. We're 16 going to get new volunteers for the finance 17 committee. We have a mechanism to address 18 that. It is a big issue. 19 I think it's responsible for 20 Richard your swing comment that the one, it's 21 either 1.7 million or 2.2 million. So it's a 22 big enough issue that it's important. But I 23 think importantly we have a mechanism to do 24 it. 25 MR. GREEN: Just if I can make 175 1 one comment about that. And that is that 2 Nielsen's made payments in a timely manner to 3 make sure that there was no disruption in 4 this process. And I agreed that the finance 5 committee would place the work out. 6 MR. ZACKON: Thank you for that. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Absolutely. I 8 didn't mean to actually cut off, per se, this 9 financial debate. But because we have a 10 mechanism and because we have other 11 committees that need to have the time to get 12 in, and I want to leave enough time for 13 communications, because it's going to be big, 14 let's move on to Shari. 15 Shari, I do want to make a 16 comment. You probably thought of this. But 17 if not, I just thought I'd make the point 18 that when several of us attended the initial 19 presentation of results or a presentation 20 recently at Sequent, we were told, correctly 21 so, that we're not supposed to share any 22 data, et cetera, et cetera. I just wanted to 23 make the comment that if we read this chart 24 into the record, then does that mean that 25 like, I think as a CRE, we get to kind of do 176 1 what we want. But does that mean that we're 2 willing at least to share this much with 3 anybody that goes to the website. And that 4 anybody could be newspaper reporters. 5 MS. BRILL: The information that 6 I've given to everybody here is absolutely 7 shareable. And that is the only table that 8 can be shared. And so for those of you who 9 are on the phone, I apologize because I did 10 not make this available via E-mail. But I 11 will E-mail this slide to the Council members 12 who obviously need it. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Shari, can you 14 also follow the ground rule that Ceril has, 15 that we have new members. 16 MS. BRILL: Yes. 17 MR. GREEN: Before we start 18 sharing charts, can I just make, there's some 19 CRE logo on these charts, if we're going to 20 share anything that goes out. 21 MS. BRILL: Do we have one? 22 MR. GREEN: At least mark that 23 it's CRE resource, something like that, just 24 so there's a logo or not. That's all I'm 25 saying. 177 1 MS. BRILL: I will brand it as 2 such. And for now, everyone in the room 3 don't circulate what you have in front of 4 you. And I will make sure that it's branded 5 accordingly. 6 For those of you who are new to 7 the group, I want to give you a little 8 background as to where this study came from. 9 This study was born probably a little bit 10 after the inception of the CRE itself. It 11 was at our second meeting in the fall of '05 12 where we started trying what we had really 13 wanted to understand was how are consumers 14 accessing content. How are they engaging 15 with the new platforms and screens. 16 We had so many people who I 17 worked with seemed to think that everybody 18 was reporting shows on their DVRs and 19 fast-forwarding through commercials. And 20 VCRs were dead and nobody watches 30-second 21 spots. And the list goes on. And it was 22 endless. At the time, DVRs were in 4 percent 23 of the country. But so many people who I 24 worked with were referring to their own 25 anecdotal information and those of what their 178 1 colleagues were doing. 2 And, as we know, those of us in 3 the media industry are not like the rest of 4 the country. So we formed a committee called 5 Media Consumption and Engagement. And our 6 objective was to dimensionalize the current 7 consumption of media across all platforms 8 with the objective of understanding how it's 9 changing over time in order to propose the 10 optimum form of media measurement. 11 Our emphasis was, what we had 12 wanted to do was really on video. But we 13 wanted to see video in the context of other 14 media consumption and in life's activities. 15 We circulated an RFP to the industry. And 16 after reviewing about a dozen proposals that 17 came in, we selected the proposal that best 18 matched our objectives. And that was the 19 work being done with us by Ball State 20 University and Sequent Partners. And so just 21 to lay out, so we put this proposal in front 22 of the Council. We really liked what was 23 being done. And many of the Council members 24 were a little skeptical of the approach, 25 which is direct computer observation of a 179 1 consumer's waking day. So what we did was, 2 we did a pilot study that tested the 3 technique. 4 MR. ZACKON: When you say 5 computerized, a human being with a hand-held 6 computer. 7 MS. BRILL: Yes. It is a 8 observer. We use observers to look at how 9 consumers are accessing content across all 10 platforms. And they're using a little piece 11 of hardware called a Dana which collects 12 information in 10-second increments. So a 13 trained observer is using this device and 14 following a respondent around through their 15 waking day. 16 MS. BURNS: 16 hours, right? 17 MS. BRILL: Yes. It can be as 18 much as 16 hours. But I think our average 19 waking day was about 14.5. And then another 20 two hours was added on that was collected 21 prior to the time the interviewer, the 22 observer arrived. Because clearly you have 23 some private time when you first wake up in 24 the morning. 25 So there was additional 180 1 questionnaires that collected what that 2 respondent was doing prior to the observer's 3 arrival. And then after they departed, there 4 was follow-up as to what was being done after 5 their departure through the remainder of 6 their waking day that they couldn't be there 7 to watch. 8 So once the pilot study was 9 reviewed and we were happy with its results, 10 we had a whole series of success criteria. 11 And I know we're pressed for time here. But 12 all of our work is summarized on the Research 13 Excellence website. All the minutes and 14 everything we've done is posted up there. So 15 I'd like to refer you to that. 16 We were awarded approval by the 17 Council in December of '06, December of '07 18 to proceed with the full national study. Our 19 core sample is based on 350 respondents. 20 There are two rounds of fieldwork. 21 Then we added a secondary 22 component called Media Acceleration, where a 23 hundred respondents were given access to what 24 we considered to be game-changing devices. 25 And what we do is we artificially sped up the 181 1 consumer adoption process by dropping the 2 process by 50 percent. So if a respondent 3 chose an item that was valued at $1,000 4 retail, they would only have to pay 500. 5 Included in our battery of devices were HD 6 TVs. But we capped that at $2,000 retail 7 because we didn't want people just blowing 8 the budget on, you know, a luxury item. Just 9 to circle back, we allowed them to purchase 10 up to $4,000 worth of consumer devices with a 11 cap of $2,000 in refund. 12 So here's where we're at now. We 13 are in the process, we already collected the 14 data from our round 1 observations of 15 fieldwork from the core sample of 350. In 16 terms of the media acceleration, we had a 17 pre-observation component. Then they were 18 accelerated over the summer months. And 19 we're now in the field with a second round of 20 observations for both the core sample, the 21 second round of 350. And then we're going to 22 do the post-acceleration observation. And I 23 believe that just started on Monday. The 24 second round of core was started on September 25 2nd. So that's sort of like the whole 182 1 background of what we're doing. 2 We had two reported workshops 3 because we have results from the first round 4 of fieldwork. And one of the issues that we 5 have had was we wanted to make sure that what 6 we were seeing in our technique gelled with 7 what we saw coming out of the Nielsen people 8 meter sample. 9 So, basically, just to circle 10 back for those of you who are new and just a 11 reminder of those of you who aren't as 12 intimately involved as myself and the rest of 13 the committee, our sample was drawn from FTL 14 homes in five, forced turnover homes in five 15 markets: Dallas, Atlanta, Chicago, Philly 16 and Seattle. And the first thing we had 17 wanted to do was just to see how well do 18 these markets line up with the national 19 people meter sample in terms of put. 20 And we compared the April-May 21 data because that was when we were in the 22 field with the core. So much to back up and 23 inform the new people. And the put level 24 data lined up really, really well with what 25 was coming out of M3M. So we felt really 183 1 confident on that level. 2 Now, I would like to hand-direct 3 to you the handout. And, again, I apologize 4 for those of you on the phone. What we do 5 was we wanted to vett our data, which is very 6 rigorous. Because as I said, that Dana 7 device and the observer collects, collects 8 observations in 10-second increments. So 9 they are literally following this person 10 around wherever they go, be it within their 11 homes, someone else's home, gym, workplace. 12 And they're also looking at other life 13 activities. You know, mail preparation, 14 eating in front of the TV, et cetera, et 15 cetera. So what we know that the people 16 meter technique and our Dana technique and 17 the video consumer mapping study technique is 18 very rigorous. 19 So, we really wanted to, for us 20 to really corroborate what we were doing, we 21 wanted to compare the the techniques 22 together. So in front of you, you have an 23 excerpt from the three screen report which 24 was issued by Nielsen back in May. And we're 25 looking at the time spent with television. 184 1 So the first level is the actual 2 data that was seen in that report. I'm sure 3 many of you have received the report because 4 we're all Nielsen clients here. And what we 5 did was because the core group that we did, 6 we basically have three age categories. So 7 although Nielsen collected quite a few 8 different age categories, what we have, we 9 combined the two together on the Nielsen 10 side. And broke it down to minutes per day. 11 Because our observations take a consumer 12 through one day. And Nielsen's information 13 was based on monthly data. So we had to 14 bring down the numbers to make it comparable 15 so that the Nielsen information was based on 16 the core demos that we measure. And we have 17 daily minutes. 18 So the first thing I'd like to 19 direct you to is the lower part where you 20 have the Nielsen numbers for broad agency 21 groups. And this was based on our weighting 22 down. And you have 241 minutes a day for 23 adults 18 to 24. 289 for adults 35 to 54. 24 And 363 on the adult 55-plus side. 25 Now, circling down, we are based 185 1 and total respondents based done on the core 2 respondents only, not acceleration. You 3 have, based on our manipulation, well, not 4 manipulation, but we excluded the zero days 5 when viewers weren't tuned, weren't watching 6 TV. And we also excluded that portion of the 7 observation minutes where viewers were not 8 within their home. Because Nielsen is an 9 in-home study, in-home data. And we wanted 10 to make sure that our information was 11 comparable to that in home definition. 12 So based on whether you include 13 the zero viewing or exclude the zero viewing, 14 our bottom line results are reasonably close. 15 We came up with a range of 237 to 223 minutes 16 for adult ages 20-34 versus the 241 which is 17 reasonably close considering the difference 18 in measurement. 19 Nielsen is average minute. And 20 we're in 10-second increments. 289 daily 21 minutes versus the 299 and 278 that we picked 22 up in our study. And then a range of 363 to 23 347 on the adult 55-plus side versus 363 for 24 Nielsen. So we feel really good about how 25 these numbers are matching up. 186 1 And this, for us, this was really 2 an important acid test to vett the capability 3 with what we're doing with what we already 4 know from television viewing from Nielsen. 5 And that, for us, that really puts a big 6 layer of credibility onto the work that we're 7 doing with our study. Anybody have any 8 questions on this, thus far, because it's a 9 lot to go. But we're very pleased with the 10 results. 11 So here's the constitution of the 12 VCM study right now. Again, we had the 13 workshops where we're looking at how to 14 report the data in a format that will be 15 usable and informative to all of us in the 16 industry. 17 Some of the occupants that we're 18 looking at is we're obviously mapping 19 consumers' media consumption throughout their 20 waking day. We're going to look at shares of 21 the media day. How they go from medium to 22 medium. Simultaneous usage, concurrent, 23 including concurrent exposure. Which medium 24 is primary versus secondary or solitary, or 25 has more of a chance to be solitary. Daily 187 1 region to region. Selected analyses by 2 location. Concurrent life activities. The 3 time of exposure. What are the differences 4 in attention when you have sole versus social 5 viewing with other people. And all kinds of 6 audience segmentations by demographic age, 7 ethnicity, income. High tech homes. And 8 also the degree of consumer innovation. 9 And on the media acceleration 10 side, we're also going to be, you know, 11 looking at the pre and post-acceleration. 12 Looking at the devices they chose. Going to 13 compare waves 1 and 2 on the core sample. 14 And then compare how the accelerated people 15 media habits have changed versus the change 16 from 1 and 2 on our core group. 17 We're hoping that our relates 18 will provide really good guidance for what 19 type measurement, for audience measurement 20 priorities for Nielsen. We're looking at 21 what will the implications be for 22 non-measured devices and other locations that 23 are not currently tracked by Nielsen. 24 We're also going to learn about 25 viewing in contextual frameworks and for new 188 1 education opportunities implications. We're 2 going to have videotaped interviews for the 3 observers to learn about their experience, 4 what they took away from it. What 5 difficulties they may have encountered. 6 We're also going to have video interviews 7 with the media acceleration participants to 8 see what their experience looks like. So 9 that's where we're at in a nutshell. 10 We are coming out of the second 11 round of fieldwork right before lunch today. 12 I'm hopeful that maybe we can share some top 13 line findings with the group when we meet 14 again in December. So there you have it. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Shari. 16 Any other comments? I know we're 17 going to be bringing this topic up during the 18 communication section. 19 MS. BRILL: Yes. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: So we won't now 21 entertain those. 22 Anything to ask, Shari? Yes. 23 MS. SIMMONS: I just want to 24 understand this a little bit. 25 The purpose of this was to 189 1 compare the TV usage habit of the households 2 in the test sample to some pre-existing data? 3 MS. BRILL: Well, that's not 4 really the purpose of the study. That piece 5 of it was to validate the work we were doing. 6 MS. SIMMONS: Yes. 7 MR. ZACKON: It's the purpose of 8 this document, Noreen. 9 MS. SIMMONS: I was understanding 10 that correctly. So I guess my question is 11 this is validating that the TV piece of it 12 matches. 13 Is there also validation work 14 being done in the same households for the 15 amount of time that people spend online or 16 with mobile phones or magazines, or anything 17 like that, or are you guys comfortable that 18 by matching on the TV side that you have a 19 representative sample? 20 MS. BRILL: And it's interesting 21 that you bring that up because it does get us 22 thinking in that direction. 23 This study and this Council was 24 formed by Nielsen Media Research. There is, 25 you know, within the Nielsen company, we do 190 1 have Nielsen Online and Nielsen Mobile. And 2 it's not. But I do know that the Nielsen's 3 people meter side, that there's nothing 4 better than the Nielsen people meter sample 5 and the rigor that's placed on producing this 6 quality currency data that we get. 7 It might be interesting to bring 8 in the Nielsen Online folks and Nielsen 9 Mobile. But I have to say I don't really 10 know enough about their sample quality and 11 their currency quality to use them as 12 benchmarks. But it may make for interesting 13 comparisons. 14 MR. GREEN: I think this is a 15 great moment to interject something that I've 16 been talking about with Richard. 17 And I think he's been talking 18 about it with other folks. And I think might 19 be in the agenda later. And that is 20 especially since we have a lot of new people, 21 I was going to say rookies, but new people on 22 the Council. And that is that the Council's 23 mission is about researching television. And 24 so the question about whether to expand the 25 mission or not is an excellent question. And 191 1 this is an excellent reason to raise that 2 question. So maybe later. 3 MR. ZACKON: If I can, it's a 4 good question, Noreen. We don't have good 5 comparable data. We haven't seen it yet for 6 the other media. What we can look at and 7 I've asked the Ball State/Sequent 8 people to look at are the annual time use 9 studies that the government does. I know 10 John Robson, University of the Maryland used 11 to do that kind of work. Because it's not 12 just media usage. It's other activities that 13 people do. 14 So we're looking to validate the 15 individual components of each of this. The 16 actual value of the study is to see these 17 pieces together. And we know of no way 18 outside of this study to do that. But 19 whatever sources people have, you might well 20 want to join the committee and participate 21 and ask those questions there. 22 MS. SIMMONS: You're right. 23 MS. BURNS: Richard and Shari, 24 I'm remembering this conversation coming up 25 during one of our conference calls. And we 192 1 had said that we would look into the Nielsen 2 home technology report for further 3 verification beyond just gut levels to see 4 whether there's a correlation between some of 5 the other new technologies. 6 MR. ZACKON: That's ownership of 7 home technologies, not necessarily usage. So 8 we'll look to see what we can find. I 9 naively asked what about radio, which I was 10 reminded that's mainly measured nationally 11 through a diary. 12 MR. SUSSMAN: I have a question. 13 I don't recall whether this was set up. 14 What was the respondent? What 15 were we told about the reason for this study? 16 Was it media or just day-in-the-life? 17 MS. BRILL: It's so long ago. 18 But, again, everyone in our study with the 19 exception of the media acceleration people 20 who were recruited separately were former 21 Nielsen homes. So Nielsen did the initial 22 recruitment. And I assume they liked to 23 participate in the study and be followed by 24 an observer to see how they -- I'm not sure 25 the exact script that Nielsen did because I'm 193 1 so involved in the result now. I'll have to 2 get back to you on how we had gone through 3 that initial process with the full study. 4 But they were told exactly that they were 5 being followed through their waking days to 6 see what they do and how they go about 7 accessing content. So it wasn't a disguised 8 thing by any means. 9 And I think having the Nielsen 10 name behind it and the fact that they were 11 Nielsen, they were used to being part of a 12 panel. And, you know, comfortable with the 13 process. And even from the pilot study, we 14 had done interviews with some of the people 15 who had participated. And they were very 16 comfortable with the whole process. And for 17 those who have participated in media 18 acceleration, they were already asking to do 19 it again, because who wouldn't want cool 20 stuff at 50 percent discount. 21 MR. ZACKON: Ira, in answer to 22 your question, we did our best not to cue 23 them so that it was separately related. In 24 fact, we have some other questions about 25 media usage we were not asking until they're 194 1 complete with the second observation. 2 MR. GREEN: Just to be clear, 3 when we said Nielsen homes, we're talking 4 about very specifically the television homes. 5 So Nielsen has all sorts of homes. But the 6 forced turnover television homes. 7 MS. SINGER: Question: The data 8 I'm assuming is being analyzed by Sequent and 9 Ball State, right? 10 MS. BURNS: Right. Without 11 looking over their shoulders. 12 MR. ZACKON: Some excellent 13 people at Ball State whom you may know, 14 Barbara. 15 MS. BRILL: We're working very 16 closely with them. 17 MS. BURNS: We have weekly calls 18 reviewing the data that came in that week. 19 MS. SINGER: My question is when 20 they're all said and done and seen all the 21 analysis, who owns the data and where does it 22 go? 23 MR. ZACKON: That's a good 24 question for our communications committee. 25 Nielsen owns the data. That was a setup of 195 1 the Council. But the question, how will we 2 distribute it, and that's what one of the 3 communications questions is going to address. 4 MR. GREEN: Just to be clear, did 5 BSU and Sequent own the data? Nielsen does. 6 MR. ZACKON: That will be part of 7 the discussion when we have the conversation 8 on communications. 9 MS. BRILL: They don't own the 10 data. But they do own the observation 11 technique. That is theirs. 12 MR. GREEN: That's right. 13 MS. SHAGRIN: Noreen wants to ask 14 something. 15 MS. SIMMONS: On the project 16 Apollo stuff work that was done, there was 17 work done by the people at Ball State while 18 they were home when they had the televisions 19 on. Is that part of the testing that was 20 done for this? And if it's not, is that data 21 that is available through Nielsen to infuse 22 into this to get some additional information? 23 MR. GREEN: Let me answer that 24 question since a lot of the folks here are 25 not familiar with the details on the project 196 1 Apollo. And I happen to be familiar with it. 2 The methodology is the same 3 methodology used in both cases. The data's 4 independent. The homes are independent. And 5 in terms of sharing the data, I'd need to 6 consult with Council because that's not owned 7 by Nielsen independently. If it was, the 8 answer would probably be yes. But there is 9 that complication. 10 MR. ZACKON: Shari, Noreen's 11 question, who owns the Danas after the 12 study's over, the little devices themselves 13 for which the Council paid. That's a 14 conversation we had with Ball State. I don't 15 know the value. But maybe for scrap. 16 MS. BRILL: That I don't know. 17 But I think earlier incarnations of the 18 observation work they have done, the Dana was 19 programmed for 15-second increments. And 20 part of our pilot test was to see if it would 21 work in 10-second increments, a much more 22 rigorous measure given the tasks that we were 23 trying to measure. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: We really should 25 move on. That was excellent. It's exciting 197 1 to hear the study is so close to reporting. 2 And we'll cover that in the communications 3 section. Let's do an urgent question. I 4 suggest we move on. 5 MS. BRILL: Before we move on, I 6 just want to thank the committee for all of 7 the great work. Because people have been 8 working so hard to have this come to 9 fruition. And it's been such a great team 10 effort. So I just wanted to thank everyone. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: As with other 12 committees, are you still open to new members 13 at this point or doesn't it make sense to 14 take new members? What do you think? New 15 members to join? Shari. 16 MS. BRILL: Absolutely. We're in 17 the reporting phase or getting very close to 18 it. So absolutely, the only criteria for 19 membership is that you participate. We have 20 weekly phone calls. I'd like you -- 21 A VOICE: You just discouraged 22 everybody. 23 MS. BRILL: And we have 24 workshops. So if you're going to step up and 25 join, you also have to step up and 198 1 participate. 2 MR. GREEN: I think it's 3 worthwhile to thank Shari Anne for running 4 this committee. It's been a tremendous 5 amount of work on her behalf to get this 6 going. So, yes. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Great. Let the 8 record show. 9 MR. ZACKON: As facilitator, 10 let's thank Ceril and all the members of her 11 committee and all the other committees. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: I will not accept 13 any more interruptions to letting Nancy get 14 the floor. That was excellent. Thank you 15 very much. 16 And Nancy, again, describe just a 17 couple of seconds, same format. Give us an 18 update. What you're all about and where 19 we're going. 20 MS. BRILL: Actually, I hate to 21 interrupt again... 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Ask Nancy for the 23 floor. 24 MS. BRILL: Can I say one more 25 thing. I'm sorry, Nancy. But even though I 199 1 shared this information with the Council, I'm 2 actually not comfortable with putting it up 3 on the website at this time. I've to get 4 clearance from Ball State. So I just wanted 5 to add that. Let the record reflect that. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 7 MS. GALLAGHER: This committee is 8 Media-Related Universe Estimates. As many 9 people, as you all probably know, some of the 10 media-related factors don't have an 11 independent universe estimate upon which to 12 judge if the samples are correct or not 13 correct. So the purpose of this committee is 14 to basically see if we can find some sort of 15 methodology to use either in creating 16 universe estimates or at the very least as a 17 valid documentation of what's going on and 18 whether they're going to also, hopefully, as 19 we get data in, we may discover certain 20 things work. Certain things appear to have 21 some issues. And try to hone in on where 22 there are issues. 23 So this is a fairly, it's 24 probably through Phase 1. So we're 25 definitely open to a lot of volunteers now 200 1 because we've just done the RFP stage. We're 2 now actually getting near the implementation 3 stage where we can really use some more 4 volunteers, since one of our best volunteers, 5 Tim, retired on us. 6 So, anyway, we went through all 7 our RFPs. We sent two of them back for 8 revision. And then we kind of picked one 9 that we think will work for us. And it's 10 with RTI. And I'm not going to take you 11 through whatever, 30 pages of it. I put it 12 into an address-based sample. We're looking 13 at probably 1,200 cases for 600 completes. 14 It's a 30-minute field interview. There will 15 be Spanish language interviewers. This is 16 going to be in the Dallas-Fort Worth market. 17 One of the reasons, two reasons 18 for doing this we wanted and the PM market so 19 there would be Nielsen sample data to compare 20 our data to. And we also wanted a market 21 that was not overly high tech like San 22 Francisco or Seattle, but which also had a 23 heavy ethnic component. You wouldn't want to 24 do Boston where you really couldn't 25 effectively test something in the Hispanic 201 1 universe. 2 And they are going to have some 3 incentive. We suggested a $10 incentive. We 4 actually wanted to speak to them about maybe 5 doing some incentive testing as part of this. 6 Because if there's things we find that are 7 useful going forward and cost becomes an 8 issue, we would like to do a little extra 9 incentive testing. And then part of their 10 proposal is that 20 percent of the interviews 11 will be validated. We think that's also 12 pretty important to do. 13 We have a calendar. And if we 14 get approval from the group today for funding 15 and everything, they're saying October would 16 be for sample design and preliminary 17 questionnaire draft. And then in fourth 18 quarter it would be sample selection and very 19 heavy questionnaire testing. Because as we 20 know with media-related universes, it's 21 really, this is really where the details of 22 the devil is going to be in. 23 Yes, Henry? 24 MR. DeVAULT: One of my questions 25 is how are you guys going to address digital 202 1 conversion? 2 MS. GALLAGHER: That comes up 3 when you get to the calendar. You'll notice 4 we're not going into the field until after 5 the digital conversion should have rolled. 6 MR. DeVAULT: I understand. But 7 when you're going in the fourth quarter with 8 questionnaire testing in designing the 9 questionnaire, there may be some digital 10 issues that would not manifest itself until 11 the first quarter in terms of how to use it, 12 what, you know, and what they actually have 13 and their capabilities. 14 MS. GALLAGHER: Other than asking 15 about a digital, about the actual converter 16 box, I don't know whether there are issues, 17 there would be. This is what people own. 18 This is not a behavior sample. This is 19 strictly ownership. It's not that people 20 know how to use the stuff they have. It's 21 just so they have it. 22 MR. DeVAULT: Okay. Because one 23 of the things in addition to one of my 24 concerns, for example, is that in February 25 universe estimates may very well change. 203 1 MS. GALLAGHER: We've actually 2 talked to Nielsen a bit about that and what 3 they're going to do is: They are going to 4 have point in time things in the sample. So 5 we can actually look through that so we can 6 see, well, when they're out in the field in 7 the second quarter, Nielsen can actually see 8 what the second, what changes occurred in 9 their sample at that point in time and how 10 that compares to maybe the fourth quarter 11 sample. 12 So we have had, you know, we 13 talked to -- Christine Pierce is working with 14 us at Nielsen. And she did say that we will 15 be able to get your specific point in time 16 type of things. So this is part of why our 17 schedule is this way. Because you're asking 18 to do a lot of the testing in the fourth 19 quarter. This includes developing the 20 questionnaire in English, testing it, the 21 translation into the Spanish. Then more 22 testing to make sure that that translation 23 also works. 24 And then, you know, first quarter 25 is kind of the field staff recruitment and 204 1 training. Second quarter is most of the data 2 collection and entry. And then third quarter 3 mostly July is analysis and report. And the 4 date that we have for a final report at the 5 the moment is August 8, 2009. So it's going 6 to be a yearlong process which is like plenty 7 of time to get involved. And here's the 8 projected cost. This is a little too exact 9 for me, but, you know, $421,311. 10 I mean, I'm thinking there might 11 be a little flux in here. So what I have for 12 funding, I'm going to kind of build in a 13 teeny bit of overrun just because we kind of 14 see that that's pretty much happened in every 15 group, that there has been a little overrun. 16 So I think I'm going to ask for, I think, 17 77,5. So that if it comes out you need a few 18 more sampling points or something, I don't 19 have to have a holdup while waiting to ask 20 for money. So I'm going to ask for funding 21 of 775,000. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you stating 23 that right now; is a recommendation? 24 MS. GALLAGHER: Yes, I am. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: No, seriously. 205 1 You said it's going to be. Does that mean 2 you want to discuss it some more or put it on 3 the floor right now? 4 MS. GALLAGHER: We do want to put 5 it on the table now. Because we'd like to if 6 we're going to go ahead with it, we'd like 7 approval today so we can start the clock 8 running. Because this schedule is based on a 9 clock starting running on the 1st. 10 MR. GREEN: Apart from curiosity, 11 is part of the schedule proposal of payments 12 because that will affect the way Jessica 13 wants to look at the accounts in terms of 14 what funds are available? 15 MS. GALLAGHER: I don't think I 16 have that. But I can certainly get that for 17 you. 18 MR. GREEN: Thank you. 19 MR. ZACKON: Nancy, you might 20 have conversation with RTI, given that 21 they've done another study for us and there 22 were overruns on that other study. At the 23 very least, ensure what they're going to put 24 in place, that that won't happen. 25 MS. GALLAGHER: We also want to 206 1 have a tighter control mechanism with more 2 reporting directly into the committee so that 3 there aren't any shocks that may have been 4 communicated to Nielsen that we haven't heard 5 about. 6 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: What other 7 companies did you get proposals from? 8 MS. GALLAGHER: We had proposals 9 from Knowledge Network, Magette, Ohio State, 10 Synovate. 11 MR. ZACKON: And another one. 12 MS. GALLAGHER: There was 13 somebody else that was a very mall urban 14 group. I can't remember their name. 15 MR. ZACKON: By the way, let me 16 say we've not yet notified the people whose 17 proposals are not being recommended. So I 18 would request just a delay of people in this 19 room and on the phone of informing them. 20 I'll inform them after this meeting. But, 21 you know, we have if you have a friend 22 working on those companies. 23 MS. GALLAGHER: We kind of wanted 24 to have something approved before we 25 finalized that. 207 1 THE CHAIRMAN: On this topic, 2 Richard, do we want all these names that 3 Nancy's just written in the record. 4 Can we ask that be stricken? 5 MR. ZACKON: Transparency says 6 that we spoke about them. 7 MS. BUSLIK: You should also be 8 aware that this is our second go-around with 9 them. The first proposal was way higher. 10 And we've been working with them to make it a 11 more reasonable cost. On one of the issues 12 that we've had with all of them, the high, 13 and we're still working on that. But Nancy's 14 been networking like hell. 15 MR. GREEN: Independent of cost, 16 which I'm sure is part of the decision, what 17 attracted you to this as opposed to other 18 proposals? 19 MS. GALLAGHER: There are certain 20 ones that we threw out right away. Because 21 we had major issues with the sampling frame. 22 Particularly anyone who was doing random 23 digital dialing which was still one. 24 Also, these people aren't 25 experienced in in-person interviewing which 208 1 had a good reputation for. You know, there 2 was the other, you know, proposal that we 3 sort of sent back for other work. It was 4 like a series of different methodologies. 5 That was if they don't do this, then we go to 6 this, then we go to that. Then we go to 7 this, which was interesting. 8 But it didn't look like it would 9 be practical in the long run to come back for 10 more cost reductions. It could only get to a 11 certain level of cost. And we'd like 12 something, part of the requirement on the RFP 13 was that it would be something that actually 14 could be implemented and used. 15 And this would look like the 16 great academic study on how to do something. 17 But it didn't look like something that could 18 practically be replicated. 19 MR. SUSSMAN: I have a question 20 on universe estimates. This will be done in 21 one market. And I guess it's kind of like 22 the idea of a national look. Is there an 23 idea of doing this repeatedly, or, I mean, 24 first of all, point in time, that has one. 25 Secondly, it's one market. It's not getting, 209 1 I mean, ultimately you'd want it in every 2 market, large/small. 3 MS. GALLAGHER: Part of what 4 we're finding out is how big an issue we have 5 to the begin with even within this one 6 market. And then kind of look at what if 7 there are parts of this that, you know, the 8 way they ask the questions. If there's 9 methodology adopted or put into an 10 enumeration or, you know, we are looking at 11 this as a way to actually arrive at a 12 national UE. But to try to do a test study 13 on a national UE would be way, way, way, way 14 too expensive for this group. 15 MS. SHAGRIN: And remarks I think 16 the whole patch up is if the numbers came out 17 looking very close to what the Dallas sample 18 based UEs are, I think we'd all breathe a 19 sigh of saying we can continue to do that. 20 And if they're dramatically 21 different, then we're going to work with 22 Nielsen and try and look at the data to see 23 what needs to be different to improve the 24 media-related UEs. And we wanted to pick an 25 LPM market so that we'd have enough sample to 210 1 look at. 2 MR. SUSSMAN: That makes sense. 3 The original conversations we 4 had, I guess, in our MRC meetings about doing 5 something like this was totally separate and 6 totally overwhelming since it was very 7 different. 8 MS. GALLAGHER: New York is very 9 involved in this. 10 MS. SHAGRIN: Two comments. One, 11 when we do sign the contract or when they 12 have to sign the contract, whoever signs the 13 final contract, I think we want to make sure 14 that they understand it's a fixed price. And 15 if there is an overrun, this is it. We're 16 not paying any more as a fixed price. I'm 17 sure all of us buy a lot of primary research 18 and it's a fixed price. And the other is 19 when I looked at this earlier, I don't think 20 I noticed how much was systems programming. 21 And we might want to challenge that. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: I want to make 23 sure that since this is going to come to a 24 vote, I know the folks on the phone, I know 25 sometimes having been on the phone myself 211 1 it's hard to jump in. Especially when the 2 microphones are being passed back and forth 3 here. 4 Anyone on the phone who would 5 like to make a comment because we're going to 6 vote soon, okay. Any other comments? 7 MR. GREEN: Just to go back to 8 what Ceril was saying a moment ago, are you 9 asking for kind of to see how far down the 10 systems comes first, or just make the vote 11 and then go back? 12 MS. GALLAGHER: I would 13 personally like to do the vote. And if we 14 come in lower, that's great. So if we don't 15 do the vote now, we're going to miss a whole 16 quarter. And then the whole time line really 17 goes to hell. 18 MR. GREEN: I just wanted to 19 bring clarity on that. That's all. 20 MS. SHAGRIN: I think my point 21 was we'll continue to work on this price. 22 But if this committee okays the 77,5 we're 23 not going to go out and try to spend it all. 24 We're going to spend as little as possible. 25 MR. GREEN: I think that's wise. 212 1 From the point of view of the CRE versus the 2 point of view of Nielsen, just for a second, 3 the CRE has a certain amount of money that it 4 can spend. The wiser it is with the money it 5 spends, the more it can do. So I think 6 that's worth saying and remembering. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that's why 8 the CRE are pushing so hard on that other 9 500,000. Exact same reason. 10 MR. GREEN: I understand that 11 too. But I wasn't going do bring that up. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Seriously, let me 13 try. Is there any nor discussion again? 14 MS. BURNS: Just to clarify two 15 points. Just to clarify two points before we 16 vote. One because we went through this on 17 our committee. And you're right, Nancy, if 18 you come in less, great. But we had asked 19 can you approve up to a certain amount. 20 So I just want to make sure we're 21 clear on what that number is in the up to 22 Ceril's point as we continue to hound them to 23 try to get the price down. And we did, even 24 though it was approved. 25 And then the last one is probably 213 1 the most important. And that is that it's a 2 lock firm price. They can't go over it. 3 Because as Ball State has encountered, 4 they're eating some costs now. There's been 5 some unexpected things that have happened and 6 they're honoring their price. So I just want 7 to. Am I clear on those? Because that's 8 part of our -- 9 THE CHAIRMAN: I'll phrase the 10 motion. Then if somebody wants to change 11 that to real capture, I think I phrased the 12 motion as resolved that we will do this 13 project. We want to name it media 14 estimation? 15 MR. NATHANSON: Media-related 16 universe estimates. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Resolved that 18 we're going to do this recommended project 19 for media-related universe estimate for a 20 budget of $775,000. 21 MR. NATHANSON: No more than. 22 MS. BURNS: Not to exceed. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Not to exceed 24 $77,500 according to the timetable 25 approximately as closely as possible to what 214 1 Nancy just laid out. 2 MR. GREEN: Mike, you could call 3 the vote. 4 Just for the new members, Nielsen 5 is a nonvoting member of the Council. I just 6 want to let the new members know that. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: All the other new 8 members are voting. I think that's right. 9 MR. ZACKON: You can take the man 10 off the chair but you can't take the chair 11 out of the man. 12 Mark, remind me that we should 13 get to know who's on the phone before we take 14 the vote. So let me just take a quick roll 15 call. You have to vote now. 16 MR. DeVAULT: Can I ask a quick 17 question? 18 THE CHAIRMAN: We're going to 19 extend the discussion period. We have a 20 point of clarification. 21 MR. DeVAULT: No. It's the way 22 the motion is phrased. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Fine, great. 24 MR. DeVAULT: If RTI doesn't 25 guarantee their price, can we back out of the 215 1 deal? 2 MR. NATHANSON: Yes. 3 MR. DeVAULT: I just want to make 4 sure. 5 (Short recess.) 6 MR. ZACKON: The following -- we 7 are on the phone. Vicky, are you there? 8 MS. CHAMPLIN: Yes. 9 MR. ZACKON: Okay. Kate, are you 10 there? 11 MS. SIRKIN: I am. 12 MR. ZACKON: George, are you 13 returned? Actually, George took away his own 14 voting right by choice. But he is on the 15 committee. He's on the Council. 16 Jessica, are you there.. 17 MS. PANTANINI: I am here. 18 MR. ZACKON: Mike Pardee, Dave 19 Poltrack, Steve Sternberg. 20 MR. STERNBERG: I'm here. 21 MR. ZACKON: Very good. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Let's go with 23 that. I think I've noticed in previous votes 24 that sometimes the phone people they have to 25 go last. So for the people who are here, why 216 1 don't you go first. And so, Richard, you 2 have the exact names. 3 Steve, would you vote yes or no. 4 MR. STERNBERG: To that? 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Steve, did we lose 6 you? 7 MR. STERNBERG: Talking to me? 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. What I'm 9 saying to the people on the phone is rather 10 than be overly swayed by the vote of the 11 group here, we're going to give you each a 12 chance to vote yes or no first. And then 13 we'll go around the room. I'll take hands. 14 But I don't want you to be overly influenced 15 by that. 16 So, Steve, yes or no to the 17 proposal as raised? 18 MR. STERNBERG: Yes. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: That's a yes. 20 Who else was on, Kate? 21 MS. SIRKIN: No pressure on 22 Steve. But I vote yes. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: And Jessica? 24 MS. PANTANINI: Yes. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. 217 1 MR. ZACKON: Is there anyone else 2 on the phone? 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other voting 4 members on the phone? Okay. Thank you. 5 Then I think for the rest of this 6 group though, we won't go around the room. 7 I'm just going to ask for a hands vote. 8 Raise your hands if it's a yes. 9 We have a lot of hands up. So 10 hands down. Raise your hand if it's a no. 11 And don't be afraid to stand out if you're a 12 no. Okay. Well, it looks like the motion is 13 carried. I didn't hear any no's, see any 14 no's. Carried unanimously. Let the record 15 show that. 16 Nancy, congratulations to you and 17 your committee. 18 MS. GALLAGHER: Any new 19 volunteers, contact me. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Right. Nancy, 21 you're not allowed any more comments because 22 that's called selling through the close. 23 You made your sale. Other than 24 recruiting committee members for a funded 25 committee. Nice job. And thank you for the 218 1 votes. And guess what? We have a person 2 with great sense of timing who, let's see if 3 I'm on the record here. 4 Pat Liguori just joined us in 5 time to vote. Right. Also to introduce 6 yourself quickly and also as chair of the set 7 top box committee to take us through that as 8 well. 9 MS. LIGUORI: I do want to say 10 that Joe Mandici wrote back to me last night. 11 And he said that he did publish the letter. 12 MR. ZACKON: Pat, we are running 13 behind. 14 MS. LIGUORI: I'll talk first. 15 The only reason I ask for the mic is because 16 I've been presenting for the last two and a 17 half days and I have no voice. But I think 18 that's average. 19 Anyhow, the notorious set top box 20 committee, what I'd like to do very briefly 21 is give you a chronology of what we've been 22 up to, which kind of is different from what I 23 might have been reading in the trades 24 recently. 25 The last meeting of this 219 1 committee of the CRE on March 14th, we had 2 originally determined we were going to study 3 commercial avoidance. And somewhere between 4 then and the first week in April we realized 5 that studying commercial avoidance using set 6 top boxes didn't really make sense because we 7 didn't know very much about set top boxes. 8 And there was a spate of articles coming out 9 in the Media Post and TV Board that pointed 10 to some issues. 11 So somewhere in April we agreed 12 to morph the committee. We came up with a 13 mission statement which what I've handed out 14 to each of you is the first page of the RFP 15 which contains the purposes of a scaled back 16 version of the mission statement. But it 17 covers the essence of it. Which is 18 basically, I don't think I gave myself a 19 copy, to conduct a comprehensive examination 20 of set top boxes, whether it's talking to 21 manufacturers, to Nielsen, to the NGs, to 22 Rentrak, to MSOs, to acquire enough learning 23 such that a white paper can be produced and 24 put out to the industry. So that people are 25 more aware of what exactly set top box 220 1 measurement involves. 2 So we've had several meetings. 3 Actually, we've had a couple of conference 4 calls in May and July and August just to 5 process our plan. The first conference call 6 had to, you know, we determined who, what 7 companies were the companies we'd like to 8 meet with. And Nielsen was first on our list 9 because we thought we'd get some learning 10 because we're all coming from this with not a 11 lot of knowledge. 12 So we did meet with Nielsen on 13 July 10th. And that was very informative. 14 We've currently got TNS scheduled on October 15 2nd to meet with George Shabab. He was, 16 George was very reluctant because of the 17 article positioning this group as Nielsen 18 backed and how Nielsen was going to take all 19 this learning and use it against their 20 competitors. But nonetheless, he agreed. 21 And I have to thank David Poltrack. Because 22 I believe David had a conversation with 23 George. So that was very, very helpful. 24 We also discussed on one of our 25 conference calls in July who we would send 221 1 the requests for proposals out to. And on 2 August 15th an RFP was sent out to the ARF, 3 CTam, NAB, Chronicle of Higher Education, as 4 well as Media Post. And Tim Brooks, Barry 5 Kresh, Dave Sornow, Jonathan Simms. 6 So as of the expected or the 7 deadline for submissions from them was 8 September 12th. And as of Friday I have four 9 proposals, I believe. Shall I say who 10 they're from, Richard; am I allowed? 11 MR. ZACKON: I don't know that 12 you need to. We're not voting on them now. 13 Just so you know there are a couple of others 14 that went out. And we have a promise for one 15 more that requested some additional time. So 16 it looks like we'll be choosing from among 17 five. 18 MS. LIGUORI: And in honesty, I 19 have not read them because they just came in. 20 And I have been tied up in these meetings and 21 tied up preparing for them. So, yes. I'm 22 looking forward to reading them and 23 distributing them to the subcommittee. 24 And I can't tell you what the 25 budget requests are, the range, because I 222 1 really have not looked at them. But we're 2 not expecting to spend a lot of money on 3 producing a white paper. And what else do I 4 need to say? 5 THE CHAIRMAN: What is TNS' 6 incentive, for example, to participate? 7 MS. LIGUORI: Probably, hopefully 8 they'll see it as an opportunity to provide a 9 very wide portion of the industry with 10 information about one of their newest 11 products. And I would think Rentrak and 12 Nielsen would, you know, feel the same way 13 about it. I mean, this is not going to be a 14 hatchet job. This is just here are the 15 facts. And, you know, do with them what you 16 will. There are a number of people, 17 companies that have already begun using this 18 data. So, in fact, one of the people is on 19 our committee. And, you know, we expect to 20 benefit from his experience. 21 MR. GREEN: Just wanted to make 22 one comment about the white paper. The 23 purpose of the white paper was in one of the 24 earlier meetings was kind of this notion of 25 wow, there's so much going on here, how are 223 1 we going to be able to invest our time to 2 really get ahold of this and frame what good 3 research to do going forward. 4 And so the idea came up, well, 5 why don't we hire somebody to essentially put 6 a landscape together of what's happening here 7 so that we can think about where to do good 8 research. And so I think that that was kind 9 of the origination. The white paper, I don't 10 know that that's well known, so I just 11 thought I'd throw that out there. 12 MR. NATHANSON: As somebody who 13 studies cable satellite providers as my 14 business, I think there's so much more change 15 happening on the MSO satellite level than 16 TNS. Cablevision's proposing a network, TVR, 17 which they are trying. I think that, I don't 18 know what your list of interviewer subjects 19 if it's not Time Warner Cable. 20 MS. LIGUORI: They're on the 21 list. Cablevision, Comcast, Charter. We do 22 have a list. And, as I said, we wanted to 23 get to cover as broadly as possible all the 24 players, whether they were the aggregators of 25 the original, which would be the MSO or the 224 1 satellite companies. The manufacturers of 2 the set top boxes. 3 If we can get in and find out 4 what the technical limitations are, that 5 would be very helpful, as well as the people 6 who are massaging the data and putting it 7 into a useful product. 8 MR. NATHANSON: On the other 9 hand, if you need other names, I know so many 10 people who are technically skilled in this 11 area who may be interested, as Media Post is, 12 in doing the work of content. I'll talk to 13 you later about it. 14 MR. DeVAULT: Sounds like a 15 volunteer, Pat. 16 MR. ZACKON: Anyone here, offers 17 of participation? 18 MR. NATHANSON: I will do it. 19 MR. ZACKON: Pat, would you be 20 looking for funding prior to our December 21 meeting such that we don't have to decide 22 here today, but would it be okay for the 23 Council if this was decided through E-mail? 24 MS. LIGUORI: Yes. We would like 25 to be looking for funding prior to that 225 1 meeting. And E-mail works for me. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you give us a 3 sense of how many figures, a figure, six 4 figures? 5 MS. LIGUORI: Low, low, low. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Lower than six 7 figure. Right. So I won't ask is it bigger 8 than a bread box. 9 MS. LIGUORI: As I said, I 10 haven't looked at the dollar figures that 11 came in on the RFPs. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: I think at that 13 level then it is doable by E-mail. My 14 numbers may be six figures and up. We should 15 probably debate, vote, and so on. But at a 16 low number, I think I would suggest, unless 17 there's strong disagreement, that we handle 18 that by E-mail. 19 MS. BUSLIK: I also think that 20 since these data are out there in the 21 industry, that those who are providing it and 22 want to share it will gain more from those 23 who say no I can't share. So I think that's 24 why there's sometimes responses to this. But 25 it's out there, so we need to look at it. 226 1 MR. GREEN: Not only share data 2 but influence the way we think about the 3 data. 4 MS. UYENCO: Can I ask a 5 question. I'm interested in knowing what the 6 breadth is of the buyers, the entities that 7 you are seek to include in this RFP. Would 8 you be including organizations also TV 9 included in their service offering? 10 MS. LIGUORI: We hadn't -- I can 11 tell you the list of companies. I mean at 12 this point we can expand, if it makes sense 13 to do that. Other than Nielsen, TNS, 14 Rentrak, Charter Communications, Cablevision, 15 Comcast, Canoe. 16 MS. UYENCO: Google. 17 MS. LIGUORI: Yes. We hadn't 18 discussed Google. But again, we can. The 19 subcommittee, we can take your input. If you 20 think there are people out there who are 21 involved in this in a way that it makes sense 22 for us to talk to them, I don't know how 23 much, I mean, we really need to understand 24 the workings of the technology. Because the 25 big attraction of this is the 227 1 second-by-second data. When, in fact, it may 2 not be the second-by-second data. So getting 3 that type of learning is key. And then, you 4 know, talking to the users I think would be 5 secondary. 6 MR. GREEN: Part of the 7 presentation that Nielsen did to the set top 8 box committee had a whole scope of 9 discussion. And one of the icons was Media 10 Center. 11 MS. UYENCO: That's won. 12 MR. GREEN: I know that. But the 13 point that I'm saying, kind of the scope is 14 very broad. And the purpose of the white 15 paper is to try to get a handle on it. 16 MS. UYENCO: Okay. 17 MR. GREEN: So I don't think, 18 this is not, this is not black and white by 19 any stretch of the imagination. 20 MS. UYENCO: Because at the risk 21 of looking at, seeming like I'm having a 22 conversation with Mark, I'll reference you 23 back to the conversations we've had. Because 24 Microsoft is doing a lot on this. Microsoft, 25 specifically the Media Center. But there's 228 1 also another organization that's looking for 2 end-to-end applications for people like 3 Comcast. That's why I ask that question. 4 It's not just the users themselves like 5 Comcast, but also developers of the software 6 that are developing and are marketing 7 end-to-end solutions. So I think they're a 8 little bit more, you know, they include UPT 9 TV, as well as managing your personal assets. 10 MS. LIGUORI: I think what we 11 should do is probably discuss it. Speak with 12 us on the subcommittee and see if it makes 13 sense. Because while we want to amass 14 learning, we don't want to go off in a 15 direction that may not have, that just takes 16 us away from what we're trying to do, which 17 is to provide basic knowledge of, you know, 18 this new measurement service. 19 MR. SUSSMAN: I think a lot of 20 these things will be answered when we 21 actually go through the RFPs and figure out 22 what's the best way of getting the 23 information. There may be just a cutoff from 24 what's reasonable that we can do in this type 25 of white paper. I don't think we're going to 229 1 get into TNS divulging some of their 2 technical issues and divulging their 3 technologies. It's going to be in a level 4 above that. I think we need to go through 5 the white papers and the RFPs to understand 6 that better. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Henry. 8 MR. DeVAULT: The original intent 9 of your committee was to look at commercial 10 avoidance. 11 MS. LIGUORI: Yes. 12 MR. DeVAULT: Then it shifted to 13 knowledge about set top box. Once you 14 obtained this knowledge on set top box, is 15 the game plan to go back to the evaluation 16 commercial avoidance? 17 MS. LIGUORI: Not in my plan. 18 That's another committee. 19 MR. DeVAULT: I just want to make 20 sure I understand the scope. 21 MS. LIGUORI: Yes. 22 MS. BUSLIK: I think as an 23 outsource of learning from understanding how 24 the set top boxes work, we may be stepping 25 towards that. But as soon as we talk about 230 1 commercial, using the term commercial 2 avoidance, I think we're hurting ourselves in 3 getting the information we need, which is why 4 we walked away from that. 5 MS. LIGUORI: That's such a big 6 topic in and of itself, commercial avoidance, 7 whether it's behavioral information that 8 you're looking at or whether it's through 9 technologies such as tuning, that it really 10 would have to be a separate project from -- 11 MR. DeVAULT: I wanted to know 12 whether the information that is being 13 gathered on set top box was a prelude to 14 additional studies in a different area. 15 MR. GREEN: I think the way to 16 think about it is it's research to figure out 17 what type of research to do. So what happens 18 is the research on the white paper gets 19 reported to the Council. The Council reacts 20 to it from the point of view of new business. 21 And says, you know, somebody raises their 22 hand. Says there's research to be done there 23 on this specific topic. You know. This 24 white paper was very informative. Help me 25 understand that. And then a committee gets 231 1 formed. And you go through the vetting 2 process. And, you know, go to Mike, you 3 know, behind the committee's back and get him 4 to set up so that there's a vote. Sorry 5 about that. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: You're right 7 though. It does sound like research on 8 research. And then I fully expect maybe one 9 or two committees to come out of that. So we 10 probably should try to move on. 11 The next two committees I think 12 will be very short. Because I'm one of them. 13 I only have a minute to say. But yet we 14 still are behind. And we are absolutely 15 committed to adjourning at 4 o'clock. So any 16 other urgent comments on this, Pat? Thank 17 you. 18 MS. LIGUORI: Thank you. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, then I 20 want to check George Ivie who heads up a new 21 committee on passive measurement. 22 George, are you there? I know he 23 had to step away for a while. 24 MR. ZACKON: That's the ultimate 25 passive measurement, nonresponsive committee. 232 1 MR. GREEN: George has not done 2 anything on the committee at this point. I 3 think that maybe my phraseology is bad. But 4 expect it next time around. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. And 6 then for myself, on psychographics, I think I 7 mentioned last time. That as I got more into 8 at least temporarily the dual function of 9 chair and steering committee chair, that has 10 absorbed all my time. And so Mark and I did 11 meet a few months ago in a foreign country 12 over breakfast to talk about psychographics. 13 Basically psychographics. 14 The purpose of the committee to 15 the new members is to see as the landscape 16 changes whether or not the current currency 17 which is obviously based on demographics 18 could also begin to change. Because work 19 that some of us have done before we got into 20 media research has shown that psychographics 21 are frankly often a better discriminator of 22 audiences than demographics are. And as 23 such, we decided to pursue psychographics as 24 a separate event. 25 Now, having said that, beyond 233 1 that breakfast meeting with Mark who has 2 expressed a strong interest in the same 3 topic. I would like to make some progress on 4 that topic between this meeting and the next. 5 I know I have Alex already as a signup. So 6 thank you very much. 7 So any other volunteers? You can 8 either volunteer today or E-mail me 9 separately if you're interested in 10 psychographics potentially and currency, 11 okay. And Jack Wakshlag is not here to make 12 his usually questioning skeptical comments 13 about psychographics. I invite him to be on 14 psychographics too. 15 MS. BURNS: Mike, what's your 16 time on this? The committee I'm on is very 17 time consumng, but I'm interested in yours. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Sign up and find 19 out. I'm not sure how much over the next few 20 minutes. 21 MS. BURNS: Play it by ear. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Play it by ear. 23 Because we knew in the last quarter that we 24 wouldn't make progress. I want to at least 25 make some progress. I don't see this 234 1 necessarily as high priority as some of the 2 other stuff that's going on. But I do have a 3 passion for it. So does Mark and maybe Alex. 4 MS. BURNS: I do too. I don't 5 want to short-shrift you if I volunteer. 6 MR. ZACKON: I hear a yes. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: That's a yes. 8 Thanks, thanks. So that wraps up the 9 committee reports. And now we can go have 10 lunch. No. Wait a second. We did that 11 already. No. Let's leave enough time for 12 communication. I think under Video and 13 Council and especially the committee starts 14 to overlap. That's where we'll definitely 15 make up some time. But, on the other hand, I 16 think the communication discussion could 17 really chew up some time. It certainly will 18 be interesting. And I'm going to ask Jessica 19 if Jessica are you ready to lead that? 20 MS. PANTANINI: I am ready. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. 22 MS. PANTANINI: Do we have the 23 slide up? 24 THE CHAIRMAN: We're going to 25 move it there. 235 1 MS. PANTANINI: Thanks. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: What's your lead 3 slide? 4 MS. PANTANINI: Go to the last 5 slide. I volunteered to lead this committee. 6 There are a couple of lead issues that, as I 7 see today, some of them we spoke of more of a 8 tactical perspective earlier in the day. 9 The first piece has to do with 10 branding. And all of us that are in this 11 room, some form or fashion, are attached to 12 branding in some way. Whether it's the 13 organization you work for, the clients that 14 you represent. We've got a mission which I 15 believe is in your packet. And it needs a 16 little bit of life breathed into it. 17 I'm not talking about doing 18 anything fancy here. I'm just talking about 19 making sure that we really clearly understand 20 what we want to stand for. And when I say 21 what we want to stand for is what is it that 22 we want people to say about us in the 23 industry when they think about the CRE. 24 Right now I think early in the 25 day there were comments about knowing who we 236 1 are. We don't exist in a lot of people's 2 minds. It's not seeing something you really 3 have an opportunity to get involved. And 4 that you understand all of the great work 5 that the CRE is doing. 6 The other piece is what are 7 communication sounds. What do we want our 8 tone to be in the marketplace. What kind of 9 voice do we want to have. Authoritative. Do 10 we want to have a voice that's a little bit 11 more peer to peer. So that's a piece that we 12 really need to identify as well. There is a 13 need coming out of the steering committee's 14 discussion yesterday to ensure we've got a 15 list of FAQs prepared. And whether that gets 16 posted on the website or distributed to each 17 one of the Council members is still up for 18 discussion. 19 And then there's all the other 20 communication tools that exist out in the 21 marketplace today. Whether it's a letter 22 that Mike wrote or our website in and of 23 itself. All of those things in the way that 24 we communicate, we just really need to take a 25 look at and make sure that we're all 237 1 comfortable with the way that we are speaking 2 to our industry at large. 3 This really should come from the 4 Vision piece. If you guys will just quickly 5 get out your Visions. Just give me a minute 6 to do that if you don't already have it. 7 MR. ZACKON: Jessica, is that the 8 charter for the mission state? 9 MS. PANTANINI: Right. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: That's in the 11 little black folder on the website. 12 MS. PANTANINI: This is, if 13 you've got it in front of you or as you're 14 getting it, I'll just quickly read to it you. 15 "The mission for the Council of 16 Research Excellence is to advance the 17 knowledge and practice of methodological 18 research on audience measurements through the 19 active collaboration with Nielsen Media and 20 its clients. The client will identify 21 specifically methodological research project, 22 select the providers and report findings to 23 Nielsen's client base. All research will be 24 funded by Nielsen Media Research. It is 25 intended the operation of the Council to 238 1 reflect the values of transparency, inclusive 2 of diversity and imagination, inclusive 3 quality, practicality and client leadership." 4 This is kind of a vague huge 5 statement. And I think what we need to do is 6 we need to have a more succinct, clearer 7 statement, maybe with a little bit of 8 personality. Maybe something that gets 9 published in any way. But certainly that 10 kind of feeds the overall character of the 11 Council. 12 MR. MURPHY: The other thing 13 that's kind of missing from here is what is 14 your objective. And one of the things that 15 Joanne had mentioned earlier is we need to do 16 a better job of socializing or evangelizing 17 the benefits of the committee. And so that 18 kind of says one of our audiences is internal 19 to our own companies. And then it seems that 20 another audience that we want to be hitting 21 is external to the group as a whole. 22 And one of the things that we've 23 learned over at the IAB committee is we've 24 created a lot of products for best practices 25 or revenue recognition. We probably do a 239 1 terrible job of socializing those results. 2 And I think it's a matter of communicating to 3 people on as many frequencies as possible to 4 achieve your goal. 5 And earlier today we talked about 6 a blog. And that's great. But that's also 7 an inactive forum where you can get a lot of 8 arrows. So you have to be prepared for that. 9 Another is creating one-sheeters through 10 PowerPoints so that we can actually, each one 11 of us can then take those slides and then 12 fire them off for our own purposes. So I 13 think one of the things that is missing here 14 is objectives in the audience that we're 15 seeking. 16 MR. GREEN: That would be the 17 objectives of the communications committee, 18 right? 19 MS. PANTANINI: Not objectives of 20 the communications of the CRE. I think we 21 have global goals. If you read the goals, 22 the goals really have to do more with 23 operational issues than the goal of the 24 organization. 25 MS. UYENCO: Just for 240 1 clarification, when I read the first 2 paragraph it says, "collaboration with 3 clients". Does that mean then that there's a 4 limit of how much we can share publicly, that 5 the priority would be delivering just to 6 clients? 7 MR. GREEN: I think that's an 8 open discussion. 9 MS. PANTANINI: I think that's 10 definitely something that we can discuss. 11 Nowhere in the bylaws is it clear as to what 12 can or cannot be publicized. And what, you 13 know, as we get into the second portion of 14 this discussion, we'll talk about, you know, 15 the fact that we have to clearly articulate a 16 process for getting communications out. 17 For example, in this Ball State 18 study, if we write up a summary or if the 19 committee writes up a summary and the 20 communication committee then gets it, reviews 21 it, perhaps, puts it in the tone of the CRE, 22 the personality that we want the CRE to have, 23 and then we share that with Nielsen, is it 24 just a sharing or is it an approval process 25 that we go to. We haven't really figured out 241 1 how it's going to work. 2 MR. STERNBERG: I think the first 3 thing that the communications committee needs 4 to do is decide how the CRE is positioned 5 versus other industry entities. We are not 6 the CAB. We are not an advocacy group. 7 We're not at ARF. People have no idea what 8 we are other than the perception out there 9 that we are a Nielsen led entity. And that's 10 the first thing we have. People do not 11 understand that so many facets of the 12 industry are involved in this Council. And 13 we really need to just position ourselves 14 before we do anything. 15 MS. PANTANINI: Correct. That's 16 part of, when I say "brand personality", you 17 know, who are we. Identifying who we are, 18 you know. And going through some of the 19 wonderful exercises that I'm sure all of us 20 have been through at one point or another of 21 if the CRE were a person what kind of person 22 would it be. Is it Albert Einstein? 23 MR. STERNBERG: I also have to 24 say I told people in the past, go to Research 25 Excellence website. But when you go to the 242 1 Research Excellence website, there's really 2 nothing there. 3 MS. PANTANINI: That's a tactical 4 piece. I would say that that's something we 5 can look at once we identify who our voice 6 should be. Because that should clearly 7 divide the personality online. Right now, my 8 own personal opinion is there's information 9 there. But it's flat. It's not very 10 engaging. So that's one of the things we 11 need to talk about. That the organization is 12 seen as engaging or not. 13 MR. ZACKON: Jessica, if I can 14 give a little context, initially the Council 15 was created by Nielsen to inform Nielsen as 16 to what projects it would like to see 17 produced. It was not intended initially to 18 be a voice to the industry, so much as a 19 voice to Nielsen. And I think we've now 20 worked together, now relationships, we are 21 still creating our personality as a Council. 22 And we're now standing potentially on top of 23 a lot of pretty fascinating and important 24 data. So this is a timely conversation. We 25 don't need to be bound by that history. 243 1 I think a lot of what you're 2 saying is flat. I absolutely agree with you. 3 Because to get the agreement of the diverse 4 group of people like this, flat was good. I 5 think at this point, however, we're now rich 6 enough and organically grown enough so we 7 actually can address the richness that I 8 think we'd like to see. 9 MR. GREEN: Jessica, I think it 10 might be a prime opportunity to ask for 11 people to participate in defining the 12 personality between now and the next meeting. 13 MS. PANTANINI: Yes. There 14 definitely needs to be, I would say, two 15 groups working in parallel paths, if you 16 will. A group really focused on defining the 17 personality of the CRE in doing what I'm 18 going to call the branding work. And the 19 second group which is my second point here is 20 a policy process group. Really working very 21 closely with Mark and Anne, figuring out what 22 can we communicate this whole question of 23 what is it that we own versus what does 24 Nielsen own I think is a very big question. 25 When do we communicate? Do we 244 1 communicate prior to actually having data to 2 make people aware that we have these studies 3 underway. And just overall developing the 4 communication strategy to maybe take it on a 5 case-by-case basis. 6 So as we just approved one piece 7 of research today, there has to be a 8 communications strategy plan being developed 9 at the point when something is approved so 10 that we know very clearly, okay, in January 11 when we first start fielding the study, if 12 we're going to go ahead and let people know 13 what's happening in the industry or not. 14 And then once following the 15 release of the data there is going to be 16 whatever, a one-month period for the 17 committee to write a summary of its findings. 18 And then it will be turned over to the 19 communications committee. And we'll follow 20 X, Y and Z process. So those processes do 21 need to be established. 22 And, again, the whole question of 23 whose is approved. Is it simply the 24 committee gets something from one of the 25 committees and then massages the voice, if 245 1 you will, and then turns that over to Nielsen 2 for buy-in, approval, or does that then have 3 to go to the Council. So there are a lot of 4 questions that are on the table. 5 And then, more importantly, we're 6 talking about with all the studies that we've 7 got on the table right now, a little bit of 8 work as a result. So there's another 9 question. And that's when I get a chance to 10 sit down with John Burbank and with Mark. 11 What resources do we have available to us. 12 And I know when Anne introduced 13 herself, she introduced herself as having 14 responsibilities for PR as well. So, you 15 know, is that a resource that we have 16 available to us. And what are the 17 capabilities we can expect from Nielsen as 18 well. So there's a lot of unanswered 19 questions at this point in time. But 20 clearly, though, there needs to be two dual 21 paths that are going on so that we can make 22 sure that we don't lose any time here. 23 MR. GREEN: Let me just add some 24 kind of appendage to that just so that folks 25 don't walk away with the wrong impression in 246 1 terms of approval. 2 I don't think Nielsen is looking 3 to be part of an approval process in any 4 voting capacity. I think what we're talking 5 about here is that the CRE develop an 6 approval process for itself. So that's 7 really what we're talking about here. So 8 don't take away that there's an intention 9 here to in the vetting process on Nielsen's 10 point in terms of what gets communicated. 11 That's not part of Nielsen's agenda. 12 MS. PANTANINI: Mark, I guess the 13 question that I have is while I understand 14 that nowhere in the bylaws does it talk about 15 who owns the research -- 16 MR. ZACKON: Actually, Nielsen 17 owns the research. We need to be clear about 18 that at the get-go. 19 MR. GREEN: We should couple 20 ownership with communication in terms of 21 the -- 22 MS. PANTANINI: Can we uncouple 23 those two things though if we're going to 24 release data on research that Nielsen owns? 25 MR. GREEN: Shouldn't be a 247 1 problem if it was orchestrated by the CRE. 2 And what I would suggest there is that is 3 that we propose bylaws that stipulate that. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: That's fine. 5 MS. PANTANINI: I misspoke. It 6 is in Article IV that Nielsen doesn't own the 7 research. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Jessica, this is 9 Mike. I want to add to this conversation. 10 Maybe second something Mark said. When you 11 say there are a lot of questions, I feel like 12 at some point in going forward, maybe 13 distinguish between questions that really are 14 questions where we need a legal opinion, a 15 Nielsen comment like the one we just answered 16 like, okay, Nielsen owns the data. That was 17 a question versus maybe another set of 18 questions that aren't so much questions where 19 we need Nielsen's answer at all. But rather 20 it's up to our committee or your committee to 21 make a set of recommendations like what do 22 you want. And I'm thinking in particular 23 three years ago when we formed the steering 24 committee and, you know, everything was up 25 for grabs, frankly. Like a few -- 248 1 MS. PANTANINI: Right. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: If you read that 3 charter, it basically says you guys organize 4 yourself. Figure out how to do it. Well, 5 that first meeting was maybe a little 6 uncomfortable. And we dealt with the 7 discomfort and said okay. Since it's not 8 stipulated, we're going to make it up. And 9 we did. And I think there's a certain sense 10 here, that I have at least, where your 11 committee gets to make some stuff up as well. 12 Like what do you really want. What do you 13 recommend. And just kind of challenge the 14 process. And say, hey, this is what we want. 15 As long as it's not against any Nielsen 16 bylaws, then let's go ahead and do it that 17 way as opposed to maybe, I just think, 18 somehow maybe I'm wrong. I got the sense 19 we're going to ask Nielsen a bunch of 20 questions and be guided by them when that's 21 not the case. I think we should come up with 22 it. 23 MR. GREEN: That's exactly the 24 point. Just want to make it clear that the 25 CRE owns all the communications of all the 249 1 data that the CRE researches. So that's I 2 think Nielsen's general viewpoint. So in 3 terms of thinking about how to formulate 4 policy relative to communications, the CRE, 5 you know, just along the lines of the CRE, 6 you have a fiduciary responsibility for the 7 money that Nielsen's pledging to the CRE 8 because it benefits the CRE to have that 9 fiduciary responsibility. 10 In other words, if you negotiate 11 a certain price down, you have more 12 opportunity to spend elsewhere. Same with 13 the notion of communications. You know, I 14 think you want to make sure that you manage 15 the communications in a way that benefits the 16 organization. And so I think that the 17 organization needs to define that, I think. 18 I think that Nielsen is very much eager for 19 the organization to define it versus Nielsen 20 defining it. Because, you know, 21 fundamentally, Nielsen wants us to be an 22 independent organization. And I think I just 23 wanted to kind of make that clear. 24 MS. SHAGRIN: Mark, my 25 understanding, and I think this is what you 250 1 said, is that any of the research we do, 2 Nielsen owns the data, but the results of the 3 research belongs to the CRE and are made 4 public to anyone who wants to access the 5 results, not the data itself? 6 MR. GREEN: The only caveat to 7 that is if the CRE decides to do that. 8 MS. SHAGRIN: We said we're 9 transparent. 10 MR. GREEN: But there's no 11 communication policy. That's what I'm 12 saying, is that the way the CRE defines 13 communication policy is up to the CRE. 14 MS. SHAGRIN: But it is true that 15 while Nielsen owns the data, the details of 16 any research, that the end results of that 17 research belongs to CRE. 18 MR. GREEN: So I've been claimed 19 to be called a lawyer in the past, even 20 though I have no legal background. So the 21 reason why I'm making this caveat, Ceril, to 22 be clear, is so that the independent members 23 of the CRE don't feel like they have 24 individual carte blanche to do whatever they 25 want, communication group, as CRE as a group. 251 1 I'm sorry. I meant that. 2 MR. STERNBERG: So another way to 3 say this, that Nielsen owns the raw data but 4 CRE owns the analysis of the data? 5 MR. GREEN: Well -- 6 MS. PANTANINI: I think the CRE 7 owns the story that the data tells. 8 MR. GREEN: The CRE can 9 communicate to whatever extent it wants the 10 information that it researches. And so it 11 owns the communication of that. 12 MS. BURNS: Tell me if this is 13 your understanding of it. The way I take it 14 is we are funded by Nielsen. So therefore, 15 you pay for the research, you own the 16 research. Outside of that, we all operate as 17 an independent Council to do what we agree 18 collectively and independent of Nielsen, no? 19 MR. GREEN: Yes. More than. I 20 think that the Council pretty much has the 21 purview to express its opinion about the 22 findings as the Council. 23 MS. BURNS: Right. 24 MR. GREEN: And Nielsen 25 encourages that. 252 1 MS. BURNS: So we operate 2 independently. The only thing is since you 3 fund the research, you own the research. 4 Outside of that, we operate independently. 5 MR. GREEN: Right. So the 6 ownership's there. But there's no curtain in 7 front of the data either. So, you know, 8 everybody's looking at the same data. 9 Everybody can draw their own conclusions. 10 Joanne, you can go out to the 11 press and express your opinion about the 12 data. But if you represent, if you're going 13 to represent the CRE point of view, then you 14 need the CRE to agree to it. And that's the 15 only caveat. 16 MS. BURNS: Right. No, I'm 17 saying we are here collectively the CRE 18 Council and decided what to do relative to 19 communication, a range of issues. 20 MR. GREEN: So this is a huge 21 opportunity for the CRE. 22 MR. ZACKON: If I can report the 23 thought, I was looking when the Ball State 24 group was looking at the data. I was saying 25 this was a pretty rich database. And after 253 1 the report is published there are going to be 2 a lot of queries about people want to, well, 3 can I look at the data. Can I get this 4 analysis out of it. And we're not now set up 5 for how to provide for that. But it occurred 6 to me this might be a revenue opportunity for 7 the Council to set up a way to do that. 8 MR. GREEN: That would be very 9 interesting. And luckily, Jessica is on the 10 finance committee. 11 MR. ZACKON: Which is another 12 conversation. But I think we didn't fully 13 think through what it means that, quote, 14 Nielsen owns the data. It hasn't proven to 15 be an issue until this latest back and forth. 16 MS. PANTANINI: That's why I was 17 saying earlier I have questions. And I don't 18 know what all those questions are until we 19 actually start having a dialogue like this. 20 MR. GREEN: And let's have that 21 dialogue. And I know Mike has a time 22 schedule here. So let's have that dialogue 23 offline. And report back. And when I mean 24 offline, for whoever wants to participate of 25 course. 254 1 THE CHAIRMAN: I think also, it's 2 not just a timetable. I just feel like what 3 Mark is saying, you have a certain amount of 4 freedom. And so why don't we just use that. 5 Let's focus on the branding and the policy. 6 And my sense on this one is unless it's 7 explicitly stated what we can and can't do, 8 then let's do the branding of the 9 communication. Take it as far as we can. 10 Let Nielsen slow us down. Same thing we did 11 with the projects we came up for the steering 12 committee. Unless it's stated we can't do 13 it, why don't we just assume we can. 14 MR. GREEN: And assume Nielsen 15 doesn't want to slow you down, wants to push 16 you forward. 17 MS. PANTANINI: Okay. I'm good 18 with that. The request is for two separate 19 subcommittees of the communications 20 committee. The first one focused on the 21 branding piece. And the second piece would 22 be focused on the policy and the process. I 23 see all your hands being raised fervently. 24 MR. GREEN: Everybody's hand is 25 up. 255 1 MR. KALINE: Mark Kaline says 2 yes. 3 MS. BRILL: Well, my hand is 4 raised. This is Shari Anne Brill. I 5 definitely wanted to participate in the 6 branding because a positive brand for CRE and 7 the work we're doing in shaping those 8 perceptions of what the Council is, in that 9 we are an independent body will have a halo 10 effect on the outcome of all the studies. 11 Because how these studies get received by the 12 public is directly related to how the Council 13 is received by the Council. So I think it's 14 crucial. And I think we need to get out in 15 front of the communities at large that we 16 are, although funded by Nielsen, we are 17 independent. And we are making our own 18 decisions. 19 MR. SCHWARTZ: I don't need the 20 mic. I'll work on policy too with whomever. 21 MR. ZACKON: Lyle has stepped up 22 for policy. We have Mark Kaline and Shari 23 have stepped up for branding. 24 MR. STERNBERG: I'd like to be on 25 the policy one also. 256 1 MS. SIRKIN: I'd like to be on 2 the graphics. 3 MR. STERNBERG: Policy and 4 process. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Everyone who's 6 volunteering send an E-mail. 7 MR. ZACKON: Let the record show 8 Barbara Singer for branding. 9 MS. BRILL: Actually, I'd like to 10 do both. Can you do both? 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Also as chair, 12 Jessica, I think I'll play the role that Mark 13 played before on the steering committee. I 14 think Mark just automatically was on the 15 steering committee. And both of these 16 branding and policy I might be courted on 17 occasion or after I write letters. So I'll 18 just be on it. 19 MR. ZACKON: Jessica, I'm a 20 little concerned for your well being now that 21 this communications function is pretty 22 active. And you're both secretary and 23 treasurer and chair of the communications 24 committee. So it's great you're getting 25 started with more. But something that you 257 1 might want to look to as maybe replacing 2 yourself in one of those roles. Because we 3 have all these new eager members ready to 4 step up. So just something to think about. 5 MS. PANTANINI: Yes. You know, 6 I'm happy doing either role. So if there is 7 somebody new on the Council who is interested 8 in leading either the communications or the 9 taking that secretary/treasurer role, just 10 let Richard know. 11 MR. GREEN: Or we can convene the 12 first meeting and then somebody step up and 13 take over. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Did you want to 15 cover anything else today? 16 MS. PANTANINI: I think that's 17 it. Does anybody else have anything that 18 we've forgotten that we thought about? 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any 20 immediate issues? For example, I know at 21 least my E-mail box and several others has 22 been roiling because of the set top box 23 communication. And, you know, what did or 24 didn't show up in the letter to the editor 25 and so on. I know we vetted some of those in 258 1 this discussion. 2 But Shari or Steve Sternberg or 3 anybody else, anything that may be even 4 though what Jessica just put up is more of a 5 strategic play. Let's do branding, let's do 6 policy and process. Are there, beyond the 7 letter to the editor, are there any immediate 8 things that a publicity committee maybe 9 should consider doing? 10 MR. ZACKON: Just let me ask, the 11 most urgent then that I see is the policy 12 regarding release of reporting for our mean 13 engagement data and now the nonresponse data. 14 Not to say these others aren't important. 15 They are. But there's an urgency to that so 16 that a plan could be put in place in 2009. 17 And maybe that committee could come back in 18 December and report back to this Council as 19 to what that plan is. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Agreed. Thank 21 you. 22 MR. STERNBERG: You know, there 23 are also personal things that people could do 24 outside from the committee proper. In other 25 words, anybody can write a column for Media 259 1 Post explaining why they think it's important 2 to be on the Council and how wonderful the 3 Council is and why it's so important. 4 I wrote an article that I showed 5 to Richard and Shari and Mike the other day 6 that's going to go into Media Post explaining 7 why I'm excited to be on the Council. Why I 8 think it's the most wonderful thing in the 9 world. And why a lot of the stuff that 10 people have been hearing is bogus. And 11 that's the type of stuff beyond really 12 branding. That's the type of stuff that 13 everybody will read. 14 Now, there's one article in Media 15 Post by this guy Frank Foster. Everybody 16 reads it. And it's one of two articles. And 17 everybody in the industry is talking about 18 it. Well, what is the Council on Research 19 Excellence doing. Well, we can hit them with 20 50 of those. And we can hit them in all 21 directions. And we can have articles in Ad 22 Age and articles in AdWeek. And there can be 23 something where ordinarily Dave Poltrack and 24 Jack Wackshlag are facing different points of 25 view in almost every topic. 260 1 I'm taking different points of 2 view from Lyle or Shari or whatever. But in 3 this case, everybody on the same page. We're 4 all talking about the same thing and how good 5 it is that we're doing something that's 6 moving research for the industry forward. 7 And nobody's ever done something 8 like that before. And if you have one coming 9 out from somebody from a broadcast network 10 and the next week on the same exact topic 11 from a cable network and from an agency and 12 from a syndicator and from Univision, and 13 they're all saying the same thing, how 14 wonderful it is to be on this Council. Any 15 of that would make that stuff disappear 16 overnight. And it doesn't have to be an 17 official thing from the Council. It could 18 just be people on the Council writing 19 articles in the trade. 20 MS. PANTANINI: Well, I think 21 that's something that we certainly need to 22 think about. And I think, again, we've got 23 some principles that we lay out that 24 everybody kind of follows to ensure again 25 when we speak about the brand we're all 261 1 speaking about it in the same way to ensure. 2 That's my only caveat. 3 MR. KALINE: I just have one more 4 comment. You have a bullet on your policy in 5 process saying when do we communicate. I 6 think that's relative to the data's due by 7 this date. When do we start to publicize the 8 data or whatever we have released. I think 9 it's also worth looking at the calendar 10 throughout the year in understanding where 11 are the key events, whether it's the A&E 12 annual conference. Whether it's the TV 13 Forum. Whether it's the AAAAs. Where are 14 the key events where release from this group 15 might get publicity to a wide range of people 16 who might be interested in either 17 participating in this Council or contributing 18 to it by virtue of being on the committees. 19 MS. PANTANINI: Right. The other 20 thing is I think one of the things that needs 21 to be taken into consideration by this team 22 is do we solicit speaking engagements for 23 some of these key events as well as members 24 of the CRE. Personal members of Univision or 25 NBC. 262 1 MR. ZACKON: Jessica, a key focus 2 might be the Nielsen client meeting which I 3 believe they moved from Valentine's Day to 4 March this year. I'm not sure of the date. 5 But it's in March. I think the 6 communications committee's in an excellent 7 position to help design what that 8 presentation to clients should be. I've kind 9 of done that the last few years. And I'm 10 happy to participate and do what I can. But 11 I think the voice of the Council through the 12 communications committee. 13 Mark, do you know the date of the 14 Nielsen client meeting in March? 15 MR. GREEN: I should have stayed 16 out of the room a little longer. No. 17 MR. ZACKON: But it's in March. 18 I do know that. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. It sounds 20 like we're now starting to cover some things 21 that, frankly, you can cover in those 22 committee meetings when you break out to 23 cover the branding and policy. 24 So unless there's something 25 urgent, I believe we're actually on time. So 263 1 anything else that needs to be brought up? 2 Otherwise, Jessica, thank you very much. 3 Looks like we have some work cut out for us 4 in the communications side. 5 I do think, let me make kind of a 6 chairman's type closing remark on this if I 7 can permit myself. I do think that we 8 shouldn't necessarily be kicking ourselves 9 for, let's say, quote, a certain image of the 10 CRE or lack thereof at this point. I really 11 do think for the first couple of years I 12 think we were all about what we did; namely, 13 this isn't something to publicize. It was 14 something that was on the website. So we 15 weren't hiding it. We did have transparency. 16 But it's not like we were out 17 there trying to create a brand image, you 18 know. I think we did not want to try to get 19 an image as best committee yet based on what 20 people have said today. It sounds like 21 internally we may see ourselves that way. 22 That's great. 23 But now that we have stuff to 24 take out to the community, now I think this 25 branding and policy is exactly right. But I 264 1 don't really feel bad about maybe the lack of 2 the image before. Because we were doing 3 professional work at the industry level. So 4 that's my take on it. 5 Okay. We're right on time. The 6 next session starts with Video and the 7 Council. And I think Richard is going to 8 make the opening remarks and take us through 9 a discussion. Richard. 10 MR. ZACKON: What this comes from 11 is when the group first formed there was no 12 Nielsen company. There was Nielsen Media 13 Research. And the focus was on television. 14 Remember that meeting? And in the course of 15 the first year of the Council, the television 16 expanded to video. And that became the 17 issue. And then Nielsen expanded. And now 18 we're looking at three screens. And I don't 19 know how many screens of data. So the 20 question's a legitimate question both for 21 Nielsen as Nielsen and for this Council as 22 this Council to ask, well, what is our 23 purview. Does it include streaming media on 24 the Internet. Does it include mobile. Does 25 it include gaming. And that's the question. 265 1 MR. GREEN: Does it go beyond 2 media and get to behavioral interaction with 3 media? Nielsen does a lot of things now. 4 While this is not about Nielsen, this is 5 about the Council. It's a consideration of, 6 you know, what's the scope. 7 MR. ZACKON: It involved who 8 should the Council be looking to to expand 9 membership? 10 MR. GREEN: Exactly. 11 MR. SCHWARTZ: In the last 12 meeting we had, in the last meeting where we 13 spoke we talked about adding gamers on. We 14 added Telco. So I think as a group we kind 15 of admitted it's now video anywhere streaming 16 whether it's play based on the Internet, on 17 your telephone. So I think we've already 18 agreed to that, unless I missed something. 19 MR. STERNBERG: Shouldn't our 20 purview be anything meaning that Nielsen 21 measures or potentially measures. 22 MR. GREEN: Can I just say 23 something? I think I'm not sure that 24 everybody on this Council actually knows the 25 extent of what Nielsen measures and doesn't 266 1 measure. So before going and saying yes to 2 that, it might be wise to understand that 3 scope. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Again, Mark 5 though, in terms of maybe showing a little 6 independence on our part. How much scope do 7 we actually have. Because it's obvious based 8 on what we've done before and what we did 9 today and talked about today, the CRE does 10 have the latitude to change the bylaws. We 11 don't necessarily have the latitude to change 12 the collar, I think. But the bylaws, yes. 13 So I think that now -- 14 MR. GREEN: I think it goes 15 beyond that a little bit, Mike. In the sense 16 I think you're asking the Nielsen company. 17 The Nielsen company's response is going to be 18 something along the lines of if there's a 19 desire to expand beyond the scope of the 20 charter, I think the Nielsen company wants to 21 hear that. So, you know, I think that the 22 CRE ought to think of itself along these 23 lines and express its viewpoint. 24 MR. SUSSMAN: We have limited 25 money. And hopefully we have a lot of good 267 1 ideas. And I think the group will decide if 2 it's a big enough idea to go forward. I 3 don't think we should limit ourselves. I 4 think we should think big. Because we have 5 so many people in the room vote on what we 6 think is most important to the industry. 7 MR. GREEN: Right. So I think 8 the key question here, Ira, really gets back 9 to what Richard was saying. That is people 10 are going to think within the scope of the 11 world that they work in for the most part. 12 Not everybody, but for the most part. 13 And so what's important to the 14 world to the people in this room or the 15 people on the phone or the people in this 16 room, the people in the scope of the CRE is 17 not necessarily the scope of Nielsen's client 18 base by any stretch of the imagination. 19 And so the question then becomes, 20 you know, research is a broad question. I 21 know that there's groups in the room that 22 look at research way beyond just media. And 23 so the question then becomes what's the scope 24 of the CRE. And relative to limited funds is 25 exactly the point. 268 1 So if you're going to think about 2 the scope being broader, you might want to 3 think about inviting some different types of 4 people into the Council as a way of injecting 5 that into the conversation. 6 You know, I heard Henry was 7 mentioning, you know, somebody from 8 Macademia, et cetera. So that's just part of 9 the consideration set. I'm not trying to 10 steer or lead at all. I'm just saying that's 11 another way to think about it. 12 MR. DeVAULT: If we're talking 13 about expanding the scope, would it be 14 possible for us to expand the scope and 15 request additional funds from Nielsen? 16 MR. GREEN: So, Henry, anything 17 is possible. I'm certainly not committing to 18 that. But I will say this, you know, I think 19 that the way Nielsen thinks about the level 20 of funds for this Council relates to the 21 scope of business that the Council 22 represents. 23 MR. DeVAULT: What if a larger 24 scope? 25 MR. GREEN: So that's not a 269 1 direct answer, you know. But I think you 2 need to think about it within that context 3 would make sense. But, you know, the other 4 comment is that, you know, I think what 5 happens is I don't mean to be a proponent of 6 "scope creep". Because scope creep is not 7 one of my favorite things. And so if we 8 expand the scope, we have the opportunity of 9 losing our focus. And so it's pro and con 10 here. It's a discussion. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Come on, Mark. 12 That sounds, that last comment though sounds 13 like a policy statement by you. Kind of a 14 okay, a focus thing. But it's really up to 15 us to determine that. 16 MR. GREEN: That's exactly my 17 point. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: It's more like 19 your first comment. I thought your initial 20 comment suggested to us, and this I feel 21 comfortable with, if we as a group, 22 especially a group that we said throughout 23 our morning introductions, that we're part of 24 a changing industry. So if we as a group 25 feel like the scope ought to be this big, 270 1 then I thought what you're saying is then 2 bring it to me. Bring it to us. Don't worry 3 about our focus. 4 MR. GREEN: I am saying that, 5 Mike. In my intro this morning I said I 6 tried to govern my comments to not lead and 7 just kind of be neutral. And sometimes I 8 can't get over myself. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: The mission is our 10 finish. I like your first comment. Not to 11 debate it. I like your first comment where 12 you said bring it to us. Then Susan or you 13 or a combination of you guys can say, yes, 14 no, or scope creep, or whatever. But I 15 really think that given the fact that we went 16 out of our way to try to get gaming people, 17 other people on this group and Internet 18 people, that's why we have Sue from 19 Univision. I just feel let's not constrain 20 it. Now's our chance. 21 MR. GREEN: I agree. I agree. 22 MS. BRILL: In the interest of 23 "scopery", the name of our Council is 24 self-defining. We're the Council for 25 Research Excellence. Isn't that about 271 1 advancing excellence in research across all 2 types of consumer research under Nielsen's 3 purview? I think that's where we need to go. 4 It's verily video beyond television. 5 MR. GREEN: Like I said, I don't 6 want this to be a debate between me and the 7 Council. But I very much agree that it's up 8 to the Council. And I was just saying that, 9 you know, there's pros and cons to this 10 debate. That's all I'm saying. I'm not 11 saying Nielsen has a point of view. I was 12 expressing my own personal point of view. 13 Sorry about that. 14 MS. LIGUORI: We also have to 15 look at this on a practical level. There's 16 only so many of us. And we're on multiple 17 committees and subcommittees. So it's nice 18 to want to do everything. But, you know, 19 who's got the time. 20 MS. SINGER: We're probably 21 self-contained given the number of people and 22 time and money. But Nielsen is not 23 constraining themselves to television, 24 clearly. 25 MR. GREEN: That's correct. 272 1 That's correct. 2 MS. SINGER: You guys are all 3 over the place. Anything you're involved in 4 would be fair game. 5 MR. GREEN: That's correct. 6 That's correct. And I think if the CRE came 7 to Nielsen and said, you know, look, there's 8 this great research, we're going way beyond 9 the scope of where we're at now. And, you 10 know, in confining to the scope of funds that 11 this CRE would like to address, that it's an 12 open discussion. 13 MS. SHAGRIN: I think we sort of 14 set a precedence on how we operate. That 15 work, and I think would continue to work, 16 I've heard David talk about one Nielsen. And 17 no boundaries between various divisions of 18 Nielsen. Well, I think one Council for 19 Research Excellence right now. And they're 20 not necessarily boundaries in terms of what 21 we consider necessary research to further 22 excellence. 23 We have operated pretty well with 24 a system that has a steering committee come 25 up with issues that we think the industry is 273 1 wrestling with now. And since we represent 2 various parts of the industry buyers, 3 sellers, creators. I think that that process 4 works well. And if there's something that 5 comes up that goes beyond pure media or pure 6 television that we think is an issue, and 7 that research needs to be done. We have the 8 ability to the steering committee to put it 9 on the list and the way this committee then 10 decides what's most important. It works. We 11 don't need any boundaries. 12 MR. ADGATE: The other thing is 13 this ties into the previous discussion about 14 getting publicity. There's all sorts of 15 people who want information about video 16 gaming, you know, mobile video, broadband 17 video. There's all sorts of numbers out 18 there. A lot of it's crap. But if this 19 committee comes up with something and kind of 20 sets a standard on how people are using this 21 new media and these new touch points across 22 the way, that would be a wonderful way to get 23 some sort of recognition for what this group 24 does as opposed to ignoring it. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: I'd like to bring 274 1 up, while we're having this discussion, 2 because it was really prompted by Richard's 3 comments on video. And then, Mark, I am 4 sensitive to the fact that you're outnumbered 5 here. It's probably difficult to argue one 6 against 25. And so let's assume maybe for 7 the sake of discussion that we have broad 8 latitude, you know, for a committee to come 9 up with intelligent things. 10 I do want to point out that the 11 next topic here area is actually related to 12 the first one. And some of these maybe we 13 can kick around now. And some you can take 14 back, Ira, to the steering committee, either 15 to. Others to the meeting in December. And 16 that is I think the relationship is we're 17 going to think about video. 18 We're going to think about areas 19 outside of classic audience measurement. But 20 the point on the committee structure overlap, 21 part of what is involved there, I think some 22 of us discussed at the last general meeting 23 really is at some point we'll have not three 24 committees, but seven, eight, et cetera. 25 And it probably also makes sense 275 1 to have, and maybe especially a new person 2 who just came might have the objectivity -- 3 not objectivity. Not having been here 4 before. To be inbred, if you will. But I 5 don't think structurally, managerially, 6 organizationally it makes sense for some of 7 us maybe to step back and say, okay, are some 8 of these committees really overlapping a lot. 9 And it's probably good if they do. 10 Like I think some committee maybe 11 take learning both from what a Nancy's about 12 to do and has approval to do and Shari's. 13 And so I'm not suggesting an artificial 14 connection, but there probably are some 15 connections. And also with the new 16 committees we want to form. 17 So I think that's something 18 either to discuss briefly now if somebody has 19 some ideas on it. I think once I called it 20 like a meta committee only in the sense that 21 there's some work that's going to be 22 finished. There's other work that's new. 23 How do they all fit together in either 24 vendrams or organizational structures. And 25 then in terms how does that fit with what 276 1 Richard opened this up with, which is, okay, 2 are we really going to go to specific topic 3 areas for outside video. So any thoughts or 4 comments on that? 5 MR. GREEN: One kind of thought 6 about that is kind of a couple of ways to 7 think about that. One way to think about 8 that is since somebody kind of corralling the 9 committees and looking what's the overlap in 10 keeping communication flowing. Another way 11 to think about that is consolidation of 12 knowledge as new research comes into the 13 Council For Research Excellence. So just 14 comments. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: And I think 16 that's, again, thanks for saying 17 consolidation of knowledge. Because I see 18 that as part of it. So the immediate 19 discussion is going to be about how we 20 release the knowledge that's about to come 21 out. But assuming that the committees around 22 for a while, then there will also be 23 potentially some consolidation phase. 24 In other words, what have we 25 learned. And is that learning beyond just a 277 1 press release or even a seminar. How's that 2 learning connected to other learning from the 3 committee, possibly outside the committee. I 4 think these are broader issues that are, by 5 definition, they're not in the charter, but 6 that we're going to face. 7 So just something to kind of give 8 some thought to between now and then. Maybe 9 there is even a committee formed that is sort 10 of a meta committee. I do think that some of 11 the new people could serve well on that 12 because of the objectivity that you might 13 bring to it. You know, like you're stepping 14 in and going, oh, that's what these guys do. 15 Well, it might make more sense 16 not to have all these committees. To kind of 17 keep rolling up areas that in my mind 18 actually overlap. Any other thoughts. Also 19 on Richard's point. Just maybe one other 20 comment on Richard's, is that okay? 21 Now that we've kind of debated 22 and hopefully not beat up Mark too much on 23 the issue. 24 MR. GREEN: I'm actually in favor 25 of it, just to be clear. 278 1 THE CHAIRMAN: I know you're in 2 favor of it. Are there some sort of 3 substantive things we can put in the record 4 right now. It's called video in the Council. 5 Does anybody want to say 6 something substantive on these topics that 7 you feel strongly about at this moment? 8 MR. GREEN: Just to let people 9 know my involvement in Nielsen, just to give 10 the one voice kind of comment some legs. And 11 reality is I was just recently involved in 12 ethnography now doing retail measurement in 13 Asia. So there is a lot of one Nielsen 14 that's taking place within measurement 15 science and within the Nielsen company. So 16 just think about it that way. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: So any more 18 discussion? 19 MS. LIGUORI: Mike, other than 20 steering and finance and communication, what 21 are our committees? I know there's 22 nonresponse, set top box, commercial 23 avoidance. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: The media universe 25 estimate, set top box. George Ivie's was 279 1 passive measurement. And then the one that I 2 will try and work on between now and the next 3 meeting is psychographic. And then we also 4 had a committee that Ira headed up. 5 Ira, you want to talk about that 6 for just a minute? 7 MR. SUSSMAN: Basically we had a 8 committee that was looking at best practices 9 or worst practices in the industry. And 10 trying to identify where some of the issues 11 were hoping using new data. What happened 12 was most of the issues that were brought 13 about through executive interview had to do 14 with diaries. And so we put that on the 15 shelf because we thought that desires are 16 really going away and that might morph into 17 something else in the future. 18 MR. ZACKON: We also had Ceril 19 and Colleen were each pursuing efforts to 20 cross media measurement, cross platform media 21 effectiveness. Although it was felt let's 22 put that on hold until the results come in 23 from our media consumption. 24 MR. SUSSMAN: Just to Mike's 25 point, am I on the steering committee if 280 1 there's a new person that wants to join? On 2 the steering committee one of the things we 3 do is come up with new ideas. Be happy to 4 raise your hand. 5 MR. ZACKON: Noreen, you had your 6 hand up. 7 MS. SIMMONS: Just one thing as 8 to what the committee is doing, as a newbie 9 here, I personally didn't get the sense that 10 there is at this point a lot of overlap 11 between what people were talking about. I 12 think the idea of the cross media committee 13 coming out of the work that's being done in 14 media consumption may be a logical 15 transition. And if they were operating at 16 the same time, there may be some overlap. 17 But I'm not hearing a lot of overlap at the 18 moment. 19 It sounds likes it's very cleanly 20 managed. I was actually surprised early on 21 today when you guys said that the focus of 22 the CRE up to now has been initially 23 television and that then recently it expanded 24 to all the video. Because I'll tell you the 25 truth, to me, when I heard about the Council, 281 1 I just automatically assumed that it was, at 2 a minimum, across media. And possibly even 3 broader than that. 4 So I was personally just 5 encouraged that, to Mark's point, we just 6 keep in mind anything that can be researched. 7 And then just doing it on the basis of what 8 really is the highest priority for everybody 9 in the room to take it forward. 10 MR. ZACKON: One of the 11 challenges of the Council and Mark being an 12 exception and Vicky Champlin being an 13 exception, is the participation of 14 advertisers in the group. And that may be 15 because the focus has been largely media. 16 And given the work of Nielsen is well beyond 17 its media work. It might bring in, I mean, 18 we now have additional advertisers joined us. 19 It might make the voice of the advertiser 20 more heard at the Council if it were to 21 expand that. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Anything else? 23 Otherwise we're way ahead of schedule all of 24 a sudden. I knew we would save time at some 25 point. Why don't we take a short break and 282 1 reconvene. Thank you. 2 (Short recess.) 3 THE CHAIRMAN: As Richard has 4 said at several meetings, three year's worth 5 of meetings to several of us, there's 6 actually nothing wrong with finishing early. 7 And I'm sure everybody here will agree. But 8 nevertheless, we do have some time. So if we 9 finish early we'll pat ourselves on the back 10 and leave early. 11 This is the opportunity for new 12 business. There are a couple of items that I 13 want to get to. But I'm going to hold those 14 because we can probably do those within a few 15 minutes. I want to first open it up for the 16 floor. 17 Are there any new business items 18 that somebody would like to discuss? All 19 right. Yes, phone. All right. Again, let's 20 flip it to the phone community. Any new 21 business items you'd like to bring up there? 22 I'll give you the first shot. Okay, okay. 23 Joanne, I think Richard was 24 saying that, not to put you on the spot, but 25 did you have, we probably would have a pretty 283 1 full agenda. You need a microphone. Let me 2 say, maybe while she's getting the 3 microphone, what those items are. 4 For one of them we're going to 5 excuse Richard when we get to them. Because 6 Richard said correctly, it's not about 7 Richard. It's about the role of the 8 facilitator. So we'll have a discussion with 9 Richard being absent in the role of the 10 facilitator via the CRE. And we've already 11 had a steering committee discussion. And 12 Henry has a point of view on it. A few 13 others don't as well. So that's going to be 14 one topic I'm estimating would take five 15 minutes if there's many different points of 16 view, possibly ten. 17 The second item, not necessarily 18 in that order, is I would like to actually 19 put on the floor, a recommendation that we 20 vote on what we talked about this morning. 21 Remember, there was a strong feeling that 22 Paul Donato or somebody in his role, since 23 we're not naming names, but somebody at 24 Nielsen actually give us an update at every 25 meeting on I think the way it was phrased was 284 1 a specific topic area that we can determine 2 in advance. I think that's a great idea. So 3 I know how I'm going to vote. That's worth 4 something. We'll put that up for a vote. 5 Mark? 6 MR. GREEN: It was not 7 necessarily a counter to that, but an 8 additional comment. And that is since there 9 was a lot of things that were discussed 10 today. If we were to actually present one of 11 those in every meeting, that we'd be kind of 12 two years down the line before we actually 13 have any new topics come up. So is there an 14 opportunity to have a between meetings -- 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Update. 16 MR. GREEN: Special for whoever 17 wants to go and just run through all the 18 topics. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to 20 bring up both of those then. I'm sorry, 21 Richard. 22 MR. ZACKON: Can we speak to that 23 point now or shall we wait? 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, sure. 25 That's under new business. I just wanted to 285 1 give other people, I think my concern 2 especially for some of the new people is if 3 we start charging down this path, you might 4 feel constrained not to bring up something. 5 MS. BURNS: My suggestion 6 actually falls right in line with that. Let 7 me put it out on the table. Then, Richard, 8 you can sum it all up. 9 When I first joined the committee 10 and thought about what it might do, and part 11 of the excitement was to be with all of you 12 other research heads that come from different 13 either current disciplines or past 14 disciplines and then those subsequent 15 meetings, it actually started out -- what I'm 16 about to say, in the very beginning when we 17 were trying to decide what studies we should 18 do, we started to have very robust industry 19 conversations to then decide where we wanted 20 to vote and what the committee should be. 21 And sort of prioritizing them. And how do 22 these different issues impact our work lives 23 current and then in the future. And what the 24 CRE quarterly meetings, maybe a little bit 25 more than quarterly, about every two, three 286 1 months, thereabouts, have turned out to be. 2 Just committees reporting in. And we seem to 3 have lost what initially started out in those 4 early meetings of having very robust 5 conversations. 6 So when I was talking to Richard 7 about this all day, and let me backtrack on 8 that a little bit. When we talked about 9 having this all-day retreat, we were going to 10 have one originally about a year ago. That 11 didn't happen. Then we had this one. 12 Part of those original 13 conversations in what we had hoped to 14 accomplish was to set aside some time to have 15 those industry dialogues with this group of 16 people. And I had proposed to Richard and to 17 Mike, but we had a full agenda, so it didn't 18 fit in. Didn't know that we'd wind up ahead 19 of schedule. And I proposed a couple of 20 topics that we put on, just a couple of 21 topics to have those conversations. 22 Sure, you and I might be sitting 23 there grabbing an ice cream and 24 chit-chatting. And what do you think about 25 this, that, and the new season. But we're 287 1 not having this open conversation. 2 So I would like to propose in the 3 same line why I had said that about Paul. 4 This is all very important information that 5 Paul gave us. So I'd like to see the CRE, 6 yes, talk about our committees and give an 7 update, yes. Have Nielsen come in and either 8 in each meeting potentially have one topic to 9 cover and then maybe have periodic all-day 10 meetings. Because if we are the research 11 heads and we're supposed to go back and be 12 the intellect for our company, then we need 13 to hear everything going on at Nielsen. And 14 also to number 3, have these intellectual and 15 robust conversations amongst us. 16 So one of the things, just 17 throwing out that, Joanne, what do you mean, 18 okay. So with all of the six streams of data 19 that are coming out right now, and I know 20 Nielsen is trying to decide, so what do we 21 limit it down to. 22 I gave my opinion when I was 23 called. And I have little sidebar 24 conversations with my peers. I thought this 25 would be a fantastic forum. All coming from 288 1 different disciplines to talk about the 2 different streams of data and which ones do 3 you use more often, less often. How do you 4 interpret it. What's valuable, what's not 5 valuable. C3 thrown in there for yet another 6 stream. 7 Got a another E-mail during our 8 break that now LPMs and the meter markets are 9 going to have C3 data or live plus 3 data. 10 So that's where, I know that's what I would 11 like to put on the table. That the CRE 12 really expands itself more than just these 13 committees and committee reports, but have 14 Nielsen report in. And then we have an 15 agenda to discuss some industry issues. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Let's discuss that 17 right there. Michele. 18 MS. BUSLIK: I'd like to answer 19 that, add to that because I know we answered 20 a survey. And, quite honestly, Nielsen has 21 never gotten back to me. I don't know if 22 they've got back to anyone else what the 23 results of that survey were, where they're 24 going, how they're going. What decisions 25 they've made about how you can define what a 289 1 commercial is, what's not a commercial. That 2 whole school of things. 3 But I really wonder, and I know 4 we meet quarterly, and it's a whole day. 5 It's like a meeting, I guess, very hard for 6 us. But with new techniques, maybe Nielsen 7 could arrange to have more often a shorter 8 hour or hour and a half, really in-depth 9 presentation of what's on their garden horse. 10 Because obviously what we saw today from 11 Paul, they are doing a lot of things that, 12 quite honestly, I didn't know about. And 13 they're all going to impact the data that we 14 use in the major media, which is national 15 television and local television. So I'd 16 really like to propose that, A, we get 17 feedback on that particular survey from them, 18 as well as propose a Nielsen-only 19 presentation. 20 MR. GREEN: So let me just kind 21 of dissect that a little bit. The survey 22 you're talking about I think was through 23 Nielsen Client Service, et cetera. I just 24 want to differentiate that from the CRE 25 business which is having a full-day meeting 290 1 and having Nielsen come in and report things. 2 And if the CRE wants to have a report on that 3 survey, then Nielsen will report to the CRE. 4 But I just want to make sure that this venue 5 is about the CRE and not about Nielsen Client 6 Service, just to differentiate those two 7 things. 8 MR. STERNBERG: I'm not sure what 9 the differentiating is. The purpose of the 10 CRE is to advise Nielsen on technological 11 research. That's the purpose of the surveys 12 that they're sending out, where people don't 13 hear anything until an annual client meeting 14 over what the results were. I think this is 15 the perfect venue to talk about that stuff. 16 MR. GREEN: I think it's the 17 perfect venue to talk about that stuff if the 18 CRE wants to talk about that. I'm just 19 saying that I just want to distinguish the 20 CRE conversation. I just want to make it 21 clear that really the CRE is about advising 22 Nielsen and also about advising itself on 23 research and the direction of research it 24 ought to go in. 25 MS. BURNS: That's exactly where 291 1 I was going. Because when I responded to 2 that survey, it was, to a large extent, in my 3 insular point of view, as opposed to having 4 an open conversation saying, okay, I 5 discounted that stream of data, but I can see 6 why it's valuable. 7 So in advising Nielsen, if you're 8 going to take a survey and decide from six 9 streams down to two or three which ones, 10 let's have an open conversation and learn 11 something along the way too. 12 MR. GREEN: Sure, sure. 13 MR. ZACKON: Put an idea out 14 there. And it's not required of Council 15 members because it's in addition to the 16 quarterly meeting. But what if there are 17 with a monthly one-hour Webinar. For this 18 group it could then be recorded and made 19 available on Nielsen's website and for its 20 whole client community addressing topic by 21 topic. And out of those meetings may come 22 some issues that the CRE may want to research 23 further. 24 MR. GREEN: That sounds great. 25 MR. ZACKON: It wouldn't be a 292 1 burden solely on Paul. Divide it up. Have 2 Bruce here for one. Someone from some other 3 area. But every month on the second Tuesday 4 of the month at 11 o'clock there's this 5 Webinar. Everyone could be. If you want to 6 join us just for the CRE, but record it and 7 made available to the large clients, this is 8 like a student audience. Keep it special 9 here first. But then it can be up there 10 within 24 hours for everyone who wanted to 11 listen. 12 MS. SIRKIN: That would be a 13 great idea. And focus the meeting more about 14 the discussion, that presentation of fact. 15 MR. ADGATE: Taking Joanne's 16 point, this is my first meeting. I was 17 thinking of an idea that this committee could 18 do. And talk to you, Mike, briefly about it. 19 All this news going on 20 economically this week, and what's been going 21 on, we've all done iPods and why should I 22 advertise in a recession or economic 23 slow-down. Now we're starting to see 24 consumers, 50 percent of consumers pay for 25 consumer supported media. 293 1 What impact does the economic 2 slow-down have on that. What impact does the 3 price of gas, of you going to the store and 4 buying things on websites. And Nielsen is 5 uniquely qualified on all these multiple 6 screens they look at. Or broadband video, 7 television video. You can say TV viewership 8 is going up. But maybe it's the price of 9 gas. But that's 30 years ago. And I think 10 it's changed by now. 11 I think that would be something 12 that I don't think anyone's ever done 13 anything on that how people behave on a 14 economic slow-down, all the touch points are 15 with all this new technology and long tail of 16 media that's available. And I think that 17 would be something perhaps worthwhile to look 18 into that. 19 MR. GREEN: Let me make a 20 proposal. Why isn't it, in addition to 21 saying yes to monthly Webinars, I think it's 22 a good idea to have somebody in charge of 23 that to run the agenda. In other words, this 24 month we're going to talk about this. This 25 month we're going to talk about that. So 294 1 that it's what the CRE wants month by month 2 versus just -- and Nielsen can provide a list 3 of things that it has prepared materials on. 4 Or if there's questions that Nielsen does not 5 have prepared materials on, that will help 6 focus us to prepare them. 7 MR. ZACKON: I'd be happy to 8 coordinate and administer that. I think the 9 steering committee may want to be the place 10 where the topics get selected. 11 MR. GREEN: Which is fine. Or a 12 committee set up under the steering 13 committee. 14 MS. LIGUORI: I'd like to get 15 back to Joanne's point because we've drifted 16 from it. And the key point was having 17 discussion with all the people from the 18 different, you know, client bases of Nielsen 19 and to discuss and brainstorm issues. 20 One of the things, every year the 21 owned television stations come in for an 22 annual meeting. And we have an agenda. It's 23 a day and a half. We have Nielsen. We have 24 vendors. Whatever. But we always leave time 25 for a roundtable. And each station can talk 295 1 about whatever they want to. Each person. 2 And it's during those roundtables where we do 3 have that idea and information exchange. 4 Somebody in Houston may talk 5 about something. And, you know, the other 6 stations have lived it, done it or not done 7 it, or not heard about it. So it's very good 8 for us to do that. 9 Now, granted, we're all, some of 10 us are competitors, but on the other hand, 11 we've got buyer side/seller side. So it 12 might be, and maybe this is something that 13 for each quarterly meeting you set aside a 14 portion of the agenda. You have X number of 15 individuals agree in advance that, you know, 16 these five individuals are going to talk 17 about things for this meeting. And then, you 18 know, just throw things out and get the 19 response from the group. And it may be that 20 the first person throws out something, and, 21 you know, it's worth the minutes of 22 conversation. And then the next person. 23 We don't know where it will go. 24 But I think that's the type of dynamic 25 discussion and learning that we can gain from 296 1 it. So that's my two cents. 2 MS. BURNS: And we did in the 3 beginning stages of the CRE when we were 4 deciding panels. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Is this something, 6 I mean, it sounds like you're getting a lot 7 of agreement. Somebody want to formulate 8 that as a motion, let's say, unless Mark, if 9 you're just saying a flat yes... 10 MR. GREEN: I'm saying it's a 11 flat yes. All I'm saying is I think it would 12 be a good idea if somebody kind of ran what 13 the agenda is, what was the agenda's 14 discussion. Great. In the agenda's topic, 15 great. If it's both. Instead of just 16 putting it out there. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to set 18 down the action steps. Are there really two 19 action steps? First, does the committee 20 still want to, whether we can attend Webinars 21 or not, does the committee still want Paul 22 Donato or whoever to talk about a topic, a 23 meeting? That's one. And then, second, 24 there's a separate issue on Webinars and 25 Nielsen updates. So are those two separate 297 1 items? I, again, from the point of view of 2 running a committee, maybe they could be 3 separate so we can vote on each one. 4 MS. BURNS: Two separate items, 5 related items. That's all about Nielsen 6 informing us. 7 The second item is that we make 8 it a regular part of our meeting to have an 9 open forum conversation. It can be 10 structured or unstructured. We either put an 11 agenda or we don't. But to keep an open 12 dialoguing. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Can I break that 14 into three then. One, do we have agreement, 15 and we can do this. I saw this at the 16 Convention by acclamation. Do we have 17 agreement that Paul Donato or his 18 representative should talk about a specific 19 topic to be determined at every meeting? 20 MR. STERNBERG: Can I make a 21 comment before we vote by acclimation, 22 because I'll vote yes if everybody wants to 23 vote yes. But the only point I make is I see 24 that all the time. I go to the AAAAs Media 25 Research Committee and Paul Donato's in there 298 1 every time. And the people from Nielsen are 2 in there every time. And that's not what 3 this committee, this Council is really all 4 about. I've seen that before. 5 What are they going to come in 6 and talk about that I'm not hearing at three 7 or four other committees? 8 MS. BURNS: Everything we said 9 here today. 10 MR. GREEN: So the other 11 alternative is to do a kind of a special 12 meeting where everybody can show up or do it 13 at the committee, depending on what the 14 committee wants to vote on. There aren't a 15 lot of topics. It's going to stretch over 16 time. 17 MR. ZACKON: The advantage of the 18 monthly, if Steve's not interested in that 19 topic -- 20 MR. GREEN: He doesn't have to 21 show up. And there's no attendance issue. 22 MR. ZACKON: Exactly. Whereas, 23 what Joanne's talking about is something that 24 happens at these meetings. Mark whispered in 25 my ear. That would be a great idea to do 299 1 over lunch. Maybe we start out, whatever, 2 and have that conversation. 3 MR. GREEN: Getting to what 4 Joanne and Pat were saying in terms of 5 discussion, I think it's worth voting on now, 6 whether that takes place at CRE meeting 7 because that's a forced attendance event. 8 And maybe the discussion's better held there. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks for the 10 recommendation. I need somebody from the CRE 11 to make that motion. 12 MS. LIGUORI: I motion to do 13 whatever. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: What is it though? 15 MS. LIGUORI: I motion that at 16 each of these quarterly meetings -- 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Sessions of the 18 CRE. 19 MS. LIGUORI: Sessions, we set 20 aside time for a roundtable discussion of the 21 issues that are of most concern to the people 22 here. And during lunch is a perfect time to 23 do it actually. 24 MR. ZACKON: Pat, that would be 25 issues that people would bring up. And say, 300 1 gee, at the next quarter's meeting I'd like 2 to lead a discussion on -- you don't have to 3 say what the topic is -- but it will be up to 4 individual members to bring forth issues. 5 MS. BURNS: Or contemporaneously 6 saying, planned or not. 7 MR. SUSSMAN: More like our 8 original meetings when we were trying to run 9 everything. Kind of like Council meetings of 10 where do we want to go. 11 MS. BURNS: Those first meetings 12 were great. We had stimulating individual 13 conversations. From that we decided what 14 committees to form. And that's all we do. 15 MR. ZACKON: Maybe we've run out 16 of things. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: I may want to 18 counter those things a little. I totally 19 agree that those early meetings were 20 exciting. But part of the reason we've been 21 successful in terms of generating three times 22 1.5 million, putting a couple of items in the 23 field and so on, is that we did get down to 24 maybe the quote, less fun work of actually 25 doing it. Assigning committee chairs, doing 301 1 the work, having the conference calls. 2 MS. BURNS: I want my cake and 3 eat it too. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: You want your cake 5 and eat it too. 6 MS. SHAGRIN: Why does one have 7 to negate the other. If you have a standard 8 meeting from 9:00 to 1:00 and you have a 9 standard meeting from 9:00 to noon, an open 10 discussion from 12:00 to 1:00 during lunch, 11 you accomplish both. 12 MS. BURNS: I love the fact we do 13 it over lunch. 14 MS. UYENCO: The other thing that 15 would make it wonderful to have free-flowing 16 discussions, we need to constantly open 17 ourselves up to new things, new issues that 18 are coming up. Absolutely. But the other 19 thing too, in addition to that is if you 20 really are for research excellence and we're 21 really looking at establishing what are best 22 methodologies, set ourselves up for the 23 future. And I would suggest that we almost 24 legislate it. That we devote a certain part 25 of all the time we spend meeting together to 302 1 look at innovation in, say, video 2 distribution and what different companies are 3 doing. Because that's what we need to set up 4 arguing about; the best way of measuring 5 audiences. We need to know what's coming 6 down the pike. We need to be able to 7 separate what's real, what's not. And then 8 we have to look at the business implications 9 of those. 10 And when we talk about, when 11 there's a free-for-all sort of discussion, we 12 really then can ferret out what the business 13 implications are for all the new technologies 14 that are coming out in video and what it 15 means for measurement. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: I do have to 17 resort a little bit to Roberts' Rules Of 18 Order. There is, actually, boring as it 19 might be, there actually is a Pat Liguori 20 motion on the floor. I think Steve Sternberg 21 made a point of clarification. I think those 22 are allowed. Not to be too much of a 23 stickler, but we actually do have a motion on 24 the floor. 25 Good point. You want to rephrase 303 1 based on the input you got. Because I think 2 the difficulty here is Pat actually said 3 something and now people are expanding and 4 contracting. 5 MS. LIGUORI: Here's the gist of 6 it. The gist of it is that at each quarterly 7 meeting, preferably during the lunch hour, we 8 will have a free-form roundtable discussion 9 of topics that are raised by Council members. 10 They may or may not be established in advance 11 of the meeting. They may be dynamically, you 12 know, tossed out for discussion. And what 13 else? 14 MS. BURNS: That's one. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Second it. 16 Because there's been actually some discussion 17 or disagreement. I'm not going to say 18 there's acclimation. I'd rather have a hand 19 vote on that. 20 So, all in favor of that notion, 21 raise your hand. 22 MS. BUSLIK: What about the phone 23 people? 24 THE CHAIRMAN: We'll get the 25 phone people. This time we did it this way. 304 1 We're giving everybody a fair chance. 2 Raise your hand if you're against 3 that, okay. Then on the phone... 4 MR. STERNBERG: Yes. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Steve, yes? 6 MR. STERNBERG: Yes. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? 8 MS. SIRKIN: Yes. 9 MR. PARDEE: Pardee is a yes. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Pardee is a yes. 11 So we did get a unanimous vote after all. 12 And now, Beth or anybody else, is 13 there a separate motion beyond that, just to 14 get this on the record? 15 MR. GREEN: I'll propose the 16 monthly meeting concept. It could be a Web-X 17 or in person, depending on what people want. 18 It can be both. But the monthly meeting 19 concept where it will be a predetermined 20 agenda topic so people could show up as they 21 please. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Just for the CRE. 23 MR. GREEN: Just for the CRE, 24 determined by the CRE. And this proposal is 25 with a caveat that somebody takes ownership 305 1 of the agenda. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure since 3 Mark recommended/proposed it, that we 4 necessarily need to vote on it. 5 MR. GREEN: I can offer it. I'll 6 offer to do it if somebody will offer to be 7 in charge of the agenda. 8 MR. ZACKON: I'll work with 9 Nielsen to handle that. But I'd like the 10 topic items they'd like to hear to come from 11 the steering committee. 12 MR. GREEN: Or from a committee 13 that wants to steer the discussion. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: So, point of 15 clarification. You're the author and the 16 thing we voted for that was positive, 17 explicitly did not say Paul Donato's supposed 18 to come here once a month. 19 MR. GREEN: The reason why -- 20 MS. SINGER: It's a separate 21 item. 22 MR. GREEN: Let me just say the 23 reason why I didn't say. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Can I just get 25 agreement? 306 1 MR. GREEN: Yes. That's correct, 2 that's correct, that's correct. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: It is correct that 4 we have not voted on that and what you 5 offered is not the same thing? 6 MR. GREEN: That's correct, 7 that's correct. And let me offer a little 8 advertisement about the reason why I phrased 9 it that way since we're in the advertising 10 business. The reason why I phrased it that 11 way is because we had some meetings for 12 committees where we had Nielsen people. And 13 I much prefer to have the people that are in 14 the trenches on the topic to talk it out 15 because it creates a really dynamic dialogue 16 in those meetings. And so that is what I 17 would hope to have those meetings be about. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: So we have two 19 action steps. So there's no proposal then on 20 Paul at this point that anybody wants to do. 21 I mean, I agree, Barbara, it's a separate 22 topic. But nobody's stepping forward and 23 saying regardless of this discussion, I still 24 want Paul to update us every month. 25 MS. SINGER: No, no. It's not 307 1 restricted to Paul? 2 MR. GREEN: No, it's not 3 restricted to Paul. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: But it is a 5 Webinar though. 6 MR. GREEN: I didn't restrict it 7 to a Webinar. I said it could be an 8 in-person thing. We'll define it as we go. 9 I just committed to every month we'll 10 organize a way of getting together and 11 communicating where there will be some sort 12 of graphical communication. 13 MR. ZACKON: That's apart from 14 our quarterly meetings. 15 MR. MURPHY: But you also said a 16 by-product of that venue would have been 17 something that would be exportable to the 18 audience at large; is that correct? 19 MR. GREEN: That's correct. 20 That's correct. And that's the way we did it 21 before. In that case we actually sent a 22 presentation out in one case. In another 23 case we did a Web-X. 24 MR. MURPHY: We could be a great 25 product for the CRE website. 308 1 MR. ZACKON: Absolutely. 2 MR. GREEN: We may lose the 3 discussion. I don't know if we can record 4 it. We've got to figure out the money side. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Mark, you'll get 6 in touch with us about confirming. That's 7 real progress in the new business section. 8 Very good. 9 Any others? 10 MR. GREEN: Can I make one 11 comment about the facilitator discussion 12 which I think needs to be made with Richard 13 in the room. So if I can make that, and that 14 is that the discussion that I think we're 15 about to get into is whether or not a 16 facilitator role ought to be paid for by the 17 CRE. So the CRE owns the facilitator more 18 than being kind of this quasi-foggy notion of 19 whether Nielsen owns it or the CRE owns it or 20 whatever. 21 But I think that something that 22 probably didn't get articulated in the 23 communication during the steering committee 24 meeting, because I dialed into a different 25 number, but is the notion that I think it's 309 1 important to understand that the facilitator 2 does one job. Richard's been doing two jobs. 3 He's been doing the facilitator job and 4 administrative job. And the administrative 5 job that gets done is pretty ad hoc right 6 now. 7 Does it make sense for the CRE to 8 have an administrator to get a lot of things 9 done? Because I think things would run a 10 little bit smoother if that was the case. 11 And I think if Richard could just spend one 12 minute on that, I think that would be helpful 13 to describe the difference between the two. 14 MR. ZACKON: I hadn't prepared. 15 I'm prepared to leave the room, actually. I 16 rehearsed it all night. The facilitator is 17 facilitating at these meetings. But I feel 18 like I kind of hold the Council together 19 between meetings and committees across the 20 Council. And frankly, I love doing that. 21 I'm equipped to do that. Whether I think I 22 do a good job with that is up to you. 23 That's different from people 24 calling me that I need a conference line for 25 my committee meeting or can you get me 310 1 someone's phone number, or like that. And 2 I've tried as best I can. Nielsen's been 3 largely pretty good about providing 4 resources. But we don't have our own 5 conference line for the Council. Stuff like 6 that. Getting E-mails out, like that. So 7 that's what I would call administrative. 8 MR. GREEN: And it's been pretty 9 ad hoc. And I just want to differentiate 10 that there's definitely a need there. And I 11 just wanted to be clear about that. 12 MR. ZACKON: I thought of getting 13 a virtual assistant for myself to kind of 14 handle that and make it work that way. 15 MS. CUCCINELLO: Didn't you have 16 an assistant that was funded at one point? 17 MR. ZACKON: Anne stepped into a 18 role. Amber begat Rebecca and Rebecca 19 begat -- there are a lot of begats. Anne's 20 now begotten by John and communications. And 21 so her availability has been a little less. 22 MR. GREEN: There's never been 23 anything formal about that. Always been very 24 ad hoc, starting to formalize things. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Since you brought 311 1 it up, since we're going to get into the 2 discussion, is there actually a dollar amount 3 implication. Like, you know, you brought it 4 up to describe Richard's role. But also does 5 it have dollars implications? 6 MR. GREEN: Nielsen doesn't have 7 an allocation on that, if that's what you're 8 asking. So I don't have a dollar amount on 9 it. Everybody's just kind of just bouncing 10 around trying to make it run smoothly. And I 11 just want to make it clear that if you're 12 going to talk about bringing a facility 13 in-house, it would make a lot of sense to 14 talk about whether you have that in-house or 15 not, or at least distinguish it from the 16 facilitator role. Let's put it that way. 17 MS. BURNS: I'm still trying to 18 get my arms around the administrative part. 19 It's ad hoc. It could be an hour a week, 20 none a week, ten a week. 21 MR. ZACKON: Before the meetings 22 it's more than an hour a week. Generally, 23 it's probably at most an hour a week. 24 Sometimes it just needs to be someone who's 25 in there at the moment to handle it. 312 1 MS. BURNS: Mike's question is 2 there's a dollar allocation. It doesn't 3 sound like any stretch of imagination. This 4 is a full-time body dedicated. But rather 5 just Nielsen making it an official 6 responsibility as a point person for Richard, 7 no? 8 MR. GREEN: Possibly, possibly. 9 That's a possible situation. I mean, I just 10 think it would be more disruptive if they ask 11 for that type of functionality. Because it 12 was not originally a part of the scope of 13 discussion. And I'm not pushing back. I'm 14 just saying I just want to formalize things. 15 That's all. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: And the reason 17 we're even having this discussion, so we can 18 wrap up here soon, the reason we're even 19 having the discussion is that we did bring it 20 up at the steering committee. And the 21 steering committee group felt that it was 22 worthy to discuss at this full hearing 23 meeting. In other words, not something we 24 would just dispose of and table for the next 25 meeting. So let's do it. 313 1 MR. ZACKON: I'm happy to leave. 2 My only concern is I would like to allow time 3 at the end of this meeting just to hear, 4 particularly from the new members, but from 5 everyone, just some closing words. So I'll 6 be outside. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: It's about 3:30. 8 Take five or 10 minutes. And give everybody 9 a chance to wrap up. And it will come up in 10 the steering committee as a topic worth 11 bringing up. And I'll entertain discussion 12 on that topic. 13 (Whereupon, the facilitator, 14 Richard Zackon, left the meeting room.) 15 MR. GREEN: So if I can just 16 explain someting about Richard first that 17 this CRE may not be aware of. Richard's 18