1 1 NIELSEN MEDIA RESEARCH -----------------------------------------x 2 COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH EXCELLENCE 3 MEETING OF BOARD MEMBERS 4 -----------------------------------------x 5 Thursday, September 17, 2009 6 1:00 p.m. 7 8 Concierge Conference Center 9 780 Third Avenue 10 New York, New York 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 REGENCY REPORTING, INC. 22 Certified Court Reporters & Videographers 23 425 Eagle Rock Avenue 575 Madison Avenue 24 Roseland, NJ 07068 New York, NY 10022 25 www.regencyreporting.net (866) 268-7866 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: 3 RICHARD ZACKON, Facilitator IRA SUSSMAN, Chair 4 MIKE HESS, Vice Chair MICHAEL LINK 5 BRAD ADGATE HORST STIPP 6 NANCY GALLAGHER DAN MURPHY 7 MICHELE BUSLIK DAVID POLTRACK 8 MICHAEL NATHANSON BARBARA SINGER 9 SHARI ANNE BRILL STEVE STERNBERG 10 COLLEEN FAHEY-RUSH CERIL SHAGRIN 11 SUSAN CUCCINELLO PAT LIGUORI 12 LAURA COWAN BETH ROCKWOOD 13 MATT ROSS ALEX CORTISELLI 14 NOREEN SIMMONS JACK WAKSHLAG 15 MARK KALINE GREG GROSS 16 JOANNE BURNS 17 PRESENT BY PHONE: 18 PAUL DONATO BETH UYENCO 19 BILLY McDOWELL BOB IVINS 20 MIKE PARDEE 21 22 ALSO PRESENT: 23 ROBERT M. LEVINE, Court Reporter 24 25 3 1 MR. HESS: I'd like to start the 2 meeting. Take us a couple of minutes after 3 1:00. Are we all set? Are there people on 4 the phone as well? 5 A VOICE: Yes. 6 MR. HESS: Okay, good. I'd like 7 to welcome everyone to our fall meeting. 8 Hope everybody had a good summer. We have a 9 chockful agenda today. So I will keep my 10 opening remarks brief. 11 I know that there's been a lot of 12 activity this summer on a couple of the 13 topics that the relevant committee chairs 14 will talk about later. So I want to thank 15 everybody for donating at least a part of 16 your summer if you serve on one of these 17 committees for the purposes of the CRE. 18 Again, this is an exciting time. 19 We've had a study rollout. We've had a 20 couple of studies presented in various 21 conferences now. And as we move into, let's 22 say, the next phase of our existence, we need 23 to consolidate what we've done already and 24 keep growing in the areas that are still 25 under development. 4 1 So, with that in mind, one of the 2 topics today for new business will be -- I'm 3 going to say it now -- so think about it 4 until the end of the meeting under new 5 business will be the brainstorming session 6 that we set up for October 22nd. So I'm 7 going to be looking for as many volunteers as 8 possible when we get to new business who will 9 say that they can attend that day, okay. 10 Without any further ado, Richard, 11 do we want to take attendance or find out 12 who's on the phone? 13 MR. ZACKON: We should. We also 14 have a couple of people here, one at least, 15 it's their first meeting and should be 16 welcomed. 17 MR. HESS: Oh, is that right? 18 MR. ZACKON: I believe so. 19 MR. HESS: Who is that? 20 MR. ZACKON: Mr./Herr Stipp. 21 MR. STIPP: Right here. Hi 22 everybody. 23 MR. HESS: I think everybody 24 knows Horst. But just in case, would you 25 please identify yourself. 5 1 MR. STIPP: Thanks, Mike. My 2 name's Horst Stipp. I'm with NBC. My 3 official title is senior VP of Strategic 4 Insights and Innovations in the Research 5 Department. I report to Alan Ross who you 6 all know. And it's a privilege to be part of 7 the group. Thank you. 8 MR. HESS: Welcome. Anyone else 9 that we missed who's here for the first time? 10 MR. ZACKON: Michele and Ceril, 11 okay. 12 Let's start with the phone 13 because they often feel left out. Who's on 14 the phone. 15 MR. McDOWELL: Bill McDowell here 16 from Raycom Media. 17 MR. PARDEE: Mike Pardee from 18 Scripps Networks. 19 MR. HESS: Mike, of course. 20 Okay. 21 Anyone else going from south to 22 north? 23 MR. IVINS: Bob Ivins from 24 Comcast. 25 MR. HESS: Anyone else? 6 1 MR. ZACKON: Is Joanne on the 2 call? She said she's participating, maybe 3 remotely. 4 MS. UYENCO: Hi. This is Beth 5 Uyenco, Microsoft in Chicago. 6 MR. HESS: Beth, okay. 7 Anyone else on the phone? So we 8 actually have a pretty good crowd. 9 MR. ZACKON: We do. 10 MR. HESS: This room is almost 11 pretty full. I think we should go around one 12 time and let's identify yourselves. 13 Brad, would you start it off, 14 MR. ADGATE: Sure. I'm Brad 15 Adgate, Horizon Media. 16 MS. GALLAGHER: Nancy Gallagher. 17 NBC Universal. 18 MR. STIPP: Horst Stipp, NBC. 19 MR. MURPHY: Dan Murphy, 20 Univision. 21 MR. ROSS: Matt Ross, Hearst 22 Television. 23 MS. ROCKWOOD: Beth Rockwood, 24 Discovery Communications. 25 MR. POLTRACK: Dave Poltrack, 7 1 CBS. 2 MR. KALINE: Mark Kaline, 3 Kimberly Clark. 4 MR. SCHWARTZ: Lyle Schwartz, 5 Group M. 6 MS. SIMMONS: Noreen Simmons 7 Unilever. 8 MR. LINK: Mike Link, Nielsen. 9 MR. ZACKON: Richard Zackon, your 10 humble facilitator. 11 MR. HESS: I'm not sure how to 12 follow that up. Mike Hess, chairing today. 13 MR. SUSSMAN: Ira Sussman, CAB. 14 MS. LIGUORI: Pat Liguori, ABC 15 owned television stations. 16 MR. CORTESELLI: Alex Corteselli. 17 MS. BRILL: Shari Anne Brill, 18 Carat. 19 MR. STERNBERG: Steve Sternberg 20 to be somewhere. 21 MR. WAKSHLAG: Jack Wakshlag, 22 Turner Broadcasting. 23 MR. NATHANSON: Michael 24 Nathanson, Sanford Bernstein. 25 MS. SINGER: Barbara Singer. 8 1 MS. BUSLIK: Michele Buslik. 2 MR. HESS: I'll repeat the names 3 picked up on the phone: Billy McDowell, Mike 4 Pardee, Bob Ivins, Beth Uyenco. 5 Did I miss anybody? That's four, 6 okay. 7 So without any further ado then, 8 welcome again. And again, we have a full 9 agenda. Do think about, if you just walked 10 in, do think about your possibilities of 11 attending a very important and valuable 12 brainstorming session on October 22nd. So 13 I'll poll everybody under new business when 14 we get to that point. 15 Just a couple of things for those 16 who are new that we try to do at these 17 committee meetings in case you're checking 18 your PDAs, BlackBerries, or phone. We strive 19 to start on time. I think that we did that 20 within a minute or two today. We encourage 21 respectful communication with each other. I 22 think every meeting has had that. And we try 23 very, very hard to finish on time. So when 24 it says adjourn at 4:00, count on it, okay. 25 So the next agenda item is the 9 1 steering committee report by Ira Sussman. 2 Ira. 3 MR. SUSSMAN: Okay. We had a 4 steering meeting call on September 8th and we 5 talked about a number of different items; one 6 being membership. Just a RFP today. Steve 7 is here by virtue of a steering committee 8 vote. We have this unwritten rule called the 9 bridge rule. So if you're kind of in between 10 employment, you are allowed to attend the 11 meeting, assuming that we'd like you to, I 12 guess. What we'd like to do is we need to 13 think about adding that to the bylaws as an 14 official rule of this group as opposed to an 15 ad hoc vote every time everybody's name comes 16 up. So it started with Mark. And Steve's 17 taken advantage of that. So I think at the 18 next steering committee we'll try to get the 19 words together for an update to the bylaws 20 and we'll have a vote on that. 21 At this steering committee we had 22 a number of recommendations for -- we've come 23 up with our recommendations for either member 24 replacement additions or not recommended for 25 Council membership at this time. And we'll 10 1 go through that real quick. And we need to 2 vote on these as a Council. 3 We recommend approval, we 4 recommend Council member replacement for 5 Henry DeVault from ABC-Disney with another 6 ABC-Disney representative. Robin Thomas. 7 Did Robin make this call? 8 MR. ZACKON: Oh, she still needed 9 to be voted on. 10 MR. SUSSMAN: She gets a pass on 11 this one. I guess her first meeting could be 12 the October meeting. 13 Are we going to vote all at the 14 end of this? 15 MR. ZACKON: We vote a slate. 16 MR. HESS: We typically vote a 17 slate. 18 MR. SUSSMAN: We have candidate 19 replacement. Then we have three we're 20 recommending as Council members: David Asher 21 from A&E Network; Liz Nash from Deutsche 22 Advertising -- before we go on to the not 23 recommended, we could have a vote on those. 24 So that's the slate. 25 Do we need -- 11 1 MR. HESS: I think we need a 2 motion, somebody to move. 3 MS. LIGUORI: I move we vote. 4 MR. SCHWARTZ: Second. 5 MR. HESS: I don't know if 6 everyone's had a chance to glance quickly. 7 If you want to look at I guess their short 8 descriptions in that dec, or you probably 9 know those people from past experience. 10 We'll do the phone vote 11 separately. So everyone in the room who 12 votes in favor of accepting the complete 13 slate, please say aye. 14 (En masse, aye.) 15 MR. HESS: Opposed? Okay. 16 Then, on the phone, would 17 everyone who votes in favor of accepting the 18 recommended slate say aye. 19 (En masse, aye.) 20 MR. HESS: Anybody opposed, say 21 nay. Okay, it sounds like we have unanimous 22 consent to adding those people. 23 Ira, at the next meeting then 24 will they be eligible for the brainstorm? 25 MR. ZACKON: The idea was to 12 1 invite them now so they can be here for the 2 brainstorming. 3 MR. HESS: Excellent. Okay. 4 MR. SUSSMAN: Also, on our call 5 we had two people who expressed interest in 6 joining who are not recommended for Council 7 membership at this time. I'll go through 8 each one. And we can discuss each one here 9 if you feel you'd like to. 10 The first was Mitchell Oscar from 11 MPG. While the committee appreciates MPG as 12 an organization's interest, considering the 13 CRE's objectives, we believe the seat would 14 best be held by their chief research officer 15 as an organization. So we'll communicate 16 that to Mitch and MPG, unless there's some 17 discussion here that you think that's not the 18 way to go. 19 MR. HESS: Any formal discussion, 20 any comments somebody wants to make about 21 that? Okay. 22 MR. SUSSMAN: The second might 23 have more of a conversation, but we'll see. 24 Craig Google expressed interest from the AFR. 25 And what we have is a committee decided we 13 1 have said while we believe that Craig would 2 be a great addition to the Council and 3 individual committees' discussions and work, 4 we believe the AFR as a non-Nielsen 5 organization has some competing interest to 6 the CRE's. But an acknowledgment of the 7 value of Craig would add, would feel the best 8 approach would be to continue to invite Craig 9 to participate in areas that would benefit 10 both the AFR and CRE jointly. Craig can also 11 request participation in individual 12 committees. And could be granted access at 13 the approval of the committee. So, for 14 example, we might invite Craig to the October 15 meeting because he would bring good insights 16 and direction, but, at this time, don't think 17 that he belongs as part of the Council with 18 voting interests. 19 MR. HESS: Okay. Any discussion 20 on the AFR? 21 Richard, can I ask you a point of 22 clarification on that. 23 MR. ZACKON: Please. 24 MR. HESS: There is a 25 recommendation here that on an ad hoc basis 14 1 that we invite Craig. So maybe not every 2 meeting, but ad hoc, depending on the fit. 3 Is that something that the bylaws 4 requires to us actually vote on, or can it be 5 at the discretion of the appropriate meeting? 6 MR. ZACKON: I don't know that 7 the bylaws say that people can't be here as a 8 matter of a rule. I don't think you need to 9 change the bylaw. The meeting that made 10 sense to me is our next meeting in October. 11 It's not a formal business meeting of the 12 Council. It's an opportunity to explore and 13 discuss. 14 MR. HESS: So Craig could be 15 invited without having to vote on. Can we 16 invite Craig on an ad hoc basis? 17 MR. ZACKON: Leave it up to the 18 steering committee to do that. We take 19 sensitive issues. Again, because we are 20 public here, there was clearly no point of 21 view about Craig other than he'd be a great 22 guy to have here. The conversation was about 23 the relationship between the CRE and the AFR. 24 MR. HESS: Okay. 25 A VOICE: And Nielsen and the 15 1 AFR. And Nielsen and the AFR. 2 MR. ZACKON: Perhaps. Although 3 they didn't participate in the study in the 4 discussion. 5 A VOICE: They're not a client. 6 MR. ZACKON: Right. With the 7 exception of the MRC. 8 MR. POLTRACK: What was it with 9 Mitchell and Oscar? What was their reaction, 10 MPG's reaction? 11 MR. SUSSMAN: We have not 12 referred back to Mitch or MPG yet. That was 13 a recommendation by the steering committee to 14 bring to the Council for either. 15 MR. POLTRACK: What is Mitchell's 16 role that makes him not? Because, I mean, 17 different people/organizations here have 18 people from different -- not everybody here 19 is represented by their lead research person. 20 They're represented by people in the research 21 area, but not the lead research person. 22 MR. SUSSMAN: Well, in the bylaws 23 they do say that originally we were looking 24 for, Nielsen was looking for the chief 25 research officer at each organization or 16 1 somebody of high esteem. 2 Mitchell's original request was 3 to be very involved in the set-top box area 4 because that's what we were doing. And 5 that's what his life is about. He, himself 6 says 'I'm not a researcher, I am an idea 7 guy'. So from his own kind of interest, we 8 didn't really feel that if his main focus is 9 to be participating in our set-top box 10 committee. And that committee is already 11 full and closed. We're not sure that he was 12 the right person for the greater 13 across-the-board projects that this Council 14 is taking on. 15 MR. HESS: Any further 16 discussion? 17 MR. SCHWARTZ: One question: We 18 said we were talking about inviting -- I 19 don't care if Craig is invited. You had said 20 something; he doesn't have to be invited to 21 the meeting. You've got to be careful not 22 to, because Mitch can then say he doesn't 23 have to be invited, but he can show up. 24 MR. ZACKON: The steering 25 committee is almost a security council. The 17 1 steering committee can choose to invite 2 someone to a meeting. That's where it would 3 come from. And anyone can petition the 4 steering committee to invite -- 5 MR. SCHWARTZ: Right. 6 MR. ZACKON: -- but we ought to 7 give them some direction as to who gets to be 8 invited. Basically, these meetings are for 9 members. 10 MR. HESS: My take on this as 11 well is it's always on a meeting-by-meeting 12 basis. So in Craig's case he's not 13 automatically going to be invited to every 14 meeting based on the recommendation. 15 MR. ZACKON: That's correct. 16 There's also Nielsen people at the end of 17 this meeting when we talk about the October 18 meeting who are not members of the Council 19 who we would like to invite to participate in 20 the conversation. And we'll discuss that as 21 well. There was some resentment at Nielsen; 22 'You mean it's an exclusive club'? I said, 23 well, sort of, membership. 24 MR. DONATO: On the phone, I have 25 to leave in about 20 minutes so I won't be 18 1 able to stay. 2 MR. ZACKON: That's Paul Donato. 3 MR. HESS: Did you want to make 4 some comments? 5 MR. KALINE: He was breaking up. 6 MR. HESS: Ira? 7 MR. SUSSMAN: The final 8 membership that we actually have to look to 9 the future, and any suggestions. Again, 10 these fall with the company, not with the 11 person. 12 Moving on, from Magna IPG. We're 13 going to be looking for a replacement from 14 the IPG organization. So if Steve or 15 somebody has a recommendation, we'll ask them 16 to put somebody forward. 17 The second thing that we 18 discussed was a proposal by Ball State about 19 a book. Ball State sent a proposal to 20 produce a book summarizing the results of the 21 VCM project. The committee's point of view 22 on that was agreed that a book would be a 23 good idea. 24 Ball State also requested funding 25 for this project. The committee believes 19 1 that Ball State should approach publishers 2 for funding of this project as opposed to 3 CRE. CRE should not be asked for financial 4 support for Ball State's time and effort. 5 So, in addition, further 6 discussions will be to decide the issues of 7 any possible future revenue from those book 8 sales. 9 MR. HESS: Is that something that 10 we could vote on? A book seems to be in the 11 broader interests of the entire Council. So 12 would somebody, actually, it's a two-part 13 recommendation, right? 14 MS. SIMMONS: I just wanted to 15 ask the question first. Is there any 16 conversation about what the book would be 17 called or how it would be titled? 18 The reason I'm asking is I think 19 there were some people on the west coast 20 about something entirely different a few 21 weeks ago. And I started to bring up the VCM 22 study. And they were like, 'I don't know 23 what you're talking about', until I said Ball 24 State. 'Oh, yes. The Ball State study'. So 25 it seems to be taking on life as a Ball State 20 1 piece of work. That's why I'm just curious 2 about how would the book be titled, so that 3 it doesn't necessarily just get named Ball 4 State. 5 MR. ZACKON: I think $65,000 6 probably goes some way towards the title of 7 the book. Call me old-fashioned. 8 MS. SHAGRIN: It was in the 9 original study as well. And it is a 10 Nielsen/CRE area study conducted by them. 11 MR. HESS: Any other discussion? 12 MS. BRILL: Yes. Since Nielsen 13 owns the data and it is a Council For 14 Research Excellence study, my thinking is we 15 should have a stake in that book and have a 16 paragraph or a chapter. And maybe have a 17 revenue split. 18 MR. SUSSMAN: Even before we got 19 to revenue, they're asking for us to fund the 20 book. And the perspective of the steering 21 committee was that people in academia go to 22 publish books. They do it all the time. 23 They get funding from publishers. They see 24 if their idea has merit. And they don't feel 25 that a good chunk of the proposal is to pay 21 1 for Ball State's personnel and time in 2 writing the book. We didn't feel that was 3 appropriate for us to be funding that. 4 MR. HESS: Is there further 5 discussion? 6 By the way, I don't want to rush 7 the motion, but I do see there being two 8 motions; one, about the book and one about 9 the funding, so... 10 MR. STERNBERG: What funding did 11 they ask for? 12 MR. SUSSMAN: Between 60 and 13 $65,000. 14 MR. ZACKON: I'll say, she's not 15 here, Jessica, our treasurer, felt that if we 16 are going to put up some money for it, then 17 there should be something coming back from 18 the sale of the book. 19 MR. DONATO: You're already 20 giving them data. I think, even if there is 21 no funding, the Council For Research 22 Excellence ought to be given credit in the 23 book. 24 MR. ZACKON: That's for sure. 25 And I think they intend to have some chapter 22 1 headings which include quotes or 2 introductions by different industry 3 participants. 4 MR. HESS: Make reference to the 5 CRE name, et cetera. 6 MR. ZACKON: Who was that who 7 said something on the phone? 8 MR. HESS: Paul. 9 MR. LINK: Ira, one other thing 10 you can do is ask them to actually do a more 11 detailed outline which would include the 12 title, what the chapter, proposed chapters 13 would be. 14 MR. HESS: I like that idea. I 15 think we should give them a signal though 16 that we could signal with a vote today that, 17 in principle, we either are or are not in 18 favor of the book. Based on what I'm hearing 19 so far, I don't hear too many objections to 20 that. But we would also reserve the right to 21 look at a prospectus and approving more 22 specifically what the book's going to be 23 about and how it's written. 24 MR. HESS: Okay. Any other 25 discussion? Otherwise, I'd like to hear a 23 1 motion, first on the book itself. 2 A VOICE: Another angle on that. 3 If they go forward with the book, it seems 4 like if they get any revenue/profit out of 5 it, that they would reinvest and take on the 6 burden of funding future research. 7 MR. HESS: That's something that 8 they could address maybe in their prospectus 9 and how they would approach us. 10 MR. SUSSMAN: That's a pretty 11 lofty goal; to make money on the book. 12 MS. ROCKWOOD: Make it a 13 textbook, required reading. 14 MR. HESS: Again, can we get, it 15 feels like there's three total steps; two we 16 can address today and one next time. 17 The first two are just to give a 18 sense of the CRE, a sense of the Council, if 19 you will, that we either are or are not in 20 favor of the book. So can I get a motion on 21 that? 22 MS. BURNS: Is that just to have 23 them do the book? 24 MR. HESS: Not the specifics. 25 Depending on who phrases the motion, how you 24 1 phrase it. You can add Michael's comment 2 that we are in favor of the book. But we 3 would like a prospectus or whatever the 4 actual document is called that we can vote on 5 next time. Or, if necessary, through an 6 online vote that there would be provisos 7 attached to our approval. But I do think we 8 should somehow signal yes or no that we agree 9 or not. 10 MS. SIMMONS: I make a motion 11 that the CRE be favorable towards the concept 12 of a book, provided there is a prospectus 13 that we are able to approve subsequently. 14 Ineloquently put. 15 MR. ZACKON: Well-put. 16 MR. HESS: Well enough put for a 17 vote, that's for sure. 18 Based on the nature of the 19 discussion, rather than do a hand vote, I'll 20 do a voice vote. So all in favor, say aye. 21 (En masse, aye.) 22 MR. HESS: Anyone opposed? Okay. 23 Same thing with the people on the 24 phone. All in favor of Noreen's proposal, or 25 motion, better put, say aye. 25 1 (En masse, aye.) 2 MR. HESS: And opposed? 3 MR. DONATO: I don't think I 4 oppose. But I'm not sure I even have a vote. 5 But I will only say kind of Nielsen and the 6 Council collectively fund it and are 7 responsible for it. And I'm in favor of a 8 book. I just think that there needs to be a 9 moment when we decide whether the Council is 10 getting sufficient credit. 11 I guess what I'd be opposed to is 12 simply giving the data to Ball State, let 13 them write a book, and then let Ball State 14 essentially receive all the credit for all 15 the work that has been done. 16 MR. HESS: Paul, I think that is 17 taken care of to a large extent in the second 18 part of Noreen's motion, which is they will 19 have to give us a prospectus in how the book 20 would be handled. 21 MR. STIPP: There seems one 22 additional aspect. How the book is actually 23 written, and, once it's written, whether the 24 Council or any part thereof would like to 25 have any influence on what is actually 26 1 written. I think academics would probably 2 not approve, not like the idea of censorship, 3 or anything like that. 4 On the other hand, we may raise 5 the possibility, some of us may feel 6 uncomfortable at the prospect of them writing 7 something either about the research, the 8 method, or Nielsen. The quality of Nielsen. 9 The agreements or disagreements with Nielsen 10 that you might be uncomfortable with. And I 11 don't know how you would like, how you would 12 want to do that. 13 MR. HESS: Again, I feel that 14 that would be covered in that prospectus for 15 now. So we give them a sense that we would 16 be in favor of the book. But I think the 17 prospectus would have to contain material. 18 And, Horst, in terms of other 19 books that I've been involved with, academic 20 and business, I think that, on the other 21 hand, business usually doesn't open up its 22 cases to the academic world, but when they do 23 I think they do get to say certain things 24 like you can't use the brand name or you can 25 use the brand name, but not the actual. So I 27 1 think, sole proprietorship or not, often the 2 relationship with business and academia is a 3 certain Texas two-step, if you will, to make 4 sure that the right parties are protected. 5 But it does happen. 6 MR. SUSSMAN: Just, in addition, 7 we did have a table of contents of what they 8 were taking. And the book looked very much 9 in line with reporting everything that came 10 out of it in a positive way. It looked like 11 they were trying to promote. And, again, 12 they're in the business of doing this again 13 and again and again. So it looked like the 14 book was going to be a positive notion of the 15 methodology and the results. And I think the 16 bigger question came down to are we in a 17 place to fund it or should they be working on 18 their own funding? 19 MR. HESS: So that's the second 20 motion. Is that a motion somebody wants to 21 make today, or should we defer until we see 22 the prospectus? 23 MS. SHAGRIN: I'd like to make 24 the motion that we not fund the writing of 25 this book. And if there is a book, that 28 1 there's an arrangement in terms of the 2 sharing of the profits. 3 MR. HESS: Did everyone hear that 4 including the people on the phone, or do you 5 need Ceril to repeat it? Is that clear? 6 A VOICE: No. 7 MR. HESS: Did not. 8 Ceril, one more time right into 9 the mic. 10 MS. SHAGRIN: I move that we do 11 not fund the writing of the book. And that 12 if there is a deal and they sell the book, 13 that there is a predetermined distribution of 14 the funds so that the CRE gets part of the 15 funds. 16 MR. HESS: Okay. The motion has 17 been seconded. Do we do a hands vote on this 18 one? 19 In the room, those in favor of 20 Ceril's motion that we not fund the book, 21 that we not fund the book raise your hand. 22 Okay. And anyone opposed to the 23 motion which implies that we would fund the 24 book? Okay. Let the record show that in the 25 room I saw one hand up, one hand. Anyone 29 1 else? Okay. Brave person. Let's make sure 2 we get that. 3 What about on the phone? I guess 4 please say aye if you are in favor of Ceril's 5 motion that we do not fund. 6 (En masse, aye.) 7 MR. HESS: Any nays? Okay. 8 MR. ZACKON: The motion carries. 9 MR. HESS: The motion carries. 10 Ceril's motion carries. 11 Well, Ira, can somebody then get 12 in touch with them and communicate that? 13 MR. SUSSMAN: Yes. 14 MR. SCHWARTZ: There are a lot 15 more complicated issues. Intellectual 16 property rights. Who owns what is written in 17 the book? Is it the authors or is it the 18 CRE? That has to be specifically established 19 upfront. And I think that we also would want 20 to say that some way the CRE has eventful 21 decision-making power over whether the book 22 gets published. So if there's something said 23 in it that the CRE objects to... 24 A VOICE: Can you speak up. It's 25 hard to hear. 30 1 MR. SCHWARTZ: We have to 2 establish ownership of the intellectual 3 property, who owns the book. Is it the 4 people who wrote it, or is it the CRE? The 5 other part is we have to make sure, if we 6 want, that we have control over its 7 publication. Which basically says we have 8 the ability to, even if they wrote the book 9 and the publisher says I'm happy with it and 10 I'm going to put it out tomorrow, the CRE 11 might say, sorry, it's our intellectual 12 property, you can't publish. 13 MR. HESS: Well, okay. On that 14 point we've just given them a sense of the 15 CRE that they could go ahead. So you're 16 saying that that would be a refinement to the 17 initial motion. 18 MR. SCHWARTZ: I'm saying that, 19 yes, just because we said they can go ahead 20 and write it, doesn't mean; A, they own the 21 intellectual property; or B, we agree that it 22 will be published regardless of what they 23 write. 24 A VOICE: I was going to say that 25 we should have the ability of editorial 31 1 review before it's published. 2 MR. ZACKON: I think that's what 3 Horst was concerned about from an academic 4 perspective. 5 A VOICE: I think if we put that 6 into it as part of whatever we're going to do 7 in our name, that we should have some 8 editorial review. 9 MR. ZACKON: If I can make a 10 suggestion. Is to invite Michael Holmes and 11 Mike Blossom to meet with the steering 12 committee and discuss all these issues. And 13 then bring it back to this Council. Because 14 there are a lot of issues; intellectual 15 property being just one of them. 16 A VOICE: Maybe we should have an 17 attorney who's familiar with that. 18 MR. ZACKON: I play one at home. 19 MR. HESS: I urge people to 20 speak -- 21 MR. ZACKON: I don't want the 22 liability. 23 MR. HESS: Please speak into the 24 mic. Try to remember to do that. 25 MR. POLTRACK: You might also 32 1 make them, mute their phones on the other 2 side. Because we're hearing feedback from 3 people on the phone. It's not muted. 4 MR. ZACKON: If people on the 5 phones can mute and unmute when you wish to 6 speak and people in the room be gagged and 7 ungagged when you wish to speak. 8 A VOICE: When we say we're okay 9 with the book, does that mean that we're okay 10 with these guys writing the book or anybody 11 writes the book? 12 What if somebody else wants to 13 write a book who worked on the project? 14 MR. ZACKON: These guys have 15 certain rights. They have the right to 16 publish already. That was part of the 17 contract. Other people don't have the right 18 to publish at this point. 19 MR. SCHWARTZ: Publish. I'm not 20 sure what they have the right to publish. 21 They have the right to publish academic 22 journal articles or they have a right to 23 publish a book? 24 MR. ZACKON: I'd have to review 25 the contract. 33 1 MR. LINK: I'll be honest. I 2 don't think they have explicitly rights to 3 publish. But we have an agreement to allow 4 them to do academic work. And they just send 5 a copy. And typically it's been fine. We 6 can go back and check. 7 MR. ZACKON: There is a right 8 because it came up. We looked. They don't 9 have the exclusive rights. But they do have 10 a right. Exactly what source of materials 11 can be published, I can look at the contract. 12 I'll let you know. 13 MR. HESS: Any other discussion? 14 We're actually running up against it. 15 Unless, Richard, we expect other places to 16 have slack, we're running up against time. 17 MR. ZACKON: We'll pick it up. 18 MR. SCHWARTZ: I think we should 19 defer much of the rest of this to the 20 steering committee. 21 MR. ZACKON: Ira could come back 22 with a recommendation to this body. 23 MR. SUSSMAN: We'll work on that 24 real quick. We had a discussion at a recent 25 VCM committee meeting. The idea of a Council 34 1 On Research Excellence Facebook presence was 2 discussed. Committee was asked for its 3 opinion. And we came to the opinion that we 4 suggest that it be taken up by the 5 communications committee to formulate a 6 recommendation to the steering committee, 7 including how Facebook supports the 8 communication objective. And what 9 incremental value Facebook's presence brings 10 vis-a-vis future website strategy. So we'll 11 send that back to the communication committee 12 for discussion. 13 MR. HESS: Any comments on that? 14 MS. BRILL: Yes. As you know, 15 Nielsen themselves has a Facebook presence. 16 And they also have a presence on Twitter. 17 Social networking has become huge. And it's 18 a great way to keep the CRE brand and any 19 news alive and happening on a constant basis 20 to our respective communities. 21 As you know, there really haven't 22 been any releases coming out of this 23 organization in a while. And this is just 24 the way to keep the momentum going. So there 25 are people within the VCM, within the MC 35 1 committee that already are willing to start 2 this process. And then once, and actually, 3 later on the agenda there will an update from 4 the communications committee. But we are 5 looking to get a PR professional who can also 6 take that on. But, in the meantime, why be 7 quiet? 8 MR. ADGATE: I'm kind of 9 surprised we're not talking about Link 10, 10 which tends to be more of a professional 11 networking experience. 12 MR. SUSSMAN: Again, it goes back 13 to the communications committee to discuss 14 it. Come up with an idea why, given the 15 incremental value to what our current 16 communication strategy is, which is our 17 website, which maybe we're not putting enough 18 resources behind. So we'll leave it to them 19 to come back with a recommendation. 20 MR. ADGATE: I spoke with Jessica 21 yesterday and I discussed it with Jessica 22 yesterday. And we'll discuss it later. 23 MR. HESS: We have that segment 24 coming up in two segments anyway. 25 Anything else, Ira? 36 1 MR. SUSSMAN: That's a wrap. 2 MR. HESS: Thank you very much. 3 I don't see a person for 4 financial report. Is somebody going to do 5 that? Jessica is our treasurer. Jessica is 6 not here today. And there's some issues in 7 the background with the finances. So we 8 don't have a report at this time. 9 MR. HESS: Okay. In that case, 10 we'll move on to the communications 11 committee. And Brad pinch-hitting. 12 MR. ADGATE: I'm just 13 pinch-hitting for Jessica. Spoke with her 14 yesterday. 15 MR. ZACKON: Excuse me. Before 16 I did promise Jessica, Jessica really has no 17 support in her role as treasurer. And I 18 promised, I just remembered, is there someone 19 here who might want to step up to be a kind 20 of deputy treasurer to support our treasurer 21 in terms of preparing financial reports, 22 reporting financial materials. 23 MR. NATHANSON: Yes. 24 MR. ZACKON: We have someone from 25 the Sanford Bernstein. 37 1 MR. NATHANSON: That's one thing 2 I can do. 3 MR. ZACKON: Thank you, Michael. 4 That's great to step up. You want to vote on 5 it? 6 MR. HESS: Okay. All right. Our 7 advisor suggests that we vote on this. So 8 would somebody make a motion that Michael 9 Nathanson be appointed deputy treasurer, a 10 title we've just invented on the fly? 11 MR. ZACKON: Basically, it's 12 treasury committee. 13 MR. POLTRACK: Advise us not to 14 put the money in derivatives. 15 MR. HESS: Okay. Is that a 16 motion? 17 Can we have a serious motion on 18 Michael's nomination? 19 MR. ZACKON: Given we don't have 20 a position as such, it's been voted on. I 21 think what he's doing is just joining 22 Jessica's team. For that anyone can join a 23 committee. 24 MR. HESS: Then we don't need 25 one. 38 1 MR. ZACKON: Let me add my thank 2 you. 3 MR. HESS: Thanks, Michael. And 4 I'm sure Jessica thanks you as well. 5 Okay, Brad. Back to you. 6 MR. ADGATE: I spoke with Jessica 7 yesterday. And hopefully I won't need ten 8 minutes for this. So we can speed things up. 9 An RFP has been written. We're 10 looking for someone to handle public 11 relations or corporate communications for the 12 CRE. The submissions are going to be due on 13 October 9th. And it's a typical RFP with 14 background, mission statement, target 15 audience requirement, scope of work 16 qualifications. 17 Jessica sent out to the Council 18 communications council any recommendations or 19 anybody who, you know, or who you trust or 20 think would be interested in fulfilling this. 21 And so, you know, if I think Shari Ann 22 recommended one. Beth recommended one. I 23 recommended one. I think anyone else has 24 anyone who they think would be appropriate 25 for the position, you can forward it to 39 1 Jessica. You can send it to me and I'll 2 forward it to her. And that's what we're 3 looking for. 4 With regard to what Shari Anne 5 was talking about with linked-in social 6 networks, to wit, Facebook. I think in 7 talking with Jessica, you know, just kind of 8 got the feeling that we should get this 9 position filled first in public relations. 10 The feeling is that this is a 11 full-time job. Those on Twitter or on 12 Facebook know that it is a full-time job or 13 can be time-consuming. Doing that doesn't 14 just come from one voice or one person. 15 Someone indoctrinated in the CRE. Not 16 brainwashed, indoctrinated in the CRE to kind 17 of fulfill that, to do that role. And just 18 do public relations first. And then have 19 that part of the job to fulfill that type of 20 a social network activities as needed. 21 The third thing, and perhaps this 22 is Ceril with AAOPOR, something with I guess 23 you've been exchanging E-mails with Jessica. 24 Do you want to talk about that? 25 MS. SHAGRIN: We've been trying 40 1 to get out some sort of press release about 2 the nonresponse bias study. I sent her some 3 information. We might be able to get Bob 4 Gross to give us a quote, since he headed up 5 the research for the universities. We're 6 sort of stagnating that. Not knowing how to 7 get that moving. 8 MR. ADGATE: My feeling, what 9 Jessica said yesterday is the press release 10 didn't have news or something in working on 11 getting something that would, you know, get 12 some buzz or get something noteworthy or get 13 picked up in the press. And that's all I 14 have. 15 MR. HESS: Okay. Any discussion 16 on those comments? 17 MR. ZACKON: We can return to 18 that when we come to nonresponse. 19 MS. SHAGRIN: Yes. 20 MR. HESS: Well, in that case, 21 we're actually ahead of time, so... 22 MR. ZACKON: We'll sign for that. 23 MR. HESS: So next on our list 24 then is Universe Estimates. Nancy. 25 MS. GALLAGHER: Okay. Well, 41 1 after a very long preparation period, as you 2 can see by the timeline, we are not only 3 actually out in the field, but we have more 4 than, with how many, we have four, I think we 5 have 467 now completed interviews. Of which 6 55 were completed in the Spanish language. 7 Our target is 600. We're in the field 8 through November 8th. So we're pretty 9 confident we're going to make the target in 10 completed interviews. So we should be on 11 schedule for presentation in the first 12 quarter meeting. 13 But everything, it was a very 14 rocky start. The first year of the project 15 was horrendous. We learned an awful lot. 16 But once we got through that stage it's 17 gotten a lot better. And I think the 18 smartest thing we ever did. 19 So, thank you, Ceril, for the 20 advice; to make RTI agree on a set price. 21 Where no matter what went wrong, what 22 addendums we had to make, they could not 23 raise the rate. And I do highly recommend 24 all other committees adopt this practice. 25 Because it's proven really invaluable to us. 42 1 Because every time we kept adjusting the 2 timeline, they could not adjust their fees. 3 MR. ZACKON: So that's the Ceril 4 Shagrin rule. Thank you, Ceril. 5 MS. GALLAGHER: That's Ceril's 6 real contribution, major contribution to this 7 group. But anyway, things are going well. 8 The interviewing is going great. The quality 9 of the interviewers, I must say, was really 10 very good. It went to the interviewing 11 training. Nothing like Dallas when it's 105 12 degrees. But, you know, they're very 13 experienced. Some of these people have been 14 interviewers, field interviewers for Nielsen 15 for 17 years or so. Everybody that passed 16 the interview or training was very, very 17 experienced. And I think that's why we've 18 gotten such a good response rate so far. 19 MR. HESS: Any discussion on 20 that? 21 In terms of the learnings that 22 you mentioned, it just occurred to me, is it 23 worth the committee chairs from projects that 24 have gotten completed to perhaps get together 25 and write a one-page summary of learning to 43 1 pass on, or is each committee's rough first 2 year, as you put it, you know, so 3 idiosyncratic that there's no learning to 4 share besides the Ceril Shagrin rule? 5 A VOICE: I think the other thing 6 we got from that, and we picked this up too, 7 is the weekly phone calls so that research 8 isn't going off in one direction. And 9 keeping better control over them. And 10 canceling them when we don't need one. 11 But really, we really ended up 12 helping us get through this process because 13 Nancy has not even begun to tell you how 14 difficult it was in the beginning. Every 15 word has been wordsmithed and analyzed and we 16 should get good data from it. 17 MS. GALLAGHER: If you look at, 18 this is like the accelerated. This starts in 19 March. The question and development actually 20 started long before that. This was just like 21 the last three testing phases of it. It was 22 arduous. 23 A VOICE: And the weekly phone 24 calls in the beginning. 25 MS. SHAGRIN: I don't think we'd 44 1 be anywhere here if we didn't have them. 2 MS. GALLAGHER: They were very 3 lengthy. And I have to thank everyone on the 4 committee. And some of these weekly calls, 5 there was head-banging at the end. 6 MR. HESS: Any other discussion 7 on this? 8 MR. ZACKON: If I can just take a 9 moment to acknowledge Nancy. I think she's 10 really done a great job. 11 MR. HESS: Thanks, Nancy. 12 Next topic, and close to the 13 heart of many of the people in this room. 14 Set-top boxes. 15 Beth, are we ready to discuss 16 that? 17 MS. UYENCO: Yes. There was and 18 additional document that I brought multiple 19 copies of. I don't know if it was 20 distributed. No. It's a brief. Maybe it's 21 in the slides. Okay. Just if you can 22 squirrel down the slide to the next page. 23 The top of the next page. 24 This is the status of the set-top 25 boxes committee. Just to restate, its 45 1 purpose was to provide, to collect 2 information and to ultimately issue a report 3 that would provide some general learning to 4 the industry. 5 Since our last update in 6 July-August we spent with you, further 7 discussing why cooperation would be a good 8 thing and with some key players: TiVO, 9 Rentrak, TRA and Time-Warner Cable. And 10 through meetings in person, on the phone, 11 bringing us to September. 12 We did get a firm answer from 13 Time-Warner Cable, that they are not going do 14 participate. We did get -- I don't want to 15 say commitment -- but Rentrak, TRA and TiVO 16 agreed to reconsider their position. They've 17 all been given questionnaires, sometimes a 18 second time, possibly a third time. 19 To date, we have 14 confirmed 20 yeses, 11 confirmed nos, and five undecideds. 21 We've got nine questionnaires in-house that 22 have already been processed by our 23 controller. 24 And because of the difficulty in 25 obtaining cooperation and the sensitivity 46 1 that many of these companies have to 2 releasing information, our consultants 3 proposed an addendum to their agreement with 4 us. The amount of time that they had 5 anticipated and that we had anticipated have 6 been exceeded. So what they are proposing is 7 a 60-day extension period. And that's on the 8 next page of what you've just been given. 9 MR. HESS: Of the addendum? 10 MS. UYENCO: Yes. The proposed 11 addendum page. They proposed an extension of 12 60 days. The total cost would be $10,800 13 additional, which would be split amongst 14 them, give or take 10 percent and expenses. 15 And what they will be doing is 16 focusing on a select group of targets. Those 17 that we think we can persuade. Not only the 18 members of the set-top boxes committee, but 19 now we're asking every member of the CRE who 20 can possibly have some influence with these 21 five to seven companies to join us in 22 encouraging them to participate. Will be 23 given a biweekly status report. And 30 days 24 after the 60 days has ended, we will have a 25 report in hand. So that's where it stands. 47 1 MR. POLTRACK: Do we have a list 2 of who is participating? 3 MS. UYENCO: Yes. And there has 4 been some sensitivity. 5 MR. ZACKON: Excuse me. When you 6 say you'll tell us, we do have a reporter 7 here. 8 MS. LIGUORI: It's okay. Can we 9 take it off the record? 10 MR. ZACKON: Yes, we could. We 11 can ask him not to include these things. Let 12 it be noted we're not including right now -- 13 MR. HESS: Which names would you 14 like to exclude of the ones you just said. 15 MS. LIGUORI: Let me read the 16 ones. 17 MR. ZACKON: I've forgotten them 18 already. 19 MS. LIGUORI: Can we exclude all 20 of them? 21 MR. ZACKON: At this point 22 exclude all of them. 23 MR. HESS: That word should not 24 be written. When you say they are 25 participating, we're off the record. 48 1 (Discussion off the record.) 2 MR. NATHANSON: The question I 3 have, is the set-top boxes data industry. 4 And the question is what, you know, what can 5 we do to get them in? What's the value of 6 the work that you will get them to share 7 their information? 8 MR. ZACKON: Tell us when it's 9 okay to begin recording. 10 MS. LIGUORI: I guess we can 11 begin. 12 MR. HESS: We can't name any 13 names while we're having this discussion. 14 Because then a name will be in the record 15 that you don't want to see. 16 MR. STIPP: Can you elaborate on 17 the reason for lack of cooperation? 18 MS. LIGUORI: Many of them, many 19 of them are concerned about privacy. Their 20 initial concern, the most commonly heard 21 concern was this is the proprietary 22 information about their resources, whether 23 it's, you know, the capabilities of the 24 boxes, how many return past homes they have. 25 And they're very sensitive to it falling into 49 1 the evil -- I'm sorry. I say that 2 facetiously -- the evil Nielsen's hands. 3 That's one sensitivity. 4 The other sensitivity is it's a 5 very competitive field. And there apparently 6 is some bidding going on for project work 7 that they are competing against each other. 8 And that's another reason. 9 A reason also I was given is that 10 the situation in the case of a data owner 11 which would be an MSO or satellite company 12 is very fluid in terms of their subscribers 13 there, the homes with return past data. And 14 just themselves realizing that they're 15 sitting on in terms of a resource. 16 So before they turn over 17 information to an outside source, they kind 18 of want to evaluate what they have. 19 MR. POLTRACK: Does TNS and 20 Google who are on the list, how does their 21 cooperation work out relative to Dish Network 22 and DirecTV which is the source of their 23 data? Do we have to have Dish Network and 24 DirecTV also agreeing to participate, or can 25 they provide that data without them? 50 1 MS. LIGUORI: We segmented the 2 target companies into four categories: 3 Owners, aggregators, creators and third-party 4 processors. Right now we won't have a report 5 for third-party processors because they're 6 not processing anything. We won't have a 7 report for data owners. We will be able to 8 report on the aggregators/creators. And 9 there is some fuzziness among the groups. 10 There are companies that serve 11 multiple functions. So we're optimistic in 12 the aggregator categories we'll have a 13 report. Also, with regards to TNS, we felt 14 that they can, because of their partners, 15 they would, once we had their cooperation, 16 that could possibly bring in some others who, 17 prior to TNS announcing that they would 18 cooperate, wouldn't cooperate. 19 And there were some, there was a 20 company or two would say that unless you have 21 X number minimum for reporting, we don't want 22 to participate. Come back and talk to us 23 when you have enough where the data can't be 24 decompiled and the source of it identified as 25 a particular company. 51 1 MS. BRILL: I have a question. 2 I know I can't mention the name of the MSO, 3 but there is an MSO that has a huge footprint 4 in the southeast, primarily Florida, where 5 they invited or solicited -- 6 MR. ZACKON: We should probably 7 be careful, speaking with my legal hat on, of 8 being too specific to anyone unless we go off 9 record, which we could. 10 MR. POLTRACK: I think the bigger 11 issue right now is that we don't seem to have 12 any of the major owners of data as far as the 13 process. 14 MR. STIPP: The question you 15 raised whether this lack of information makes 16 the worth of the -- should I say, not too 17 difficult, but in terms of is there any 18 chance that something will come out of this? 19 MR. SUSSMAN: Part of the 20 discussion was, I think there is some value. 21 I think what we've gotten so far is the 22 partial view, understanding what the 23 aggregators and creators are doing. But the 24 owners are in -- I think we need to kind of 25 think things are going to change in the short 52 1 term, hopefully. 2 Where things like the CIM, 3 whatever they're doing, what Kanu is doing, 4 the individual MSOs may or may not have 5 something that they're ready to talk about. 6 But if Kanu is, as they acquire data, will 7 have more of an information from the data 8 owners' kind of perspective, I think it's 9 just the wrong time to be asking the 10 question. I think their business is in such 11 flux that they can't really answer at this 12 point. 13 What we discussed about this 14 project in the phone call the other day was 15 possibly what we like to do is probably, I 16 think, get approval for the funding of the 17 next step, but not move forward on the next 18 step until a couple of things in the 19 marketplace kind of settle down and it seems 20 like it's the appropriate time. 21 Throwing another X number of 22 hours at this project right now, might not 23 get us much further. And maybe waiting until 24 we see kind of a little light at the end of 25 the tunnel, we might be able to get some good 53 1 value out of it. 2 MR. POLTRACK: When you say we've 3 got nine questionnaires back, does that mean 4 we've got what you consider to be good and 5 complete data from nine parties? 6 MS. LIGUORI: I can't tell you 7 how complete they are because under the 8 agreements I don't see them. Only the 9 consultants see them. So nine have been 10 processed and put into some sort of 11 spreadsheet. So, you know -- 12 MR. WAKSHLAG: We're under an 13 agreement not to divulge the names of 14 participants, correct? 15 MS. LIGUORI: Some participants 16 do not wish to be identified at this point in 17 time. Others have agreed to it. 18 MR. WACHSLAG: We're under no 19 obligation to not divulge the names of 20 nonparticipants? 21 MR. ZACKON: That's correct, 22 Jack. That's been considered. 23 MR. WAKSHLAG: Thank you. 24 MR. ZACKON: If I can offer 25 something. It's self-defining to me already 54 1 of the reluctance of the data owners at this 2 point with all the efforts that we've done to 3 share information with us. We have spent 4 $30,000 or so to learn that. But that is 5 self-defining. And I don't know that the 6 landscape may not change after this report 7 with the information we do have comes out. 8 And it may then allow for other people to 9 participate. So it's not like -- I don't in 10 any way consider it a complete loss. We 11 would have liked to have gotten more complete 12 information. But that's where we are. 13 MS. ROCKWOOD: Can I just ask a 14 point of clarification. I haven't been close 15 to this project, but do we understand the 16 barriers? I mean, I heard someone say now 17 that it's not the right timing. 18 Is that the only barrier or are 19 we dealing with other things that are really 20 immovable? 21 MS. LIGUORI: It's possible. 22 But, you know, what we've been told is it's a 23 competitive landscape. Things are fluid. 24 And, again, this bidding project. We're 25 hopeful. In speaking with one of the firms, 55 1 they did mention CIM. That the CIM 2 initiative made them reconsider in a 3 favorable way. So it's possible. 4 I mean, I don't know. Some may 5 feel more favorably inclined and others may 6 feel they don't want to share anything with 7 whatever CIM is attempting to do. 8 MR. IVINS: This is Bob Ivins 9 from Comcast. You know, one issue that was 10 really critical and a big concern to us is 11 privacy. So, you know, if we went out and 12 said that we were collecting, even if this is 13 anonymous, that we were collecting set-top 14 boxes data from our entire footprint, which 15 we're not, you know, that would cause a huge, 16 huge issue for us. 17 And so, consequently, when we 18 talk about going public with bids, with 19 collection or fallback of any or all of this 20 data, we're really, really sensitive to that. 21 So the fact that we are going to 22 fill out a questionnaire and release this 23 information, you know, caused a lot of 24 indigestion through all 54 stories in this 25 building in Philadelphia. 56 1 So I think that, you know, to say 2 yes, it's competitive and you know we have a 3 commitment to work with Kanu on the 4 monetization of the stocks, any other things, 5 yada-yada-yada, it's really about privacy 6 more than anything else. That issue about 7 the collection of data, even in an anonymous 8 fax, is still a huge issue. 9 MR. SUSSMAN: What we're looking 10 for is metrics of your footprint as opposed 11 to set-top boxes data. We're not even 12 looking for anything about the data itself at 13 this point. We're actually asking more about 14 the dimensions of the business as a whole and 15 where you fit in it. This isn't about 16 set-top boxes data at this point at all. 17 MS. LIGUORI: It's basic 18 information. And, you know, as many have 19 communicated to us that we've spoken to, 20 there's a column in the questionnaire for 21 things that anyone felt was too proprietary 22 that they did not want to answer. But there 23 is, there are many questions which I don't 24 know that, I don't know that they couldn't be 25 found elsewhere, say, in annual reports. But 57 1 those can be not as accurate as we'd like. 2 MR. HESS: Jessica, do you feel 3 based on the comments that have been mailed, 4 the discussion, do you need a motion today 5 for the funding? 6 MS. LIGUORI: Pat. 7 MR. HESS: I'm sorry, Pat. 8 MS. LIGUORI: Yes. I think that 9 would be helpful to determine if we have the 10 funding or not. Because I think within the 11 next week we will have a clearer indication 12 of where Rentrak, TRA and TiVO will go. And 13 that would determine whether or not we need 14 to fund, whether or not we need to spend the 15 money. 16 MR. ZACKON: If I can inform the 17 conversation, while we don't have a formal 18 treasurer's report, there is, in our 19 understanding of what we have in the kitty, 20 $848,000 unspent from monies that have been 21 promised to us by Nielsen. So you're asking 22 for 10,800. 23 MS. LIGUORI: Just a small -- 24 MR. ZACKON: And you're not 25 committing to spend it. 58 1 MS. LIGUORI: Not committing to 2 spend it. 3 MR. HESS: This is not to curtail 4 the rest of the conversation, but would 5 somebody make a motion on the $10,800? 6 MR. POLTRACK: Again, I'm not 7 exactly sure what we're going to get for the 8 $10,000. $10,000 is 10,000. It's not so 9 much money. And the issue and I guess it 10 has, the CIM initiative is one of the major 11 parts of it, is the set-top box information. 12 I'm not sure you're going to get anybody's 13 cooperation until these companies know what 14 that entity is planning on doing. 15 So I'm not sure we, if we want, I 16 think maybe if we're going to spend another 17 10,000 for the consultant, I want to say, 18 well, let's wait a little. We'll give you 19 the extra 10,000, but don't do it now. Wait 20 two months. And then we'll pick it up again. 21 Until things get settled there, I 22 think there's a big question mark hanging 23 over all of this that probably would make the 24 effort right now unproductive. 25 MR. SUSSMAN: Agreed. 59 1 MR. HESS: Further discussion. I 2 asked for a motion, but you had discussion 3 instead. So that's okay. That means there's 4 energy for more discussing. 5 MR. POLTRACK: No offense to Bob 6 on the phone, very often privacy is the 7 reason why people give. Whether it is for 8 what you're asking for, but it's very much 9 industry response for privacy. So they don't 10 really want to open up or tell you 11 everything. That seems to be what Pat's 12 running up against. 13 MR. NATHANSON: That could be the 14 response to anyone, including someone with a 15 Nielsen background, without a doubt. 16 MR. HESS: Is the reason that 17 you're asking for the motion now that between 18 now and the next meeting you expect some of 19 this information from the CIM to get 20 clarified sets. So far, I don't hear anybody 21 jumping up and volunteering to move it. But 22 you have a reason for asking for it now. 23 MS. LIGUORI: Here's the thing. 24 Not knowing much about CIM, we had a 25 discussion in our committee about the impact. 60 1 We don't know if we delay things if there 2 will be -- I mean, I have been told in a 3 conversation that, you know, gee, I wish 4 there were one questionnaire because CIM is 5 asking for very much the same data. 6 So in our discussion, we don't 7 know if we don't proceed now and if we wait, 8 if our efforts to date will be null because 9 of, you know, something that CIM might be 10 doing. 11 On the other hand, we think we 12 also think that if we can produce something, 13 it might be beneficial and useful for CIM. 14 And maybe save them some steps. 15 MR. SUSSMAN: Or the wild and 16 crazy idea of the CRE trying to become a 17 member of CIM. And that was another thing 18 that we thought we would discuss here and get 19 a point of view from the members of the CRE, 20 who are also participating CIM. If that's a 21 possibility. 22 MR. HESS: By the way, the CIM, I 23 guess since we're calling it, that is 24 something that we had under new business. So 25 obviously you can bring it up at any time in 61 1 these discussions. But be aware that several 2 people were planning to bring it up under new 3 business, just so you know. 4 MR. WAKSHLAG: Because if the 5 company is going to provide data to any other 6 organizations, there's no reason they 7 wouldn't provide it to you or to this group, 8 unless they're afraid that Nielsen is going 9 to get hold of it. 10 MR. STIPP: Then you would be 11 duplicating information that's going to be 12 out there anyway; correct? 13 MR. WAKSHLAG: It depends on what 14 CIM's going to do. CIM hasn't asked for 15 anything yet. 16 MR. STIPP: But the assumption 17 was just made that CIM would ask similar 18 information. So they could get that 19 information. 20 MS. LIGUORI: Actually, it wasn't 21 an assumption. It was quoted, it was stated 22 to me that the request has been made. 23 Whether it's true or not, I don't know. I 24 would like to go forward with this because I 25 don't know. And unless anyone on CIM can 62 1 tell us that within two months or three 2 months something will happen, where, you 3 know, it will make more sense for you to go 4 forward. 5 I mean, it's a question mark to 6 me. So I would like to go forward and try 7 and complete this. And then, you know, at 8 least CIM will have it. For whatever purpose 9 it can serve you, it will be there. If it 10 just tells you you're not going to get this 11 information, good luck, at least, you know, 12 you'll be forewarned. But I don't have 13 enough information to say waiting will 14 benefit the project. 15 MR. ZACKON: Pat, again, the 16 request now is because we don't have a formal 17 business meeting until December, that you 18 would like to have the option of that 10,800 19 if your committee believes it would make a 20 difference? 21 MS. LIGUORI: Yes. 22 MR. ZACKON: For the proposal. 23 MR. POLTRACK: I have no problem 24 with giving the committee the discretion to 25 spend the money. But with the caveat that, 63 1 you know, that probably within the next month 2 it's going to be a lot more out there. And 3 it probably could be more effectively used 4 after that period of time. 5 MR. HESS: Do you want to phrase 6 that as a motion? 7 MR. POLTRACK: For the record, 8 and also the other CIM people can comment, 9 CIM has not contacted anybody. So there's 10 been no discussions between CIM and any 11 suppliers at this point. 12 MR. SUSSMAN: If we go back to 13 the goal of this committee, it was to get 14 better, fuller information for the 15 marketplace. And what it looks like is CIM 16 might be what the CRE's goal was in step 2 is 17 actually do something within that, you know, 18 what's step 2 for the CRE for the set-top box 19 committee. We never got there. This was 20 really an information gathering perspective. 21 And maybe CIM is actually -- we wouldn't want 22 to compete with CIM in a step 2 on this. But 23 we would want to know where the conversation 24 came up. Maybe at that point it makes sense 25 to kind of join together to go to phase 1, 2. 64 1 But for phase 1 we're really trying to get 2 some background information. 3 I make a motion to fund the 4 incremental dollars and leave it up to the 5 committee's discretion if and when to spend 6 that. 7 MR. SCHWARTZ: Second. 8 MR. HESS: There's been enough 9 discussion on this. How about a hand vote? 10 Those in favor of Ira's motion to do the 11 funding, raise your hand. Opposed? Okay. 12 And then on the phone, please say aye. Those 13 who are in favor of Ira's motion to fund? 14 (En masse, aye.) 15 MR. HESS: Opposed? Okay. The 16 motion carried. Thank you. 17 MR. LINK: Pat, just let me know 18 when if you decide to do that so we can make 19 sure their contract is extended. 20 MS. LIGUORI: Yes. 21 MR. ZACKON: Can I, Mr. Chair, 22 some people have entered since we last 23 declared who's present. I don't know if 24 Colleen was here when we came in. 25 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: No. I wasn't 65 1 sitting down. 2 MS. CUCCINELLO: Susan 3 Cuccinello. 4 MR. GROSS: Greg Gross, Procter & 5 Gamble. 6 MR. ZACKON: At his first 7 meeting. Procter & Gamble. Everyone sits 8 up. It's great to have you. 9 Have I missed anyone else around 10 here who joined? Joanne. Joanne Burns is 11 here from -- 12 MS. BURNS: L.A.. 13 MR. ZACKON: Welcome. 14 MR. HESS: Thank you. Pat, are 15 you done? 16 MS. LIGUORI: I'm done. 17 MR. HESS: Now that the motion's 18 passed... 19 MS. LIGUORI: I'm done. And I 20 thank everybody. And, actually, if perhaps 21 some of us can have a discussion with some of 22 the CIM people so that we have more 23 information in order to make our decision as 24 to when to pursue the holdout. Again, if 25 there's something that you can tell us and it 66 1 makes sense for us to do, you know, to wait a 2 few weeks, then we'd like to know. And 3 appreciate it. 4 MS. BURNS: I'd like to propose, 5 ask that between now and when you make a 6 decision, maybe communicate this back to us. 7 I'm sitting here trying to digest all of 8 this. And I'm hearing privacy, concern over 9 Nielsen, timing isn't right. 10 If we could ascertain what, in 11 priority order, what the hesitations really 12 are. Because when we do that, maybe there 13 are ways. I can't suggest to you that we 14 overcome timing in the industry. But if it's 15 privacy or if it's concern over Nielsen, then 16 maybe we can give some form of reassurance 17 and overcome that objection. If it's timing 18 in the industry, then that's got to fall out 19 naturally. I'm just not sure, truly, what 20 the hesitations are, and if we can overcome 21 them. 22 MS. LIGUORI: One of the things 23 that was in the consultants addendum was that 24 they would work closely with CRE members as 25 you would go forward. And speak with your 67 1 contacts so they would be able to speak with 2 you about what the initial comments were or 3 objections. We wouldn't have you go blindly 4 in and say, you know, hey, how about it 5 without knowing why or what the history was 6 for this project. So, yes, we would, the 7 consultants would work with each member who 8 can make a contact. 9 MS. BURNS: Do you think that 10 there is a chance. Let's say it's less so 11 industry timing and more so, to either the 12 same degree or a mix, hesitation over 13 Nielsen's being associated or the privacy 14 issue? If it's one of those two or both, 15 then maybe there is a shot at overcoming 16 this. 17 MS. LIGUORI: The timing issue 18 wasn't, to my knowledge, it wasn't as 19 pervasive as the Nielsen issue. And we did 20 have a statement. 21 So, you know, the Nielsen issue 22 may have softened in time. Because I think 23 more and more throughout the conversation 24 people began to understand that Nielsen is a 25 participant, as they would be. And would 68 1 have access to only what any other 2 participate would have. 3 So now I don't know if that 4 answers -- the real issue seemed to be the 5 privacy. And just some of the questions 6 we're asking are about their technological 7 capabilities, their future plans. And that 8 is what I believe they have the greatest 9 sensitivity. Even though, you know, to me in 10 some instances, it doesn't make sense. 11 Because for the most part, the data owners do 12 not cover the same geography. So it's not as 13 though they're competing for the same piece 14 of pie. There is some overbills, but not a 15 lot to my knowledge, so... 16 MS. BURNS: Well, in that vein, 17 then it gives me more reason to believe that 18 with our perseverance and persistency we 19 might be able to actually overcome their 20 objections. 21 As I said, timing we can't do 22 anything about. But maybe at a subsequent 23 meeting, not taking any more time here, we 24 can brainstorm some new perspectives to try 25 to give them some level of assurance to get 69 1 them to move off their hesitation. 2 MS. LIGUORI: We can arrange a 3 conference call or I can send an E-mail out 4 to all the members asking for those of you 5 who believe you have contacts that you might 6 be able to do something, you know, send me 7 your names. We'll arrange a conference call 8 with the consultants. And that will be the 9 initial contact that noncommittee members 10 will have with the consultants. And then 11 there can be one-on-one conversations about 12 the specific target that you will be calling 13 on. 14 MS. BURNS: Okay. 15 MR. HESS: Okay. We're running 16 right on time. 17 MR. ZACKON: Before we go, I just 18 want to acknowledge both Pat and Mike. Pat 19 and Mike, who have really stepped up. We 20 have paid researchers who are doing the work. 21 But the two of them have really stepped out 22 with the people in the industry. Contacting 23 not necessarily hammering, hammering. But 24 aggressively intervening. And that might not 25 be apparent here. But I just wanted to let 70 1 people know what you're up to. But thank 2 you. It's really great work you've been 3 doing. 4 MS. LIGUORI: Thank you, Mike. 5 MR. HESS: I do what I can behind 6 the scenes. Thanks Richard. And thanks Pat. 7 Shari Anne, you ready to update 8 us on media consumption and engagement? 9 MS. BRILL: Yes. Hi, everyone. 10 Good afternoon. We have two items on the 11 agenda. I have thought that Mike Orgera 12 might be here or at least by phone. I just 13 want to acknowledge him and his work and 14 everyone who has been on the database mining 15 subcommittee. We just had a workshop last 16 week. And because Mike isn't here to take us 17 through the cap, I'm going to turn it over to 18 Horst who'll do that for us. 19 MR. STIPP: Well, thanks. Very 20 briefly, I think one of the most interesting 21 ideas that came up in our conversations was 22 to use some of the innovative new tools out 23 there to dig deeper into some of these 24 issues. And the one that was most 25 interesting to us was the Nielsen convergence 71 1 panel as a possible source of additional 2 information, more in-depth analysis. And 3 that it could be used, for example, to 4 compare the data that Nielsen is collecting 5 from this panel on television and on Internet 6 usage. And compare it with the observational 7 methodology to probe and learn more about the 8 methodology. And being able to compare the 9 methodologies. 10 So we had some very good, 11 interesting conversations with Nielsen about 12 it. Unfortunately, there was a disappointing 13 ending in the sense that Nielsen concluded 14 that they would not be able to allow us to 15 use the convergence panel for such a piece of 16 research. Which of course would require that 17 there would be interference with a particular 18 panel. 19 Nielsen is using this data. They 20 are selling these today. And they did not 21 want to be in a position to have to fear that 22 our using part of the sample for observation 23 and so on would interfere with the data 24 collection. So they declined on that in that 25 context. 72 1 Then we can continue to think 2 about other methodologies. And we're going 3 to continue that process. Root data source 4 that was discussed is TiVO. Even though we 5 all recognize that the TiVO sample is not 6 representative of anything other than owners 7 of TiVO. Because, you know, as you know, it 8 is a special group of DVR owners. It 9 nevertheless is another source where there's 10 very precise measurement available. And 11 where one could conduct that kind of 12 research, as I mentioned earlier. 13 In this case, an idea that just 14 came up recently based on our learning about 15 the unavailability of the convergence panel, 16 so we have not pursued that. But one of the 17 big questions that comes up in this context 18 is how Nielsen would feel about using data 19 sources such as TiVO. So that's something 20 that we need to explore. 21 And along those lines, in terms 22 of next step where we're pursuing the idea of 23 different kind of data sources, that would 24 widen the scope of this inquiry and allow us 25 to gain more insights on media behavior, as 73 1 well as the different kind of measurements. 2 And so we have to, we want to look further on 3 that. 4 If I forgot anything, Shari, is 5 there anything to be added? 6 MS. BRILL: No. Actually, that 7 was perfect. So do you have anything else? 8 MR. STIPP: Excuse me. The only 9 thing I would add is whether there's anybody 10 who has some insight, you know, from above my 11 pay scale perspective on the CRE's ability to 12 work with data sources such as TiVO? 13 Is that something that is being 14 ruled out, or is there something that we ask 15 Nielsen about, or what will be the right 16 procedure there? 17 MR. LINK: A couple of things. I 18 can answer it directly. 19 MR. STIPP: Please. 20 MR. LINK: Which is for business 21 reasons we prefer that you not work with 22 TiVO. But DirecTV, Echostar, are a couple of 23 companies that we think would be okay. We 24 can also have Scott Brown who oversees kind 25 of this area for us talk to the committee 74 1 about some of these things in more detail, 2 which would probably be a good idea anyway. 3 So the general idea, fine. TiVO itself, for 4 particular reasons we prefer not be the 5 specific company. 6 In terms of the convergence 7 panel, again, I think Horst put it exactly 8 right as to why we didn't want an outside 9 data collection group coming into that 10 particular panel. But we do, again, offer 11 the things, in particular, right now. With 12 the convergence panel to the CRE, one would 13 be data sets from the data that's been 14 collected. And again, so you have two 15 screens. And we can work with whichever 16 group committee, subcommittee if there's a 17 new one or the current one on what the 18 dimensions of that might be. You can get an 19 analyst. You guys can analyze that for 20 whatever you would like to do. 21 The other, again, maybe picking 22 up something like Live 316, embedding that 23 type of panel. We think we can do that 24 internally on topics that, again, the Council 25 might like to investigate. And we can do it 75 1 internally without necessarily messing up the 2 calibration panel per se. 3 Again, kind of two ways that 4 potentially the convergence panel could still 5 be used. Maybe not specifically. Obviously, 6 for the reason that this particular committee 7 wanted to use it. But for any other types of 8 topics. So those things are open. 9 MR. WAKSHLAG: 316 requires a 10 panelist to carry them around with them, 11 right? 12 MR. LINK: They have a SmartFone. 13 So, yes. Again, that's why we would need to 14 work around internally with the panel to make 15 sure that we're minimizing any impact to the 16 calibration panel, the online calibration 17 panel which is the main concern. 18 But we think internally we can do 19 that and work something out that would work 20 well. 21 MR. WAKSHLAG: Nielsen has no 22 objection to us wanting to use panel members 23 whose two years on the main panel had 24 expired? 25 MR. LINK: For additional FTO, if 76 1 you wanted to refresh the next -- 2 MR. WAKSHLAG: For usage among by 3 the CRE. 4 MR. LINK: Very similar to what 5 we did with the first round, right. Where 6 you took the FTOs home, yes. I think we can 7 certainly work around that. One thing, and I 8 guess it's probably a good point to then 9 mention it, this goes more to budgeting 10 issues though when we do that type of thing. 11 Because it is pretty expensive. We're going 12 to have to work something out such that that 13 gets included in the cost of the project 14 itself. 15 I think, as a lot of folks know, 16 there's a lot of money that was spent several 17 years ago that doesn't show up on the CRE 18 books. And just in this era and time frame, 19 we would need to make sure that we 20 essentially put together a proposal saying 21 here's what the costs are. Specifically, 22 that includes the labor costs just charged 23 back to the project. 24 MR. WAKSHLAG: What kind of costs 25 are incurred? When you ask can we keep the 77 1 meter in the home another 30 days? 2 MR. LINK: Just the recruitment 3 costs. You have to contact. Again, these 4 folks have legal panel agreements with us. 5 We need to contact them for any other 6 purpose. It's that type of thing. 7 MR. WAKSHLAG: But you would 8 otherwise put them in. 9 MR. LINK: The convergence panel. 10 MR. WAKSHLAG: The convergence 11 panel. 12 MR. LINK: Not all of them. 13 Quite honestly, the convergence panel right 14 now its status, I mean, obviously, things are 15 very fluid. Because I think most folks know, 16 as Sara announced, that we're looking to move 17 to a more aggressively on TV, on PC, and the 18 currency panel. So the question becomes how 19 long does the converge panel stick around if 20 you have a currency panel that has both. 21 Internally, I will tell you that 22 from a measurement sciences perspective and 23 from a products perspective, we would like to 24 keep it going because it is a good testbed 25 for us. But I just want to put that out 78 1 there. 2 MR. WAKSHLAG: Just so I get an 3 understanding right now, what percent of your 4 FTO homes are literally after their two 5 years? Because it has to do with the cost. 6 You'd be using 90 percent of it for something 7 else. Then the issue for us, we might want 8 to say hold these 50 out. 9 MR. LINK: We've capped the 10 convergence panel at about a thousand right 11 now. So it's not like every FTO home gets 12 invited to do it. 13 MR. WAKSHLAG: Okay. 14 MR. LINK: Yes, sure. 15 MR. ZACKON: Jack, it was also 16 the case that our original study was 17 clustered in five markets, so... 18 MR. WAKSHLAG: I'm asking for 19 what the turnover is in those markets so we 20 have a sense of how many homes roll over in 21 each of those markets. 22 MR. LINK: Right. I think I 23 shared that with the committee, right. In 24 those five markets last week I think I sent 25 those numbers, so... 79 1 MS. BRILL: If you don't have 2 them, I can re-send to the committee. I'm 3 just curious, how quickly are the meters 4 recycled back into the FTOs. 5 MR. LINK: It is done very 6 quickly; literally within a week we have 7 those homes. Again, because it's a courtesy 8 to the home. The home by then, the two 9 years, my two years is up, you know. Thank 10 you. So we try to maintain good relations 11 with the homes by getting our stuff out of 12 their way as quickly as possible. 13 MR. STERNBERG: I'm not sure I 14 understand what the real problem is using 15 observation for the convergence panel if it's 16 just one day. You can just take the few 17 people that we use out of a sample for one 18 day. 19 MR. LINK: It was discussed 20 internally by a lot of senior folks. And we 21 decided that that's just not something we 22 really want to do right now. 23 MS. SHAGRIN: Michael, does 24 Nielsen still have a relationship with IMMI? 25 MR. LINK: No. Sorry. 80 1 MS. SHAGRIN: That was a small 2 panel installed with MMI meters might give us 3 cross-media information. 4 MR. LINK: No. But again, one of 5 the things we are looking at this year with 6 the convergence panel is testing our own 7 out-of-home effort with that group. That 8 would be later 2010. 9 MR. WAKSHLAG: Which group? 10 MR. LINK: With the convergence 11 panel, a small subset of the convergence 12 panel. 13 MR. WAKSHLAG: Any among the 14 groups you're suggesting we not do research 15 with apart from TiVO? 16 MR. LINK: I would have to check 17 on that, honestly. I mean, that wasn't so 18 much a competitive as is other issues going 19 on there. 20 MS. BRILL: So would you say 21 there's more business issues versus research 22 reasons? 23 MR. LINK: For IMMI? 24 MS. BRILL: Even convergence. If 25 it was just to go back to that. If it's just 81 1 one day, why can't you just take their 2 information out of tab. I don't think it 3 would permanently alter the way they behave 4 going forward. 5 MR. LINK: I will honestly say 6 that we had very long discussions with the 7 senior people. And we would prefer not to do 8 that. 9 MS. BRILL: Just to continue to 10 go back to the database mining, we do have 11 another workshop scheduled for early November 12 where we'll be going further into the 13 findings. 14 Part of the learning that we had 15 that had come out with this was just how 16 much, how difficult it is to really break 17 down the information to the segments that 18 we'd like to know more about; such as online 19 video and mobile video. The sample doesn't 20 hold up. And beyond looking at a couple of 21 major day parts, there are also sample issues 22 if you go below what we've done, you know, 23 below TV and looking at some of the other 24 things. 25 So looking at prime is fine. But 82 1 some of the other day parts, particularly 2 things like early mornings or even late night 3 were especially problematic. And with those 4 two day parts specifically, a lot of the 5 information contained therein comes from 6 recall information that was collected 7 subsequently, prior to the time the observer 8 arrived. And also asking the participants 9 what they were doing after the observer left. 10 So we've chosen to eliminate those times of 11 day. And actually reconfigure it so it only 12 includes the minutes that were actually 13 observed. 14 So we are planning to produce key 15 findings from these data which we will be 16 sharing with the Council in the future. I 17 think the second workshop will start to yield 18 a lot of insights for us. 19 MS. BURNS: Do you have a time 20 for the second workshop yet? 21 MS. BRILL: You know, I'll get 22 back to you with a date and time. But I seem 23 to think it was, I don't know, somehow 24 November 6th seemed to be in my head. 25 MR. ZACKON: It's in November. 83 1 I'll check the date. 2 MS. BURNS: What time? 6:30 was 3 a little tough for me. 4 MS. BRILL: We'll take that into 5 account when we schedule the next one. 6 MS. BURNS: Thanks. 7 MR. HESS: Shari and you and I 8 have been in touch with Paul Donato. I don't 9 know if Paul is still on. Could you report 10 what Paul said about the Tampa meeting, or 11 maybe you said that while I was out. If so, 12 I apologize. 13 MS. BRILL: Training is being set 14 up. I think there were a couple of dates 15 that could be done in October. Michael? 16 MR. LINK: 13th, 14th and 15th. 17 Right now the only feedback I got is the 18 15th. And I would like to be able to go 19 ahead and lock in one of those dates. 20 Let me give you a little more 21 background. This would be down in the 22 Oldsmar facility. It would be either on 23 Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, October 13th, 24 14th or 15th, one day. It would be from noon 25 to 5:00, which would facilitate those that 84 1 don't mind going down and back in a single 2 day. I will say it is geared for, it's the 3 nuts and bolts. So Michael Holmes is going 4 to come down. Literally go over the 5 datasets, variables, talk about what's there. 6 What the structure is. What you need to do. 7 They work in SPSS. I've been working within 8 SPSS. Obviously, if you know SPSS that can 9 be converted to. If either of those acronyms 10 don't mean anything to you, you might be lost 11 at this particular training. Because again, 12 I do want to make sure, set that expectation, 13 it's a nuts and bolts-type thing. So he will 14 be. 15 Also, Michael and I -- I want to 16 apologize, first of all, for how long it's 17 taken. If I had known the lawyers were going 18 to take this long, I would have put it on the 19 credit card. Because it was $5,000. And 20 these guys went back and forth. But anyway, 21 it's all set up now. All we need to do is 22 pick the date 23 But Michael and I will work on 24 the agenda together and see what makes sense. 25 And again, the idea being these can grab the 85 1 datasets and start working with them. We've 2 also kept him as part of that agreement on 3 retainer for a year for additional questions 4 that might come up. 5 MR. HESS: Who's actually 6 eligible to go to Oldsmar? 7 MR. LINK: You know, we haven't 8 really talked about that. I would say, you 9 know, quite honestly, I open it to the 10 members here. It was initially conceived to 11 make sure that Nielsen folks and Steve Singer 12 and others who are working for the Council 13 were trained. And obviously we want to open 14 it up. So obviously we don't want 150 people 15 there. But right now one of the things I 16 would need to get a sense of is how many 17 people would want to come down. And we can 18 make appropriate arrangements for the size 19 room and whatnot. 20 MS. BRILL: Can you open this up 21 to members organization to have somebody else 22 who's more of a power user in that 23 statistical -- 24 MR. LINK: Absolutely. I think 25 that makes absolutely the most sense to send 86 1 that individual. And again, I will say this 2 too. We'll certainly defer to the Council's 3 judgment on what you would like to define as 4 who comes down or not. I just need to know 5 how many. 6 MS. BRILL: When would you need 7 to get an answer, mid-next week to just get a 8 commitment of how many people? 9 MR. LINK: That would be fine. 10 That would be fine. What I'd like to do if 11 at all possible is to try to nail the date 12 down today. Whether it's the 13th, 14th or 13 15th. Those dates work for Michael. And 14 they work for -- we have training rooms open 15 that we can even set up. The only one I 16 heard back from was Richard. So right now 17 the 15th has a leg up. 18 MR. ZACKON: By the way, good 19 news for Joanne, you don't have to get up 20 until 7 o'clock on the 6th of November. 21 MS. BURNS: Good. 22 MR. WAKSHLAG: Once you're 23 trained on the 13th, 14th and 15th, can you 24 access the data from anywhere? 25 MR. LINK: That would be the next 87 1 thing. One of the things we also talked 2 about, well, two things I should say. One is 3 that we would defer again to the Council on 4 how you all would like to distribute the 5 data. And let you all decide who it goes out 6 to. Does it go out to Council members? Does 7 it go to Nielsen? The whole Nielsen client 8 group? 9 Our recommendation will be that 10 it just get posted to that secure site that 11 is now on the CRE website along with any of 12 the documentation. All the clients then have 13 access to that. All the Council members here 14 have access to that. If you all decide to 15 make that more constrained, that will be up 16 to you. But as far as we're concerned, 17 that's fine. And you guys can do whatever 18 you want with that. 19 The other piece of this, I'll get 20 it all out here, is that we also contacted 21 Sequent and Ball State and let them know that 22 it is okay for them to go ahead and conduct 23 third-party analyses on whatever fee basis 24 they might want to do. So folks would like 25 to go to Ball State and Sequent and say I've 88 1 got a special project my company wants to do. 2 Feel free to go to them. They now can go 3 ahead and do whatever they need to do. 4 MR. WAKSHLAG: Is Michael Holmes 5 part of that or is he separate from that? 6 MR. LINK: I should qualify that 7 in saying that we're in the midst of writing 8 up an agreement with them. So they've been 9 notified. And I've heard back from them that 10 they're eager to get something in place. The 11 only stipulation in that agreement will be 12 again that it's not used for any serious 13 competitive edge which fits with the general. 14 MR. WAKSHLAG: Michael, is your 15 agreement to retain Michael Holmes for a 16 year? 17 MR. LINK: These are separate 18 things. We have an agreement in place with 19 Michael Holmes. So for Nielsen if we're 20 doing any work, or, you know, folks want to 21 filter questions through me, certainly I can 22 use that time to give Michael. 23 MR. WAKSHLAG: That doesn't 24 preclude me from contracting with Michael 25 Holmes on my own? 89 1 MR. LINK: Absolutely, 2 absolutely. 3 MR. WAKSHLAG: Or anyone else at 4 Ball State or Sequent? 5 MR. LINK: Correct. 6 MR. WAKSHLAG: If I were to 7 retain Michael Holmes I wouldn't have to do 8 it through Ball State or Sequent? 9 MR. LINK: You would only have to 10 do it through Ball State only because 11 Michael's employed by Ball State. You don't 12 have to go through Nielsen to do that. 13 MR. HESS: Shari, anything else 14 in your update? 15 MS. BRILL: Well, yes. I have a 16 proposal for VCM 2. That's all I have left 17 now. 18 MR. ZACKON: Before you do that, 19 just as an update, I just want to acknowledge 20 your committee. We now have up on the CRE 21 website through the Nielsen site a different 22 type of data which is only available through 23 Nielsen clients from the different tables put 24 up there. That happened since our last 25 meeting, which I don't think we acknowledged 90 1 here. 2 MR. HESS: Shari, we have seven 3 or eight minutes. 4 MS. BRILL: I guess I'll to have 5 talk real fast. 6 What I'm about to give you is an 7 outline for the second Video Consumer Mapping 8 study which will literally be a longitudinal 9 study which is part of our objective to look 10 at how media consumption is changing over 11 time. 12 So, just a recap of VCM 1. It 13 yielded some 10 key insight. Got us a lot of 14 publicity. We were picked up by a lot of the 15 trades and mainstream press. There were even 16 interviews on public radio. And many sales 17 organizations cited insights from our study 18 as part of their upfront announcements. 19 MR. HESS: Shari, are you 20 advancing while you're reading? 21 MS. BRILL: All right. Good. 22 Okay. Here's a recap of our 10 findings. 23 And you all have this. 24 MR. HESS: What about the folks 25 on the phone; are they okay? 91 1 MS. BRILL: I believe this was 2 E-mailed to everyone. Do you have a copy of 3 this behind? 4 MR. HESS: It's titled, Video 5 Consumer Mapping Study 2. 6 A VOICE: It's not going through, 7 really well through the live meeting. 8 MR. HESS: It's on live meeting. 9 MS. BRILL: Good. 10 What we have learned were quite a 11 few facts that were revealed that practically 12 dispelled a lot of the myths that were out 13 there in the industry. 14 First of all, we learned that 15 television is alive and well. Consumers do, 16 in fact, watch ads. Online video is not 17 stealing viewers at the expense of television 18 viewing. Mobile video is very much still in 19 its infancy. And we also had some guidance 20 as to how we can inform the future of media 21 measurement. 22 And a little bit about Media 23 Behavior Institute. This is the group that 24 Ball State University and Sequent Partners 25 are now operating under. They were formed in 92 1 2008 to commercialize the observational 2 research techniques. So enough about that 3 because I only have eight minutes. 4 So here is a little bit about VCM 5 2. We believe that this will provide 6 continuing value to the industry in three 7 ways. 8 First of all, it will continue to 9 trend video consumption behavior over time 10 to ensure the guidance of future video media 11 measurements. Want to gauge the rate of 12 change in the video formats, platforms, 13 getting seasonality out of the way. We'd be 14 going into the field in spring of 2010, two 15 years after our first wave of observation. 16 So it would eliminate the effect of sports in 17 the fall. We'd have a clean snapshot on the 18 changes taking place. We would have a 19 uniquely comprehensive contextual and robust 20 indicator of how video consumer behavior and 21 media behavior over all has changed. We'll 22 have more insights into the competition for 23 attention and whether or not new media has 24 cannibalized traditional media versus adding 25 incremental viewing time. 93 1 Second reason is we'll have 2 additional insights regarding live television 3 viewing, and, more importantly, DVR playback. 4 They now have enhanced DVR encoding that will 5 provide a much deeper and sharper robust 6 picture of how consumers exposed to whether 7 or not ads and promos are coming on. 8 Do they, for example, 9 fast-forward through these ads, change 10 channels, leave the room, engage in social 11 activities, turn to other media instead. And 12 how did these behaviors vary through 13 location, social versus solitary, time of 14 day, the day of the week, and also genre. 15 A VOICE: Are you saying the 16 enhanced coding is coming from the NBI? 17 MS. BRILL: Yes. There are 18 enhancements that are being made to the media 19 collector software, a device called the DANA 20 that will be able to capture this additional 21 information. So it will be an enhancement 22 from what we were able to accomplish in VCM 23 1. If you recall, we did not have ad and 24 promo exposure from DVR playback. And that's 25 our study. Now we will. And that is 94 1 something that the industry is very concerned 2 with. So to be able to report on that depth 3 of information is a huge advancement for us. 4 We'll also be paying special 5 tension to areas of interest. Again, DVRs, 6 which we mentioned earlier. Video On Demand. 7 Online video consumption and mobile online 8 and video usage. And the reason we pull 9 these areas out is because we know that there 10 is a great concern in the industry regarding 11 behaviors in these new media. And we want to 12 get a deeper insight as to how they really 13 are being used. 14 For example, do they enhance the 15 value of TV or detract from it. And further, 16 what insights will guide us to a solution 17 that empowers us to take charge of that 18 challenge. 19 So a little bit about the big 20 picture. How does the cost format change in 21 the two years from second quarter 2008 to 22 second quarter 2010. Regarding DVRs, again, 23 what is being viewed. How does usage vary by 24 new adopters versus people who have had it 25 for some time. What is the extent of 95 1 fast-forwarding behavior. And are there 2 substantial differences in usage for 3 standalone units versus the units that are 4 embedded in cable set-top boxes. 5 A third item that came up was the 6 idea of doing a multi-platform segmentation 7 analysis. And this was suggested by Tim 8 Brooks. And next week there's actually going 9 to be a Webinar regarding how we can possibly 10 set up a form of segmentation. And they have 11 done some great work in a recent CTAM study. 12 And I believe this phone call is taking place 13 on September 22nd in the afternoon. 14 MR. ZACKON: 2:00 p.m., Eastern. 15 MS. BRILL: So our entire 16 committee is invited to participate. But I 17 would also like to welcome the Council to be 18 in on that call if it's of interest to you. 19 MR. ZACKON: The announcement 20 went out to everyone. The response was so 21 strong we needed an additional conference 22 line. 23 MS. BRILL: Okay, great. So 24 everybody knows about that. 25 Finally, with regard to online 96 1 video usage, we want to provide a deeper 2 breakdown into online video. What are the 3 differences of viewing long-form versus 4 short-form. This is an enhancement from the 5 first study. We were not able to really 6 break this down before. Because we feel that 7 incidents in online video has grown, we'll be 8 able to dimensionalize this further. 9 Also, we'd like to know more 10 about the difference in attention level, full 11 or partial, by the type of video that's being 12 streamed. And how it's being used by 13 location at home versus at work, for example. 14 And further, what are the behaviors during 15 exposure to online video ads, pre, post and 16 mid as well. 17 So, again, how can we use these 18 findings to best guide Nielsen on approved 19 cross-platform measurement. And further on, 20 just to go back on measurement enhancements, 21 as I mentioned earlier, we have coding 22 enhancements VCR, VOD and DVR. And we're now 23 going to be able to use the same general 24 practice classification that we have for live 25 TV. 97 1 Again, a big step forward from 2 what we've captured in VCM 1. And we'll now 3 be able to code social viewing versus simple 4 co-presence. 5 Regarding the sample, while we 6 want to go back to the original 376 7 participants as much as possible in the five 8 original DMAs, we also are exploring 9 supplemental samples to get a deeper insight 10 into online video and consumption of mobile 11 usage, and online and mobile video as well. 12 And again, we are exploring the application 13 of external segmentations such as Nielsen 14 CTAM to add value to the study. 15 Just to back up a minute. We do 16 have another phone call set up next week with 17 the Measurement Sciences people from who 18 operate the megapanel. So we are going to be 19 speaking with them. I forget what day of the 20 week it is. On Wednesday? 21 Maybe you can elaborate a little 22 bit on that, Michael. 23 MR. LINK: I forget if it's 24 Monday. That might be Monday. I'll go back 25 and look. But you're right. Yes. It's the 98 1 individuals who are in charge of the 2 megapanel. And we've looked at Jim, the 3 specifications Jim sent. And we think that 4 most of them should be pretty easy to 5 fulfill. 6 I will say on the segmentation 7 though, I think, Tim in his initial E-mail 8 mentioned this, that that was done 9 proprietary. So we have a call set up after 10 the Webinar to talk. And I think we can 11 provide some guidance. But there is going to 12 be some business confidential stuff that 13 Christie will not be able to provide exactly 14 what was done behind the scenes. So we'll 15 work as far as we can. But just recognize 16 that. That that was done. 17 MR. WAKSHLAG: Proprietary to 18 who? 19 MR. LINK: CTAM, if I remember 20 correctly. And I think Tim mentioned that in 21 his initial, initial E-mail, so... 22 MR. STIPP: Is it the CTAM study 23 conducted by Nielsen? I guess what Tim 24 Brooks reports about that, he'll have those 25 things in mind so he doesn't give anything 99 1 away? 2 MR. HESS: Shari, we're running 3 tight on time. So where are we going with 4 this? 5 MS. BRILL: So again, the 6 measurement will include the media inventory, 7 demographic, and other participant 8 characteristic surveys. And potential for 9 other profiles will continue to add value to 10 the study. 11 One of the things that we're 12 putting in, for example, is household size 13 which was not part of the first study, but 14 something that was very important to know 15 about. So, we will have had this. The idea 16 would be that we would go back into the field 17 between March and May of 2010. And all 18 measurement specs would be customized based 19 on what we require. The deliverables will 20 include analysis workshops of comprehensive 21 import and analysis for up to three months to 22 after the time the report's released to meet 23 Council needs. 24 The costs are very rough because 25 we don't know where we're going with that; 100 1 bringing in that additional sample. So right 2 now it's a range, somewhere between 1.7 and 2 3 million, depending on specs for supplemental 4 sample and segmentation. 5 MR. HESS: So on the cost, that 6 brings up the obvious issue, Richard. You 7 said that we have a number that's less than 8 that. Probably about half that amount. 9 MR. ZACKON: Less than the number 10 I gave you. 11 MR. HESS: So what do these 12 numbers assume in terms of future behavior by 13 Nielsen or the kitty, and so on? 14 MR. ZACKON: There are a couple 15 of points. One, we had already committed to 16 the Council, 848,000. Now 10,000 less. So 17 about 835,000. Something like that. 18 At our last meeting Paul Donato 19 expected to announce another between 2 and 20 2.5 million. It's not been formally 21 announced. It's not a press release. But 22 that's likely to happen. I think we can 23 safely assume that we don't yet have that. 24 But assuming we get that, there would be 25 something like 3 million, 2.5 to 3 million 101 1 that would be available once that's 2 committed. So that sum is affordable. 3 MR. SCHWARTZ: That basically 4 would be the full study? 5 MR. ZACKON: That would be 6 basically it for the year. 7 MS. SHAGRIN: Don't we want to 8 wait until after the October brainstorming 9 session? 10 MR. ZACKON: That was the idea. 11 You put out a number of possibilities. The 12 Live 360. The convergence of this and to 13 that. And we get to October in a bit. But 14 that would be a time to look at this. That 15 would still allow time to fund this in the 16 spring. An alternative is to move it to the 17 fall which allows a little more time. 18 MR. HESS: Fall of '10? 19 MR. ZACKON: Fall of '10. We're 20 able to compare either. So yes. But it's 21 affordable. And in our December meeting we 22 could decide it. And if the timetable's 23 right. 24 A VOICE: What was the investment 25 from VCM 1? 102 1 MR. ZACKON: 3.5 for the whole 2 thing. 3 MS. BRILL: Including the pilot. 4 Because there was a pilot study before we had 5 gone into the field with VCM. 6 MR. ZACKON: 3.6. Actually, 7 3,645,000. 8 MR. HESS: Okay. Given that 9 we're tight on time and need to move on, 10 Shari. So your plan is -- first, thanks for 11 the update -- your plan would be to bring 12 this up again then in December with 13 refinements and put it to a vote at that 14 point? 15 MS. BRILL: Yes. We'd have 16 something more formal in place once we knew 17 what we could do with sampling. 18 MS. BUSLIK: I was going to 19 suggest that maybe Nielsen could give us some 20 guidance or someone could give us some 21 guidance of that 357 people that we 22 originally had, how many do you think we 23 could still find household composition. They 24 may be completely different in different 25 circumstances than they were two years ago. 103 1 So I think that's very important to know. 2 MR. LINK: Estimating what the 3 turnover, movement rate, those types of 4 things. 5 MS. BUSLIK: Right. 6 MS. BURNS: We probably should 7 estimate to get that. 8 MS. BRILL: The longer we wait to 9 go into the field, obviously if we wait until 10 the fall of 2010, we're going to lose more of 11 them. 12 MR. STIPP: Before we move on, 13 can I just make one quick comment. And kudos 14 to Shari for her committee. Because I think 15 that the work that's been done in that group 16 is just really extraordinary in terms of 17 helping us design the next step. Because all 18 the insights generated really tell us about 19 the sample size, the need for additional 20 samples. So I think it's going to be a very, 21 very productive group. 22 MR. ZACKON: We take for granted, 23 now that we're standing on top of the success 24 of the first wave, right, when we think back 25 a year, we just didn't know. So I'm going to 104 1 sing some more praises of Shari and her 2 committee just to continue focus. 3 By the way, for those of you, and 4 most of you were not at the workshop, there's 5 just more work coming out than what Steve 6 Singer's providing. If you can make that 7 November workshop. 8 Do you have to be in your 9 committee to attend the workshop in November? 10 MS. BRILL: Anyone who's 11 interested in knowing about database mining 12 is more than welcome to attend the workshop. 13 This is a Council project, not a committee 14 project. We are one. 15 MR. HESS: Maybe you can put out 16 a reminder, then a feeler a couple of weeks 17 in advance to just remind people who aren't 18 going to remember from today's meeting. 19 MR. ZACKON: November 6th, 7:00 20 a.m., Pacific time. 21 MS. BRILL: Before we wrap up, I 22 just want to acknowledge all the phenomenal 23 work on the committee. And we've been having 24 weekly calls for about three years. 25 MR. STIPP: In the middle of 105 1 summer. 2 MS. BRILL: Yes. So I can't say 3 enough about the weekly calls and the way it 4 moves things forward. 5 MR. WAKSHLAG: Where do we stand 6 on the stuff that Steve Singer is doing? 7 He's presenting what he's got at this 8 meeting? 9 MR. ZACKON: He already presented 10 the work. He's presented the second 11 workshop. When it comes time for the October 12 workshop, we will get some sense from the 13 group. We would want to see an interim 14 report from him because we will have a block 15 to have time to look at it. But he'll be 16 with his report. 17 MR. WAKSHLAG: My concern is 18 going beyond the people who attend the 19 workshops. We're spending additional months 20 to answer questions that people have. And 21 apart from those who have gone to the 22 workshops, nobody knows what he's found. 23 MR. ZACKON: Probably the way 24 we'd handle that is a special Webinar 25 offline. We could invite him to the December 106 1 meeting to be determined. 2 MR. HESS: We're about ten 3 minutes over time. That was good stuff. 4 Let's keep moving. 5 Beth, are you still on? 6 MS. UYENCO: Yes, I am. 7 MR. ZACKON: We skipped Ceril. 8 MS. SHAGRIN: I have the least 9 interesting. 10 MR. ZACKON: Response from the 11 nonresponse committee. 12 MR. HESS: That's right. Beth, 13 thank for you telling me you're ready. But 14 actually Ceril is next on the agenda. 15 MS. SHAGRIN: Thank you, Beth. 16 Well, my stunning news is that 17 Nielsen's actually using the information from 18 the nonresponse bias study. And using it 19 exactly how it was intended to be used and 20 the payback to the investment there that was 21 made. 22 A couple of ways that they're 23 using it, and I'm going to let Michael talk a 24 little bit more about it, but a couple of 25 ways that they're using it is they are 107 1 actually using that data in terms of coming 2 up with ideas to improve button-pushing 3 compliance. And they're looking at what 4 persons' attributes it might influence, but 5 in pushing compliance based on the 6 information that we got in the nonresponse 7 bias study. 8 They're also actively using it in 9 terms of diary recruitment improvements. And 10 there are a couple of analyses that have been 11 started and that are in the pipeline. 12 They're looking at what attributes, what 13 detail, what types of households are most 14 closely related to the refused and cooperate 15 status. They're doing separate analyses for 16 meters, households, and diary households. 17 And getting information in terms of why 18 people participate in general research and 19 how that compares with how they participate 20 in Nielsen research. Because we ask both 21 sets of questions in the research. They 22 expect to complete that by November the 2nd. 23 So we will have a report on that at the next 24 CRE meeting. 25 They're also doing the next step 108 1 in terms of determining what they can learn 2 about nonresponse among the responders in 3 terms of when they are in tab and not in tab. 4 And what drives that. And just so we have so 5 much detail in terms of the different types 6 of households, the differences, the number of 7 the people in the households. The equipment 8 they have. All of the household 9 characteristics. 10 And we're looking at the 11 differences between responders and 12 nonresponders within all of those 13 characteristics. And, for example, the 14 biggest difference in metered sample between 15 people who cooperate and not cooperate in 16 general research was they felt surveys were 17 an invasion of privacy. But in the diary 18 sample they said the reason they didn't 19 participate is because they weren't 20 interested in the subject. Whereas, in terms 21 of specific to the Nielsen samples, most of 22 them felt that it was going to be a burden to 23 report their viewing accurately. And they 24 were very concerned about participating 25 because they might not be accurate. 109 1 So we're looking at, Nielsen is 2 looking at all of this information. I think 3 it's also going to be very, very valuable 4 where we get the results of the universe 5 estimate work that's being done. Because one 6 of the key findings I thought in the research 7 that was done was a significant difference 8 between cooperators and non-cooperators when 9 it came to the equipment they had in their 10 home. And when you think about the fact that 11 Nielsen is using the samples to develop 12 media-related UEs, and we know that there's 13 significant difference in the type of 14 equipment that non-cooperators have between 15 that information and what we get from the 16 Dallas test, may be able to provide Nielsen 17 with models to adjust what they already get 18 to get better more accurate UEs. 19 One place where I want you to 20 consider spending some more of our money, 21 because the Nielsen people are doing an 22 incredible amount of work in the data, and 23 I'll let Michael take it from here, but I 24 still recommend that we get a grad student to 25 definitely delve into the data that we 110 1 already have. And we're talking about 2 probably $100,000 for a grad student to spend 3 a significant amount of time delving into the 4 data. Because they're going to look at the 5 data quite differently than how Nielsen's 6 going to look at the data. When we put the 7 two together, we'll get even more value. 8 Michael? 9 MR. LINK: You said it all. 10 You're exactly right. I'll be honest. At 11 this stage of the game, to some degree, this 12 might bleed over into some insights. So my 13 insight data will be much, much shorter. 14 The nonresponse data actually has 15 given us the most actionable out of all the 16 CRE data, that's given us the most actionable 17 study to date. And everything that you 18 mentioned, Ceril, just some basic stuff, 19 still understanding what segments of 20 individuals don't understand what the 21 blinking lights mean. Even though we go over 22 this over and over again. There are certain 23 segments that just don't seem to get it, 24 zeroing in on that. Asians having difficulty 25 with the 800 number and online support. You 111 1 know, that's an interesting finding. 2 You mentioned the types of TVs. 3 We've now engaged our engineers to look at 4 the form of the people meter and the AP meter 5 to see how we can adjust that so it better 6 fits for people who have the large flat 7 screen TVs. Those types of things. 8 On the diary side, some of the 9 learnings are going directly into the 10 revamping of all of the materials that we 11 have, with less emphasis on some degree, mean 12 more in terms of just some more of the 13 general appeals that we're using. 14 So there's a whole wealth of 15 things that we're using this with. And I 16 think the next leap, like you said, is 17 actually combining the nonresponse approach 18 with our in-person validation button-pushing 19 compliance data. We're now working to merge 20 those two things together to get better 21 insights as well. 22 So it's actually kind of the 23 unsung hero here. That I think there's been 24 a lot of work that's gone on in this 25 particular area. 112 1 MR. HESS: Anything else or 2 comments on that? 3 MR. POLTRACK: If I may, are the 4 results of this available somewhere? 5 MR. LINK: That was one thing I 6 had mentioned to Ceril before this meeting, 7 is I think our next step should be that we 8 present a Webinar with that set of findings, 9 Tim Olsen and what the folks of 10 the universities did was kind of focus on 11 those actual potential bias and ratings. 12 Here what we're looking at is the backend of 13 the surveys where there are a lot of 14 questions on just general attitudes towards 15 surveys, your experience with Nielsen, those 16 types of things. So we can certainly put 17 together something, I think, and present it 18 at a proper forum. 19 MR. ZACKON: Even the front end 20 of the study has not been exposed to the 21 Nielsen client community. There's not yet 22 been a press release on that. And I don't 23 know what we might do to move that. 24 Ceril, do you have any 25 suggestions? I know it's falling somewhere 113 1 between communications and your committee. 2 And at the last meeting we spoke about how 3 your committee may need some additional 4 support. We've just brought in a few new 5 members into the Council. 6 MS. SHAGRIN: Well, anyone who's 7 interested and going to get a conference call 8 going either next week or the week after. So 9 anyone who's interested, if you let me know. 10 Because our next step is going to be finding 11 the best use of the data. And then pursuing 12 the value of a grad student. Really, the 13 only data that was looked at or presented was 14 based on the respondent themselves. So we 15 got like cume data. But we never looked at 16 what's the impact as to our average minute 17 rating. And we can get insights into that 18 from the data that we have. 19 MR. HESS: Okay. Thank you. 20 Anything else? Okay. Thanks to both of you 21 for pretty much catching us up in terms of 22 timing. 23 Now, Beth, not prematurely, this 24 time. Beth, are you ready to talk about 25 insights to practice? 114 1 MS. UYENCO: Yes. But my role 2 here will be very short. 3 Mr. Link and I had talked about 4 updating the committee with up to the 5 quarter. 6 MR. HESS: Beth, can you just 7 talk a little bit louder. I'm not sure if 8 you have to lean into the microphone. 9 MS. UYENCO: I'm sorry. Yes, 10 actually, my part will be very short because 11 what we will be updating the CRE with at this 12 meeting are all events that Michael Link has 13 and his teams have been working on for the 14 past quarter. So I'm just going to pass the 15 baton to Michael. And he will tell you all 16 these things that have kept him busy with 17 some of the insights and the committee work. 18 MR. LINK: Obviously, the one we 19 just covered, the nonresponse bias, we've 20 obviously been very busy on that. 21 On the VCM front there are two 22 reports that we are close to having done. 23 One I had hoped to have done by today, but 24 unfortunately it's still under review, is an 25 audio report. And that looks at the audio 115 1 usage in radio and delves into essentially 2 doing the same basic thing that was done on 3 the video side, but looking at more the 4 audio. That's under review with our radio 5 folks. And I hope to have that out as soon 6 as possible within a week. I will share that 7 certainly first with the CRE. And allow for 8 any input/comments. 9 MR. ZACKON: Michael, does that 10 go to the point that was uncovered, and we 11 are transparent here, that there was an issue 12 with the VCM study with the sampling having 13 to do with people work and don't work? 14 MR. LINK: Right. 15 MR. ZACKON: Is that part of that 16 report? 17 MR. LINK: It actually is. And 18 I've actually put a section in there for 19 those of you that aren't familiar. One of 20 the things that we uncovered was it appears 21 that people, a chunk of individuals took the 22 day off to facilitate their observation day. 23 Makes it easier to drag this person to work, 24 right. Well, for some things that doesn't 25 make a difference. But for both TV and radio 116 1 it has a difference because it makes your day 2 look less like a workday and more like a 3 weekend day. So it appears I had some folks 4 pull data, our demographers pulled data from 5 the current population survey. We would 6 expect about 64 percent of adults 18 and 7 older living in households to have gone to 8 work one or more last week. That's the way 9 the question's phrased. If you pool the 10 workplace data from the VCM study, only 25 11 percent have an observation of one hour or 12 more at a workplace. That's a pretty big 13 skew. Now, some people work from home. Some 14 people do other things. But there's 15 obviously something going on. There's some 16 chunk of individuals. 17 This has the effect of increasing 18 the average minutes for TV and decreasing the 19 average minutes for radio. Because, again, 20 people that seems to be the more kind of 21 weekendy-type trend. And that's what 22 happened when you took off. So we do have a 23 section in the report that covers that and 24 makes that caveat. The rest of it then 25 obviously focuses on the audio, use of audio. 117 1 And then does make some comparisons with some 2 of the other media. 3 The second report and one that I 4 actually want to work closely with the 5 committee on too is out-of-home. This was 6 something that actually when the study was 7 started, the out-of-home group at Nielsen had 8 as part of the study and analysis 9 out-of-home. We've done a detailed work 10 looking at this. Steve has also done that. 11 I saw some of that the other day. We want to 12 make sure everything is jiving appropriately. 13 That is right now more in the final analysis 14 stage. It hasn't been written up yet. But 15 that one is coming down the pike. Those are 16 the two key ones that we've done. I 17 mentioned before that we had done things on 18 muting. 19 The other two things that we've 20 had internally is we did with the set-top box 21 group, have Baneesh and Tim Dolson and Pete 22 Doan hold a little seminar to give a little 23 more detail on what Nielsen was doing with 24 set-top box data, looking at personal level 25 and aggregate level information. And then 118 1 it's also been suggested that we have Minot 2 Munsabar who runs our emerging media, the 3 online and telecommunications stuff come in 4 and talk with the CRE as well about the area 5 that they have going on. So there's actually 6 quite a bit of things going on with the 7 insights group. 8 MR. POLTRACK: Maybe I'm missing 9 something, but that seems to be a staggering 10 problem. That's 65 percent of people in 11 America go to work and basically only 25 12 percent of these people did. And you 13 actually got anecdotal information that they 14 would been taking the day off. 15 MR. LINK: That's not anecdotal. 16 That's a supposition. That's the hypothesis. 17 MR. POLTRACK: We have no 18 confirmation from these people that they've 19 did this. I mean, that to me could 20 invalidate the entire study. So I think we 21 better look into that pretty quickly. 22 MR. STIPP: David, would you 23 assume somewhere in the questionnaire there's 24 a question how was unusual to you. 25 They did not look into that. 119 1 MR. WAKSHLAG: You call somebody 2 up and say can I follow you. And they go, 3 well, I'm taking off next Friday. Why don't 4 you come by on Friday. I mean, that's 5 probably the process we want. 6 MR. STIPP: For the next wave 7 that's something to do. 8 MR. LINK: There's certainly some 9 insights. I know the group's been looking at 10 that. 11 MR. ZACKON: It's also going to 12 affect some day parts. 13 MR. WAKSHLAG: The 65 percent 14 number is a scary number. It requires more 15 in-depth analysis than that. Because you've 16 got workplace. You've got age skews here. 17 We had a very large number of people who are 18 over the age of 55. They're the ones that 19 are less likely to be going to work. You got 20 to look at it by age. And you also have to 21 look at it by these cities. Because it's 22 very different in these cities. 23 MR. LINK: The number did come 24 from these VCMs at the same time, the same 25 time frame. And it was the 18 and older 120 1 population in households. 2 A VOICE: Bet it affected online 3 video time on the Internet. 4 MR. LINK: If you look, the 5 online numbers were a little less affected. 6 And the newspaper and magazines weren't much 7 affected at all. But TV, clearly TV/radio 8 were the two biggest that had big impacts. 9 MR. POLTRACK: The further impact 10 on the study that's already been published. 11 But also there's a big question now facing us 12 about the proposed second study. Because if 13 we're going to do a longitudinal study with 14 these people and correct for that problem, 15 then the longitudinal study will be 16 invalidated because we will have changed the 17 rules. I mean, I don't know whether doing a 18 longitudinal study with these people makes 19 any sense at all, if, in fact, their behavior 20 was -- we had a Hawthorne effect here and 21 their behavior was dramatically changed by 22 the process. 23 This is a big issue. That's a 24 lot of money to spend on another study if we 25 find that we can't do the study without 121 1 affecting the behavior of the respondents. 2 We seem to have done -- 3 MR. LINK: One approach, 4 potentially, that maybe Sequent and Ball 5 State could take, these data are not weighted 6 at all on anything. So potentially maybe 7 they go back and look, at least internally, 8 what does it look like if you tried to 9 correct for some of this through weighting 10 and how much does that change those 11 estimates. 12 MR. SUSSMAN: Can we ask those 13 respondents if they were supposed to be at 14 work that day? Can we go back to them? It's 15 not a lot of them. 16 MR. POLTRACK: It's 370 people. 17 We should be able to go back and ask them 18 specific questions. Particularly if, 19 particularly, I think somebody may probably 20 ready to find out how severe an issue this 21 is. 22 MR. STIPP: One more little 23 interesting issue that came out with data 24 analysis. Remember that one key finding on 25 self-reporting data not being very valid. 122 1 Well, that's a study for late night. And we 2 looked at some of the data. So if we believe 3 RTI respondents, they saw an enormous amount 4 of commercials, until the time when they 5 stopped being observed and suddenly they 6 stopped seeing any commercials. 7 So obviously, the study itself in 8 that sense confirms again this kind of 9 finding. So it raises a question as to 10 whether there should be any kind of data 11 collection on those day parts that were not 12 observed because the study itself shows that 13 the data that are reported are not valid. 14 MR. LINK: Those of you who take 15 the training will find, when you look at the 16 dataset, you will find a lot of it. That it 17 is very thin data at those either streams. 18 MS. BURNS: The nonobservational 19 stuff. 20 MR. LINK: Yes. That makes 21 sense. They're self-reported. 22 MR. STIPP: That's why we do it 23 with this method, right. Because observation 24 is superior to asking people what it is. 25 MR. HESS: Michael, anything 123 1 else? 2 MR. WAKSHLAG: And the other sign 3 is one hour. You said it's one hour a day. 4 MR. LINK: That's what the 5 question in the current population survey is; 6 that they work one hour or more a day. 7 Now, the other problem is that 8 the VCM data, the employment question doesn't 9 break out full versus part-time. So you 10 can't look at what that distribution is. 11 MS. BURNS: Is the breakout home 12 versus away working, like working in the 13 home? 14 MR. LINK: I don't want to take 15 up too much time. But there's an activity 16 variable for work too. And if you include 17 that, there's a lot of unemployed people that 18 were working. 19 MS. BURNS: Only because 20 work-at-home people do watch a considerable 21 amount of television. So again, the concern 22 level of that 65 number starts dwindling away 23 when you consider full-time home versus away, 24 and so forth. 25 MR. LINK: Again, I have 124 1 communicated all this with the Sequent and 2 Ball State guys. I would say that this 3 should be this their court to look at what 4 they have. 5 MR. HESS: What's the general 6 reaction? They must have said something 7 like, oh, or an explanation. 8 MR. LINK: I think, Michael 9 Holmes certainly recognized that that was a 10 potential. And he was going to also look at 11 some of the population data. 12 MR. ZACKON: I think the words 13 were ah-hah. 14 MR. HESS: I'm glad I asked. 15 We're running right at 3:15. I know there 16 are a couple of new business items. I 17 wouldn't mind getting to them. Usually 18 there's a lot of white space there. 19 But a couple of items that 20 probably will take some time to discuss. At 21 least based on the passion and interest I 22 heard earlier in the meeting. Two that have 23 come up. And, of course, anyone else can 24 bring up new business topics as well. Of 25 course, CIM, I guess we're calling it. And 125 1 also just a little bit about the agenda for 2 October 22nd. So in terms of CIM, could we 3 have a discussion on that? Any comments? 4 Okay. 5 To set the tone, I think part of 6 the issue that's been raised is what kind of 7 relationship, if any, might their exist 8 between CIM and the CRE. Because in the 9 press there's been commentary as to is this a 10 Nielsen competitor or not. And certainly one 11 of the ground rules that have been in place 12 for this committee since the very start has 13 to do with competition with Nielsen. 14 So I know several of the people 15 in this room are on both committees. We also 16 have Nielsen here. I'm not sure if you're 17 prepared to make any comments about that. 18 But that's the general reason why this topic 19 has come up. Of course we can cover other 20 aspects as well. 21 MR. LINK: I will say as a 22 general comment that research, we welcome 23 good research. And on a case-by-case 24 project-by-project basis. Again, we look for 25 what's real competition. But our view right 126 1 now is we'll to have see what the projects 2 are and what the shape it takes. 3 MS. LIGUORI: I would just like 4 to remind everybody that any materials that 5 come from the consultants that you may have 6 or will have are confidential. And really 7 shouldn't be shared. I'm not saying that 8 that's happened. I'm just trying to protect 9 us from any kind of accusations. 10 MR. HESS: Expanding on that 11 again, one of the ground rules is that 12 Nielsen generally had indicated at the very 13 start with the CRE. That they would not 14 interfere with, for the most part with our 15 decisions. Spending of money. But there was 16 a line to be drawn with either a direct 17 Nielsen competitor. I don't know about the 18 word potential. But clearly with a direct 19 Nielsen competitor, that they would draw the 20 line there. 21 MR. WAKSHLAG: I think it's 22 flat-out to say there is nothing important to 23 flat-out say there is nothing about Council 24 for Information and Media Measurement that 25 has anything to do with creating a competitor 127 1 between Nielsen. Nothing. 2 A VOICE: Absolutely nothing. 3 What would be the point? I don't think any 4 of us has not been around long enough to know 5 that mounting a panel service is unbelievably 6 complicated and expensive. And I think that 7 we all know that that's really not adequate 8 all by itself anymore. And that would just 9 not make any sense whatsoever. 10 So I think when it first kind of 11 leaked back this August that this 12 organization was being formed, that that was 13 where that writer took it this that 14 direction. And it was just really jumping to 15 the wrong conclusion. And that got some 16 momentum behind it. And it was just wrong. 17 MR. STIPP: I think you're right. 18 The writer was, as you know, was a British 19 person. No. That's not a bad thing in 20 itself. It's just that, you know, for 21 somebody who is entrenced in the European 22 situation, a committee like that is a jig. 23 So he made an inaccurate kind of connection, 24 I think it's since then been shown. That was 25 just completely wrong information. And that 128 1 the agenda of this organization is to improve 2 the currency. 3 And it is, you know, it may well 4 turn out that Nielsen's going to be a great 5 benefactor of that kind of thing, rather than 6 this is going to be anti-Nielsen. And since 7 the CRE seems to me has a similar kind of 8 agenda, this is a very legitimate kind of 9 thing to look at and to think about, how, you 10 know, how these agendas are complimentary or 11 similar, and how cooperation might be 12 appropriate. 13 MR. HESS: Any other comments? 14 Ira, you mentioned something 15 previously about, I don't know, that was a 16 serious suggestion, the CRE being a member. 17 MR. SUSSMAN: Well, yes. I don't 18 know where it goes. If the CRE spends money 19 in order to kind of do parallel things, 20 especially from what would be the next phase 21 of the set-top box committee. So it seemed, 22 rather than being duplicative, that there 23 would be an opportunity for participation. 24 I have no idea if that group 25 would be open to us as a member for whatever 129 1 reasons now and if there is any sense of that 2 today. Or if you guys that are participating 3 could bring that back as a question so we 4 have a sense as to are we going to be 5 parallel, joint, or what are we going to do 6 going forward? 7 MR. WAKSHLAG: I think it's too 8 early to say. I think we should, as the 9 Committee For Research Excellence, know that 10 there's another activity out there. But I 11 don't think we should change anything we do 12 until we know more about what it is they're 13 going to do. 14 MR. SUSSMAN: That's fair. I 15 just bring it up at this meeting. It seemed 16 like an opportunity to watch the two paths. 17 And we're not ready to do phase 2 ourselves. 18 And there's an opportunity out there as 19 things evolve. 20 MS. LIGUORI: There was 21 discussion on our call about possibly 22 becoming a member of CIM. I don't know that 23 I would agree with that. I do think that the 24 CIM members have an advantage in that they're 25 also CRE members. So they know what we're 130 1 doing, what the set-top box committee's 2 doing. The set-top box committee may not be, 3 may not be permissioned, if you will, to 4 divulge the nature of what you might be doing 5 with CIM. So we're kind of at a disadvantage 6 in not knowing if we are duplicating 7 anything. And if membership isn't possible, 8 then I would like to suggest some sort of 9 liaison so that at least we don't get in each 10 other's way. 11 We don't know what phase 2 is, if 12 there's going to be a phase 2. That probably 13 is dependent upon what CIM does. For the 14 information I have, you guys, you know, you 15 just announced your formation and nothing 16 else. So I don't know how long it's going to 17 be before you do anything. And that's why my 18 sense was, you know, we have to tie up our 19 lose ends. And, you know, whatever you do is 20 your timetable. And we have to work on ours. 21 So that's kind of what we discussed. 22 MR. SUSSMAN: The other layer of 23 that is also the Mitch Oscar thing out there. 24 Whatever he's doing with the town hall 25 meetings and asking for data for the 131 1 marketplace, what happens with that next. So 2 there's a lot of work being done. And this 3 just happens to be a really good group of 4 people that I think would be a good place to 5 continue some of the work that we're doing 6 and not be duplicating what everyone else is 7 doing as this changes so quickly. 8 MR. ZACKON: Excuse me. We have 9 a Council, a collaborative alliance and a 10 coalition. 11 A VOICE: Being on CIM, also on 12 Sirius, why not change what you're doing 13 here? It's a very, very early date. But I 14 do think that it makes sense to have a 15 dialogue. And I certainly hope we can foster 16 that. But I don't think it makes sense to 17 duplicate effort. I don't think it makes 18 sense, you guys, for the stuff you're doing. 19 Again, it's a fairly early date. So let's 20 post that conversation. 21 A VOICE: I support that. 22 MR. STIPP: I don't think it 23 would be premature to have an informal 24 conversation on a high level. To just kind 25 of, you know, explore and say, hey, look, you 132 1 know, what are you doing. This is what we're 2 doing. Somebody has mentioned maybe that we 3 join. How you guys would feel about that 4 just to be on the agenda. And for, you know, 5 for people at CIMs to keep a theory in mind 6 and kind of think about that. 7 MS. LIGUORI: So would some sort 8 of conference call between the set-top box 9 committee or a meeting, large conference call 10 between the set-top box committee and however 11 many members of CIM want to participate, is 12 it premature to do that, or, you know, is it 13 good. So that you understand where we are. 14 I don't know about the rest of them. 15 MR. WAKSHLAG: I agree. I think 16 it's premature to do that. CIM, it will be 17 in the process of seeking and hiring a 18 managing director and issuing two RFPs. One 19 on set-top box data, one on multi-platform. 20 RFP means put out a proposal saying we want 21 you to do some set-top box measurement of 22 some way, shape or form. And you're going to 23 come back to us and you're going to tell us 24 how you're going to do it. And so that's 25 what it is. And I don't think that's -- I 133 1 don't see that as conflicting or being in 2 competition in any way from the 3 data-gathering process that you guys, that we 4 are involved in here. 5 MR. SUSSMAN: Not at all. But we 6 also have the opportunity on October, 7 whatever date that our brainstorming is. 8 MR. HESS: 22nd. 9 MR. SUSSMAN: Think what we want 10 to do in 2010 as the CRE. So maybe by then 11 you'll know more and we'll know more so we 12 can have some really good conversation about 13 what we might propose to spend money on in 14 2010 in that area if we want to. So maybe 15 now is not the time. But maybe within the 16 next five, six weeks it will be. 17 MR. STERNBERG: I also think that 18 CIM will probably get totally different types 19 of proposal from people if CRE is part of 20 CIM. Because people will think that Nielsen 21 is now part of CIM. And I think the 22 advantage that CIM has in something like that 23 RFP is that Nielsen's not involved. So they 24 will, the set top companies and providers 25 will assume that Nielsen has no access to 134 1 whatever they provide to CIM. 2 MS. BURNS: That's a good point. 3 That's what Pat's running into right now. As 4 much as saying your independent, independent, 5 independent, they don't necessarily see it 6 that way. 7 MR. KALINE: I would only add 8 that Alan Wurtzel was in front of the AMA 9 committee this week explaining what CIM was 10 about, what it was not about. Everything 11 that's been talked about in this room is what 12 he echoed. He made a plea for the 13 advertisers in that room to become involved 14 because right now it's more on the 15 broadcaster and agency side. And that was 16 the extent of it, of the conversation. 17 But absolutely echoed that this 18 is not a competitor to Nielsen. That it's 19 got right now two RFPs in the generation 20 right now. And that, you know, they were 21 looking for more people to participate. 22 There would be voting and nonvoting-type 23 status. You know, things of that nature. 24 MR. ZACKON: If I can say 25 something, everyone has their own concern. 135 1 My concern with the time of people who are 2 members of CRE who are also members of CIM 3 would be challenged. And I just want to say 4 I'm delighted to see at this table a lot of 5 the CIMs names. Because I think there's room 6 to participate and vote. So that was my 7 concern. 8 MR. HESS: You mean that they 9 would have enough time? 10 MR. ZACKON: Yes. Because we 11 know how much time this committee takes. And 12 to have another one there, unless they clone 13 themselves, it's going to be a challenge. 14 MR. HESS: Okay. So we take that 15 direction, to just move ahead. 16 Pat, did you have a 17 recommendation here? We don't have to vote 18 on it. 19 MS. LIGUORI: No. No, no, no. 20 Just following Ira's suggestion that at the 21 10/22 meeting we revisit setting up a 22 conference call with some CIM people and go 23 from there. 24 MR. ZACKON: Or there may be an 25 announcement between now and then that might 136 1 make it a little clear. 2 MS. LIGUORI: Who knows? 3 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: The only other 4 thing I want to add, I wasn't part of this in 5 the very beginning, but I know that this 6 group of people, you know, from the moment it 7 was announced to when things actually started 8 to gain momentum, I think was a period of 9 time. And I don't imagine that it will be 10 much different for CIM. 11 I think now it's just trying to 12 figure out, okay, how is this going to work? 13 What's the process? How are we going to 14 administer to this? 15 And Jack made a good point. That 16 we're trying to get, you know, sort of a main 17 point person in place as an executive 18 director to help usher that along. And just 19 identifying that person and hiring and 20 getting that person approved and installed by 21 a large group of people, I think it's just 22 going to take just a little bit of time. I 23 think even five or six weeks sounds quick to 24 me. So we haven't even set our next meeting, 25 that group, the CIM group. 137 1 MR. SUSSMAN: Hurry up. 2 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: I just thought 3 I'd throw that out there as sort of a 4 comparison or context. 5 MR. HESS: Colleen, you're 6 absolutely right. As one of the early 7 attendees, I think the first meeting was 8 purely organizational. The second meeting 9 was somewhat organizational. Then we started 10 brainstorming. It definitely took a while to 11 get going. 12 Do you want to use that then as a 13 segue for the 10/22 meeting, or is there more 14 discussion/interest on CIM? I guess we can 15 always keep referring to. But the 10/22 16 meeting, certainly we should make CIM one of 17 the topics. 18 I think one of the main issues, 19 of course, everybody jump in. I'll try to 20 frame a little bit of it. One of the main 21 issues for the 10/22 meeting is just the 22 context. We really haven't had pure 23 brainstorming meetings as a group for a 24 while. And I know, Richard, you said you're 25 not going to take attendance at this one. 138 1 It's not manditory the way any other meetings 2 are mandatory. 3 MR. ZACKON: I'd like to propose 4 something. Get a sense here. There have 5 been people who missed meetings. We have 6 procedures and policies about it. I thought 7 the October meeting could serve as a 8 bingo-free space meeting for people who have 9 missed meetings. So if you're there it 10 counts to your credit; if you're not there, 11 it doesn't count against you. 12 MR. HESS: Okay. 13 MR. ZACKON: So there's a spirit 14 for bingo. 15 MR. KALINE: What a salesman. 16 MR. HESS: We won't vote on that. 17 But I'm going to say by acclamation we agree. 18 MR. ZACKON: The purpose is just 19 to get people together. It's not required. 20 We only require the quarterly business 21 meeting. But I thought it would be a way for 22 people to make up for missed meetings. 23 MR. HESS: So I think one of the 24 items that I've discussed with a few people 25 that I'd like some commentary on is we have a 139 1 number of committees right now. Some might 2 feel that's not enough. Some might feel it's 3 too many. We certainly are, I guess, up 4 against the budget in terms of how much we're 5 going to spend. So, should given that we 6 haven't had a meeting like this for a while, 7 should a big part of the meeting nevertheless 8 be devoted to brainstorming? I think one of 9 many of our favorite meetings was when we all 10 got together at Nielsen and we took a big 11 white sheet of paper and put 12 or 13 ideas 12 up there. 13 Mark, you're nodding your head. 14 That was a good meeting where we generated a 15 bunch of ideas. We then culled it down. And 16 I think there was a lot of energy behind 17 that. And now, in retrospect, I think we did 18 some good work. So I think that would be fun 19 to do. But is it actually right to do given 20 all the stuff we have on our plate? 21 So I'd like to just float that 22 issue out there. Is there interest in 23 brainstorming? And then, beyond that, what 24 other items on the agenda could we put down? 25 A VOICE: I'd be very interested 140 1 in having Nielsen lead off for the reason 2 that Michael just explained. That the 3 nonresponse stuff has been very constructive 4 in improving their procedures. And talked 5 about universal estimates as well. For me, I 6 think it would be helpful for you, for 7 Nielsen to have the floor to talk about what 8 they see as issues. Because I can go through 9 online ad intercept studies broken. Online 10 survey. Stanford just put out a paper last 11 August, basically saying it's broken. 12 Applications for wireless handsets are 13 exploding. So getting their perspective on 14 how we can help them improve cross-platform. 15 MR. HESS: Other thoughts? 16 MR. STIPP: I want to second 17 that. Because I think it would help to 18 direct the brainstorming and see what this 19 really is all about; namely, improving the 20 currency. And not kind of a free-floating, 21 what are questions that I'm interested in 22 today. I think there's always a danger of 23 that because it's very satisfying to do that. 24 So thank you. 25 MR. ZACKON: An idea I had was to 141 1 invite Nielsen people who are not members of 2 the CRE to that meeting; two, in particular. 3 There was a meeting of Pat's Group W Maneesh 4 Battia talking about set-top boxes which I 5 thought was an unusual kind of meeting. And 6 I thought what was offered there by Nielsen. 7 Ought be heard by the people around this 8 table. That's one. 9 The other is Manoch Plasundar. 10 Some of you know Manoch. Michael mentioned 11 him. And he's on the mobile and Internet 12 side. And I thought as media come together 13 and converge, if I can use the verb, he'd be 14 a good player to have. Which then had me 15 think maybe we should invite all these 16 Nielsen members of the Insights to Practice 17 Committee, which also include Paul Lindstrom, 18 Pat McDonough, and Jordan. 19 MR. ZACKON: But we couldn't do 20 that unless there was agreement here. So 21 would that be acceptable to invite the 22 members, to invite Maneesh and the members of 23 the Insights of Practice Committee to that 24 meeting? 25 MS. BUSLIK: Come prepared with 142 1 something. I'd like them to come prepared 2 with something. Not just to be there. But 3 to have their latest and greatest whatever 4 they want to show us so that could maybe whet 5 our appetites. 6 MR. STIPP: Also again, we are 7 free-floating now. I would like to go back 8 to saying after Pat and all these people, 9 exactly what he just said. Come prepared 10 with what your issues are. What you found 11 useful. Where you think we should be going 12 or could be going in order to enhance 13 measurement, right? We don't want them to 14 say be up there and say, oh, this is our 15 latest trend to DVR usage. 16 MS. BUSLIK: That's what I mean. 17 MR. STIPP: As much as I like to 18 see that... 19 MS. BUSLIK: What I'm saying, I 20 don't just want a free -- we give them what 21 we want to cover, so they really cover it. 22 And they can add to it. But give them some 23 structure. That's what we want. 24 MR. STERNBERG: We don't want 25 this to be a Nielsen brainstorming meeting. 143 1 Because if we have all these Nielsen people 2 there, expect to have one presentation after 3 another. And four hours are going to go by 4 and we're done. And all we've done is see a 5 Nielsen presentation. 6 MS. LIGUORI: The meeting that we 7 had with Maneesh was the integration of 8 Webinar with television data. And Nielsen 9 presented the proposals. And it was the type 10 of meeting where, you know, you leave with a 11 headache because you're struggling with what 12 you know are existing rules governing 13 television viewing. And then you have this 14 new platform and you're trying to combine 15 both. And it was really people opening up 16 their minds and looking at the possibilities 17 of how you would merge the data. So that's 18 what we did. 19 Ira was there. It is 20 cross-platform. I don't know. If that's 21 what you're interested in, that level, then 22 we can ask them to do that. But that's what 23 we did. And it was helpful I think for both 24 sides because it exposed many of the issues 25 that exist in trying to put this stuff 144 1 together. 2 MR. LINK: I will say I will 3 absolutely having sat through on the other 4 side of those meetings and watch my 5 colleagues put slide after slide, I will keep 6 them very focused and put them together. And 7 I think I have a very good sense of what you 8 want. Let's focus more on the problems, the 9 issues, some of the potential solutions that 10 we might see; not on what the latest product 11 of the day is. That type of thing. 12 MR. ZACKON: I'm going to ring my 13 bell to the meeting. 14 MR. POLTRACK: Again, not to keep 15 pounding on the same issue, but this has been 16 a total revelation to me is this issue of the 17 problem with the major study. We spent most 18 of our money on a study. And now I'm finding 19 out that there was a significant problem with 20 that study. And we're being asked to spend 21 most of the money that's going to be 22 allocated to us in the future on a 23 replication of that study. 24 So the issue, I think, that has 25 to be addressed either before this session or 145 1 during this session, in order for us to 2 speak, to really have a good idea. Because 3 if that's going to continue, remember the 4 whole concept of that study was to get around 5 the issue of response bias and things like 6 that. And actually get observation and get 7 rid of issues that we know exist. And now we 8 may have actually had a major type of 9 Hawthorne kind of effect in there. And I 10 really would like that addressed either 11 before or during that session. 12 MR. ZACKON: Actually, they 13 didn't go to the Hawthorne factor that day. 14 That was the problem. 15 Would you be able to give back to 16 us some data that we can have actually use. 17 MR. LINK: I did present with the 18 data I found in the steps. I do think 19 there's a Ball State-Sequent piece here. 20 MR. POLTRACK: I'm saying that. 21 I would expect them to be part of this 22 presentation. Yes. But that's definitely 23 something that should be done. 24 MR. WAKSHLAG: I think that's 25 really important. I agree with David that if 146 1 there's a problem with it that we find out 2 what it was and how significant it is. 3 A, we don't bury the study before 4 we're sure it deserves to be buried, because 5 we spent a lot of money. And B, if we can 6 fix the general findings through some 7 weighting, fine. But, you know, I'm not sure 8 that if 65 percent of the people who are over 9 the age of 18 work at least one hour a day is 10 the number you should be using for this. And 11 it makes it sound really scary. And it 12 sounds scary to me. But I'm not sure it's 13 the right -- 14 MR. LINK: This is obviously not 15 my intent. More than anything else... 16 MR. WAKSHLAG: You got to be 17 really careful when you do that. 18 MR. HESS: I think taking off my 19 chair hat, putting on my statistical hat, if 20 I can say it I'd like to probably see some 21 kind of a sensitivity analysis. Because, for 22 example, whether people went to work or not, 23 to me one of the big findings is that on 24 average, people, let's say, used 8-1/2 hours 25 of media, six after you take out the 147 1 concurrent behavior. Somehow, I sense that 2 those big findings, certain big findings will 3 not change. 4 MR. LINK: Right, right. 5 MR. HESS: If this were a 6 currency issue, then I would be very 7 concerned. But I think the big findings that 8 are in Shari's deck and in some of the other 9 ones that we just talked about, probably 10 aren't going to change. But there are 11 certain things that will. And so, to me, I'm 12 concerned about burying it. I don't think we 13 should bury it. But I'm not even personally 14 speaking statistically. I don't even see it 15 as a candidate right now for burying because 16 some of these skews may end up being not that 17 important with respect to the key findings. 18 But having said that, I'm open to empirical 19 analysis. How bad is it? Where are the 20 problems? Where do the major findings stay? 21 So sensitivity analysis would be useful, I 22 think. 23 MS. BURNS: Which is use. I 24 asked before to try the dimension at 65 25 percent how much of it is part-time versus 148 1 full-time. How much of is recent done 2 working versus long-term. As much as at home 3 versus away. Before we get excited about 65, 4 that needs to be put into some kind of 5 diagnostic perspective. And I don't know. 6 My sense was you said ask Ball State. And 7 Ball State says Nielsen's going to help you 8 with that. Somebody's got to dimension that 9 for us. 10 MR. LINK: We're commencing it 11 because if we're going to put out a report, 12 I've got caveats announced. Quite frankly, 13 we've been talking about do we have to spike 14 this report. 15 MR. POLTRACK: The issue is, I 16 don't think the 65/25 is really the relevant 17 issue. I think the relevant issue is what 18 number of people changed their normal 19 behavior pattern because they were being 20 observed. 21 MR. STIPP: I just cannot imagine 22 that they did a study without knowing whether 23 these people had a job or not. So you would 24 have to have data on individuals saying this 25 person has a job. This person is employed as 149 1 the following. And on the day of 2 observations, this person was or was not at 3 work. That would help a lot, right? 4 MR. WAKSHLAG: I'm sure they 5 didn't ask are you full-time employed out of 6 the home. 7 MR. STIPP: You think they did 8 not? 9 MR. WAKSHLAG: Of course not. 10 MR. STIPP: Have you ever 11 conducted a study where you don't ask that? 12 MR. WAKSHLAG: Yes. Most of my 13 studies don't ask that. 14 MS. BRILL: If they were former 15 cooperators, didn't you have that data on 16 them in the first place? 17 MR. LINK: Again, the employment 18 situation changes. So it's really what's at 19 play here is what they were on the date that 20 they were observed. 21 MS. BUSLIK: At that point in 22 time. 23 MR. LINK: 65/45, between 45 and 24 25? 25 MS. BUSLIK: There's an issue 150 1 there, I absolutely agree. We need to 2 further dimension it. Make sure that we've 3 covered all bases. My point was to raise the 4 issue. 5 MR. HESS: Michael, I do think 6 though, based on the interest in this 7 discussion, I would summarize that there's a 8 sense of the Council here that there's some 9 urgency here. So if there's any uncertainty, 10 is Nielsen going to do it, is Sequent going 11 to do it, let's resolve that. 12 MR. LINK: What I can certainly 13 do, I can certainly take that piece out of 14 the report and share it immediately with the 15 Council that you all look at the data table 16 and the writeup. 17 MR. WAKSHLAG: My concern is that 18 the data table is not complete for anyone's 19 level of satisfaction. Because we need to 20 have it by age because we know the sample is 21 skewed. We need to know if it's full-time or 22 part-time. And I don't think you have that. 23 So before you provide the warning data, 24 provide us with the complete analysis so we 25 don't come back and say, oh, you scared us a 151 1 month ago, but now it's okay. We want a 2 complete analysis. 3 A VOICE: But you have to ask 4 that full-time/part-time question twice for 5 both spring and fall, right? 6 MR. WAKSHLAG: And the other one 7 that's never been asked. And I don't know 8 what the right number is from a government 9 statistic. 10 MR. POLTRACK: Well, I mean you 11 also have the ability you have 276 people. 12 You can go and say these people were observed 13 at home during the week and contact them. 14 You took part in this survey. You were 15 observed during the home, during the week. 16 At that time was that your normal behavior or 17 do you normally work. 18 A VOICE: Did you take a day off. 19 MR. POLTRACK: Ask the question 20 directly. 21 MR. STIPP: The Ball State people 22 have been using this kind of methodology for 23 many, many years. They're very, very 24 invested in it. So I think they should be 25 able to put up a defense in the documentation 152 1 on the following questions: What have you 2 done and what do you know about your 3 methodology of observation affecting the 4 media behavior of the people who are being 5 observed in any kind of way? What evidence 6 have you collected? What do you know? 7 So I think they should be 8 prepared and be able to do a solid 9 presentation on that and tell us about the 10 limitations of the method to late might and 11 all of that, as well as to the possibilities 12 that some people changed their behavior. 13 And, for example, don't go to work and stuff 14 like that. 15 MR. SCHWARTZ: We also need to 16 suspend -- we have workshops where we're 17 going to use the data and posit the data. 18 You have to suspend that until we see that 19 the data is something we're going to do that 20 with. 21 MS. LIGUORI: And also the book 22 proposal. 23 MR. ZACKON: That will be the 24 second edition. By the way, I did check the 25 contract and they do have the right to use 153 1 the material of the study for educational 2 purposes, not exclusive to Ball State. 3 MR. HESS: So we now have 4 actually a number of topics for that day. 5 Includes brainstorming. It includes an 6 update. A hard-nosed update on the analysis. 7 Includes Nielsen making some presentations as 8 well. 9 Anything else? 10 MS. UYENCO: This is Beth. I 11 offered up if the Council members would like, 12 would be interested a fuller, more detailed 13 report of the 360 study that was done for 14 Microsoft. And that there the intent there 15 is to show the kinds of insights that can be 16 drawn from a mix of different methodologies. 17 And also will vividly show what 360, how that 18 was used in coming out with consumer insights 19 in using some multi-screen. I can have the 20 person, the product person from Microsoft 21 talk about more details of the study if the 22 Council is interested. 23 MR. SUSSMAN: Beth, why don't we 24 do that as another Webinar like the Tim 25 Brooks segmentation study is going to happen, 154 1 as opposed to at this October meeting. 2 A VOICE: Those Webinars get 3 posted to the CRE website so you can check 4 into them before. 5 MR. ZACKON: Good question. Do 6 we record them? I think that's an excellent 7 idea. They may still exist as a recording 8 because we've used live meeting. The answer 9 is I don't know. But going forward let's do 10 that. Definitely. Thank you. 11 MR. HESS: I think part of what 12 is being referred to here as well, how we 13 balance. Richard, is it going to be five 14 hours? 15 MR. ZACKON: 10:00 to 3:00. 16 Whoever was using it as a get-out-of-jail 17 free card, you'll earn it. So it's a 18 five-hour meeting. Lunch will be served. 19 A VOICE: At Nielsen? 20 MR. HESS: Here, here. 21 So one thought is, I know we have 22 notetakers and everybody's taking this down. 23 Beth, one idea that I just heard expressed, 24 could Insights to Practice come, your 25 committee since you're the liaison from the 155 1 results to Nielsen, might you be able to work 2 on and generate that agenda? 3 MS. LIGUORI: Oh, yes. 4 Certainly. Michael and I and Richard can put 5 together the agenda. 6 MR. HESS: Okay. 7 MS. LIGUORI: Then we can share 8 that with you before October 22nd for 9 comment. 10 MR. HESS: I think the balance 11 we're trying to achieve with five hours 12 available maybe with a break for lunch. Some 13 of it be content, but not all of it be 14 content. It sounds like some of it will be 15 possibly debate or discussing the results of 16 that study. But also let's leave some free 17 time for brainstorm and for future activity. 18 MR. ZACKON: I like to ask for 19 volunteers who'll work to plan that agenda. 20 And I'll leave it to people anyway. 21 Otherwise, we might go to the steering 22 committee. But I'd like to expand beyond 23 that. 24 So, Ira, you're volunteering. 25 Anyone else would like to volunteer to plan 156 1 that agenda? My commitment would be that we 2 do it in a phone call that lasts no more than 3 45 minutes. Michele, Colleen, Dan, Mike. 4 Beth is going to do the part. Beth, you 5 volunteer? 6 MS. UYENCO: Yes. 7 MR. ZACKON: I'll take that as a 8 yes. And we got one more space. Who's not 9 here today? George Ivie and Kate Sirkin. 10 Okay. We have six anyway. 11 MR. HESS: Can I get a sense, not 12 to put anybody on the spot, but can I get a 13 sense of how many people would be there on 14 10/22? I'm only going to ask for ayes, not 15 for nays. Okay. About three quarters or 16 more. 17 How about the people on the 18 phone? 19 MS. UYENCO: I'll be there. This 20 is Beth. 21 MR. ZACKON: Anyone has their 22 hand up on the phone? 23 MR. HESS: Looks like we're going 24 to have a good turnout. 25 MS. UYENCO: Can you just repeat 157 1 who are the very willing and enthusiastic 2 volunteers? 3 MR. ZACKON: I know willing. I 4 don't know enthusiastic. 5 Ira, Michele, Colleen, Dan, Mike 6 Hess and Beth. 7 MS. UYENCO: And Michael of 8 course. 9 MR. ZACKON: I say willing. 10 MR. HESS: We've had some good 11 discussion today. We still have a few 12 minutes. Anything else for new business? 13 Otherwise we may actually -- Nancy. 14 MS. GALLAGHER: This is a very 15 minor point. But since there is an 16 attendance requirement, I think it would 17 really help people if they had a calendar of 18 the meetings for the year in advance rather 19 than finding out two weeks before the 20 meeting. 21 MR. ZACKON: We do put it out in 22 advance last December for 2009. 23 MS. GALLAGHER: I haven't seen 24 anything coming up. 25 MR. ZACKON: There's a meeting in 158 1 December that's scheduled. We can give you 2 the date. I have it here. Either December 3 8th or 10th. What we can do at the October 4 meeting is do a 2010 schedule. So please 5 bring your calendars. And we know the major 6 events. But we did do 2009 a year in 7 advance. 8 I have an item here. Now the bad 9 news for you, Mike, is that it concerns you, 10 Kate and George, and Kate and George aren't 11 here. The three of you were going to get 12 together to talk about the release, how we 13 would release VCM data. 14 MR. HESS: We had, Kate and I had 15 a brief discussion that maybe we shouldn't 16 have tabled, but we tabled because we want to 17 know when the Oldsmar data would actually be 18 available. So that was our intended 19 follow-up. 20 MR. ZACKON: Now with our 21 Hawthorne issue we may have to table that. 22 Those are all mine. 23 MR. HESS: Any other new 24 business. Ira? 25 A VOICE: Hey, Richard. December 159 1 8th. 2 MR. ZACKON: December 8th. Thank 3 you. 4 MR. HESS: I would like from this 5 side of the room. He's pointing. Do I have 6 a motion to adjourn? 7 MR. SCHWARTZ: Motion to adjourn. 8 MR. HESS: From this side. 9 Second? 10 MS. LIGUORI: Second. 11 MR. HESS: Motion seconded. If I 12 don't hear any disagreement, I'm going to 13 assume by your standing up that that's an 14 aye. 15 MR. ZACKON: Thank you all. 16 Let the record show that we have 17 eight minutes that we are returning to our 18 members. 19 (Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the 20 meeting adjourned.) 21 o0o 22 23 24 25 160 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T E 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 STATE OF NEW YORK ) 5 : ss 6 COUNTY OF NEW YORK) 7 8 I, ROBERT M. LEVINE, a Court 9 Reporter and Notary Public within and for the 10 State of New York. 11 I certify that I am not related 12 to any of the parties to this action by blood 13 or marriage, and that I am in no way 14 interested in the outcome of this matter. 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set 16 my hand this 17th day of September 2009. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ROBERT M. LEVINE 24 25