1 1 2 -----------------------------------------------x 3 MEETING OF 4 5 THE COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH EXCELLENCE 6 -----------------------------------------------x 7 November 29, 2005 8 2:45 p.m. 9 10 11 Marriott East Side Hotel 12 13 525 Lexington Avenue 14 New York, New York 15 16 17 18 19 REGENCY REPORTING, INC. 20 Certified Shorthand Reporters & Videographers 21 425 Eagle Rock Avenue 310 S. Juniper Street 22 Roseland, NJ 07068 Philadelphia, PA 19107 23 575 Madison Avenue 24 New York, NY 10022 25 www.regencyreporting.net 1-866-268-7866 2 1 2 A P P E A R A N C E S: 3 BOARD MEMBERS: 4 RICHARD ZACON, Facilitator 5 MARK KALINE, Chair, Global Media Manager, Ford Motor Company 6 MIKE HESS, Director of Global Research and Communication 7 Insights, OMD Worldwide 8 LOREN RASZICK-HYNES, Assistant 9 JOANNE BURNS, Exec. VP Marketing, Research and New Media 20th Television, Fox 10 SUSAN CUCCINELLO, SVP of Research, TVB 11 HENRY DeVAULT, SVP Audience Analysis, ABC, Inc. 12 PAUL DONATO, SVP/Chief Research Officer, Nielsen Media 13 Research 14 CERIL SHAGRIN, SVP Corporate Research, Univision 15 HOWARD SHIMMEL, SVP, Client Insights, Nielsen Media Research 16 IRA SUSSMAN, VP Research & Insight, CAB 17 RICK KEILTY, SVP Television Group, Belo Corporation 18 SHARI ANN BRILL, VP, Director of Programming Services, 19 Carat 20 STEVE STERNBERG, EVP, Director of Audience Analysis, Magna Global 21 MICHELE BUSLIK, AAAA Media Research Committee, 22 TargetCast TCM 23 BRUCE GOERLICH, EVP, Director Strategic Resources, Zenith Optimedia 24 DAVID GUNZERATH, VP, Research and Planning, NAB 25 3 1 2 A P P E A R A N C E S: (cont'd) 3 NANCY GALLAGHER, Universal 4 JEAN GOLDBERG, VP, Research, Warner Bros. 5 JON SOMERS, Nielsen Media Research 6 7 (Present via phone.) 8 PAT LIGUORI, VP of Research, ABC Owned Television Stations 9 JACK WAKSHLAG, Chief Research Officer, Turner 10 Broadcasting 11 JONATHAN SIMS, VP Research, Comcast Spotlight 12 13 A L S O P R E S E N T: 14 ROBERT M. LEVINE, CM Court Reporter 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 THE CHAIRMAN: First of all, 3 welcome everybody. There were some cab 4 delays and all the plane trips. Thank you 5 very much for making the effort. 6 I'm Mark Kaline for those of you 7 on the phone. This is our now third meeting, 8 correct, of the Council For Research 9 Excellence. And I thank everybody for 10 attending. I'd like to just for the benefit 11 of the room here, who's on the line, please. 12 Can you guys hear me? Who's on the phone 13 line? 14 MR. WAKSHLAG: Jack Wakshlag from 15 Turner. 16 MS. LIGUORI: Pat Liguori from 17 ABC Stations. 18 MR. SIMS: Jonathan Sims from 19 Comcast. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I will welcome 21 all. And let's go around the room for the 22 benefit of the those on the phone and say 23 who's here. And I'll start. Mark Kaline 24 with Ford Motor Company. 25 MR. ZACON: Richard Zacon. 5 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 MR. HESS: Mike Hess, OMD. 3 MS. SHAGRIN: Ceril Shagrin, 4 Univision. 5 MS. BURNS: Joanne Burns, Fox. 6 MR. KEILTY: Rick Keilty 7 representing the TOC. 8 MS. CUCCINELLO: Susan 9 Cuccinello, TVB. 10 MR. GUNZERATH: David Gunzerath, 11 NAB. 12 MS. GALLAGHER: Nancy Gallagher, 13 Universal. 14 MS. SOMER: My name is Bill 15 Somer. I'm from Nielsen Media Research. 16 MS. GOLDBERG: Jean Goldberg, 17 Warner Bros.. 18 MR. DONATO: Paul Donato, 19 Nielsen. 20 MR. GOERLICH: Bruce Goerlich, 21 Zenith Optimedia. 22 MS. BRILL: Shari Anne Brill, 23 Carat USA. 24 MR. STERNBERG: Steve Sternberg, 25 Magna Global. 6 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 MS. BUSLIK: Michele Buslik, TCM. 3 MR. SUSSMAN: Ira Sussman, CAB. 4 MR. SHIMMEL: Howard Shimmel, 5 nielsen Media Research. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: If others come in, 7 we'll announce their arrival and we'll go 8 from there. But I think we have a great 9 agenda. There have been some active 10 committee work that we're going to hear from 11 today. And in your packet is an agenda. And 12 we'll try to stay as true as we can to the 13 time per our pledge at the beginning of the 14 formation of this council. 15 So with that, what I'd like to do 16 is invite Ira to bring us up to speed on the 17 committee for the proper use of data. So I 18 turn it over to Ira. 19 MR. SUSSMAN: Proper use of data. 20 I think we have a few more people than we 21 have on the agenda. But we started off with 22 making a list of issues coming up with ideas 23 such as understanding forecasting, 24 estimating, posting issues, data availability 25 versus data reporting, modeling. In all 7 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 senses of the word, we talk about it. Sample 3 sizes, sample error. Looking at the idea of 4 assessments by methodology. 5 Is there a difference between 6 LPM, set metering, fusion media, diary, data 7 processing, data milling, data integration. 8 All these kind of things kind of fall under 9 how people use the data. 10 What we ended up with was I guess 11 three points of action. One is we want to 12 have a review of current marketplace 13 buying/selling practices which are used in 14 audience estimating completed, hopefully, in 15 the field on January 6th. Talking to buyers 16 and sellers and finding out really what are 17 some of the best and worst practices going on 18 out there. Identify those individuals. Get 19 some focus groups done. And do a bigger 20 quant survey of more people. And report 21 those results back to the council in March. 22 We want to, either simultaneously 23 or right after that, do an analysis of some 24 of those methods and data that's being used 25 by either our technical advisory panel 8 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 members or by another group of experts to 3 see, you know, if there are audience 4 differences produced by methodology. And 5 start to put together some analysis behind 6 our end product which is a report on the 7 issues and recommendations by expert council 8 coming back to this group and getting signed 9 off by everybody. You know, advertisers, 10 agencies, and, you know, buyers and sellers 11 on what are the best practices. And a 12 hopefully go out, bring that to the industry 13 with recommendations/guidelines, and possibly 14 a white paper. 15 So that's where we are. I think 16 we're pretty focused on what we're trying to 17 do. And we're looking for more input on what 18 we should be, you know, aside from our review 19 of the marketplace, also looking for other 20 input on what we might be pointing our 21 fingers at, trying to get our handle on. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Any thoughts or 23 comments from the members of the Council? 24 Okay. 25 In my enthusiasm starting off the 9 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 meeting, I forgot to have Richard introduce 3 Loren properly, although she introduced 4 herself. She's a new member of the team. 5 And I will do my best not to call her the new 6 Amber. But Richard, if you wouldn't mind... 7 MR. ZACON: So I called her the 8 new Amber. And Amber has gone off to the 9 coast. And Loren has stepped up. It's Loren 10 Raszick-Hynes. And the transition, it's been 11 seamless. So good job stepping up and 12 catching up. And she's really there to 13 coordinate all communications and things like 14 remember the coffee for the meeting, like 15 that. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Important stuff. 17 Thank you and welcome. 18 MR. WAKSHLAG: Excuse me. Is it 19 possible to move the phone closer to the 20 speaker? 21 MR. ZACON: Yes, as the speaker 22 rotates. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe we can ask 24 the speakers as we move to take the mic. 25 MR. ZACON: If the telephone 10 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 people can't hear, speak up. 3 MS. RASZICK-HYNES: If you have 4 trouble hearing, please let us know. 5 MR. HESS: Before we leave proper 6 use of data, even though I'm a committee 7 member, I'd like Ira to clarify. 8 On point 1 where we say do a 9 survey develop quant survey, the idea there 10 is to actually get a supplier. And that's 11 something that -- 12 MR. SUSSMAN: Well, the first 13 thing we want to do is something in depth. 14 Maybe focus groups. 15 MR. WAKSHLAG: We really can't 16 hear anything. 17 MR. HESS: Maybe repeat the 18 question. 19 MR. SUSSMAN: The question was 20 what are our plans insofar as the 21 quantitative survey. I think what we're 22 trying to do is first identify some people in 23 the market who'll have a good understanding 24 of some of the best and worst practices just 25 to kind of start us off. And then go a lot 11 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 deeper, multimarket, across buyers, sellers, 3 advertisers on what are the practices as 4 they're coming across that they use they 5 think are good or bad or that they address. 6 We've already had some 7 information coming from some of the LPMs 8 presentations that people have concerned 9 about how some of that data's going to be 10 used. I'm sure we're going to get a list of 11 items that we want to learn more about. And 12 then from that list we'll figure out which 13 are the most important to the marketplace and 14 going down that line. 15 MR. HESS: I think the heart of 16 what I'm getting at is process. And then the 17 process will kind of do that. An RFP. And 18 assign that to a survey company. And then to 19 have Nielsen, that would be part of the 20 Nielsen funding, to run the survey, et 21 cetera. I just want to get that on the 22 table. That it's not the committee members 23 that are going to run focus groups. 24 MR. SUSSMAN: No, I don't think 25 committee members will help, whoever's doing 12 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 that. Yes. 3 MR. SHIMMEL: Have you thought 4 about reaching out to third-party processors 5 who think -- MDA Donovan, other companies 6 like that, may have some insights to provide. 7 MR. SUSSMAN: I think they have a 8 part. I think they should be part of the 9 communication and part of the conversation. 10 I'm not sure that they are. I'm almost 11 willing to say they're part of the problem in 12 that they don't have systems that don't 13 address, that don't let buyers and sellers do 14 the business the way they want to do it. And 15 therefore, we have some practices, our best 16 practices. So if we can get their input and 17 participation and cooperation, I think 18 they'll be really valuable. 19 MR. ZACON: Henry DeVault just 20 joined us. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'll move 22 on to the second committee on the agenda for 23 nonresponse. And for that we'll ask Ceril 24 to take us through an update. 25 MR. ZACON: You should pick your 13 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 voice up. And if you can't hear Ceril, let 3 us know. 4 MS. SHAGRIN: Well, the committee 5 has had four meetings so far. I think 6 they've all been very productive meetings. I 7 think we're all a lot smarter than we were 8 before the meetings in terms of what's 9 available and what's already been done. So 10 we have broadened our existing knowledge on 11 what research has already been done and what 12 the impact of response and nonresponse bias 13 are. 14 We've requested and reviewed a 15 lot of the research that's available, as well 16 as some of the proposed research. And we've 17 uncovered a lot of the academic literature. 18 We're looking to develop and put out an RFP 19 to be able to do both a test on diary 20 nonresponse and a test on meter nonresponse. 21 Looking at them as two separate areas. And 22 both needing improvements and both being 23 worth doing the research on. 24 We have researched out to Dr. 25 Paul Verakis as Nielsen who has been 14 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 extremely helpful and has shared not only 3 some of the research that Nielsen has done, 4 but some of the ideas that he has had on 5 research. And some of the research that was 6 partially done and might warrant doing some 7 more work on. And we're evaluating some of 8 those proposals as well. 9 In addition, we have had a phone 10 meeting with Bob Groves who will be joining 11 us later today. And Bob has done an 12 incredibly good paper which everybody's got a 13 copy of which talks about nonresponse and 14 nonresponse bias. And I think that's worth 15 reading for everybody. 16 Our next meeting is scheduled for 17 December 20th. We're going to in that 18 meeting priortize the various studies that 19 we've done and sort of focus on our next 20 steps and the RFP for the future study. And 21 we expect to have that proposal ready to 22 submit to the next council meeting. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thoughts, 24 comments? Anybody on the phone have any 25 comments for Ceril and the committee? 15 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 MR. HESS: This topic is going to 3 come up later in a point. Do you feel in 4 terms of, you said you've had productive 5 meetings. Would you say, characterize those 6 as your kind of on time in terms of the 7 timetable for what you might want to 8 accomplish relative to when this committee 9 first met? 10 MS. SHAGRIN: I think we're on 11 time. Because I think what we've done is 12 rather than go off and do a lot of things, 13 we've gone out there first to say what's 14 already been done. What can we learn from 15 what's been done. And what are the most 16 important and productive types of research 17 that we can do that would end up by providing 18 Nielsen with maybe some new ideas on how to 19 improve nonresponse, not among everybody, but 20 among those that are currently not 21 responding. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: And that's 23 worthwhile homework. Because it can save you 24 a ton of money and a ton of time. And we'll 25 end up at a better place, hopefully, as a 16 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 result. Thank you, Ceril. I appreciate the 3 update. 4 The other task force we had was 5 co-chaired by Shari and Steve on media 6 consumption. And actually they have an RPF 7 to talk about. So you guys take it. 8 MR. STERNBERG: All right. Given 9 the people on this committee and the very 10 opinionated people on this committee, I think 11 it was very surprising to us that we had such 12 rapid agreement on putting together an RFP. 13 The RFP that we put together was 14 actually finished about a month ago. The 15 purpose of the RFP is really to try to 16 dimension the way people use media now, the 17 way people have been changing the way they've 18 been using media over the past few years, and 19 the way they're going to continue changing to 20 use media over time. And secondarily to 21 that, to try to develop the optimal form of 22 media measure. Shari? 23 MS. BRILL: I just have to 24 highlight that I was just so impressed the 25 way we all came together united through the 17 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 common interest in wanting to identify and 3 understanding the way media consumption is 4 evolving as consumers embrace their 5 technology forms. The RFP that we put 6 together is very comprehensive. I don't 7 think we've left any stone unturned. But 8 perhaps if those of you in the committee 9 think we have, I would really would like to 10 get your input. I think we've covered all 11 areas. 12 Our timetable ideally to submit 13 this RFP would be sometime in December. That 14 would be realistic; if we can get the 15 authority from the council to do so. 16 MR. STERNBERG: Now, probably 17 January because we don't want to do it during 18 the holidays or anything. 19 MR. ZACON: Given it's an RFP and 20 people are going to bid on it, I think 21 they'll find in December -- 22 MS. BRILL: Anytime there's money 23 to be made, I'm sure people will find the 24 time. Everyone has BlackBerries. They can 25 do it from the beach. Anyway, we are hoping 18 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 that our ideal timeline to get these 3 different bids back would be sometime in the 4 latter part of January, hoping to award a 5 research contract by Presidents weekend, 6 pending a council vote on which submission we 7 think would be ideal to put forth our study 8 of media consumption. 9 So does anybody have any 10 comments, questions, thoughts? 11 MS. SHAGRIN: Any thoughts on who 12 you're going to send the RFP to? 13 MR. ZACON: Let me speak to that, 14 and let me also, I suggest we hold back on 15 issuing the RFP until this council endorsed 16 it. Going forward, there's a question of how 17 we might do that expeditiously. Because the 18 committee work actually was done well in 19 advance of this meeting. 20 So given it was the first one, I 21 figure let's err on the side of caution going 22 forward. And Mike Hess had an idea which 23 we'll get to in a bit. But I'll take 24 responsibility, that RFP's, in essence, been 25 sitting there in terms of how to promote it. 19 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 I think it's an opportunity for, 3 I think it's an opportunity for a general 4 press release from this council which has not 5 yet issued one which will get picked up and 6 covered. We can use Nielsen's promotion 7 machine to take care of that. It would go to 8 the general trade press. 9 We want to reach out to 10 organizations like the ARF, like ACCOR. And 11 we're open to suggestions as to how to get 12 that piece of the word out. We want to put 13 some kind of notice tied to technical 14 journals like the Journal of Advertising 15 Research, Journal of Marketing Research and 16 let them know there's this opportunity. 17 The RFP itself will be on our Web 18 site. So all we need to do is put out a word 19 linking people to where the RFP is to be 20 found. The technical advisory panel's Bob 21 Groves who you'll see today and the other 22 academics and leaders we're working with, 23 they, themselves, might have suggestions as 24 to where this could go. And then members of 25 this council would have suggestions. 20 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 And my sense is we want to put 3 out the RFP as broadly as we can. We might 4 ask people would you like to be notified 5 every time there's an RFP from this 6 committee. And then just put it out to that 7 list. So the idea is to be as broad as 8 possible, rather than narrow. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Henry. 10 MR. DeVAULT: Given the vast 11 scope of this project, have you guys 12 considered breaking it down into segments as 13 opposed to just one overall study? 14 MS. BURNS: That's actually part 15 of the RFP. Because we were talking about 16 doing it potentially. We didn't want to 17 restrict the company from thinking outside 18 the box and saying this is the best way to do 19 it. So we intimated what we're thinking of 20 doing, left the door open for their 21 consideration. And one of the possibilities 22 is to do them in a phased process so that 23 it's not everything all at once. But take a 24 bite off this chunk. Get back, learn. Then 25 do the next phase, the next phase. 21 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 MR. DeVAULT: The only reason I 3 said that is because you may have different 4 companies that could do such parts of the 5 project better than others. And if you just 6 have one overall company awarded the entire 7 initiative, then it may make it difficult for 8 them to proceed in a timely manner simply 9 because of the scope of the project. 10 MR. STERNBERG: Well, the RFP 11 itself does not -- it does tell people that 12 you need not address everything that we're 13 looking for. You know, we expect people to 14 come. We expect to get different proposals 15 that can tackle different aspects of what 16 we're asking for. We're basically saying 17 these are all the types of things that we're 18 looking for. Come back to us with what you 19 think you can do, basically. 20 MS. BURNS: And what you 21 suggested is the best approach. We had toyed 22 around with actually putting the approach in 23 as part of the RFP. And then said no because 24 they don't want to limit their thinking and 25 expertise. So here's the scope of what we're 22 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 looking to learn. What do you think is the 3 best approach? And part of the RFP is also 4 where do you see your expertise leading. 5 MR. GOERLICH: One thing that I 6 think that's not clear if I was getting this 7 for the first time is what is meant by media. 8 I think what is meant here is at least a 9 primary focus should be television and moving 10 picture, attached with sound. 11 MS. BURNS: We have that. 12 MR. GOERLICH: But that's not in 13 the upfront. I see it buried in little 14 pieces. 15 MR. STERNBERG: We purposely -- 16 MR. GOERLICH: I would strongly 17 urge that some explanatory paragraph be put 18 in the upfront part here saying that the 19 primary focus of this is, you know, I'm not 20 going to given the exact words. 21 MR. SUSSMAN: Video content. 22 MR. GOERLICH: Maybe you want to 23 add audio content, moving pictures. However 24 you want to say it. But I think I don't get 25 that from this. And I could very easily, if 23 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 I was doing this, respond to print, et 3 cetera. And then I'm going to add some video 4 here. So I think it really needs to be 5 clarified, what the focus of this is. 6 And the second thing I would do, 7 argue, not argue, but raise that I feel is a 8 little bit missing here is the future, I 9 think, depends upon the reason why people use 10 media. Why people are using streaming media. 11 Let's just call it television. 12 So I think that some poking at 13 the reasons, what's the purpose of the use of 14 television, whether it's information, whether 15 it's entertainment, whether it's 16 communication. I think the question is 17 information/entertainment/communication need 18 be worked in here. Because obviously, what 19 we're seeing with television is, and I can do 20 this now on my phone, is I can get broadcast 21 on my phone. I can get television on my 22 phone. So am I using this for education? Am 23 I using it for information? When does that 24 happen during the day? 25 All of that, the reasons why we 24 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 use media would very much impact the 3 migration of the different forms. And I 4 think it is very important that we understand 5 that if we're talking about how media is 6 going to be evolving, and therefore, what are 7 the metrics that we're going to want. 8 Because if I'm using this device to get 9 information, perhaps that's one type of 10 measurement; a click through. If I'm getting 11 it for entertainment, perhaps that's another 12 type of reason. Or if it's a communication 13 device, that might be another form of 14 measurement. 15 So I would urge strongly that if 16 we're talking about this for projections and 17 understand where media is going, that we look 18 at the consumers rationale for using the 19 device at different times and for different 20 reasons. And what metrics might be important 21 for us in the business for those different 22 reasons. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I think 24 those are good comments. Certainly the 25 committee is welcome to respond. Or if they 25 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 feel that there's an edict that can be made 3 to incorporate that kind of stuff, I think 4 that's great. The more thorough, I think, 5 the better. But we can talk about that after 6 we get the comments all in. 7 Rick. 8 MR. KEILTY: Mark, first comment. 9 This looks very exciting. I think it gives 10 us an awful lot of to kind of look at going 11 forward. 12 My question would be in your 13 initial look at this subject, did you uncover 14 another study or had this been done before in 15 any way, shape, or form. And the reason for 16 the question is if it has, obviously it would 17 invite comparison. I don't know whether 18 there's another benchmark study or something 19 that had been done previous to this, or is 20 this one of a kind? 21 MS. BRILL: You know, we have not 22 done an academic literature search. But 23 there's so much happening in the area of 24 technology that our group really felt that it 25 was crucial to identify how consumers are 26 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 embracing these new technologies, you know, 3 before we can even begin to think about what 4 they're going to be doing in the future. 5 We don't even understand how 6 these devices are getting into the home and 7 what they're doing with them once they get 8 there. And how these media forms and the 9 technology to receive them are impacting on 10 their everyday lives. 11 MR. KEILTY: Yes, I know. I 12 didn't mean to imply there wasn't relevancy. 13 I think the sub is right on. And I think it 14 should be done. My only question was if 15 somebody had just done it or it's already out 16 there? 17 MS. BURNS: The feeling was that 18 there's been piecemeal studies. And that if 19 you can compare one against the other, there 20 are some similarities and there's some 21 differences. And some will cover certain 22 issues, but not other issues. So that we 23 really wanted to not limit ourselves to past 24 studies. And because it's evolving so 25 quickly, and yesterday changes overnight, 27 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 that let's start from today and go forward 3 and be as comprehensive as possible. 4 One of the other things we're 5 considering is that this be a longitudinal 6 study. And that we take it as a benchmark to 7 go forward. So that this become the 8 authoritative source. And then possibly if 9 the group agrees and there's enough value in 10 it, that we transit this group over time; not 11 just stage out this very comprehensive study. 12 Because it can't all be done at once. So 13 maybe in year 1 if it's divided up into three 14 parts, then there's a year 2 and year 3 15 follow-up so that this becomes the benchmark. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: That's great. 17 MR. SHIMMEL: But Joanne, your 18 point is you'd have two longitudinal ways; 19 one is sort of random and the other is 20 tracking most people. 21 MS. BURNS: That's what we 22 decided would be most valuable. That this be 23 the single source. And that we track this 24 group going forward in a longitudinal study. 25 MR. HESS: I'd like to, this 28 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 discussion, because I was going to raise an 3 analogous point, not exactly the same about 4 previous studies. 5 And that is some of you may be 6 aware that OMD, just in the last few months, 7 we worked on a study where we partnered with 8 Yahoo. And we focused on youth. And it 9 turned out age 13 to 24. It turned in terms 10 of some of these questions. We actually did 11 ask a few questions on simultaneous media 12 usage, multitasking, et cetera. And I'm not 13 saying that you should use that. But rather 14 I did find it useful when I was working on 15 the study. 16 I found out in a literature 17 review that MTV, for example, had done some 18 similar questions. And we did find it useful 19 as we put that study together, at least to 20 examine what those questions were and the 21 way, the exact way that they were used. And 22 we kept some and we rejected some. But at 23 least then you know how it was asked before. 24 Because then you were able to go longitudinal 25 if that's what you want to do. 29 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 Based on past history, I can say, 3 well, the MTV study in 2004 asked it this 4 way. Now, in 2005 there's been a 4 point 5 increase. And before that, Yahoo asked a 6 similar question in 2003. And I was able to 7 compare 2005, 2003. And then within the body 8 even of our study, that was good to do. So 9 you might want to consider that. 10 MS. BURNS: Yes. And in past 11 meetings, I know I've raised my hand and 12 said, God, if we can only get our hands on 13 that study, I'd love to. CTAM has done 14 extremely comprehensive studies. 15 So, once again, I'll open it up 16 to the group part of this. These were 17 proprietary studies that people paid a lot of 18 money for. And they're not released to the 19 general public. So there are some that would 20 be good. And I agree with you. Because now 21 when you write a report sometimes it's good 22 to read somebody else's report as a starting 23 off point and then go from there. 24 So yes, if anybody can get their 25 hands on a Yahoo study or Viacom does a 30 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 tremendous amount of research or CTAM, we'll 3 gladly take it as a point of comparison. We 4 just can't get our hands on that kind of 5 research. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: I think it's a 7 point that maybe we haven't explored. Is it 8 valuable for somebody to reach out from this 9 committee, and perhaps for a royalty fee 10 offer, you know, a small component of the 11 money to say, hey, safe us a lot of work by 12 getting us this study instantaneously for a 13 couple of thousand dollars, or whatever it 14 is. And money talks sometimes. 15 Relationships are great. But, you know, that 16 might be one way to help dislodge... 17 MR. HESS: I'm thinking even of a 18 couple of questions. It doesn't have to be 19 all of it. Because they don't overlap 20 perfectly. But even a couple of questions 21 can overlap between the new one. 22 MS. BUSLIK: My only caution to 23 that would be that you really wanted the 24 study themselves and not the conclusions. 25 MS. BURNS: Yes. Rick just said 31 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 that. And that might be a good way to get 3 it, maybe for nothing or for a nominal fee. 4 That's what Rick just said. It's not as much 5 answers, but the questions as a model for us. 6 So we do need to be specific about that. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Henry? 8 MR. DEVAULT: Another potential 9 element that you might want to consider 10 including in this is -- 11 MS. BURNS: Speak up for the 12 benefit of the phone. 13 MR. DeVAULT: Another element you 14 might want to consider is the socialization 15 impact in terms of media consumption. 16 Because a lot of times people are influenced 17 in terms of what they watch. And how that 18 whole process works in terms of just media 19 consumption. I did notice it in here. And I 20 thought it might be important. 21 MS. BURNS: Well, what I'm going 22 to do is, Bruce's note and your note is take 23 notes here. We went back and forth with this 24 a lot because we had much more simplistic 25 RFPs than this and much more detailed. And 32 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 the concern was that if we got too detailed, 3 we wouldn't encourage open thought from the 4 companies we were submitting it to. 5 But they're both good points that 6 we should take into account when the RFP 7 comes back to see if we can address it. 8 Because we really just didn't want to limit 9 the company. 10 So socialization and definition 11 of media. We talked about defining media 12 more closely -- excuse me. 13 That's my husband. He might be 14 missing his flight. It was the only one I 15 was going to take. 16 So how do you feel about that, if 17 we make sure that because we talked about 18 defining media and we didn't want to limit it 19 too much? 20 MS. BRILL: I almost want the 21 consumers to define -- 22 MS. BURNS: What media is. We 23 had a long conversations about that. 24 MS. BRILL: I don't want to lead 25 them. 33 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 MS. BUSLIK: But I don't think 3 the consumer knows half of what you're 4 talking about. 5 MS. BURNS: Then we wanted to 6 leave it to the research company to see how 7 they would phrase it. Because we know the 8 media has one meaning to us and another 9 meaning to the consumers. 10 MR. GOERLICH: I guess what my 11 concern is is that I thought this was, are 12 the focus, the "actus mundi" of this 13 committee was television. 14 Now, television is evolving, et 15 cetera. But I certainly would not think that 16 we should be spending a lot of time on 17 newspaper research. Now, I think the 18 Internet is evolving to become television and 19 broadband. And phones are evolving to become 20 television. By television I mean a moving 21 picture with sound. So that's what I would 22 want the focus of this to be; to study how do 23 we measure moving picture with sound in all 24 of its forms. Now, that is outside of moving 25 outside of the home, moving outside of time, 34 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 moving outside of devices. 3 All that is what's important to 4 me, for this group. I don't particularly 5 care right now to focus on newspaper 6 readership. And I don't think if I was 7 Nielsen I would want the money to be spent on 8 that. 9 MR. SUSSMAN: Bruce, I agree with 10 you. But you think part of the context of 11 this might be, for example, multitasking. It 12 might be in bring in nonvideo media or non-V 13 tests. 14 MR. GOERLICH: I would agree with 15 that. I think multitasking is part of this. 16 But subservient to the issue is how do we 17 understand the evolving beast of television. 18 MR. SUSSMAN: Which is central to 19 what we're researching. 20 MR. GOERLICH: Yes. 21 MS. SHAGRIN: And how we're going 22 to measure it. And to Bruce's earlier point 23 to how it's used and whether it's used, how 24 do you set the priority for whether and how 25 it's measured. 35 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 MS. BURNS: But we wanted to not 3 define media as just a TV box because Nielsen 4 has got to measure all forms of media. And 5 you're right. Print is not necessarily 6 something we're looking to Nielsen Media 7 Research. We are looking at the video. 8 But we also want to take into 9 account your point. So, are you using this 10 video media to be able to read a newspaper 11 and read a magazine as opposed to the hard 12 copy print? 13 MS. BUSLIK: Not going to happen. 14 MS. BURNS: Is that taking your 15 time away from watching television? 16 MS. SHAGRIN: But it's still a 17 measurement issue, even if it's taking your 18 time away. 19 MS. BURNS: But are you using, 20 because the Internet is something that we 21 need to be concerned with because it's more 22 and more and more TV shows are being 23 distributed over the Internet. So what is 24 the Internet being used for. 25 MR. ZACON: In the interest of us 36 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 being able to move forward, I think the 3 question may be is this RFP sufficient to 4 generate some proposals. This is not our 5 last word on this issue. And there may be 6 other points of view about how narrow. 7 But can we vote on putting this 8 out or putting this out as modified, as Bruce 9 has suggested, and Henry mentions the 10 socialization. I had three issues. And then 11 as the proposals come in, there's lots of 12 opportunity to work with suppliers at that 13 point. 14 MS. BURNS: Right. And refine it 15 at that point. 16 MR. SHIMMEL: Richard, there's 17 one more thing I think we should consider 18 adding here. And it could be separate from 19 the actual conducting of the research. We'd 20 like to find, I think we'd like to find 21 companies who have some model for projecting, 22 taking this data that we're going to collect 23 and projecting out a five-year, what does a 24 real world look like then. 25 When I was at AOL we spent a lot 37 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 of time looking at sort of how different 3 products grew. And it turned out that there 4 were certain prism clusters that were 5 indicative of a product going mainstream 6 versus, say, niche. And I think we should 7 include that in here because we're not just 8 trying to take a snapshot of today. We're 9 trying to provide ourselves with what the 10 roadmap is for 15 years out. And it may be 11 that there's a totally separate research 12 company that's got the expertise of taking 13 the data set out and projecting it. So I 14 think we should capture that. 15 MR. WAKSHLAG: A question from 16 the phone. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. 18 A VOICE: Will there be mandated 19 respondent zones for the minority culture in 20 the country? I'm thinking particularly 21 groups that may need to be given the 22 opportunity to, ability to respond in a 23 language other than English, if necessary, to 24 generate a truly representative snapshot? 25 MS. BURNS: Yes. 38 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 MS. SHAGRIN: I think you have to 3 get various cultures and various age groups 4 in here. 5 MS. BRILL: Absolutely. 6 MS. BURNS: The answer is yes. 7 MR. ZACON: Given and unstated. 8 Now, we will state it. 9 MS. BUSLIK: Demographics. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Representations. 11 MR. GOERLICH: Richard, I think 12 this is a really great first start. I really 13 think a lot of thought went into this. And I 14 think it's really good. I would just feel 15 that maybe one more round of the group would 16 be good before it's issued. 17 MR. ZACON: Would we be able to 18 vote on this virtually rather than waiting a 19 few months more to get together? 20 MS. BUSLIK: Absolutely. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: And I think it's 22 fair to say that the focus of the research 23 but not limited to would be the video and 24 audio media. Because you don't want to 25 constrain what somebody might have as an 39 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 ideal way of getting at either multitasking 3 or share of attention, or some other things 4 that could be mentioned. 5 MS. BURNS: We don't know what we 6 don't know. So we wanted to be careful about 7 defining the boundaries too much. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Even, perhaps, if 9 there are not catchalls, but there are bins 10 of things that you might say, other items, 11 other elements that could be considered. And 12 list any topics that might be of interest to 13 the council, but may not be contained in any 14 one response to an RFP because of the 15 company's expertise, or lack thereof. 16 MS. SHAGRIN: Will the entire 17 group review the proposals or will the 18 committee review the proposals and give us 19 their top three? 20 MS. BURNS: That's what I was 21 thinking, is that we would narrow it down and 22 then... 23 MR. HESS: I think there's an 24 action step before that that we should take 25 you, the action step I think is revise the 40 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 RFP. Then send it to everybody. And then we 3 vote virtually on yes or no on whether or not 4 on the RFP. And then the RFP you send to the 5 various suppliers. 6 MS. BURNS: Right. 7 What Ceril is saying and when we 8 get them back -- 9 MS. SHAGRIN: I'm just going 10 through the process. This is the first one. 11 MR. HESS: The next step is first 12 this and then that step. 13 MS. BURNS: But then the answer 14 is yes, Ceril, we'll narrow it down to the 15 top three and then submit them. 16 MR. ZACON: I think we can 17 identify, I think those that people would 18 want to see from those we'll never want to 19 look at again. Because we're putting this 20 out very broadly so we would have a number of 21 proposals which would be open to whoever on 22 the council wants to look at them, happening 23 within the media consumption committee. 24 And I think the steering 25 committee might want to determine how the 41 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 choice is to be made as to what to fund, 3 because we've not chosen that yet. We 4 haven't decided that yet. So I'll be happy 5 to work with Shari and Steve. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: I think it's 7 important. Especially for the time the 8 committee has invested in putting all this 9 together to let them see it through as best 10 as they can and provide their best 11 professional recommendation on what they, you 12 know, the top three are. On something like 13 that I think that's kind of the payoff a 14 little bit for the time invested on it. 15 That's a good point of order. 16 MR. HESS: Can we have a specific 17 recommendation as to when the revision takes 18 place so that we're going to vote on it by 19 January 1st, or is this something you can get 20 done before that end of the year? 21 MS. BURNS: Yes. Quick word. 22 MR. ZACON: I think by the end of 23 next week, this committee might have a phone 24 meeting. 25 MS. BRILL: As soon as possible 42 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 so we can hopefully stay with our timeline 3 issue in December. 4 MS. BURNS: Right. Not that we 5 want to rush anything. Do it rather than not 6 do it at all. But the feeling was we wanted 7 to send a message to the industry that this 8 council is moving forward and things are 9 being done. So I think we're close enough 10 that we can change the wording, get it out 11 for you to approve. And then just, you know, 12 let the press know where we're at. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that's a 14 very valid point absolutely. 15 MS. BURNS: We know we've been 16 making progress. But I think the rest of the 17 industry hasn't heard from us. And it would 18 be positive to let them know. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Sometimes it comes 20 down to the fact that even though it might 21 only be a two-week difference, the fact that 22 there was something announced in 2005 versus 23 2004 is a very important thing. 24 MS. BRILL: It's all about 25 perception. Let the industry know that we 43 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 mean business and that we're taking care of 3 it. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: I think when we 5 ask for the responses back from the suppliers 6 may be something we want to talk about, given 7 the holidays and given some of the things, 8 they come in during the holidays, that's 9 great. It all depends on when we can get the 10 revisions made and issued. I think that's 11 valuable. 12 MR. ZACON: Are you open Shari 13 and Steve to additional members serving on 14 your committee? 15 MR. STERNBERG: Sure. 16 MS. BRILL: Why not? If they're 17 interested and they want to participate, so 18 be it. 19 MS. BURNS: The only thing we'll 20 ask is consistency. Because it makes it a 21 little difficult if you miss more than one 22 meeting. 23 MR. ZACON: But they can join. 24 If they decide now to join, it's not too late 25 to join. If they join they're a full member 44 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 and expected to be at the meeting. 3 MS. BURNS: Right. 4 MS. BRILL: But when they join 5 they have to make a commitment to be a 6 participating member, just like the greater 7 council. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: That's a topic 9 that's coming. 10 MR. HESS: That's next. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you all for 12 all that valuable input. That's terrific. 13 And I want to applaud all the committees for 14 the work they've done and encourage, you 15 know, continued energy behind those. I think 16 this is great for the short period of time, 17 you know, we've been together as a council. 18 What I'll do now is turn it over 19 to Mike for an update on some of the steering 20 committee issues. 21 MR. HESS: Yes. Thank you. 22 Actually, on your agenda then it says 23 steering committee report and also steering 24 committee proposals. I'll just kind of slide 25 those two together because the report moves 45 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 right into the proposals. 3 Before I get to the proposals, 4 however, I do want to say that after the last 5 meeting I think one or two people quite 6 properly asked, well, do we really even need 7 a steering committee at this point because we 8 do have committees. And the committees are 9 all doing their thing. 10 And this steering committee 11 discussed that. And at the risk of sounding 12 like Congress, no committee ever goes away 13 unless the taxpayers kick you out. 14 We did decide actually that it 15 made sense between the many weeks that 16 usually take place from one full council 17 meeting to another, that it made sense to 18 have a steering committee where people who 19 are on it could take some time to address 20 pressing issues that maybe filled that space 21 between one meeting and another. 22 And, of course, the steering 23 committee just kind of comes up with 24 proposals and discussions. And we still need 25 the entire group that's here today to vote on 46 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 it. And so with that spirit, we decided to 3 keep the steering committee going. And we 4 actually did have a meeting by conference 5 call a few weeks ago where we discussed four 6 proposals or four topics rather that were of 7 critical interest that we thought we would 8 first reach a concensus on. And we did. And 9 then bring to the council. And that's what 10 I'm doing today. 11 There are four points here. And 12 what I would propose in the interest of time 13 is I'd like to mention each one; one, two, 14 three, four. But rather than vote on them 15 after each one, I'd like to wait to vote 16 after we go through all four. And then we'll 17 vote on them one at a time. That's not to 18 head off any discussion. Let's discuss each 19 one. 20 The first one is that we reached 21 a concensus as a steering committee that with 22 respect to meetings like this one at the full 23 council, there should be no substitution of 24 members at the meetings. You know, maybe 25 just to kind of very quickly summarize so we 47 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 don't have to have the discussion again, and 3 I invite conversation or discussion on that, 4 I think there may be a few people thought, 5 that was possibly Debra Cohen. Why can't I 6 bring a substitute. Sounds pretty reasonable 7 to me. 8 But we felt that that was the 9 case because we are only going to meet three 10 or four, I think it's four times a year 11 quarterly. And really it would reflect both 12 the seriousness of the commitment. You 13 mentioned commitment before for your 14 committee meeting, Shari Ann. And so I think 15 the same thing here. If we start sending 16 substitutes, then why are we on the 17 committee. So that was kind of the sense of 18 it. May be a little bit tough. But we think 19 the right thing. 20 And so any comment on that? 21 MR. ZACON: If I can just add, 22 there was a grandfather/grandmother clause 23 that had Bruce Goerlich and Kate Sirkin 24 holding their seat since the announcement 25 went out. And they would not be considered 48 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 substitution. They're just simply considered 3 50 percent of a person. 4 MR. GOERLICH: Actually, I'm Kate 5 just disguised. 6 MR. HESS: Yes. With that 7 exception. And I didn't even bring it up. 8 Because I felt that was grandfathered and 9 mothered. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: I think, too, part 11 of the thinking behind the discussion was the 12 fact that not only for, you know, active 13 participation. But also consistency in 14 thinking. Because even though two people 15 might be part of the same organization, they 16 might share slightly different points of view 17 on certain issues. 18 And at the risk of undoing work 19 that had been progressing or slowing it down, 20 I think it's important to maintain 21 consistency. And to that end, we've made 22 available, although it's not working 23 terrifically today, the phone-in option. So 24 that hopefully if you can't possibly be here 25 physically, that you'll be able to make it 49 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 via phone. 3 We don't want to make that the 4 every meeting option for people. But in a 5 pinch, you know, given that we're all busy 6 and we have day jobs, and you know, managers 7 pressing us to be certain places at certain 8 times, that that option would be kind of the 9 fail-safe, at least to get the attendance 10 from the committee members. So that was the 11 further rationale behind that proposal. 12 MR. HESS: Any disagreement, 13 further agreement? Okay. 14 The second one is obviously 15 related to the first. So we can move through 16 this quickly. Mark's point, members agreed 17 to attend in person or by telephone at least 18 three quarterly council meetings in 2006. 19 Again, that may sound like I'm attending 75 20 percent of the four meetings, but here, too, 21 it reflects the commitment. I think we're 22 going to go out of our way, Richard, I'm not 23 sure if it's today or very soon, but we're 24 going to actually try to provide the dates 25 well in advance so that you know when the 50 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 dates going to be. 3 MS. BURNS: Yes. 4 MR. HESS: There you go. For 5 those on the phone, that was a yes. 6 MS. BURNS: How many times do you 7 get E-mailed? Do we have a date three times? 8 MR. HESS: We're going to try to 9 prepare those in advance. And I think the 10 fact that you have a telephone option gives 11 you lots of flexibility. Even if you have a 12 meeting out of town, you can get on the 13 phone, save those two hours for the meeting. 14 So we agreed on that as a steering committee. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: And I think we're 16 also going to make an attempt to look across 17 the various industry events that are taking 18 place where kind of all these bodies collide, 19 may be in town, or doing things as far as the 20 industry goes anyway. So we'll look for any 21 areas of cross-section there that might make 22 sense to tack on a half a day. 23 MR. HESS: Okay. 24 MR. DeVAULT: Question. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Henry. 51 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 MR. DeVAULT: First, as far as 3 the dates are concerned, Richard had proposed 4 a meeting in May. I think he should take 5 that kind of off the calendar because that's 6 probably the busiest time of the industry 7 between setting schedules, the upfront, 8 everything that's going on there. 9 MR. ZACON: We'll remove May from 10 the calendar, the entire month. 11 MR. DeVAULT: That's point 1. 12 Point 2, what happens if someone 13 doesn't attend these meetings? I mean, is 14 there any thought of punitive action? I 15 don't know. Now I'm asking the question. 16 You said what are you supposed to do. 17 MS. BURNS: Do you have any 18 recommendations for punishment? 19 MR. DeVAULT: Paddling. 20 MR. GOERLICH: Forced to watch 21 the NBC schedule. 22 MS. BURNS: Oh. 23 MR. ZACON: The facilitor has to 24 step in. 25 MR. GOERLICH: I violated the 52 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 charter. Sorry. 3 MR. ZACON: I think the 4 understanding is it's a requirement to retain 5 your membership on the council is to attend 6 three meetings. 7 MR. DeVAULT: So you're saying 8 that membership will be denied if they don't? 9 MR. ZACON: Revoked. 10 MR. DeVAULT: Or refused in the 11 future? 12 MR. ZACON: I think that's the 13 understanding of it's a condition of being a 14 member. If something comes up, you can go 15 and talk about it. We're not unreasonable 16 here. But the idea is if you are on the 17 council you attend the meetings. And you may 18 miss one. 19 MR. HESS: That's an implication. 20 Right now if you want to make it more 21 parliamentarian, we can. But right now it's 22 not explicitly stated that way. But we can 23 make that into a specific steering committee 24 point. And we can operationalize that. 25 Right now it's understood. We think there's 53 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 a commitment level implied in one, two, and 3 three for sure. That we're either going to 4 have or not have. Right now we're not saying 5 it explicitly. But I, for one, based on 6 having worked on this, I would definitely 7 recommend that we do that and bring it up for 8 a vote if necessary. 9 MS. SHAGRIN: My understanding in 10 our meeting was that that was the decision. 11 That if you didn't do this, if you didn't do 12 all of these, that was the recommendation of 13 the steering committee, that you didn't show 14 the commitment. And therefore, you were no 15 longer a member of this committee. It wasn't 16 fair to everyone else who was participating 17 to always have to bring somebody up to date. 18 MR. HESS: We can split some 19 layers on, like this. We didn't write it 20 that way. So, Ceril, you're right. It's not 21 written that way. If the group feels when we 22 bring this to a vote, we should actually 23 explicitly state that as opposed to it was 24 clearly the spirit of the steering committee. 25 And we did agree. But it's just not written 54 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 here. Therefore, I didn't say it that way. 3 But that is the spirit of it. 4 And if we can operate that way, 5 fine. Otherwise we'll amend formally. And 6 as part of that formal amendment, then I 7 would say vote on it that way to make it very 8 explicit. 9 MS. CUCCINELLO: We're each here 10 representing different companies. And if 11 somebody can't make the meetings is their 12 company then not represented, or do we 13 recommend that they recommend another person 14 who might be able to attend? 15 MS. BURNS: No, we said no 16 substitutes. 17 MS. CUCCINELLO: But should the 18 company be kicked off the committee because 19 the person they chose to represent them the 20 first time around can't make the meetings? 21 MR. HESS: I think I need a 22 separate meeting for that one. 23 MR. CUCCINELLO: I apologize for 24 missing. 25 MR. GOERLICH: Another reason to 55 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 keep the steering committee. 3 MR. SUSSMAN: It was kind of the 4 company because a representative of that 5 company here is one of the most senior 6 people. So by swapping out, are you going to 7 have the senior research person involved in 8 that? 9 MS. CUCCINELLO: Possibly not. 10 MR. HESS: I don't think we want 11 to encourage the swapout as a start. Because 12 otherwise it becomes, hey, I can't come on 13 point 2. So I don't want to get kicked off. 14 So I will now violate point 1 and send 15 somebody as a substitute. I don't think we 16 want that. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: There may be a 18 list of people waiting who have expressed 19 people to get on the committee. And maybe 20 that company has to rejoin the list. 21 MS. BRILL: Maybe we can ask who 22 have joined in name only to step aside and 23 make room for the others who, without risk of 24 sounding crass, want to be on here and do the 25 work. 56 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, look, the 3 elephant in the room is we're the 4 advertisers. And, you know, Nielsen didn't 5 put this investment on the table, you know, 6 for their nonparticipation. And, quite 7 frankly, it's nice to say you're on the 8 committee and get the stripes, for whatever 9 that means. But you've got to take an active 10 role. And we're all busy. I'm busy. And 11 all that kind of good stuff. But that's 12 available. The phone's available. 13 And, you know, there are more 14 than enough times when those folks are in 15 this city for other business. And I think it 16 needs to be something we set up so that we 17 have active participation from all tenets of 18 the business. 19 MR. HESS: I mean, what Mark just 20 said, I think that you well-expressed the 21 concensus, that spirit of the steering 22 committee discussion. So we do have a 23 timetable we're trying to follow here. 24 Not really to cut off the 25 discussion, but what I would submit is when 57 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 we go back to the voting portion, let's just, 3 you know, as they say in Congress now, I want 4 to submit this to an up or down vote. 5 MS. BUSLIK: Filibuster. 6 MR. HESS: But, on the other 7 hand, I think some good points have been 8 raised here that we will bring up at another 9 meeting of the steering committee, if 10 necessary, if we fail to make them more 11 explicit, okay. 12 And then the fourth one is 13 nonmembers of this council may attend 14 committee meetings at the invitation of the 15 committee chair. 16 MR. ZACON: You skipped 3. 17 MR. HESS: I'm sorry. I didn't 18 mean to. Too much speed. I'm trying to move 19 too quickly. 20 Point 3, members of the council 21 agree to join at least one working committee 22 of the council. I think this was something 23 actually, de facto, may happen because I 24 believe everybody's on. 25 MR. ZACON: Actually, no. There 58 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 are a number of members of council who have 3 not yet joined a committee. This is the 4 first we're really speaking about it. 5 MR. HESS: Then we're bringing 6 up, we would like everybody to at least be on 7 a working committee. And I think to that 8 point we also have another agenda item coming 9 up with potentially new committees as well. 10 Any debate on that? Anybody actually not 11 want to be on a committee, or is there a good 12 reason not to be on a committee? 13 Again, I think that points 1, 2 14 and 3 really are very related to each other. 15 It speaks to the fact that, you know, this is 16 an important group. There's a lot of money 17 at stake. There are senior level people 18 here. We're only going to meet once a 19 quarter. Let's show the commitment by doing 20 a point 1, 2 and 3. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: I think it just 22 gets back to active participation. And, you 23 know, if it's going to be active 24 participation, it involves being part, not 25 only being here, but also taking an active 59 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 role in shaping the output of this committee, 3 of this council. 4 I think, you know, hopefully what 5 we'll get to is a more overlapping ongoing 6 series of committees and projects so that 7 they're not all started on one date and 8 they're not all finished by one date. But 9 that there's this consecutiveness and this 10 churn that allows people to step up for 11 various committees along the way without 12 having to be on one, you know, 12 months of 13 the year, I guess is what I was trying to 14 say. 15 So, you know, perhaps with some 16 of the new proposals we have on the table 17 that will then allow some of the people who 18 haven't been able to be part of, maybe to 19 volunteer. 20 Bruce. 21 MR. GOERLICH: It's a 22 wordsmithing thing. But certainly one can 23 join the committee without actively 24 participating. I would suggest a principal 25 amendment to join and actively participate. 60 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 MR. HESS: Okay. 3 MS. BUSLIK: Yes. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. 5 MR. HESS: So when we vote on it, 6 you're proposing that we vote on it with that 7 wordsmithing? 8 MR. GOERLICH: Yes. 9 MR. HESS: Okay. All right. Any 10 other discussion on 3? Okay. 11 Then the fourth one, nonmembers 12 of the Council may attend committee meetings 13 at the invitation of the committee chair. 14 I think here the idea is that 15 people from the ARF, the Four A's, other just 16 interested parties. I know I met somebody 17 recently at a party who said I was doing some 18 surfing and I saw you, Mike, and a few others 19 in this committee. Boy, it looks pretty 20 interesting. Could I come. 21 So I think, as I recall the very 22 first meeting, I think our idea was to have 23 broader participation. And certainly we 24 weren't trying to hide anything here. If 25 anything, I think we would welcome input. 61 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 Nevertheless, we're saying at the 3 invitation of the committee chair because we 4 want at least some kind of a formal process 5 so that maybe 20 people don't show up 6 unannounced. 7 And, Mark, I don't know if you 8 want to say the committee, I'm sorry, 9 committee meetings for the individual 10 committee, because there might be interest in 11 those individual committees for people to 12 come. So I think we want to distinguish 13 between -- I think there was a discussion 14 point on the media committee. Can new people 15 join. I think we're distinguishing here 16 between joining and just attending 17 committees. 18 MR. ZACON: Joining members of 19 this council who might want to join. There 20 was. We've been operating under that the 21 participants, not the members of the meeting 22 attend, need to be Nielsen clients because 23 that issue has already come up. So that's 24 the restriction. But the person doesn't need 25 to be a member of the council. If there are 62 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 Nielsen clients who want to attend it's up to 3 the committee chair to include them. 4 MS. BUSLIK: I have a question 5 about consultants. 6 MS. BURNS: Can you speak up? 7 MS. BUSLIK: I have a question 8 about consultants by adding that last part; 9 that they have to be a Nielsen client. I 10 think that's very important because I would 11 not like to just become a consultant with 12 their own agenda's kind of influence. So you 13 can add that language as well. That last 14 about Nielsen clients. 15 MR. HESS: To be very explicit... 16 MR. ZACON: Nonmembers of the 17 council who are Nielsen clients. 18 MR. HESS: Nonmembers of the 19 council are Nielsen clients. We did actually 20 bring that up in the discussion. 21 Nevertheless, could there be an 22 exception there? Since the way it's phrased 23 now, as currently phrased, it says at the 24 invitation of the committee chair. 25 Would the committee chair ever 63 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 want to invite a consultant or other 3 non-Nielsen client for the betterment of the 4 committee? 5 MR. SUSSMAN: Like an expert? 6 MR. ZACON: We do have our 7 advisory panel in place. That's another way. 8 MS. SHAGRIN: We've already used 9 that. 10 MR. ZACON: We've already used 11 that. 12 MS. BUSLIK: I'm thinking more 13 of, for hire, kind of may. 14 MR. SUSSMAN: I think the 15 difference between not inviting an expert or 16 consultant, or whatever you want to call 17 them, and join for a purpose as opposed to 18 them saying I wanted to participate. Two 19 different things. 20 MR. HESS: I think what I'm 21 trying to say is that if it's that obvious, 22 then couldn't in terms of the language, 23 couldn't the committee chair simply say, no, 24 you're not invited in the spirit of, no, we 25 don't want consultants for higher. And so if 64 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 we don't add in that language, does that 3 maybe give more freedom than a committe 4 chairperson would actually want in the event 5 that a happenstance came up? 6 We'd actually like to invite that 7 person. But for the following reasons I 8 can't anticipate now. But they're not a 9 Nielsen client. And so now I'm precluded 10 from doing that. 11 MS. BUSLIK: I think it's a 12 little burdensome for the chair of the 13 committee to have that possibility to hinder 14 himself. 15 MR. HESS: You mean to do the 16 screening, to kind of be the no person? 17 MS. BURNS: And to that end, I'd 18 like to, if I can open it up to my committee 19 members, I've been thinking about this. Can 20 somebody else join? I don't think it should 21 just be an open door invitation. Because I'm 22 going back to why we're all here. 23 And Nielsen asked for a 24 combination of volunteers. And then invited 25 in people with a very specific intent that a 65 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 certain level of person with an even 3 distribution of representation of the 4 industry. 5 And we've all put in a lot of 6 time. And to willy-nilly just say I want to 7 come in, I think the council needs to feel 8 comfortable with the person joining at large; 9 let alone then an individual group. 10 MR. KEILTY: No, no, no. 11 MR. ZACON: We're not talking 12 about joining the council-at-large; just the 13 committee. If you're a Nielsen client you 14 have an interest in nonresponse. You want to 15 know what that committee is doing. Can you 16 get on their calls. 17 MS. LIGUORI: Hello? 18 MS. BURNS: Let me ask my peers 19 here. We have a lot of very heated debates 20 sometimes. And I'm just a little concerned 21 that another chef might stir that pot. I 22 think we have a good group working going. 23 MR. HESS: If that's the case, 24 then the chair just says no. 25 MR. ZACON: Says no. 66 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 MS. SHAGRIN: There's a major 3 problem here. And the major problem is that 4 in Susan Whiting's communique with all 5 clients regarding the status of the council 6 and the special committees, in that document 7 she said any Nielsen client who is interested 8 in joining any of these committees may do so. 9 So this did not say it was at the 10 discretion of the committee chair. It did 11 not say that we could say, gee, we already 12 have 25 people on these committees. And it 13 said -- 14 MS. BURNS: Did she say join or 15 where we have an open forum, to go to the Web 16 site and see what's going on. 17 MS. SHAGRIN: I think she said 18 may participate or join. 19 MR. ZACON: We've had about 10 20 people contact us. Some have been 21 participating on some subcommittees; other 22 committees, no. 23 MR. GOERLICH: I thought I don't 24 recall seeing it. But I'm sure you're right, 25 Ceril. I thought that it was up to us to 67 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 determine the rules and the parameters of 3 this organization. That Nielsen was the host 4 and the initial funder. So, quite frankly, I 5 don't care what Susan said. I think it's up 6 to us to make the decision. And I think if 7 we choose to override that, I think it is our 8 prerogative to do that under the charter of 9 this organization. 10 MS. BURNS: But anybody can 11 freely, and she's put that out many times and 12 told clients when they she gives an update on 13 this committee, here's the Web site, there 14 are the notes, here's the documentation. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Its a word 16 request. 17 MS. LIGUORI: I'd like to suggest 18 something; that somebody speak to Susan and 19 set her straight about saying that. But no, 20 she made a statement before this discussion 21 took place with the bylaws. And I think that 22 is how you get around her statement that it 23 wasn't, in fact, prior to the council's 24 putting together its bylaws. 25 I agree, I don't know who was 68 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 speaking before, but I do think if you open 3 this up, you run the risk of always stepping 4 backswards to people. And you do have too 5 many people stirring the pot. And if there 6 is that kind of tremendous interest in what 7 the council is doing, then maybe the council 8 does a forum or something for the industry. 9 MS. BURNS: And this March we 10 have an open, you know, a big client meeting. 11 And if it's not there, it should be on the 12 agenda that we report to the entire Nielsen 13 client base what's going on. 14 But that's Pat, right? 15 MS. LIGUORI: Yes. 16 MS. BURNS: I agree with Pat. We 17 need Richard to get back to Susan so that she 18 reminds clients they can go and look. It's 19 an open page for anybody to look. But I'm 20 concerned about inviting in people midstream 21 and getting more chefs. 22 MR. DONATO: I'll have a 23 conversation with Susan. And I think Bruce 24 is right. The spirit in setting this up was 25 that once the council came together, the 69 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 council would make its own decisions about 3 the kinds of issues. 4 MS. BURNS: I'm just afraid we 5 take two steps forward and that could set us 6 one step back. 7 MS. SHAGRIN: I had the specific 8 request. And I went to Paul. And when I 9 went back and said, well, I'm checking out to 10 see what the policy is, what Nielsen's policy 11 is, Susan's document came back at me saying, 12 well, Susan, said -- 13 MS. BURNS: Paul, you'll take 14 care of that? 15 MS. SHAGRIN: So I have not 16 invited this person to join the committee. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: I think it's fair 18 and right though to say that if there are any 19 Nielsen clients who express an interest in 20 future participation and just raise their 21 hand. And if there is turnover, if there are 22 people -- and we need a bench, you need a 23 bench. And you need, you know, there's 24 something, somebody out there who's raised 25 their hand, that's fair, versus just saying 70 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 it's automatic. 3 MS. BURNS: Absolutely. 4 MR. GOERLICH: I was thinking 5 that perhaps this is another thing. The job 6 of the steering committee which is to perhaps 7 make it a little more explicit in the charter 8 the number of members and then how much 9 changes. 10 I think all that needs to be 11 established. Because I don't think there is 12 a mechanism for replacing people now. And 13 somehow, I mean, my suggestion would be that 14 it would be a perpetuating. That this group 15 invite. And the responsibility be removed 16 from Nielsen. 17 MR. ZACON: Let me jump ahead. 18 MR. GOERLICH: I think that needs 19 to be thought about and dealt with. 20 MR. ZACON: We have been 21 requested by, there is an outside firm that 22 Nielsen took on, reviewing our charter and 23 recommending, not specifically what to 24 decide, but some formal changes, setting up 25 some bylaws. So we're going to need to draft 71 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 that. And that would be an appropriate thing 3 for your committee. And those would be the 4 issues, yes. 5 MR. HESS: I'm not sure if this 6 very good discussion if we actually have 7 closure on whether or not we add in the 8 expression who are Nielsen clients when we 9 vote on 4 when we get to that. 10 MS. BURNS: I thought we said, 11 yes, except for consultants that we invited; 12 is that not right, or outside people that we 13 invited? 14 MS. BUSLIK: In theory, if it's 15 Nielsen clients it has to be a direct Nielsen 16 client; not someone who gets access to 17 Nielsen data because they are consulting with 18 someone else. 19 MS. BURNS: We didn't want to 20 limit ourselves. So if we wanted a 21 consultant to be invited we had the ability 22 to invite someone in. 23 MR. KEILTY: Through the chair. 24 MR. HESS: I get that. So my 25 formal question is, is it sufficient to say 72 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 nonmembers who are Nielsen, nonmembers of the 3 council who are Nielsen clients may attend. 4 And keep saying as what's there, with the 5 understanding that the committee chair can 6 invite whoever he or she wants, but without 7 saying that? 8 MS. BUSLIK: Committee chair and 9 committee. 10 MS. BURNS: Not just the chair. 11 MR. ZACON: I'm going to step in 12 as the facilitator. We have a hard stop at 4 13 o'clock for a video guest. 14 MS. BURNS: Let's just say the 15 council and not just the chair so the council 16 agree that we invite somebody in. 17 MR. KEILTY: The committee. 18 MR. GOERLICH: I think we are 19 voting, formally voting on these 4. 20 MS. BUSLIK: For the committee, 21 not the council. This is for the committee 22 meeting. 23 MR. HESS: It's the committee 24 meeting. 25 MS. SHAGRIN: I suggest to take 73 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 out "our," and that way you eliminate the 3 committee chair, a committee chair should be 4 able to invite any consultant that the 5 committee agrees that that's who they want. 6 I would leave the wording the way it is. 7 MR. HESS: Because it is phrased 8 this way I would leave the wording this way 9 and then revisit if it gets voted down. 10 MS. BRILL: Do we want to make a 11 point about replacement council members that 12 it somehow re-shapes the balance of all our 13 different constituencies. 14 MR. HESS: I think the entire 15 topic of replacement, as I think Richard just 16 suggested, it's we need a separate committee 17 meeting for that to bring that up. I would 18 like to address these four, in part, for the 19 interest of time. But yes, I think there's a 20 separate topic that that's bubbling up today 21 on replacement, growth. 22 MS. SHAGRIN: Substitution. 23 MR. HESS: That's right. 24 MS. SHAGRIN: There's a whole 25 different area. 74 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 MR. HESS: That's right. We need 3 a meeting and we would then plan to then come 4 with you a proposal. Likely a virtual 5 proposal because it would be before the next 6 formal in-person meeting, okay. 7 MR. ZACON: Go for a vote. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: I think so unless 9 there's any other. We've got to keep moving, 10 so keep moving. So that will open it up. 11 MR. HESS: Let's vote on the 12 first one. And we'll figure out a way to get 13 the votes from the people on the phone. But 14 can I have hands on the first one as phrased. 15 There's no substitution of members at 16 meetings of the full council. 17 Raise your right hand if you're 18 in agreement. Okay. That's going to be 19 carried regardless. 20 MR. ZACON: Anyone on the phone 21 disagree on the phone? 22 MR. HESS: Anybody disagree on 23 the phone? So that's passed. 24 The second one, members agree to 25 attend in person or by telephone at least 75 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 three quarterly council meetings in 2006. 3 Raise your hand if it's a yes. 4 MR. ZACON: Anyone on the phone 5 say no? 6 MR. HESS: Anyone on the phone 7 disagree? Okay, that's passed. 8 And then I will take a shot at 9 doing the on-the-fly amendment here for 3. 10 Members of the council agree to 11 join at least one working committee of the 12 council and actively participate. 13 Raise your hand if you agree. 14 Okay. Anyone on the phone? Okay. Then I'm 15 going to read 4 as stated. Number 3 passed. 16 Last one. Nonmembers of the 17 council may attend committee meetings at the 18 invitation of the committee chair. 19 Raise your right hand if you 20 agree. What about the phone? Any 21 disagreement? Okay. Then I would say that 22 passed. 23 MS. BRILL: Really quiet. Are 24 you still here? 25 MR. HESS: Thanks for voting. 76 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 All right. What's next? 3 MR. ZACON: An issue came up and 4 I had a brief conversation with Ceril about 5 it. You may want to address it. What is the 6 policy of this council in terms of 7 participating with other industry groups on 8 research? And one piece is that will inform 9 you that is in the charter, Nielsen retains 10 the rights to the results of the research. 11 It doesn't mean that it's not open and 12 available. But it's their intellectual 13 property. 14 MS. SHAGRIN: But if it's their 15 intellectual property, and I'm looking at 16 Paul because if any research becomes Nielsen 17 intellectual property and they own it, then 18 they could easily say, well, I don't want to 19 share these results with Arbitron, let's say, 20 to let's say it's a nonresponse information. 21 So that's where can we really help fund and 22 participate in some other organization's 23 research. Would they even want us to if we 24 said, oh, by the way, when you're done with 25 it, Nielsen owns it. 77 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 MR. DONATO: Didn't we say also 3 that it was to be transparent? 4 MR. ZACON: Yes. It would be 5 published. 6 MR. DONATO: Specifically that we 7 own the work product. However, it was all to 8 be published? 9 MR. ZACON: Yes. 10 MS. SHAGRIN: And the reason this 11 came up is I was already asked by the ARF 12 committee that's working on response issues 13 among multicultural populations, whether or 14 not this committee or my response committee 15 could help fund some of that research. And 16 they've already put out RFPs. And we might 17 say, yes, we do, but we don't want those 18 RFPs. That would be part of the committee. 19 But I don't even know whether or 20 not that's something we as a group want to 21 do. And certainly in the meetings that we've 22 had with the new IS measurement initiative. 23 It's come up several times as to would this 24 group be willing to fund some of that 25 research. 78 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 And I think as a council, we need 3 to decide whether we want to do that or 4 whether we want better control over the money 5 that this group has to spend and not siphon 6 it off to other studies. I think I'm asking 7 for a vote as to whether or not we want to 8 co-fund research that is being done by groups 9 other than this council. 10 MR. SUSSMAN: I would partially 11 suggest that we listen to other such 12 proposals that we may want to take on as 13 primary, but not outside restrictions. 14 MS. BUSLIK: Then we lose control 15 of it. 16 MR. GOERLICH: Could an option, a 17 way of incorporating it is that if we have an 18 RFP, that it might go to other industry 19 groups as well. And that they could respond 20 as to those formal proposals so that they 21 become another vendor, like any other. And 22 that would be the only way that I would see 23 this working. 24 MR. DONATO: Bruce, that's not 25 the question that they're asking. They're 79 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 very specific. They have ideas and research 3 that they want to, like multicultural 4 projects. And I think the bottom line is 5 that they don't have the funding at this 6 moment to do it. 7 MS. SHAGRIN: They don't. 8 MR. DONATO: And they are asking, 9 very simply, if they came and they presented 10 that proposal to this group and this group 11 liked the proposal, would they consider 12 funding, in part, that research. 13 Bruce? 14 MR. GOERLICH: I guess what I'm 15 saying is we're the ones that are setting our 16 priorities. And therefore, if, in fact, as 17 we ask for our priorities to be filled, if 18 there's an industry project out there that 19 fit that priority, then there's a fit. But I 20 don't, that is I personally do not feel that 21 we should be inviting people in to hear their 22 pitches. 23 MS. BUSLIK: I agree. I think 24 it's stuff that we want first. 25 MS. BURNS: I'm a little 80 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 concerned that if we want to do it and we 3 fund it completely, we'll put that as a 4 future suggestion. And we do it and we 5 control it 100 percent. If we invite 6 somebody else in they're going to want to be 7 co-partners in it and then we lost 100 8 percent control. Either we do it, lock, 9 stock and barrel or we don't is my feeling. 10 We're controlling our destiny here. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: I think those are 12 very good comments. I think it could somehow 13 intersect a project or a topic we've already 14 identified, then it's worth looking at it, 15 but as a general rule. 16 MS. BURNS: They're not going to 17 want to come in and say, okay, you take over 18 complete control, they're going to want to 19 have some voice in it. And then we lose that 20 degree of control. 21 MS. BUSLIK: Then they're not 22 Nielsen clients. 23 MR. HESS: Can we do this as a 24 motion so we can vote? Did you want to 25 phrase a specific vote, to vote things up or 81 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 down? 3 MR. SUSSMAN: A lot of those 4 groups are full of magnets like that. 5 MR. HESS: I'm thinking of from a 6 time. 7 MR. ZACON: We have time before 8 we have a hard stop. 9 MR. HESS: You want us to vote on 10 this or not? 11 MS. SHAGRIN: Well, the general 12 concensus from this group is that we really 13 don't want to do this. And if we don't 14 really want to do this, then, you know, if 15 something comes up, that one of us feels if 16 it's -- we can bring that up. 17 MR. ZACON: Absolutely. 18 MS. BURNS: And we'll take it 19 from scratch. 20 MR. ZACON: We're voting on this 21 end too. We have really one minute. And Bob 22 Groves, professor of Michigan is going to be 23 on the video. Let me just identify these 24 issues. And we'll go to them very quickly. 25 As I mentioned, Nielsen's 82 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 attorneys are concerned just with the 3 formalities of our charter and bylaws. And 4 want to make some changes. We were going to 5 the steering committee. So we'll hear about 6 them next time. We're not being specifically 7 just formal -- 8 MR. DONATO: A lot of what we do 9 in charter in this kind of organization would 10 ordinarily be in bylaws, not the charter. So 11 they're just kind of cleaning up. 12 MR. ZACON: I graduated law 13 school, but never practiced. So that's as 14 far as I've been able to take it. They've 15 been improving upon it. The virtue of 16 operations is to allow us to be able to 17 proceed through the computer as issues come 18 up. And in 2005, even I use a computer. 19 The meeting schedule we'll put 20 that out offline and talking about launching 21 new committees. But we don't have time to do 22 that today. So that may be something that 23 happens virtually. And now we're on time. 24 Ceril, would you like -- 25 MS. SHAGRIN: Professor Groves. 83 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 I'll just tell you all who he is. He's a 3 professor of sociology and senior research 4 scientist at the University of Michigan for 5 special research, for social research, most 6 importantly. 7 PROF. GROVES: Hi, how you doing. 8 MS. SHAGRIN: Is author of the 9 document that you all have. While he's 10 coming in, I recommend that all of you read 11 the document that you've all gotten. It is 12 not for distribution outside of yourselves 13 because it is still a work in progress. And 14 it's under review. So it has not yet been 15 published. But those of us who got a copy 16 that are on my committee found it very 17 interesting. Learned a lot from it. And we 18 plan to continue to work with Dr. Groves, 19 Professor Groves in the nonresponse area. 20 He's done some work for Arbitron in the past. 21 And we're very interested in getting his 22 expertise as we tackle this whole issue of 23 nonresponse and nonresponse. 24 MR. ZACON: By the way, he's 25 requested to be called Bob. 84 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 MS. SHAGRIN: Bob. 3 MR. HESS: Just Bob, not 4 professor Bob. 5 MS. SHAGRIN: While we're still 6 waiting, I will say that I've been contacted 7 by a couple of the members of the technical 8 committee. And I encourage all of you to use 9 their expertise when it fits with what you're 10 doing. 11 MR. ZACON: I'm wondering if 12 there's a time zone issue we didn't 13 anticipate. 14 By the way, I invited everyone to 15 stay, but we're going to get a record of this 16 video which will be on the Web site. So 17 people can go and hear him on the Web site. 18 Some of us had the pleasure of being on a 19 call with him last week on Ceril's committee. 20 MR. SUSSMAN: And I want to talk 21 about new committees. 22 MR. ZACON: Why don't we talk 23 about new committees while we're here and 24 while we're waiting. 25 I had attended a meeting of the 85 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 Radio-TV Research Council and was struck last 3 month that a hundred people showed up to talk 4 about engagement. It seemed a pretty hot 5 topic. And I saw Bruce Goerlich on the 6 subcommittee, on the panel that they had 7 there. And invited him. Would he be 8 interested if there's interest in this 9 council for there to be a committee looking 10 specifically at that. Although, it is the 11 case that the media consumption committee -- 12 are we here? 13 PROF. GROVES: Hi. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Welcome. 15 MR. ZACON: We waited 15 minutes 16 for a full professor here. 17 PROF. GROVES: Can you hear me? 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 19 PROF. GROVES: Okay. Are you 20 expecting me? You're all looking at me. 21 MR. ZACON: You've already been 22 introduced to this council. We read from 23 your bio. And a number of us have read your 24 paper, number of us have discussed your 25 paper. And this is the first time we're 86 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 inviting an expert such as yourself to attend 3 the council. And we'd love to hear your 4 comments on how your knowledge/expertise on 5 the nonresponse issue can inform our concerns 6 as you know them from the call you attended. 7 PROF. GROVES: Good. And this is 8 the full council that I see around the table; 9 is that right? For everybody who could 10 attend today, give me a little guidance. 11 I did have a phone call with a 12 subset focused on nonresponse. Whether it be 13 useful to give the kind of preface similar to 14 that offered there? 15 MR. ZACON: Yes. 16 PROF. GROVES: If I may, let me 17 kind of tell you where I think the field is 18 moving right now by actually going to the 19 origins of survey. 20 Is there a technical problem? 21 MR. DONATO: The audio is really 22 poor, Bob. I wonder if there's any chance 23 they can keep your picture, turn the audio 24 down and call in. 25 MR. ZACON: I can hear him if you 87 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 turn it down a little bit. 3 PROF. GROVES: Your communication 4 experts are -- 5 MR. DONATO: We've definitely 6 identified something is not right. 7 PROF. GROVES: You want to go in 8 on a conference call? I can excuse myself if 9 you want. There's going to be a lack of 10 synch between my lips and the voice; you 11 realize that, right? 12 MR. DONATO: That's all right. 13 Because the image is not exactly moving with 14 your lips now. 15 MR. ZACON: We're okay. 16 MR. DONATO: Is everyone okay? 17 The room's good. Go ahead. 18 PROF. GROVES: Go ahead. 19 MR. KEILTY: Go ahead. 20 PROF. GROVES: So let me go back 21 in history a bit, you know, in a way that 22 reminds us why we are thinking about 23 surveying nonresponse the way we do. 24 In 1930 there was an important 25 paper written to explain why humans are 88 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 fairly good at picking response surveys. And 3 they use the probability mechanisms literally 4 heard better ways of describing large 5 populations with little bitty samples. 6 That paper is actually the 7 foundation of everything Nielsen does and 8 everything that everyone does in measuring 9 human populations. All of the statistical 10 theory underlying that demands that you 11 measure this sample fully. And so as a field 12 we focused on response rates as a measure of 13 how close we are to that ideal, that tool 14 that allows us to infer from a small 15 population or small sample to a big 16 population. 17 As early as the 1950s and '60s we 18 realized that response rates weren't very 19 good indicators of the gap between the 20 probability sampling and its power and what 21 we actually had. A useful tool or some sort 22 of useful tools to tell how successful we are 23 in measuring a given sample, the relationship 24 between response rates and nonresponse error 25 were not as tight as we'd like. 89 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 A little paper that you guys have 3 read is an attempt to update that fact that 4 we sort of forgot, I think, as a field. And 5 a lot of survey clients have been taught. 6 And I've taught students over the past few 7 decades that high response rates are really 8 important to achieve without a more 9 sophisticated description of how response 10 rates and nonrates are linked. 11 In between the year 2000 and 2004 12 there were three or four important papers 13 that were shocking to the survey community, 14 the academic survey community. Because they 15 presented what was reasonably careful designs 16 that showed there was no apparent impact of 17 response rates on the quality of surveys 18 statistics. These papers basically generated 19 a worldwide race that's ongoing now in the 20 scientific community to figure out when do 21 response rates make a difference and when 22 don't they make a difference. 23 The paper you've read is just an 24 attempt to lay out some of the conditions 25 that we think are necessary, and in a way 90 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 obvious when you think about it. But 3 sometimes you have to say the obvious after 4 we've forgotten it I think. And the key 5 issue here is the co-variance term in a 6 statistical sense, a relationship in a lay 7 sense between the likelihood that you measure 8 someone in a sample. And for our purposes on 9 this particular set of surveys, their TV 10 watching behavior or whatever you're 11 measuring in general terms. 12 The key question is whether the 13 nonresponse are disproportionately high or 14 low listeners or listeners of a particular 15 type. And what's going on now around the 16 world is some people are mounting 17 experiments. This is what we're spending our 18 time doing, mounting experts that try to make 19 nonresponse error happen and then make it 20 disappear under various conditions. 21 In a flavor of those kind of 22 designs, I'm now working on three concepts. 23 One is interest of the population in the 24 topic as made salient in the introduction to 25 the survey reponse. The other is the rolling 91 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 of incentives. How they end up acting on 3 nonresponse error. And the third is a 4 sponsor, that is the constructs, and in our 5 theory are linchpins to when nonresponse 6 rates induce nonresponse error. 7 So to give you an example of the 8 kind of designs we're doing now, we just 9 finished a survey of, believe it or not, the 10 American Bird Feed Association, which are 11 people who watch birds for a hobby. And 12 through manipulating the survey topic and the 13 incentives, we can move their response rates 14 between the low 20s to the high 70s just by 15 altering conditions. 16 And we can do that in a way that 17 moves a report of how often they actually 18 spend time doing birding moves that report in 19 major ways. We can change point estimates on 20 a survey when we manipulate the conditions 21 right now. 22 Why is this relevant to you? It 23 appears from our work that careful scrutiny 24 of how the survey request is made and how the 25 survey request is linked to the key 92 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 statistics is important. Attitudes and 3 knowledge of the sample population about the 4 sponsor is important. And then how 5 incentives are used are important. 6 Let me tell you what the 7 replicated result on incentives now, as I 8 guess we have five or six studies that show 9 the same result now. That if you in your 10 survey request emphasize the topic of the 11 survey, the focus of the survey, you will 12 disproportionately bring into the sample of 13 people for whom that topic is a positive. 14 They have positive efforts to that topic. 15 And you disproportionately fail to bring in 16 people for whom that topic is uninteresting. 17 Incentives counteract that 18 effect. Incentives offer an extrinsic 19 benefit. Change the respondent pool on topic 20 interest. So they increase the response 21 rate, but they increase the response rate in 22 a particular way by altering the composition 23 of the respondent pool. So that's how those 24 two variables behave. 25 Now, a related dimension of work 93 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 that's going on is what I strictly think of 3 as a different paradigm in surveys. If you 4 now have knowledge, if you now remember that 5 various features of the survey request can 6 bring in people that have different values, 7 kind of variable on TV watching, what do you 8 do with this information? 9 And it appears that the way the 10 field is moving right now is the reaction to 11 that is to collect intermediate data, 12 administrative data and other data that are 13 now being called tailored data in the field. 14 That is you look at every stage of the brain 15 development and the sampling process and 16 contact as much information as you can to 17 understand the characteristics of the people 18 brought in at that step. 19 Ideally, you have predictor 20 variables that predict their propensity to 21 respond. The likelihood that there'll be a 22 respondent. But you also want to pick up 23 proxy indicators that are correlants of the 24 outcome variables: In your case, TV 25 watching. 94 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 So with computer-assisted methods 3 now, survey organizations are building tools 4 to estimate propensity modelings in the 5 middle of the survey process. So we're doing 6 surveys down here and others are doing them 7 where everyday for every sample case you have 8 an estimated propensity that certain outcomes 9 will occur given different interventions that 10 you do. 11 And these are sort of complicated 12 statistical models. But those models are 13 then used to intervene and assess in a way 14 that you can redress the imbalance of natural 15 volunteers going into the respondent pool by 16 altering basically the survey request in ways 17 that make them appealing to either of the 18 segments that you're worried about 19 representing. 20 These are called responsive or 21 adaptive designs. As it turns out, it's not 22 just in surveys that this is at. This is a 23 big movement in clinical trials for research 24 or guys for whatever drug you're advertising. 25 At the wake of the trial, you actually 95 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 discover that some people are reacting to the 3 drug differently than other people. What do 4 you do? And basically that field is moving 5 into active intervention into the design and 6 the clinical trial in order to understand 7 drug performance better. 8 So there's a big change in how we 9 do surveys coming. And the change is that 10 you don't fix the design. You don't write 11 out the design specs and then do it and then 12 analyze it. You write out design potentials. 13 You do multiple design options. And you're 14 calibrating the design as you go along. 15 With Nielsen and any survey 16 organization that's doing ongoing 17 measurement, this is just a wonderful vehicle 18 on which to think about these ideas because 19 you have the luxury of optimization over 20 time. You don't have to focus in to get it 21 right once and never do the survey again. 22 You can alter the design more dynamically to 23 find optimal design features. So what this 24 means, I admit, you, as clients, I guess you 25 also are clients of this product may be 96 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 disturbed about. 3 Let me tell you the cons of this 4 whole movement. The cons of the movement are 5 that in the hands of the unwise or 6 untrustable, you have the ability to 7 manipulate in ways that you didn't. You 8 actually have much more information about the 9 data collection process. So I now have the 10 power in my designs to produce outcomes that 11 I can predict pretty well. I can't pervert 12 the results of the survey. And so that's the 13 con on this whole movement. 14 The pro is you get much better 15 designs per dollar rate. So how do you 16 justify, how do you do the trade-off between 17 the con and the pro? I think the answer that 18 I see arising in federal surveys is that you 19 make everything transparent. It's the 20 process is vetted. The decision process is 21 reviewed by all the stakeholders, everybody. 22 It's open. Everybody can see what's going 23 on. 24 You admit you're going to 25 dynamically alter things, but the rules are 97 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 set and agreed upon beforehand. So you get 3 control over a dynamic process by making it 4 documented and transparent. It doesn't mean 5 that every month of every thing will go 6 exactly the same way. Because we're at 7 different things. You make different 8 decisions. But the progression is documented 9 and transparent. 10 So giving you two ideas, right? 11 Or I'm telling you that I'm involved in two 12 things. One is this field that's trying to 13 find out the circumstances under which 14 nonresponse rates really matter, and 15 conversely, when they don't matter. And then 16 the other thing is, and allied with that the 17 other thing is active intervention and design 18 to analyze quality under controlled 19 circumstances. 20 I want to stop now, just field 21 questions from you guys. 22 MR. HESS: This is Mike Hess from 23 OMD. It did sound like in your, I think you 24 called it dynamic process, like I kind of 25 know the right answer in advance. And then 98 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 you dynamically alter if it looks like the 3 right answer is not coming in, you can 4 dynamically alter. So that does -- now this 5 is my first exposure to it -- it does sound 6 like there is a real opportunity for 7 manipulation because you know the answer in 8 advance. And as the data's coming in, if 9 you're not getting that answer, now you 10 manipulate. 11 PROF. GROVES: I'm glad you 12 enunciated it so clearly. Let me comment on 13 that. 14 I think rather than focusing on 15 the outcome, you're actually focusing on 16 pre-specified inputs. We actually do some of 17 this already. We don't think of it 18 dynamically. But for years we've all been 19 comfortable with after the completion of a 20 survey taking a respondent data set and 21 re-weighting it so that the marginals on age, 22 sex, and race or a couple of things, 23 depending on what you are, match. Oh, 24 external population, okay. 25 Now, it's very interesting that 99 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 we've accepted that, by the way. But let's 3 just sort of take that as a given. What this 4 is doing is doing that dynamically. So let's 5 say age groups, okay, rather than post-survey 6 adjust to get pre-specified weighted 7 proportions by age. What this would do is an 8 attempt age correlant measurement through the 9 press. And then attempts to balance the 10 response rates over age groups so that the 11 respondent data said is more balanced on age. 12 And you're relying less on those post-survey 13 adjustments. 14 What this actually does if you 15 think about it for a minute, this is reducing 16 overall response rates, but also you identify 17 key subgroups. So you're worried much more 18 in this kind of design for proportionality 19 across pre-specified variables that I would 20 assert the community should say these are 21 important things to measure. These 22 distributions matter to us. And instead of 23 maximizing response rates, let's minimize 24 response rate variation over these subgroups 25 through an active intervention. 100 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 And it's much less for TV 3 ratings. And, you know, sort of guessing 4 where that would be. So I'm trying to 5 address your point. I think it's much less 6 looking at outcomes than inputs in getting 7 the input balance right. 8 MR. HESS: Thank you. That's 9 helpful. I think at the same time, though, I 10 remain sensitive to a comment that you made a 11 few minutes ago which is because of the 12 possibility for manipulation, to agree in 13 advance of what some of the rules of the game 14 would be. So that manipulation can't take 15 place as easily. 16 PROF. GROVES: Crucial. I think 17 it's crucial. 18 By the way, let's take a real 19 high stakes survey. Let's take the Nielsen 20 census as a survey where you screw up the 21 proportionality. People lose their jobs. At 22 least, you know, if you have a constituency 23 on the Hill who cares about the outcome of 24 that sort of thing. That's the kind of 25 transparency that I think you need. That 101 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 everything is laid out and agreed upon 3 beforehand without the outcome known. So 4 you're agreeing on a process, not an outcome. 5 MR. GOERLICH: One question for 6 you, a concern. 7 You mention sort of the nice 8 thing about optimization as it relates to 9 Nielsen or television measurement is that 10 it's something that can improve over time. 11 And now, in our business, specific moments in 12 time are very, very important. 13 Easiest example is the Super 14 Bowl. A lot of money is riding on Super Bowl 15 spots. And so we want to have an accurate 16 measurement in that point in time, accurate 17 as possible. So how does this optimization 18 work with that, recognizing that in fact 19 basically any vendor who's selling us 20 something and any buyer such as myself really 21 wants that number that we're paying for at 22 that point of time to be as accurate as 23 possible? 24 How does that relate to 25 optimization as you described it? 102 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 PROF. GROVES: Yes. Well, let me 3 tell you, the hardest survey designed 4 environment in which you're working on this 5 is one where you're dealing with a completely 6 new population, a new mode of data 7 collection. And it's a one-time survey, 8 okay? 9 So to the extent that there is 10 everything unique about this Super Bowl 11 audience, and you're using completely 12 different design features at that moment in 13 time, then it's a real challenge. And then 14 I'd have to know a lot more about the problem 15 before I would be very intelligent about it. 16 But to the extent you're using 17 the same measurement tool, to the extent the 18 information about correlants of Super Bowl 19 audience that might be predictable in the 20 future, and to the extent that you arm 21 yourself actively/proactively with 22 information about those correlants, then I 23 think the mechanism still works. But I admit 24 that this is not a good thing for unique 25 measurement targets and unique populations 103 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 and unique modes, and so on. It does build 3 on experience. 4 MS. BUSLIK: Aren't you moving to 5 a quota sample then? 6 PROF. GROVES: Well, that's a 7 great question. We've got to define our 8 terms. And so I don't know what you define 9 it as. But I can say what it's not. I mean, 10 some people define a quota sample by the 11 absence of a probability selection mechanism, 12 right. So I wouldn't propose that. 13 Right now we're doing, well, 14 Nielsen is doing probability sampling and 15 attempting to maximize response rates. And 16 at this point I'm not quite sure under what 17 restrictions they're maximizing the response 18 rates. It does actively try to balance 19 response rates over key groups. But it's not 20 allowing any of the personnel in the process, 21 the human process to make decisions about 22 what unit is selected. So maybe you ought to 23 define what you mean by quota to make sure 24 I'm addressing your point. 25 MS. BUSLIK: I was thinking 104 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 simple. That if you said that you wanted to 3 have absolute proportionality in the 4 population and you were getting more 5 responses from one group than another, then 6 you dynamically change it. Not the original 7 sample design, but as the survey is going on, 8 then you are maximizing to get the people who 9 aren't responding. 10 PROF. GROVES: Well, quota 11 samples, I'm sorry, what most quota samples 12 are doing is trying to balance the number of 13 respondents. Right. So you have, say, a 14 hundred males and a hundred females and so 15 on. That is, I want a data set with 100 data 16 records that are for males, 100 data records. 17 We're not doing that here. The sample 18 allocation is driven by the design 19 considerations of what you want. 20 What we're trying to do is to 21 minimize variation and response rates over 22 those groups. We're not substituting if 23 we're not getting the response rates. We're 24 actively managing to get to, you know, more 25 equal response rates over groups. So I think 105 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 that's a big distinction. Statistically, 3 it's a very big distinction. Because you're 4 still relying on some of the statistical 5 properties of the probability inference. 6 MS. SHAGRIN: My interpretation 7 of what you said as related to Nielsen 8 simply, certainly in terms of metered samples 9 is right now Nielsen uses differential 10 incentives in terms of dollar amounts for 11 different types of households. But my 12 interpretation was that you would go beyond 13 saying every 18 to 34-year-old got more money 14 than a 55-plus household. You would look at 15 the 18 to 34-year-olds, and say, well, if 16 they're not responding, are certain types 17 when you have to approach them differently 18 where you might not give more money to, so 19 you might give larger amounts of money to. 20 That you were looking at multiple 21 characteristics and applying incentives and 22 recruitment techniques to address those types 23 of homes that were the least likely to 24 respond, and whose viewing might be 25 different. 106 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 PROF. GROVES: Yes. That's a 3 fair summary. And it's not just incentives, 4 as the design might manipulate. I think we 5 have enough evidence to that I could assert 6 incentives don't work for all people for a 7 variety of reasons. Some people have 8 concerns that have nothing -- they can't be 9 bought away. So that strictly the features 10 on the table for manipulation might include 11 incentives. It might be mood changes. It 12 might be the burden of the measurement, 13 despite, you know, how precious every one is, 14 it may be cost efficient like the measurement 15 on some households to bring them into the 16 respondent pool, even when they have a 17 restricted data record. 18 And so in some surveys what's 19 happening is that an hour-long questionnaire 20 is subsampled into smaller 15 portions. And 21 those are administered to people at random, 22 in random fashion. So there are a lot of 23 different things. And you're right. It's 24 not pre-specifying the subgroups. 25 The full extent of this line of 107 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 thinking would be if we assigned propensity 3 scores to each active respondent for 4 different design options for them. And we 5 would attempt to route them into methods that 6 fit their characteristics. And this is a 7 whole multiple array of characteristics, not 8 just socio-demographic stuff. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else have 10 any comments or questions for Bob, as I've 11 been told you like to be called, okay. 12 MR. ZACKON: I'm sure there'll be 13 things coming up going forward through E-mail 14 back and forth, and Ceril's committee and you 15 working together. And so thank you for this 16 appearance today. Thank you for the 17 thoughtful articulation that you had in terms 18 of what the problem is. I think it helps us 19 think through what we're doing. 20 PROF. GROVES: Okay, good. So 21 should I sign off? 22 MR. ZACKON: We haven't 23 determined the ratings yet for this 24 broadcast, but we'll let you know. Thank you 25 again. 108 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 PROF. GROVES: Thank you. 3 Bye-bye. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other comments 5 or items for discussion before we adjourn? 6 MR. ZACKON: The thought is we 7 would try to have someone preferably present 8 at each of these meetings on these topics. 9 Is that a good thought based on 10 this experience? 11 MR. GOERLICH: Yes. Very good. 12 MS. SHAGRIN: By the way, only 13 the committee members get the benefit of all 14 this wisdom. 15 MS. BUSLIK: Is he a full 16 professor? 17 MS. SHAGRIN: His field of 18 expertise is response, social studies, social 19 research. And I know he had done some work 20 for Arbitron. I found the paper that he 21 wrote fascinating. And, apparently, I and 22 Paul Verakis have had a number of 23 conversations and been in similar meetings. 24 And I'm very fascinated by a lot of what he 25 says. And I think he will be extremely 109 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 helpful in terms of not only putting together 3 the RFP, but helping us to interpret it. 4 MR. DONATO: At this moment he's 5 probably considered the country's leading 6 expert in survey research. He's a professor 7 of sociology which is where most of this kind 8 of stuff is done. You actually don't find 9 this in a statistics department. They don't 10 teach surveys very much. 11 MR. ZACKON: Just summarizing, a 12 couple of forward actions from this meeting 13 is that we'll work to revise the RFP. Put 14 that out. Have a chance to look at that. 15 We'd like to get that out as soon as we can. 16 Again, that's not the last chance 17 you get to vote on it. You'll actually be 18 voting on the projects as they come in. 19 That's really the vote. And a number, these 20 items, the sense of the committee, the 21 steering committee has some additional work. 22 So I think we want to retain them. Not the 23 least of which is the redrafting of the 24 charter and the bylaws. So kind of simplify 25 that. 110 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Retain them and 3 their salaries, right. 4 MR. ZACKON: Deeper raise next 5 year. So by E-mail. By the way, just on 6 behalf of Nielsen, I want to thank everyone 7 here for the work you've put in this. No one 8 other than me, I think, at this table is 9 receiving any remuneration for this effort 10 whatsoever. So it is much appreciated. And 11 we'll talk by E-mail about possible new 12 committees. 13 Henry? 14 MR. DeVAULT: One of the things 15 that you brought up, I just want to make 16 sure, is this committee council going to give 17 a presentation or an update in March at the 18 Nielsen client meeting? 19 MR. SHIMMEL: I think that's a 20 fabulous idea, Henry. 21 MR. DONATO: I didn't hear much 22 discussion. 23 MS. BURNS: That was my idea. 24 MR. ZACKON: The steering 25 committee will look at that. 111 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 THE CHAIRMAN: I think if Nielsen 3 has room on the agenda, I think it's 4 warranted. 5 MS. BURNS: They need to make 6 room. I think the entire Nielsen 7 constituency needs to hear the progress. I 8 mean, they heard the announcement and the 9 launch of it at the last client meeting. Now 10 they have to hear the progress. 11 MR. DONATO: I'm sure we will. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. 13 MR. ZACKON: What's the date of 14 that meeting? 15 MS. BUSLIK: March 11th. 16 MR. ZACKON: Just make sure we 17 have our next council meeting prior to that. 18 MS. BURNS: You don't mind going 19 to Orlando in March, do you? 20 MR. HESS: 30 seconds on virtual 21 operation. We skipped that because of the 22 video. What virtual operation is going to 23 mean. I know we agreed to it. But in 24 practice I think it's going to mean this. We 25 will send things for an up and down vote to 112 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 you right now on Monday. You've got Tuesday, 3 Wednesday, Thursday to think about it. Got 4 to have your vote in by Friday. Whoever 5 doesn't vote by Friday we won't count. It 6 will be nonresponse bias. But in practice 7 that's what it means. 8 And I know most of you carry 9 BlackBerries or you have access to a computer 10 at a hotel, et cetera. That way we can 11 actually move ahead with the votes we need to 12 do it before the next quarterly meeting. 13 MR. ZACKON: I sat on that RFP 14 for a month because I thought it was the 15 first one. But we don't want to lose time on 16 that on each item that we have. 17 MS. BURNS: The Nielsen meeting 18 is March 13th through 15th, Orlando. 19 MR. ZACKON: Where is it? 20 MS. BURNS: Orlando. 21 MS. SHAGRIN: Their meeting 22 usually starts late. Maybe we can add a 23 council meeting in the afternoon. 24 MS. BURNS: Actually, Ceril had 25 an idea. I mean, even though we should meet 113 1 Meeting - November 29, 2005 2 beforehand, just to move this forward, it 3 might not be a bad idea if we have a little 4 pre-meeting. 5 MR. ZACKON: On the 13th or the 6 12th? 7 MS. BURNS: Yes. We should meet 8 again before then. But it would be a good 9 idea. 10 MR. ZACKON: Noted. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we're 12 ready to adjourn. Thank you all. Anyone's 13 who's left on the phone, thank for you 14 hanging in. We appreciate it. And we'll see 15 you the next time. 16 (Time noted: 4:40 p.m.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25