1 1 2 NIELSEN MEDIA RESEARCH --------------------------------------------x 3 4 THE COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH EXCELLENCE 5 --------------------------------------------x 6 December 3, 2007 2:30 p.m. 7 Millennium Broadway Hotel 8 145 West 44th Street New York, New York 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 REGENCY REPORTING, INC. 22 Certified Shorthand Reporters & Videographers 23 425 Eagle Rock Avenue 575 Madison Avenue 24 Roseland, NJ 07068 New York, NY 10022 25 www.regencyreporting.net 1-866-268-7866 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 3 RICHARD ZACKON, Facilitator 4 MIKE HESS, Vice Chairman 5 HOWARD SHIMMEL 6 NANCY GALLAGHER 7 IRA SUSSMAN 8 CERIL SHAGRIN 9 PAUL DONATO 10 COLLEEN FAHEY-RUSH 11 SUSAN CUCCINELLO 12 TIM BROOKS 13 JEAN GOLDBERG 14 SHARI ANNE BRILL 15 STEVE STERNBERG 16 KATE SIRKIN 17 JACK WACHSLAG 18 BOB SCHWARTZ 19 BRUCE GOERLICH 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Continued): 2 3 (VIA PHONE): 4 VICKY CHAMPLIN 5 HENRY DEVAULT 6 PAT LIGUORI 7 JOANNE BURNS 8 MELVA BENOIT 9 JOANNE BURNS 10 JONATHAN SIMS 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 MR. ZACKON: We're going to get 2 started. Mark called in this morning. He 3 was going to call in today, Mark Kaline, but 4 he's not coming. He had a last minute 5 meeting that he couldn't get out of. So 6 fortuitively we have our vice chair, Mike 7 Hess who's here. 8 MR. HESS: Thank you, Richard. I 9 thought you were going to say 'Mike Hess 10 pinch hitting for Kaline.' 11 MR. ZACKON: So let the record 12 show that today Mike Hess is pinch hitting 13 for Kaline. 14 MR. HESS: Dating myself with the 15 baseball camp by the way. 16 Welcome everybody. It looks like 17 we have a good large group, as well as people 18 who are in, where did we find out, the 19 Midwest is working, Richard? 20 We have an agenda today that will 21 take us to new business at 4:05. And then we 22 should be able to adjourn by 4:30 since I 23 know everybody has busy schedules during the 24 holiday and in December. I think most of you 25 have the schedule in front of you. Does 5 1 somebody not have an agenda, and, if so, did 2 we get one out? It looks like everybody's 3 got one. Plus in the room here we have the 4 agenda in front of us. 5 We'll have a Nielsen funding 6 update. I will bat for myself as the 7 steering committee chair. And then Shari Ann 8 will take us through media consumption; 9 nonresponse by Ceril; Ira, marketplace. In 10 other words, our active committees. And our 11 newest committee on universe estimates by 12 Nancy. New business, richard, we have a 13 couple of items. And we'll try to adjourn on 14 time at 4:30. 15 So I'm not going to steal any of 16 Howard's thunder. Howard Shimmel, Nielsen 17 funding update. Is it thumbs up or thumbs 18 down? 19 MR. SHIMMEL: It is thumbs up. 20 So in the spirit of holiday giving, we're 21 pleased to announce that we are re-upping our 22 commitment to the Council for another year. 23 There will be a press release that we're 24 hoping to get out on Wednesday morning. One 25 of the things we're trying to do is get a 6 1 quote from Mark Kaline. Mike, we'd love to 2 have you as a backup if we can't get Mark. 3 There will be a note that goes 4 out to all Nielsen clients that will go out 5 subsequent to the press release. One other 6 thing we're trying to do is arrange some time 7 tomorrow afternoon with Joe Mandici just to 8 maybe see if we can get him to write a nice 9 story on the Council. You know, we are very 10 pleased with the Council. The work that is 11 accomplished. The way the Council is 12 working. So we're very happy to be onboard 13 for another year. 14 MR. ZACKON: Thank you. 15 MR. HESS: Okay. Moving on, 16 thank you Howard. Great. Great to come on. 17 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: Is there a 18 number attached to it? 19 MR. SHIMMEL: Another $2-1/2 20 million. 21 MS. SHAGRIN: That makes the 22 total 7-1/2. 23 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: Like Lotto or 24 something. That's a lot of money. 25 MR. GOERLICH: Where are we going 7 1 to use that for, our meetings in the 2 Bahammas? 3 MR. ZACKON: We can discuss that. 4 That's up to the new Council. 5 MR. HESS: That's one of the 6 prerogatives as me as chair. In terms of 7 timing, are there timing constraints on the 8 2.5 at all? No, okay. Any other questions 9 of Howard at this point? 10 MR. SUSSMAN: How about a round 11 of applause. 12 MR. ZACKON: Howard, I would add 13 on behalf of the clients who are here who are 14 beneficiaries of that, thank you for them as 15 well. 16 MR. HESS: Okay. Well, I think 17 we're running ahead of schedule then. That 18 was an easy one. Thank you. 19 Speaking now for the steering 20 committee, I have three items to cover. Two 21 of them involving membership. The first one 22 is that for the CRE, as we announced at an 23 earlier meeting, we still need about nine or 24 ten members to really fill out the full 25 board. And I know at the last meeting I 8 1 personally missed the last meeting that we 2 had. But the meeting before that, the actual 3 action step included getting names. And for 4 a long time it was difficult getting names. 5 However, Richard gave me a set of about 15 or 6 16 names just over the last couple of days. 7 And I think, importantly, those names cover a 8 number of different categories, including 9 being incremental categories that we had such 10 as the Internet where we said we really need 11 to create a few extra categories. Let's do 12 those. 13 So I'm not going to go over the 14 names right now, other than to say that we 15 finally have enough names. So that means 16 that given that we have more names than we 17 have openings which is a nice position to be 18 in, then I want to re-activate the action 19 step we had actually study about at the last 20 meeting that I attended where we covered this 21 topic. And that action step is for the 22 steering committee, which we will call for an 23 either in-person or telephone call in meeting 24 in January. The steering committee will 25 review all the names and come up with a 9 1 slate, a recommended slate that we will then 2 have a vote on online; in other words, prior 3 to the next meeting. With the goal being 4 that the Nielsen meetings are mid-February. 5 And that way we would already have the new 6 CRE members onboard. And we could announce 7 that at the meeting. 8 The one other step that Henry is 9 not here to remind me of, but he brought up, 10 and I want to also activate. And that is 11 Henry spoke for a number of members of the 12 Council at the last meeting by saying when we 13 put the slate together it sure would be nice 14 to know who these people are and why they 15 qualify. And what their motivations are for 16 serving on the committee. 17 So I will get the E-mail 18 addresses from Rebecca and Richard. And I 19 have already drafted a very short note that 20 we will send to each of the candidates saying 21 that their name has been submitted. Prepare 22 a very short bio, and also a reason for 23 serving. And then from that we will have the 24 steering committee meeting and develop a 25 slate of names, okay. 10 1 So for December then it will be 2 trying to get the bios from people and their 3 motivation. For early January, we will have 4 the steering committee meeting to come up 5 with the slate. And then, I trust, by late 6 January we can send an E-mail to the entire 7 CRE so that we can have a vote. That will be 8 speaking of thumbs up or down. That will be 9 a thumbs up or thumbs down vote for the 10 entire slate, not the individual. And then 11 if we get a thumbs up vote, then we will 12 announce those names, I think, internally to 13 the entire CRE. But we will also announce 14 them to the industry at the Nielsen meetings 15 in mid-February. 16 Any questions about that? Okay. 17 MR. ZACKON: If you have any 18 additional names you haven't submitted -- 19 MR. WACHSLAG: Are there 20 restrictions for names of members? I've got 21 people who work in my company who are quite 22 good. Basically because my company already 23 has people with their jeans on and I say no, 24 is that really a problem? 25 MR. HESS: I think that we had a 11 1 restriction up to I think just two members 2 per company. 3 MR. ZACKON: Although, I don't 4 know if that was a bylaw restriction. I 5 think that was the design of the original 6 Council, if they're appropriate. And it's 7 really up to the steering committee at this 8 point. 9 MR. SUSSMAN: It's just that we 10 take all names and let the steering committee 11 take the best people. 12 MR. ZACKON: And again, as we 13 mentioned at the last meeting, there's lots 14 of opportunity on the committees for people 15 to participate, whether or not they're 16 members of the Council. So we strongly 17 encourage people who want to participate to 18 do that. 19 MR. HESS: Anyway, right. 20 MS. BRILL: I have a question. 21 Actually, it's just a reminder of me. Do 22 these necessarily belong to the organization 23 or does it belong to the person? Let's say, 24 hypothetically, somebody from this Council 25 were to get another job and they've been very 12 1 active on the Council, could their membership 2 stay intact theoretically? 3 MR. ZACKON: Also up to the 4 steering committee. 5 MR. HESS: Yes. 6 MR. ZACKON: The only balance 7 we're concerned about is between broadcast 8 people. 9 MR. HESS: Right. I think we 10 could afford to be stricter about that two 11 years ago when we were new. But now that we 12 have some experience, we have people who have 13 experience, if they move to a different 14 place, I think that we just should look 15 favorably on that. Someone else as long as 16 the balance restriction is covered or the 17 balance issue is addressed. 18 MS. SHAGRIN: I think initially 19 Nielsen encouraged us to keep those companies 20 involved in this because they felt that they 21 were major clients and they wanted to make 22 sure they had a seat on the Council. So I 23 think that option sort of has to be given to 24 the company, but if it's not the right 25 person -- 13 1 MR. HESS: Right. I mean, in 2 point of fact, I think one of the things that 3 we brought up at the last meeting was that we 4 were low on advertisers. And I'm happy to 5 see that there are at least three or four 6 different advertiser names that are nominated 7 for the next round. 8 So, I mean, I think experience 9 obviously should play a role. I mean, if we 10 want to discuss or debate this, let's do it. 11 I think the steering committee could be an 12 appropriate vehicle to take these kinds of 13 issues into account. 14 In fact, under new business, 15 Howard will bring up a related issue in terms 16 of membership as well. We can address that. 17 Is there anything further on CRE membership? 18 Otherwise, I'll follow that procedure. 19 MR. ZACKON: Just let the record 20 show our perfect attendance club has Tim 21 Brooks, Susan Cuccinello, Nancy Gallagher, 22 Pat Liguori, Ceril Shagrin, Howard Shimmel 23 and Ira Sussman. Unfortunately, Mark, our 24 esteemed chair, has fallen out of the perfect 25 attendance list. 14 1 MR. HESS: Thank you. The second 2 also has to do with membership. And in this 3 case it's the steering committee. 4 First, I'm happy to report that 5 we got a volunteer for the steering committee 6 sitting on my left. Colleen Fahey-Rush. So 7 let's welcome her to the steering committee. 8 But then, beyond that, I'd still 9 like a couple more names. So if anybody else 10 is interested in serving on the steering 11 committee, we plan to, I'll get into in the 12 next point, we plan to have regular monthly 13 meetings in the year 2008. That will be a 14 New Year's resolution. So if you want to 15 volunteer for this committee, let me know and 16 be ready to serve in January when I contact 17 you about the next call in or possibly 18 in-person meeting. So you can let me know 19 separately through E-mail or after the 20 meeting. 21 And then our third and last point 22 to cover today is the person on my right. 23 Richard said that he thinks that we, as a 24 committee, we need better oversight of him 25 himself. He's being honest as the year ends 15 1 out. And I think one way to do that, I'll 2 let Richard put some of it into his own words 3 if he'd like the floor for that, as part of 4 that oversight, one way we can do that is he 5 said things like, well, unless somebody 6 pushes me to send the meetings out, the 7 minutes of the meeting out on time, I might 8 not do that. And I think right now the way 9 the structure is set up, that nobody formally 10 is saying Richard, please publish this stuff. 11 And so and and so on. 12 So, mea culpa, Richard. Thank 13 you for volunteering that. But, in practice, 14 one way to effectuate that is really, I 15 think, within the umbrella of the steering 16 committee. We could have a regular monthly 17 steering committee. Richard would be 18 invited. I think he's attended all or most 19 of them anyway. Then as part of that we can 20 make the steering committee agenda include 21 Richard oversight having published, and so 22 on. So that was our third point. 23 Richard, you wanted to add 24 anything? 25 MR. ZACKON: Yes. If I can point 16 1 out the human genome is 94 percent of that to 2 the weasel. And I have great, like most 3 people, weaseling behaviors. And unless 4 someone holds me to account, I often don't 5 fulfill and not always in a timely way. 6 There are some things that have fallen 7 through the cracks. And I know that if I had 8 to face the steering committee each month I'd 9 get them done. 10 The good news there, I point out 11 that Nielsen really hasn't held very tight 12 oversight of this Council, trusting this 13 Council. Which I think was part of the 14 design of the Council. And I acknowledge 15 them for that. But I'll just get more done 16 if there's people on my case. And while some 17 people I might not encourage to be on my 18 case, family members included, in this group 19 I think I'll perform at a better level. 20 So I suggested to Mike that there 21 be a monthly call of the steering committee 22 which might last 15 minutes. But we know 23 it's there every time. And that way I won't 24 get minutes out the day of the meeting. 25 They'll come out earlier. 17 1 So, Bruce... 2 MR. GOERLICH: Maybe this is for 3 new business or steering committee matter, 4 but I assume that you are the only person 5 that sort of is compensated as part of this, 6 because I know you have a consulting business 7 outside of this, et cetera. 8 MR. ZACKON: Right. 9 MR. GOERLICH: Is that something 10 that should really be taken over by this 11 group rather than Nielsen. And that your 12 oversight should be, the steering committee 13 become more of a management committee. 14 Should that be taken over by this group 15 formally rather than being paid by Nielsen -- 16 MR. ZACKON: That's a good point. 17 MR. GOERLICH: -- to establish 18 some independence? 19 MR. ZACKON: That's a good point. 20 It falls outside of the 2.5 million. It 21 falls outside of the 2.5 million. But I 22 think that's a fair question. 23 MR. GOERLICH: I think that's 24 something that perhaps the chairman and the 25 vice chairman should have an offline 18 1 conversation with Nielsen about that. And 2 that should be something that maybe the 3 steering committee should address. Because I 4 personally think that would be a better 5 approach for us. 6 MR. HESS: Could you, Bruce, 7 summarize what that approach is? 8 MR. GOERLICH: We pay you; 9 Nielsen doesn't. That essentially where the 10 heck do we get the money. We get the money 11 out of Nielsen. 12 MR. HESS: Out of funds. 13 MR. GOERLICH: Yes. Assuming 14 you're not making $2-1/2 million a year. 15 MR. ZACKON: Next year I might. 16 MR. GOERLICH: I think if this is 17 supposed to be a formal organization that is 18 independent, I think that might be a good 19 idea. And then you could have a specific job 20 description, blah-blah-blah, if people feel 21 that that's a good thing to do. 22 MR. ZACKON: The lawyer in me 23 thinks it's a good idea. My inner weasel 24 says no. But I think there's a good point to 25 that. And it wasn't set up that way because 19 1 I was brought in before the Council was fully 2 together. 3 MR. HESS: Anybody from Nielsen 4 want to chime in. 5 MR. DONATO: No, I understand the 6 logic. We'd be perfectly fine with that. So 7 I would prefer you have the conversation if 8 that's the management policy you want to 9 exercise. 10 MR. HESS: I will make a point as 11 vice chair to follow up with Mark. And from 12 that conversation we'll see whether or not to 13 move it to a steering committee for a vote. 14 So thanks for the recommendation. 15 Richard, anything else on that 16 point? Otherwise, we'll move to, since we're 17 running right on time, maybe one of these 18 other topics could take a little bit longer. 19 Shari Anne, are you prepared to 20 talk about media consumption? 21 MS. BRILL: Yes. Hi, everyone. 22 Can you hear me now? I guess your 23 nonresponse is a yes, or silence is accepted. 24 Anyway, I'm very excited to be 25 here today because we've made a lot of 20 1 progress since our last meeting back in 2 August. And at that last meeting the Council 3 voted for and approved that we move forward 4 with our national media consumption and 5 engagement study. Specifically, the 6 parameters that were given was a budget of 7 3.2 million as a two-way study with a sample 8 of a range between 350 and 500 per wave. 9 Now, in order to meet these 10 budgetary guidelines, we needed to really 11 examine thoroughly our sample size guidelines 12 and efficiencies. Toward that end, we 13 commissioned Ball State University/Sequent 14 Partners to execute a power analysis. 15 And I would like to turn this 16 over to Richard who'll give us the power 17 analysis summaries. 18 MR. ZACKON: One of the nice 19 things about having a group of smart people 20 like this together is you get a guy like Mike 21 Hess who says, well, why don't you do a power 22 analysis. And I didn't think of a power 23 analysis. 24 So basically what we did when we 25 came out of the last meeting, there was a 21 1 range of sample size and a dollar amount. 2 And the committee really didn't have, other 3 than more is better, a sense of how large an 4 amount the sample to be. 5 So, in order to ground that 6 conversation, we conducted a power analysis. 7 And I knew about it from Ceril's committee 8 had done a power analysis. University of 9 Michigan had done for their study. And Mike 10 suggested it. It would be one of those 11 things, as soon as someone says it of course. 12 But until they said it, it didn't occur to 13 me. 14 So we looked at and had Ball 15 State consider -- go to the next slide on 16 there -- to do a power analysis. And what it 17 is, actually, you kind of work backwards and 18 you say how large a sample do you need to get 19 this level of significance. 20 A VOICE: Excuse me, Richard. 21 I'm not getting the slide. 22 MR. ZACKON: On WebEx? 23 A VOICE: I'm on it. But I don't 24 have anything. 25 MR. ZACKON: How about St. Louis 22 1 and Chicago? 2 A VOICE: St. Louis is on. We're 3 getting it. 4 MR. ZACKON: They were sent out 5 in the E-mail. So, Pat, you might go to the 6 E-mail and be able to download it. 7 MR. HESS: You're using a subset 8 of those slides. 9 MR. ZACKON: I'm only using. 10 Actually, I'm not going to go through them 11 all. This is just going to take a couple of 12 minutes. 13 We're on the second slide for 14 those who are downloading. And it says 15 sample size comparison for the agreed upon 16 sample. By the way, Ball State did this 17 without any additional charge. It was a good 18 bit of work on their part. And a lot of 19 support from Nielsen on this. And I would 20 say that whether Nielsen was paying me or the 21 Council was paying me. But they did a lot of 22 work on it. And they looked at, and if you 23 look -- are these handed out as well? I 24 think there's a black and white handout. And 25 we're not going to go through all the slides. 23 1 Just so you did all the work. 2 We looked at where there was 3 significance. Was the significance becoming 4 statistically significant when we had 500, 5 400, 350. Where did it matter. 350. And we 6 looked at a number of different subgroups. 7 If you just quickly go to the 8 next slide, Rebecca. 9 You might have trouble reading 10 that, but we have a handout. We compared men 11 versus women. We had different ages. With 12 and without children. Spanish-speaking 13 English-speaking. High-tech. All others. 14 We essentially looked at measures 15 that we were concerned about. And the two 16 primary media measures were time spent, 17 basically, and reach, daily reach. 18 Go back to the first slide which 19 is the only one I'm going to work with. The 20 one after that. I'm sorry. 21 There were 72 different tests. 22 20 of them were statistically significant. 23 At least in 500. And what we found, except 24 for one or two, ones that were significant at 25 500 were significant at 350. So we realized 24 1 that we weren't losing much statistical 2 significance by going down to 350. Which 3 gave us a little more confidence that we 4 could get the job done. 5 We looked a little bit below 6 that. There's more falloff at 300. And 250 7 wasn't really acceptable to the committee 8 which is why we didn't come back with 250 the 9 last time. Basically, on the power analysis 10 we felt that we could safely go down to 350 11 which naturally has a cost advantage. And 12 that's primarily what we learned there. The 13 full power analysis has been sent out for 14 those who want to review it. I sure don't. 15 Did earlier. 16 And Mike would be happy to answer 17 any questions about three power analyses. 18 Paul might be in a position to answer them 19 too. But basically we conducted and fell we 20 didn't need 500 to do what we needed to do. 21 And that was it. 22 Before we go further, I do want 23 to thank every single member of our committee 24 for all their hard work. I also want to 25 thank Howard Calvin and also Nielsen for 25 1 approving more funding. And I especially 2 wanted to thank Richard for all of his work 3 in helping this go forward. 4 So all of us have worked a lot, 5 really hard at putting this together and 6 enhancing the study. And making sure that 7 it's the groundbreaking research that we had 8 set out to pursue when we first put out or 9 our initial RFP. 10 And since we met back in August, 11 we added an additional enhancement to the 12 study. And I think you'll be very excited to 13 hear more about it. It was something that 14 Jack Wachslag had introduced back in August. 15 It's called media acceleration. And the 16 basic premise of media acceleration was to 17 speed up the consumer adoption model by 18 getting new technology products in consumers' 19 hands in advance of how they would naturally 20 roll out by dropping the price. 21 And, Jack, if you could speak to 22 your experience with that. 23 MR. WACHSLAG: Yes. Time-Warner 24 funded a pilot test. We did it with I think 25 something like 30 people as part of a test 26 1 with Pepsi and a couple of other advertisers 2 to see what would happen. And if we could 3 get people to start. 4 The challenge we all have is to 5 sort of predict what's going to happen 6 short-term and even long-term with new 7 technologies. You don't know what people are 8 going to adopt. 9 And so what we did was quite 10 simple. What we tried to do is we made a 11 deal with a local electronic store, Best Buy. 12 And we gave people who agreed to participate 13 in the study, a credit card. Credit card had 14 credit up to $2,000. If they agree, well, 15 that's where the money comes in. If they 16 would agree to match 50 cents on the dollar 17 when they walked into the store with this 18 credit card, 50 cents of their own money 19 against 50 cents on this credit card. They 20 could buy technology products, computers, 21 games, high-speed Internet, laptop. You 22 know, more advanced laptops than they 23 otherwise would. 24 And we've gone down the road in 25 the past as a company of, you know, we gave 27 1 people, you know, portable video devices to 2 see what they do with them if they use them 3 to download. You call people up. You ask 4 them if they'd like one. They say yes. You 5 give it to them. And then half the people 6 you give it to never use it. So you're left 7 with what essentially is a crappy piece of 8 research that you can't use. And it was an 9 expensive lesson for us. 10 This is expensive. No doubt 11 about it. But it's a very valuable lesson 12 because people bought stuff that they were 13 going to use because they put 50 cents on the 14 dollar. So we can pick what kind of 15 technology we'd like them to get a discount 16 on. This is their incentive for 17 participating in the project. And, you know, 18 for example, we said, no, a TV is not part of 19 the mix. Because, you know something, we 20 don't have a problem what's going on at HDTV. 21 They may not know they can get HDTV or 22 whatever. They go out and buy an HDTV. We 23 know how to measure HDTV. Pretty sure. That 24 one we don't have a problem with. 25 But if you want to know what 28 1 happens when people go out and spend their 2 own money on an advanced gaming system on the 3 rest of their behaviors, this is an 4 interesting way to do it. Or if they go and 5 buy a PC with an Internet connection, this 6 way they can get an advanced laptop, they can 7 get an Internet connection. They can afford 8 to use the Geek Squad to come in and set it 9 up for them so it works. And then you can 10 observe their activity after they get that 11 stuff. 12 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: What about 13 mobile video. Any mobile video? 14 MR. WACHSLAG: We allow them to 15 take -- there were iPhones where we 16 originally did the thing. But allowed them 17 to use the mobile stuff. But again, this was 18 a small test. They went out and bought 19 mobile video capable stuff. They just didn't 20 use it for mobile video. They had a great 21 telephone. They had a great iPod. 22 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: You define the 23 service along the service that they would 24 actually access the video? 25 MR. WACHSLAG: Again, they didn't 29 1 use it. Again, this was a small scale study. 2 We did it a year ago. And we presented it to 3 the ROI council which is a group of 4 advertising people maybe a couple of weeks 5 before the last meeting here. And we as a 6 company and some of the people who repping me 7 were impressed and we were willing to invest 8 more in this particular way of getting the 9 answers. 10 But to do this on a large scale, 11 to do, let's say, 200 or rather than 20 or 30 12 is a $2 million project, okay. And so if we 13 can combine that type of initiative with what 14 we are already planning to do here, the 15 incremental costs are actually small, because 16 you don't need a control group. You got a 17 control group. So we can cut the study's 18 costs way in half. 19 And then there were other 20 efficiencies. So, you know, to make a long 21 story short, we can do a $2 million study for 22 an incremental few hundred thousand dollars. 23 Because the infrastructure is already in 24 place, the personnel is in place to do the 25 product placements. All we have to do is 30 1 find the town, contact the Best Buys, and 2 have what is it, 100 homes agree to 3 participate in the process. Which means you 4 get people before and after they buy these 5 products. You observe them for a full day 6 before. And then I think what we did in our 7 experiment was pretty much right after. And 8 then a couple of months after. 9 And the results were so promising 10 and so insightful. What happens to radio 11 when people get gaming systems? What happens 12 when they spend money on iPods? Radio 13 listening plummeted. And that's something if 14 you're interested in, you know, in the radio 15 measurement business or the radio business, 16 that's very scary to see. 17 You know, when people bought 18 gaming systems in this small scale thing, 19 they stopped doing almost all -- a lot of 20 media went down because they spent so much 21 time on the gaming systems, it really did 22 take time away from almost everything else, 23 except for TV. That's an important fight. 24 So we were really happy with the results. 25 If this committee doesn't end up 31 1 funding this, we'll do something like it on 2 our own. But it would be so much more useful 3 to have everyone have it. 4 MS. SIRKIN: Jack, would this be 5 something as basic as DVR which is starting 6 to have such a tremendous impact on TV? 7 MR. WACHSLAG: I don't remember 8 if we allowed them to buy DVRs. 9 MS. SIRKIN: Or the cable system? 10 MR. WACHSLAG: The thing is we 11 can choose to allow whatever technologies we 12 want in the study. We chose not to include 13 HDTV. We could. I would still recommend 14 against it. There were no iPhones there. We 15 can give people a set instead of. You can go 16 get a BlackBerry. You can get an iPod. You 17 can't get an iPhone. We can create the 18 categories and allow people to spend whatever 19 they want. 20 And, you know, in my head this is 21 like saying this is what people are going to 22 be spending their money on two years from now 23 when any product that today costs $1,000 is 24 going to cost $500. So we just give them the 25 money. It's a great incentive. It's a 32 1 greater way to see what's happening. 2 Marginal incremental cost. I think it's well 3 worth it. 4 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: And this is to 5 pave the way to make a more robust ability to 6 compare the impact upon introduction into the 7 homes of these various alternative 8 technologies? 9 MR. WACHSLAG: Yes. And before 10 they happen so we don't have to scramble. 11 OHS, whatever. Look at what's happening to 12 radio now. We might have an inkling of what 13 to prepare for. But, more important, it's 14 for Nielsen to see when I offer the things 15 that are important to measure. 16 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: Right. 17 MR. WACHSLAG: And/or any other 18 company. Which is why if it ends up being a 19 widely published product it becomes even more 20 obvious to people where the needs will be 21 two, three years down the road. 22 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: I think it's a 23 cool idea. I think kind along the line of my 24 questioning, if it's something that's 25 purchasable in Best Buy, it kind of cuts off 33 1 certain things that you can kind of buy at a 2 Best Buy. I don't know if you can buy a 3 BlackBerry at a Best Buy. 4 The service that goes along with 5 the technology is also something that we're 6 going to be asking them to match 50 cents on 7 the dollar along the lines -- I know we're 8 potentially not going to do HD. But a lot of 9 people buy HDTV and then don't do the follow 10 through on the HDTV tuner. We'd need to make 11 sure that they got the complete package to 12 fully enable. 13 MR. WACHSLAG: I agree. We 14 certainly should. I think that's something 15 the committee should view. I know when we 16 got the laptop we made sure they got the 17 wireless things and they paid for it. And 18 they had broadband connection. 19 MS. SHAGRIN: And they paid for 20 part of the broadband connection. 21 MR. GOERLICH: We've done a lot 22 of work on this ourselves. I think, Mike, 23 you may have presented something at year at 24 the ARC where we looked at the diffusion of 25 innovation about people that are very likely 34 1 to adapt new technologies to those that are 2 not. And I'm actually now in my third wave 3 of doing it. So I think I'd be a little bit 4 concerned about just sort of a blanket 5 measure of giving this card to people without 6 understanding what their predisposition is to 7 adopting new technology. 8 And, quite frankly, I'd almost 9 more naturally want to see, rather than 10 instructing people to get all the equipment 11 to make HDTV, for example, or whatever, I'd 12 rather let them do that for themselves 13 because I think that's naturally going to 14 happen. 15 One of the things I want to learn 16 is, you know, people have this new 17 technology. How, in fact, do they adopt it. 18 So that if they're supposed to go out and buy 19 everything and they don't, I think that's 20 very important to learn. Because this isn't, 21 in my mind, it's not just about price. We've 22 already seen, we're doing some diagnostics 23 now. There's a lot. 24 There's a value equation here in 25 terms of people, the time and investment that 35 1 they have to spend in learning the new 2 technology and how that replaces what they do 3 now. So price is very much a part of it. 4 But it is not the sole determinant of 5 utility. Video entertainment is very 6 important. How it relates to television is 7 very important. 8 MR. WACHSLAG: Of course, two 9 years from now, price is what's going to 10 change. The other things are still going to 11 be there. The amount of time to hook up a 12 phone is going to be the same. From my 13 perspective I'm agreeing with most of what 14 you're saying. The other side from my 15 perspective is I want to know which things to 16 worry about and which things not to worry 17 about. If I make it easy for people to do 18 stuff and they buy it and they use it and it 19 doesn't affect other things, I don't care. 20 MR. SUSSMAN: Is your study also 21 ethnographic as a follow-up? 22 MR. WACHSLAG: Always the sort of 23 the quantitative ethnography that the Ball 24 State guys sort of did. 25 MR. SUSSMAN: I'm just not 36 1 totally sold that if they acquire this new 2 technology, which I think is a great idea, 3 can you get that kind of typical use. It's 4 like here comes something new into the 5 household. And they're going to use it a lot 6 differently than they will over time. 7 MR. WACHSLAG: Also we also 8 weight it too much. 9 MR. SUSSMAN: Just like a 10 snapshot of a day. Is that an average day? 11 MR. WACHSLAG: If you do it with 12 a lot of people over an average day, you get 13 an average day. You have 100 people. 20 on 14 Monday, 20 on Tuesday, 20 on Wednesday, 15 whatever. 16 MS. SHAGRIN: Are you suggesting 17 that out of the sample of 350, we offer that 18 to 100 in each wave? 19 MR. WACHSLAG: Let's hear the 20 proposal. I'll let Shari carry the proposal. 21 It's actually incremental to the 350. 22 MS. BRILL: Yes. So you have a 23 hundred person additional sample for 24 acceleration. So you would have a net sample 25 of 450 per wave. 37 1 MS. SIRKIN: So that's open to 2 the 500. 3 MS. BRILL: Let me take the 4 proposals. 5 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: I just want to 6 make sure I understand. It would be 7 ratcheting up sample sizes on low incidence 8 technologies, right, so that we actually got 9 analyzable data there. Is that what this is 10 sort of meant to address? 11 I'm not that -- I guess I'm not 12 as -- I haven't -- this is my third meeting. 13 So I'm just not as immersed in this project 14 as I think maybe some of you guys are. I 15 just want to make sure I understand. 16 MR. WACHSLAG: The process 17 without this component, you get, you observe 18 350 people in January had there not been a 19 strike. Then you observe them six or eight 20 months later. You don't introduce anything. 21 All you're doing is saying what kind of 22 changes happen over the course of eight 23 months. And I'm not too optimistic about the 24 kinds of things that are going to happen over 25 the course of eight months. I don't know 38 1 what people are going to buy or not going to 2 buy or how much they're going to buy. It 3 could be that they don't do much. 4 If we interview them first after 5 Christmas when they're already bought their 6 new stuff and we interview them again next 7 October before they buy new stuff or even if 8 I wait a full year, I don't know what else 9 they're going to buy. So here's a way to get 10 an important part. Here's a way to get a 11 separate group of people who I observe and 12 offer this. And compare them to the 350 who 13 I'm doing nothing for. And whatever they 14 buy, they buy. How it changes their behavior 15 we observe. 16 MS. SHAGRIN: The sample of 350 17 as I understand what you said is sort of 18 different than the sample. There's sort of a 19 control group. 20 MR. WACHSLAG: Yes. 21 MS. SHAGRIN: And the sample of 22 350 you're looking at for the original idea 23 of learning more about media consumption 24 engagements. The additional sample of 100 25 fits in because you could do this at less 39 1 cost because you're already in the field. 2 And that sample has a totally different 3 purpose than the 350. In fact, I wouldn't 4 put them together. I'd use them as test and 5 control, which may be what you're planning. 6 MS. BRILL: Well, that would be 7 the idea. 8 MR. WACHSLAG: Let's hear what 9 the plan is. Because we worked hard on the 10 plan. 11 MS. SHAGRIN: It's really to 12 address the other issue which is how will 13 people consume media if costs go down. It's 14 easier for them to obtain. 15 MS. SIRKIN: Also, if they 16 understand what these things do, I think a 17 lot of people we found originally with DVRs, 18 they had no clue what difference that would 19 make or what it did. Now, it didn't explain 20 anything about it. So I think this may be 21 somewhat interesting in that way as well. 22 MR. WACHSLAG: I sat there and I 23 said I get 350 people. I observe them twice. 24 What do I learn that will help me tomorrow, 25 okay. I'll know how people use media today 40 1 in very great depth, a quantitative 2 ethnographic approach. People sitting there 3 following people around, recording their 4 behaviors. 5 But I was looking for this sort 6 of, you know, something that will help me 7 understand what's happening. By the time the 8 study comes out, understanding behavior that 9 existed six months ago. I'm trying to get 10 ahead of the curve rather than behind the 11 curve. If we can do that with minimal 12 incremental costs, I thought it was worth 13 doing. 14 MS. BRILL: Right. Again, our 15 original mandate in the RFP was to understand 16 how consumers are evolving through the 17 adoption of new technologies and how that 18 will impact their media usage behavior over 19 time. What better way to see how this would 20 happen would be to speed up the adoption 21 process by bringing down the cost which is 22 the barrier to entry for many people. The 23 early majority in consumer adoption are the 24 ones who come in when the prices drop. 25 If you remember, when VCRs first 41 1 came out in the late '70s, they were priced 2 at maybe $1,200. I mean, it was really out 3 of the reach of most people. And when the 4 VHS technology became available and then you 5 could start getting units for a couple of 6 hundred dollars, next thing you knew, VCRs 7 became the most popular consumer item. And 8 they were in 90 percent of the country for 9 years. But it was only when that price 10 dropped that it made it very easy for a lot 11 of people to come in. 12 So we are now artificially 13 dropping the price, giving our sample an 14 opportunity to embrace technology that they 15 would have normally had to wait quite some 16 time to get. 17 MR. HESS: I'd like to suggest 18 that we stay on time, unless the other 19 committees are willing to forego some of 20 theirs. We have about 15 minutes. 21 Does that give you enough time to 22 present everything? 23 MS. BRILL: Yes. Because I'd 24 like to take us through the proposal. 25 Do we have the slide for that? 42 1 MR. ZACKON: It should be the 2 next slide. 3 MS. BRILL: The next slide. 4 MR. ZACKON: Three alternatives. 5 MS. BRILL: Three alternatives. 6 MR. ZACKON: If you don't have 7 this in front of you, it will be relatively 8 straightforward. 9 MS. BRILL: So our first 10 objective was to bring in a study that would 11 meet our budget of $3.2 million. The core 12 study that we have been able to bring in with 13 a sample of 350 persons per wave for a total 14 of 700 observations came in at under 3 15 million. 16 The option that I am proposing 17 that the Council vote for and approve is 18 option 3 which retains our core sample of 350 19 persons per wave, two waves. And a single 20 market acceleration sample of 100 persons at 21 a cost of almost $3.6 million. That's less 22 than $400,000 from the budget that we are 23 given. But we're also saving about $1.6 24 million because to execute media acceleration 25 on its own would be about $2 million. So for 43 1 an additional $400,000 we are able to bring 2 so much more value and so much more 3 enhancement to our original study. 4 And it is something that will 5 really help Nielsen and inform their media 6 measurement, identify measurement gaps to 7 help us understand what the next big things 8 are. And will also inform the industry. 9 MR. STERNBERG: Can I make one 10 comment. 11 MS. BRILL: Absolutely, Steve. 12 MR. STERNBERG: I also think we 13 need to understand, because we're talking a 14 lot about the 350 sample. The original 15 purpose of the 350 sample was not just to see 16 what happens when people acquire media. It 17 was to map the current media landscape. And 18 see what types of things Nielsen and other 19 research services might now be needing. 20 And I think when you add on top 21 of that the acceleration study which would be 22 extremely expensive to do without the 23 foundation that we have already in place, I 24 think this is groundbreaking potential that 25 we haven't seen in a long, long time. 44 1 MR. ZACKON: If I could say 2 something just so we're all clear. When we 3 left the last meeting with that item No. 1, 4 the committee was charged to come back and 5 have a result for under 3.2 million. The 6 committee actually is able to come back today 7 under 3 million. 2.98 and achieve that. And 8 I just wanted to acknowledge the committee. 9 At the last meeting I was a little concerned 10 about whether due diligence had been done. 11 And from this point, from where I sit, due 12 diligence has been done to bring down the 13 cost and to justify the sample size. 14 Now, what the committee is 15 saying, we can do that. But we're asking 16 this Council to support item 3 which gives us 17 our 350 and an acceleration sample of 100 18 which is the 3.56. 19 MS. SIRKIN: Can I ask what may 20 be a very naive question. Why does it have 21 to be 100 additional? It seems to increase 22 the cost from our budget. Why can't some of 23 the people in that 350 be given this 24 opportunity? 25 MR. WACHSLAG: No, it's a good 45 1 question. If part of it to retain the 350, 2 the other part is the logistics of doing this 3 in more than one market because you can't do 4 this if you're going to try to do media 5 acceleration in more than one market. Then 6 it becomes much more complicated and much 7 more expensive. 8 So rather than do that, the 350 9 would come from, I think, three or four 10 markets and the 100 would come from 11 Indianapolis. And they'd all be measured 12 pre. So you'll have covariants. So we'd 13 know if these people are different. If we 14 did it out of the 350, it's much less 15 efficient because I don't even think we have 16 a market where we'd have a hundred. 17 MS. SIRKIN: You can have 50. 18 MR. ZACKON: It's also a case 19 that when we looked at the power analysis, 20 the statistical significance began to be 21 questionable at 250. 22 MS. SIRKIN: You'd still have the 23 original people. But some of those, if it 24 was in the same market, because I assume part 25 of this cost is because you have to get the 46 1 staff and everything into additional market. 2 If some of the people were in one market, 3 take some of those and add to them. 4 MR. WACHSLAG: It's a good 5 question. Part of it's from Howard which is 6 how many people are available in all of these 7 markets. And in most of these markets there 8 aren't that many more people available. 9 We're going to use them up. 10 MR. SCHWARTZ: Because we're 11 using forced turnover homes. 12 MS. SHAGRIN: What are the 13 markets? 14 MS. BRILL: We should have a list 15 here. Bear with me because it's in the 16 original. 17 MR. WACHSLAG: I think it was 18 Philadelphia, Dallas, Chicago. 19 MS. BRILL: There's five markets, 20 five DMAs. 21 MS. SHAGRIN: Philadelphia, 22 Dallas, Chicago. 23 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: Indianapolis. 24 MR. WACHSLAG: For the 25 acceleration. 47 1 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: If the base is 2 350, are none of them in Indianapolis? 3 MR. WACHSLAG: None of which, the 4 350, would come from Indianapolis. 5 MS. SIRKIN: That was my 6 question. 7 MR. WACHSLAG: That's why you 8 have, do the pretest in both so you have 9 covariants. 10 MR. HESS: Do you anticipate, I 11 think you said this, Shari, test versus 12 control. So like you plan to line the 100 13 against the 350 to see if some differences 14 are there. And, if not, I guess what's the 15 main analysis that you would do? 16 By the way, I agree with adding 17 the 100. But now I'm jumping ahead in my own 18 mind too. Some of the analytics. One way to 19 think of it is if there aren't really 20 meaningful differences that exist between the 21 100 and the 350, then, de facto, you now have 22 a 450 which is now power properties, I guess, 23 right. But at the same time you were able to 24 also get some measurement of acceleration. 25 On the other hand, if the 48 1 accelerated group turns out to be different 2 because these are people that somewhere along 3 the adoption curve are people that wouldn't 4 have bought, to Jack's point, maybe they need 5 the money. With that money they bought, 6 without the money they wouldn't have. If it 7 turns out that they're different, then you'll 8 have kind of a meaningful, I don't know, 9 precursor analysis. Here's kind of what it 10 looks like. 11 So I assume, or maybe can you 12 talk just a little bit about the intended 13 analytics of the 100 versus the 350 if you've 14 thought of that? 15 MS. BRILL: I would say it would 16 probably, first of all, you'd have your 17 baseline analysis at the beginning you'd have 18 based on the timeline. 19 Do we have a timeline? 20 MR. ZACKON: We have a slide. 21 Show what it's like. The third slide. 22 MS. BRILL: Right now this 23 timeline is a little bit theoretical because 24 we're not going to go into the field until 25 the strike has been resolved. 49 1 MR. ZACKON: There's a writers 2 strike on in case you don't know. 3 MS. BRILL: Yes. Writers Guild. 4 And it's very disruptive to programming. And 5 we want as normalized a media programming 6 environment as possible. So we would not 7 introduce, at this point in this timeline, it 8 would probably start a little bit later. 9 But if you look, and we should 10 have updated this to show that there's five 11 DMAs so we would have a staggered start with 12 the first three DMAs starting. And then we'd 13 have like a rolling wave with the next, the 14 next two starting up. And then acceleration 15 would begin. And there'd be, we'd observe 16 these candidates before they acquire the 17 properties to see what their media behavior 18 is. And then we would give them their 19 shopping allowance. They'd acquire the 20 products. 21 And if you go across to the 22 second wave you would see how they're 23 comparing the 100 to the 100. You could see 24 how that impacts their usage behavior. Going 25 back to the core study you would also see 50 1 what happens with them and how their behavior 2 changes over time. We could also compare 3 differences timeline to timeline to see how 4 those two groups vary. 5 So, you know, we really don't 6 know what's going to happen because we don't 7 know what these consumers are going to 8 choose. So, you know, there'll be a lot of 9 learning going forward. But there's quite a 10 few interesting analyses that could come from 11 this. It would be interesting to see if all 12 100 suddenly jump on the iPhone phenomenon. 13 You know, I don't know what they're going to 14 do with the money. 15 And we know from Jack's analysis 16 that there was a huge impact on radio 17 listening behavior. But the thrust of our 18 study is to really understand how it's going 19 to impact video consumption behavior. So, 20 you know, we really to have see what happens 21 as it goes. 22 MR. GOERLICH: Sort of to my 23 earlier point, I think what's going to be 24 important in this is to kind of understand 25 where these people are now along the adoption 51 1 curve. With 100 I think that you'll have to 2 do it in tiers. 3 So I would recommend that we try 4 and get early adopters/innovators one-third; 5 early majority, one-third; late majority, 6 one-third. That will allow us to do some 7 more in-depth analysis. 8 MR. HESS: Bruce, I like that. 9 But do you think that the first 10 third could actually be executed 11 definitionally? Like if people are truly 12 early adapters, would they not already have 13 that and ceding them? 14 MS. SHAGRIN: They may get 15 something else. 16 MR. GOERLICH: They might get 17 something else. 18 MS. SHAGRIN: If they're 19 ex-Nielsen homes you can tell if they're 20 early adapters or not. 21 MS. BRILL: We also have a 22 high-tech sample that's going to be accounted 23 for within the core study. So one 24 interesting analysis that would come out of 25 that would be in that to compare this 52 1 acceleration group with the sample of 2 high-tech people that we're also going to 3 have, what the differences are. 4 MR. WACHSLAG: 350. There are 5 already people that have iPhones. Let's say 6 there's enough of them. We can compare those 7 to the people who require the iPhones. 8 MR. HESS: By the way, Richard 9 says we have plenty of time because we have 10 extra time in our schedule. 11 But I do want to, as you're 12 discussing this, point out that this is the 13 one item we have today for an actual vote. 14 So you are going to be asked yes or no for 15 this at the end. So make sure you get your, 16 including the people on the phone, you know, 17 if you have a question about this, we're 18 going to ask for a thumbs up/thumbs down 19 vote. So make sure you get your questions 20 out there. 21 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: If this 22 acceleration idea is where you think there 23 might actually be the most pay dirt in terms 24 of the whole study, I'm just wondering why 25 wouldn't we actually shovel more sample at it 53 1 than 100? 2 MS. BRILL: Because it makes it 3 much more expensive. 4 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: Do we want to 5 fall below 350 on the main one to make room 6 for shoveling more into the 100? 7 MR. WACHSLAG: The original 150. 8 MR. BROOKS: The original purpose 9 of the study which I think is still very much 10 on our minds, what is truly the media map 11 today. 12 You take surveys. People don't 13 understand your language. They're not sure 14 what you're talking about. They misreport. 15 Observation gets around all of it. And that 16 hasn't gone away. I'm not sure we have a 17 really good picture of what the media map is 18 today. We have numbers. But a lot of us 19 don't have a lot of confidence in those 20 numbers. This would address that. 21 Some of us on the committee felt 22 intuitively that going below 500 or maybe 400 23 we were getting nervous about the sample. I 24 must say that the rather rigorous statistical 25 analysis following what Ceril had done with 54 1 her study power analysis gave us some level 2 of comfort that we could cut back from that. 3 But once you got beyond 350 and started going 4 lower than that for that core purpose of the 5 study, it started to get pretty shaky, 6 frankly. 7 And that's one of the reasons 8 why, speaking for myself at least on the 9 committee, going below 350 for the core study 10 which again is a major part of what we're 11 doing here, gives us some pause. 12 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: Okay. 13 MR. BROOKS: The extra hundred 14 does add a lot of dimensions to it. 15 Comparisons. All the things Jack was talking 16 about. 17 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: And you think 18 the 100 is going to be robust enough to make 19 those comparisons pretty confidently and 20 everything. 21 MR. BROOKS: Considering what 22 they're doing. This is not going to be a 23 random sample of a hundred people. I think 24 by the nature of the acceleration study, 25 spending some of their own money, you're 55 1 going to get some tech-friendly or somewhat 2 tech-friendly people anyway. 3 One of the reasons why you can't 4 just make it random, the way the 350. So 5 it's a subsample. A more pure sample. And I 6 think about a hundred is about the kind of 7 the base level you would want go, this kind 8 of comparative analysis. 9 MS. BRILL: We do have a third 10 year funding now. So we do have some 11 additional monies in the budget. 12 MR. HESS: Actually, Shari, that 13 brings us, can we do an analysis? Maybe 14 somebody has the number. It would help my 15 vote if I knew of the 7.5 million that's now 16 available, if we spend this extra money, how 17 much extra will be left. 18 Richard has the analysis. 19 MR. ZACKON: I have the number. 20 If you go back to the three proposals because 21 that's what people are going to be getting 22 from -- 23 MS. BRILL: I'm calling for a 24 voted on option 3. The core sample of 350 25 people including an acceleration sample of 56 1 100 for a cost of 3.5, 3,565,258. 2 All in favor? 3 MR. HESS: In the alternative -- 4 MS. BRILL: All right. 3.6. 5 We'll round it up. 6 MR. HESS: Is the alternative the 7 first one? Because I don't really see the 8 second one in place. Like when we vote it 9 would be, I think, cleaner, if we just said 10 we either vote for 1 or for 3. 11 MR. ZACKON: Number 1 really 12 doesn't require a vote because the Council 13 has already approved that study at 3.2. 14 MS. BRILL: And we brought it in 15 under budget. 16 MR. ZACKON: The question is does 17 the Council want to spend on 3. If option 3 18 is selected by the Council, that will leave 19 remaining, given the other studies, and we 20 may get some good news from Ceril in terms of 21 the cost of hers, but currently, 1.7 million 22 would still be available for additional 23 studies. If we go with option 2, 1.9 million 24 is available -- 25 MR. STERNBERG: Richard? 57 1 MR. ZACKON: -- has money for the 2 extra. 3 MR. STERNBERG: How much 4 additional is option 3 after what's already 5 been approved by the Council? 6 MR. ZACKON: 300 off the top of 7 my head. 8 MR. WACHSLAG: Here's the 9 question: Committee approved 3.2. Wasn't 10 that within the two years' budgets? 11 MR. ZACKON: That was within the 12 two years' budgets, more or less. Nielsen 13 had put up some extra money in case we went 14 over budget. 15 MR. WACHSLAG: All I remember is 16 that as an entity we had two years of 17 approval for up to $5 million. 18 MR. ZACKON: Right. 19 MR. WACHSLAG: And the committee 20 had agreed to put 3.2 against this project 21 which left 1.8 for everything else in the 22 first two years. 23 MR. ZACKON: No. Because they 24 were willing to put up money to ensure where 25 the funding for the nonresponder study. 58 1 There was a lively conversation. 2 MR. SUSSMAN: That was 3 incremental. 4 MR. ZACKON: There was a lively 5 conversation at the last meeting, whether 6 this should be contingent to funding by 7 Nielsen. Not contingent. I've read very 8 carefully those transcripts. It's in the 9 minutes. It was not contingent. 10 It was 3.2 million to execute 11 that study. And at that point the committee 12 didn't really know if it was afforded because 13 the cost from Ball State was higher than 14 that. And the cost got negotiated. And that 15 makes a difference. So the first study is 16 affordable. 17 So the two numbers we're looking 18 at, best of my understanding, given the 19 numbers I've seen, if we go with option 3 20 which is what the committee's recommending, 21 there's 1.7 million available for other 22 ventures. If we go with option 2 it will be 23 1.9 million. 24 MS. SHAGRIN: No, that's not 25 true. 59 1 MR. HESS: I don't think that 2 should be an option since your power analysis 3 has already convinced some of us, including 4 me, that 350 is the number. 5 MS. SHAGRIN: I'm saying the 6 difference between 1 and 3 which is what I 7 thought we were discussing is $600,000. 8 MR. ZACKON: That's correct. 9 MS. BRILL: $365,000 based on the 10 budget that was approved which is was 3.2. 11 MS. SHAGRIN: But the actuals -- 12 MR. ZACKON: In fact, yes. 13 Option 3 will cost 600,000 more. 14 MS. SHAGRIN: I have my own power 15 analysis question. For those of you who 16 looked at power analysis, I know when we do 17 the power analysis one of the things that we 18 were determining was how much difference you 19 have to have in order to understand real 20 difference. 21 So with 350 their spread across 22 four markets, will you be able to read 23 differences between the markets? 24 MR. ZACKON: Probably not. I 25 don't know. 60 1 MR. WACHSLAG: We never thought 2 about it as differences between the markets. 3 We were talking about men versus women, young 4 versus old. And the differences we saw were 5 we looked at them and said statistically 6 significant. But they were small. And even 7 if they weren't they sometime looked to us as 8 if they were small differences. 32 percent 9 versus 35 percent. 10 MR. SHIMMEL: But, Jack, you had 11 in the power analysis, looking at the 12 difference between 10 percent of the sample 13 and 90 percent of the sample in some 14 instances. 15 MS. SHAGRIN: The reason I ask is 16 because we talk about how money should be 17 spent. And it doesn't mean that this isn't 18 all a wonderful idea. When I think of 19 Philadelphia, Dallas, Chicago and Seattle and 20 I wonder whether media consumption differs 21 across those geographies. Because certainly 22 if you look at local market data, there is a 23 difference within those markets in terms of 24 levels, in terms of even cooperation. 25 But in terms of how people 61 1 consume television there's a difference in 2 terms of how they consume radio. So when we 3 think about how you spend 3.6 million, I'm 4 just wondering. And one of the reasons that 5 I wondered if we could split the hundred 6 across the four markets was if there was a 7 difference between markets. You know, would 8 that give us greater insight. I don't know. 9 MR. ZACKON: The problem with the 10 100 was Ball State's ability to manage across 11 four markets with Best Buys this process. 12 MS. SHAGRIN: I understand why 13 you're doing it. I'm just trying to 14 understand when we get the data back, you 15 know, will we be able to understand if there 16 are differences in environment or how people 17 consume and are engaged with media in a 18 market like Seattle versus a market like 19 Dallas. 20 MR. BROOKS: Just speaking for 21 myself on the committee, I think that's worth 22 taking into consideration; some of the exact 23 parameters of this, not the size of it. But 24 the exact parameters we've discussed a lot 25 within the committee as well. And one of 62 1 them has been whether it should just be Best 2 Buy. I mean, that limits it a lot, whether 3 it should be just one market. Because that 4 limits it to some degree. 5 This is a very large quality 6 study in some ways. We shouldn't get away 7 from that. This is not a quantitative 8 currency new study. We'd need thousands of 9 people for that. But you're going to get the 10 quality of data that you see nowhere else on 11 this, which is I think the value to it. If 12 we can add to it by that, I think it's worth 13 considering. 14 MR. ZACKON: Nancy. 15 MS. GALLAGHER: We could be 16 limiting what people could spend the money 17 on. And, if so, what would those limits be. 18 MR. WACHSLAG: We haven't gone 19 through what the products will be. We 20 haven't picked exactly what they would be. 21 In the study we had we allowed them to have 22 gaming systems. We allowed them to buy 23 iPods, video iPods. They can buy portable 24 laptops. And linking stuff to give them 25 wireless networks. 63 1 MS. GALLAGHER: Sling Boxes? 2 MR. WACHSLAG: I think there was 3 a possibility. Again, I don't remember. 4 MR. BROOKS: The thinking of the 5 committee so far, preliminary discussions is 6 quite broad on this. Possibly with the 7 exception of high def. Because Jack makes a 8 good case on that. But beyond that, anything 9 that involves video and how in the future 10 people may be using video to impact on the 11 video that we have to measure and that we're 12 trying to sell is fair game. 13 MR. ZACKON: This may be the 14 easiest softball question you get. But is 15 the committee open to the input of the people 16 on the Council as to what devices to 17 consider? 18 MS. BRILL: As long as you vote 19 yes for option 3, absolutely. 20 MR. WACHSLAG: I mean, Sling 21 Boxes. We're interested in any technology. 22 We're in the media business. We're 23 interesting in knowing about any technology 24 which might be disruptive. 25 We put Sling Boxes into the mix 64 1 and nobody buys them, okay. If we put Sling 2 Boxes into the mix and they buy them, but 3 they hardly use them, that's also good to 4 know. 5 But again, you're requiring 6 people to spend 50 cents of every dollar they 7 spend on using their own money. So they're 8 not going to waste it. 9 MR. HESS: We haven't heard from 10 too many people on the phone. I think we're 11 getting to the point where I'd like to bring 12 this to a vote. So why don't we pause for 13 just a few seconds. 14 How about anybody in cyberspace, 15 would you like to comment? 16 MS. CHAMPLIN: Well, I would be 17 very supportive of the acceleration sample. 18 I think it's well worth the investment in 19 order to understand key learning. After all, 20 what we're interested in is advertisers. And 21 I can only speak as an advertiser because I 22 am one, trying to predict the future. Of 23 course it would be very interesting to 24 understand the answer to the questions that 25 we can't answer right now in terms of what 65 1 people are doing out there through this 2 observational study of 350 people. 3 But every single day I sit here 4 in my hallway and am required to postulate on 5 what the next big thing is going to be and 6 how people will react to it. So I think this 7 sample of a hundred people is going to be 8 very critical to understanding that further. 9 And being able to answer those questions. 10 MR. HESS: Could I ask the 11 speaker to identify herself. 12 MS. CHAMPLIN: This is Vicky in 13 St. Louis. Vicky Champlin. 14 MR. HESS: Anybody else? We'll 15 again pause for cyberspace. Anyone else 16 besides Vicky? 17 MS. BURNS: This is Joanne. And 18 I'm on the subcommittee. And I second all of 19 my committee peer members. I just want to 20 remind everybody too that, and that's not to 21 say that we can't question it again, but 50 22 was approved the last time. I just don't 23 want to beat a dead horse. And the power 24 study 50 is a good number. So basically all 25 we're asked for is if we net it out we came 66 1 in under budget. We're still at the 350. 2 It's just a matter of whether we go forward 3 with the 100 acceleration. That's basically 4 it. 5 MS. LIGUORI: This is Pat. Can 6 we wait until we hear if there are any other 7 monetary needs of the other committees before 8 we vote? 9 MS. SIRKIN: I second that. 10 MS. SHAGRIN: Especially since 11 you're not going to do it until after the 12 strike is over. 13 MR. HESS: It's sounds like 14 there's a motion about to be made to actually 15 delay the vote. 16 Do you want to state that? 17 MS. LIGUORI: I motion that we 18 delay the vote until we hear from the other 19 committees about their financial needs. 20 MS. SIRKIN: I second that 21 motion. 22 MR. WACHSLAG: That's a motion or 23 the first motion is to approve 3? 24 MR. ZACKON: The motion is to 25 delay the vote on 3 until we look at the 67 1 needs of the other subcommittees. 2 MR. WACHSLAG: Are we doing that 3 now today? 4 MR. ZACKON: We're doing that 5 today. This will be decided today. 6 MR. WACHSLAG: Postpone this vote 7 until we hear the rest of the committees. 8 MR. HESS: Do I have acclamation 9 on that that we delay? Sounds like everybody 10 here is in agreement. We'll say we're going 11 to delay it by acclamation until the other 12 committees are done. And then we'll come 13 back and put the original motion on the floor 14 to vote. Okay. All right. Let's do that. 15 Then let's do that. 16 Shari, is there anything else you 17 need to add at this point because it's being 18 delayed? Could we move on to those other two 19 committees because they're obviously critical 20 at this point? 21 MR. WACHSLAG: And I also thank 22 Shari because she's worked her tail off on 23 this project. And she's done a really good 24 job. She's beaten up Ball State. She's 25 beaten up all kinds of people. And, you 68 1 know, she's brought in a project that we said 2 was going to come in at 3.2, and at under 3. 3 And I think that's a big deal. I wanted 4 everyone to know that we appreciate that. 5 MS. BRILL: Yes. And keep in 6 mind when you're considering your vote that I 7 do beat people up. 8 MR. ZACKON: You won a black 9 belt. 10 MR. WACHSLAG: Black belt in 11 research costs. 12 MR. ZACKON: I'd like to echo 13 that because Shari's done a really great job. 14 MR. WACHSLAG: An Steven's been 15 great. 16 MR. ZACKON: In fact, the whole 17 subcommittee there's a variety of talent 18 brought forth that's really nice to see. 19 People stepped up to the task. 20 MR. HESS: Thank you. 21 Now the pressure is on the other 22 two committees. 23 MR. ZACKON: Three. 24 MR. HESS: How about hearing 25 something from nonresponse. Ceril? 69 1 MS. SHAGRIN: I don't know if 2 we're going to spend any more money. Because 3 Nielsen doesn't tell me how much they've 4 already spent since they're putting out the 5 resources. So as far as I know, we are on 6 budget, unless someone from Nielsen is going 7 to tell me otherwise. Do I think we'll go 8 over budget? I think we may end up going 9 slightly over budget on the in-person. But 10 again, I haven't had any feedback from anyone 11 at Nielsen that says that's going to happen. 12 In terms of what we expected from 13 the mail survey, I think we're right on 14 target, if not a little bit ahead in terms of 15 where we are. So let me share with you the 16 highlights of where we are in terms of the 17 mail survey. Because all of that has already 18 gone out and now we're in the in-person 19 stage. 20 For the diary sample response 21 rates we have a total sample size of 7,525 22 and an overall response rate of 68 percent. 23 The acceptors were 91 percent completed 24 survey and sent it back, but who sent back no 25 good diaries originally. 77 percent 70 1 completed the survey. The acceptors that 2 didn't return, 67 percent of them have 3 completed the survey. 4 Refusers. 68 percent completed 5 the survey. And I'll send all this to 6 Richard so he can send it out. The 7 noncontacts, we got 70 percent of them back. 8 The kind of scary one is among the bilingual. 9 We only got 36 percent back. And you'll see 10 this in all the assessments. And the 11 unmailables were 16 percent. So those all 12 have to be done in person. 13 On the meter response rates, we 14 have 2,300 in our sample. 85 percent of the 15 cooperating basics completed the survey. 49 16 percent of the refusing basics completed the 17 survey. 31 percent of the bilingual. For a 18 total response rate on the meter side of 64 19 percent. And we just started the in-person 20 survey. So far there's a sample of 2,390 21 that will have to be done in person. 444 22 have been completed. And the response rates 23 on the completed ones is 52 percent. 24 So we're doing about what we 25 expected. Maybe a little bit better. And 71 1 what we don't know is the design says if they 2 still refused after they're contacted in 3 person, to go back again and offer more money 4 to try and get that information as well. 5 And so it's kind, the scary part 6 though is that one area that there's really 7 low response rate on this, regardless of 8 meter or diary, is among the bilingual 9 participants. Currently, Nielsen's 10 monitoring all the questionnaires for 11 completeness and cooperation. 12 When they're through with that, 13 then they'll send those to Bob Groves and the 14 students as soon as data entry is complete. 15 And they'll begin to work on the data sets. 16 The Bob Groves students actually attended the 17 ITI training. They were highly impressed 18 with the quality of the training and the 19 practice sessions. Gave it extremely high 20 marks. But the detailed analysis of the 21 results hasn't yet started because we have to 22 wait for the rest of the surveys to be 23 completed. But we are starting to build the 24 data sets. And we'll be meeting with them to 25 make sure that we're going to get the data we 72 1 want. So that's where we are. 2 Our goal is to have some initial 3 results to share at the Nielsen client 4 meeting. It may be only cooperation numbers. 5 Because I doubt they'll have any of the 6 analysis done. But we're moving along. 7 MR. GOERLICH: Ceril, that's 8 great. Can you just remind us what was in 9 those two surveys? Because, quite frankly, I 10 forget. 11 MS. SHAGRIN: Well, the survey 12 documents were very similar in terms of 13 questions that we asked. And it really was 14 asking them about the equipment they had in 15 the home when they watched television. And 16 then especially when the metered sample, the 17 ones that refused, why they refused. And 18 questions about their relationships with 19 Nielsen during the time that they were in 20 metered sample. 21 I thought everybody got copies of 22 the questionnaires. I thought we passed them 23 out at one of the meetings, but if not, we 24 can get that. 25 MR. ZACKON: Ceril, do we think a 73 1 financial incentive in the end might make a 2 difference for the bilingual? 3 MS. SHAGRIN: There's an 4 incentive that went with all of these. And 5 the way the study is designed is to say, 6 okay, we're going to go out and we're going 7 to try and get these first by mail and then 8 in person. And then the ones that are still 9 refusers, the plan is to go back again and 10 offer them much higher incentives. And 11 maybe, you know, try and collect the data 12 right there and giving them a much higher 13 incentive. Because our goal is to get at 14 least 80 percent of every group. And we're 15 far from it on the bilinguals. We're doing 16 better with refusers, but far from it on the 17 bilinguals. 18 MR. ZACKON: In terms of the 19 budget, I had 2.1 million available for that 20 study. Is that the number you're working 21 with? 22 MS. SHAGRIN: I thought it was 23 closer to 2.5. But I have to go back and 24 look at the data. 25 MR. ZACKON: That's a new number 74 1 to me. 2 MS. SHAGRIN: Okay. I did send a 3 note to Nielsen asking for an accounting. I 4 did not get it. They said they were going to 5 send something to you. I thought it was 2.1 6 before we got the additional costs for the 7 RTIPs. 8 MR. ZACKON: Actually, it was 9 1.16. 10 MR. DONATO: You're talking the 11 material. I bounced one out to Bruce. I 12 don't know if you have the numbers. What I 13 was going to do is excuse myself and run out 14 and make a phone call to see where these 15 numbers are. Apparently, they've been 16 prepared, but no one apparently has them. 17 MS. SHAGRIN: I'll go back to all 18 my data to see what the number was. All I 19 know, no one has said to me that we are not 20 on budget. And the response rates that we 21 got for the mailed surveys are slightly 22 higher than the stated response rate. So 23 that we should be right on budget, if not 24 slightly below budget because the real 25 dollars come from the RTIPs. 75 1 MR. STERNBERG: Can I ask a 2 stupid question because I know I missed one 3 meeting. Did we vote on an additional 4 $900,000 for this study? I don't remember. 5 2.5 seems a bizarre number. 6 MS. SHAGRIN: It may be 2.1. 7 MR. ZACKON: I remember 1.7 and 8 the cost jumped because of FTI. And Nielsen 9 ensured it would be covered. So that's when 10 it went up to 2.1. And that's the number 11 I've been using, 2.1. 12 MS. SHAGRIN: It is 2.1. I'm 13 sorry. 14 MR. STERNBERG: So Nielsen 15 assured it would be covered above and beyond 16 what the budget of the committee was? 17 MR. ZACKON: It was not at that 18 point specified. It's a fair question. It 19 was not at that point specified. 20 MS. SHAGRIN: But we did vote on 21 it. 22 MR. WACHSLAG: Did we vote on 23 moving it to 2.1? 24 MS. SHAGRIN: We did. 25 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: I think we had 76 1 to. Was that the May meeting or something? 2 MR. ZACKON: I don't recall that 3 vote. I don't know that that was formally 4 voted on to cover. But Nielsen assured that 5 it would be covered. 6 MR. SHIMMEL: Through additional 7 funding. 8 MS. SHAGRIN: Keep in mind that 9 the difference between the 1.6 and the 2.1 10 was not a change in the specs. It was that 11 Nielsen was going to do the in person 12 themselves with their own people and then 13 they said cover. Everything else is being 14 done. And the accelerated rollout of LPM. 15 MR. STERNBERG: It's not part of 16 the 7.5? 17 MR. SHIMMEL: That's right. 18 MR. ZACKON: I don't know that 19 that's so. I think Steve is right. My 20 understanding was, and I actually raised that 21 question at the time, too, that, in essence, 22 I believed, best of my knowledge, what has 23 happened was that the 2.5 that we've been 24 added to, half a million of that's gone to 25 ensure the funding of that. 77 1 MR. BROOKS: Is that true? 2 MR. ZACKON: If that's not true, 3 okay, it's my understanding though. 4 MR. SHIMMEL: We need to sit 5 down. 6 MR. ZACKON: Get those numbers. 7 MR. BROOKS: Given where this 8 cost came from, that seems extraordinarily 9 high. 10 MR. STERNBERG: I'm just a little 11 concerned that we have to account for every 12 penny before anything is started. And we're 13 having all this debate over $600,000. And 14 all of a sudden, well, here's another 15 $500,000 for this study and nobody knows 16 where it came from. 17 MS. SIRKIN: This is a very 18 lengthy discussion. 19 MR. SHIMMEL: You should go back 20 to the May notes. 21 MR. ZACKON: We can check the 22 transcript. My way of thinking about this is 23 that Nielsen has put up an additional 2.5. 24 And half a million is earmarked to ensure the 25 success of that. 78 1 MR. WACHSLAG: There's no reason 2 to believe that that's so. 3 MR. STERNBERG: My only point was 4 when we were debating last time the 3.2 it 5 was decided by the full Council that we 6 didn't want anything to be based on whether 7 Nielsen is going to fund another year. 8 MR. ZACKON: That's correct. 9 MR. STERNBERG: I would take this 10 to Nielsen. This is an additional 500,000. 11 MR. WACHSLAG: In fact, if I 12 remember the last committee, the reason we 13 approved the 3.2, admitted we said we weren't 14 sure that we could afford 3.2, but it wasn't 15 that far. It wasn't a half a million. 16 MR. ZACKON: My understanding 17 actually coincides with Steve's at this 18 point. And I may be incorrect. And I'd 19 invite Nielsen -- 20 MR. SHIMMEL: Let's sit down 21 again and look at actual numbers. 22 MR. ZACKON: I don't recall 23 actually a committee vote. We just knew that 24 Nielsen would cover that. 25 MR. WACHSLAG: Bottom line is 3.6 79 1 and 2.1 is 5.7. And they've committed to 2 7.5. 3 MR. HESS: But it's more like 8.0 4 if Howard is right. It's an incremental. 5 MR. ZACKON: That's correct. 6 MR. HESS: So we have at least -- 7 what did you say, 1.8 level? 8 MR. WACHSLAG: So it's not that 9 we're that close. 10 MR. ZACKON: I'll check the 11 transcript to see if there was such a vote. 12 I don't recall such a vote. And I've been at 13 all of the meetings. 14 MR. HESS: Unless Ira or Nancy 15 asks for half a million dollars in their next 16 presentation, okay. Are we done with that 17 one? Yes. 18 Ira is next. And having served 19 on a subcommittee with him, I know he's 20 really good at a lot of things, including 21 bringing us back on time because he presents 22 very quickly. 23 MR. SUSSMAN: I have nothing to 24 update. We have an RP that we have not put 25 into the marketplace because we didn't expect 80 1 to have any money. And it probably still is 2 in that same place. So we kind of carry on. 3 I think it's really interesting 4 what Vicky wants to be proposing. And I 5 think if we can figure out how to do that, 6 that would be great. 7 MR. HESS: Okay. Any discussion 8 on that? Otherwise, Nancy's universe 9 estimates. 10 MS. GALLAGHER: Like I said, we 11 kind of stopped at our RFP because we didn't 12 want to send it out and find out we had no 13 money. What we would like to do, our design 14 is to send it out. 15 The ideal would be to get two or 16 three contrasting proposals of ways of 17 gathering this information, and, you know, 18 fund all of them. And then use it in the 19 Nielsen OPM market. And compare that to what 20 Nielsen has found as their universe in the 21 sample. So to give us kind of a basis for 22 comparison. But, you know, the fund, the 23 amount of money we need would really depend 24 if we get two or three really good valid 25 proposals. 81 1 I mean, I would love to get 2 three. But I'm feeling it might wind up only 3 being two that really look like something 4 that's really practical and worth looking 5 into it. But, you know, now that we know 6 that there's money, we want to move ahead. 7 Also, I think we're going to have 8 a shortage of committee members because 9 people are retiring. No committee members 10 left this place of employee. 11 MR. ZACKON: We're getting to 12 that. 13 MS. GALLAGHER: We're looking for 14 more committee members too. Since we really 15 did have several people change jobs. 16 MR. HESS: Nancy, I know you 17 don't have any proposals yet. 18 MS. GALLAGHER: We just have an 19 RP. 20 MR. HESS: Do you have a ballpark 21 price? 22 MS. GALLAGHER: It really depends 23 if we get two or three proposals. That would 24 make the difference. 25 MR. HESS: But for purposes of 82 1 our vote -- 2 MS. GALLAGHER: I would say 3 probably, I would like, a million. A million 4 could probably do it if we get three good 5 ones. 6 MR. ZACKON: Again, we'll have at 7 least one set going with proposal No. 3 from 8 the meeting from consumption. 9 MR. HESS: That's why I wanted 10 ballpark. If it's a 2 million ballpark, then 11 we have something to discuss. 12 MR. ZACKON: It may interfere 13 with the idea of a meeting in the Bahammas, 14 so... 15 MS. SIRKIN: Okay. Down with the 16 committee. 17 MR. HESS: Nancy, do you have 18 anything else? 19 MS. GALLAGHER: No. That's it. 20 MR. HESS: So your next step is 21 now that you know there's funding -- 22 MS. GALLAGHER: That's not the 23 funds to get the IRP out there. 24 MR. HESS: That being the case, 25 Richard, before we go to new business, I 83 1 think now is the time to put the question 2 back. 3 So could somebody make the formal 4 motion? 5 MS. SIRKIN: Can we hear from 6 Paul. 7 MR. HESS: Yes. Paul. 8 MR. DONATO: While I was waiting, 9 here's what I've learned. Tim believes that 10 we're roughly on budget with respect to the 11 personal interview portion. By that I mean 12 within 5 or 10 percent, maybe 5 percent of 13 the budget. What he was unsure of, but this 14 is what you seem to have certainty of, Ceril, 15 was the mailable portion, only because he 16 didn't have the numbers right in front of 17 him. So he couldn't attest to whether we 18 were on/off budget for mailables. 19 But if someone sent you the 20 information, I think where you began your 21 discussion you suggested that you felt that 22 we were safe with the diaries then. 23 MS. SHAGRIN: The reason I put 24 that I feel we are safe with the diary is 25 that when Paul figured the cost he mailed 84 1 assumptions as to what had cooperation rate 2 we would get from each of the separate 3 groups. And the only one that he did not 4 break out; the bilingual piece. And that 5 seems really low to me. 6 But the acceptors and the 7 refusers and the no good, all of those 8 targets were either met or exceeded which 9 means that the number that is left to go out 10 to for in-person, there should be, if 11 anything, lower than are anticipated. 12 Since we may have to make 13 multiple trips, I don't think you're going to 14 be lower than the dollars budgeted. And 15 since the sample size and the incentive was 16 predesigned, I can't imagine how you could 17 not be on budget with that piece. 18 MR. DONATO: Okay. He's going to 19 try to look it up. And I'm sure everything 20 you're saying is correct. He just couldn't 21 certify it for me on the phone. 22 And just so you know, I think the 23 personal interview budget, kind of the raw 24 number was about a million dollars. So if 25 it's plus or minus 5 percent, we're talking 85 1 about $50,000. So he seems to feel very 2 comfortable with the personal part. 3 MR. ZACKON: Let me point out, 4 even if we are in error about that extra half 5 million, I think it's 1.6 plus an additional 6 50,000. We're still within covering the 7 universe estimate study. Because we're 8 talking about 1.7. 9 MR. SCHWARTZ: Richard, do we 10 have a list of what's been committed to and 11 what's been paid? 12 MR. ZACKON: I can tell you. And 13 have had down for months 2.1 million to 14 ensure the success of the nonresponse. And 15 this we're proposing, because remember, we've 16 already spent some money on the pilot study. 17 So this study would come in at 3.6 million. 18 I'm sorry. The committee spending will come 19 in at 3.6 million to cover item No. 3, plus 20 what has been spent. There's some spending 21 around $20,000 in addition to that, includes 22 the study of IRA's committee. 23 MR. HESS: Okay. Then if there 24 is no further discussion, could somebody put 25 the motion on the floor. 86 1 MS. BRILL: The motion is to vote 2 for option 3 which is the media consumption 3 engagements study, a core sample of 350 4 people conducted over two waves for a total 5 of 700 observations, plus an additional 6 acceleration sample of 100 respondents also 7 visited over two waves. The cost is $3.56 8 million. It's $365,000 above the 3.2 that 9 was already approved. 10 So, at this time, I'd like to 11 call for a thumbs up vote, meaning yes. 12 MR. HESS: Could we get a second 13 on that if there's a motion on the floor? 14 MR. BROOKS: Seconded. 15 MR. HESS: Tim seconds. And the 16 way I'd like to do the vote is obviously we 17 have people out on the phone. Let's do a 18 hands vote in the room. And then we'll just 19 ask people to identify themselves and say yes 20 or no. Yes being you vote for Shari's motion 21 on the core sample of 350 and the cost being 22 3.565. No meaning we revert to the 2.98. 23 MS. GALLAGHER: Can I suggest a 24 clarification question. I thought it was in 25 the acceleration it was a pre and to post 87 1 when after two months and when after eight 2 months. 3 MR. WACHSLAG: We did. But that 4 was not part of this proposal. This is a 5 pre/post. 6 MS. GALLAGHER: What is the post? 7 Six-month one, six-month later post? 8 MS. BRILL: Yes. 9 MS. SHAGRIN: One other question. 10 If they don't spend the money, do we go to 11 somebody else or is that the finding that 12 they just didn't go and spend it. You're not 13 going to increase the sample? 14 MR. ZACKON: If the participants 15 don't spend -- 16 MS. SHAGRIN: You select someone 17 to be in the accelerated sample. You give 18 them the credit card. He goes to the store. 19 Decides there's nothing he wants bad enough 20 to spend his half. 21 MR. WACHSLAG: From the people we 22 recruited the first time around, not one did 23 that. 24 MS. SIRKIN: There's always 25 something to buy. 88 1 MS. SHAGRIN: I'm just asking. 2 MR. HESS: These are only for 3 questions. Any other clarification 4 questions? Not debate. 5 MS. SIRKIN: If we do this plus 6 our proposed one on the universe, how much 7 have we spent and how much do we have left 8 over? 9 MR. ZACKON: It depends on the 10 expense of the university estimate question. 11 But with the nonresponse what we spent to 12 date on the marketplace plus media 13 consumption, there would be 1.7 million 14 available to do the universe estimate study 15 and whatever else the committee chooses to 16 do. 17 Let me just point out one other 18 thing. We have, and we are fortunate to have 19 her, both Bruce and Kate. That way they have 20 separate lives, share one vote. So let's 21 just be mindful of that. And according to 22 our bylaws, Nielsen representatives do not 23 get a vote. 24 MR. HESS: So let's -- 25 MR. GOERLICH: I'm voting yes, 89 1 Kate. 2 MS. SIRKIN: To anything. 3 MR. HESS: I'm going to assume 4 based on Bruce's comment he gets to do the 5 vote. 6 MR. GOERLICH: You said the room 7 votes first. 8 MR. HESS: So everybody who is 9 eligible to vote, let's see the yeses. Yes 10 means you approve of option 3. And could 11 somebody count those? Richard. 12 MR. ZACKON: One, two, three, 13 four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. 14 MR. HESS: Please raise your 15 hand. And you voted no. And you are 16 eligible to vote. 17 MR. ZACKON: One. 18 MR. HESS: Okay. One voted. And 19 then how about in the midwest and other 20 places, please just take turns. 21 St. Louis. 22 MS. CHAMPLIN: I vote yes. 23 MR. ZACKON: Chicago. 24 A VOICE: I'm allowed to vote? 25 MR. ZACKON: You're allowed to 90 1 vote. We just won't count it, Kate. 2 MR. HESS: Any other locations 3 that I didn't pick up? 4 MR. ZACKON: There are other 5 people on the phone. 6 MR. HESS: Anyone else on the 7 phone? 8 MR. SIMS: Yes on 3. 9 MR. ZACKON: Melva? Not there. 10 MR. HESS: An absent. 11 MR. WACHSLAG: Was Sims on the 12 phone? 13 MR. SIMS: Yes. Jonathan Sims. 14 Yes. 15 MR. ZACKON: So that's 13. 16 MR. HESS: Well, it sounds like 17 the ayes have it. And the motion is carried. 18 Congratulations. 19 MR. ZACKON: Congratulations to 20 the Council. 21 MR. HESS: For the hard work. 22 MS. BRILL: Thank for you your 23 vote. 24 MR. HESS: Okay. 25 MR. HESS: There was somebody on 91 1 the phone. 2 MR. DeVAULT: Henry DeVault. I'm 3 sorry to be so late. But I was at a Nielsen 4 meeting. 5 MR. ZACKON: No excuse. 6 Do you care to vote, Henry? 7 MR. DeVAULT: On what? 8 MR. ZACKON: If you have to 9 ask... 10 MS. BRILL: Just say yes. 11 MR. ZACKON: Just so you know, we 12 were voting on the media consumption study. 13 MR. DeVAULT: I'll defer my vote 14 to George because he knows how I vote. 15 MR. ZACKON: George is not here. 16 MR. DeVAULT: I'll pass on it 17 then. I'm ignorant. 18 MR. HESS: The motion carried. 19 Again, congratulations. And let's move on to 20 new business. 21 Richard, I think, had something 22 that he would like to cover involving the 23 future role, possibly an emeritus role for 24 the Council, Richard. 25 MR. ZACKON: Yes. Our only 92 1 Grammy Award winning member, Tim Brooks, is 2 retiring at the end of this year from 3 Lifetime. And is interested, and I believe 4 many of us would be delighted, if he were to 5 continue to participate in some way. And 6 this is a question that I would propose 7 turning to the steering committee to discuss. 8 But I just want -- you're looking up Susan. 9 MS. CUCCINELLO: Oh, no. 10 MR. ZACKON: There are a number 11 of possible ways for him to continue. 12 MS. SIRKIN: He can be your whip. 13 MR. ZACKON: A whip. This is now 14 a major, now that the Council has approved 15 this study, my sense is that a good watchdog 16 role on top of Ball State/Sequent is called 17 for. I think there are good scientists. I 18 think they're adequate executors like that. 19 And I think oversight would make a difference 20 in that study. They've been very open to all 21 the committee has said. So I talked to Tim 22 about the possibility of him staying on in 23 that role that has him involved in that 24 study. And so that's a possibility. 25 There's another possibility, too. 93 1 And again, this is again for the steering 2 committee. That we reserve kind of an 3 emeritus seat with those eleven additional 4 members that we're looking for. And that Tim 5 step in in that role. There's any number of 6 ways that Tim can play. And I would sure 7 love to have him working with us in this 8 participation. There may be a shift in terms 9 of my reporting line, in essence, to this 10 Council. And so I think we're open to a 11 variety of ways. I just wanted to inform the 12 Council of that possibility. So that's what 13 I had to say about that. And I think it 14 ought to be handled within the steering 15 committee. 16 MR. HESS: I'd be glad to do 17 that. I'd love to hear a couple of comments 18 from our retiring member. 19 MR. BROOKS: This study we've 20 just been talking about originated in the 21 first few months I think that the Council 22 existed. So it's been over two years. It's 23 grown into, I think, a very exciting study. 24 But a sprawling one too. And whenever I go 25 into these things I always like to keep what 94 1 the end goal was up on the wall there 2 somewhere. It's so easy to get lost in the 3 high weeds. So easy to get off onto 4 something that looks good at the moment. 5 What are you really trying to accomplish. 6 And make sure that the academics 7 in Ball State and the Sequent Partner people, 8 good as they are, are doing the kinds of 9 things that we as people in business know 10 needs to be done. And not do the things that 11 are, you know, interesting but not actionable 12 in our businesses. 13 So, you know, I feel kind of 14 vested in the study. It's finally becoming 15 real, I guess. I feel very proud for the 16 committee that's worked so hard on this; 17 Shari, in particular. I certainly think it 18 will be a very successful and perhaps a 19 groundbreaking study. But there's many steps 20 to go before we get to that point. So I'd be 21 proud to be involved in that in some way. 22 MR. HESS: Thank you. 23 MR. ZACKON: Let me just add to 24 acknowledge Tim's contributions to the whole 25 process have been huge, have been huge. So 95 1 even if you were not to continue, you would 2 feel great pride for what's been 3 accomplished. 4 MR. BROOKS: Thank you for your 5 thoughts. This would be a limited time I 6 should say. 7 MR. HESS: Is there any other new 8 business? That's one that I knew about. 9 Is there anything else somebody 10 would like to bring up? 11 MR. GOERLICH: Just picking up on 12 that point, I thought at some earlier meeting 13 that we had clarification, I think. I think 14 it was Shari or Michele that was asked about 15 membership. That membership was in the 16 person except for one or two exceptions. 17 Have we clarified that issue? I 18 mean, in other words, I don't see any reason 19 why he couldn't be a full member if he's 20 still going to be active. Writing books and 21 consulting in the business. To me that's the 22 only prerequisite. So can we just have some 23 clarification on what it is to be a 24 membership. Is it in the bylaws? 25 MR. ZACKON: It should be in the 96 1 bylaws which should be in the folder. Here 2 are the bylaws. Membership in the Council is 3 limited to 40 members. Members must be 4 senior research -- right here, the bylaws. 5 Article I, Section 1. 6 MR. SUSSMAN: Nielsen clients. 7 MR. ZACKON: Nielsen clients. 8 MS. SIRKIN: There's the rub. 9 MR. GOERLICH: So sell him a 10 contract, a hundred bucks a year. 11 MS. SIRKIN: Give him a $1 12 contract. 13 MR. GOERLICH: Can consultants be 14 clients? 15 MR. ZACKON: That's not so. We 16 have academic clients who are not Nielsen 17 clients. And Tim has been here in his role 18 as having been the chair of the VEMC at the 19 ARF. And the ARF is not a client of Nielsen. 20 So there must be -- I'm sorry. I don't have 21 the rules memorized. 22 MR. DONATO: After a member? 23 MR. ZACKON: They're not a 24 Nielsen client. He is Lifetime. But he was 25 invited because of the AFR. 97 1 MR. DONATO: I think that 2 originally it really was for client. I don't 3 think there's anything that prevents you from 4 entering a discussion. And, I mean, I kind 5 of like the emeritus position because it 6 creates something special as opposed to 7 opening it up to a whole lot of nonclients. 8 MR. ZACKON: To the extent 9 there's a change in the employment status of 10 a member, that is an employee of an NMR 11 client, the membership shall not follow the 12 individual, but shall revert to the NMR 13 client or the media research organization, 14 which client Bob shall appoint a successor, 15 blah-blah-blah. 16 MS. SIRKIN: I think the media 17 concern was about some pure consultants 18 running. 19 A VOICE: Richard, I'd like to 20 suggest that we create, as you had suggested 21 or someone suggested, a separate position. 22 This way you keep the client at the number 23 that they are. And Tim's position would be 24 unique. 25 MR. DONATO: For example, it may 98 1 not be a voting position. It may be the same 2 in every other way. Except, like members of 3 Nielsen, it's not a voting position. 4 MR. ZACKON: Or George Ivie took 5 away his own voting privileges as a member of 6 the MRC. 7 A VOICE: I think it precludes 8 potential problems that may arise based on 9 what the bylaws state. 10 MR. ZACKON: This is an excellent 11 issue, I would say, for the steering 12 committee. 13 MR. HESS: No. Exactly. 14 MR. WACHSLAG: If there's 15 compensation involved there could be 16 potential conflict of interest. So we have 17 to look at it. 18 MR. SUSSMAN: There's also a 19 question if Tim is no longer representing the 20 ARF, do we need another representative from 21 that organization? 22 MR. WACHSLAG: I'd say we do. 23 MR. HESS: I've got that. We'll 24 cover that in the steering committee. 25 If anyone on the call today would 99 1 like to summarize their issues, please send 2 it to me, Mike Hess. And I'll bring those up 3 to members of the steering committee. 4 MR. ZACKON: Can I suggest if 5 anyone would suggest that we end a few 6 minutes early. 7 MR. HESS: But before we do end 8 early, is there any other new business? 9 Okay. Well, then, let's get a 10 motion to adjourn. 11 MR. WACHSLAG: So moved. 12 MS. BRILL: Seconded. 13 MR. HESS: Anyone opposed? 14 All right. The meeting is adjourned. 15 (Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the 16 meeting adjourned.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 100 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 STATE OF NEW YORK ) 4 ) ss. 5 COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) 6 7 I, ROBERT M. LEVINE, a Shorthand 8 (Stenotype) Reporter and Notary Public of the 9 State of New York, do hereby certify that 10 foregoing Proceedings, taken at the time and place 11 aforesaid, is a true and correct transcription of 12 my shorthand notes. 13 I further certify that I am neither counsel 14 for nor related to any party to said action, nor 15 in any wise interested in the result or outcome 16 thereof. 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 18 hand this 14th day of August, 2007. 19 20 _________________________ 21 ROBERT M. LEVINE, CSR 22 23 24 25