The Local Ratings Landscape

1
The Local Ratings Landscape

• George Ivie
• CEO, Executive Director
• Media Rating Council, Inc.

2
Agenda

• Introductions
• Review of Emerging Local Measurement Alternatives
• Arbitron PPM
• Nielsen LPM
• Viewer Modeling
• Questions/Answers

3
Our Panel

• Erwin Ephron, Consultant, Ephron, Papazian
  Ephron, Inc.
• Jay S. Guyther, SVP International Marketing,
  Arbitron, Inc.
• Ken Wollenberg, SVP NSI, Nielsen Media Research

4
Summary Format

• The Basics
• Conceptual Advantages
• Conceptual Questions
• for each alternative
• None are currently Accredited by the MRC

5
Arbitron PPM

• The Basics
• The PPM
• Personal measurement
• Pager size device -- worn or carried
• Recognizes inaudible codes in media source that
  consumer is exposed to
• Self-Installed by telephone-recruited panelists
• Tested in UK, now being tested in the US
• Encoding-based measurement
• Measurement is possible for Radio, Television
  (broadcast, wired cable, satellite, digital,
  etc.), and Streaming per Arbitron

6
Arbitron PPM

• Conceptual Advantages
• Multi-media data from single sample
• Partially passive
• Measures out-of-home?
• Large sample sizes planned
• Measures digital sources
• Measurement is dependent on encodingnot
  calibration of tuner

7
Arbitron PPM

• Conceptual Questions
• Does it work?
• Will panelists carry the device?
• Arbitron indicates its tests prove yes for both
  items above
• Exposure to audiois a changed basis for
  crediting audience
• Everyone must encodeno encoding, no measurement,
  e.g., local cable
• For television, muting equals non-measurement
• Uncertainty of joint venture arrangement
• Response Rates

8
Nielsen LPM

• The Basics
• Movement of People Meter technology into the
  local measurement arena
• Set meters with added people button device
• Calibration of tuners
• Software solutions for some digital
  cable/satellite
• Boston roll-out, scheduled to become official in
  May 2002
• 600 Households
• Demonstration period since April 2001
• Further markets planned after Boston

9
Nielsen LPM

• Conceptual Advantages
• Known performance
• Continuous electronic measurement of both
  households and people
• Eliminates the diary and the integration process
• Larger effective sample sizes

10
Nielsen LPM

• Conceptual Questions
• Viewing levels and shares change
• Two issues being studied in Boston
• Tuning without viewing
• Distribution of NILF Females
• Intrusive metering is still the rule
• Button pushing requires coaching / Nielsen field
  staff diligence
• New viewing technologies require different
  metering approachesand marketplace cooperation
• Will the stations support the Service?

11
Viewer Modeling

• The Basics
• A model used to predict viewers directly from the
  composition of the set meter panel itself,
  without the use of the diary
• Multiple regression technique
• Initial project is to model eight key persons
  demos and then apply to other demos as well
• Validation tests planned using Boston LPM data

12
Viewer Modeling

• Conceptual Advantages
• Principally cost (and per Erwin better
  data)increased set meter sample sizes could be
  gained through elimination of diaries, with
  modeling handling the demography
• Expansion of number of meter markets
• Consistent methodology across all NSI markets

13
Viewer Modeling

• Conceptual Questions
• Will the marketplace accept a modeled technique?
• Can an accurate enough model be constructed?
• How to decide when separate models are necessary?
  Smaller breakspresence of childrenraceetc.
• Model updating? New programming? Sports?
  Specials?
• Ongoing evaluation of accuracy?