1 1 2 -----------------------------------------------x 3 NIELSEN MEDIA RESEARCH 4 5 THE COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH EXCELLENCE 6 -----------------------------------------------x 7 8 March 10, 2006 9 2:15 p.m. 10 11 12 Millenium Hotel 13 145 West 44th Street 14 New York, New York 15 16 17 18 19 REGENCY REPORTING, INC. 20 Certified Shorthand Reporters & Videographers 21 425 Eagle Rock Avenue 310 S. Juniper Street 22 Roseland, NJ 07068 Philadelphia, PA 19107 23 575 Madison Avenue 24 New York, NY 10022 25 www.regencyreporting.net 1-866-268-7866 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 3 COUNCIL MEMBERS: 4 RICHARD ZACKON, Facilitator 5 REBECCA MITCHELL, Assistant 6 CERIL SHAGRIN 7 HENRY DeVAULT 8 LYLE SCHWARTZ 9 SHARI ANNE BRILL 10 JESSICA PANTANINI 11 PAUL DONATO 12 JOANNE BURNS 13 PATRICIA LIGUORI 14 TIMOTHY BROOKS 15 BETSY FRANK 16 MICHELE BUSLIK 17 DAVID POLTRACK 18 ALAN WURTZEL 19 NANCY GALLAGHER 20 DON GLOECKLER 21 KATE SIRKIN 22 SUSAN CUCCINELLO 23 MICHAEL HESS 24 PAUL LEVRAKAS 25 JEAN GOLDBERG 3 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 3 COUNCIL MEMBERS: (cont'd) 4 IRA SUSSMAN 5 6 7 (Present via telephone.) 8 MARK KALINE 9 JONATHAN SIMS 10 STEVE STERNBERG 11 RICK KEILTY 12 GEORGE IVIE 13 JACK WAKSHLAG 14 KAKI HINTON 15 16 17 A L S O P R E S E N T: 18 19 ROBERT M. LEVINE, CM 20 Court Reporter 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 2 MR. ZACKON: We have a number of 3 people on the phone and the people on the 4 phone don't know who's in the room. So why 5 don't we start with the people on the phone. 6 And announce yourselves. And in some order 7 that you feel like it. And make sure we have 8 everyone there. 9 So I know Mark Kaline is on the 10 phone. Mark are you there? 11 MR. KALINE: Yes, I'm here, 12 Richard. 13 MR. ZACKON: Sounds good in here. 14 Can you hear us as well? 15 MR. KALINE: You're a little 16 faint. But I can hear everyone else on the 17 phone good. 18 MR. ZACKON: We actually have an 19 audiographer here. 20 MR. KALINE: Richard, you're 21 faint. Very faint. 22 MR. ZACKON: Audiographer, is 23 there something I can do about my faintness? 24 Maybe I'll move. If the mountain won't come 25 to Mohammad... I'm right on my way. Is that 5 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 better? 3 MR. KALINE: Yes. 4 MR. ZACKON: So would people on 5 the phone announce themselves? We know 6 Mark's here. 7 MR. STERNBERG: This is Steve 8 Sternberg. I'm here here. 9 MR. ZACKON: How are you feeling? 10 MR. STERNBERG: I'm a little sick 11 but I'm on the line. 12 MR. KEILTY: Rick Keilty. 13 MR. ZACKON: Hey, Rick. 14 MR. IVIE: George Ivie with the 15 MRC. 16 MR. WAKSHLAG: Jack Wakshlag. 17 MR. ZACKON: Anyone else on the 18 phone? 19 MR. SIMS: Jonathan Sims, 20 Comcast. 21 MR. ZACKON: Is that Jonathan? 22 Okay, Jonathan. 23 MR. SIMS: Richard, who's there 24 physically? 25 MR. ZACKON: We're going to begin 6 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 announcing. 3 Henry, we'll start over there. 4 MR. DeVAULT: Which way we going? 5 Henry DeVault from ABC. 6 MR. SCHWARTZ: Lyle Schwartz, The 7 Media Edge. 8 MS. BRILL: Sheri Anne Brill. 9 MS. HOUSE: Jessica Pantanini, 10 Bromley. 11 MR. DONATO: Paul Donato, 12 Nielsen. 13 MS. BURNS: Joanne Burns, 20th 14 Century Fox. 15 MS. LIGUORI: Pat Liguori, ABC 16 TV. 17 MR. BROOKS: Tim Brooks, 18 Lifetime. 19 MS. CHAMPLIN: Vicky Champlin. 20 MS. BUSLIK: Michele Buslik. 21 MR. POLTRACK: Dave Poltrack, 22 CBS. 23 MS. SHAGRIN: Ceril Shagrin, 24 Univision. 25 MR. WURTZEL: Alan Wurtzel, 7 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 Alliance, NBC. 3 MS. GALLAGHER: Nancy Gallagher. 4 MS. MITCHELL: Rebecca Mitchell. 5 MR. GLOECKLER: Don Gloeckler, 6 Procter & Gamble. 7 MR. ZACKON: Richard Zackon, 8 facilitator. 9 MS. SIRKIN: Kate Sirkin. 10 MS. CUCCINELLO: Susan 11 Cuccinello. 12 MR. HESS: Mike Hess. 13 MR. LEVRAKAS: Paul Levrakas, 14 Nielsen. 15 MR. ZACKON: And I think that's 16 all of us. So we have, if I'm correct, Mark 17 Kaline on the line, Jon Sims, George Ivie. 18 Did I miss anyone? 19 Okay, Mark. We're here and 20 seated. Would you like to make some 21 comments? 22 MR. KALINE: Well, I'd just like 23 to just open up by first of all apologizing 24 to the group for my not being able to be 25 there. This damn day job gets in the way 8 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 every once in a while. I'm glad we have the 3 call-in option today. 4 I am interested in seeing some of 5 the fine work that the committees have done 6 and sharing that with the rest of the group. 7 And with that I really don't have any other 8 opening comments. I know we're going to 9 start off with a report out from Mike on, as 10 far as the bylaws go. 11 So with that, I'll turn it back 12 over to you, Richard, because it's really 13 hard to do this from 500 miles away. 14 MR. ZACKON: I got you covered. 15 Mike? Where is Mike Hess? 16 MR. HESS: Well, I have an 17 equally short discussion. As you can tell 18 from your copy of the agenda, revised charter 19 and proposed bylaws, Richard sent to me a 20 copy of the revised charter which I then sent 21 around to the steering committee. And the 22 revised charter is a charter that was 23 modified by Nielsen lawyers. Most of the 24 comments were pretty innocuous. When I sent 25 it around to the steering committee last week 9 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 I got four or five thumbs up and no thumbs 3 down. Everybody said looks okay to me. I 4 think, Don Gloeckler, you saw it and said 5 okay. And there are a few other people that 6 said the same thing. 7 So if I move to the bylaws, on 8 the other hand, the bylaws, I believe only I 9 and the attorneys, Richard and Mark have a 10 copy of the bylaws right now. The bylaws are 11 something that I think will take some time. 12 The bylaws cover issues near and dear to our 13 hearts. And they include topics that we 14 brought up last time. 15 So those who were able to attend 16 the November meeting, you may recall the 17 bylaws speak to issues such as governance and 18 how you get on the committee. And if you 19 don't come to committee meetings, then what 20 are the circumstances under which you get 21 voted off, et cetera. 22 You may recall we voted as a 23 large group last November. I think we got 24 thumbs up on each and every one of the 25 proposals that the steering committee made. 10 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 So what happened then was the next step was 3 the Nielsen attorneys took that information 4 and crafted it into the written bylaws. 5 So, Richard, I just got my copy I 6 think yesterday or the day before. I will be 7 reviewing those. And then we will discuss it 8 with the steering committee. And we will 9 make a copy available to you after we provide 10 our comments by the end of April or early May 11 to the full Council for your review. So that 12 we can then vote on those in June when we 13 meet again. I don't think we have that date 14 set up yet. 15 MR. ZACKON: I think we will 16 announce it. Just to be clear, the charter 17 is essentially Nielsen's declaration of 18 creating this Council. And the bylaws are 19 determined by the Council. Although the 20 attorneys wanted to make sure members on the 21 Council were legally protected. So they 22 wanted just to rephrase some things. But the 23 Council is empowered to determine its own 24 bylaws. 25 MR. HESS: So Nielsen chartered 11 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 Council bylaws, basically. 3 And just one other comment. 4 Several of us will be making meetings, short 5 talks, giving short talks at the Nielsen 6 client meetings in Orlando next week. And 7 I'll be giving a short summary. I think I 8 have seven minutes. Most of us presenters 9 have six, seven minutes or so. And I'll be 10 giving a short summary of the steering 11 committee on Tuesday. And the basic topic of 12 the steering committee summary will be how we 13 came up with the three committees in the 14 first place. 15 I reviewed that list that we 16 looked at originally in October. And I think 17 the list was eighteen or nineteen against 18 one. How did we get from eighteen to three. 19 So we have the right to bring that up. 20 That's probably the main one we're going to 21 cover. But then also we'll talk about issues 22 for the future, again, involving issues such 23 as governance will be covered in the bylaws. 24 So that's what I plan to talk 25 about at the meeting next Tuesday. I think 12 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 that's it. Those are the two topic areas. 3 MR. ZACKON: Any questions for 4 Mike on the steering committee? 5 MR. HESS: I think one other 6 thing Richard and I talked about is the 7 steering committee. Those of you who were at 8 the very first meeting way back in June, I 9 think last June, we realized pretty quickly 10 that we had such a large group, 35, 40 11 people, we probably needed a steering 12 committee to kind of run it on a between 13 large Council meeting basis. And I think 14 that's actually been working pretty well. 15 Initially, we had eight or nine 16 volunteers. And so, at this point, if 17 somebody else wants to volunteer to serve on 18 the steering committee, I know most of you 19 don't serve on enough committees already. 20 But seriously, if you would like to serve on 21 the steering committee which generally does 22 operate, again, on an interim basis between 23 large Council meetings so we can get things 24 done, then let me know. And I'm not sure if 25 we want ten more people, but if we get a 13 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 couple more volunteers then, you know, we'd 3 be happy to that take that into 4 consideration. 5 MS. BURNS: Are you requesting -- 6 are you short-staffed? 7 MR. HESS: Actually, I think we 8 did. John Reardon is no longer on the 9 steering committee. So we lost at least one 10 person. It's voluntary. I think somehow we 11 came up with the number nine last time. Not 12 because it was a magic number, but because I 13 think we had nine volunteers. 14 MS. BURNS: I'm just wondering 15 after a year's experience is that a 16 comfortable number you think you can -- 17 MR. HESS: I think nine was a 18 good number. I think seven, eight, nine or 19 so is a comfortable number. Because we've 20 been able to, I think, work effectively in 21 two ways. 22 A couple of times we actually had 23 enough material to meet in person where 24 somebody had to stand in front of a 25 blackboard and write things down and then 14 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 everybody can look at it. 3 And then a number of other issues 4 we were really just able to cover very well 5 through E-mail. I send out an E-mail. 6 Committee members look at it. Thumbs up, 7 thumbs down. Sometimes some good discussion. 8 And reach resolution. 9 One of the topics we covered 10 recently, Richard, I'm not sure if it's part 11 of the agenda, but maybe it's okay to bring 12 up now since it's a steering committee 13 function was there was a suggestion by the 14 newly named CHAMP committee. I promise not 15 to steal Ira's thunder because he'll take it 16 through on how he got that name. But one of 17 the suggestions by the CHAMP committee was it 18 would be nice if the steering committees had 19 for the purpose of moving quickly, if the 20 individual, I said steering committees, I 21 meant the operating committees, the three 22 operating subcommittees, if they had the 23 right to allocate up to $10,000 and approve 24 up to a $10,000 expenditure. We treated that 25 at the steering committee level. And again, 15 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 we got agreement on that. 3 And I think that facilitated the 4 process of Ira being able to move ahead with 5 his committee. Based on the total amount of 6 money that is being offered by Nielsen, we 7 thought 10,000 was a reasonable number. I 8 don't think we necessarily put a cap on how 9 often you can go back to the well. But that 10 10,000 was a pragmatic number that would also 11 be available to the other committees as 12 needed. Those are the kinds of items we have 13 been doing. And we didn't have to meet for 14 that. We just did that by E-mail. 15 MR. ZACKON: Is there concensus 16 for that? 17 Does anyone think that's 18 inappropriate just in the case of hastening 19 things forward? 20 MS. BURNS: Can I just suggest 21 that when that happens, fine, that you okay 22 it, but you send out a committeewide just 23 letting us know you're spent 10,000 on that. 24 MR. HESS: Yes. Sounds good. 25 I think we found that there are 16 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 just issues like that that come up between 3 meetings of the full Council that just make 4 sense to let's have a steering committee to 5 make those things happen quickly. 6 Again, if somebody is interested 7 I don't think you necessarily have to declare 8 yourself right now, unless you want to, you 9 can see me later or send me an E-mail. 10 Thanks, Richard. 11 MR. ZACKON: We have today our 12 first actual proposal for the full Council to 13 vote on. And we have three committee 14 reports, each of them are in varying states 15 in terms of -- 16 A VOICE: Can you talk a little 17 louder? It's real hard to hear. 18 MR. ZACKON: I'm not not talking 19 into that. Is that better? 20 A VOICE: A little bit. 21 MR. ZACKON: I'll face there. 22 How's that? 23 MR. BROOKS: Richard, before we 24 move on that, can I just ask one question 25 about the charter. 17 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 The Nielsen charter, I think, 3 understand. Is this something you're looking 4 for comments or is this sort of a done deal? 5 MR. ZACKON: It's not a done deal. 6 If you do have comments on it, we do want to 7 open up this arena for discussion, but please 8 submit them to either Mike or submit them to 9 me or Mark. They essentially translate my 10 weaker legalese into stronger legalese. 11 Can you hear me now? 12 A VOICE: Richard, we really 13 can't hear you at all. 14 A VOICE: It's really bad. 15 Mark, are you having a real 16 problem? 17 MR. ZACKON: How about if I sit 18 here. I'm right by the speaker here. That's 19 the good news. The bad news is that Ceril is 20 about to speak. 21 A VOICE: You'll have to move him 22 over towards the speaker. 23 MR. ZACKON: Ceril, would you say 24 hello and see if you can hear me. 25 MS. SHAGRIN: Okay. I'll move. 18 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 MR. ZACKON: By the way, for those 3 of you, you should have received the agenda 4 if you're on the phone, but we have a speaker 5 coming from the Annenberg School at 3:30. So 6 that's what we're up against. We need to get 7 people here in New York out by 4:00. 8 So, Ceril, if you would share 9 with us the proposals on the table. 10 MS. SHAGRIN: I think everybody 11 got a copy of the proposals, the full 12 proposals and the summary of the proposals. 13 Before we go through them I want to publicly 14 thank Paul Levrakas who has been a huge asset 15 to our group. I also want to acknowledge the 16 fact that members of this committee have had 17 multiple meetings and devoted an inordinate 18 amount of time, both learning issues of 19 nonresponse and reviewing the proposal and 20 got it to where it is today. 21 And while we look at it as two 22 proposals and we've separated it into two 23 proposals. We really need to think about it 24 and a proposal to study nonresponse to better 25 understand nonresponse bias, mention a 19 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 nonresponse bias, learn more about those who 3 respond and those who do not respond. And 4 even though initially we were targeting to 5 get a response rate of 80 percent from each 6 of the sells, the latest version of the 7 proposal includes going back to that last 20 8 percent and using whatever methods are 9 possible to try and get that last hard core 10 nonresponder to give us information. 11 We've invited Paul to be here 12 today so that if you had any detailed 13 questions he could answer them. But we are 14 doing a very similar study for diaries as 15 well as people-metered homes. Because we 16 feel we don't want to assume that what we 17 learn about meter home response is applicable 18 to diary or vice versa. And if you look at 19 the detailed study, we're really going into 20 all the possible sells for the diary and the 21 available sells for the meter. 22 We're going to collect viewing 23 information. We are asking Nielsen to 24 conduct the data collection. Once we get the 25 data collection, we plan to use both Nielsen 20 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 and an outside source, perhaps Bob Groves, to 3 analyze that data and help us go to the next 4 step which is how do we get those who create 5 a bias, maybe not all nonresponders, create a 6 bias, but how do we get those people then to 7 corroborate, which will be the second phase 8 and next year's effort. 9 We're also going to probably use 10 someone like Bob Groves in doing the 11 questionnaire, in refining the questionnaire. 12 But the committee working with experts will 13 refine the questionnaire and provide Nielsen 14 with the questionnaire. 15 So if any of you have any 16 questions, now's the time to ask them. We're 17 pretty excited about this. We've worked 18 really hard. 19 MR. SUSSMAN: Ceril, I didn't see 20 it in the plans. But are you basically just 21 identifying -- can you guys hear me? 22 A VOICE: No. 23 A VOICE: No, not at all. 24 MR. SUSSMAN: We'll try this: My 25 question is the variables that you're looking 21 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 at are probably demographic and various 3 things about the household. 4 One of the questions that we came 5 up with yesterday in another meeting was as 6 the people meters rolled out into DVR homes, 7 there are still homes that are not 8 participating. And it would be good to know 9 if the DVR homes that are coming into the 10 sample are different than the ones that are 11 not. 12 So even on a technology basis, do 13 you think we can get an idea of there's a 14 type of person who just doesn't want us to 15 touch their equipment? 16 MS. SHAGRIN: I think that's in 17 the proposal. We are going to go back to 18 technically difficult homes. We're going to 19 go back to homes that agree and then dropped 20 right out. We're really looking at all 21 aspects of nonresponse; both those that 22 provide, say they're going to be in the 23 sample, those that would be in the sample but 24 Nielsen can't meter, and those who say, yes, 25 and then drop out. 22 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 And the same way in the diary. 3 We're even going to go after the ones where 4 we couldn't even contact them, where Nielsen 5 couldn't even contact them by phone. 6 A VOICE: There's only 100 7 nationally in Nielsen's national sample. 8 There's only 100 on DVR homes. So getting 9 the cooperation right now really qualifies to 10 be very difficult. 11 MR. POLTRACK: Currently, 3.5 12 percent. 13 MS. BURNS: Of the sample. 14 MR. POLTRACK: 3.5 percent of the 15 sample. 16 MS. SHAGRIN: One of the initial 17 changes we made is, this is like I don't know 18 how many versions of the proposal, but one of 19 the initial changes we made was to increase 20 sample size so that we would be able to 21 segment within each of the sells as well. 22 MR. DeVAULT: Ceril? 23 MR. ZACKON: Henry. 24 MR. DeVAULT: You can repeat my 25 question. First I'm on the nonresponse 23 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 committee. So don't think this is a knock on 3 the nonresponse committee. Because I worked 4 on these things. 5 MR. ZACKON: Henry's not knocking 6 the nonresponse committee. 7 MR. DeVAULT: By I want to ask a 8 philosophical question. Given the fact that 9 Nielsen may be moving away from diary 10 methodology or significantly less reliance 11 upon that, are we spending a lot of time, 12 effort and money on something which may 13 become less prominent as far as measurement 14 tools in the future? 15 And I guess that's to Paul and to 16 the group at large. 17 MR. DONATO: Henry and I had just 18 a five-minute conversation before this 19 started, this meeting. And just so we can 20 kind of get the background and the facts that 21 obviously we've announced there's this 90-day 22 plan in which case we'll be announcing 23 sequence of steps and the process that we'll 24 go through to test, right, to follow the 25 video, basically. 24 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 MS. BURNS: Follow the video. 3 MR. DONATO: That is the 4 measurement of any screen that you could see 5 video on which includes video iPODs and cell 6 phones and Internet. Traditional out-of-home 7 and in-homes. And that's obviously going to 8 have an impact. 9 And, Henry, I was thinking about 10 it. That's going to impact not just diary 11 service, but obviously that impacts even the 12 meter services. Because now we're going to 13 be, there'll be a nonresponse element video 14 iPODS, and a nonresponse element to allowing 15 it to load up your computer with software. 16 That said, and anybody who's a 17 member of the MRC will soon see a response 18 that we're sending back to them about the 19 diary service. That it is very possible, you 20 know, looking out when, let's say, 2008. And 21 I don't have a date. And I'm not authorized 22 to give a date. But when we were looking at 23 PPMs, the schedule for PPM was 2008 was going 24 to be the first time you were going to start 25 to see markets appear. 25 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 So looking out over the next 3 three years, it's very possible that metered 4 markets could begin to see a change in the 5 way we meter. It's possible that diary 6 services could, even if there is a diary that 7 remained, the function of the diaries may be 8 very, very different. 9 Without giving away the plan, 10 we've talked about mailable meters for a year 11 now. And certainly one possibility for a 12 mailable meter is that, let's say the market 13 can support only setting meters rather than 14 people metering. One option is just an 15 option that currently we're thinking about is 16 a location diary. That you might still have 17 the diary but now the only obligation is to 18 record whether or not you're in the room. 19 You don't have to record stationary, anything 20 like that, because there's now a portable set 21 meter on the set. So it's actually not just 22 diaries. Everything is changing or 23 potentially changing. 24 And, unfortunately, I can't give 25 you a schedule for this because that's what 26 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 we're all working on right now. And you need 3 to make a decision, you know, about the 4 research and its relevance moving forward. 5 My personal feeling is that, you 6 know, recruitment by telephone for diary 7 research, this information is today, it will 8 be important for several years to come. And 9 it probably will be important as we transform 10 the diary into something else. 11 And since the same exact thing 12 could be said about meters because meters 13 aren't going to be static either, kind of 14 you're not going to do it, you can't wait 15 until a change occurs because then you're 16 never going to get the answers to these 17 questions. 18 MR. LEVRAKAS: Ceril and Paul, if 19 I can add something methodologically for your 20 consideration, the Committee's consideration. 21 And Paul just touched on it there. 22 You've got two basic bodies that 23 are different here. You've got your people 24 meter mode where you've got recruitment 25 occurring in person, you've got testing going 27 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 on in person. Whereas, the diary currently, 3 and as Paul just said, future methodologies 4 that are likely to replace the diary or the 5 diary is likely to evolve into are much more 6 likely to rely on mail and telephone as the 7 primary recruitment mode. That's not to say 8 that we might, and probably Internet also at 9 some point, it's not to say we wouldn't 10 evolve into something that has some in-person 11 component. And nonresponse clearly is 12 affected by the mode. 13 And so that Henry is correct. 14 That the current diary as it now stands and 15 as Paul is saying isn't likely to exist many 16 years from now. But I think what the 17 methodology is going to provide you is going 18 to generalize into the future. 19 MS. SHAGRIN: Regardless of the 20 tool, we're still going to have to have the 21 sample. We're still going to have to recruit 22 the sample. And we're going to have 23 nonresponse. And we are going to learn a lot 24 from this in terms of nonresponse in terms of 25 incentives, in terms of contingent 28 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 incentives, whether there is a difference 3 between in-person and by the phone. How you 4 get the hardest hard core responders, 5 nonresponders to respond. All of those 6 issues are going to exist. And we can't wait 7 three years from now to start this research. 8 We have to do it now so that when 9 we go to new methodologies, when Nielsen goes 10 to different tools to collect data, we do it 11 with better response rates than we have 12 today. 13 So on behalf of the nonresponse 14 committee, I am looking for approval from the 15 entire group to go forward with these 16 proposals. 17 MR. ZACKON: Ceril, might this 18 particular method become a model for those 19 other technologies if Nielsen migrates away 20 from the diary, so the research we'll be 21 doing, Ceril, will be replicated with a 22 mailable meter, phone software, whatever? 23 MS. SHAGRIN: It may be. It all 24 depends on how you're going to recruit and 25 what we learn. If what we learn that it's 29 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 the instruments itself that keeps people from 3 responding, then we will want to do research 4 to see whether this new instrument increases 5 response. But we have to start. We have to 6 start somewhere. And if we don't start now, 7 we'll be sitting here a couple of years from 8 now. Response rates are going down. They're 9 not going up. 10 MR. IVIE: This is George Ivie. 11 I just wanted to add a couple of things. 12 Paul may have mentioned this. But mailable 13 meter strategy that Nielsen may be pursuing 14 in the future, it's likely to have still some 15 diary component associated with it to get 16 demography unless it becomes a mailable 17 people meter. 18 And the other thing I just wanted 19 to mention. I don't know if the Nielsen 20 people were going to mention this, but 21 yesterday we had a meeting of the NSI 22 customer alliance, which is a broad group of 23 market customers. And Nielsen in their 24 presentation that these two proposals were 25 being put forward in the Council For Research 30 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 Excellence. And people in the NSI customer 3 alliance, they live with the diary. And they 4 understand its impact even in meter diary 5 markets right now. And they voted to endorse 6 the fact that they believe these two 7 proposals should be done. I just wanted to 8 let you know that. 9 MS. GALLAGHER: One of my 10 concerns is that the proposal doesn't include 11 any costs for the Nielsen person time. And 12 I'm just wondering if this person time is 13 going, as a course of 16 months going 14 forward, if this person time becomes an 15 onerous burden as Nielsen thinks, then it 16 starts dragging the project out. Because 17 it's kind of a Blanche DuBois-type of thing 18 where you're relying on them to do it without 19 remuneration. And would it be better to like 20 figure in a cost and get a guarantee that 21 it's going to get done, rather than kind of 22 waiting for something that's going to keep 23 getting pushed to the bottom of the 24 priorities. 25 MS. SHAGRIN: My understanding is 31 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 that Nielsen has made that commitment to us. 3 That if we go ahead with these proposals 4 there will be people who'll be dedicated. 5 The committee is certainly going to keep on 6 top of it. 7 It's another one of the reasons 8 that Paul is here, is because he's going to 9 be our primary contact. We would not have 10 made these proposals or share these proposals 11 with the whole group if Nielsen had not made 12 the commitment to us that they would stay on 13 this time line, right? 14 MR. DONATO: Agreed. 15 MS. SHAGRIN: Any other 16 questions? 17 MR. ZACKON: What's the total 18 dollar amount that we're looking at, Ceril? 19 MS. SHAGRIN: It's about a 20 million dollars. 21 MR. DeVAULT: 380 was for the 22 diary. 23 MR. ZACKON: 780, plus any 24 analysis that we would take outside? 25 MS. SHAGRIN: Right. 32 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 MR. LEVRAKAS: Ceril, the 3 additional efforts to get response from that 4 remaining estimated 20 percent is additional 5 costs also. 6 MS. SHAGRIN: That's why my 7 number. And I didn't bring it with me. But 8 we're looking at approximately a million 9 dollars. 10 MR. ZACKON: And we have 11 $2,490,000; is that correct? 12 MS. SHAGRIN: Yes. We didn't 13 spend 2005 dollars. Let's hurry up and spend 14 it. 15 MR. ZACKON: Other questions? 16 Now, we don't have a formal 17 voting mechanism for this, so I think on this 18 one, and we may want to create one as part of 19 the bylaws, but I think a straight majority 20 vote, one person-one vote would suffice. So 21 we could do a public vote, or just ask yeas 22 and nays and count hands or count voices on 23 the phone. So why don't we. 24 Mark, does that work for you? 25 MR. KALINE: I'm fine with it. I 33 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 think, you know, I want to, I just want to 3 take a second and really commend the 4 committee for the work on this. It's great. 5 It's really, I think, progressive and what 6 this whole initiative is about. And I look 7 forward to seeing some of the findings once 8 the work actually gets going. 9 MR. HESS: I'd like to clarify 10 Richard and/or Mark, what does a yes vote 11 mean, exactly? 12 MR. ZACKON: It means that we're 13 going to go ahead and begin approval on these 14 two pieces of research. There'll still be 15 other opportunities to work. And I imagine 16 the questionnaires will get reviewed. And 17 that could go out to the full Council so 18 people will have other opportunities. But it 19 means we're committing as a Council to pursue 20 the study. 21 MR. HESS: Does it also mean 22 based on the charter, the spirit of this 23 work, that Nielsen, in turn, commits to fund 24 this, or does Nielsen still have some rights 25 to say no, modify, et cetera? 34 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 MR. ZACKON: Paul? 3 MR. DONATO: I don't know if we 4 have rights. But we're not saying no. We're 5 supporting it. 6 MR. ZACKON: I think Nielsen is on 7 the record. 8 By the way, another element of 9 this that I appreciate is the purpose of the 10 Council was to bring in client priorities to 11 the process of R&D. And this particular 12 study, Paul Levrakas had originally put 13 together a year or two ago. And for whatever 14 reasons, at the time, was not at the top of 15 the list for Nielsen. So it would actually 16 represent the clients through this Council 17 saying, hey, we think you should do this 18 which is consistent with the purpose. 19 So by a show of hands in the 20 room, how many people favor supporting this 21 research? 22 How many people oppose supporting 23 this research? Wow. 24 On the phone, how many people 25 favor supporting it. 35 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 A VOICE: I think we all said 3 yes. 4 MR. ZACKON: I think someone said 5 aye twice. 6 A VOICE: That was Mark Kaline, I 7 believe. 8 MR. KALINE: Thanks a lot. 9 MR. ZACKON: I'm very gratified. 10 Because we can now go back essentially to our 11 stakeholders who are the Nielsen client 12 community next week and say that we committed 13 to our first piece of research in the field. 14 MR. LEVRAKAS: With a unanimous 15 vote. 16 MR. ZACKON: With a unanimous 17 vote. 18 MS. SHAGRIN: I think that's 19 really important. And I, again, want to 20 thank not only everybody here for agreeing to 21 do this, but a lot of work that was done by 22 the committee members and Paul. 23 MR. ZACKON: Add my 24 congratulations too. You've really done a 25 wonderful job. 36 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 Someone on the phone? 3 A VOICE: No. It was very well 4 done and very well written. 5 MR. ZACKON: Very good. And 6 congratulations to Paul -- 7 MR. LEVRAKAS: Thank you. 8 MR. ZACKON: -- who's been a 9 wonderful ally in this. And to Donato for 10 hiring Paul Levrakas. 11 MR. ZACKON: Ceril, anything else 12 from your committee? 13 MS. SHAGRIN: You have the list 14 of committee members; don't you? 15 MR. ZACKON: I was walking away 16 with a suit full of cash here. 17 MR. GLOECKLER: I was asking who 18 else was on the committee. 19 MR. ZACKON: Ceril, you want to 20 tell us who's on the committee? 21 MS. SHAGRIN: I'm so thrilled 22 when what's happened I may leave someone 23 else's name out. 24 Do you have the chart that has 25 everybody's name on it? 37 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 MS. BURNS: Just thank your 3 mother and that will cover it. 4 MR. ZACKON: You'll see it on the 5 powerpoint. George was part of that. George 6 Ivie? 7 MR. IVIE: Yes. 8 MR. ZACKON: Was part of that 9 group. 10 Well, congratulations to the 11 Council for achieving that. 12 MS. SHAGRIN: Nielsen client. I 13 have a list of other commitments. 14 MR. ZACKON: Our next committee to 15 hear from is the Ira Sussman. And what was 16 called the valid use of data and then became 17 the proper use of data. 18 Ira, do you want to tell us about 19 your current incarnation and what you're up 20 to? 21 MR. SUSSMAN: Can everybody hear 22 me near this microphone? 23 A VOICE: Can you get closer. 24 MR. ZACKON: Take my seat over 25 here. 38 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 MS. SHAGRIN: Richard, that's 3 your fourth seat. 4 MR. ZACKON: As long as the 5 music's playing I'll keep going. 6 MR. SUSSMAN: How's that? Hello. 7 Can anybody hear me now? Okay. Good. Okay. 8 We started off with this idea of 9 proper data use because there's so many 10 streams of data. There's so much data being 11 used out there. And all the research so far 12 that we've come up with ideas was about 13 methodology. How to do it better on 14 collection or measurement. And this is the 15 other side of the people in the business and 16 how they use the data. And are they doing it 17 the right way, wrong way. Are they pushing 18 the data too far. 19 The idea came up of an 20 investigation into that. We changed the name 21 only to really get a good acronym. So now 22 we're CHAMP. But we're the Committee to Help 23 Advance Marketplace Practice. That was 24 better than CHIMP, which was Help Improve 25 Market. 39 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 But the whole idea here is that 3 we see this as a kind of a few steps in the 4 process. And I'll take you through it. The 5 first step we believe is to understand what 6 the marketplace is doing insofar as 7 practices. And try to identify issues and 8 hopefully come out with best practice. 9 So the committee has had a bunch 10 of meetings. We've talked about this from 11 all different angles before we even came to 12 this, this kind of direction. The idea is 13 that there's a complex matrix of variables in 14 the negotiated marketplace. And we've 15 created these matrices to look at. And I'm 16 not going to show it to you today, but see it 17 next week at the meeting. 18 There's multiple data streams, 19 multiple practices. You have, for example, 20 you start off with geography. Either looking 21 at it from a national perspective or local 22 perspective. Then you're looking at what's 23 today appropriate. LPM, PPM, diary meter. 24 It could be diary alone. Some sort of 25 monitoring. Down the line commercial. 40 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 We're looking at all different 3 ways of looking at in doing and performing 4 our business. Different parts of the 5 process. Monitoring. Post by. It's all 6 different perspective. 7 There's also perspective of the 8 buyer, the seller, from a research 9 perspective, from the client side. 10 Everybody's kind of putting different 11 pressures on this marketplace. 12 Then there's the advertiser 13 objective. A movie theater trying to put, 14 busting keisters. Somebody who's just 15 looking for as many eyeballs as they can over 16 time can influence how that buy is done. 17 So what we're trying to do is 18 understand in that complexity, are there 19 certain patterns of practice that are the 20 norm. People kind of behave like this. And, 21 more importantly, are there certain practices 22 that are driving people crazy and giving us 23 problems in doing business. 24 So can we identify best practice, 25 maybe identify a lofty goal of this improved 41 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 practice without telling anybody they're 3 doing anything wrong. And come out in a 4 marketplace with some white paper. Or 5 really, I think it might not even be a white 6 paper. I think it might be, the first step 7 might be a white paper on what we learned. 8 But it may suggest new research on certain 9 practices that are currently happening out 10 there. And try to do some statistical 11 research to say, well, that's good or bad, or 12 maybe there's a better way. 13 We may need to do a further quant 14 study to understand how deep that concern is 15 throughout the marketplace. Are a lot of 16 people doing it that way, whatever it is. 17 And it might actually suggest, and this came 18 up a lot, changes or directions to third 19 party providers. Because a lot of things 20 that we do today are because the systems only 21 allow us to do it that way. That might be a 22 pressure on a practice that is not best 23 practice. 24 So we have, we've done pretty 25 much I think we've had preliminary 42 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 discussions on what we're trying to do on the 3 research methods. We've created this matrix. 4 We've engaged somebody to perform these 5 interviews. I don't know if you know Dave 6 Sarnow, but he's coming on board to do this. 7 He is, I think, the right personality to 8 perform these interviews. And really, we're 9 also right now in the process of developing a 10 list of practitioners. And we want to go 11 bosses. We want to go to people who do the 12 day-to-day stuff. Maybe if one of you gets a 13 call to be interviewed you might want to go 14 through this process and then bring in one of 15 the people who work for you who actually 16 might be dealing with some of these issues on 17 a more day-to-day basis. 18 And you put together a standard 19 in your building. Maybe it's not really 20 being carried through because they can't do 21 that. The whole idea here is to complete our 22 discussion guide. Actually start doing the 23 interviews by the end of March through April. 24 And hopefully be able to report back in May 25 on the result. 43 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 So we're looking for input. And 3 this is where we're spending our first ten 4 grand. So, we are looking for ideas from 5 this room and from every place else on people 6 to interview who we think really could talk 7 about the whole buyer-seller process from 8 their perspective, but might also be able to 9 point out. 10 It would be interesting to me if 11 we talk to a local television salesperson who 12 is kind of saying I can't do my job because 13 at this small agency they have a process of 14 practice that doesn't work for me. We want 15 to kind of notify stuff like that. So names 16 would be great. We're going to do some test 17 interviews among people within our own 18 subcommittee to kind of figure out how to go. 19 I think it's a process. The first interview 20 we're going to do is going to be very 21 different from the last because we want to 22 learn as we go along. So that's where we 23 are. 24 The last, the next thing that 25 we're actually besides starting this process 44 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 is really trying to nail down what the report 3 specs are going to be. What is that report 4 back to this committee going to be like. And 5 a lot has happened this week right before 6 this meeting. So we are working on a lot of 7 things right now. 8 Any questions or input? 9 MR. WURTZEL: I'm sorry, what's 10 the budget for? 11 MR. SUSSMAN: Ten. And that's 12 from helping develop kind of this discussion 13 guide, doing probably between 20, 25 14 interviews at this point, in-depth 15 interviews. A lot of them, hopefully, 16 geographical. If possible, in person. 17 Otherwise by maybe E-mailing sample documents 18 to go through, to really go through in-depth 19 interviews. And then to develop a report 20 back to this committee. 21 MR. DeVAULT: Do you have a 22 target in terms of who? 23 A VOICE: Ira, is it possible, or 24 is it too early for you to send by E-mail to 25 the members what you are referring to. 45 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 MR. SUSSMAN: Absolutely, I can 3 do that. I'm just presenting it at the 4 national meeting on Tuesday. So everybody 5 here should get a copy. 6 MR. ZACKON: I'll send out the 7 powerpoints from that national meeting as 8 soon as the final deck is put together. 9 A VOICE: Okay. Great. 10 MR. DeVAULT: Ira, do you have a 11 target in terms of the composition of who you 12 want to interview? 13 MR. SUSSMAN: I think we're still 14 working on that. And the way I said, it's 15 fluid. I think initially we want to do some 16 easy interviews to really learn what, you 17 know, how some of these things are going to 18 go. But I think we want to talk to buyers, 19 sellers, researchers, media auditor possibly, 20 maybe a third party processor. 21 Really get a full, and from 22 higher up down, down to more users of the 23 data. So I think we're going to put together 24 a grid. What we're doing is collecting fifty 25 names. And then we're going to highlight the 46 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 ones that we want to go to in order to try to 3 get a good cross-section. 4 MS. CUCCINELLO: Looking on the 5 sale side as well as the buy? 6 MR. SUSSMAN: Absolutely. 7 MR. HESS: Since we're already 8 spending, what was the number; a million 9 bucks, plus 10,000? What's the current 10 vision in terms of how big our number? 11 Because I'm on the committee. But how big 12 our number might eventually be beyond the 10? 13 MR. SUSSMAN: Well, the 10 will 14 cover reporting back to this group in May. I 15 think the next step is, if we want to, I 16 don't know what the next step will be. It 17 may be a suggestion to do a piece of research 18 on this is a layup. But it's not what we 19 would do. Plus or minus 10 percent procedure 20 in the marketplace on vote day, what we do. 21 More research to answer that question or 22 something that comes out of our learning. Or 23 would we do a quant study to say, all right, 24 people are trying to host on overnight in LPM 25 market this way. How many people are doing 47 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 it. Doing more of a survey out to the 3 industry to find out that that's a new 4 current policy or procedure. 5 MR. HESS: I think, I mainly 6 brought it up so that people will have a 7 sense. It won't be a mil, but, you know, 8 something in the six figure range. But it's 9 not going to burn up. 10 MR. SUSSMAN: I can't see it 11 topping up over 6. But absolutely. 12 MR. HESS: Okay. 13 MS. BRILL: I have a question. 14 Will this also cover how 15 information gets used in presentations on 16 both sides of the desk? 17 MS. BURNS: Liberty has to be 18 granted there. 19 MR. SUSSMAN: I think we don't 20 know that. I think that part of an issue 21 might come up and say that when data is 22 presented and it's not sourced correctly, 23 it's a problem. And then it's an issue. But 24 so maybe when you're interviewed that will be 25 an issue. I think that we don't know what 48 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 the issues are until we go out there and see 3 if one person says it's a little thing, if 4 eight people say it's really important. 5 A VOICE: A difference between a 6 sales presentation and then a post-buy 7 presentation, specifically talking about 8 sales visitations. 9 MS. BRILL: The way numbers get 10 reported to the press, that's another big 11 issue. 12 MS. SIRKIN: It's a buy/sell 13 process. 14 MR. ZACKON: Joe Mandese is 15 waiting for a subpoena. 16 MR. SUSSMAN: It's how the 17 currency is seen across all levels. 18 MR. KALINE: Or heaven forbid, 19 how they get presented in the upfront 20 presentation. 21 MS. SIRKIN: Are we willing to -- 22 MR. SUSSMAN: We could. 23 MR. ZACKON: Did you hear that on 24 the phone? 25 Kate, you want to repeat the 49 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 question. 3 MS. SIRKIN: We will be asking 4 some questions about life and life plus one 5 and life plus 7. 6 MR. SUSSMAN: Right. 7 MS. SIRKIN: All that kind of 8 stuff. 9 A VOICE: We all have our point 10 of view on that. 11 MS. BURNS: Shari brings up a 12 good point. You have press in there, I would 13 imagine, no? 14 MS. SIRKIN: No. Buyer-seller is 15 the intent. 16 MR. SUSSMAN: The intent of this 17 was proper use of data. And if we wanted to 18 expand it to other areas, we could. I think 19 we could all comment on how the press uses it 20 without asking them. 21 I think what we're trying to 22 really learn is is everybody goes into the 23 market with kind of a different perspective. 24 And as a seller, for example, you're dealing 25 with different agencies in different parts of 50 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 the country that try to do different things. 3 And some you do business more easily with 4 than others, to put it nicely. 5 We're trying to uncover some of 6 those things that might not be as apparent. 7 And rather it be your problem, we bring it up 8 to the level where it's an industry problem. 9 And maybe we can do something about it. But 10 they're using this data all over the place. 11 And we're not trying to get at all of that. 12 MR. HESS: One possibility is 13 what if maybe it comes out of those 14 interviews like in the invoice a number of 15 people make a comment. Well, hey, we use it, 16 okay. And here's how we use it 17 buying/selling, but other people. So maybe a 18 sufficient percolation comes back. And then 19 that would have critical mass. 20 MS. GALLAGHER: What kind of end 21 product do you envision? 22 What do you kind of envision is 23 going to be the end product? 24 MR. SUSSMAN: I guess my vision 25 is that we as a Council with advertisers and 51 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 agencies, agencies and buyers and sellers, 3 and a good representative of the industry can 4 come out with a point of view or a paper or a 5 guideline on better practices. And maybe 6 that's supported with some further research 7 that shows statistically why that's the case. 8 And maybe economically you see why certain 9 practices would save you money to avoid other 10 things. 11 And especially, and I totally 12 think that this group is a little bit better 13 because it's supported by advertisers. And 14 you get the client involved it means more. 15 And hopefully we're less biased. And we are 16 coming from all sides of the desks. 17 So if we can come out with maybe 18 it doesn't change marketplace practice. I 19 mean, that's really hard to do. That's 20 behavioral. But if we can come out with 21 something to point at that the industry 22 practice or the industry guidelines are such 23 when doing this in this market and this 24 effect. I think that's positive. 25 It's better than where we are 52 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 today where everybody is kind of making up 3 their own rules. The LPM is out. The 4 bedroom measurement is out. Because we're 5 going to beat the death out of data. It's 6 okay to go out to collection device, but you 7 still have to be careful how you report it 8 and use it. 9 MS. BURNS: We supply this 10 information to the presentation so that they 11 can help us sell it publicly. It's probably 12 the most impactfull selling tools is your 13 public declaration. Out of control. 14 MR. SUSSMAN: I guess I'm kind of 15 stuck in the conversation that a buyer and 16 seller has the trading of paperwork, the use 17 of the data to support how I estimate my 18 program and then how I post it, currency. 19 MR. HESS: Here's a thought. If 20 we're getting hung up on press versus what 21 this committee wants to do, I think 22 especially with Richard sitting around, 23 thumbs up or thumbs down on what I'm about to 24 say, there's always room for another 25 committee. Maybe there's a committee. If we 53 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 want to be limited to just this, to keep it 3 pretty clean, so to speak, and really nail 4 best practices for buyer-seller, maybe 5 there's another committee that then takes on 6 the explicit perspective on, hey, how should 7 this information be given, disgorged to the 8 press. 9 MS. LIGUORI: It's also possible 10 to come up in the interviews used by the 11 press. So I think why don't you just wait 12 and see, and, you know... 13 MR. SUSSMAN: I'm not against 14 this being a phase 2. Because, like I said, 15 we're going to learn stuff in these 16 interviews and maybe just someplace to be out 17 there. That that's a phase 2 emphasis. 18 Right now we're just doing it's 19 focus groups of people who are in the 20 process, buy/sell negotiating with currency 21 today. And how is that being used. And 22 we're going to focus groups now to understand 23 issues. And then what things we want to 24 learn and try to effect in the marketplace. 25 Let's take that next. 54 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 Right now we're really, I think 3 there's just so much that we don't know, or 4 stuff that we know but we don't want three of 5 us sitting around a table saying what we 6 think. We want a lot of people's input and 7 kind of get some sort of basic concensus. 8 MS. BURNS: Who are you going to 9 interview? 10 MR. SUSSMAN: We are going to 11 makes a big list and sit down and try to get 12 a -- 13 MS. SIRKIN: You have to wait for 14 the sellers nonresponse thing to make sure. 15 MR. HESS: We don't want any 16 nonresponse. 17 MR. SUSSMAN: It's going to be a 18 good cross-section. If we want to take it to 19 the Council for their opinion on it, or if we 20 just want to do it, it's going to be a 21 cross-section of buyers, sellers, et cetera, 22 from the top and then down. Hopefully, we do 23 a good job. 24 MR. ZACKON: Joanne, would it make 25 a difference to you? You're interested in 55 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 the press. And I can appreciate if in Dave's 3 probes if he just puts a question out there. 4 MS. BURNS: That's what I was 5 going to suggest; how you use it with the 6 press. You might not be thinking to say 7 that. We all use it with the press. So just 8 ask the question. 9 MR. SUSSMAN: Okay. 10 MS. BURNS: No? 11 MR. SUSSMAN: It's okay. I'm 12 just thinking not all sides do that, but all 13 sellers. 14 MR. HESS: One of the things that 15 Richard and I discussed in terms of steering 16 committee issues is we're going to make the 17 working assumption that Nielsen will continue 18 to fund this group and that we're going to go 19 ahead, okay. That's a working assumption. 20 If I have any no's, I'll stop right now. But 21 I think that it does make sense. I didn't 22 bring it up in my steering committee summary. 23 But I think it does make sense to think about 24 we're not frozen with three, four committees. 25 We came up with that. 56 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 There was energy behind three 3 committees. I think this discussion, I 4 think, lends itself to the consideration of 5 how do we create extra committees. And what 6 if people in this room or on the phone have 7 energy to create another committee. I think 8 we're open to do that. 9 MR. ZACKON: I think it's time 10 regarding than just energy. 11 MR. HESS: Or energy. But 12 whatever it takes. I think for this specific 13 one there's two ways to go. One is phase 2. 14 The other one is maybe we want a separate 15 press committee vis-a-vis CHAMP. 16 MR. SUSSMAN: It could become 17 part of the conversation. I'm really not 18 against that. I'm just looking at the 19 complexity of what I just laid out there. 20 There's so many variables right now of how or 21 what we're trying to catch. Press could be 22 in there. I'm not saying. But it may be big 23 enough that it's really. 24 MS. PANTANINI: I would suggest 25 that even before we he have any discussions 57 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 on another committee, that we go back to the 3 original list of eighteen. Because obviously 4 these three rose to the top. And we have to 5 go back and readdress that list and say, 6 okay, now, where does a potential other 7 committee fall in priority order. 8 MR. ZACKON: Jessica, where do you 9 think that should happen? Should that be 10 within Mike's steering committee or should we 11 open it up? 12 MS. PANTANINI: I think it's 13 right to sit right here and see where it 14 takes us. If it warrants being a part of 15 that, great, fabulous. If it doesn't and 16 there's still energy around it, then we can 17 talk about it again. 18 MR. SUSSMAN: Well, thanks. 19 Let's see what Dave thinks about it. Right 20 now we're not asking to bring a lot of stuff 21 into the conversation right off. So we'll 22 see. We'll make him aware that that's one of 23 the variables. 24 MR. ZACKON: Other questions for 25 Ira? Betsey. 58 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 MS. FRANK: I have a question. 3 And at the risk of biting the hand that is 4 going to give us the money, one of my latest 5 concerns, given the three streams of data 6 that we've been getting since December 26th, 7 but who's counting, has been that there's a 8 lot of issues regarding how representative 9 these waves of DVR homes are relative to, you 10 know, what will ultimately hopefully be a 11 representative sample when we get to that 12 point. But I think we're pretty far away 13 from it. 14 And yet, the way the industry is 15 playing fast-and-loose with this data as if 16 it has the same credibility as the data that 17 Nielsen was publishing a year ago, is this 18 something that we can explore as well, 19 whether Nielsen has an obligation to either 20 weigh in on certain data that is being 21 misused in the marketplace. 22 I mean, is this something that 23 this proposal could get at? 24 MS. LIGUORI: It's kind of along 25 the lines of assuming that PPM goes forward 59 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 as radio only in Houston and television 3 stations continue to encode and changes are 4 made in the methodologies sampled the Metro, 5 any television data coming out of there, 6 which there will be, how valid is that to 7 use. So I definitely see these things as 8 coming up in as part of it. 9 MS. SHAGRIN: In fact, I thought 10 that was part of the original design of the 11 committee as saying, you know, until the 12 sample size gets to be X, no one should be 13 using the time shifted data with X being 14 defined by Nielsen in terms of the 15 reliability, okay. We're going to give it to 16 you. You can look at it. You can touch it. 17 But really, it's not reliable data until X 18 percent of the sample is installed. 19 The same in terms of which TV 20 data is reliable and which isn't. Because 21 there's a lot of it out there. I thought 22 that was going to be part of the work of this 23 committee. Maybe it's a next step of the 24 committee and maybe it's a separate 25 committee. But the reliability of estimates 60 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 that are released, whether you're talking 3 about posting overnight LPM data or whether 4 you're talking about subsamples or you're 5 talking about other forms of data, I think 6 there need to be some guidelines. 7 MR. SUSSMAN: I think you're 8 right. I think we backed up a step to make 9 sure that we didn't make up all the issues in 10 the marketplace. We wanted to go out there 11 and learn. 12 MS. SHAGRIN: I agree with what 13 you're doing. I'm just saying that I think 14 it was part about design. 15 MR. SUSSMAN: I'd almost enjoy a 16 kind of parallel to this. Everybody in this 17 group kind of going through this process. 18 Because I think we all, because we stepped up 19 and were participating here, have a lot to 20 say. But I don't think that this group is 21 also represented with the marketplace. So I 22 wouldn't want this to be who we're 23 interviewing. But I think that, you know, 24 there's a lot of stuff coming up here that 25 absolutely should be on the table. But I 61 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 don't think it should be in place of talking 3 to a lot of the people that we're planning on 4 talking to who I don't get to talk to ever; 5 people in smaller markets, people who are 6 online every day. 7 MS. LIGUORI: Double the cost. 8 Make it 20,000. More questions, more 9 interviews, I mean. 10 MR. DONATO: I want to just 11 respond to what Ceril says. I agree 12 responsibility of providing an interpretation 13 of the reliability of the DVR data as it 14 builds clearly. 15 My guess is, I don't want to put 16 words into a charter or anything that if this 17 were to be part of something that you 18 authorize it's because you want to be able to 19 study the pro or con independently of 20 Nielsen. You may still require Nielsen 21 resources to get access to the data or 22 whatever, but the monies from the Council 23 would allow you, not to have us do it, but 24 for you to hire a consultant to take a look 25 at it. And maybe the right way to approach 62 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 this is both, if that would make you feel 3 more comfortable. 4 MR. STERNBERG: This is Steve 5 Sternberg. I just wanted to make one comment 6 here. I think this is all well and good to 7 talk about how we should research, you know, 8 whether we should use this type of DVR data 9 or that type of DVR data. But I think the 10 fundamental issue is way beyond that. 11 I think that as long as Nielsen 12 puts that out there, it makes no difference 13 what we say and no difference what we come up 14 with. The industry is not going to pay any 15 attention. The networks are going to say we 16 have to use this type of data for business 17 reasons. Nielsen's reporting it. Nielsen 18 stands behind it. 19 As long as you have only one 20 stream of data in the and only one stream of 21 data, the investors are always going to have 22 that excuse; that that's what Nielsen stands 23 on. And Nielsen can say until they're blue 24 in the face, we're just data providers and we 25 don't stand behind anything. And we just put 63 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 the data out there. I don't think anything 3 that we do about that is going to have any 4 effect on what the industry heads are doing. 5 MR. BROOKS: I think we have to 6 be, I'm just looking at the charter here, the 7 charter talks about methodological research, 8 investigation into methodological research 9 projects, advance the knowledge of 10 methodological research. I think we have to 11 be careful about getting too far into 12 commercial speech and presentations and press 13 releases. 14 As I see it, the purpose of this 15 group is, and what Nielsen has agreed to fund 16 understandably, is accuracy of data 17 presentation in terms of making sure that the 18 user knows what it is. Which is important. 19 But the further you go beyond that and that I 20 want people to present things in the way I 21 want to see them, I think that you're getting 22 into kind of dangerous territory there. And 23 I don't think any reporter's ever going to 24 come to you, to what we say they ought to put 25 in their chart; nor should they, frankly. 64 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 And people when they present their upfronts 3 and so forth, they're going to give their 4 best face. And they're going to do what 5 they're going to do. And they're all smart. 6 And I don't think you can conform people on 7 that level. 8 Moreover, it goes beyond what the 9 basic charter of this group is. I understand 10 what Ira's committee is doing. And I think 11 that still is rooted somewhat in methodology. 12 But I think I'm hearing things well beyond 13 that that make me somewhat uncomfortable. 14 MR. ZACKON: Remarks? Anything 15 else from your committee? 16 MR. SUSSMAN: It's easier to 17 spend a mil than it was to spend ten grand. 18 MR. ZACKON: Well said. 19 MR. SUSSMAN: With that, thank 20 you. 21 MR. ZACKON: The illustrious 22 nature of the members of this committee is 23 indicated that we had Mike Hess on the cover 24 of Ad Week last week. A Million Dollar Woman 25 in Ceril over there. We have Ira as a CHAMP. 65 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 And now we come to Wonder Woman. Ceril and 3 Sheri Anne Brill who received the Wonder Woman 4 Award this week. 5 So Sheri Anne. 6 MS. BRILL: Hi, everyone. Good 7 afternoon. 8 First of all, I want to thank 9 Richard Zackon for facilitating such a great 10 committee effort. And I want to thank all of 11 the committee members on our media 12 consumption, and actually, we have a new name 13 now too. So I guess a lot of us have renamed 14 ourselves. We are now officially the Media 15 Consumption and Engagement Committee. 16 A VOICE: Maybe we can call it 17 MACE. 18 MS. BRILL: We can explore that. 19 We'll take it to a vote later. 20 A VOICE: You got to have an 21 acronym here. 22 What is consumption engagements? 23 MS. BRILL: Okay. It works. 24 I'd like to thank my co-chair 25 Steve Sternberg, Tim Brooks, Joanne Burns, 66 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 Vicky Champlin, I'm not sure I'm saying the 3 name correctly, Vicky Champlin, and Jack 4 Wakshlag for all the hard work. 5 Also, one more thing that I have 6 to mention. Tim Brooks has kindly stepped in 7 on behalf of Steve Sternberg and myself who 8 cannot be present at the national client 9 meeting next week because we have other 10 obligations on the west coast. That is the 11 Network Development meetings. It's so hard 12 to be in two places at once. I wish when I 13 got that Wonder Woman Award that I could have 14 gotten superpowers. You know what it's like 15 to be in two places at once. But we can't. 16 And thank you, Tim, for stepping up to the 17 plate for us. 18 Anyway, just to recap, when our 19 committee was formed we were exploring the 20 key issues. And our key issues that we 21 wanted to review is that we need to dimension 22 the current consumption of media. And we 23 need to focus specifically on what's 24 happening in the area of TV and video and how 25 it's changing and will change over time. 67 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 Our second mandate was to propose 3 the optimal form of video media measurement. 4 And the reason this is important is because 5 it's vital that we understand the consumer 6 experience because that's the foundation on 7 how any decision for future measurement 8 should be based. Especially the emergence of 9 all the new video technologies that are 10 happening out there across all screens, 11 across a plethora of platforms. And all of 12 the new consumer interactions that are taking 13 place. 14 In fact, next week the March 15 Madness will also, besides being covered on 16 television, viewers can also get the 17 experience on the Internet free of charge. 18 And it will be interesting to be able to 19 capture who the viewers are interacting with 20 this. Because I know a lot of that viewing 21 is also taking place at the workplace. And 22 we need to include that experience there as 23 well. But I also heard that there's going to 24 be a special boss button. So if you are 25 watching the March Madness at work next week, 68 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 specifically on the opening days, you can pop 3 up a spreadsheet quickly in case your boss 4 passes by. So we need to understand 5 everything that consumers are doing with all 6 the current media and emerging media that's 7 out there. 8 So taking all these assumptions 9 into account, we proposed what we thought 10 would be an optimal form of research. And we 11 put together an RFP. The one that we issued 12 invited proposals that would map out the 13 consumer experience level of satisfaction 14 with media, engaged with media, the amount of 15 time shifting, and how they navigate all of 16 these channel-rich environments. 17 Further, the RFP we issued 18 invited proposals to map out the use of all 19 these new technologies, including but not 20 limited to DVR/VCRs because they're still in 21 90 percent of U.S. households. Nielsen 22 should know because they're still measuring 23 how they're being used in recording. HDTV, 24 DVD, video-on-demand, cell phone video, and 25 streaming video which is becoming more and 69 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 more available on a very wide basis. And ad 3 supported, if I may add. How it's occurring 4 on an in-home and out-of-home video 5 consumption experience. And how is this 6 behavior happening with regard to commercial 7 behavior and programming behavior. 8 A few proposals have come in. 9 And we, you know, we wanted to sort of cast a 10 net a bit wider. So we decided to extend the 11 deadline to the end of March and recommend 12 that, and hopefully we'll have a lot of good 13 previously to go through, and our committee 14 will go through the ones that we deem the 15 best and propose them to the main Council 16 meeting that we hope will happen at the end 17 of June 2006 because I'm really busy before 18 that with the upfront. 19 MR. STERNBERG: Shari, I think we 20 have nine proposals that came in so far. 21 MS. BRILL: Hopefully, maybe 22 there'll be a few more. And I don't think we 23 can keep on extending it. I think maybe 24 we'll have to review what we do have on hand. 25 And I know at next week's meeting we could 70 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 put the proposal, the proposal for more RFPs 3 out there. But the turnaround time wouldn't 4 be fast enough to get something out until the 5 end of March. 6 I don't know if it would be 7 prudent to extend it to April 15th, the same 8 day as income tax day just to maybe get a few 9 more to come in. That's something that we 10 can all discuss as a group. 11 MS. BUSLIK: Shari, what about 12 the major companies? 13 MS. BURNS: Who's come in so far? 14 MS. BRILL: The things from the 15 universe, from the academia level we've had. 16 We've got a proposal from the Soviet Union. 17 And I'm sure they have ways of getting people 18 to talk. it really runs the gamut. 19 MS. BUSLIK: But none of the 20 companies? 21 MR. BROOKS: No. There are a 22 couple. 23 MS. FRANK: There are some. And 24 I think a couple of us have been making some 25 phone calls over the last week or so to kind 71 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 of drum up. 3 MS. BRILL: Ideally, our wish 4 would be to commence fieldwork somewhere 5 during third quarter '06, pending approval of 6 the greater Council. Hopefully that we would 7 pick something based on these target dates 8 and then we would have some type of reporting 9 by the end of the year. 10 MR. STERNBERG: And this doesn't 11 necessarily have to be just one of the 12 proposals. We may decide that two or three 13 of them are worthwhile looking into. 14 MS. BRILL: And further, they've 15 come in at so many different price points, 16 ranging from a couple of thousand dollars to 17 amounts that could approach a million. So we 18 really have to take a look at this and see 19 what would really work best for our greater 20 purpose. 21 MR. DeVAULT: Shari, would you, I 22 mean, you said that you wanted to start this 23 in the third quarter, but are you concerned 24 about seasonality? 25 MS. BRILL: You know what, 72 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 there's always a time of year where it's not 3 going to be good. 4 MR. DeVAULT: I did not know if 5 you wanted to study it over the course of the 6 year to kind of like minimize seasonality. 7 Or if you wanted to do it, you know, 8 whenever. But like we just know that Hudson 9 put levels are at their lowest in the third 10 quarter. So I didn't know what the gameplan 11 was. And that's how come I asked the 12 question. 13 MR. ZACKON: Seasonality was one 14 of the variabilities; is it not, Shari? 15 MS. BRILL: It was one of the 16 ones that were outlined in the proposal in 17 terms of mapping the consumer experience. 18 MS. BURNS: Supposed to be 19 ongoing. At some point we have to cross 20 this. Whether it's right or wrong to start 21 with it might be a good question. But we did 22 want to have it be ongoing so that we would 23 have an idea of different seasons. 24 MR. DeVAULT: The only reason I 25 asked the question is because she had said 73 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 that you would start in the third quarter and 3 report at the end of the year. And that 4 would eliminate, you know, the first quarter 5 where you typically have the highest viewing 6 levels. 7 MR. BROOKS: I think we start in 8 the third quarter. It may well be a first 9 wave though. Because we may well do, and we 10 may parse the project into parts as Shari 11 mentioned. So I don't think any of us think 12 that it's going to be over at the end of the 13 third quarter. 14 MS. BRILL: It's not going to be 15 a third quarter study. It's going to be 16 something that we would probably try to put 17 out in the field then. Because our ultimate 18 goal is to get, you know, an ongoing study. 19 MS. BURNS: You want to see how 20 behaviors change over time. That's why we 21 don't want to measure just at one given point 22 in time. 23 MS. BRILL: All year long. And 24 because this is a moving target and there is 25 seasonality with viewing habits and it could 74 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 impact the way the other media gets used. So 3 definitely. 4 MR. SUSSMAN: Shari, do you think 5 that from your initial work on this to now, 6 that you have more information about how you 7 might want to change it to be more, rather 8 than your getting ideas out there in all 9 different directions? 10 You think you have more of an 11 idea how to focus it to get people to -- 12 maybe researchers or companies having trouble 13 getting their head around it as opposed to 14 telling them more about what you want to do. 15 MS. BRILL: Well, the thing is 16 there's so much that we don't know about this 17 increasingly complex media environment, that 18 we wanted to really cast out a very wide net 19 to see what people would come up with. 20 Because it is, if you focus it too much, you 21 run the risk of being too narrow, Ira, and 22 losing the completeness. 23 MR. SUSSMAN: I understand that. 24 But I hear your trouble. 25 MS. BURNS: It's a very detailed 75 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 RFP. That's what Ira's getting at. It's not 3 a broad RFP which I think you were thinking 4 it was. And so new proposals coming in. All 5 different flavors because of this. It's a 6 very detailed RFP just the way people are 7 interpreting it. 8 MS. BRILL: We've asked for a lot 9 of things. But it's not vague. 10 MR. HESS: The comments are 11 coming back or the proposals coming back just 12 in the thousands of dollars. Are they, in 13 fact, addressing everything, or are they 14 limiting to just a piece of it. Because 15 otherwise how could the variation in the 16 dollars be that large? 17 MS. FRANK: Well, the one we're 18 doing in Russia adds a certain -- 19 MR. BROOKS: One or two are very 20 superficial. No doubt that we'll go with 21 that. But the idea say is to start at the 22 40,000 put level. This big, big area. And 23 to drill down and to parse over time. 24 Because if you don't ever get that big 25 picture, if you take part of it, you're 76 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 making implicit assumptions about what the 3 rest of the picture is. It's a very complex 4 media map out there. 5 MS. BUSLIK: Isn't it changing? 6 MR. BROOKS: Yes, it is changing. 7 And part of the basic proposal is to measure 8 this over time. As Joanne was saying 9 earlier, we're looking for something that 10 will attract change. So this isn't going to 11 be limited to the third quarter. But we have 12 to get our feet wet in this and get the big 13 picture first before you move on. I think 14 that's the basic thinking. 15 And, you know, we talked about 16 this in committee. But I think two or three 17 of those proposals personally are very 18 respectable proposals to start with. A 19 couple of them are out in the wild blue 20 yonder. But some of them are very solid as a 21 starting point. And we may get more. 22 MS. BRILL: Any other questions? 23 MS. BURNS: I just want to throw 24 out there to what you said earlier, Paul, 25 it's probably even more important now that we 77 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 start this learning process. One of the 3 intents of this study in the beginning was to 4 learn behaviors to give Nielsen direction on 5 how to measure. Because how do you know what 6 it is that you're measuring? You could be 7 missing something because you had no idea 8 that that activity was taking place. So I 9 think the timing is very good as you move to 10 follow the video type of measurement. 11 MS. BRILL: In the time that we 12 started putting this together, Apple 13 introduced the video iPOD; Sony came out with 14 the PSP. And who even knows what coming down 15 the pike later on in the year. There's 16 always something new being introduced into 17 the marketplace. And just being able to wrap 18 our heads around how consumers are embracing 19 this, you know, this is huge. And that's why 20 it's really important to understand this so 21 we can really begin to think about how are we 22 going to measure this increasingly complex 23 and increasingly diverse marketplace. 24 MS. PANTANINI: From a 25 recruitment perspective, who are we looking 78 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 at? Are we looking at a broad demographic or 3 what is the scope of the recruitment for the 4 responders? 5 MS. BRILL: I would say for now I 6 think it would make probably really good 7 sense to do people age 12 and over. But 8 again, that's a matter for the committee to 9 decide. I don't believe that anyone under 10 age 12 could effectively, you know, 11 effectively articulate the breadth and depth 12 of their media experience. But again, that's 13 something -- 14 MR. DeVAULT: Well, there's a 15 whole industry out there that is programmed 16 specifically to kids. I mean, that's a huge 17 industry unto itself. 18 Now, obviously, my company has a 19 huge investment in that area. And I don't 20 know if it ends up being a separate study. 21 But I think it's a mistake to not include 22 kids' use of media because they're going to 23 be on the front edge. And they often 24 influence how their parents use media. And 25 certainly -- 79 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 MR. STERNBERG: Shari, my 3 six-year-old can probably tell you exactly 4 what he does with media all the time. 5 MS. BRILL: I didn't say we were 6 wedded to 12. I just threw that out there as 7 a possible idea. So we can make it 6, you 8 know. 9 MS. PANTANINI: It's not the 10 reason I was asking. Because I think there 11 was an opportunity for us to learn a lot 12 about how you are using different types of 13 media. And what that means. And the 14 influence that it all affects moving forward 15 as well. 16 MS. SIRKIN: Are we talking all 17 media or just video screen media? 18 MS. PANTANINI: Video. 19 MS. SIRKIN: Video. 20 MS. SHAGRIN: Obviously you're 21 going to look at early adaptors versus people 22 who have the technology for a while which is 23 why it's an ongoing thing for. Because some 24 of the new media is limited to early 25 adaptors. And there have been new media over 80 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 the years that have where we thought it was 3 going to change how people watch television 4 and it disappeared after a short period of 5 time. They like the concept, but it really 6 wasn't the way they wanted to watch. 7 MS. BURNS: We want to trace the 8 novelty factor when something's first 9 introduced versus over time. So everybody 10 was downloading logs initially because it was 11 the only thing and brand-new. How is that 12 over time. 13 MR. DONATO: What kind of 14 measures are people proposing to track this, 15 track early innovators? The reason why I ask 16 the question is almost any of these 17 proposals, I mean, it's a very dynamic 18 changing environment. So we're talking about 19 response rate. Nonresponse bias, for 20 example. And we discussed the fact that, 21 well, meters are changing. And I fully agree 22 that you've got to go to field now and get 23 that information. 24 The same could be said in some 25 ways about this. Because we are in the next 81 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 couple of weeks probably discussing some of 3 the tests that we're doing in order to sort 4 out what the best approach is to personal 5 media versus traditional out-of-home and all. 6 Although, in this particular case, we're in a 7 position, I think, of making some 8 announcements as early as next week about the 9 process that we're going to use for testing 10 these things. And you might want to consider 11 that before making a decision. 12 I know you're not going to make a 13 decision in the next week. But I think there 14 will be material that we present to our 15 clients about the process we're doing, this 16 testing, that could affect your decisions on 17 which of these is the best proposals. Maybe 18 once you see what we're doing you would want 19 to select a proposal which is complementary 20 rather than duplicating what we're doing. 21 MS. BURNS: Good point. 22 MR. DONATO: But that's a really 23 short fuse. We'll be in a position of having 24 this discussion in a week. 25 MS. BRILL: Definitely. I guess 82 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 I'll have to get a leave behind. Anyway, as 3 I mentioned earlier, we decided because 4 there's been such an interest on the part of 5 the industry to explore the dynamics of 6 engagement with both from both a media 7 perspective and an advertising perspective, 8 we had brought in engagements under the 9 auspices of the media consumption committee, 10 so we're going to be doing a further 11 exploration to further identify other linkage 12 between media and advertising exposure. 13 And what happened with Bruce 14 Garolick? Did he accept the chair, do you 15 know? 16 MR. ZACKON: Temporary chair. 17 I've not heard back from him on that. 18 MS. BRILL: Oh, okay. 19 MR. ZACKON: I'll step in to 20 support. I understand you're an upfront. I 21 don't have an upfront market to be concerned 22 about. We'll keep progress going some way. 23 MS. BRILL: Well, thank you. 24 MR. ZACKON: Thank you, Shari. 25 We're about to hear from Joe 83 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 Turow. 3 Before we do, I want to introduce 4 and acknowledge Rebecca Mitchell. Rebecca, 5 you want to raise your hand. Rebecca has 6 stepped up to the role as the facilitator's 7 facilitator. And if you saw this room at a 8 quarter to 2:00, you can appreciate what 9 Rebecca brings to the task. We were all set 10 up. So, thank you, Rebecca. 11 Also, while we're here, Mark, are 12 you going to be down in Orlando? 13 MR. KALINE: Yes, I will. 14 MR. ZACKON: Because I wanted to 15 talk to you about the presentation, if we 16 needed any powerpoints for that. 17 MR. KALINE: Okay. 18 MR. ZACKON: Okay. And one other 19 piece is the best date. It speaks to the 20 limiting factor for the work of the Council 21 is not money and it's not smarts, it's the 22 time availability of the people on this 23 Council. And June 28th proved to be the best 24 day in June. And four people couldn't make 25 it that day. So I don't know how we resolve 84 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 this ongoingly. But right now we're looking 3 at June 28th in the afternoon for the next 4 date In New York. And if you can't make it 5 that date, let us know and we'll see if we 6 can move it. But that was the best and four 7 people couldn't make it. 8 A VOICE: I was one of them that 9 couldn't make it that day. 10 MR. ZACKON: Right. And there are 11 three others. 12 I'm going to ask Jack Wakshlag, 13 are you on the call? 14 MR. WAKSHLAG: Yes, I am. 15 MR. ZACKON: Jack evidently has a 16 long history or at least an ancient history 17 with our guest today. So, Jack, if you 18 would. Actually before we do, is there any 19 other business of the Council. Jessica? 20 MS. PANTANINI: Just real quick. 21 Because part of the reason I'm sure I'm here 22 is because of the expertise that I represent. 23 So for Ira, for Shari, I just want to remind 24 everyone as we go out and we conduct 25 research, to ensure that we have proper 85 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 representation of Hispanics by language 3 segmented, as well as African-American, and 4 Asian as the Asian population grows. So my 2 5 cents, please. Don't forget or else you'll 6 get an E-mail from us. 7 MR. ZACKON: We only give a penny 8 for your thoughts, Jessica. 9 MS. BRILL: For me that type of 10 thing is automatic. 11 MR. ZACKON: And I know, Ceril, 12 that's included in your study as well; is it 13 not? 14 MS. SHAGRIN: Yes. 15 MR. ZACKON: Any other pieces of 16 business before I turn this over to Jack? 17 Jack, it's your show. 18 MR. WAKSHLAG: Is Mr. Turow in 19 the room? 20 MR. TUROW: Yes. I'm here 21 virtually. I'm in Rancho Mirage, California. 22 MR. WAKSHLAG: I hope the 23 weather is good. 24 MR. TUROW: Same as in 25 Philadelphia. Philadelphia is 70 degrees 86 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 today. 3 A VOICE: About what it is in New 4 York right now. 5 MR. WAKSHLAG: Let me introduce 6 someone who I've known for quite a long time. 7 And at the end of my little introduction, get 8 a sense of what that means. 9 I want to introduce Joseph Turow, 10 Joe Turow to you. Joe Turow is the Robert 11 Louis Schein Professor of Communications and 12 Associate Dean for Graduate Studies at the 13 University in Pennsylvania's Annenberg School 14 for Communication. And is the head of their 15 information, the information and society 16 division at the University of Pennsylvania's 17 Annenberg Public Policy Center. That all 18 sounds wonderful. He is among the most 19 widely published and thought-provoking 20 academics looking at media and society. And 21 is very well published and very widely read. 22 And his specialty of late has been focusing 23 on the possible social ramifications of media 24 measurement and market fragmentation. And is 25 assembling in very short order a conference 87 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 designed to examine the effects of market 3 fragmentation on society and social 4 structures. He also is a graduate of the 5 University of Pennsylvania, receiving his 6 Ph.D. in 1976; a Master's degree from the 7 Annenberg School in 1973. And a BA in 8 English from the University of Pennsylvania 9 as well. 10 But none of that really matters. 11 Because what really matters is that Joe and I 12 went to Hebrew school at the Yeshiva of 13 Flatbush together in Brooklyn. And when I 14 forget my tsitzis, Joe made sure that the 15 teacher knew. 16 MR. TUROW: Is that true? I 17 don't know if that's true. But all right, 18 I'll accept that. 19 MR. WAKSHLAG: You'll have to 20 give me dramatic license. 21 Now, Joe is a very influential 22 and very well respected and well thought of 23 academic who brings unique and different 24 insights. And as we sort of look and focus 25 on the day-to-day, he looks at the very 88 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 long-range picture. And has apparently been 3 right more often than not. Which is to his 4 credit and to the credit of those he works 5 with. 6 So let me introduce today for 7 some insights on how he sees media moving, 8 Joe Turow. 9 MR. TUROW: Thank you, Jack. I 10 never really figured out whether I was right 11 or wrong. But it's an interesting point to 12 make. Hope that's true. 13 I thank for you listening to me. 14 I'm always wary of talking to people in the 15 business. Because I guess I feel that you 16 guys know so much. And I'm an outsider, to 17 an extent, looking in. And maybe I bring 18 some insights, but I hope I'm not just going 19 to be redundant to everything you've been 20 talking about today and everything you know 21 already. If I am, please challenge me and 22 ask me maybe some other things and maybe I 23 can answer them. The talk, the way I've 24 titled this thing/talk I'm going to give for 25 about twenty minutes and open it up. But 89 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 that's not true. If anybody wants to stop me 3 or ask me a question or challenge me, that 4 will be great as well. So we work it both 5 ways. 6 I call it the Industrial 7 Construction of Audience Realities in a 8 Changing Media Environment. And the reason, 9 I know, of course one of the reasons this 10 whole subcommittee is set up and the 11 committee on top of the committee that I 12 belong to has to deal with these incredible 13 changes that are going on. And I don't have 14 to mention them. Even the little parts that 15 I've heard you talk about. It's quite clear 16 that everybody is on the same page with that. 17 But what I want to talk about is a different 18 way perhaps of looking at what it means to 19 talk about audiences. It will be an 20 interesting question as to whether that can 21 be helpful or not in a day-to-day way. But 22 I'll try it anyway. 23 I start with the notion of the 24 industrial constructions of audience. And 25 what I mean by that is that there's no such 90 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 thing as an audience in any concrete way. I 3 mean, that may be obvious to you. I find 4 that with my students and other people I talk 5 to it's not necessarily obvious. That is an 6 audience is by its very nature constructed. 7 We can go to a zoo and see a 8 zebra. And that zebra's there. But when we 9 talk about selections of people whether 10 they're in front of me in a classroom or 11 outside there in television land, we're 12 always somehow making up categories about 13 them. 14 When I talk to students I'm 15 defining them as students. For example, in a 16 class, in society, if I was rewarded 17 differently, if, for example, I was there to 18 talk about Broadway shows or skiing, my whole 19 conception of who they are would be very 20 different. So to some extent how you 21 construct an audience has to do with the 22 rawards system we are under. And so that's 23 one of the basic ideas that audiences are 24 constructed. And they're constructed 25 industrially from the standpoint that we're 91 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 discussing. That is, why is 18 to 49 a key 3 way of constructing audiences? It has to do, 4 of course, with advertisers' interests. By 5 the way, I have tried to figure out why 18 to 6 49. Why not 18 to 50? I once actually a 7 number of years ago called Nielsen's up about 8 this. If anybody knows, I'd be really happy 9 to find out. That seems to be lost in the 10 mist of history. 11 At any rate, the second point is 12 that there is something that we might call 13 the industrial construction of industry 14 realities which very much relates to the 15 kinds of things that are going on now. That 16 is, an industry clearly changes over time. 17 If we're talking about the media system, it 18 changes over time. And the question is how 19 do these changes work themselves out. And 20 one way in which they work themselves out has 21 to do with the way people talk about the 22 nature of the challenges and then act on 23 them. And, of course, these kinds of things 24 take place all the time. They don't just 25 take place at any one moment in time. But 92 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 they're especially noticeable during times of 3 major business changes. The kinds of things 4 that are going on today. 5 Various stakeholders try to 6 define audience realities to match their 7 interests. And so you have different people 8 bringing up different types of definitions. 9 And I'll give some examples in a little bit. 10 But clearly, stakeholders, trying to define, 11 for example, what the Latino audience is. 12 What is a woman? We'll talk about that. It 13 may seem very obvious. 14 But the whole question is how do 15 we think of audiences? Who's an important 16 audience? What's a teenager? What do we 17 care about? Trade magazines amplify the 18 differences and the changes that are going 19 on, because clearly, like any kind of news 20 source, trade magazines and industry meetings 21 are often focusing on the new. You know, the 22 basic boring stuff, the day-to-day stuff are 23 not things that -- nothing much happened in 24 the fact that television is still a major 25 media. That's not what advertising wants to 93 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 talk about. So trade magazines amplify the 3 differences and the changes. 4 And what you find very often, and 5 I worked on this some years ago for my book 6 Breaking Up America, is that the people who 7 talk in the trade, whether it be in the 8 magazines or meetings and even sometimes 9 Berlin's, the time frame for change is 10 incredibly narrow. Everybody wants to talk 11 in five years, you know. Things are going to 12 happen in five years, maybe six years. 13 One time at a meeting having to 14 do with cell phones I talked to somebody I 15 think from NexTel. And I suggested that 16 something might happen in eight or nine 17 years. He got angry. Eight or nine years? 18 That's so long from now. God, it's not going 19 to happen that far off. 20 And so the consequence of this is 21 that you have this grand, I don't know if you 22 want to call it optimism or fright about 23 what's happening; that these things are going 24 to happen right away. Or there's the other 25 side of it where people shrug and they say 94 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 that's ridiculous. And it's not going to 3 happen at all. And so there are these polls 4 that we kind of go to. 5 But the whole notion of society 6 ideas, people will often attribute that to 7 the reward system of organization. And, of 8 course, a lot of people hope that the real 9 changes aren't going to happen until after 10 they retire so one doesn't have to deal with 11 it. But the issue of the time frame is 12 really interesting. And that time frame 13 turns out to be realistic. 14 But what it does do is it serves 15 to create what I would call a strategic logic 16 about what the problems are and how to 17 approach them. So if you look at the trade 18 dress, this course is at industry meetings 19 not with having to do what's really going on 20 in any kind of quantitative sense of reality 21 and its specification. But if you say how 22 are people trying to create a strategic logic 23 about the future that will make them look 24 good in which they jockey for control, and 25 that strategic logic plays out over the long 95 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 term and has consequences, part of what's 3 going on now with Nielsen is to develop a 4 strategic logic about the future of 5 measurement. That may not have implications 6 necessarily for this year or even the next, 7 but will have its own consequence for the way 8 the media are dealt with down the line. 9 And we give a bunch of examples. 10 I mean, if you look back in history, the 11 spread of radio didn't happen right away. 12 But a certain strategic logic about the 13 nature of radio began really with Sarnoff and 14 the turn of the 1920s. And the same thing, 15 the spread of television and its affect on 16 radio. You could follow that kind of 17 discussion and how radio people panicked and 18 moved in certain ways. But I'd like to focus 19 on the current exigencies, the current issues 20 around media which began, really, you can go 21 back to the late 1970s and early 1980s. 22 Talk about concerns over media 23 fragmentation and advertising clutter in the 24 case of frenetic Americans. I actually did a 25 study of this looking at trade magazines from 96 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 the -- I read, believe it or not, every issue 3 of Advertising Age from 1976 to around 1995. 4 And I know it's actually very interesting, 5 and I've been reading Ad Age since 1967. But 6 I went back and I looked at it and created 7 databases. And what if you look at Ad Age 8 not as a way of saying who got the latest 9 client or what's the latest agency reversal, 10 but what PR advertisers trying to say to each 11 other about the nature of American society. 12 To me, that's the interesting part of it. 13 And how does that then affect the media 14 system. 15 You begin to see some very 16 interesting things. And in the turn of the 17 '80s there was almost a panic about a number 18 of things that companies like Procter & 19 Gamble were beginning to get worried about. 20 One had to do with what they saw as the 21 impending media fragmentation, channel 22 fragmentation. Another had to do with the 23 movement of women out of the home, 24 interesting enough. And advertisers were 25 also very early on, when they dealt with it 97 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 early on is another story, but they were very 3 early on realizing the importance of the 4 Hispanic audience as early as the late '70s, 5 early 1980s. 6 So what you begin to have is a 7 whole discourse about what American society 8 is like. And also trying to see the media as 9 reflective of certain fundamental changes, 10 whether they're true or not. 11 So this whole story began to be 12 created that American society was united 13 during World War II over the war, over basic 14 goals. And after the war, and particularly 15 during the Vietnam War, the society started 16 fragmenting. 17 Network television, the notion 18 was was great in the post-war era because 19 Americans were united anyway. And everybody 20 wanted to watch television. But given the 21 way the '70s happened, now America was 22 dividing. And the new media were reflective 23 of that change. 24 And the question is how do we 25 take advantage of it. In the beginning, 98 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 companies and like P&G were really scared. 3 And they didn't want to see the change. And 4 slowly they began to realize that some of 5 their manufacturing prowess could actually be 6 mapped on those changes. So now I think how 7 many Tides are there, thirteen? Back in the 8 1970s I think there were one or two; scented 9 Tide, unscented Tide. 10 And so you see some very 11 interesting changes in terms of the 12 manufacturing differences having to do with 13 nichefication. You know, trying to piggyback 14 upon, and also reflect the realization of 15 changes in the media system. 16 Then you had changes, questions 17 about, as I started saying, about women, 18 which is really interesting. How do we look 19 at women? It used to be very simple. Women 20 were reached by the Seven Sisters magazines. 21 And, you know, soaps, and some cushion. Then 22 when you start seeing middle and upper middle 23 class women leaving the home by this became 24 an issue in the late '70s, there were 25 literally questions about how do we 99 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 understand women today. And I remember 3 reading a couple of articles. Is an 4 executive woman more like a man than like a 5 woman. And the whole question how do we 6 radio. Formats began to change. We began to 7 realize that women were in the car more 8 simply because they were going to work. And 9 so if you see the whole cascade of changes as 10 a result of perceived changes in the society 11 at large, perceived changes in media, worries 12 about impending changes in media which, in 13 turn, related to manufacturing and sales and 14 retail situations, really having 15 ramifications in the whole media system. 16 You also see interesting 17 examples. And you can do a fascinating case 18 study of this around the video. Very small 19 percentages of Americans external have TiVo. 20 And even if you look at DVR. But if you look 21 at Foster Research and a few others, if you 22 look at Josh Bernoff as far as research who 23 some years back started saying that by 2005, 24 you have it in the piece I gave you, 25 something like 60 or 70 percent of Americans 100 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 will have digital video recorders at home. 3 And everything is going to change. Time 4 shifting is going to be enormous. And as a 5 result, advertisers are going to have to 6 really rethink the whole situation. He said, 7 I think it was around 2000, about how 8 everybody's going to be able to buy Rachel's 9 sweater. "Friends," you know. And clearly, 10 even male realized this isn't going to happen 11 soon. But what it does it force people to 12 create. Scenarios and logic. The amount of 13 time and effort spent in media guide business 14 and in the trade press about how to deal with 15 digital video recorders is enormous given the 16 number that people actually have. 17 But it has consequences. It has 18 consequences obviously for Nielsen. It has 19 consequences for the way that people think 20 about audience. It has consequences. The 21 whole notion of audience power, which we can 22 have a very interesting discussion about. I 23 think this notion of audience power is 24 exaggerated, depending upon what you think of 25 as an audience. But this whole notion of the 101 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 empowerment in the audience, and now people 3 are talking should you allow audiences to 4 create commercials, which is a whole 5 interesting thing. 6 There was an article in Media 7 Post recently which I think typifies this 8 idea. Tom Hencos wrote, "Is anyone's media 9 consumption typical anymore?" And he goes on 10 on and talks about how people, anecdotally 11 anyway, about how people are so different. 12 That if you polled people in your office, 13 they're always watching totally different 14 things. And you can't even talk about the 15 stuff with them anymore. 16 And then you raise some 17 interesting questions about, you know, the 18 customized universe. If two people watch 60 19 Minutes, but they get different bits of 60 20 Minutes, are they watching the same show. 21 These kind of discussions I would argue 22 should be looked at as data that reflect the 23 industrial construction of audience reality. 24 They feed into building industrial logic; 25 about what to do about it. 102 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 And let me just characterize, if 3 I may, in the last few minutes of what I'm 4 talking about, the sort of elements of the 5 way I see this industrial logic as moving. 6 The idea is that firms need to focus on six 7 things. And that this is, I would argue, the 8 sort of perspective people you think can 9 happen slowly, but I think at any rate it 10 will happen down the line, much further down 11 than people tend to think. 12 And one is interactivity. 13 Clearly, now, you guys, I don't have to talk 14 about this in any detail. But the notion 15 that all media are becoming digital, and 16 therefore, potentially interactive is what I 17 would call screening for appropriateness. 18 Meaning that down the line audiences won't be 19 audiences. That audience will be screened 20 right up front and to whether they're 21 appropriate to the target advertiser. And 22 there are a variety of ways to do this; 23 predominantly by database marketing, is once 24 they're screened for appropriateness, you 25 have targeted tracking of responses. 103 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 Much of this, by the way, is 3 already kind of influenced by the Internet. 4 And a lot of this, and some of the models are 5 being moved over, at least in the industrial 6 logic television. So you have interactivity, 7 screening for appropriateness, targeted 8 tracking. 9 The next is data mining. How we 10 think about that. And I would argue, you 11 know, a lot of times when you say data 12 mining, the first thing that comes out of 13 people's mouths is privacy issues. But what 14 a lot of marketers are beginning to realize 15 is that it ain't necessarily so. Because, 16 and this is to some extent where this phrase 17 niche envy that I reference for this book 18 coming out in the summer sometime, I would 19 argue that essentially what many marketers 20 are moving toward doing on this is not just 21 online or even in the media, but even in 22 stores. We can't have this distinction 23 anymore, I would argue, between media and 24 retail. Again, even physical retail stores. 25 The supermarket is an incredible 104 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 place for media. Really amazing. I tell my 3 students they have to go to the supermarket 4 if you want, a big fancy supermarket if you 5 want to see how media's evolving. But the 6 idea of data mining is that people want to 7 give their data. They will give it up in 8 order to be considered good customers. And 9 there's examples we can go into about that. 10 And then mass customization. 11 So you have interactivity, 12 screening for target the tracking, data 13 mining, magazines customization of 14 commercials, which we already see on the Web 15 that is the creation of specific 16 commercialization for different niches. And 17 even individuals based upon what you know 18 about them. And this is moving very, very 19 fast on the Web, to the point that raises 20 some very interesting questions. 21 Microsoft is even saying that 22 down the line they're going to serve 23 individual ads to people. And if people put 24 their mouse over the ad they will be told why 25 they got that ad and not another ad, which 105 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 may freak some people out. It will be 3 interesting to see. 4 Then the last category is the 5 cultivation of relationships based on all of 6 the things above. So based on interactivity, 7 screening, targeted tracking, data mining, 8 mass customization. And I would argue that 9 if you see that these are the drivers, the 10 logical drivers of where the media are going. 11 Now, is that happening now? In 12 very limited ways. It's very hard to see 13 these things all working together. Here and 14 there you'll see some of it on the Internet. 15 But in modest ways. You see strands of it 16 coming together. 17 What I have here, and we can't go 18 over in detail, but I thought you'd be 19 interested in are those charts which are from 20 E-marketer. And if you look at them there 21 are two dominant trends; one is the Internet 22 of course is still a very small part of the 23 larger advertising world in many ways. But 24 of course the numbers are there to show that 25 the speed by which even the dominant 106 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 marketers are beginning to try to use the 3 Web, either for search engine marketing or in 4 display marketing and branding are really 5 ramping up very, very quickly. 6 If you look, there's a chart 7 which is kind of funny in a way of who the 8 top marketers, the top online marketers are. 9 You see in the first one there, it's down the 10 way in the charts that I gave you, the top 11 online marketer it turns out is a company 12 called Tickle by E-mode. 13 Anybody know what that is? 14 A VOICE: No, I was surprised to 15 see that. I actually was surprised to see 16 some of these numbers because if I had to 17 take dollars, we would fall right in here. 18 MR. TUROW: That's another thing. 19 We don't have to get into the problem with 20 all these numbers. One of the things is the 21 larger E-marketer report gives numbers from 22 different companies, gives projections. 23 Numbers are all over the map. But it turns 24 out this Tickle by E-mode are the E-mode 25 icons that you see on a lot of sites if you 107 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 see go to click on sites and things of that 3 sort. So they're to get people to click on 4 them so they can put Gator into your computer 5 and stuff like that. 6 But then if you, there's another 7 chart next to it. I think it's next to it 8 about the top U.S. advertisers in general. 9 And then as you see the top companies in 10 online and how they're sort of trying to ramp 11 up. 12 In a way it's a bit of a 13 corrective. A bit of a reality check to this 14 sort of enormous bruhaha that's been going on 15 around it. And the numbers are crazy. I was 16 looking at this week's Advertising Age for 17 example. And one late news story posited, I 18 was looking under the Student Today, as a 19 matter of fact, if you read the news story it 20 seems to imply that advertisers spent $48 21 billion on Internet advertising this year, 22 which is crazy. And then it charts two pages 23 later, says that it was really only 10 24 billion. And one of the charts that I gave 25 you says that it was really only 8 or 9 108 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 billion. So a billion here, a billion there. 3 Part of it has to do with how you define the 4 Web. Where do you get your evidences from. 5 And part of it has to do with the jockeying 6 for power that's going on. You know, who can 7 get away with what numbers under what 8 circumstances. 9 And what I would argue is that 10 this kind of thing, in the short run, the 11 changes are not going to be seen as anything 12 major, except in terms of growth. But the 13 larger points though is that advertisers are 14 still focusing most of their attention on 15 traditional media where they believe the 16 audiences are. But the growth rate does 17 point to fundamental changes at work. 18 And industrial construction of 19 industrial reality is a work that will 20 fundamentally change audiences based on the 21 industrial logic that stakeholders are 22 building now. It may take decades. 23 Nevertheless, it has implications 24 for measurement now. Measurement both feeds 25 the stakeholders' debates by constructing the 109 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 audiences' realities. And they must respond 3 to the changes to show that they're 4 forward-looking. 5 The fact that Nielsen is now 6 going to, I think going to audit college 7 students' television habits is really 8 interesting. It is going to. And the whole 9 discourse about what college students do, 10 what do they watch, all this is very -- it 11 constructs a whole new reality. 12 The whole debate about what is an 13 Hispanic. And this is a debate you can see 14 in the trade literature is really 15 interesting. Just like the debate about what 16 a woman is. So measuring that and deciding 17 how to do this is very interesting. 18 There was an article, again, in 19 this week's Ad Age about how do you think 20 about Hispanics. No. Today, how do you 21 think about the Hispanic audience. So I 22 suspected that judging this will, that the 23 power of measurement is enormous. Because 24 companies like Nielsen construct realities as 25 much as they reflect them. And juggling that 110 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 attention well and with integrity is an 3 enormous challenge. So that's what I wanted 4 to say. 5 MR. WAKSHLAG: Thank you. 6 MR. TUROW: You can't throw 7 anything at me from so far away. 8 MR. ZACKON: Are there questions 9 for Joe? 10 MR. HESS: Joe, this is Mike 11 Hess. I have a question about mechanism. 12 And you've probably done a lot of thinking 13 about that. But in the short time you had, 14 you just kind of given us outcomes. 15 What is it that allows one kind 16 of framing to predominant over another kind 17 of framing? In other words, what's the 18 underlying mechanism? Is it amount of noise? 19 Is it the credibility of the source? What 20 are the driving mechanisms? 21 MR. TUROW: That's a really good 22 question. I would suggest that it's a little 23 bit of both of. You said it has to do with 24 the legitimacy of the speakers and how is 25 that directed. You know, what I think, I 111 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 think that is what I call the marketing 3 communication conglomerates, the publicists, 4 the WPPs, the Omnicons are having a major 5 role in trying, nowadays anyway, to define 6 what the future's going to be like from that 7 standpoint. 8 Sometimes you have people who 9 sound like they shoot their mouth off. But 10 they have a lot of influence. Like Rashida 11 Dakawala and people like that who have money 12 behind them to use numbers to their benefit I 13 think do have a lot of impact. So part of it 14 is the size of the company. Part of it is 15 the couple of catchy books that are written 16 that begin to get people buzzing. That kind 17 of thing. 18 MS. LIGUORI: I have a question. 19 Joe, you spoke about defining women and 20 defining Hispanics and the reasons why these 21 became important. 22 Do you have a sense of the next 23 group we should be looking to define? Is it 24 multiracial, is it age? 25 Do you have any sense? 112 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 MR. TUROW: Well, that's 3 interesting. I think everybody's been 4 talking lately about Hispanics of course 5 from a variety standpoint. And Spanglish I 6 think is the big issue. But I think the 7 multiracial is very interesting. But it's 8 not going to happen for a long time. 9 I suspect that the big attention 10 in advertising, this just, you know, may be 11 totally wrong, but I think the big attention 12 that advertisers have been feeling recently 13 is whether to follow baby boomers over the 14 cliff, or to go after the teen audience. And 15 how to do both. And for a long time people 16 were dismissing the idea that anything past 17 49 in terms of the packaged goods companies 18 would really work. I think people have begun 19 to rethink that. 20 But I think what you're beginning 21 to see, which it happened to some extent 22 going back to the turn of the century, but I 23 notice that it's been happening more and more 24 in obvious places, it's what I would call 25 using niche celebrities to construct certain 113 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 kinds of audiences, whereby certain, let me 3 put it this way, you don't worry about 4 insulting audiences who won't understand it 5 even though they would be insulted if they 6 did understand it. 7 So, giving you an example, using 8 Ludacris or using Little Kim as mainstays of 9 a mainstream advertising campaign. If the 10 greater proportion of the American audience 11 is watching the bus ads go by with those 12 people on it or TV commercials read the 13 lyrics of those songs they would have heart 14 attacks, okay. But the fact is they don't. 15 And so what you end up having is 16 kind of under the radar campaigns to reach 17 audiences that have been constructed as sort 18 of audiences within audiences. Teenagers who 19 like rap or urban teens in ways that will 20 resonate with them. But because the older 21 people or other people, because of the 22 nichefication of culture to some extent, 23 people don't know it. 24 And so I think that's one of the 25 major movers now. Getting into the 114 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 categories like teens and saying how can we 3 come up with cutting edge ways to -- am I 4 talking too much? How do we come up with 5 cutting edge ways to reach those people that 6 make it seem as though we're talking right to 7 them and understand them. And sometime it 8 may mean pushing away other people. But that 9 won't matter because the other people won't 10 be concerned with it anyway. Or we can talk 11 to them differently. 12 MR. ZACKON: We're at 4 o'clock. 13 I don't know how much more we have. Joe, I 14 know he and Jack have to get home for 15 Shabbas. 16 MR. TUROW: Right. I'm willing 17 to stay here if anybody thinks I'm saying 18 anything interesting. 19 MR. ZACKON: You certainly 20 validated inviting people from our technical 21 advisory board in the meeting and maintain 22 the high standards that Bob Groves set last 23 time. 24 Should we call it a day or be 25 willing to get some more time with Joe? 115 1 Research Excellence - March 10, 2006 2 Let's call it a day and get people back to 3 their jobs. 4 Excellent, Joe. 5 MR. TUROW: Thank you. 6 MR. ZACKON: Thank you, everyone 7 here. Good work. 8 (Time noted: 4:00 p.m.) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 116 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T E 3 4 STATE OF NEW YORK) 5 : ss 6 COUNTY OF NEW YORK) 7 8 I, ROBERT M. LEVINE, CM a Shorthand Reporter 9 and Notary Public within and for the State of New 10 York, do hereby certify: 11 That the proceedings hereinbefore set forth 12 was a true record of same given by such 13 participants. 14 I further certify that I am not related to 15 any of the parties to this action by blood or 16 marriage, and that I am in no way interested in 17 the outcome of this matter. 18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 19 hand this_______day of________________2006. 20 21 22 _________________________ 23 ROBERT M. LEVINE, CM 24 25