1 1 2 NIELSEN MEDIA RESEARCH -----------------------------------------x 3 COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH EXCELLENCE MEETING OF BOARD MEMBERS 4 -----------------------------------------x 5 March 14, 2008 10:00 a.m. 6 Millennium Broadway Hotel 7 145 West 44th Street New York, New York 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 REGENCY REPORTING, INC. 22 Certified Court Reporters & Videographers 23 425 Eagle Rock Avenue 575 Madison Avenue 24 Roseland, NJ 07068 New York, NY 10022 25 www.regencyreporting.net 1-866-268-7866 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 3 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: RICHARD ZACKON, Facilitator 4 GEORGE IVIE MICHELLE BUSLIK 5 HOWARD SHIMMEL NANCY GALLAGHER 6 PAUL DONATO JEAN GOLDBERG 7 SHARI ANNE BRILL STEVE STERNBERG 8 JACK WAKSHLAG JOANNE BURNS 9 MARK GREENE PRESENT BY PHONE: 10 MIKE HESS, Vice-Chair MARK KALINE 11 IRA SUSSMAN CERIL SHAGRIN 12 BRUCE GOERLICH VICKY CHAMPLIN 13 HENRY DeVAULT PAT LIGUORI 14 JONATHAN SIMMS 15 ALSO PRESENT: 16 REBECCA MITCHELL ANN SANI 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 MR. ZACKON: Okay, researchers. 2 Mike, are you on the line? 3 MR. HESS: Hello. 4 MR. ZACKON: Mark Kaline. We 5 have Mike here. We are starting without 6 Mark, but I believe Mark is going to be on 7 the phone call today. 8 MR. HESS: Yes. I think Mark 9 said he would call in. 10 MR. ZACKON: Why don't we see in 11 the meantime who's here. And let me do 12 something kind of like taking roll just so we 13 know. 14 Melva, are you on the line? 15 Shari Anne is here. Tim has retired, but 16 he's on the list. Hello to him. Joanne 17 Burns, you're here. Michelle is here. 18 Vicky? 19 MS. CHAMPLIN: On the phone. 20 Good morning. 21 MR. ZACKON: Good morning, Vicky. 22 Thank you. 23 Susan. 24 MS. CUCCINELLO: I am here. 25 4 1 MR. ZACKON: On the phone. 2 Henry? 3 MR. SHIMMEL: I don't think he's 4 going to attend. His assistant called my 5 office the other day. 6 MR. ZACKON: He called yesterday. 7 He was going to call in. But we don't have 8 him yet. 9 Paul Donato is here. Nancy 10 Gallagher is here, continuing her perfect 11 attendance. Don Gloeckler. 12 MR. GLOECKLER: I'm here. 13 MR. ZACKON: Thank you, Don, on 14 the phone. Bruce Goerlich. How about Kate? 15 Okay. So the tag team, neither's here yet. 16 Jean is here, welcome. Mike Hess is on the 17 phone. 18 MR. HESS: Yes. 19 MR. ZACKON: George Ivie. 20 MR. IVIE: Right here. 21 MR. ZACKON: Right there. I took 22 my glasses off and didn't see him. Mark 23 Kaline is not yet here. Rick Kielty not yet 24 on the phone. 25 Pat? 5 1 MS. LIGUORI: I'm here with the 2 president. He's up here. 3 MR. ZACKON: Which one? 4 MS. LIGUORI: Bush. He's causing 5 a traffic jam on the Upper West Side. 6 MR. ZACKON: Jessica's not here. 7 I'm told she wouldn't be here. 8 Dave Poltrack, not here. Lyle, 9 not here. Ceril calling in a little late she 10 said. Howard is here. 11 Jonathan? 12 MR. SIMS: I'm here. 13 MR. ZACKON: Counts as here. 14 Steve Sternberg is here. 15 MR. STERNBERG: Here. 16 MR. ZACKON: Ira Sussman will not 17 be here today, thereby ending his streak of 18 perfect attendance. 19 Jack Wakshlag is here and I'm 20 here and Rebeccaa is here. 21 Okay. Has Mark joined us yet? 22 Then, Mike, it's the Steering 23 Committee. But before we do that I want to 24 just make a couple of announcements. Couple 25 of people I'd like to acknowledge and 6 1 embarrass simultaneously who have been with 2 us for quite some time; one since before day 3 one and one in the last year or two. 4 And I'll start with Howard. 5 Howard has been with Paul or one of our two 6 Nielsen nonvoting representatives on the 7 Council. And this is Howard's last official 8 meeting as a Council representative. He 9 still is with Nielsen. Still will be doing 10 work. And he will be ably replaced by Mark 11 Greene who's sitting to my left. You can 12 call Mark, Howard for at least two meetings. 13 But I just personally want to 14 thank Howard and express on behalf of the 15 Council, appreciation. You were there. You 16 started Nielsen when this Council started and 17 kind of just walked into it before it was 18 even named. And I want to thank you just as 19 a colleague. It's been an absolute pleasure 20 working with you. I had known you for many 21 years before, but never had that pleasure. 22 So thank you personally. Thank you on behalf 23 of the Council. 24 MR. SHIMMEL: Thank you. 25 MR. ZACKON: A lot of you know 7 1 what Howard's done and a lot of you don't 2 know things behind the scenes that Howard's 3 done. For all those things that you've done 4 and things that we don't know, thank you. 5 MR. SHIMMEL: Thank you. 6 MS. BURNS: Does he get a gold 7 star? 8 MR. ZACKON: He got a gold star 9 before. Howard's coming off the Council, 10 thereby no longer entitled to a gold star. 11 And Tim Brooks who's a gold star holder is 12 off the Council. Ira, on the other hand, is 13 just missing a meeting. 14 Another change to announce is 15 Rebecca Mitchell who will no longer be our 16 whatever title that you hold on the Council. 17 And I also want to thank Rebecca. Because 18 Rebecca just picks things up when I drop 19 them. In fact, generally picks them up 20 before I've dropped them. So I thank you for 21 that. And thank you for all you've done 22 holding us together. And she'll be ably 23 replaced by Ann Sani. I got it right after 24 three or four attempts. Ann just joined the 25 Nielsen Company. She holds a Master's in 8 1 Journalism from NYU and works in 2 communication. 3 MR. WAKSHLAG: We won't hold that 4 against her. 5 MR. ZACKON: Things will be 6 spelled before not because of Rebecca's 7 failings but because of audience successes. 8 Welcome, Ann, and welcome, Mark. Thank you, 9 Mark. Thank you Rebecca. And I want to 10 acknowledge at any point. 11 MR. DONATO: I certainly want to 12 thank both Howard and Rebecca. Many people 13 have said it's one of the best things Nielsen 14 has done. And both of you are very much 15 responsible for building it from scratch. 16 So thank you. And good luck in 17 your new initiative. Both Howard and Rebecca 18 have new initiatives which is why they're 19 moving. 20 MR. SHIMMEL: I've had new 21 initiatives. 22 MR. DONATO: You have. Howard's 23 been doing double duty for a year now. 24 MR. ZACKON: I've told Howard 25 he's coming at a good time. And Mark can no 9 1 doubt claim credit for everything. 2 Mike, it's yours for Steering 3 Committee. 4 MR. HESS: Thank you very much. 5 First of all, I would also like 6 to welcome Mark Greene to the committee. 7 I've known Mark for a couple of years now. 8 And I will not be calling him Howard. And I 9 know he's done some really good work on a 10 different project, on Apollo. And so I 11 really anticipate Mark's contribution to the 12 group. So welcome, Mark. 13 I have four different Steering 14 Committee items to handle today. And, first 15 of all, apologies for at the last second I 16 could not be there in person. I did plan to 17 be there. Hopefully, we can cover this 18 pretty easily over the phone. 19 The first one is just to let you 20 know that we have a Steering Committee 21 meeting on February 1st where a number of the 22 topics I'm going to talk about today were 23 covered. 24 First of all, specifically a 25 follow-up on the names that would represent 10 1 are new members. The action steps that have 2 taken place there is that Rebecca, I think 3 Howard, Richard, there's been kind of a pool 4 of people that have been sending me the 5 E-mails, but mainly Rebecca. So thanks for 6 that. 7 And I, in turn, as discussed at 8 that meeting, have sent short E-mails to each 9 E-mail address that I got short messages 10 asking people for a bio, short statement of 11 qualifications. And I think, just as 12 importantly, a statement of what they could 13 contribute to the Council. 14 Now, that's the good news. I've 15 sent out about half a dozen, about four or 16 five to go. But the bad news is I've only 17 gotten one response so far and not more. So, 18 in fairness, I only sent those out about a 19 week ago. But I have not gotten the 20 responses yet. The E-mails have not bounced 21 back. So I'm assuming they went to the right 22 place. 23 I will diligently pursue after 24 this meeting in the next week and the week 25 after with follow-ups just to make sure that 11 1 everybody on that list has a chance to reply. 2 I'll assume at some point that 3 lack of response means lack of interest 4 afterall in joining the Council. So I think 5 because of the importance of this, rather 6 than wait for the next meeting, I will 7 provide an update by E-mail to the CRE as to 8 progress. 9 And, I think, you know, that the 10 goal of this phase is once we have those 11 statements I'm looking for, then to convene a 12 Steering Committee meeting, either in person 13 or by conference call for the purpose of 14 preparing a slate for ideally for the very 15 next CRE meeting or possibly before that by 16 E-mail so everybody can vote on that slate. 17 And thumbs up or thumbs down. 18 So that by the time of the next 19 meeting, which I think, help me out here, 20 probably is in June based on last year's 21 plan. So that we could have the new members 22 seated. So any questions or comments about 23 that? Okay. 24 Then, second, now that we've 25 actually fielded some studies have as a 12 1 committee, we decided on February 1st as 2 promised at the last full CRE meeting to 3 actually have new initiatives that we would 4 bring in front of the entire Council. And we 5 have no less than one, two, three, four, 6 five, six of those. 7 And so I'd like each person, I 8 thought I had heard most of the names, maybe 9 not all. But I'd like each person in the 10 order that shows up in print out that I hope 11 all of you have at the top it says possible 12 new initiatives for the Council For Research 13 Excellence. And I would like to ask each 14 individual to just briefly read that or walk 15 us through it, however you wish. 16 I think at some point in the 17 process, perhaps after that, we probably 18 should ask Nielsen what our actual status is 19 or maybe even before we start that, just what 20 our status is with respect to new projects. 21 I know we're funding a lot, at the same time, 22 Nielsen graciously reupped the funding. 23 And so are we on firm ground by 24 saying that we might have room for a new 25 initiative or two? Is it fair, Paul, to ask 13 1 that now? 2 MR. DONATO: It's fair to ask. 3 All the Nielsen people are looking at each 4 other. I think we're trying to scramble for 5 an answer. 6 MR. ZACKON: I can actually pass 7 that out. Financial. I was going to present 8 that a little later. The answer is yes. 9 There's at least 1.7 million in there for new 10 initiatives. Some of that is likely to go 11 towards the Universe Estimate study that 12 we're contemplating. But we don't expect it 13 to be that much. So it's worthwhile to begin 14 to explore other areas to research. 15 MR. HESS: Okay. Great. So with 16 that in mind, Colleen, can I ask you to start 17 off with at the top, Cross-Platform 18 Consumption. 19 MR. ZACKON: I don't know if 20 Colleen is on the call. 21 MR. HESS: I was writing the 22 names down. I thought I heard a yes. Okay. 23 Well, in that case, without pretending to be 24 expert on everything she has here, let me 25 just kind of walk everybody through it. 14 1 Cross-Platform Consumption. Does 2 the option to watch TV online cannibalize 3 viewing on linear TV. Does VOD or video on 4 demand? Striving to capture actual behavior, 5 not just reported behavior, how is content 6 being consumed in all its forms. Are online, 7 VOD, mobile options additive or a zero sum 8 game. This snapshot would need to be 9 refreshed annually, as tech rolls out, and 10 consumers adopt and evolve. A segmentation 11 is also a likely output of this work. 12 Now, in total for today's 13 Steering Committee time we had about 25 14 minutes slotted. 15 MR. ZACKON: Actually, so that 16 you know, Mike, there's room on the agenda, 17 if you look down, to discuss about those new 18 initiatives. 19 MR. HESS: Oh, okay. 20 MR. ZACKON: So this is really 21 just to introduce what the Steering Committee 22 came up with. And then we'll have time to 23 discuss it. 24 MR. HESS: So let's just 25 I would propose then just walking through 15 1 them now. And then, as time permits at the 2 end, that then actually discussing, how's 3 that? But let's at least introduce them now. 4 So people can kind of mull those over and 5 know what's coming. 6 Okay, next on the list. Pat? 7 MS. LIGUORI: Yes. Commercial 8 Avoidance. 9 Commercial Avoidance. As we 10 reviewed our original list of say 13 or so 11 items and we talked about, we revisited 12 commercial impact, we started talking about 13 the traditional means of avoiding commercial. 14 But also how technology has facilitated it 15 and given it a new dimension, if you will. 16 So that's basically we want to look at the 17 historic drivers of commmercial avoidance and 18 what new ones there might be and the 19 relationship to technology. 20 MS. SHAGRIN: I'm here. 21 MR. HESS: Okay. Good timing. 22 MS. SHAGRIN: I'm in the car. If 23 I have to hang up, I will. 24 MR. HESS: If you can be with us 25 at least three more minutes, what we're doing 16 1 is we're going over the new initiatives. And 2 next on the list is Howard Shimmel. This 3 might be Howard's last official act as a 4 committee member. 5 Howard/Mark, can you take us 6 through passive persons? 7 MR. SHIMMEL: Yes. The idea is 8 that when everything going on in terms of the 9 need to measure more cross-platform, you 10 know, could this committee serve a role in 11 terms of helping to guide investigation of 12 whether there are passive means to measure 13 either presence in the room for TV, or, you 14 know, for instance, in an instance like with 15 What we've announced with 16 measuring Internet, do we actually have to 17 measure who's at the computer or can you 18 impute it? Net ratings has a model that you 19 had called individualization that attempts to 20 estimate who was at the PC for a given 21 session. So the idea is this potential 22 investigation of all of the things that have 23 been considered are in market relative to 24 passive persons measurement cross-platform. 25 MR. HESS: Okay. Thanks, Howard. 17 1 Again, we said we would be 2 discussing all of these later during new 3 initiatives. 4 So, Ceril, your timing is 5 perfect. Can you walk us through your couple 6 of sentences here on measuring cross-media 7 effectiveness? 8 MS. SHAGRIN: Yes. There 9 currently is no single sample and no single 10 source for measuring the effectiveness of 11 advertising across multiple media. There is 12 a perception that that increases awareness 13 and intent to purchase. And what I would 14 like to do is come up with some way of 15 studying this, of measuring the effectiveness 16 of cross-media. 17 MS. BUSLIK: Can I ask a 18 question, Ceril? 19 MR. ZACKON: Question. 20 MS. BUSLIK: How do, one, the 21 first one, cross-platform consumption in 22 measuring cross-media effectiveness differ? 23 MS. SHAGRIN: Well, one is 24 talking. 25 MS. BUSLIK: Couldn't they be 18 1 like one feeding into the other? 2 MS. SHAGRIN: Well, as I -- go 3 ahead, Pat. 4 MR. ZACKON: I'll go ahead. 5 Ceril. 6 MS. SHAGRIN: I think they could 7 feed into one another. One is talking about 8 the impact of multiple media on the consuming 9 of television. The other, or any other 10 media, the other is talking about advertising 11 effectiveness. 12 MS. BUSLIK: Okay. Thanks. 13 MS. LIGOURI: That was not me, 14 Ceril. 15 MS. BURNS: Aren't you saying 16 number one in cross-media? 17 MR. ZACKON: Yes. Number one 18 Colleen had written that up. 19 MS. BURNS: I agree with you. 20 They tend to overlap. And Ceril was 21 addressing number 2, commercial one. 22 MS. BUSLIK: I think it's more. 23 I didn't know if this was the time to discuss 24 it. But it seemed like one. The first one 25 and the most recent one from Ceril. 19 1 MS. BURNS: 1 and 4. I don't see 2 a difference. 3 MR. WAKSHLAG: Oh, I do. Number 4 4. 5 MR. HESS: Can we save that 6 discussion for later? 7 MR. WAKSHLAG: The answer for 8 number 4 is if I put two, an ad on TV, or 9 should I put one ad on TV or VOD and 10 broadband. 11 MS. BURNS: Okay, okay. 12 MR. ZACKON: I would suggest. 13 MR. HESS: This strikes me as 14 discussion. 15 MR. ZACKON: Can we revisit this? 16 MR. HESS: Great discussion. We 17 can have this discussion on the other points. 18 Let's save it for later. 19 Let me walk you through 20 psychographics. Most media targeting 21 planning and buying is done and has been done 22 for a long time on the basis of demographic 23 data. However, there is substantial research 24 evidence in psychographic segments, and 25 related targets, are more likely to represent 20 1 meaningful differences in buying behavior 2 that our demographic segments. A project in 3 this area would examine today's ability to 4 transfer learning ability from psychographic 5 segmentations into actionable media targeting 6 procedures. 7 And Jack already sent a note out 8 challenging this yesterday. But, once again, 9 we'll save that for the later discussion. 10 Thanks Jack. And has Henry joined us yet or 11 not? 12 Henry? 13 MR. ZACKON: Doesn't sound like 14 it. 15 MR. HESS: All right. 16 MR. ZACKON: In fairness to 17 Henry, I actually scripted the text for that. 18 It was Henry's idea. 19 MR. HESS: Well, since you 20 scripted it, Richard, do us the favor of 21 reading that sentence for us. 22 MR. ZACKON: I'll read my script. 23 The CRE can reach out to other 24 organizations working on this issue to 25 identify the methodological implications and 21 1 the Nielsen client community informed. 2 Henry was not so much proposing a 3 new working committee, as he felt that we 4 should be watching what other groups are 5 doing. Because other groups, I think, 6 George, the MRC is involved in this. So that 7 was Henry's point of view. 8 MR. HESS: Is it fair to say 9 there for clarification that that project 10 would not involve an expense to as part of 11 the million dollars or the other ones if we 12 do those. 13 MR. ZACKON: I think that's fair. 14 MR. IVIE: I'm not sure I 15 understand it. What do you mean by watching? 16 MR. ZACKON: Not right and left 17 hand. So that there's someplace where people 18 generally know what's happening. And if 19 there is some research to be done, perhaps, 20 approaching it. That's all. Because people 21 were aware that other entities were engaged 22 in this effort. But they didn't seem to know 23 necessarily what they were doing. Not that 24 the other entities didn't know what they were 25 doing. They didn't know what the other 22 1 entities were doing. 2 MR. SHIMMEL: There was the ANA 3 TV Forum a couple of weeks ago. There was a 4 presentation from the NAB on this specific 5 topic. It may be good just to circulate that 6 to this group. That presentation is 7 available on the ANA website. 8 MR. WAKSHLAG: It might be 9 relatively easy to because there are a lot of 10 companies that are coming to talk to me about 11 what it is they know about this kind of 12 stuff. I mean, they have databases. And we 13 know what percent of people, what percent of 14 the people in Atlanta have analog television 15 sets, blah, blah, blah. So they maintain 16 that kind of stuff. Almost that you could do 17 a call-out, saying we're interested in any 18 company that has information research 19 relevant to. If you do, tell us sort of a 20 nature of that and compile a list. 21 MR. ZACKON: That's exactly 22 basically what Henry proposed. Okay, Mike. 23 MR. HESS: Great. Yes. There's 24 two more items. These actually came up 25 earlier this week in conversations. But 23 1 Richard and I had, prior to today's meeting, 2 in terms of potential new items to discuss. 3 And the first one involves that a 4 consideration on whether or not we as a 5 committee feel that the continued expense of 6 going to hotels such as the one that most of 7 us who are not calling in are at right now. 8 I think the initial philosophy of 9 our first meeting at a hotel space was that 10 that way, for sure, we were physically and I 11 guess psychologically separated from Nielsen. 12 So that we could really demonstrate and feel 13 independent from Nielsen as a committee. 14 Since those were kind of the rules of the 15 game in setting up the Council. We, as a 16 Council, would be independent. We would make 17 recommendations. Nielsen would hopefully 18 fund most of those recommendations, et 19 cetera. 20 The issue today, I guess, it's 21 almost three years later now is do we need to 22 continue to do that or is there potentially a 23 less expensive alternative such as, again, I 24 don't want to speak for Nielsen here, but 25 attending these meetings at Nielsen instead. 24 1 So that is something, Richard, in 2 terms of parliamentary procedure, I guess, 3 without Mark here, this is something that we 4 probably should discuss and debate and then 5 vote on, unless there would be a move to 6 table. 7 But this is something that kind 8 of feels pretty straightforward to me, unless 9 there's major disagreement. So I would 10 recommend we use a few minutes to actually 11 discuss this. And then if I can ask for a 12 vote at the end, then we would have some 13 marching orders coming out of this stuff. 14 So would anybody like to discuss 15 that? Basically, the debate or discussion 16 would be to move the meetings to a less 17 expensive place. I guess, Nielsen, unless I 18 hear Nielsen say no, versus the alternative, 19 continuing in hotel, the alternative, like as 20 present. 21 MR. DONATO: We'd be delighted. 22 That's absolutely fine. 23 MR. ZACKON: So people are aware. 24 The money currently isn't paid out of the 25 fund of the Council. It's currently paid for 25 1 out of monies, supplementary funds. 2 MS. SHAGRIN: If Nielsen couldn't 3 have, I'm sure there are people on the 4 Council that could have, could host the 5 meeting. 6 MR. STERNBERG: Has Nielsen 7 brought this up as an issue? 8 MS. BUSLIK: I'm just concerned 9 that if it moves and it's not in a place that 10 people can call in easily and see the video 11 or whatever we have going, that we'll end up 12 being very unhappy. Especially if it turns 13 out, as today, when so many people can't get 14 here. It's always an issue. This has very 15 good facilities. 16 MR. ZACKON: In answer to Steve's 17 question, Howard actually mentioned to me as 18 a possibility. And since he won't be here 19 ongoingly, you can't continue to blame 20 Howard. 21 MR. SHIMMEL: Just in terms of 22 the viability of the expense, Steve, that's 23 all. The necessity of it. 24 MS. BURNS: What does it run, do 25 you know? 26 1 MR. ZACKON: Who just joined? 2 MR. KALINE: It's Mark. 3 MR. ZACKON: Welcome, Mark. 4 MR. KALINE: Hi guys. 5 MR. ZACKON: Mike, you're out of 6 a job. 7 MR. HESS: Well, I'm still 8 chairman of the Steering Committee. 9 MR. ZACKON: So it's still yours. 10 MR. KALINE: I may need make 11 though -- 12 MR. ZACKON: We all need Mike. 13 MS. BRILL: I have a question. 14 Would the money saved be 15 reinvested in our R&D funds? 16 MS. BURNS: I think it's just 17 looking for what is the cost. Do you know? 18 MS. MITCHELL: It's roughly, 19 $5,000. 20 MR. ZACKON: It's about 20,000 a 21 year. It's going to put us in hotels. 22 MR. IVIE: $5,000 per meeting? 23 My god. 24 MR. DONATO: I have a proposal. 25 Try one. See how it goes. 27 1 MS. BRILL: Money we could be 2 using for good research. 3 MR. IVIE: I don't see an 4 independence reason any longer. I mean, the 5 structure of the committee is very sound and 6 strong, independent from Nielsen. I mean, 7 these meetings aren't highly visible to the 8 outside anyway in terms of perception. So 9 $20,000 is real money. And we can discuss 10 what you do with that money. But I don't see 11 an independence need to drive us here if 12 Nielsen has equivalent facilities. 13 MR. ZACKON: Fair. Anyone else? 14 Should we plan as a test to have 15 our next meeting at Nielsen and see what 16 happens? People know where it is. 17 MR. DONATO: What's the largest 18 number of members we generally have? 19 MR. ZACKON: We're looking to 20 expand. So the next meeting could have 21 conceivably as many as 40. Though even if we 22 expand to the full amount, my sense is if we 23 have 32 of those 40 -- 24 MR. DONATO: That's about our 25 limit. 28 1 MR. HESS: I don't anticipate 2 more than 30 probably showing up at any one 3 point. 4 MR. DONATO: I would say we can 5 handle 30 comfortably. I don't know about 6 40. 7 MR. STERNBERG: Let's try it. 8 MR. DONATO: We have four-screen 9 video conferencing ability. I'm not sure the 10 sound system is good. But we can also, you 11 know, we have an A/V crew. They can set up a 12 sound system. We probably have better video 13 conferencing ability. And we probably have 14 equal WEBX. So why don't we just try it as 15 an experiment and see how it goes. 16 MR. HESS: Is this something we 17 need to formally vote on, or do have a sense 18 of the committee, this is something we want 19 to try to do it. Let's give it a shot. 20 MS. LIGUORI: Depending on what 21 date the next meeting is, I would offer the 22 conference room at ABC. 23 MR. ZACKON: That's generous. 24 MS. LIGUORI: A very large one on 25 the 22nd floor, if it's available. 29 1 MR. ZACKON: Okay. But the since 2 we'll move the June meeting, do you have the 3 date, Rebecca? 4 MS. MITCHELL: It's June 26th. 5 MR. ZACKON: June 26th. That's 6 why we'll miss you, Rebecca. Thanks. 7 We'll move the June meeting 8 probably to Nielsen, maybe to ABC. And 9 you'll all be notified in advance. 10 MR. IVIE: Just to say a word, 11 we're pretty experienced at hunting rooms and 12 using different facilities. And I think to 13 Michelle's point, you have to be careful. 14 Because with a group this size, I mean, the 15 audio connection is very, very critical. 16 The ABC room happens to be good. 17 CBS has good facilities. Univision has good 18 facilities. So there are some choices. And, 19 Nielsen, I think is a logical answer too. So 20 you just have to be careful. I don't think 21 you can go to free-for-all rooms, because 22 it's tough. 23 MR. ZACKON: Howard, see what you 24 started? Rebecca, you don't have to worry 25 about it. And Ann will follow up. 30 1 MR. HESS: Okay. Last item on 2 the Steering Committee agenda, I think, is 3 really an important one. And Richard and I 4 discussed the possibility of forming a 5 committee within the CRE that would be called 6 a communications committee or committee on 7 communication. So let me clarify that. 8 We think that the need for a 9 communication committee has grown because the 10 CRE is now getting ever closer to really 11 beginning to publish some actual results. 12 And whereas, in the past, we could just refer 13 people to the website and since we've been 14 very open architecture about our meetings and 15 everything's been available there to read, et 16 cetera, we've gotten a lot of good press 17 already at conferences and elsewhere. But 18 now I think we do need a committee on 19 communication to really handle issues of what 20 do we release and when And how do we say it. 21 And really kind of, I think, 22 Richard, we have intended here kind of the 23 classic PR function, almost to what do you 24 say, when do you say it. How many people can 25 disseminate. What can be said, what can't be 31 1 said, and so on. I don't have to go through 2 all the touch points of that. But that's 3 what the committee would handle. 4 So let me throw that up for 5 discussion. I assume that if we agree to 6 have such a committee, we could subsequently 7 or today start to get some volunteers for 8 that and a chair and so on. But hopefully 9 I've tried to make a good case here for the 10 need for such a committee. 11 MR. ZACKON: This is going to 12 affect the other working committees. Because 13 in the Media Consumption Committee, issues 14 already did come up with the press release 15 just announcing the study that will become 16 more significant when the results come out. 17 The Non-response Committee, also 18 Nancy Gallagher's Universe Estimate Committee 19 is about to release an RFP. And it would be 20 good to have a working communications 21 committee that might help us. Nielsen's been 22 good about providing human capital and 23 resources to help us get the word out on 24 things. But we really want to have our own 25 set of procedures as to how we go forth so... 32 1 MR. HESS: This committee, I 2 believe, Richard, in that sense, it doesn't 3 take anything away from the powers of the 4 individual committees. But we probably do 5 need kind of a higher level committee to 6 really kind of coordinate all of these 7 releases. And to kind of get a broad sense 8 of the CRE, for again, what should go out, 9 when should it go out. Also communicate with 10 Nielsen, et cetera. 11 So any further discussion on 12 this? 13 MS. BRILL: I would say that the 14 committee chairs have to be highly involved. 15 MR. HESS: Okay. 16 MS. BRILL: They are the ones who 17 are most on top of what's actually taking 18 place. And without being conceited, I think 19 our committee did an excellent job of 20 managing the press and the questions. And an 21 outgrowth of that, when I do my update 22 shortly, we put together a briefing document 23 with formal FAQs that we know that will 24 probably be raised just because of what 25 reporters had asked us. So we have a formal 33 1 document that everyone can refer to. 2 MR. ZACKON: Shari, maybe the 3 committee chairs will be members of that 4 communication committee. 5 MS. BRILL: Absolutely. That's 6 what I would move forward; the committee 7 chairs be on that committee. 8 MR. HESS: Absolutely. Any other 9 discussion, any dissenters that we don't need 10 such a committee? 11 Okay. Then I would say we have a 12 sense of the committee of the CRE that we 13 should form such a committee. 14 Now, Rich or Mark, in terms of 15 parliamentary procedure, is that something 16 that we could ask for a volunteer to chair 17 right now, or is it something that we should 18 give some people time to consider and then 19 volunteer to be chair and kind of treat it 20 through the Steering Committee? 21 MR. ZACKON: Just as a practical 22 issue, it's never too early to ask for a 23 volunteer. 24 MR. HESS: Okay. So let's do 25 that. Would anyone like to chair? First, 34 1 I'm going to just repeat that I think we have 2 the sense of the committee that a 3 communication committee makes sense. So 4 let's operate under that assumption. And do 5 we have a volunteer for a chair? 6 MR. ZACKON: I think there's a 7 problem with the phone line. 8 MR. HESS: Okay. 9 MR. ZACKON: We don't have to 10 identify someone today. 11 Now, it's another issue that we 12 may or may not get to today. Just about 13 people's participation on committees. And it 14 may be that someone new to the Council might 15 be interested in doing that. 16 MR. HESS: Good point. 17 MR. ZACKON: Probably someone 18 with some kind of communications background 19 would be helpful, but not necessary. 20 MR. HESS: So it's not going to 21 help if I say it backwards. 22 MR. ZACKON: You might try it. 23 MR. HESS: Chair volunteer for. 24 MR. ZACKON: You might offer a 25 prize. 35 1 MR. HESS: Okay. If there's no 2 immediate volunteer, we'll get one between 3 now and the next meeting. And we may even at 4 the next meeting then ask one of the new 5 members to step up. 6 MR. ZACKON: I just bought a copy 7 of Arm Twisting For Dummies. So I'll try it 8 out after the meeting. 9 MR. HESS: Maybe I need that. I 10 didn't do a good enough job there. That's 11 it. We've covered all four Steering 12 Committee items. 13 Again, I will follow up as the 14 names come back. And I will specifically 15 follow up with the Steering Committee to 16 prepare that slate and to try it. 17 MR. ZACKON: Someone just joined 18 us. 19 MR. DeVAULT: Henry DeVault, yes. 20 MR. ZACKON: Henry, would you be 21 interested in chairing a communications 22 committee? 23 MR. HESS: There we go. Love it. 24 MR. ZACKON: One other thing, 25 Mike, that your Steering Committee did take 36 1 up and we should report out on because it 2 came up at the last meeting is, you might 3 notice that one of our illustrious perfectly 4 attending members, Tim Brooks, for reasons 5 unbeknownst to me, decided to retire. 6 MR. HESS: Yes. 7 MR. ZACKON: And therefore, was 8 not eligible to remain on the Council. 9 However, the Steering Committee came up with 10 I thought a pretty wise proposal which it's 11 up to the Council now to accept. Which is 12 that emeritus members of the Council can 13 continue to participate on the committees, 14 even though they're technically not Nielsen 15 clients. And until this Council says, no, 16 you can't, Tim's been good enough to be in 17 communication. And has been continuing. 18 But we should get approval from 19 the Council that emeritus members of the 20 Council in good standing can continue serving 21 on committees if they're interested. Tim's 22 really passionate about the study. And would 23 like to. So if anyone wants to discuss him, 24 it's a good idea. I think it's a good 25 precedent, actually. If we're lucky, many of 37 1 us will retire. 2 MR. HESS: I think, Richard, 3 maybe to expand on that, serve on the 4 committee but not necessarily as a voting 5 member. 6 MR. ZACKON: Correct. 7 MR. HESS: Well, I think we would 8 be foolish not to accept expert input from a 9 fellow like Tim. So I think it is good 10 precedent, yes. Thanks for reminding us. I 11 assume there's no problems with that. If 12 there are, please discuss. 13 MR. ZACKON: I think that was Tim 14 who put out that big rat in front of the 15 hotel. Technically, I think it does. 16 Mark, you're chair. What do you 17 think? 18 MR. WAKSHLAG: Do we need a vote 19 on that? To me, the membership is specified 20 in written documents we're changing. 21 MR. ZACKON: We're changing it, 22 right. That's why we think it does require a 23 vote. So we haven't languaged. What should 24 do then is come up with clear language for 25 that and bring it to the next meeting. 38 1 MR. SHIMMEL: Put it in the 2 bylaws. 3 MS. SHAGRIN: We're not changing 4 the membership of the Council; just who 5 prepares the committee. 6 MR. ZACKON: Correct. 7 MR. HESS: We should, in fact, 8 work on the bylaws then or whatever the 9 relevant document is. And also just to make 10 it official, do that. 11 MR. ZACKON: By the way, the 12 bylaws certainly have limited your ability to 13 retire. So don't even think about it. 14 MR. HESS: Only Tim's. 15 MS. BRILL: I don't know if this 16 comes under the subject of new business or 17 not, but there's that whole subject of 18 attendance. Tim, for example, is retired, 19 yet he remains passionate and continues to 20 give us input. But I know of many Council 21 members who do not participate on committees, 22 including several that are on my committee 23 who don't call in ever. And I'd like to know 24 what the policy is for Council members to 25 remain in good standing with the Council. 39 1 Aren't they supposed to 2 participate on committees? 3 MS. SHAGRIN: My understanding. 4 MR. HESS: Yes. I don't have the 5 bylaws in front of me. But do we not 6 actually have elimination considerations? 7 MR. ZACKON: We do have. We 8 require in the bylaws that everyone on the 9 Council be a member of the committee. And 10 we've not enforced that. And we don't have 11 it defined as to member in good standing. 12 MS. BURNS: We do have attendance 13 rules. 14 MR. ZACKON: We have attendance 15 for the Council meeting, but not for the 16 committee meetings. 17 MS. BURNS: Well, I agree with 18 Shari then. 19 MR. ZACKON: That's an issue. My 20 sense is the place to take that up is the 21 Steering Committee. And I think Shari's 22 raising it and requesting in, in essence. 23 MR. WAKSHLAG: There are also 24 people who have asked to serve on the 25 committees who don't show up either. And 40 1 they're not Council members. And I think the 2 same kind of rumors would apply to them. 3 MR. ZACKON: They're easier. 4 They serve at the pleasure of the chair. 5 MR. IVIE: So they're total 6 outsiders and they just don't show up. 7 MR. WAKSHLAG: Right. 8 MS. BRILL: They're being weeded 9 out. It's the riffraff. But it's a bit 10 different when you're dealing with somebody 11 who's a Council member. 12 MR. HESS: Agreed. 13 MR. ZACKON: I think the issue is 14 we don't have a standard of being a member of 15 the committee in good standing. And we need 16 to put that in place. 17 MR. WAKSHLAG: I know where 18 Shari's coming from. 19 MR. HESS: Take that up point 2 20 with the Steering Committee. Point 1 being 21 nailing down the slate for membership. 22 MR. WAKSHLAG: Let me say one 23 thing that I think is a practical reality of 24 some of this, which is, if I were chairman of 25 a committee, an agency person wanted to be 41 1 part of that committee and we said, yes, I'd 2 be very uncomfortable businesswise being the 3 person to say I don't want you on my 4 committee anymore, okay. So I don't think 5 you want to put any chairman in that 6 position. 7 MR. ZACKON: That's fair. 8 MR. WAKSHLAG: So, you know, if 9 Steven stopped showing up for meetings, 10 should Shari tell him you're off the 11 committee? The answer is I don't want to put 12 her in that kind of position. There's got to 13 be some sort of rule that says if you're not 14 there for X or X meetings in a row, then 15 you're out or something. Because if it's 16 going to be at the discretion of the chair, 17 there are business implications. 18 MS. BUSLIK: It's not the chair. 19 It's the chair of the committee. 20 MR. WAKSHLAG: The chair of the 21 committee. Yes. 22 MR. IVIE: Can I just raise one 23 other thing. A lot of us do a number of 24 different things in our daily lives. And 25 sometimes participating in a committee 42 1 doesn't necessarily mean you have to be at a 2 meeting. Like if you take, for instance, the 3 Universe Estimates Committee, I gave Nancy 4 feedback on the Universe Estimates proposal, 5 which I hopefully you remember. 6 MS. GALLAGHER: It's in there. 7 MR. IVIE: Sometimes I couldn't 8 make all those meetings. That that doesn't 9 mean total disinterest. 10 MS. GALLAGHER: Following up an 11 E-mail. 12 MS. BURNS: I'm talking about a 13 follow-up, an acknowledgement, a phone call, 14 something. 15 MS. BURNS: A breath. 16 MR. IVIE: I just don't want a 17 plain vanilla you've got to be at four out of 18 five meetings. Because sometimes that's 19 difficult on the committee. 20 MR. STERNBERG: Talking about 21 people that never respond. 22 MS. BRILL: They're on my 23 committee in name only. 24 MR. IVIE: I'm with you. 25 MR. ZACKON: I think the Steering 43 1 Committee's the place to address the issue. 2 MR. HESS: Will do. I think the 3 principle is well taken. 4 MR. ZACKON: The vice principal's 5 office. 6 MR. HESS: It sounds like a good 7 point. We have a procedure for attendance at 8 the CRE. We don't have a procedure for 9 committee. And so we'll work on that next. 10 MR. ZACKON: Right. That unless 11 there's anything else related to Steering 12 Committee, that finishes the Steering 13 Committee's section. 14 Very good. By the way, I think 15 Tim is selling himself as a committee 16 stand-in for anyone who can't be at a 17 meeting. Tim will do it. 18 MS. SHAGRIN: Are we supposed to 19 discuss the new initiatives now? 20 MR. ZACKON: Well, while we have 21 Ceril here, we'll move this over to the 22 Non-response Committee and get an update from 23 her on how that study's going. We have the 24 new initiative on the agenda. And we should 25 definitely be out of here by 12:30. 44 1 MS. SHAGRIN: Hopefully I can get 2 through this before my doctor walks into the 3 office since he's already 45 minutes late. 4 MR. ZACKON: You don't have a 5 problem. 6 MS. SHAGRIN: Right. You all 7 have the latest information in terms of 8 response rates. Nielsen came back to me and 9 asked whether or not I wanted them to go 10 after the hardest group. And I said yes. So 11 they are going after the hardest group. 12 Two things that I think you need 13 to be aware of. One is where we're a couple 14 of months later than scheduled which would 15 have an impact on the graduate students. 16 I told Nielsen that if there's a 17 financial impact that I believe they should 18 absorb it, outside of the money that's 19 already been funded to the committee. And I 20 think they've agreed to that. 21 In conversations that I've had 22 with Tim Dolson and Andrew, I think it's 23 becoming pretty evident that some of the 24 estimates that we got from Paula Varakis were 25 not achievable. But I am now getting very 45 1 good cooperation from Tim and Bruce in trying 2 to get better management of the project. And 3 he can get it back on schedule. 4 MS. BURNS: Is somebody's cell 5 phone dying? 6 MS. SHAGRIN: Did you get me? 7 MR. ZACKON: We're hearing a 8 beep. We hear you, Ceril. But we're hearing 9 a beep from someone on the phone. 10 MS. SHAGRIN: It may even be mine 11 because I've been on so long. 12 MR. ZACKON: Tell Your doctor the 13 ticker's beeping. 14 MS. BUSLIK: The right one. 15 MS. SHAGRIN: Hopefully you heard 16 me. 17 MR. ZACKON: We did. Not a 18 problem. 19 One thing we haven't gotten, 20 Ceril, is some budget. I actually put a call 21 in to Tim Dolson. I didn't hear back. 22 Do we know how we are in terms of 23 the finances of it? 24 MS. SHAGRIN: I'm still waiting. 25 I've asked for the details. 46 1 MR. ZACKON: Okay, okay. 2 MS. SHAGRIN: And timing is 3 perfect. I'm hanging up. 4 MR. ZACKON: Okay. Well, I hope 5 for good news from the doctor, okay. 6 MR. HESS: All right. 7 MR. ZACKON: Mark. 8 MR. KALINE: Well, Richard, do we 9 want to move to do initiatives or keep moving 10 down the line? 11 MR. ZACKON: We can. But one 12 second, Mark. You got here a little late. 13 Just so you know, there's been a 14 couple of changes on the Council. The role 15 of Howard Shimmel will be played by Mark 16 Greene going forward. I don't know if you 17 know Mark from Nielsen. Mark is new to the 18 measurement science area over there. And we 19 acknowledged Howard for all his good work. 20 And the role of Rebecca Mitchell will be 21 played by Ann Sani. 22 MR. KALINE: Oh, welcome, Ann. 23 MS. SANI: Thank you. 24 MR. KALINE: We ought to buy 25 Rebecca a drink or something. 47 1 MR. ZACKON: But I just wanted to 2 make sure you knew that. 3 MR. KALINE: Thanks. I apologize 4 for being late, folks. But things are just a 5 little wacky here. 6 MR. ZACKON: By the way, you're 7 feeling fine? We missed you. 8 MR. KALINE: I am doing well. I 9 want to thank Mike and Ira for offering. And 10 Ira for the job for stepping in for me in Las 11 Vegas. I actually go back to the doctor 12 Monday to make sure that everything is still 13 on the up-and-up. 14 But it was a real eye-opener to 15 lose that much sodium out of my body so 16 quickly that I was in pretty bad shape. So 17 they don't know what caused it. They're just 18 going to have to keep monitoring. Thanks. 19 Let's keep rocking and rolling. 20 MR. ZACKON: Okay. So, Shari. 21 MS. BRILL: Yes. Good morning, 22 everyone. I, first of all, before I begin, I 23 want to acknowledge our active committee 24 members who are here at the Council today on 25 the phone and the ones who diligently work on 48 1 the committee and aren't part of the CRE. 2 We have a lot of exciting news. 3 First of all, we presented background on the 4 study and an outline of the full study, 5 including results from the pilot recently to 6 the ANA Television Committee back in late 7 January. We had a great reception. They're 8 very interested in the study's outcome. And 9 as an offshoot of that, one of the ANA TV 10 Committee members asked to join our 11 committee. And I don't know if she's up for 12 consideration for the Council. But she comes 13 from the mobile practice. She's an 14 advertiser from T-Mobile. Her name is Julie 15 Lowe. So we actually picked up a participant 16 from there. 17 Our news release announcing the 18 study which we have now dubbed the Video 19 Consumer Mapping Study was announced on 20 February 25th. And we received great press 21 and publicity. We did get, there was one 22 sarcastic reference from someone, an Opie and 23 Anthony blogging site where he offered to 24 personally invite me to his house while he 25 watches porn all day. So I declined. 49 1 MR. ZACKON: Refer to him as 2 client No. 10. 3 MS. BRILL: But a lot of people 4 know about it. And we were getting a lot of 5 questions from the press community, from my 6 organization, and from our clients. As an 7 offshoot of that, our committee reconvened 8 and put together a very cohesive briefing 9 document so all of us can keep our message on 10 point. 11 And also, we have a series of 12 frequently asked questions about the study 13 that we have a formal way of responding as 14 questions come up. And the same types of 15 questions come up over and over. So we're 16 really happy about that. 17 Going forward, our committee set 18 up a very rigorous weekly telephone call 19 schedule. We meet every Friday from 2:00 to 20 3:00. And actually we're delaying it until 21 2:15 today because of the meeting. At that 22 meeting we have formal status updates that we 23 give out that come to us from Ball State 24 University and Sequent Partners. And we have 25 formal summarized minutes of the previous 50 1 week's call. We have updates. 2 As far as our progress with 3 recruitment, observers have been hired. And 4 we're stepping up efforts on the respondents' 5 side to make sure that we have enough 6 Hispanic dominance. We now have lined up 7 about half of that sample that we want to 8 have in our target. And we're also stepping 9 up efforts with the help of Nielsen to 10 recruit young men that have also been harder 11 to get. 12 At our last Council meeting I 13 said I'd do anything you want to improve the 14 study, including the discussion of media 15 acceleration items. So, Richard, do you have 16 those things on that? 17 MR. ZACKON: Yes, I do. Let me 18 pass this out. 19 MS. BRILL: I wanted to share 20 with you the items that are going to be added 21 to the catalog for the second half of that 22 study. 23 MR. ZACKON: I think it went out 24 in the mail. I have another set here. 25 MS. BRILL: If it doesn't I have 51 1 a set that I can pass around. 2 MR. ZACKON: I have it somewhere. 3 Here we go. 4 MS. BRILL: Richard, are we 5 sending out the briefing document or posting 6 the briefing document? 7 MR. ZACKON: I believe the 8 briefing document went out in the mail. 9 MS. BRILL: It was part of the 10 mail and the meeting announcements. 11 MR. ZACKON: Yes. Is that in the 12 packet or in the mail? 13 MS. BRILL: In the packet all of 14 you should have received in the E-mail about 15 yesterday's meeting notice. It came as an 16 attachment. There were four attachments. 17 MS. LIGUORI: Yes, we got it. 18 MR. ZACKON: Did you just not get 19 the mailing? 20 MS. BUSLIK: I wasn't in the 21 office, so I don't know. 22 MR. ZACKON: So it's there. 23 There's nothing critical. It's good 24 background on the study. 25 MS. BUSLIK: Okay. 52 1 MS. BRILL: Just one thing. I 2 wanted to back up. 3 That we have quite a few members 4 of our committee who are comfortable handling 5 the press and dealing with that type of 6 public speaking. Because Steve and myself 7 are very comfortable with speaking to the 8 press on other issues. And Jack Wakshlag as 9 well. So it's something we're already 10 comfortable with. And armed with this 11 briefing document, it makes it that much 12 easier to handle the questions. And if you 13 don't have it, I guess we could resend it. 14 It went out in the agenda mailing last night. 15 Moving forward. Hopefully, all 16 of you have, I guess, the menu of items we're 17 going to include in our acceleration catalog. 18 So I'd like to give you a minute or two to 19 look it over and see if there's anything 20 glaringly absent that you would like to 21 include. 22 Our criteria for inclusion is 23 that these items would be readily available 24 in a Best Buy; secondarily, in Amazon. And 25 in the instance of Apple, we are also 53 1 allowing purchases to happen at The Apple 2 Store. 3 MR. ZACKON: By the way, thank 4 you to Nielsen who made Scott Brown available 5 to us who's Mr. Tech guy over there who kind 6 of helped out on the effort. 7 MS. BUSLIK: What about adding, I 8 mean, I don't know how relevant it would be. 9 But the new boxes that people have to buy, 10 you know, be ready for digital, those 11 converter boxes? 12 MR. WAKSHLAG: It's already 13 subsidized in the 40 bucks. 14 MS. BUSLIK: Is that the full 15 price? 16 MS. BRILL: I think it ranges 17 from 40 to $60. And this is about really 18 hastening the consumer adoption model. And 19 this is something like a converter box that 20 allows them to get a digital signal in 2009. 21 I don't really see that. 22 MS. BURNS: Everybody's going to 23 have to be digital or go dark come 2009. 24 MS. BRILL: That's probably if we 25 were doing a lag study. That would be 54 1 something. 2 MR. SHIMMEL: Deceleration, media 3 deceleration. 4 MS. BUSLIK: For people who can't 5 watch television. 6 MR. WAKSHLAG: The retail price 7 from what I've seen in the paper is 40 to 60 8 bucks. And then you can get a coupon from 9 the government. 10 MS. BUSLIK: We saw the coupon, 11 right. 12 MR. WAKSHLAG: So it's zero to 20 13 bucks if you get the coupon. 14 MS. BURNS: It's not going to 15 impact views because everybody come February 16 17th is either going to see television or not 17 see television. 18 MR. WAKSHLAG: See the study 19 we'll know if it impacts you. And Nielsen is 20 measuring it. 21 MR. GREENE: That's right. 22 MR. ZACKON: That would be a good 23 issue for that committee on analog to digital 24 switch. 25 MR. WAKSHLAG: One of the things 55 1 that I forgot that I remember from the media 2 acceleration thing is hand-held video games. 3 MS. GALLAGHER: Oh, yes. 4 MS. BURNS: You have to get TV on 5 it. These are all devices that you get 6 television content on it. 7 MR. STERNBERG: I think the feel 8 was most people would get that for their 9 kids. 10 MS. BURNS: On all of our Friday 11 calls we wanted to keep this to devices you 12 get TV content on. 13 MR. WAKSHLAG: So they're not 14 video players. 15 MR. DeVAULT: This is Henry 16 DeVault once again. I have a question. 17 MS. BRILL: Yes. 18 MR. DeVAULT: In terms of your 19 study, will you have any type of projectable 20 estimates, either you or Nancy, from the 21 Universe Committee in terms of penetration of 22 Mac computers? And the reason I ask the 23 question is that Nielsen's going ahead with a 24 TV integration, TV Internet integration 25 study. And that study is looking at PCs and 56 1 is systematically excluding Macs. And if we 2 have some kind of idea of what the universe 3 is for Mac computers, then we'll have an 4 understanding of how complicated the Nielsen 5 universe will be. 6 MS. BURNS: No. This is so huge, 7 Henry. It's not universe figures. 8 MS. BRILL: I didn't know they 9 were excluding Macs. That's news to me. 10 MS. BURNS: They're just 11 excluding it for the time being because the 12 technology does not permit/provide the 13 ability to measure. 14 MR. SHIMMEL: The net ratings 15 meter right now is not Mac-compatible. 16 MS. BURNS: Net ratings isn't. 17 ComScore isn't. So no Internet measurement 18 right now includes a Mac. Not ComScore. 19 MS. BUSLIK: You're kidding? 20 MS. BURNS: We found this out 21 yesterday. 22 MR. DeVAULT: If that's the case, 23 then will Nancy be able to get that 24 information once she does her report on the 25 Universe Committee? 57 1 MS. GALLAGHER: We'll see what 2 the proposals come in at. But if they can 3 collect, you know, we can certainly ask to 4 collect and make and model numbers. 5 MR. DeVAULT: I think that's 6 going to be a big issue going forward. And 7 we should try to anticipate it. 8 MR. WAKSHLAG: Somebody in the 9 electronics industry has a university 10 estimate for Macs. 11 MR. SHIMMEL: Forster Jupiter. 12 There's tons of them. 13 MS. BURNS: I don't know what the 14 money and energy is. 15 MR. WAKSHLAG: Penetration of 16 Macs or PCs. Ask them. 17 MR. STERNBERG: I'm shocked we 18 didn't know Macs are not included. 19 MS. BURNS: Not ComScore, not Net 20 Ratings. Not able to do it yet. 21 MR. IVIE: We have audit reports 22 coming out on both meters. 23 MS. BURNS: Which means that your 24 kids are probably being understated. 25 MS. GALLAGHER: Yes. 58 1 MS. BUSLIK: Didn't know that. 2 MR. WAKSHLAG: They're replaced 3 by kids who grow, use PCs. 4 MS. BURNS: But now they're not 5 part of the sample, because if they have a 6 Mac we can't match them. 7 MR. ZACKON: That was 8 enlightening for some of us. 9 MS. BURNS: Yes. It came about 10 yesterday. Just to clarify, again, this list 11 that's supposed to represent devices that you 12 can get TV content on in some form of video. 13 MS. BUSLIK: Got you. Okay. 14 MR. ZACKON: So we might actually 15 want to call that video acceleration is what 16 we're looking at. 17 MS. BURNS: Let's put it into the 18 name of the study. 19 MR. ZACKON: Rather than media. 20 MS. BRILL: So, anyway, we are 21 finalizing the catalog that should get out by 22 April when we start lining up respondents for 23 acceleration. 24 Just as a reminder, respondents 25 selected for acceleration who will consist of 59 1 a hundred persons in Indianapolis. DMAs will 2 be refunded 50 cents on the dollar for any of 3 these items that they purchase up to $2,000. 4 They can buy up to $4,000 worth of items on 5 this list and get back 2,000. 6 MR. WAKSHLAG: I'm ready. 7 MS. BRILL: I would like to 8 volunteer. 9 MR. ZACKON: You have to move to 10 Indianapolis if you want to. 11 MS. BRILL: It's very nice in 12 Muncie this time of year. 13 Anyway, I would like to direct 14 you next to our Study Timeline which should 15 be in your folder. Everybody have it? And 16 those of you on the phone, do you have it? 17 MR. KALINE: Coming up now. 18 MS. BRILL: Terrific. 19 Everything is on target to 20 commence on March 26th of this year. 21 Recruitment continues to happen. The first 22 two DMAs to be observed will be Dallas and 23 Philadelphia, followed by Atlanta, Seattle, 24 Chicago. The acceleration recruitment starts 25 up in April with observations happening in 60 1 May. And the actual acceleration component 2 will take place in June. And then we have 3 our second follow-up taking place in 4 September through November. And we're out of 5 the field before Election Day. 6 MS. BUSLIK: Maybe. 7 MS. BRILL: Or if for some 8 reason, and all the efforts are being made to 9 stick to the timetable. So we will 10 definitely not be in the field Election Day. 11 Because that day is just such an unusual 12 event, especially with this 2008 election 13 coming up. 14 MR. ZACKON: Does anyone see a 15 problem if we're in Philadelphia on the day 16 of the Pennsylvania primary? Shari and I 17 were discussing that yesterday. 18 MR. WAKSHLAG: I would not 19 collect data that day. 20 MR. ZACKON: Make a note to Ball 21 State. Bring it to the committee today. 22 MR. SHIMMEL: Shari, you may want 23 to capture on the timeline from the contract 24 when invoices are going to be cut to Ball 25 State and Sequent because they're getting 61 1 paid in five fairly large pieces. And it may 2 be good for the committee just to say 3 everything's okay. Go ahead and cut the next 4 invoice of $800,000. So I'll get you a copy 5 of the contract which actually has the 6 billing terms in it. 7 MS. BRILL: Okay. Thank you. 8 MR. SHIMMEL: And you may just 9 want to capture it. 10 MR. ZACKON: May I suggest, 11 Nielsen shouldn't cut it until they check 12 with Shari? 13 MR. SHIMMEL: Just to formalize 14 that. 15 MS. BRILL: You don't to have 16 worry. Just so everyone knows that the final 17 payment comes after releasing the results. 18 And we're happy with what we see or happy 19 with the report. 20 MR. ZACKON: "Happy" is a high 21 standard, Shari. 22 MR. WAKSHLAG: I wish we did that 23 with you guys. 24 MR. ZACKON: Good luck with 25 Nielsen. 62 1 MS. BUSLIK: We only pay if the 2 ratings are up. 3 MR. ZACKON: Research excellence. 4 MS. BRILL: We're happy with the 5 comprehensiveness of the report being 6 delivered to us. 7 MR. ZACKON: That they honored 8 what they said they'd do. 9 MS. BRILL: Speaking of results, 10 results that we'll get will first be shared 11 internally with our committee, secondarily, 12 with the Council, and then to the wider 13 Nielsen client base. And that will all occur 14 before anything gets released to the public. 15 So we are taking every step that any results 16 that we get get are shared with Nielsen 17 clients first. 18 MR. DeVAULT: When does Nielsen 19 get the information? 20 MR. ZACKON: Where or when? 21 MR. DeVAULT: When, in what 22 order? 23 MR. ZACKON: Well, probably as 24 part of the committee and the Council. 25 Because there's Nielsen members. Howard's 63 1 been participating. Calvin's been 2 participating. So I don't know. 3 Is there an intent to withhold it 4 from Nielsen until the Committee's seen it? 5 My sense is somewhere between the Committee 6 and the Council. 7 MS. BRILL: No, not at all. I 8 consider Calvin and Howard and now Mark 9 members of our committee. They don't get a 10 vote. But they've been doing so much work to 11 have this study come to fruition, that of 12 course it would be shared with them. That's 13 a given. 14 MS. WAKSHLAG: Sequent Partners 15 knows not to release anything on the study 16 until -- 17 MS. BRILL: Yes, yes. 18 Absolutely. 19 MR. SHIMMEL: To Henry's point, I 20 think there's a difference between the data 21 and the implications of the data. You know, 22 the data is what it is in terms of the media 23 pie. The implications of the data relative 24 to media measurement is something I think we 25 will want to comment on before anything's 64 1 released. 2 MR. ZACKON: By the way, I had a 3 conversation with Mark as part of welcoming 4 him onboard. And suggested that as part of 5 his purview now the data coming in, is for 6 Nielsen to begin giving greater thought to 7 how this data from the two, three studies, 8 the Universe Estimate studies as well will be 9 used incorporated and included. Up until now 10 it's been somewhat moot. But now it's a 11 bigger issue. 12 MR. GREENE: I wanted to listen 13 before expressing ideas so... 14 MR. ZACKON: Are you special from 15 everyone else? 16 Okay. Shari, anything else? 17 MS. BRILL: That's it. Unless 18 anybody else has any questions. 19 MR. ZACKON: I'd just like to put 20 in an acknowledgement to the group you guys 21 have really been doing great work. We're off 22 to a wonderful start. Took a little while 23 too with our partners that we now have a good 24 reporting mechanism from Sequent/Ball State 25 as to how we're doing. So we can still go 65 1 wrong. But we're set up for suction here. 2 MS. BRILL: Yes. I'm just very 3 impressed with how organized and coordinated 4 all of the efforts have been put together 5 from all sides. And, thank you, Richard, for 6 facilitating everything. 7 MR. ZACKON: Happy to do it. 8 Universe Estimates? 9 MS. GALLAGHER: Our RFP has been 10 vetted. The lawyers have stamped it okay to 11 go. So okay to go out today. Yea. 12 Now, the big thing is you've 13 received a copy of the RFP and also a copy of 14 the current, the intended to be distributed 15 list. But I'm really looking for additional 16 places where you think we can get some value 17 out of distributing it. 18 Maybe, I don't know if there's 19 any university journals of sociology or 20 geography or geodemography or anything that 21 would be a worthwhile place. I mean, we 22 pretty much have polled everything we knew 23 who had some suggestions. But I'm more than 24 happy, I would love to get it out in more 25 places. 66 1 So if anyone knows of any 2 academics who might be able to help point us 3 in some additional directions, that would be, 4 you know, a great place to go. Or if you 5 know of any other organizations that might 6 have some suggestions, I'm definitely open to 7 as wide a distribution as possible. 8 MR. ZACKON: Nancy, a couple of 9 places we didn't yet turn is Bob Groves at 10 the University of Michigan. You have the 11 University of Michigan here. And also our 12 friends at Ball State may know of other 13 researchers. 14 MS. GALLAGHER: Yes. I know a 15 lot of the academic groups have group 16 meetings and group conferences. So if anyone 17 knows anyone in sociology, geography, or 18 anything like that... 19 MR. ZACKON: Question for George. 20 We turned to Claritas. I want to acknowledge 21 Claritas. You felt this was not in their 22 sweet spot. Even though we're part of the 23 Nielsen family, we're not going to go forward 24 with it. 25 They mentioned Ernst & Young. Is 67 1 that any conflict if we were to approach 2 Ernst & Young about the study? I know you do 3 a lot of work with the MRC. 4 MR. IVIE: Yes. I don't think 5 that the group that works for us at Ernst & 6 Young would do this. They're not capable. 7 But that doesn't mean that there couldn't be 8 a perceived conflict. 9 MR. ZACKON: Right. Okay. I 10 just didn't want a conflict. 11 MR. IVIE: I'll think about it. 12 I'm not sure how well they could execute 13 this. So I was going to ask does Pew do this 14 type of work? 15 MR. WAKSHLAG: Pew does surveys, 16 but they're not survey scientists. Far from 17 it. 18 MS. GALLAGHER: They're more 19 culturally oriented. 20 MS. BUSLIK: As part of the 21 committee, I would just like to say that we 22 should get it out and come to a decision 23 quick left. Because this is becoming more 24 and more of an issue. So I think the list is 25 good. It's comprehensive. And we should not 68 1 do the list. 2 MS. GALLAGHER: No. The list 3 goes out. But if anyone has any other ideas. 4 I'm still trying to track down some of my 5 college friends who are now professors to 6 find out which groups. 7 What if one of the places is the 8 University of Hawaii? That would be a good 9 place. 10 MS. BUSLIK: We'd have to go out, 11 do a survey. Have to go out. A personal 12 interview. 13 MR. WAKSHLAG: There's a couple 14 of academics -- 15 MR. ZACKON: Who's on the phone? 16 MR. DeVAULT: This is Henry. I 17 just want to ask a quick question. 18 The question was does the Census 19 Bureau do all of their work or do they farm 20 some of it out? 21 MR. ZACKON: I actually got a lot 22 of the names on this list from the Census 23 Bureau site. 24 MR. DeVAULT: Okay. Good. 25 MR. ZACKON: So this seemed to be 69 1 like the people the Census Bureau has turned 2 to in the past. 3 MR. DeVAULT: Okay. Good. 4 MR. ZACKON: So, Nancy, the 5 question is just for people to review this. 6 And if they have additional names... 7 MS. GALLAGHER: Please. I'm open 8 to as many names as possible. It certainly 9 doesn't hurt to have too many. 10 MR. ZACKON: One thing that I 11 should report to you. I probably should have 12 done it at the committee, but I just found 13 out last week in my conversation with 14 Claritas. 15 They had a concern that we might 16 be asking the suppliers a lot in sharing 17 their methodology. So just be aware. They 18 may be reluctant to share in an initial RFP 19 what they do so... 20 MR. IVIE: So let's say there is 21 an organization out there that's not on this 22 list that is interested, is there any public 23 way that they might be able to get access to 24 the RFP? 25 For example, on the CRE site are 70 1 we going to post it? 2 MS. GALLAGHER: On the site. 3 MR. ZACKON: Yes. That's what we 4 did with the other proposal as well. We'll 5 put the RFP on the site. But we have to 6 alert the world that it's there. 7 MR. IVIE: That they could, 8 people could respond to it if they want. 9 MR. ZACKON: Absolutely. Is 10 there not an online? And I'm not a PR 11 person. 12 Ann, you know this. Is there 13 some online resources for press releases that 14 wouldn't require Nielsen to make a formal 15 press release as such, but they kind of put 16 it out directly to the Web? 17 MS. SANI: Yes. There are 18 several wire resources, PR Newswire, 19 Businesswire, that might be worth looking 20 into. 21 MR. ZACKON: Stop gloating, 22 Rebecca. Ann's going to have to do it. 23 Is that something you could help 24 us out with? 25 MS. SANI: Sure. Let me know 71 1 what you need. 2 MS. GALLAGHER: That's why I'd 3 really love to get some academic groups. 4 Because they all have E-mail distribution and 5 their own little websites. But I was going 6 to try to find those websites. Could take me 7 years. 8 MR. WAKSHLAG: There used to be a 9 publication called the Chronicle For Higher 10 Education that used to have all kind of RFPs. 11 They have like their own classified section. 12 I don't even know if the thing exists 13 anymore. 14 MR. ZACKON: There might be 15 somewhere online. 16 MS. GALLAGHER: I'll Google it. 17 MR. IVIE: Richard, the NAB 18 awards grants to researchers every year to 19 study specific and focused topics to see 20 who's broadcasting. But they probably have 21 resources of how they disseminate the 22 requests for proposals that they put out for 23 that. 24 MR. ZACKON: Who at the NAB? 25 MR. IVIE: Well, the new research 72 1 person is Sharon Warden. She took David 2 Gunzerath out. 3 MS. GALLAGHER: David was on our 4 committee. 5 MR. ZACKON: He can still be on 6 the committee. 7 MS. GALLAGHER: Yes, I know. 8 MR. IVIE: But Sharon could 9 probably let you know because they have all 10 kinds of academics that respond. 11 MS. GALLAGHER: That's what we 12 want. Yes. 13 MR. ZACKON: And the Chronicle 14 For Higher Education, see if they have 15 something. 16 MR. WAKSHLAG: The NAB has got an 17 associated group called the BEA, Broadcast 18 Education Association, essentially funded by 19 the NAB. 20 MS. BUSLIK: Wonder if the ANA is 21 closer? 22 MR. ZACKON: Anything else, 23 Nancy? 24 MS. GALLAGHER: I think that's 25 about it. 73 1 MR. ZACKON: Congratulations. 2 MS. GALLAGHER: Completely get 3 this out and get some proposals in that are 4 worthwhile. 5 MR. ZACKON: There's a date on 6 there for May for responses. So you should 7 have some kind of report back to this group 8 in June. Perfect. 9 Now, I spoke to Ira. Ira, have 10 you joined us? He said he'd be late. But 11 his committee is in hiatus. So just be aware 12 that for right now, given changes at Nielsen 13 and we're looking for new initiatives. So 14 we're not expecting any report from them. 15 But I kept them on the agenda. So it's 16 11:25. We're actually six minutes early to 17 discuss new initiatives. 18 And, Mike, let me just check, by 19 the way, on the phone. 20 MR. HESS: Yes. 21 MR. ZACKON: Just to see. They 22 were presented by the Steering Committee. I 23 just want to check who is on the phone here 24 who I might not have got. 25 Do we have Melva, Bruce, Kate, 74 1 Rick, Jessica, Dave Poltrack, Lyle or Ira 2 Sussman on the phone? 3 Okay. So we have a number of new 4 initiatives, possible new initiatives. The 5 floor is open to discuss. 6 MR. HESS: Do you want go in 7 order from the top? 8 MR. ZACKON: It's up to you. 9 MR. HESS: Okay. Well, that's 10 what I would propose to now. Let's see, I 11 lost track of who's actually here. 12 Colleen is not here; is that 13 correct? 14 MR. ZACKON: Well, again, the 15 individuals who crafted these didn't take any 16 responsibility towards managing. They took 17 responsibility for crafting. So that falls 18 to the chair of the Steering Committee. 19 MR. HESS: Okay. What, exactly? 20 MR. ZACKON: So what we're 21 looking for now is just responses to these 22 ideas. These may not be the only ones. But 23 I would think we have a successful morning 24 anyway. Just that we've regathered and 25 reported out. But if we would identify one 75 1 of these areas, maybe someone steps up and 2 leads an exploratory group to consider it. 3 MR. HESS: Absolutely. 4 Richard, would you or someone 5 from Nielsen just repeat for the sake of the 6 people who came late the status of the 7 funding? 8 MR. ZACKON: Yes. I actually 9 have here -- I'd be happy to distribute this. 10 -- and it's my understanding of the finances, 11 which are no secret. But why don't I pass 12 this around. And you have it, Rebecca. It's 13 financial, March 14th, a file. You can send 14 it out to the people in the room. 15 I attest that this is accurate as 16 to the record of the committee meetings. It 17 doesn't include any information from Nielsen. 18 So what we're looking at here, and, by the 19 way, it was not true that I lost $400,000 at 20 the craps table. Just my little joke. 21 So what I have here is what this 22 Council has approved at its meetings. And 23 with one issue which remains an issue to be 24 resolved, which is at our March 23rd meeting 25 when we learned from Ceril's committee, the 76 1 increased cost of the nonresponse study which 2 is identified there. 3 So we have either authorized as a 4 Council $5.7 million or $5.2 million, if 5 that's not considered authorized. And I 6 think that's another good issue for the 7 Steering Committee to resolve. But this 8 speaks to what we've voted on. 9 MR. HESS: Okay. 10 MR. ZACKON: And in the interest 11 of full disclosure, this does include a trip 12 that Shari and I took to Muncie, Indiana, 13 which I assure you was not for purposes of 14 illicit pleasure. We went to Ball State. 15 But that's in there as part of the pilot 16 study, I assure. If you've been to Muncie, 17 you'll agree. 18 Anyway, so those are the 19 expenditures. So in response to what 20 prompted the question, we've expended either 21 5.2 million or 5.7, depending on how we 22 account for that 500,000. Which says there's 23 1.8 or maybe 2.2 -- 24 MR. SHIMMEL: Right. 25 MR. ZACKON: Remaining. 77 1 MR. HESS: So the point is that 2 we can have this discussion knowing that 3 there is some money, however we end up 4 dividing it up. And it sounds like that 5 would be enough for one study, possibly two 6 to give us kind of a sense of scope. Of 7 course, depending on how much would be 8 allocated for a given study. 9 So, in terms of this discussion, 10 do we have some people, first of all, who 11 would like to discuss. And then as Richard 12 said, is there anybody who would actually 13 like to step up and form an exploratory 14 committee for the purpose of pursuing one of 15 these items? And it doesn't have to be the 16 person who wrote it up. That's right. 17 MR. IVIE: Can I just -- 18 MR. ZACKON: George. 19 MR. IVIE: -- in terms of 20 process, there are probably, recognizing that 21 the last one is a bit of a different animal 22 because it did involve expenditures, and 23 maybe the first one and the fourth one could 24 be combined for exploratory purposes. 25 MR. ZACKON: Absolutely. 78 1 MR. IVIE: You're talking about 2 four proposals then here. 3 MR. ZACKON: Four initiatives. 4 MR. IVIE: Yes. Four initiatives 5 to pursue. And I'm not sure whether we 6 should say no to any of them until they're 7 developed a little further. 8 MR. ZACKON: What we need is 9 people to develop them. 10 MR. IVIE: Well, I don't think I 11 should head any committee. But I'm 12 interested on working on Commercial Avoidance 13 and Passive Measurement. So if you want to 14 put me down for those two, I'll work on 15 exploring those with whoever else wants to do 16 it. 17 MR. GREENE: Just broad strokes. 18 I have no interest in heading a committee. 19 But obviously I'm going to assist in all the 20 ideas whoever wants to take the lead. 21 Henry? 22 MR. HESS: Sorry. That isn't 23 loud enough. 24 MR. ZACKON: You have to speak up 25 at this group. 79 1 MR. GREENE: I didn't want to 2 speak up too much on that one. But 3 essentially I'm raising my hand to assist on 4 all the topics if there's a volunteer to lead 5 the topic. 6 MR. HESS: All right. I will 7 step up on psychographics, not just because I 8 wrote it. But just to flush it out and see 9 if there's anything there, I'm not sure if 10 Jack wants to serve on that committee based 11 on what he wrote the other day. 12 MR. WAKSHLAG: I'll be looking 13 over your shoulder. 14 MR. HESS: That's good. I 15 expected that. 16 MR. ZACKON: Just so other people 17 who weren't party to the exchange, Mike put 18 forth the possibility of doing some 19 psychographic segmentation. And Jack 20 expressed a concern he's had with vendors in 21 the past about the degree of validity of the 22 types of segmentations they do. 23 MR. WAKSHLAG: It's not just me. 24 The ARF had an Arrowhead paper which was 25 written 20 years ago which I still use and 80 1 show to research suppliers saying, can you 2 answer or address the concerns which are 3 raised in this paper. And I provided that to 4 a dozen different research suppliers over the 5 time that they've told me they have ways of 6 doing these segmentations, and not one of 7 them has come back with a proposal. 8 MR. ZACKON: Might you have 9 access to that paper, or Jack, could you send 10 that to Mike? 11 MR. HESS: I could certainly get 12 hold of the ARF. 13 MR. WAKSHLAG: The ARF. Called 14 the Arrowhead Project done by Sonia Husmak. 15 And it is an eye-opening project and a major 16 nightmare for research suppliers who have 17 been trying to convince people to use 18 psychographic segmentation as part of their 19 work. 20 Basically, the data they had 21 demonstrated quite, you know, to me very 22 clearly, you ask the same question of the 23 same person one week apart, the person is in 24 a totally different -- most of the people are 25 assigned to totally different clusters than 81 1 they were assigned the prior week because the 2 data was unstable. Or you split half 3 reliability tests and I get completely 4 different segmentation solutions even though 5 you apply the same mathematical algorithms. 6 So for me that's a problem. I expect the 7 results that I get this week to still hold 8 next week. 9 MR. HESS: Right. 10 I mean, not to get into a long 11 debate on this, but I wouldn't have put it 12 forward myself if I didn't think, if I didn't 13 have some positive experience with 14 psychographics over the last couple of 15 decades. So to me it's fair to say there's a 16 stability issue on psychographics at the same 17 time, too bad, Howard. 18 I'm sorry Ira is not here today. 19 But in the committee under marketplace 20 practices, you may recall some of his 21 presentations, it's not as if the current 22 standard is perfect either, right? I mean, 23 if when we're making projections to certain 24 markets based on just a handful of people, 25 then not only are there reliability issues, 82 1 but there's also validity concerns. 2 MR. SUSSMAN: I'm here at the 3 moment. 4 MR. ZACKON: Oh, welcome, Ira. 5 Ira, you just preserved your 6 perfect attendance with an asterisk. 7 MR. HESS: That's right. Make it 8 7-1/2. 9 MR. ZACKON: Thank you, Ira. 10 MR. WAKSHLAG: The degree of 11 instability in these studies was shocking. 12 MR. HESS: I know from my own 13 experience, not connected to media yet, but 14 for psychographics with indirect connections 15 to media, that psychographic segmentation 16 studies have done a better job than just 17 segmenting it based on demographics with 18 respect to growing market share. Because 19 we've been able to tighten the messaging. 20 And we've been able to tighten eventually 21 also the media targeting. And it's client 22 stuff so I can't be specific on who it was or 23 when. But I've been pretty happy with some 24 of the psychographic work, despite the 25 obvious issues that somebody who's a 83 1 chocoholic loves chocolate, doesn't stay in 2 the chocolate segments forever. Maybe as 3 tutti-frutti comes along as a new flavor. 4 But there's enough stability that 5 I think, I see it as a trade-off. That there 6 are some validity issues. Even the demos may 7 be relatively stable, they're not always the 8 best way to segment the market. And the 9 trade-off between the better way of doing it 10 psychographically, but associated with lower 11 stability often is in favor of the 12 psychographics. 13 Yes, it has lower stability. But 14 it's simply a better method than a demo 15 method for a lot of categories where you have 16 stability, but not necessarily validity. 17 MR. WAKSHLAG: Read these 18 articles. 19 MR. HESS: That's my two cents. 20 I will. I will, sure. 21 MR. GREENE: This is Mark. I've 22 done analytics on similar types of data. And 23 not strictly Nielsen data I might add. I 24 mean, I've been in the agency world for quite 25 some time. I've seen results that Jack is 84 1 describing. I think a lot of this has to do 2 with definitions. 3 So, you know, because depending 4 on how you define psychographics and how you 5 trend it over time, I think there's a lot to 6 explore here, if theirs an interest. 7 MR. WAKSHLAG: Theirs interest. 8 There should be. 9 MR. HESS: Obviously, I will have 10 to make the case. And anybody else who wants 11 to be on this committee and then the 12 committee can either vote yes or no. I will 13 try to make the best case for it. But I'm 14 operating on the basis of having had some 15 positive experience with psychographics and 16 getting client feedback on same, 17 acknowledging that there is some softness 18 with respect to stability. But the trade-off 19 that the greater accuracy and discrimination 20 that you get with psychographics relative to 21 demos is not always worth it, but many times 22 worth it. 23 I also think that today's, why 24 today rather than three years ago, I think 25 today's technology is letting us get better 85 1 and better at finding more one-to-one matches 2 between a particular person and their 3 psychographic profile versus what we could 4 have done years ago. 5 MR. ZACKON: Mike, might it 6 address the other issue of attendance in 7 committees that we reach out to those members 8 who are not really on an active committee. 9 And with Ira's committee, now 10 you're on the phone, Ira, in effective 11 hiatus, people who are only on Ira's 12 committee and not on another committee, reach 13 out to that group to populate these other 14 possible new initiatives. 15 MS. BURNS: I like what. I like 16 what you're proposing. Because some of these 17 are interesting to me. But I'm looking at 18 the people in this room. And we're the 19 regulars that attend this Council and are on 20 committees. I don't know that we can absorb 21 another one. But how can you just show up in 22 attendance only? At some point, if you even 23 show up in attendance, at some point you have 24 to be an active committee member. 25 MR. ZACKON: By "people in the 86 1 room," you mean people on the phone as well? 2 MS. BURNS: Yes, on the phone. 3 Sorry. But this is the regular group of 4 people. And if we're going to invite new 5 people in, they need to understand this is a 6 working committee. 7 MR. ZACKON: They'll make a 8 choice when they come in as part of here's 9 the committees. Which one do you want to 10 serve on? 11 MS. BURNS: And I think we need 12 to, and we're going to get to it shortly, we 13 need to revisit the attendance and the 14 participation issue of the current members. 15 MR. WAKSHLAG: I agree. 16 MR. DeVAULT: Richard, how are 17 you going to proceed going forward? Are you 18 just going to set up a base that there's 19 going to be a list to find out who shows up 20 with respect to those at that point to lead 21 to the formation of a committee with an 22 organizational structure and goals, or are 23 you just going to look for volunteers before 24 you set anything up? 25 MR. ZACKON: Well, I think the 87 1 way we've been operating, the first place to 2 start is someone stands and says I'll take 3 leadership here just to get it going. And if 4 they have one or two other people who are 5 willing to engage in the conversation, then 6 we actually have a committee that's looking 7 at something until you have someone who steps 8 up and says I'll take on that area. 9 I'd say there's an idea floating 10 around, but there's no structure. And it 11 doesn't have to necessarily have to be the 12 people here today. But we'll hear from the 13 people here today, from the people on the 14 Council will look to see is there anyone 15 willing to step up. 16 And, so far, Mike has stepped up 17 in the psychographic area. But we have 18 possibly a combined committee of 19 Cross-Platform, Cross-Media, then Commercial 20 Avoidance and that one. Both in Commercial 21 Avoidance and Passive Measurement, both of 22 those have at least one member who's 23 interested in serving. But we've looked for 24 leadership of these three new areas. And 25 then prime membership. 88 1 MS. LIGUORI: Richard. 2 MR. ZACKON: Please. 3 MS. LIGUORI: What happens to 4 those of us on Ira's committee now that we're 5 on hiatus? I mean, are we, maybe Ira, we 6 should think about doing something one way or 7 another with this committee. 8 MS. BURNS: Go to the Carribean. 9 MR. ZACKON: You're free to 10 reassign yourself. 11 MR. IVIE: Pat, why don't you 12 take up a leadership position on Commercial 13 Avoidance? 14 MS. LIGUORI: Well, I was 15 thinking of that. 16 MR. IVIE: I'd like to work with 17 you on that. 18 MS. LIGUORI: Just wanted to 19 think about what we're doing with the other 20 one before I said anything? 21 MR. WAKSHLAG: My only comment on 22 the Cross-Platform thing is these are the 23 questions that the Media Consumption engaged. 24 We're spending $3.5 million to answer these 25 questions. That's what it's doing. 89 1 I mean, we're giving people the 2 opportunity to get expensive laptops with 3 networks, broadband connections. And we'll 4 see. 5 MS. BUSLIK: I agree. I'd like 6 to see the results first. 7 MR. WAKSHLAG: I don't know if 8 there's anything in this first thing which at 9 least shouldn't be held off until we see the 10 results of that. Because I think from what I 11 read, it's entirely overlapping. 12 MS. BUSLIK: I agree. That's 13 what I was saying. 14 MR. IVIE: I think another 15 concern, I mean, the study that's going on in 16 Media Consumption, one of the good things 17 about it, it's a neutral consistent approach 18 of observation. When I've seen other work of 19 this type, cross-platform effectiveness, 20 things like that, the main concerns that I've 21 seen are media neutrality where they're 22 treating all these media, perhaps, 23 differently. And that pollutes the results. 24 So I agree with Jack. I think we should let 25 that Ball State work evolve. 90 1 MS. BURNS: Table that. 2 MR. IVIE: See where we go with 3 it. 4 MS. BUSLIK: Also, when you use 5 the word "effectiveness," one advertiser's 6 effectiveness is another advertiser's not. 7 Everybody has different goals in their 8 advertising messaging. So it's very, very 9 hard to make a blanket effectiveness 10 determination. So I'd like to see. That was 11 my reaction; just to see the results first 12 and then decide. 13 MR. STERNBERG: I'd like to make 14 another comment. I think that a lot of what 15 we're doing, and I think the original point 16 of the Council was that we were going to 17 comment on Nielsen methodology and whether 18 something needs to be changed or how it can 19 be changed going forward. 20 And while a lot of these topics 21 are really good, a lot of other committees in 22 the industry are working on some of these. 23 And everything we've been doing so far has 24 kind of been assuming that Nielsen data the 25 way it is now is fine. And I think we have 91 1 the opportunity to do something that nobody 2 else is doing. 3 Should Nielsen's definition of a 4 minute change? Should their entity rules 5 change? How much fast-forwarding is counted 6 in a commercial minute right now and how do 7 you change some of that? Is the way they 8 calculate C3 correct, or would it be more 9 accurate if they use a 30-second threshold of 10 commercial time rather than weighting it the 11 way they're weighting it now? What would 12 happen if you took VCR recorded out of 13 commercial ratings? 14 Now, I don't say that to be 15 nasty. There are ways of setting things up 16 where you can look at some of that stuff and 17 do some real research that nobody in the 18 industry is doing. And I think we're missing 19 something if we don't get involved in 20 something like that. 21 MS. GALLAGHER: To go back to 22 that, the idea I had about a new initiative 23 was something I think in a way much, much 24 more granular. Because what I was thinking 25 of, a new initiative, and I am not 92 1 volunteering to head this is content 2 identification. You have all these 3 platforms. You're trying to measure 4 cross-platforms. But is the content being 5 correctly identified across all the 6 platforms? 7 And as you get to more 8 custom-targeted messages, you're measuring 9 that no one including what target VOD. As we 10 all know, monitor placing that you've been 11 correctly identifying their commercials. So 12 I think before you look at all this stuff, I 13 think you have to go back to a more granular 14 level to the best way to identify content. 15 MR. ZACKON: Ceril, are you back? 16 MS. SHAGRIN: I'm back. 17 MR. ZACKON: Welcome back. Let 18 me ask, Steve, is there a way, is there 19 something specific you might want to 20 articulate by way of an initiative not stated 21 here that, you know, you're considering? 22 MR. STERNBERG: I could think 23 about it. Off the top of my head, I don't 24 really. 25 MR. ZACKON: Okay. Because we're 93 1 certainly open to it. We don't mean to 2 preclude anything. 3 By the way, I heard something 4 that began to approach something like a 5 volunteering. And I'm going to say that 6 while we had no problem in Ceril speaking up 7 about nonresponse, Pat, is there anything we 8 want to talk about regarding avoidance with 9 leadership? 10 MS. LIGUORI: Yes. I'll do it if 11 I'm free of my more -- let's put it this 12 way -- if the first committee that I'm on is 13 going to remain on hiatus, I'm happy to do 14 commercial avoidance. 15 MR. ZACKON: Well, happy to do 16 sounds like a volunteer to me. 17 MR. HESS: Absolutely. 18 MR. WAKSHLAG: Reassigned. 19 MR. STERNBERG: You put a hundred 20 meters in a hundred households and see how 21 and observe the actual viewing. You can do a 22 lot of stuff to determine, well, this is how 23 Nielsen would capture it. But this is what 24 they're actually doing. Well, maybe. And if 25 what you're looking at is prime time. And 94 1 you're doing this 10-second by 10-second 2 observation stuff. 3 Well, yes. Fast-forwarding, if 4 all you're looking at is prime time, you can 5 look at how much fast-forwarding is going on. 6 You can look at content and what people are 7 actually watching. You can compare it to a 8 meter in a hundred households is actually 9 telling you what they're doing. And you can 10 say that, well, what would happen if this is 11 how you measure the minute. What would the 12 data look like? What would happen if you 13 measure it this way? 14 You can really look at some of 15 that stuff and do stuff that nobody in the 16 business is doing. I haven't read yet Arm 17 Twisting For Dummies. But it sounds like 18 you're on the verge of stepping out there to 19 create some type of laboratory, looking at 20 some issues. 21 MR. STERNBERG: I don't know how 22 you would do it. 23 MS. BUSLIK: How do you do real 24 observation without changing -- 25 MR. WAKSHLAG: Cameras. 95 1 MR. STERNBERG: Just throwing out 2 an idea. 3 MR. WAKSHLAG: Steve, what you're 4 saying, can I match what people seem to be 5 doing with what the meter says? 6 MS. BUSLIK: Or what they say 7 they're doing. 8 MR. WAKSHLAG: We're not going 9 with what they say they're doing. We know 10 where that takes us. But this has to do with 11 if Nielsen says it's going fast-forwarding 12 and you have a camera on the set, is it 13 really capturing? 14 MR. STERNBERG: Their behavior 15 doesn't really matter. They're observing 16 what they're actually doing and the camera's 17 picking up what they're actually doing. 18 MS. LIGUORI: I think you're 19 looking at the set top box data. 20 MR. WAKSHLAG: We don't know what 21 that's saying. 22 MS. LIGUORI: The meters bring in 23 another level of complexity. 24 MR. ZACKON: Is that another 25 issue to look at, set top box, now that 96 1 Nielsen has its hands in set top boxes? 2 MS. BUSLIK: Companies that do 3 that. TNS. 4 MS. LIGUORI: They're going to 5 have they say second quarter, L.A. data from 6 Charter. 7 MR. WAKSHLAG: The same data that 8 TNS has. 9 MS. LIGUORI: As you saw at the 10 Las Vegas meeting, I mean, that is, it's 11 great for looking at PODs and POD positions 12 and things probably like fast-forwarding. 13 MR. ZACKON: Is there someone who 14 might want to work in the sand box with Pat 15 and George about commercial avoidance? 16 MR. IVIE: It seems like maybe 17 commercial avoidance, I understand the rally 18 cry around that. But what we've just been 19 discussing is maybe a broader topic that's 20 related to commercial avoidance. But it's 21 kind of like how does short interval 22 measurement work and how effective is it. 23 MS. BUSLIK: I think the wording 24 of that is wrong. 25 Pat, I'll work with you. It's 97 1 Michelle. 2 MR. ZACKON: We have a committee. 3 MS. LIGUORI: We can do our 4 point/counterpoint. 5 MR. HESS: Richard, this is Mike. 6 Trying to remember how committee volunteering 7 works. Can I volunteer for that committee 8 somebody who's not part of the CRE? I don't 9 mean myself. 10 MR. ZACKON: You can suggest 11 them. 12 MR. HESS: It's a person who I 13 know is interested in commercial avoidance 14 from OMD. 15 MR. ZACKON: I think you want to 16 contact Chairman Ligouri. 17 MR. HESS: Will do. 18 MR. ZACKON: And tell Pat. 19 MR. HESS: I will do that. Pat, 20 I promise to contact you about that. 21 MS. BUSLIK: And, Pat, I think we 22 can address some of this through this desk 23 top box issue where we will find out more 24 about what people are doing second by second. 25 MS. LIGUORI: I think probably 98 1 the first step is to work on what exactly 2 we're going to be doing and get some 3 structure and some more concrete idea. And 4 then, you know, we'll take it from there. 5 MR. ZACKON: That's great. 6 MR. STERNBERG: You know, if I 7 remember correctly, I was originally 8 volunteered to be on the co-chair of Shari's 9 committee when I was not here. So we can put 10 people on the committee that aren't present. 11 MR. WAKSHLAG: You actually were 12 here. You just don't remember. 13 MR. ZACKON: Steve, you're not 14 off the hook yet. I think you have an 15 interest. And you have a passion about that. 16 And I think at the very least if you can 17 enroll one or two other people to initiate a 18 conversation. Because it sounds like what 19 you're looking at are things -- I take back 20 what I said. They may cost. If you want to 21 put 100 meters in homes, it's going to have 22 to be funded. 23 MS. SHAGRIN: We might actually 24 be able to look at a lot of the set top box 25 data. I will tell you that the little bit of 99 1 second-by-second data I've looked at has me 2 totally fascinated. 3 MS. BUSLIK: Will you be on our 4 committee, Ceril? 5 MS. SHAGRIN: I never say no. 6 You don't want to do this with 7 set top data because you want to see how 8 Nielsen is doing. And set box data doesn't 9 tell you that. You have to look at what 10 those exact same homes is doing for you. 11 MR. IVIE: If you had meters set 12 top boxes, you can do a simulation. 13 MS. BRILL: How do we know with 14 set top boxes now whether the set is on or 15 off? Aren't there still issues with that? 16 MS. BUSLIK: Yes. There are 17 major issues. 18 MR. WAKSHLAG: This will tell you 19 how much of that happens. 20 MR. IVIE: That's the purpose. I 21 think you can roll all that up. And, Steve, 22 you could participate. Obviously, we would 23 hope that. You can roll that all under the 24 same topic of commercial avoidance if you 25 broadened it because you're looking at short 100 1 interval tuning. 2 MS. BUSLIK: I think it would 3 also end up giving us some idea of the 4 editing rules that would or could change some 5 of the results that you have to define when 6 you're going to use set top box. 7 MR. ZACKON: Just to read from 8 the charter, the mission is to advance the 9 knowledge and practice of methodological 10 research and audience measurement. So all 11 this fits inside that mission. 12 It's not specifically to comment 13 or critique specific practices. So it's 14 clear to go beyond where Nielsen may be now, 15 because Nielsen probably will be there at 16 some point. 17 MR. SHIMMEL: And you can do 18 something where either with forced turnover 19 households or some of the test panels that we 20 have in place, you know, to George's point. 21 Put a camera around the TV sets for a week or 22 hire Ball State to go in there and observe on 23 a night. I mean, all that stuff. 24 MR. WAKSHLAG: You read my mind. 25 MR. SHIMMEL: All that stuff is 101 1 very doable. 2 MR. IVIE: I just have a another 3 suggestion related to the passive persons 4 measurement. I know someone who's very 5 passionate about this who's participating on 6 a committee before, but they're not on the 7 Council. Which is Norm. Norm Hecht is very, 8 very passionate about passive persons 9 measurement. I know he's not on the Council, 10 but maybe we can approach him. 11 MR. ZACKON: Is he client? 12 MR. WAKSHLAG: He is a client. 13 MR. ZACKON: He's been vetted 14 and contributed. 15 MR. IVIE: He's worked on a 16 committee before. 17 MR. ZACKON: Maybe Tim Brooks. 18 MS. BUSLIK: I may not be 19 passionate anymore. He may not be as 20 passionate. 21 What we have done, and I 22 acknowledge you, Pat, for stepping up, is 23 this area of commercial avoidance with the 24 specifics to be determined by that group, 25 Nancy, you mentioned, although didn't 102 1 volunteer for leadership, content 2 identification. 3 MS. GALLAGHER: Which I think in 4 a way is part of that same thing; knowing 5 when the commercials start. Particularly if 6 you're looking at set top boxes with the 7 offset. 8 MS. BUSLIK: Could join our 9 committee. 10 MR. ZACKON: In the absence of a 11 new committee, you might want to. 12 MS. GALLAGHER: I might join the 13 committee. 14 MS. BUSLIK: Pat, I didn't even 15 if you -- 16 MR. ZACKON: Arm twisting, not 17 arm breaking. 18 And, Steve, how are you, Steve, 19 pursuing the interest you have there through 20 that committee or through an additional 21 working group? 22 MR. STERNBERG: I don't know. It 23 could be through that committee. Sure. 24 MR. ZACKON: So you want to play 25 with them for now and you'll see. Great. 103 1 MR. IVIE: Might break away 2 later. 3 MR. STERNBERG: I wouldn't mind 4 heading up a committee. But, I mean, quite 5 frankly, I'm just too busy with all the stuff 6 going on in my company right now. 7 MR. ZACKON: I think that's true 8 for everybody here. 9 MS. BUSLIK: It's very hard. 10 MR. ZACKON: And Ira, we can have 11 conversation later. But this may mean that 12 some people who have been working on your 13 committee are now free to pursue other 14 interests. 15 You, I believe, are a member of 16 the Steering Committee; is that right? 17 MS. BUSLIK: He's gone. 18 MR. HESS: Yes, he is. 19 MR. ZACKON: Okay. 20 MR. HESS: Ira is, yes. 21 MR. ZACKON: We can follow up 22 with that now regarding the cross-media 23 issues. What should we be doing? I think 24 the sense was to wait until the Ball State 25 study is further along and look there. We've 104 1 created two new initiatives here; one around 2 psychographics and one around commercial 3 avoidance. 4 MS. BURNS: With the possibility 5 of passive and George's suggestion. 6 MR. ZACKON: Where are we then 7 with the passive persons? Do we have someone 8 who's up for -- 9 MR. IVIE: I mean, if you want me 10 to, I can take a leadership on that. If you 11 want me to do that and see... 12 MR. ZACKON: We would love to. 13 MR. HESS: Who's that? 14 MR. ZACKON: George Ivie. 15 MR. IVIE: I still want to 16 participate with Pat on the other one. 17 MS. BURNS: Would you approach 18 Norm? 19 MR. IVIE: I will, yes, approach 20 him. 21 MR. ZACKON: Again, there's going 22 to be new people coming in. People not 23 participating in, people on Ira's committee. 24 And then new members of the Council. And you 25 might be wise to encourage someone to step up 105 1 to leadership out of that group so... 2 MS. BURNS: And the less active 3 members. 4 MR. ZACKON: Right. All three of 5 us. The less active. Ira's now hiatus. 6 MS. BURNS: Plus the new. 7 MR. ZACKON: Plus the tired, the 8 poor, and the huddled masses. 9 MS. BRILL: Can I bring up 10 something about commercial avoidance because 11 I think this is such a great area that really 12 has to be explored. 13 And I would like to know if maybe 14 there's room in there to include something 15 like overused creative. Because with 16 diminished rating sizes, the same creative 17 solution gets used over and over and over 18 again. And no pun intended, but I would say, 19 ad nauseam. 20 Toward that end, it might be a 21 really good idea to really revisit the whole 22 concept of commercial wear-out. Because many 23 people on the planning side are still using 24 old constructs that originated back in the 25 '60s. And you know the media environment is 106 1 very different from back then. 2 MS. BURNS: Shari, I'm a little 3 concerned the direction this is starting to 4 move is more of an agency creative rather 5 than a measurement. And I don't know. 6 MS. LIGUORI: I'm a little 7 concerned that we're getting a lot of 8 elements thrown into this. Although, as you 9 say, I mean, typically in the past that has 10 been one of the reasons why people would 11 avoid commercials. So I really think it's 12 something. It may be very logical to have 13 that as part of it. I think we really need 14 to figure out what direction is practical. 15 MR. IVIE: That's really the 16 purpose of scoping it out, right? 17 MS. LIGUORI: This thing can 18 explode in many directions. 19 MS. BURNS: When I look at POD, 20 POD length, POD position and clutter, that 21 all does have a link back to measurement. 22 But whether you should change up your 23 creative has nothing to do with -- you're 24 right -- I try to preach the same thing at my 25 company. But it has nothing to do with 107 1 measurement. 2 MS. BRILL: And I agree. I was 3 just pointing out in the paragraph because it 4 says unimaginative creative. And that's a 5 judgmental -- 6 MS. LIGUORI: Right. 7 MS. BURNS: But I think, Pat, 8 that's more of I'm guessing what you might 9 have meant is the nontraditional commercial 10 spot. 11 MS. LIGUORI: No. 12 Again, as far as the reason that 13 people avoid it, I've seen it. I've seen it 14 20 times. I've seen two 15s in the same POD 15 that are identical. So I do think overuse of 16 creative is valid. 17 MS. BUSLIK: It depends upon the 18 creative. It's all suggestive. 19 MR. WAKSHLAG: All I can suggest 20 is this: You know what the mission of the 21 Council is. Keep that in mind. It's about 22 improving measurement. 23 MS. BURNS: Right. 24 MR. WAKSHLAG: Not identifying 25 how creative affects the measurement. You 108 1 know, if you can link the creative effects to 2 the measurement, that's one thing. But 3 you're focused on the measurement. 4 And the other thing that Tim was 5 actually very good at with our committee, the 6 committee had a mission statement. And that 7 mission statement was quite specific; it's on 8 advancing measurement. 9 MS. BURNS: Right. 10 MR. WAKSHLAG: And that's what 11 this is about. So, to me, if the committee 12 focuses on the measurement of commercials, 13 and second-by-second data enhances the 14 ability to measure commercials. And you can 15 use that level of precision to do all kinds 16 of things. Fine. But once we start talking 17 about the creative, then we're out of the TV, 18 the video measurement part and into something 19 else. 20 MS. GALLAGHER: Right. 21 MR. WAKSHLAG: If I knew that the 22 measurement was right, I could fix that 23 stuff. But first I want to make sure the 24 measurement's right. 25 MR. ZACKON: Mike, I acknowledge 109 1 the efforts of the Steering Committee getting 2 this started and getting these issues 3 identified. 4 MR. HESS: Yes. 5 MR. ZACKON: It sounds like we 6 have three new areas of exploration with Pat 7 heading commercial viewings. George heading 8 up passive persons. Mike with 9 psychographics. 10 Now that, Henry, you're on the 11 phone, is there anything you want to do 12 regarding that 2009 issue which didn't, and I 13 wrote that text in your absence, Henry, about 14 what the Council might do in being on top of 15 the 2009 analog to digital switch? 16 MR. DeVAULT: The problem, you 17 know, I just think that there's so many 18 organizations out there that are working on 19 it, I don't know if there's any research that 20 Council can play per se as far as the digital 21 version. I kind of like envision it as more 22 like a wrap-up or trying to do some kind of 23 coordination of Ball State, the organizations 24 out there. But they do have a digital 25 conversion coalition out there which has over 110 1 200 members today. 2 So, you know, I'm kind of like up 3 in the air in terms of if there is a role for 4 the CRE going forward in this particular 5 area, because there's so much work coming. 6 MR. WAKSHLAG: Is there a 7 measurement issue, Henry? 8 MR. DeVAULT: I don't think 9 there's a measurement issue per se. There's 10 a measurement issue in regard to the universe 11 in that regard. Because we don't know 12 exactly how many people will lose the ability 13 to receive signals. So in that sense I 14 believe that there's a measurement issue. 15 MS. LIGUORI: Well, the 16 measurement issue is also a lot of these 17 homes are going to be out of the sample 18 national. And we don't know for how long. 19 We don't really know how many. 20 MS. BUSLIK: You know, I would 21 like to throw this back to Nielsen since 22 we're talking about it from the rating 23 standpoint. That I think it behooves them to 24 provide periodic updates on what they know, 25 how much they know, what the progress has 111 1 been in informing people. How things are 2 moving along. 3 Because, I mean, the one meeting 4 I attended where all of a sudden maybe there 5 won't be a February sweep; maybe there will 6 be. That's what you've got. I think it's up 7 to Nielsen to inform us, rather than anything 8 that we can do. 9 MR. ZACKON: Mark? 10 MR. IVIE: I'll just say one 11 thing. I think what also would be helpful is 12 if Nielsen illuminated to us if they're 13 having any technical difficulties that they 14 need to study. 15 I'll give you an example. One of 16 the things we're wrestling with is how should 17 Nielsen behave when panel households come to 18 them and ask them about digital transition 19 and should I change my TV. Can you help me 20 install this. Can you help me scan my TV, 21 whatever. 22 And that's an area that hasn't 23 really -- we feel like Nielsen shouldn't say 24 anything because they're influencing their 25 panel to be. And then they might 112 1 inordinately different from the general 2 markets. But there has to be a happy medium 3 in how you communicate. So if they had that 4 issue and then came to us and said, gosh, can 5 you guys think of a way we should study this, 6 and, you know, should this be a CRE issue, I 7 think that would be helpful. 8 MS. BUSLIK: George, I'm even 9 going to the fact that, well, if they keep 10 track and let us know how many television 11 sets per household they think or whatever 12 they think it's going to affect and how many 13 people are going to contact them and coming 14 to them and asking them for advice. At least 15 that would tell us what effect some of the 16 public service announcements are having a 17 headway. Because they're going to get this 18 kind of response. So I feel like -- 19 MR. IVIE: It would be great if 20 Nielsen had a form. Every time a field rep 21 was approached, will you help me with this, 22 they quick-filled that out, you know. 23 MS. BUSLIK: It will be a gauge 24 of how well the public service announcements 25 are going out, which will be a gauge for us. 113 1 Is this just like Y2K, a big nothing, or is 2 this really a major change. 3 MR. SHIMMEL: That's some of the 4 data that was in the NAB presentation that I 5 mentioned. They're actually tracking 6 awareness of the issue, awareness of where to 7 go to learn about the issues. 8 MS. BURNS: But to Michelle's 9 point, we've all learned today's figures. 10 There's 11 months to go. I would put on the 11 table monthly from now until countdown, we've 12 got to know. Because we're all trying to, 13 we're all being asked what are next year's 14 numbers going to look like? Nobody knows. 15 And I won't even say because I don't know 16 between now and 11 months how many TV sets 17 and TVs within the household are going to 18 convert. But if we keep track on a monthly 19 basis, we'll all be able to forecast. 20 MR. ZACKON: Mark, can we ask 21 Nielsen to come back at the next meeting of 22 the Council -- 23 MR. GREENE: Yes, I will. 24 MR. ZACKON: -- with a plan or 25 report, something that makes us smart and 114 1 puts you online? 2 MS. BURNS: We shouldn't have to 3 go someplace other than Nielsen for that. 4 MS. LIGUORI: Another issue. 5 MR. ZACKON: Sure. One second. 6 MR. WAKSHLAG: If a house has got 7 six TVs and none of them can get a signal, is 8 it still a TV household? You've got to tell 9 me how you're going to define these homes if 10 they fall out of tab because they don't get a 11 digital signal. Are they a TV household if 12 they don't get a TV signal? 13 MS. BURNS: We're drilling that 14 down further. 15 MR. WAKSHLAG: I just want to 16 know if they're in the sample or out of the 17 sample to start with. If they're not a TV 18 household, then you have to redefine your 19 universe. 20 MS. SHAGRIN: That was the point 21 I wanted to bring out. Because from a 22 research measurement issue, how will Nielsen 23 keep up with updating Universe Estimates for 24 weighting control. Because there are going 25 to be a certain number of people who are 115 1 going to convert to cable who are not cable. 2 There are going to be some people who are 3 going to trade in that analog set for one 4 that's a digital set or one of the sets that 5 Nielsen is using as a weighting control at 6 that time. And there may be a difference in 7 that TV household universe for people that no 8 longer have a usable TV set. 9 I think what we're going to find 10 is that people have analog-only sets. They 11 still have some TV, but it will impact 12 coverage because they will only be able to 13 get, let's say, a low power station or a 14 station from across the border. 15 MR. GREENE: If I can make a 16 proposal for a second. I'll come back at the 17 next CRE meeting and provide a briefing on 18 this topic. What would be helpful -- 19 MS. BURNS: That's too late. 20 MR. GREENE: Just listen to me 21 for a second. But before that meeting, what 22 would be helpful is to go through a couple of 23 iteration processes. So what if I get some 24 hands up that if I could go and essentially 25 give an initial briefing to get reactions so 116 1 that we can see what the missing pieces are 2 relative to the interests of the CRE. Then 3 we can iterate again. And by the time the 4 report goes to the full CRE, it will have 5 been vetted by sufficient membership so that 6 that there's a comfort level. 7 MR. ZACKON: So if I can propose, 8 Mark, why don't you set up a meeting, invite 9 all the members of the CRE to see who attends 10 to address it. Sometime in the next, say, 11 four weeks. So that you can come back to 12 this committee at the next Council meeting, 13 report back on what was there, and kind of 14 what you plan to do about it. 15 MR. GREENE: Right. And there 16 might be iterative meetings after that, like 17 before the CRE. 18 MR. ZACKON: Might be. Might be. 19 MS. BRILL: Ceril, I have a 20 question for you. I know that a lot of the 21 analog-only sets are in Spanish-dominant 22 homes. So I thought because I really don't 23 want Univision, is there a big outreach 24 program? 25 MS. SHAGRIN: Actually, Univision 117 1 is probably the first network to begin to 2 broadcast information to our viewers about 3 the digital conversion. And based on just 4 some research that we've done, I think 5 there's a lot of awareness. 6 One of the major problems though 7 that is going to hit us and hit a few other 8 networks is the low power situation where 9 there are homes that perhaps most of their 10 viewing is to a low power station. And they 11 buy the converter box. And they won't be 12 able to get the low power station that 13 doesn't have to convert. So there are a lot 14 of different problems that are going to 15 affect analog-only homes that have access to 16 low power stations. 17 MR. ZACKON: Is this a problem 18 along both borders; northern and southern? 19 MS. SHAGRIN: If you are on 20 either one of the borders and you have an 21 analog-only set and you don't get a converter 22 box, you will be able to get over-the-border 23 stations because they're not converted. 24 So, along the Mexican border 25 there are a lot of markets where people are 118 1 watching both Mexican stations and U.S. 2 stations. And along the northern border 3 there are people that are watching Canadian 4 stations. 5 MR. DeVAULT: Another issue 6 that's very important as far as this digital 7 conversion is the field plan that Nielsen is 8 in the process of developing. And in terms 9 of field plan, we're talking about the 10 canvassing and how they go about identifying 11 households, as well as what George had 12 referred to is the operations or features 13 that they go to. 14 And I know that Nielsen is 15 working on a field plan now. So I think that 16 if we are going to have a briefing in four 17 weeks, that we should have an understanding 18 of what that field staffing plan is going to 19 be at that point. 20 MS. LIGUORI: How will they set 21 priorities? 22 MR. ZACKON: If I can suggest to 23 Mark, the CRE which is spearheading this, you 24 might as part of that be thinking about 25 something to educate your clients more 119 1 broadly. 2 MR. GREENE: That's crystal. But 3 I wanted to engage the CRE because they're 4 bringing the topic up. So I want them to 5 feel like they're included in the discussion 6 in terms of not only forming an initial 7 response, but creating a feedback loop so 8 that we can form it to make sure that it 9 works for the industry and use the CRE as 10 help in that venue. 11 MR. WAKSHLAG: Look, we can help 12 you. But the truth is I'm assuming that the 13 MRC is going to be all over this. And I 14 don't know why this group has to do the same 15 thing that the MRC has got to do. 16 MR. IVIE: I think some of that 17 is very out of the scope of what we're trying 18 to do to further the practice of research. 19 But, I mean, this is a huge topic to get your 20 arms around. 21 MR. ZACKON: You have to identify 22 the measurement issues involved. Putting 23 that together, that probably would be what 24 your thoughts are. 25 MR. GREENE: Exactly. 120 1 MS. BURNS: And if that is, we 2 don't know how big the scope is. And that's 3 what we're asking here. And I wanted to add 4 it's not just the 13 million number. But 5 it's got to be broken down into the multiset 6 home. So if one TV converted, are we going 7 to lose the three others in the household by 8 demographic, by ethnic. 9 It's all critically important for 10 our marketing efforts to try because we're 11 all as individual companies trying to reach 12 out in public service too. I'm sure your 13 companies do. News Corp. has a big 14 initiative. Every division has a mandate to 15 produce X number of public service messages. 16 So what percent, what segment of 17 the audience is even more critical than 18 another because they're most at risk for not 19 becoming digital. So it's not just the 13 20 million number. It's by household, by age, 21 by ethnicity. 22 MR. GREENE: Right. There's a 23 lot of questions. And I think that's why I 24 think that the conversation is an iterative 25 process. I agree that there's other entities 121 1 out there that are very much interested in 2 this. Certainly, the Nielsen Company is 3 extraordinarily interested in this. 4 MR. ZACKON: Do you have a 5 conversion czar, someone internally like -- 6 MR. GREENE: I don't know the 7 answer. 8 MR. IVIE: Eric? 9 MR. SHIMMEL: Eric Rossi? 10 MR. ZACKON: C-z-a-r or t-s-a-r? 11 MR. SHIMMEL: R-o-s-s-i. 12 MR. ZACKON: Other topics on 13 issues of new initiative? 14 MR. HESS: This is Mike. I'd 15 like my 30 seconds on Sales For Dummies or 16 whatever that book was, because based on the 17 last conversation that I've heard, I just 18 sense that everybody, most people on the 19 committee have kind of a comfort zone with 20 Sander's measurement issues. 21 And I've not heard anybody step 22 up for the psychographic one. So not that I 23 absolutely am pushing hard for it. But I do 24 want to provide some motivation in the 25 following way. And this is intended for 122 1 everybody except for Jack, because we know 2 where he stands. If Jack wants to volunteer 3 after my sales presentation, that would be 4 great. 5 No, seriously. The reason I 6 think psychographics are important and I 7 think of an example I can talk about as 8 opposed to the confidential stuff, before I 9 moved to New York I was doing research for 10 the group in Cincinnati called the Cincinnati 11 Shakespeare Group. And they put on three or 12 four Shakespeare productions every year. And 13 also three or four other ones like Who's 14 Afraid of Virginia Wolf, et cetera. 15 And there I found out that the 16 best way to segment the market for Cincinnati 17 Shakespeare was not demographically. It 18 definitely was not people 65 and over or any 19 way that I could segment demographically. 20 But rather psychographically was the way to 21 segment. It was kind of great to look at the 22 audience and to see 70-year-olds there and 23 50-year-olds an 22-year-olds, what they had 24 in common. A love for Shakespeare. A love 25 for live theater in a small setting. These 123 1 were all kind of lifestyle psychographic 2 characteristics that I really couldn't break 3 down into demos. 4 So that experience and other ones 5 that I can't talk about kind of convinced me 6 that certain markets can be better segmented 7 psychographically. That's kind of what I'm 8 presenting here. 9 My close to the sales pitch is I 10 would like somebody or two to step out of 11 your comfort zone and consider joining this 12 committee and looking at something that maybe 13 historically hasn't been connected to 14 measurement. But given the better one-to-one 15 connections that we're going to have 16 available in the future measurement systems, 17 that psychographics might be the way to go 18 for certain categories and certain brands. 19 End of sales pitch. 20 MR. ZACKON: Mike, if I can add 21 something here, and I just checked with 22 Howard because I had conversations with 23 Howard in another venue about a possibility, 24 and maybe it fits in here with segmentation. 25 Which is the idea that maybe Nielsen ought to 124 1 have some behavioral viewing segmentation 2 structure. 3 MR. HESS: Okay. 4 MR. ZACKON: Not necessarily 5 psychographic, but including psychographic. 6 That right now it's mainly demographic that 7 it uses. And it occurred to me that the Ball 8 State study might be a place to learn some 9 things about how people use media. But might 10 you be open in that segmentation piece of it 11 to include segmentations other than pure 12 psychographic so it becomes a segmentation 13 piece? 14 MR. HESS: Exactly. I think the 15 way you framed it is a good broad frame of 16 it. Because I'm not hung up on a 17 psychographics crusade. I think I'm hung up 18 more on there's a bigger world out there. 19 Especially when technology changes beyond 20 just demographic targeting. 21 I know there's, here's a buzzword 22 from the digital space, but behavioral 23 targeting is one of the expressions they use. 24 I would be completely open to that. I'm just 25 looking for ways with the psychographic 125 1 example I gave about Cincinnati Shakespeare. 2 I'm looking for mechanisms that allow certain 3 categories to be reached in a much more 4 effective way than just demos, where demos, I 5 think, actually, you know, it's not that they 6 don't work. They just don't provide the 7 discrimination that you get from demos in 8 other areas. 9 MR. ZACKON: Maybe that's 10 something like alternative segmentation. 11 MR. HESS: Yes. Maybe that's a 12 better way to phrase it. 13 MR. WAKSHLAG: Beyond the demos. 14 MR. HESS: Beyond the 15 characteristics, behavioral ones, et cetera. 16 MR. ZACKON: In that regard, have 17 you seen that Arrowhead study from the ARF? 18 MR. HESS: You're not going to 19 wear me down on this. 20 MR. ZACKON: So is there interest 21 in joining with Mike on an alternative 22 segmentation? 23 Is there anyone on the Council 24 that says, gee, Mike, I'm happy to engage you 25 in an hour conversation about that 126 1 possibility? 2 MR. DeVAULT: This is Henry 3 DeVault. I will. 4 MR. ZACKON: That's great. And 5 Jack will play. We've got a group. 6 MS. BURNS: Don't forget those 7 other three groups. 8 MR. ZACKON: We've got four 9 groups. 10 MS. BURNS: No, no. The new 11 people, et cetera. 12 MR. ZACKON: I understand. This 13 is not the last word. But my sense is we 14 need three to say that we've got something. 15 And each of these four possibilities have at 16 least three people who are playing. 17 Now we need to populate that as 18 best we can with the Council. And then open 19 it up to anyone else technically with 20 Nielsen's clients. Maybe Nielsen wants to 21 put out a message to their clients and say 22 these groups are forming, does anyone want to 23 get involved. 24 MR. HESS: As the Steering 25 Committee chairman who brought this to the 127 1 group, I feel very good about the willingness 2 of people to step up. Also, there may have 3 been some arm-twisting. Also, the great 4 discussion we've had on the last 45 minutes 5 on a discussion like this. 6 MR. ZACKON: We haven't had a 7 discussion like that for quite some time. 8 And it's really great to participate in it. 9 Again, I acknowledge the participation of the 10 Steering Committee and the people, their 11 willingness to put forth these ideas to 12 address. And we have four areas now. 13 MR. SHIMMEL: Mike, this is 14 Howard. Even though I'm no longer on the 15 Council, count me in. Because this is very 16 relevant to my day job. 17 MR. HESS: Okay. 18 MR. ZACKON: You still have a day 19 job, Howard? 20 MR. SHIMMEL: Yes. 28-hour day 21 job. 22 MR. HESS: We went from zero to 23 three. 24 Richard, make your framework of 25 making it psychographic and not just 128 1 behavioral. 2 MR. ZACKON: We have everything. 3 We have 20 more minutes or we could leave 4 early. So if anyone wants to move for 5 adjournment or if there's any other new 6 business, if there is any other new business. 7 But I think we've got to all the other items 8 I was aware of. 9 So does anyone want to say 10 anything now? 11 MR. WAKSHLAG: Move to adjourn. 12 MR. ZACKON: Move to adjourn, 13 Jack. That's a second meeting in a row you 14 made the move. 15 MR. WAKSHLAG: My wife's 16 birthday. I've got to get out of here. 17 MR. ZACKON: Is there a second? 18 MR. HESS: If we adjourned sooner 19 I can get to the Arrowhead report faster. 20 MR. ZACKON: I think the meeting 21 is concluded. Thank you all. 22 MR. HESS: Thank you everybody. 23 MR. ZACKON: I'll follow up with 24 the people who agreed to lead. 25 (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the 129 1 meeting adjourned.) 2 o0o 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 130 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 STATE OF NEW YORK ) 4 ) ss. 5 COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) 6 7 I, ROBERT M. LEVINE, a Shorthand 8 (Stenotype) Reporter and Notary Public of the 9 State of New York, do hereby certify that 10 foregoing Proceedings, taken at the time and place 11 aforesaid, is a true and correct transcription of 12 my shorthand notes. 13 I further certify that I am neither counsel 14 for nor related to any party to said action, nor 15 in any wise interested in the result or outcome 16 thereof. 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 18 hand this 14th day of August, 2007. 19 20 _________________________ 21 ROBERT M. LEVINE, CSR 22 23 24 25