1 1 2 --------------------------------------------x 3 COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH EXCELLENCE 4 5 --------------------------------------------x 6 September 8, 2006 7 2:00 p.m. 8 Millenium Hotel 9 145 West 44th Street 10 New York, New York 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 REGENCY REPORTING, INC. 22 Certified Shorthand Reporters & Videographers 23 425 Eagle Rock Avenue 575 Madison Avenue 24 Roseland, NJ 07068 New York, NY 10022 25 www.regencyreporting.net 1-866-268-7866 2 1 2 A P P E A R A N C E S: 3 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: 4 MELVA BENOIT SHARI ANNE BRILL 5 TIM BROOKS JOANNE BURNS 6 MICHELE BUSLIK VICKY CHAMPLIN 7 SUSAN CUCCINELLO HENRY DeVAULT 8 PAUL DONATO NANCY GALLAGHER 9 DON GLOECKLER BRUCE GOERLICH 10 KATE PHONE JEAN GOLDBERG 11 DAVID GUNZERATH MIKE HESS 12 GEORGE IVIE MARK KALINE 13 PAT LIGUORI JESSICA PANTANINI 14 DAVID POLTRACK LYLE SCHWARTZ 15 CERIL SHAGRIN HOWARD SHIMMEL 16 JONATHAN SIMS STEVE STERNBERG 17 IRA SUSSMAN RICHARD ZACKON 18 JIM SPAETH KAREN WATSON 19 GUEST SPEAKERS: 20 MAIKE BLOXHAM 21 MICHAEL HOLMES JIM SPAETH 22 BILL MOULT 23 ALSO PRESENT: 24 ROBERT M. LEVINE, CM 25 Court Reporter 3 1 2 MR. ZACKON: We're going to look 3 to see if we can complete by 4 o'clock today, 4 unless anyone has an objection to that 5 possibility. I see no one objecting. Very 6 good. 7 Mike, are you on the phone yet? 8 Not yet. Okay. Why don't we start. 9 MR. KALINE: Okay, folks. Good 10 afternoon. Thanks for making time on a sunny 11 Friday afternoon here in the city. 12 I think we've got a great meeting 13 today. And one that's going to, I think, be 14 a very positive one for this council. And 15 represents the culmination of a lot of work 16 on behalf of a couple of our committees. 17 For the benefit of everybody on 18 the phone I'd like to start off by going 19 around the room. We do have life mics. And 20 it will be better for them to hear you if you 21 can speak at least towards one. That will be 22 great. We'll go down to Henry. And we'll 23 work our way around the room here. 24 MR. DeVAULT: Henry DeVault from 25 ABC Broadcasting. 4 1 2 MR. POLTRACK: Dave Poltrack from 3 CBS. 4 MS. GOLDBERG: Jean Goldberg, 5 Warner Bros.. 6 MR. DONATO: Paul Donato from 7 Nielsen. 8 MS. PANTANINI: Jessica Pantanini 9 from Bromley. 10 MR. ZACKON: Richard Zackon, 11 facilitator. 12 MR. KALINE: Mark Cahill, Ford 13 Motor Company. 14 MR. SHIMMEL: Howard Shimmel. 15 Fox Broadcasting Company. 16 MS. CUCCINELLO: Susan 17 Cuccinello, TVWB. 18 MS. GALLAGHER: Nancy Gallagher 19 NBC-Universal. 20 MR. BROOKS: Tim Brooks, 21 Lifetime. 22 MR. STERNBERG: Steve Sternberg. 23 MS. BUSLIK: Michele Buslik. 24 MR. SUSSMAN: Ira Sussman, cNBC. 25 MR. KALINE: On the phone? 5 1 2 MS. BURNS: Joanne Burns. 3 MS. CHAMPLIN: Vicky Champlin 4 Anheuser-Busch. 5 MR. GLOECKLER: Don Gloeckler, 6 Procter & Gamble. 7 MS. BRILL: Shari Anne Brill, 8 Cara. 9 MR. SIMS: Jonathan Sims, 10 Comcast. 11 MS. LIGUORI: Pat Liguori, ABC 12 Television Stations. 13 MR. IVIE: George Ivie, MRC. 14 MR. GUNZERATH: David Gunzerath. 15 MR. KALINE: I think that about 16 does it. Mike's obviously not on the phone 17 yet. 18 MR. ZACKON: Did someone just 19 join in? 20 MS. WATSON: Karen Watson, 21 Richard, listening in. 22 MR. ZACKON: Your title at 23 Nielsen there. 24 MS. WATSON: Senior vice 25 president communications. 6 1 2 MR. KALINE: In the absence of 3 Mike, do we want to start off with our 4 committees? 5 MR. ZACKON: I think it's a good 6 idea. And we'll start off with the major 7 presentation today. 8 And, in fact, where is Steve? 9 When is it appropriate to invite our guests 10 in? It's up to you. 11 MR. STERNBERG: Okay. 12 MR. ZACKON: Rebecca is ready to 13 call them. But the floor is yours. 14 MR. STERNBERG: Okay. Before I 15 start, I just wanted to say that I remember 16 when Richard was going around the room the 17 first time asking what we hoped to get out of 18 this, and I remember my comment was something 19 like I hope a year from now I hope I'm not 20 just saying why didn't I go on another 21 committee. And this really has not been like 22 other committees I've been on. I think that 23 the commitment and the energy shown by 24 everybody in our committee, and, of course, 25 with Richard's help, has really been amazing. 7 1 2 Everybody, you know, usually you 3 don't get the type of agreement that we've 4 had so easily among different segments of the 5 industry in a committee. And when we first 6 had the proposal, the RFP, we got a little 7 over a dozen responses. And we narrowed it 8 down to three almost immediately with very 9 little dissent, with no dissention at all. 10 And we we've narrowed it down to one very 11 quickly thereafter. And it was a very easy 12 and smooth process. 13 And I just want to thank 14 everybody on the committee, and especially 15 give some thanks to Richard for facilitating 16 the whole thing. 17 Now, we are very excited right 18 now because we the Media Consumption 19 Engagements Committee is officially 20 recommending to the full council that we move 21 ahead with the pilot study proposed by Ball 22 State University and Sequent Partners. Once 23 the study is complete we will vote on whether 24 to recommend the full study. And I think 25 there's a very good chance that barring some 8 1 2 bizarre anomalies in the pilot, there's a 3 good chance that will happen. 4 Just to reiterate -- 5 A VOICE: Steve, how far away are 6 you from any mic? 7 MR. STERNBERG: Can you hear now? 8 Now I'm a little bit closer. 9 Some of the things that this 10 study is going to tell us, and we just want 11 to reiterate a little bit because I think 12 everybody has seen the study and we'd really 13 rather give more time to the folks that are 14 going to be coming in to talk to us a little 15 bit. 16 Basically, we're trying to find 17 out how do different media interact. And 18 just as importantly, how do people interact 19 with different media. How does that change 20 over time in and out of the home. And we're 21 really talking about anything that is 22 screen-based media. So we're really talking 23 about anything from a one-in screen to 24 outdoor billboards to movie theaters. 25 What are the rules of adoption? 9 1 2 What are the differences between early 3 adopters and people that join later? And are 4 early adopters the same for different types 5 of media? They may not be. We really don't 6 know. And what are the rules of engagements? 7 What do people think about the various media? 8 What's on top of mind and how does that 9 evolve over time? 10 Now, mapping media usage is 11 really going to be divided between high tech 12 and low tech people as opposed to households. 13 Because there could be people within the same 14 household where one is much higher tech than 15 the other. 16 For example, I have a video iPod 17 that I use all the time and my wife does not. 18 So if she was being looked at here she would 19 be a lower tech person than I would be. So 20 it's really people focus rather than 21 household focus. What is the time range of 22 each medium used? Is simultaneous media 23 usage multi-tasking? How does multi-tasking 24 differ from high tech and low tech between 25 high tech and low tech people? 10 1 2 You know, everybody multi-tasks 3 and everybody always multi-tasks. But 4 previously somebody might have been watching 5 television and reading a newspaper, reading a 6 magazine. Now they're watching television 7 and using the Internet. Well, how is that 8 different? How does that differ? How does 9 that affect attentiveness? All that type of 10 stuff. 11 Going to look at demo and 12 socioeconomic class and all that wonderful 13 stuff that we always look at. Same thing by 14 high speed broadband access to lower speed 15 access by ownership and use of newer 16 technologies. Because it's not just the 17 ownership that's important. It's whether 18 somebody uses something that really tells us 19 whether they're a high tech or low-tech 20 person. You know somebody could get an iPod 21 as a gift and never use it. Just because 22 they own it does not mean they're a high-tech 23 person. 24 And the instance of time-shifting 25 is certainly becoming more and more 11 1 2 important. And commercial versus program 3 behavior. And when you start looking at 4 commercial versus program behavior there is a 5 little bit of a trade-off. Because when 6 you're talking about an observational study 7 and you really want somebody to get into that 8 detailed of an observation you know then some 9 other things might get affected a little bit. 10 But, let's see. The data 11 generated for each participant. Obviously, 12 demographics, media ownership and access, 13 video consumption. Basically they're going 14 to be able to do this in 10-second intervals. 15 And it's really going to cover all 16 television, computers, out-of-home video, 17 gaming, anything, any hand-held device. 18 Anything that basically has a screen 19 recording and time-shifting, presence of 20 co-viewers. And intentional versus 21 unintended viewing. You know, people that 22 actually sat down to watch something and 23 people that just happened to look up and 24 watch it because it happened to be on. 25 Somebody else is watching it. 12 1 2 Exposure to nonscreened media is 3 going to be included, but really only for 4 context. Not for the genre or the title or 5 anything like that. You know, it will be 6 noted that this person is reading a magazine 7 but it won't be noted that they're reading 8 People Magazine. It's just for the context 9 of how this relates to other media. 10 And life activities. What are 11 people doing while they're using media? What 12 are they doing when they're not using media? 13 And what is the apparent focus of attention? 14 Obviously, if people are doing a number of 15 different things, well, if you're watching 16 television and you're online at the same 17 time, which one are you focusing on more? 18 You know, that type of thing. 19 And, you know, it's not just how 20 people use media right now that we're trying 21 to find out. We're also trying to get a 22 handle on how this might impact the future of 23 media measurement. You know, there will be 24 follow-up interviews after each observation. 25 And ideally, and I guess we're still talking 13 1 2 to Nielsen about whether we can use people 3 cycling off their sample for the pilot or 4 not. We obviously want people that are 5 coming off of the sample because this is a 6 very credible sample. It will enable us, and 7 I don't know if this has ever really been 8 done before, to look at the differences in 9 observational type studies versus interviews 10 versus what Nielsen's panel is actually 11 reporting that people are doing. And what 12 dynamics of viewing does Nielsen miss. And 13 how can this help guide future audience 14 research. 15 Is there anything that we learned 16 from this study that we can say, well, 17 Nielsen should be doing this. Or we should 18 be getting this type of information in the 19 future, or this type of measurement. And 20 that is pretty much a summary of what the 21 proposal is. 22 There's more detail in the actual 23 proposals that you've all seen or you all 24 have at least received. I think Shari could 25 mention something about the cost involved and 14 1 2 introduce Mike who's going to be coming in 3 from Ball State. Shari. 4 MS. BRILL: Okay. Oh, great. 5 Okay. Hi, everyone. I'm just so excited to 6 be here, at least in spirit today, to be 7 recommending what we feel is a breakthrough 8 in some cutting edge methodological research 9 with our perspective partners, Ball State 10 University, Center for Media Design and 11 Sequent Partners. 12 I'd like to tell you a bit about 13 Mike Bloxham who's going to lead off the 14 discussion. He is Director, Insight and 15 Research. 16 MR. ZACKON: Shari, before you go 17 on, we're about to invite them into the room. 18 Shall we do that. 19 MR. STERNBERG: Let's introduce 20 Mike. I think he's going to come in first 21 and then introduce each person individually. 22 MS. BRILL: And they're 23 introduced. 24 MR. STERNBERG: Introduce Mike 25 and he'll come in. 15 1 2 MS. BRILL: Okay. Are they on 3 their way in? 4 MR. STERNBERG: They're on their 5 way in. 6 MS. BRILL: I'd like to introduce 7 Mike Bloxham, Director, Insight and Research 8 at the Center for Media Design. 9 MR. ZACKON: They have all four 10 entered. It's tough to do. 11 MS. BRILL: It's hard to do this 12 on the phone. 13 Mike Bloxham is responsible for 14 the development and delivery of the Center's 15 research agenda and is coauthor of the 16 Middletown Media Studies which, I'm sure, 17 most of you have some familiarity with. 18 Prior to joining the university 19 back in 2003, Mike worked internationally in 20 media research and consulting. And he 21 advised major media owners, advertisers and 22 government departments on media strategies 23 design. And undertook national/international 24 research programs. 25 Since the mid '90s his chief area 16 1 2 of expertise has been consumer response to 3 emerging media and how they impact media use 4 and related aspects of daily living. He has 5 extensive experience in researching the 6 commercial implications of consumer response 7 to an adoption of interactive television, 8 mobile platforms, et cetera. 9 So without further ado, I would 10 like to introduce you all to Mike Bloxham. 11 MR. BLOXHAM: Thank you, Shari. 12 And good afternoon, everybody. I'm going to 13 kick off through this and then my colleagues 14 will take it over section by section. And 15 we'll do an introduction as we do as each of 16 us join. Get past that rather quickly. 17 We're going to be as quick as we can so we 18 can open up as much of this for discussion. 19 A VOICE: Can't hear real well. 20 MR. BLOXHAM: How's that? Yes, 21 that's a lot better. Right. Thank for you 22 that. I'm going to dive into this fairly 23 quickly so we can leave as much time for 24 discussion as possible. I will introduce my 25 colleagues as we go through. So I will 17 1 2 queque those on the telephone when I'm moving 3 through the slide by saying as much. 4 But first, before I dive in I do 5 feel it's appropriate to take time on behalf 6 of my colleagues to acknowledge and to thank 7 the subcommittee for the way in which they've 8 run the process from our point of view. And 9 to acknowledge the fact that whenever we 10 sought guidance and feedback, it's been 11 forthcoming. It's been valuable. And it's 12 helped us enormously. And we hope that you 13 feel it's been a productive process in that 14 regard as well. Certainly helped us get to 15 where we got to anyway thus far. 16 So moving to the second slide 17 beyond the title slide. Purpose. Obviously 18 it's appropriate to restate what to you is no 19 doubt the obvious. But I think it's 20 important to show that we've been adhering to 21 this as well. This is, if you like, 22 restating the mission. And it's our attempt 23 to the core distillation of the elements of 24 the RFP. And obviously, it's been our 25 central point of guidance as we've sought to 18 1 2 develop our proposal to you. It's the sort 3 of thing that we kept coming back to as we've 4 explored different opportunities that we 5 considered. And either adopted them, 6 developed them, or rejected them as not 7 necessarily serving the core purpose to the 8 best of our ability. 9 Moving on. A little bit of 10 background. Many of you, I'm sure, are 11 familiar to a greater or lesser extent with 12 the Middletown Media studies. But to 13 contextualize, the Middletown studies, the 14 original Middletown studies where we took the 15 name from were some of, you will note, 16 ground-breaking sociological studies first 17 undertaken in the 1920s in the Muncie, 18 Delaware County area of Indiana which took 19 the agenda of looking at the prototypical 20 American community in the industrial age at 21 the time when really the thing that was 22 having the same kind of impact that we look 23 upon digital media as having now was the 24 automobile. 25 It's a fascinating book if you 19 1 2 can get hold of a copy anywhere. When you 3 actually read the kind of quotes that people 4 are calling out and saying everybody is about 5 the automobile now. Media of the day is 6 about newspapers. It's about books. And so 7 forth, rather than transportation. 8 What we at the university have 9 been seeking to do since about 2002, 2003 is 10 to take that same approach to the mass market 11 community that's initially out in Middletown, 12 but to expand it now and say how does mass 13 market America play out in the digital age. 14 And our agenda has developed in that 15 direction in a number of different ways. 16 And the Middletown Media studies 17 is a way of bench-marking interactions with 18 all media, both emerging digital media and 19 traditional media is a kind of a benchmark 20 manifestation of that. And I wanted to talk 21 further on that. But you can see there's 22 been a series of activities going on from the 23 '20s all the way up to recent years. Not all 24 of that has been undertaken by Ball State 25 University I should point out, although we've 20 1 2 been in existence for over 100 years. Ball 3 State actually established the extent of the 4 Middletown studies since the middle 1980s. 5 And since that time has been strictly active. 6 It was 2004, in fact, when we 7 established the relationship with Jim and 8 Bill, having published the first of our 9 Middletown Media studies, which was really 10 hard to see if we can do it. That we really 11 started to ramp up this area of activity to 12 get to where we are now. 13 Moving on. A little word about 14 the sense of the media design. It's 15 important to talk about our orientation. We, 16 as you can see, the evident perspective for 17 the Center of Media Design is that we're 18 really an R&D facility in digital media. 19 Important thing is that we're not about R&D 20 as it will be defined with regards to 21 developing new technologies. We are not 22 going to be the ones to come up with the new 23 radical kind of video player will operated 24 across all media platforms. 25 We have a consumer and content 21 1 2 orientation. Our research is geared towards 3 understanding, what will drive or what will 4 inhibit adoption of new digitally delivered 5 offerings. Be that content, be that devices, 6 be that service offerings and so forth. And 7 obviously the underlying business models that 8 are emerging. And indeed, of course, sort of 9 a consequence of that, the impacts on 10 existing markets. 11 It's extremely important to us. 12 That bottom point I think is probably I would 13 say the most important on the slide. We have 14 close industry ties for a very good reason. 15 Unlike a lot of universities, this unit 16 actually sits outside of any one academic 17 unit. We do not report to a college dean. I 18 report to the director of the Center of Media 19 Design. And he reports, in turn, directly to 20 to the provost and then to the president. 21 That means that we can operate in an 22 interdisciplinary fashion within the 23 university. We're not actually a teaching 24 unit. We help develop a response curriculum 25 on campus. But it also means we're freer to 22 1 2 engage with industry because we don't have 3 faculty staff that have to teach courses 4 throughout the day. 5 I have a staff who work for me 6 who are full-time researchers. It means that 7 we don't have to rely on people who have day 8 jobs, as it were. And we don't solely have 9 to rely on students to actually get our 10 projects done. And it means we can be more 11 flexible in the way that we engage with 12 industry to ensure that our work is every bit 13 as relevant to industry as it is to academia. 14 We want it to be relevant to academia so it 15 can inform the development of curriculum so 16 that our students come out with an advantage 17 in the marketplace when it comes to companies 18 like yours, when you're overwhelmed with a 19 sea of resumes. We're hoping that we can be 20 producing the students that you immediately 21 gravitate towards and want to interview. 22 But the other side of that is is 23 that we want our research output to be 24 actionable by companies like yours and 25 others. And hence, our focus is really 23 1 2 understanding the present and the next two to 3 three years. We will periodically 4 hypothesize for the next five, but mostly 5 it's now and the next two to three years. 6 And we can talk about that a little later in 7 conversation if you'd like. 8 It's a big slide. So flicking on 9 again. Gratifyingly, and certainly 10 gratifyingly when one is talking to the 11 university president and provost, this kind 12 of approach and some of our outputs have led 13 to some plaudits along these lines. And it 14 is particularly gratifying when you're from a 15 university in Muncie, Indiana surrounded by 16 cornfields to have people saying this sort of 17 thing. It's something that frankly wouldn't 18 have been said about us a little while ago. 19 Now, my final expertise on this 20 is to talk a little bit more about that 21 industry link. Most, many of you know Jim 22 Spaeth and Bill Moult either individually or 23 as a pair, shall we say. Sequent Partners. 24 Jim and Bill were our first industry research 25 fellows. And this is a program that we put 24 1 2 in place as a very real practical and 3 tangible way of ensuring that we are close to 4 issues that are of importance now to people 5 in the industry. 6 It's very easy within academia to 7 feel that you have a monopoly on good ideas. 8 It's also very easy to become isolated. And, 9 quite frankly, to become less relevant than 10 one would like to be, certainly if you want 11 to be able to produce actionable outputs. 12 So Jim and Bill were people that 13 we engaged with around the Middletown Media 14 studies specifically. Partly because of 15 their knowledge and their emersion in the 16 industry over a period of years. Their 17 emphasis obviously on being brand and 18 media-metrics oriented. But also they 19 complemented our consumer-centricity in 20 outlook. Thus far it's been an extremely 21 successful relationship with us. And it's 22 been fair to acknowledge at this point that 23 we would not be able to make as much, 24 frankly, of the Middletown Media studies 25 without their integral input and output of 25 1 2 our team. Not just on this project, but 3 other areas as well. 4 Also, I think their perspective 5 on media's importance in building brands, not 6 just throughout advertising but in other ways 7 is also something which we value enormously 8 and which we leverage when we are putting 9 together initiatives and delivering them. 10 And then taking them out to the market after. 11 Now, I would like to pass over to 12 my colleague, Dr. Michael Holmes. By way of 13 brief introduction, Michael's a professor of 14 communication studies. He currently has the 15 position of associate director of Insight and 16 Research at the Center for Media Design. 17 That's about the only way in which he is my 18 number 2. In other ways he is, if not my 19 equal, then my better. 20 He has formerly been interim dean 21 of the College of Communication, Information 22 and Media at the university which is the 23 tenth largest college in the country. And he 24 has over 20 years of observational research 25 of one kind or another, ranging from 26 1 2 obviously the kind of research that the 3 Middletown Media studies represents. But 4 also gaze paths in Web and television 5 viewing, and so forth. 6 Michael. 7 MR. HOLMES: Thank you, Mike. 8 Minor correction. Tenth largest college of 9 communication in the country. 10 We're here proposing an 11 observational study. And here's why. We're 12 now on the Middletown Media studies number 1 13 slide for those who are on the telephone. 14 The first Middletown Media 15 studies which we performed in 2004 compared 16 three methods; traditional telephone survey, 17 media diary, and observation. We found 18 observation to be superior for 19 cross-location, cross-platform measurement as 20 a way of getting outside of the silos. We 21 found varying patterns of underreporting in 22 the other methods. So we've become committed 23 to observation as a way of understanding this 24 rapidly changing media landscape. But 25 observation is, of course, challenging and 27 1 2 expensive. So we're always seeking to refine 3 the methods. What we're doing now and have 4 been since after the Middletown studies, one 5 is computerized assisted observation. 6 The next slide for those of you 7 on the phone, we use an Alphasmart Dana smart 8 keyboard. I'm sorry. I forgot to get it out 9 of my bag. It's a laptop substitute. Great 10 battery life, very hardy, touch screen. And 11 what we do is we equip it with a consumption 12 media collecting program. And observers 13 shadow a person through the day, keeping 14 track of their life activities, their 15 location, their media exposures, and their 16 apparent focus of attention. 17 And they make those entries on 18 the touch screen and via the keyboard, the 19 very quiet keyboard. And the current data of 20 the Dana are logged every 10 seconds. So we 21 have greater richness and great granularity 22 in that data. We have found through our 23 field studies that this can be done with 24 what, for observational studies are large 25 samples and remarkable granularity. 28 1 2 In the last three years we've 3 done four field studies using the Dana, the 4 largest being Middletown Media Studies II 5 which you see described here. This was a 6 Muncie-Indianapolis sample. Pretty good 7 demographical. We tracked 15 media, 17 life 8 activities in 15-second increments. A little 9 over 5,000 hours of observation. But we 10 restrict most of our analyses to the longest 11 350 observed days to give you some sense of 12 the richness of the data that we're talking 13 about. 14 One way that we look at these is 15 to develop a graphic timeline map for each 16 person. This is a graphic timeline of a 17 female, 25, from Muncie. On the left-hand 18 side you'll see the legend. Each horizontal 19 bar represents a medium or family of media, 20 such as print media. That you'll then see in 21 the upper half the 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 22 and in the lower half of the slide the 4:00 23 p.m. until about 12:20 a.m.. So this is 24 someone who had a fairly long day, starting a 25 bit later than many of us. 29 1 2 We do show in this map just a 3 subset of key media. We picked this person 4 up at work. And it's hard to see all the 5 colors in the projected display. The person 6 is at work most of the day some other 7 locations from about 6:15 until 9:30 and then 8 home. We have their life activities mapped 9 through the day. 10 Exposure to print. You'll notice 11 just a little bit of newspaper first thing in 12 the morning and then some magazine in the 13 early afternoon. This is interesting. This 14 is radio. And you can see, for example, 15 between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. that very 16 clear association of radio with being in the 17 cars. You see the location changed to car. 18 You see the radio come on. So other than 19 some radio in the evening, all the rest of 20 the radio is associated with being in the 21 car. 22 Computer use for this person who 23 works in an office setting, heavy in the 24 morning, tapering off through the day. TV a 25 little bit in the late lunch. See activity 30 1 2 is she's at home and she's got the television 3 on. Then in the evening, out of the home 4 television exposure for over two hours. 5 Almost three hours, actually. And then again 6 at home. And particularly interesting with 7 this particular person is how much the 8 telephone dominates in this person's day, 9 both regular LAN line telephone and cell 10 phone calls. This person has a receptionist 11 role. Spends a lot of time on the phone. 12 Now, obviously these kinds of 13 timelines are fascinating to look at to get a 14 sense of the story of a person's exposure to 15 multiple media and different media at the 16 same time throughout the course of the day. 17 But for analytical purposes we need to move 18 to an aggregate level. 19 So what I'm going to do now is 20 introduce Bill Moult who will discuss the 21 kinds of analysis that we've done and can do 22 in the CRE study. Some of you know Bill from 23 his presidency of BASES. Some from his 24 presidency of Ipsos-ASI. And others from his 25 leadership of the Marketing Science 31 1 2 Institute. 3 Bill has been interested in 4 advertising and media since his doctoral 5 dissertation. And continues that interest in 6 his role as co-founder of the Sequent 7 Partners consultancy. 8 Bill. 9 MR. MOULT: Thank you, Mike. So 10 there's a lot that you can learn really 11 looking one consumer at a time with the kind 12 of data that Michael just took us through. 13 But obviously we're also looking interested 14 and cross consumers and trying to understand 15 what's happening with all their use of media. 16 One of the things you'll notice 17 from the slide is that I've defined 18 communication media pretty broadly, more 19 broadly than is obviously done here. So 20 here's 15 different media. And if you look 21 at the total amount of time spent by the 350 22 people on the medial television represents 23 about a third of it. Radios like in 24 wraparound there clockwise. Radios behind 25 it. But before you get to some of the other 32 1 2 traditional advertising support media that we 3 think about. You'll see things like 4 software, the Internet, music, E-mail, phone, 5 DVD, and so forth. So there's a lot going on 6 in total. Television is extremely important 7 in people's lives. We can see more evidence 8 of that in a minute. But there's also a lot 9 of other media going on. And if you look 10 across all 350 of these folks, one of the 11 interesting things is that on average they 12 were exposed to eight different media of 13 these 15 different media in the day that 14 they're observed. And we observed them from 15 basically as early as we could to as late as 16 we could in the day. It turned out on 17 average to be a little over 13 hours. 18 But the next piece of learning as 19 those of you who are on the phone kind of 20 build into a little blurb on the land side 21 there is the amount of time that's being 22 spent. Remember, we're tracking these people 23 13 hours or so. And almost nine hours of 24 that they're with media. 25 So it turns out that people spend 33 1 2 more time with media than they spend sleeping 3 or working or doing anything else. And it's, 4 as you've already seen an example of, it can 5 be pretty complicated in terms of how many 6 media. It's also complicated in terms of 7 when and where the media is exposed. 8 So if you started to consider 9 double-counts because people are often being 10 exposed to more than one medium at a time, 11 we're actually talking about 12 hours for 12 those people. And that's because a third, 13 almost a third of the time spent with media, 14 et al., is spent with multiple media or a 15 combination media exposure. 16 Also, most of the time spent with 17 media is spent with something else going on. 18 Not just focusing on the media, but having 19 being at work or being involved in child care 20 or meal preparation or whatever. So 58 21 percent of the day is actually involved with 22 that. 23 One way of looking at this in 24 starting to split up the time which turns out 25 to be a pretty useful way is really to split 34 1 2 it up into the number of people that are 3 being exposed to a given media in a day. And 4 the amount of time that each of them or on 5 average they're being supposed. 6 So if you look in the top 7 left-hand corner of the slide it says mapping 8 consumer media use. You'll see things like 9 telephone in general or LAN line phones. 10 Very, very high penetration in the day or 11 reach in a day. But not a whole lot of time. 12 Actually, less than an hour on average. 13 You look in the top right-hand 14 corner and you see an example of a media 15 television where again over 90 percent of 16 people are exposed on an average day. And on 17 average four and a half hours. So there's a 18 lot going on. We won't get into all the 19 details. But just a sense of how this 20 spreads out. 21 But what we would like to point 22 out is about half of these media that are 23 shown here are at least video-enabled 24 capable. And one of the interesting 25 decisions that was made about two and a half 35 1 2 years ago or three years ago when this design 3 was made for Middletown II was to include the 4 mobile phone. And a lot of people are asking 5 why in the world would you want to include 6 the mobile phone as the medium. 7 Now, we look at that as really 8 one of the best decisions that was made in 9 really looking at kind of what's happening 10 with the evolution of each of these other 11 media with a very, very wary eye in some 12 ways. If you think about the combination of 13 the percentage of people and the amount of 14 time television is enormous. And anybody 15 looking for evidence that the TV is going 16 away will not find it in this study. It's 17 just amazing how important it is in the lives 18 of people and in their media lives. 19 But another important piece of 20 news is really what's happening with the 21 computer. And if you can look even more 22 specifically at any online, the percentage of 23 people using in a day, any online about 70 24 percent spending, about two and a half hours. 25 The thing that's interesting 36 1 2 about that is this is a one point in time 3 study. But we know from other sources 4 roughly where that was about 10 years ago. 5 And it's really far down in the lower 6 left-hand corner. So there's a lot of 7 movement that's happened in a relatively 8 short period of time. And there's absolutely 9 no reason to believe that there won't 10 continue to be some interesting movement in 11 some of these media. 12 The next question is how's this 13 media being used. And there's two ways of 14 thinking about it. Thinking about the media 15 being used alone versus in combination with 16 other media. And it can be used alone in 17 combination with another medium where it's 18 the primary thing that you're focusing on or 19 when it's the secondary thing. So that's a 20 three-level variable. And it can be 21 considered with or without other life 22 activities going on at the same time. So 23 starting at the bottom of this look at 24 television and thinking about solely medium, 25 the media only. 37 1 2 So picture me in my favorite 3 chair watching a rerun of Seinfeld, which, by 4 the way, I can do almost any time of day it 5 seems. That's a sole media. Media only. 6 That's the only thing that's happening. Or I 7 could be still only looking at one medium 8 watching television at the same time as I'm 9 eating dinner which I can only do if my wife 10 wasn't there because she'd never allow me to 11 do that. That's a sole medium with another 12 activity would be an example. 13 The interesting thing about 14 television is it's either the sole medium or 15 it's the secondary medium. If the newspaper 16 comes out and the magazine comes out as 17 examples or the laptop, it tends to shift 18 into a secondary medium mode. It's very, 19 very rare that there's multimedia going on 20 where it's the primary medium. This is the 21 one call that's kind of a judgment call the 22 observer makes. If they're using multiple 23 medium, the observer says this appears to be 24 their primary attention at this time. And it 25 may toggle back and forth over time. 38 1 2 Now, obviously our strategy is to 3 try to bury you in complexity at this point. 4 Now, I really only have two points that I 5 like to make from this slide. There's a lot 6 of media going on here. And the question is 7 are they really all the same in terms of the 8 way people interact. And the answer is 9 absolutely not. So there's some media 10 looking way to the left side of this thing 11 pretty similar to television. The way people 12 watch DVDs, even more likely to be a sole 13 medium where really that's the only medium 14 going on. And not likely to have a lot of 15 life activities either, frankly. 16 But in many cases, look starting 17 in Dana console which is about two-thirds of 18 the way over to the right-hand side, with the 19 exception of LAN line phone, everybody is 20 video or can be video-enabled. And look at 21 the variety in the way people use it. 22 Again, as an extreme example when 23 the mobile phone rings or when you use the 24 mobile phone, whether you're placing the call 25 or not, it turns out that most of the time 39 1 2 some other media is going on. But your 3 attention will tend to turn to the phone 4 itself during that period of time that you're 5 interacting with somebody by phone. 6 So that turns out to be, more 7 likely than not, kind of a primary medium in 8 a multimedia environment. Very, very rarely 9 would that be secondary. And not that often 10 even as a sole medium. 11 So if we're looking for somebody 12 who can get us past the morass of this 13 complexity, I can't think of anyone better 14 than my business partner Jim Spaeth who's 15 been getting me out of trouble for years. 16 And who has really, I think, among other 17 things, shown an ability to help lead the 18 industry towards meaningful progress. And 19 certainly did that in the seven years as 20 president of the ARF. And certainly in other 21 roles as well over the years. So let me pass 22 this to Jim. 23 MR. SPAETH: Thanks, Bill. 24 So you may be asking yourself 25 kind of as I did as you get to this point in 40 1 2 the presentation, that's all very 3 interesting, but what are they going to do. 4 And I'm relieved to understand that Steve 5 earlier before we entered actually told you 6 what we're going to do. So that's good that 7 that's out there. And that's hopefully 8 clear. 9 But I also feel like I should 10 take just a couple of minutes in this final 11 part of our presentation, not so much to 12 explain what we're going to do, but to sort 13 of present this as a personal commitment on 14 behalf of the four of us for what we're going 15 to accomplish and deliver for the group. 16 So, you know, the one thing to 17 think about is that we're going to observe 18 individual consumers to know how they really 19 use media. Not how they say they use media. 20 Not how they wished or hoped they might use 21 media, but how we observed them using media. 22 Because we've learned it's really the only 23 way when you're looking at this level of 24 complexity. It's the only way to really, 25 really know. And then, here we go, and then 41 1 2 beyond that. 3 So, folks, I moved to the next 4 slide. So the next piece of that is okay, 5 well, once we understand how people are 6 using, you know, video media in relation, in 7 the context of other media, how does it vary, 8 by time of day, day of week, season? Can we 9 pick up changes over time? Yes. How does it 10 vary by location; in home, out of home. 11 Specific places. Viewing setting. Social 12 setting. Alone. Other people. Out of home. 13 Does it vary toward programming content 14 versus advertising or on-air promotions. 15 Does it vary by device. 16 If you're watching a program on 17 your television, on your old school 18 television, on your big HD set, on your 19 computer, on your iPod, how does that vary? 20 How does it vary with the other activities 21 that are going on in your life? And what 22 happens when it's concurrent with other media 23 exposures, as Bill already mentioned at least 24 in one case. But how does it vary across 25 season? Importantly, more importantly, how 42 1 2 does it vary by psychographic and attitudinal 3 dimensions. 4 So, kind of in short, the goal is 5 to understand how media consumption happens. 6 How it varies. Why it varies. And what are 7 the implications for measurement. That's 8 what you've asked for. And that's what we 9 commit to do. 10 Thinking specifically about some 11 of the issues that were on the RFP and moving 12 to the next slide, you'll see a number of 13 these issues checked off in yellow. That 14 means they're primarily accomplished through 15 observation. So using observation to provide 16 an accurate, reliable, and comprehensive map 17 of media usage is really what the technique 18 was developed for. 19 We sort of go, yes. Observing? 20 Sure, not a problem. But I want to assure 21 you that that's actually what can be done. 22 And whether we're looking at time-shifting, 23 navigation, use of new technologies, 24 exposure, in home, out of home, by content 25 type is really not, easy for me to say, not 43 1 2 challenging, as I look over at Michael Holmes 3 who makes it all actually happen. But there 4 are other dimensions beyond just mapping 5 media usage. And that has to do with the 6 nature of exposure, the value of nature 7 which may play into setting priorities as to 8 what measurements may need to be made. 9 Next, Bill showed you behavioral 10 engagement which is an interesting measure. 11 Maybe not the whole story, but one can be 12 captured relatively objectively. Where is 13 the attention going and what's going on in 14 the person's life during exposure. 15 We'll also for this study, not 16 that we've not done this before, but we'll 17 capture the exposure setting which I think we 18 know from other research can be quite 19 relevant. But, in addition, through a 20 combination of call-back and 21 self-administered surveys conducted after the 22 observation, of course, we'll also capture a 23 number of other factors that can drive 24 engagements, motivation and provide grist for 25 segmentation and LCS, and so on. 44 1 2 Again, to really understand 3 what's going on and why with the goal being 4 to identify and prioritize measurement gaps 5 and establish criteria for closing those 6 gaps. And also criteria that can be used in 7 screening potential solutions. As we've said 8 to the Committee, we're not engineers, we're 9 not going to figure out how do do the 10 measurement. Paul's going to figure that 11 out. But we can help understand what are 12 good solutions and what are less good, less 13 productive solutions. 14 Finally, you know, again, just to 15 come back to the overall goals of the study, 16 and without really going in any detail, as I 17 look at these goals on that last alignment 18 slide, you know, our answer is yes, we can do 19 that. So it's not really an issue. But when 20 we think about it what would I want to say 21 about it is that we see this as an 22 opportunity to move video media measurement 23 to the next level by doing a couple of key 24 things. 25 Moving the unit of analysis to 45 1 2 the consumer, to the individual away from the 3 device. We're not measuring television. 4 We're measuring people who use television and 5 other video media and other media. And do 6 other things in their life. So by being 7 consumer-centric at a little more detailed 8 level, by moving the unit of analysis from 9 the household which is sort of traditional to 10 the individual. Because that's the only way 11 you can understand this. It's the only way 12 you can measure it. And then by accurately 13 and comprehensively measuring how consumers 14 invest their time and their attention across 15 video media. 16 So when I say we want to work 17 with you on this, those aren't just empty 18 words. Because the last thing I want to say 19 really is a request. And that is that this 20 group is a bit of a brain trust. Or not a 21 bit. This group is a brain trust. And 22 that's an easy thing to say kind of in a 23 pandering way, and I probably wouldn't miss 24 that opportunity, but in this particular case 25 I mean it. It's perfectly true. 46 1 2 So we would love to have your 3 guidance as we take this forward and work 4 together and collaborate in understanding the 5 meaning of what we find, what we observe. 6 This is a really big deal. In 7 fact, personally, I'd say this is just a huge 8 deal. I think this is just great. Our use 9 of media, of television is informed by kind 10 of a model we all carry around in our heads. 11 We think of how consumers use media in a 12 certain way. And my fear is, maybe you guys 13 are better than I am, but my fear is my model 14 of how consumers use media is informed by 15 research, but it's either informed by fairly 16 recent research that's very narrow in scope, 17 a particular issue, or if it's broad it's 18 really old. 19 The last observation studies were 20 done in 1965 and 1966. So, you know, we have 21 a need here to really flesh out, refresh our 22 understanding of how consumers really use the 23 media. I think we have a potential for a 24 real growth spurt in our insight and 25 understanding of consumers and the use of the 47 1 2 medium. 3 And I just want to express our 4 appreciation for being a part of this with 5 you. Or hopefully, let me not be 6 presumptive, hopefully being a part of this 7 with you. Thank you. 8 MR. ZACKON: Are there questions 9 before they leave? Who has one? 10 MR. POLTRACK: Mike, can you just 11 talk a little bit about what you in your 12 previous studies learned in your previous 13 studies, the behavior that you observed that 14 you think this study will bring the most 15 insight to. You did a study. You've done 16 this analysis. And in that observation if I 17 had more people and resources that you now 18 will have with this, this is an area which I 19 would really like to probe further. 20 MR. BLOXHAM: Certainly. I mean, 21 let me try to answer that and then have 22 Michael, other guys chip in. But let me try 23 and answer that by talking about what 24 although we've been pleased with what we've 25 been able to achieve thus far, what we see 48 1 2 also is the limitations of what we've done so 3 far. 4 Although Middletown Media II as 5 we call it was based in Muncie, Delaware 6 County, a small city environment and 7 Indianapolis is a good-sized media market 8 it's still really only one geography. There 9 is no way that one can actually begin to say 10 that that is seen in any way as 11 representative of the country as a whole. We 12 got a good demographic of that area. But it 13 is not something we extrapolate very far. 14 Similarly, it is a point in time, 15 yes. We observed people for full days. Yes, 16 we spread those observations throughout the 17 days of the week. We had weekends. We had 18 weekdays. People were at work. They were 19 not at work. And so on. But it's still only 20 a point in time. 21 This project enables us to look 22 at different ways, after look at different 23 seasonalities, and so forth. We've actually 24 learned quite a lot in terms of what we can 25 potentially do with this data. And bear in 49 1 2 mind, this sample was very much geared 3 towards all media across the board. 4 So, for example, we weren't 5 looking for earlier adopters. We weren't 6 looking for just an emphasis upon video. 7 What we were looking to achieve, we were 8 saying newspaper is every bit as important to 9 us in that agenda as video, as radio, et 10 cetera. Here if we're going to primarily be 11 focusing on that area, where does video play 12 out, and yes, we also want other detail. I 13 think we can delve more, much deeper in those 14 areas. 15 And just looking at that I'm 16 reminded of the fact MPG at the time we did 17 that study meant audio. The video I brought 18 came out about two weeks after we first 19 revealed those results. Now we would be 20 breaking down MPG into three, into audio and 21 video if we go out and do this. We didn't 22 consider, well, we did consider but rejected 23 the idea of weighting the sample in any way 24 for DVR ownership specifically because 25 penetration was that much smaller when we 50 1 2 were out in the field. 3 Now, both because of the growth 4 in penetration and because of the agenda of 5 this study we would go out and do that. And 6 I think it would give us a much more 7 comprehensive view of that very large, very 8 important subsegment of all media. 9 Other points? 10 MR. HOLMES: In general, what I'd 11 like to underscore is this is a flexible 12 method. We have a foundation of a particular 13 approach to our data collection device. Our 14 lengthy experience in training observers and 15 such. But what we're able to do as we move 16 from study to study is to shift relative 17 emphasis or to add in or remove things on the 18 basis of, well, this was an item that we made 19 to the coders, but just didn't turn out to be 20 an important part of the day, so let's remove 21 that item for a particular study. 22 For example, in the study we did 23 focus on television news. Maybe we go for a 24 lot more detail regarding content. One thing 25 that we would certainly do in this case, for 51 1 2 example, is to make sure that the observer is 3 tracking shifts between program and 4 promotional content on those video platforms 5 where that's relevant and available. 6 So it's a consumptionmizable 7 method where we try to keep a solid 8 foundation in the approach that we've 9 mastered. But we're able to refine 10 particular elements of its applications to 11 hone in on those questions that are most 12 relevant to the particular purpose. 13 MR. SPAETH: Let me just add the 14 observation, as the sample size gets larger, 15 our ability to drill down into subgroups gets 16 better. 17 For example, we did a little 18 analysis face-to-face. The ARF presentation 19 in June looking at measurement gaps, kind of 20 like a rehearsal, seems to really do this. 21 And we found looking at the out-of-home gap 22 and if you look at it in the surface, it's 23 not that interesting. But when you start to 24 look at specific subgroups, for example, that 25 subgroup we found men 18 to 34 guys may know 52 1 2 this all right. May have a greater 3 out-of-home viewing. But where everyone else 4 was viewing mostly at work, they were viewing 5 about half at work and half in public places. 6 As I pictured it it made sense to me. But I 7 didn't know that. If we could have drilled 8 even further, not just demographics, but 9 psychographics, attitudinal relationships, 10 looking at home inventory, broadband homes 11 versus all that kind of stuff, it could get 12 to be a lot more informative. 13 MR. MOULT: I can't be left out. 14 I agree with everything that was said here. 15 But there's one other thing that I think we 16 can do, David, that wasn't done. 17 Am I still being picked up? 18 Okay. 19 That wasn't done that could be 20 done and should be done here. And that is 21 start with a premise of, at least in my 22 judgment, some of the best research I've ever 23 seen is really a combination of behavioral 24 and attitudinal research. This stuff here we 25 believe is just terrific behavioral research, 53 1 2 observational research. But when the 3 attitudinal stuff, the stuff that was done 4 the day after. And this should be done the 5 day after the observations here was basically 6 one of these. We know we have this 7 personality battery over here. And we know 8 we have an inventory battery over here. Why 9 don't we do some have of these things and 10 include them. This time they could be the 11 questions that the media community most wants 12 to be answered that can be associated 13 directly to the behaviors. 14 And certainly the whole concept 15 of engagement is important. You can't have a 16 conference today without engagement in the 17 title. But engagement means different things 18 to different people. We have a chance to 19 incorporate several different ways of getting 20 at engagements. Behavioral, attitudinal and 21 so on. And really coupling those together. 22 So that, I think, will be one of the biggest 23 differences. 24 MS. SHAGRIN: I'm questioning 25 about the sample. I'm wondering how you are 54 1 2 going to be able to get a variety that will 3 give us insight into various types of persons 4 and environments. Because you not only have 5 to get someone who themselves is willing to 6 be shadowed for the entire day, you have to 7 get their employer to allow you to come in 8 and shadow them while they're working. You 9 have to get their family to agree to allow 10 you come into the home and study them while 11 they're interacting with their family. 12 And I'm wondering about what 13 you've learned. Maybe because the sample was 14 smaller. Maybe because it was localized in 15 Muncie. But I'm envisioning the person in 16 New York agreeing to this and having their 17 employer agree. I'm not sure I would agree 18 as an employer to allow someone to do this 19 while they were working. I just wonder how 20 you are going to address that issue? 21 MR. HOLMES: I might address 22 that. Obviously that was a concern for us 23 when we first started going out in the field 24 with Middletown Media Studies I. What we do 25 in the recruitment is we offer to assist in 55 1 2 the conversations with the employer. Also 3 not everyone is employed. Some people are 4 observed on their days off rather than on 5 employment days. So it's not a problem that 6 applies to all of your samples. 7 There are certainly certain kinds 8 of sensitive or higher risk work environments 9 in which entry is simply not going to happen. 10 You're probably not going to get into a law 11 office. You're not going to recruit a 12 physician. But we were able to recruit 13 across blue collar and white collared and 14 retired, self-employed. So we have had an 15 experience of successful recruitment across 16 different groups. 17 MS. SHAGRIN: We know that 18 different geographies are different when it 19 comes to cooperation recruitment. 20 MR. HOLMES: Certainly. 21 MS. SHAGRIN: And it is important 22 to us that those various geographies 23 participate and types of persons participate 24 in the study so that we can draw actionable 25 conclusions. And that, you know, that to me 56 1 2 is still an unknown. 3 MR. HOLMES: And, quite frankly, 4 it will be an unknown until a large national 5 study is undertaken. It is one advantage, 6 however, in targeting if we're able to do so 7 if we're able to work out the details of 8 targeting of participants because we have 9 prior co-operators then as a basis for our 10 recruitment. I will say cold-calling on this 11 does yield a low cooperation rate. So if 12 you're cold-calling on this it becomes a good 13 deal more expensive in the recruitment phase. 14 MR. IVIE: Can I ask you to 15 expand on that? This is George Ivie on the 16 phone. I know noticed in your proposal you 17 talk about using cycling off the Nielsen 18 panels. And one thing that we know about 19 that is that's not an entirely random 20 process. And you mentioned FTOs. Can you 21 tell us how you're picking the people? 22 Cycling off the panel. What type of 23 permutations are those? 24 MR. SPAETH: George, this is Jim. 25 I think the accurate answer to that question 57 1 2 is we don't know yet. We've come to the 3 Committee and then the Council with a method 4 and a proposal for how we would apply the 5 methods. And, as you know, there are lots 6 and lots of critical details that need to be 7 worked out. 8 So the next step for us would be 9 two things really. It's to spend the next 10 few months both doing some pre-testing, and 11 then pilot testings, you know, large scale, 12 fairly large scale pilot testing. And then 13 also working with the Committee to thrash 14 through all of the details. 15 I think one of the things that 16 has to happen with a piece of research like 17 this, is there are going to be, first of all, 18 surprises. Hopefully some of them pleasant; 19 undoubtedly some of them unpleasant. And 20 we'll have to just put our minds to it and do 21 the best possible with that. 22 And then the other thing, I think 23 to be realistic, that when you're gathering 24 this kind of data, the amount of data and 25 nature of the data there are going to be some 58 1 2 trade-offs made. And I think to me it sort 3 of boils down to how important is the fact 4 that the data is comprehensive in terms of 5 capturing media use. It's accurate in terms 6 of the way media use is observed and 7 recorded. It's granular. And all those 8 other good things. 9 And then we have to really work 10 hard. Because I think the real uphill battle 11 I guess some years ago before four or five of 12 these had been done, can this be done at all. 13 No. That's possible now. But the next 14 battle which is exactly the one that Ceril 15 identified which is to make sure that the 16 sample is reflective of the U.S. population 17 to a reasonable degree. And then, 18 ultimately, the question is how you define 19 that word reasonable. 20 MR. IVIE: Thank you. 21 MR. BLOXHAM: This is Mike 22 Bloxham again. If I might add to that, in 23 some respects we can look back to our 24 experience where we successfully recruited 25 400 people for this. And took a very large 59 1 2 gulp. And questioned our sanity as we 3 embarked upon the process in one geography. 4 Now the biggest sample we are 5 currently proposing is two waves of 500 6 people geographically disbursed, 7 geographically clustered, but disbursed 8 around the country. So nowhere have we 9 actually got to repeat that achievement or 10 risk our sanity in one singular geography. 11 And whilst the panel may well 12 make up the majority, in an ideal world it 13 would make up all of the responder base. We 14 may well find ourselves supplementing what we 15 hear from the panel by recruiting in the ways 16 that we've done it historically. We know 17 that this kind of recruitment is much more 18 involved than the conventional type of 19 recruitment from more conventional types of 20 research. But it can be done. We know that. 21 We've been out in the field five times now. 22 400 has been our largest target. We've hit 23 our target every time. It's not without 24 rigor and a certain amount of anxiety and 25 pain, but it's doable. 60 1 2 MR. SPAETH: Let me add one other 3 thing. Obviously we've had concern about the 4 nature, just even thinking about the 5 Middletown sample, the nature of the sample. 6 And obviously we've had that question in 7 other studies that we've done. And what 8 we've been able to do is to do some 9 benchmarking. I would never call this 10 validation. But we've benchmarked to other 11 metrics, like, you know, cable penetration or 12 pay TV penetration, or broadband penetration, 13 or certain devices in home. And things of 14 that sort. As well as, you know, things that 15 you collect by telephone. Because again, we 16 wouldn't match, we wouldn't mix 17 methodologies. 18 But in the first study there were 19 telephone interviews as well as observation 20 in those questions. And those questions were 21 matched to the Pew, national Pew surveys. 22 And we found very strong correspondence to 23 things like read a newspaper yesterday, read 24 a magazine yesterday. So we had a host of 25 benchmarks that where the data compared 61 1 2 favorably. So, you know, it was that first 3 sample was, you know, Indiana. But it was 4 not whacky, let's put it that way. 5 MR. HOLMES: To underscore it's 6 not whacky, one of the measurements we used 7 in Middletown Studies II was the big 5 8 personality inventory. And according to the 9 psychologist who worked with us on that, the 10 mean scores for our participants were well 11 within the norms. Just scoring, as you might 12 expect because of the kinds of recruitment 13 difficulties that have been noted, slightly 14 higher than average on extroversion. Shy 15 people don't agree to be followed. So you 16 end up with a slightly more extroverted 17 sample. But other than that, these were 18 pretty normal people. 19 MS. PANTANINI: What is the teams 20 experience in recruiting and observing ethnic 21 audiences, and specifically in language 22 observation? 23 MR. HOLMES: We have not yet done 24 Spanish language observation. It's something 25 that we look forward to doing. Obviously our 62 1 2 training materials and training processes 3 have to be adjusted. And there are certain 4 changes that might be made to the interface. 5 We, in Indiana, underrepresent 6 Hispanics in comparison to national 7 demographics. Our recruitment has allowed us 8 to match local, regional, state demographics 9 in terms of representation. So we look 10 pretty good in terms of African-Americans. 11 We haven't looked quite as good compared to 12 national numbers with Asian and Hispanic 13 groups. 14 We do recognize the necessity of 15 tackling this as part of our observer 16 recruitment and as part of our training 17 process for a large multi-locational sample. 18 MR. SUSSMAN: I have a question. 19 In your mapping you showed kind of the use of 20 different media, video-capable media during 21 the day. Are you going to take it a step 22 further to make sure that or to understand 23 when using the computer what they're using 24 for? Are they using it for video or 25 information, or within the TV environment are 63 1 2 they just watching TV or they're in the DVD. 3 Are you going to get to that? 4 MR. HOLMES: We have done that in 5 subsequent studies in two instances. We, for 6 example, in the Middletown Studies II we 7 simply noted whether or not somebody used 8 their mobile phone. In a proprietary study 9 that we're out on right now, we actually have 10 seven or eight different categories for 11 mobile phone, one of which is the possibility 12 you could actually use your phone to make a 13 call. 14 Now, obviously, that is in terms 15 of time the function of the mobile phone 16 which for most people will accrue the most 17 minutes, except, unless you have someone 18 who's drawing heavily upon their phone for 19 calendar synchronization. But, nevertheless, 20 we have tweaked our observational categories. 21 We can track broad types of Web sites, broad 22 categories of video sources. DVD, VCR, et 23 cetera, video-on-demand. 24 So, yes, we can drill down and do 25 a drill-down. It's hard in a few slides to 64 1 2 reveal that richness of the data. 3 MR. SUSSMAN: Also clear on the 4 video iPods. 5 MR. SPAETH: Right. But you want 6 to catch the others as well. We would look 7 to the Committee and maybe Council for 8 guidance on that in terms of maybe presenting 9 a coding scheme and getting some feedback. 10 And refining it to really meet your needs. 11 MS. BUSLIK: I have what might be 12 a very nice question. Whenever I see 13 something that is multimedia usage, we know 14 when someone's not watching television not 15 all the time. They're doing whatever the 16 other possibility of things that they can do. 17 So when you report, will you be 18 able to refine it so that you will know, not 19 on an aggregate basis, but really on a more 20 inclined basis watching television. And this 21 at the same time versus how much total 22 television or how much total whatever the 23 other medium is. 24 MR. HOLMES: Yes. We are able to 25 do that. And, for example, the Middletown 65 1 2 Media Studies II, we break up media minutes 3 across the 17 life activities to look at the 4 concurrency of media exposures with life 5 activities. And what you find is beyond 6 media-only, which is a huge category and work 7 which, even in a mixed sample when not 8 everybody's working is an important category. 9 Once you get past meal prep and meal-eating, 10 the rest of the light categories on average 11 across a large sample get to be relatively 12 small minutes. 13 However, there are various kinds 14 of factor analysis and segmentation analysis 15 that can allow us to pull out the particular 16 groups. For example, exercise, magazines, a 17 few other things we found segmentation 18 analysis. 19 MS. BUSLIK: What I'm really 20 concerned about is you're capturing 21 capability. Because if you can't capture it 22 in fine enough detail, then it becomes such a 23 broad, yes, most of the time I'm doing 24 something else. That I don't -- 25 MR. HOLMES: That's exactly what 66 1 2 we didn't want to end up doing. Is that we 3 didn't want our sense of concurrent media 4 exposure to be irregularly do this. I 5 occasionally do this. So what we do is 6 literally check for each 10-second increment 7 how many media are in play and what the life 8 activities are with those media. So we 9 actually have an empirical record of that 10 concurrency. 11 A VOICE: I have a question. And 12 I don't know if this will really overtax your 13 observers. But I think it would be really 14 interesting to know if that simultaneous 15 usage has anything to do with whether or not 16 the person you're observing was the one who 17 chose the program in question. 18 MR. HOLMES: One thing that in 19 the more detailed proposal that we've 20 discussed is the issue of volitional versus 21 incidental or environmental exposure. There 22 are a number of ways to divide that up. But 23 it's certainly something that in a recent 24 proprietary study we've added it as a choice 25 for the observer. That this is something 67 1 2 that they made a choice of or that they're in 3 control of versus, you know, they're in the 4 room and the spouses turn on the television, 5 or they're at work and somebody else has 6 turned on the television or radio, et cetera. 7 So, yes, we can track that. 8 A VOICE: Thank you. 9 MR. STERNBERG: I have one little 10 question. If somebody allows you into their 11 home but not their workplace, do you use them 12 anyway or just kick them out? 13 MR. HOLMES: What we've done in 14 the past with those folks, can we make you a 15 weekend observation or non-workday 16 observation then. 17 MS. BUSLIK: Have you ever had 18 more than one person in the same household? 19 MR. HOLMES: We've tried to avoid 20 that. It's an interesting question though 21 in terms of what it might reveal about 22 household patterns. It's the trade-off of 23 going to the individual consumer focus as 24 opposed to the household focus. But so far 25 we haven't done that. 68 1 2 MS. BUSLIK: Because Steve's 3 household would be very interesting. 4 MR. ZACKON: Last call for 5 questions. 6 MR. IVIE: One more question from 7 my side. 8 Do you guys track when you're 9 observing alternative days versus a day you 10 might select? Like if somebody can't do it 11 with their employer, you pick a weekend date. 12 You track when that happens? 13 MR. HOLMES: What we've done, for 14 example, in one study where we're going out 15 and doing it over time is keep track, for 16 example, all right, we had them on a Monday, 17 we wanted to schedule the second observation 18 on a Monday. They're just not able to do it. 19 What we want to do is use a Tuesday. We 20 would not allow that one to happen on the 21 weekend. But we have the ability to keep 22 track of those things. We haven't kept track 23 of that specific issue that this was someone 24 who demur on a particular day in recruitment. 25 And we observed them on a different day. But 69 1 2 if there were a compelling reason to do so, 3 it could be done as part of the logistics of 4 the recruitment and observation process. 5 MS. SHAGRIN: Who determines when 6 you stop, what time you stop? 7 MR. HOLMES: Bottom line, we want 8 to be with them as early as they will let us 9 in the morning to as late as they will let us 10 stay in the evening. There is a bias in the 11 recruitment towards people who are not 12 working a pure night shift because of 13 difficulty with observers. 14 MS. SHAGRIN: But you could miss 15 a lot of what's going on between the time 16 they get up at 9:00 and the time that you 17 leave at midnight and they go to bed. 18 MR. HOLMES: Yes. We've had 19 varying success with that after Middletown 20 Media Studies II. We revised our incentive 21 structure. And we were able to increase the 22 length of the observed day by a little bit 23 over an hour. So we're up over 14 hours. 24 National average of a awaking day is 25 repeatedly a little over 15 hours. So yes, 70 1 2 you can't get every minute of the waking day. 3 What we have done and we flagged 4 the records as such, and if we're not 5 satisfied with the quality of the 6 information, we don't use them. And that is 7 when the observer gets there, they ask, all 8 right, what time did you get up, and media, 9 what have you done. And what media have you 10 used since then. 11 So we do rely upon short-term 12 recall to fill in short gaps like that. But 13 if we're not able to get good information, 14 well, I watch a little bit of television, 15 well, that's not specific enough recall for 16 us to use. It just becomes missing data. 17 It's challenging. It requires getting the 18 observer in the right place at the right 19 time. People do like to at least get up and 20 get dressed. We've had observation started 21 as early as 5:00 a.m. and run as late as 3:00 22 a.m.. 23 MR. BLOXHAM: With the same 24 observation. 25 MR. ZACKON: Henry. 71 1 2 MR. DeVAULT: When you use the 3 Nielsen panelists, the people that have come 4 out of the sample will you try and 5 concentrate on, for lack of a better phrase, 6 blue states as opposed to red states because 7 I think that as the study is designed that 8 we're going to get a good understanding of 9 the red states and media consumption. 10 But what I would be concerned 11 about is how coastal areas where you have 12 much more media exposure, and it would seem 13 that if you're going to use some of the 14 people from the Nielsen sample that may be a 15 way to augment and compare. 16 MR. MOULT: I want to answer that 17 in general terms because we've certainly 18 never had a discussion about blue states and 19 red states. But I think that one of the 20 things that the use of the Nielsen sample 21 allows is a lot of options on stratification. 22 And there's so many different ways that we 23 might consider. And it's probably one of the 24 ways, one of the places that we would most 25 like guidance from the Committee and the 72 1 2 Council. 3 We certainly have thought about 4 things like intensity of their technological 5 access, broadband devices and so forth. As 6 you certainly need to take into consideration 7 age and gender and race, and some other 8 factors. If they're even political factors 9 they should be taken into consideration. Or 10 substantial differences geographically 11 associated with differences in media use. 12 That's great. We just need your help in 13 designing the sample. And it could be 14 accommodated. The question is is that the 15 appropriate way to look at subgroups. 16 MR. ZACKON: Okay. Bring it to a 17 vote. Let's let our guests go. Thank you 18 for all the work that you've done on this. 19 You've really put a lot of effort in. And 20 thanks to the Committee. And also thanks to 21 Betsy Frank who's no longer part of the 22 committee. But whose efforts show up in what 23 we heard here today. 24 I guess it's appropriate at this 25 point to vote yea or nay. Now, what we're 73 1 2 voting on, let's be clear, is the pilot 3 study. All we're committing to at this point 4 which is 74,500. However, the intention is 5 not we're going to go forward with the pilot 6 unless we have the vision we're going forward 7 with the full study and the pilot is just to 8 ensure that's a sensible thing to do. 9 Let me ask who's in favor of the 10 proposal as submitted, say aye. 11 (Vote taken.) 12 MR. ZACKON: Who stands against 13 the proposal as submitted? Well, we've 14 made -- one, okay. So it would appear that 15 the proposal passes. 16 MR. POLTRACK: You may want to 17 poll who is the one against. 18 MS. SHAGRIN: I am. Because I 19 don't think it's going to work. I don't 20 think we're going to get anywhere near the 21 sample that is going to give us the insight 22 we need. I think the whole concept is 23 wonderful. And we need to do something. I 24 just don't think we're going to get the kind 25 of sample that we're going to need to really 74 1 2 be able to understand how Americans use 3 television or other media. 4 And there are so many demands on 5 ex-Nielsen households. And I haven't heard 6 anything from any of the Nielsen people as to 7 how they would feel about having someone who 8 was in the sample being asked to do 24 hours 9 of shadowing, of being shadowed, plus a very 10 lengthy interview the next day. 11 So before we commit to spending a 12 significant amount of money and we're saying 13 we don't want to do the test unless we feel 14 we're going to go forward, I'd like some 15 Nielsen input as to the sample. 16 MR. DONATO: I felt a lot better 17 about the pilot than the full study. I felt 18 a lot better about the pilot. 19 MS. SHAGRIN: If we were voting 20 on the pilot I would have been okay. 21 MR. DONATO: Because, as you 22 know, it's a very expensive study. Somebody 23 identified demand. 24 A VOICE: I'm sorry. I can 25 hardly hear you. Speak up, please. 75 1 2 MR. DONATO: The mic must be off. 3 I'll have to swallow it soon. 4 I felt much better about the 5 pilot than the full study because the pilot 6 was much more limited in scope. And if there 7 are going to be negative implications going 8 into forced turnover households, at least 9 we'd be able to experience it with a limited 10 number of FTOs. Somebody mentioned the 11 demands on the forced turnover sample. Both 12 major studies. The large studies are FTOs, 13 have earmarked sample for their use. And of 14 course with our A2-M2 initiative, we're using 15 a lot of these households. 16 In terms of Jim's comment, you 17 know, the details have to be worked out. My 18 assumption was that the pilot would go first 19 and that wouldn't place so much of a demand 20 on the sample. But that a full study went 21 it's contingent on the timing of that study 22 we would either have resource contention or 23 not. So the details haven't been worked out. 24 But again, I don't think that that impacted 25 the pilot. That will impact the timing on 76 1 2 the full-time study. 3 MS. PANTANINI: It's a timing 4 issue. 5 MR. DONATO: It's a timing issue. 6 And to the point that Ceril raised, if the 7 pilot study, if we get a bad rap, if all of a 8 sudden some of our panelists are so upset 9 about whatever, they talked to the press or 10 something, we learned that in the pilot, we 11 certainly wouldn't go any further with that. 12 MR. GUNZERATH: This is David 13 Gunzerath. I would like to just build on 14 that a little bit. Because my reading of the 15 proposal is that the pilot was going to use 16 Middletown, past Middletown participants. 17 And I was a little uneasy with that. I'd 18 rather it be involving the Nielsen sample. 19 A VOICE: That could raise the 20 cost of the the pilot though. 21 MR. GUNZERATH: Understood. But 22 I think it's a worthwhile expense to know 23 whether or not this thing could work. 24 MS. SHAGRIN: What's the 25 cooperation in Muncie, Indiana versus New 77 1 2 York or Los Angeles or Chicago, or almost any 3 major market? 4 MR. DONATO: For it to be 5 available, Muncie is really not where we're 6 going to be focusing. It's really ethnic 7 communities in various markets. 8 MR. BROOKS: I think it's 9 important to understand, as I understand the 10 member of the committee, the pilot study is 11 intended to test out the observational 12 procedures here. It's not meant to give you 13 a kind of a clue of what the large scale 14 study will show you. It's a traditional 15 pilot. We know a lot about what they can do. 16 But they're stretching here. 17 And they're going into areas that 18 they haven't gone into before. Ethnic areas 19 that you mentioned. It's not going to be 20 objectible. What is it, 50 homes, something 21 like that? But we need to thoroughly vett 22 the system before we put a lot of money 23 against this. That's the purpose of the 24 pilot study. 25 MR. DONATO: That's right. 78 1 2 MR. BROOKS: And for that purpose 3 I don't know that we need necessarily to have 4 Nielsen homes in it. We can talk about that. 5 But I'm not sure that's really what the pilot 6 is about. 7 The larger study we'll have to 8 discuss. And they didn't emphasize obviously 9 with the limitations, but any study you go 10 into, I don't care if it's a hundred million 11 dollar study, there are going to be 12 limitations. And there are going to be 13 trade-offs. And there are going to be some 14 things you can't do with 250 or 500 homes. 15 Nevertheless, it's my feeling, 16 and I think, you know, most of us certainly 17 on the committee share this, that if this 18 could be executed in the way that it appears 19 to be executed, we may not learn everything 20 about everybody that we want to know, but we 21 will have a quantum leap in knowledge about 22 not only what the media map is today and how 23 the media interact with each other, but how 24 it is changing. Which is much more 25 important. Because we need to think about 79 1 2 measurement, not today obviously, but five 3 years from now. 4 MR. SHIMMEL: You know, Tim, to 5 that point, I think one of the things, we 6 would want to have a few Nielsen homes at 7 least in the pilot. Because I think one of 8 the gating issues, and they didn't answer it 9 today, and we've asked them for this. We 10 need to understand what sort of cooperation 11 rate we're going to get. And if it turns out 12 this is, you know, general market 5 percent 13 among our forced turnover homes, 10 percent, 14 that may exacerbate the problem of limited 15 sample size. 16 We also need to work on the 17 process by which you know I've envisioned 18 that we would actually do the recruiting and 19 hand the Ball State observers a scheduled 20 date to go interview. And, you know, we'd 21 have to make sure we could actually synch up 22 that observation. 23 So I think we'd want to have at 24 least a couple of our sample in the pilot. 25 MR. BROOKS: You're right. 80 1 2 MS. SHAGRIN: I think there are a 3 lot of details in terms of security. The 4 neighborhood you're in. Are they the same 5 neighborhood you're still in. I mean, 6 there's I think a whole lot of issues that 7 need to be worked out. 8 When we took the vote, the vote 9 was don't vote for this unless you think you 10 want to do the whole study. And I think 11 there are a lot of issues that need to be 12 addressed before we can go into the whole 13 study. 14 I'd be very much in favor of 15 doing a pilot so that we can learn something 16 to get started with and then maybe modify 17 going forward. But I wasn't comfortable 18 saying, yes, I am voting that if the pilot is 19 successful we will go ahead without even 20 knowing what that means. 21 MS. PANTANINI: Is there 22 established criteria for determining what a 23 successful pilot looks like? 24 I mean, what are those key 25 factors that are going to make sure that we 81 1 2 all say yes, thumbs up, we're going to move 3 forward with the full study? 4 MR. ZACKON: Jessica, that's the 5 kind of question a brain trust asks itself. 6 An excellent question. And it hasn't been 7 addressed. 8 My sense that there will be 9 another vote before the trigger's pulled on 10 the full study. Come back to this Council, 11 not just go back to the Committee. So, in 12 essence, what we're voting on today is do we 13 want to go ahead with the pilot study. And 14 that's a fair question to ask as to what 15 constitutes success. And I'll refer that to 16 Steve and Shari's committee. 17 MR. HESS: Richard, for the 18 record though do you have to restate the 19 motion then? Because we voted on something 20 that I thought Ceril phrased. I know I 21 walked in late, but the part that I did hear 22 was when the motion was put on the floor. 23 And maybe we need to have it read back to us. 24 I think I also got the sense that when you 25 voted yes you're not just for the pilot, but 82 1 2 to go ahead. 3 MR. ZACKON: I shouldn't be 4 making the motion as the facilitator. Steve, 5 would you like to or Shari move on as to what 6 we're voting on and then re-count that vote? 7 MR. STERNBERG: Okay, this vote 8 is on whether or not we agree to do the pilot 9 study. 10 MR. HESS: Okay. 11 MR. ZACKON: Cost set at 74,500. 12 MR. STERNBERG: There's be a vote 13 later on when we get the pilot study as to 14 whether to proceed further on. 15 A VOICE: I agree. 16 MS. SHAGRIN: I have one 17 question. And that is will the Committee or 18 the Council take a look at the specifications 19 for the pilot study so that we are sure that 20 you can set some criterias for success? 21 MS. PANTANINI: What about 22 cooperation rates? What about specific 23 learning on how to measure ethnic audiences? 24 I mean, there are some key concerns I think 25 that do exist that we need to make sure that 83 1 2 we need to establish very specific criteria 3 that they need to be able to meet before we 4 move forward. 5 A VOICE: Our committee needs to 6 meet to kind of think about the criteria that 7 we need to set or benchmarks that the pilot 8 should satisfy. 9 MS. SHAGRIN: Certainly very 10 comfortable with the Committee taking that 11 on. 12 A VOICE: Do we want a vote on 13 that too? 14 MR. ZACKON: What's on the floor 15 is Steve's motion which is for the pilot 16 study. And included with that we'll include 17 a set of criteria. And at the end of that a 18 report versus those criteria as to how it 19 performed. So that being the motion on the 20 floor, how many ayes do we have? Not eyes, 21 eye. I have to divide that by two. But who 22 votes yes? 23 (Vote taken.) 24 MR. ZACKON: How many nays do we 25 have? So it sounds like there's agreement on 84 1 2 the pilot study going forward. And the 3 Committee has some work to do. 4 MS. BUSLIK: Thank you, Ceril. 5 MR. ZACKON: Very good. Okay. 6 MR. STERNBERG: Have them come 7 back in now? 8 MR. ZACKON: Why don't you go out 9 and meet with them and we'll move on to 10 business so that we can meet our 4 o'clock, 11 unless the room would like to bring them back 12 in and let them know. 13 MR. STERNBERG: Just go out and 14 let them know. 15 MR. ZACKON: Let them know. They 16 probably have their ear to the door. 17 MR. STERNBERG: They should not 18 be coming back. We'll discuss with them 19 later on the particulars. 20 MS. BUSLIK: Tell them they're 21 engaged, but not married. 22 MS. PANTANINI: I want to see the 23 size of the ring first. 24 A VOICE: I like how you think. 25 MR. ZACKON: Our next item is our 85 1 2 Nonresponse Committee, an update on that from 3 Ceril. So if you would -- 4 MS. SHAGRIN: Okay. Quick update 5 on Nonresponse Committee. We're working on 6 the questionnaire. We expect to have a draft 7 to circulate to the committee very early next 8 week. In fact, I think it's going to be on 9 my computer when I get back. And after we 10 incorporate all the Committee's suggestions, 11 then we will send a copy of the questionnaire 12 to the entire Council. So you should be 13 getting that in the next couple of weeks. 14 We met in Ann Arbor with Paul 15 Levrakas and several of his group. Professor 16 Peter Miller from Northwestern, Professor Bob 17 Groves, and a team from the Michigan program 18 on joint survey methodology to review the 19 test design. It's a lot of words to tell you 20 that I met with a bunch of very, very smart 21 people to talk about what we are were 22 planning on doing. And they asked some very 23 tough questions which we tried to answer in a 24 full subcommittee meeting. 25 And I want to acknowledge that 86 1 2 there are nine people on the nonresponse 3 subcommittee. And they've been hanging in 4 there. And every one of them participated in 5 that call with the professors to try to get 6 them the answers they needed. And pretty 7 much and maybe that's why I'm so sensitive to 8 the test idea is what we thought we had a 9 pretty buttoned down proposal. And what they 10 asked us were questions like what kind of a 11 difference would you expect to see in order 12 to take action in order to feel that there is 13 bias. And until we come up with the kinds of 14 differences that we expect, that we would 15 want to see or that would bother us, they 16 can't tell us whether the sample sizes are 17 accurate. And so we're doing a lot of 18 homework. They're doing a lot of homework. 19 They're looking at variations between 20 different types of households to try to 21 determine whether or not we have an adequate 22 sample size or whether we have to move around 23 some of the sample sizes that we determined 24 that we would need. 25 So there's a lot of work that's 87 1 2 been done. There's a lot more work to go on. 3 I'm expecting a new timetable also, probably 4 by the end of this week. And when I get that 5 timetable I will share it with you. 6 What I need from you though today 7 is an approval to spend some more money. 8 Because we have learned that we really need 9 some outside academic help, not only in 10 evaluating the data, but making sure that 11 everything we're doing up until we get the 12 data within the data collection is going to 13 give us results that are actionable and 14 really given us learning. 15 And that expertise really doesn't 16 exist at Nielsen. And even if it did, I 17 think we would want outside parties. And I 18 have a proposal and I have copies of the 19 proposal for all of you. And we can E-mail 20 it to the people on the phone from Bob Groves 21 to have two graduate students, two Ph.D. 22 students overseen by two professors to do all 23 this work across the next two years. 24 Total cost for their 25 participation as well as guidance from the 88 1 2 professors, the professors coming and 3 presenting to us when we're that far along is 4 going to add about $300,000 to the proposal 5 that's already been approved. So I need a 6 vote on that in order for us to go ahead with 7 the professors. I've got detailed copies of 8 the proposal for all of you. 9 MR. HESS: I have a question. 10 MR. SHAGRIN: Sure. 11 MR. HESS: You've indicated that 12 you've already met with a lot of smart people 13 which I'm sure is the case. I'm not clear on 14 why you need additional smart people. I 15 don't mean that facetiously. 16 MR. SHAGRIN: We're planning on 17 using those people. In other words, we met 18 with professors and the Ph.Ds. And my 19 initial understanding and the reason this 20 wasn't put into the cost of the proposal, 21 because the proposal included the idea that 22 we would have Bob Groves or someone of his 23 caliber review the data. My interpretation 24 of when this Council was set up was that the 25 technical committee was being funded 89 1 2 separately by Nielsen. And that we would 3 have access to that technical committee so we 4 didn't put additional costs into the 5 proposal. 6 What we've learned is having a 7 meeting at Ann Arbor as we did have was 8 covered. But actually using the graduate 9 students for two years has to be funded. And 10 it would be funded via a grant to the 11 colleges that are going to be involved. But 12 it is extra funding. And if it has to come 13 from the monies that are being given to the 14 Council, then I need this Council's 15 permission to do that. 16 MR. IVIE: And Ceril, if I can 17 add, and I'm a member of the committee, this 18 is George, I think it's fair to say that 19 Nielsen is also saying that they don't have 20 the internal capability to do this analysis. 21 MR. SHAGRIN: You're absolutely 22 right. And Paul Levrakas and some of his 23 team have been participating in these 24 meetings. This is a huge team effort. There 25 are a lot of very smart people working on it. 90 1 2 I think the professors bring in something. 3 And the graduate students will make this 4 original investment pay off better. 5 MR. HESS: This is Mike Hess. I 6 have a question for Nielsen. We've been 7 funded and refunded. Does it really matter 8 at this point whether the funds come from 9 Fund II or Fund I? 10 MR. DONATO: No, no. It's not a 11 use it or lose it funding. 12 MS. SHAGRIN: My original thought 13 was to just go to Paul and say, Paul, will 14 you pay for this, but I didn't think that was 15 fair. I thought I had to come to the 16 committee and say something to the committee. 17 MR. DONATO: Thank you. 18 MR. ZACKON: Well, if it's coming 19 out of the five million, it's up to the 20 Council. 21 MR. SHAGRIN: I understand that. 22 MR. ZACKON: What was the cost, 23 Ceril, for the original proposal so we get 24 some sense of scale. 25 MR. SHAGRIN: 1.3 million. 91 1 2 MR. ZACKON: So this is going 3 from 1.3 to 1.6. 4 MR. SHAGRIN: And it's a two-year 5 proposal. It will be spent over the next two 6 years. 7 MR. ZACKON: Okay. So it might 8 be thought of 800,000 a year out of the 2.5 9 million a year. 10 MR. SHAGRIN: Yes. 11 MR. BROOKS: Maybe I wasn't 12 listening carefully or something. But can 13 you at least in broad strokes break down the 14 now 1. -- 15 MR. ZACKON: 6. 16 MR. BROOKS: -- 6 million? Over 17 three years I understand. 18 MR. SHAGRIN: Right. The 1.3 19 that was already approved is primarily the 20 cost to gather the information. It's data 21 collection costs. It's paying someone like 22 RTI to go out and do in-person data 23 collection, as well as the incentives because 24 we talked about paying very high incentives 25 to get that last 10 or 20 percent of 92 1 2 cooperation. So the 1.3 is data collection. 3 The 300,000. 4 And if you look at the proposal 5 you'll see it says 220,000. But that doesn't 6 include any additional expenses by the two 7 professors that they have to come to 8 meetings, if they have to do some work in 9 addition. And rather than to ask you for 10 220,000 and then come back for 80,000 more, 11 I'm asking for 300,000. Because over the 12 next two years I think we may want to use the 13 professors. 14 I've challenged them with getting 15 enough data collected so we can do an initial 16 presentation at the February client meeting. 17 And I'd very much like to have Bob Groves 18 present the information at the client meeting 19 rather than have one of us do it. So, again, 20 I could have said 220. I said 300,000 21 because I think that before we're through it 22 will cost that. 23 MR. ZACKON: Ceril, if I can ask 24 too, the urgency of voting at this meeting 25 today is... 93 1 2 MR. SHAGRIN: Because if I can't 3 commit to using these students, they're going 4 to be used elsewhere. And these are the two 5 best. And these are the ones that both Bob 6 Groves and Peter Miller have said if you 7 wanted the best. These are the best. I can 8 only hold them for you for this long. 9 Otherwise, I have to assign them to something 10 else. 11 MR. ZACKON: Are there questions 12 for Ceril? 13 MR. HESS: You probably mentioned 14 this, but maybe I misunderstood it. We also 15 have access to Nielsen, appoint technical 16 experts, et cetera. Did you indicate they're 17 not available or not suitable for this? 18 MS. SHAGRIN: They are available 19 and they will be very much involved with 20 this. But they do not have the expertise. 21 And they have said so to us; that they don't 22 have the kind of expertise to take the data 23 that we've collected. And having had these 24 people in our committee meeting and the 25 questions that they asked that we wouldn't 94 1 2 have thought of to ask, the nine members of 3 the committee unanimously agreed that we 4 should spend the money. And that this would 5 really, really enhance our learning. 6 MR. ZACKON: So the motion is for 7 an additional 300,000 for the nonresponse? 8 MS. SHAGRIN: Yes. 9 MR. ZACKON: So let's take an 10 accounting. 11 MR. HESS: Is that though over 12 two years? 13 MR. ZACKON: Over two years. 14 Over two years. So who's in favor of an 15 additional 300,000 to the nonresponse study? 16 Who's opposed? Ceril, you're in favor? 17 MS. SHAGRIN: I'm in favor. 18 MR. ZACKON: I missed it last 19 time on the phone. 20 A VOICE: Richard, I just have a 21 question of Ceril. Does all of this, the 1.6 22 include all the computerized processing time 23 and whatever else is required of the people 24 who after they've collected the data to 25 analyze it and -- 95 1 2 MS. SHAGRIN: It includes all of 3 the time for the folks that are non-Nielsen 4 employees and the people that are Nielsen 5 employees. And any of the data collection, 6 any of the processing that Nielsen has to do 7 does not get charged against the Council 8 funds is what I have been told. And Paul 9 just shook his head yes. 10 MR. POLTRACK: Nodded. 11 MS. BUSLIK: Loudly. 12 MR. ZACKON: So it would appear 13 the motion passes unanimously. To paraphrase 14 the late Everett Dirksen, 100,000 here, 15 100,000 there, pretty soon it's real money. 16 We're within our budget. Very good. 17 Our next committee report is 18 Ira's committee on marketplace practice. 19 MR. SUSSMAN: I'm just going to 20 ask for a million dollars. 21 Marketplace practice. First, 22 thank you everybody that's participated in my 23 question. Our committee has been long and 24 slow and hard, but doing good. Last meeting 25 update I had reported that we had completed 96 1 2 about 90 percent of our interviews. And in 3 the packet we have a summary. This is a 4 two-minute rap. So in the summary in the 5 packet we have a summary of our learning from 6 the interviews which identified marketplace 7 believes, some of the actual marketplace 8 realities as we see them and some possible 9 actions for each of those. 10 What are we going to do next? 11 Short-term we think there's about six more 12 interviews that need to be done. The summer 13 was a bad time to get in touch with people. 14 So over the next six weeks we're going to get 15 these done. Target MG2, specifically two Los 16 Angeles buyer-sellers so we can get an 17 understanding of what's happening once LPM 18 rolls into a marketplace. 19 Does that change some of the 20 issues and some of the effects within the 21 marketplace. We have not yet talked to any 22 local cable buyer-sellers, but we're going to 23 try to target two of those. And then we're 24 also going to target to two third-party 25 processors because they're the ones that 97 1 2 actually have to. Third-party processors 3 came up a lot in the conversations as being a 4 shortfall of successful business practice. 5 So that's the short-term. 6 Next steps. Before the next 7 meeting we are going to regroup as a 8 committee to see what we want to do next and 9 what to propose to the Council. As far as we 10 know, we need to communicate how we learned 11 how we're going to do that. And then what 12 will the next steps be. Will it be 13 educational? Will it be another piece of 14 research? Will it be some other ideas? 15 We're not sure what it is yet. 16 So that's where we stand today. 17 And we won't hit you up for any money until 18 the next meeting. 19 MR. ZACKON: We'll be ready. And 20 our newest committee is Nancy Gallagher's 21 universe estimates committee. 22 MS. GALLAGHER: We don't have any 23 need for money at this point in time. But we 24 do have a mission statement. We do have some 25 areas we're interested in. 98 1 2 MR. ZACKON: Nancy, speak into 3 the mic. 4 MS. GALLAGHER: But we do have a 5 mission statement. And we do have some areas 6 where we kind of want to include in this 7 study. And we're actually going to meet 8 after this meeting to go into some of our 9 more immediate next step. One of which is 10 definitely going to be talking to some people 11 already doing work in this area to find out 12 what they're doing, what they see as the 13 limitations. 14 So kind of don't have to reinvent 15 the entire wheel. And that will probably 16 help us get some more focus. But anyway, our 17 mission statement is to determine reliable 18 method or methods for creating and fostering 19 the creation of accurate, reliable and 20 updateable, media-related universe estimates 21 including subsets such as age, sex, income, 22 geography, ethnicity, language that are 23 flexible enough to reflect rapidly changing 24 technologies. 25 So we actually got it into one 99 1 2 sentence. And basically among the areas we 3 want to look at are things like HD, able to 4 receive HD over the air, subscribe to an HD 5 package. DVD recorders, DVR. Internet at 6 home. Broadband. Wi-Fi. MP3 audio, MP3 7 video. Digital cable. Satellite. 8 VOD-enabled. Satellite radio. 9 You know, if anyone has anything 10 they want to make sure we have on our list. 11 Cell phones and what they're capable of 12 receiving as well. If their computer has 13 Wi-Fi, things like that. If anyone has 14 anything they want to add to our list, you 15 can get it to me. But before, after we meet 16 here we'll probably hve a slightly better 17 feel for our timelines. 18 The goal kind of between now and 19 the next meeting is to meet with some experts 20 and practitioners in this area right now to 21 do information gathering. 22 I'm under five minutes. 23 MR. ZACKON: Excellent. We moved 24 our steering committee down to later in the 25 meeting. And I think we're going to get out 100 1 2 of here by 4 o'clock. So we're in good shape 3 there. 4 Mike. 5 MR. HESS: I'll keep you on time. 6 First of all, apologize for 7 coming late. I did plan to come on time. 8 Couldn't help it. Apologies for that. 9 The steering committee had a 10 quiet summer. However, we did pass out as we 11 promised at the last meeting in June the 12 copies to the steering committee of the 13 revised bylaws. In the next month or so I'd 14 like to reconvene the steering committee and 15 get each steering committee member's input on 16 those bylaws. So that we can then submit at 17 the next meeting, pass out to you, in the 18 concensus of the steering committee on the 19 bylaws. And that's the update. 20 MR. ZACKON: That was quick. The 21 next item were some membership issues. And 22 the Council had established some criteria for 23 ongoing membership on the Council. And some 24 of the members hadn't been meeting the 25 criteria. There's a list. Three people have 101 1 2 taken themselves off the Council. So that's 3 handled. But five members have failed to 4 attend at least two meetings and have not put 5 themselves on a committee. And it's up to 6 the Council to choose whether to retain those 7 members. I've placed calls to all five of 8 them. I've not heard back. And the names 9 are -- so what we're being asked to consider 10 is what steps to be taken. And it's up to 11 the Council what to choose. And actually 12 should maybe Mike as the steering committee 13 vice chair might want to make a motion on 14 that. And they are Bruce Baker, Cox 15 Broadcasting. Larry Bobo, Stanford 16 University. Perianne Grignon. Kaki Hinton, 17 Pfizer, and Manny Machada, Ah-hah and Sara 18 Advertising Agencies. 19 MR. HESS: I think as a start 20 before I make a motion, I think it's fair to 21 warn that the motion would include removal of 22 these people. So before I do that, if 23 anybody would like to speak in favor of any 24 of those five names and perhaps indicate why 25 they shouldn't be removed, we would love to 102 1 2 hear that. 3 MR. DONATO: I just have a 4 question about Manny. He was added late; 5 wasn't he? 6 MR. ZACKON: Yes. After the 7 first meeting. But he's not attended the 8 four meetings since, nor today. 9 A VOICE: I have a question of 10 about how you plan to replace them since they 11 all seem to come from -- I mean, I don't know 12 some of the organizations. But I'll assume 13 that they're small. And I know we spoke 14 about having an organization be the member, 15 if you will, or hold the seat. And then just 16 the person would change. So how do you plan 17 on replacing them if we vote them out. 18 MR. ZACKON: That would be up to 19 the steering committee. I will mean one 20 possibility is a smaller council. But it 21 would be up to the steering committee I can 22 tell you. Including the three people who 23 took themselves off the Council, eight people 24 who began with us and are not now, assuming 25 those five are not now with us. There are 103 1 2 two local broadcasting entities, two ethnic 3 agencies, two advertisers, one national 4 cable, and an academic. 5 A VOICE: I know Kaki attended 6 one meeting. 7 MR. ZACKON: Yes. 8 MR. GUNZERATH: David Gunzerath 9 here. If I could make a suggestion for 10 consideration. If we do take an action 11 today, you know, perhaps we can make it 12 effective at the end of the month or 13 something, because there's one or two people 14 on that list that I might like to give a call 15 to. And this is the first I'm hearing that 16 they haven't been involved. So if there is a 17 chance for them that they would want to be 18 involved, I think they should be given every 19 benefit of the doubt. 20 MR. HESS: I think that's a good 21 comment. At the same time, Richard did 22 mention that a number of phone calls that 23 he's made have not been returned. So you 24 really have the combination of people who are 25 not meeting the qualifications and at the 104 1 2 same time not even returning calls. That 3 strikes me as a signal. 4 MR. ZACKON: What hasn't happened 5 is a written communication's not gone out. 6 MR. BROOKS: Personally, I don't 7 think we ought to be chasing people. If 8 they're willing to engage with a committee, 9 this is serious business we do here, then if 10 someone has a problem or a personal problem 11 or something like that that tears them away, 12 that's one thing. But if we simply can't get 13 in touch with them, I think it might be 14 appropriate to set a precedent that these are 15 the rules of the group. As simple as that. 16 Rather than have somebody come and say, gee, 17 it's too bad I haven't been able to do 18 anything over the last year or two years or 19 something like that, I'll be better. And 20 then keep them on the committee. I think the 21 record should be what speaks. 22 MR. SHAGRIN: Especially given 23 the amount of time. 24 MR. GUNZERATH: I would second 25 that. I don't think a week or two makes that 105 1 2 much difference if we're going to take that 3 action. 4 MR. HESS: If we take that 5 approach though I'm not comfortable then with 6 saying vote now and then still give them a 7 chance to come back in. I think we should 8 then potentially discuss postponing the vote. 9 MS. BUSLIK: I also think you 10 can't just call one or two people then. If 11 everyone's in the same boat they all deserve 12 the same. Maybe a formal letter so that we 13 have -- 14 A VOICE: Maybe a formal letter. 15 I don't like that idea. 16 MR. HESS: I think those strike 17 me as good ideas. The reason I'm chiming in 18 a lot here is that Richard and I have had 19 many conversations on this topic. And I'm 20 deferring a little bit to him to the fact 21 that he's actually made a number of efforts. 22 So, Richard, I think we haven't 23 written a formal letter. I think we can 24 invite the Committee to consider that as a 25 motion. I'm not stating that as a motion 106 1 2 yet. But we can discuss that. 3 Do you think in your judgment 4 that that could be helpful? I think I'm a 5 little skeptical. I don't want to be 6 hard-nosed. But I'm a little skeptical given 7 that people aren't returning calls. That's 8 usually a signal to me that there's not 9 interest there. 10 A VOICE: Basically, you're 11 changing the criteria if you allow them to 12 stay on and they've not been on a committee 13 and they've missed two meetings. 14 MR. STERNBERG: Don't get me 15 wrong, but I was on the last meeting on a 16 conference call with a 102 fever. So I mean 17 people at this point should know what the 18 rules are. 19 A VOICE: Right. That's what I'm 20 saying. 21 MR. STERNBERG: Don't come, 22 good-bye. 23 A VOICE: They have options if 24 they can't physically attend in person. 25 There's always the phone. And from what it 107 1 2 sounds like, they don't seem to have an 3 interest. 4 A VOICE: Do they even RSVP? 5 MR. ZACKON: No. I actually 6 called more than five. Some people 7 recommitted and have taken up the effort to 8 participate. Of those five, one of them 9 returned a first call. And, frankly, I 10 listened. There wasn't a lot of interest to 11 continue. But then when I called back I 12 didn't hear back again. 13 A VOICE: Oh, isn't that a great 14 indication of their lack of interest and 15 commitment? 16 A VOICE: Yes, yes. If you can't 17 return a call, that totally, to me, that's a 18 message. 19 MR. HESS: I think that we've, 20 unless there's more discussion, if so, please 21 jump in, I'd like to form a motion that 22 rather than come up with five individual 23 names, we simply say those five who no longer 24 qualify should be removed from the committee. 25 And, I mean, that's the formal motion. If we 108 1 2 vote against it I can state another motion. 3 For example, if you vote for this 4 then they will be removed. And Richard, 5 you'll figure out we'll send them a note that 6 will say so. If you vote against it then and 7 the motion does not pass, then we can 8 consider the possibility of another 9 alternative such as sending them a formal 10 letter. But I do believe we have enough 11 information for this discussion to keep the 12 formal motion to be removal based on lack of 13 following the criteria. 14 MR. KALINE: Mike, I don't know 15 if it's the same motion or a separate one for 16 a vote. But I feel strongly that we should 17 make an attempt to replace anybody we remove 18 off of the Council for purposes of balance, 19 as well as there are other advertisers out 20 there that probably love the opportunity to 21 sit in on these types of discussions. And I 22 think that that's important. 23 The other thing is we've gotten a 24 number of committees active. And you can't 25 have a smaller group active on a number of -- 109 1 2 a growing number of committees. So we need 3 arms and legs, active arms and legs. 4 Important to state. 5 MR. HESS: You ask if it's a 6 separate motion. It does feel that that's 7 separate. I think we should vote on the 8 issue of removal and retention. And then 9 actually discuss, Mark, and what other people 10 on the phone have brought up. Well, what do 11 we do now if removal is chosen? So noted. 12 But I'm not sure I would make that kind of 13 motion. 14 MR. ZACKON: The motion then is 15 to remove the five people whose names I read 16 before. 17 MR. HESS: Yes. 18 MR. ZACKON: In favor of that 19 motion? Opposed on the phone? Ayes? 20 (Vote taken.) 21 MR. ZACKON: Aye-aye. And 22 opposed to motion? Say nay or raise your 23 hand. 24 A VOICE: Nay. 25 MR. ZACKON: Then I would say the 110 1 2 motion carries. 3 Now, Mike you have a second 4 motion? 5 MR. HESS: I invited Mark to 6 phrase the motion. 7 MR. KALINE: I would just move 8 that the five members who were excused, that 9 the committee seek to replace those members 10 with individuals from similar disciplines who 11 are willing to take an active role in this 12 Council. 13 A VOICE: Right. But it doesn't 14 have to be direct organizational replacement. 15 MR. HESS: Could we have a brief 16 discussion. I guess maybe we moved. I don't 17 know if it's the interest of time. We might 18 have moved a little too quickly to the 19 motion. Because I think one of the things we 20 were going to debate/discuss, maybe it's not 21 a debate, but discussion, Richard raised the 22 point do we actually want to replace all five 23 people. 24 MR. ZACKON: Of the people that 25 have taken themselves off. It's really now 111 1 2 eight seats on the Council. 3 MR. HESS: So there's a broader 4 issue here of do we replace all eight. Do we 5 replace just these five. Don't know actually 6 if time permits today to do that. 7 MR. ZACKON: Well, we can 8 certainly discuss it now. It could be 9 referred to the steering committee, come back 10 with a recommendation. 11 MR. HESS: I'd be happy to do it 12 in the steering committee and making that a 13 priority. 14 MR. ZACKON: If you like to we 15 can open the steering committee by phone to 16 anyone else who might want to voice in on 17 that. 18 MR. HESS: Yes. I would try to 19 do that. I realize now that the summer is 20 over. It will be difficult to get a lot of 21 people because everybody is busy in 22 September. But I would make that a priority 23 to address the issue of size. 24 MR. BROOKS: I believe the motion 25 would cycle to recruit representatives from 112 1 2 similar disciplines. So I personally would 3 be in favor of something as a sense of the 4 Council to make your reasonable efforts in 5 that direction. 6 MR. HESS: If we phrase it as 7 such to the Council, fine. I think it's more 8 the action step. Do we need to leave this 9 motion with the motion as phrased and go and 10 get those right now, or can we have a 11 steering committee meeting in the middle, 12 eight or five or content with just five. 13 Should it just be four? 14 MR. ZACKON: Would you be willing 15 to come back to this group at the next 16 meeting with a slate of names? 17 MR. HESS: Sure. We could 18 solicit starting through the steering 19 committee. But, of course, anybody here 20 should. 21 MR. ZACKON: And Nielsen will 22 make known to its clients that there are now 23 seats available if people are interested. 24 MR. SHIMMEL: We've also had from 25 time to time people call and volunteer. So 113 1 2 we should maintain those. 3 MR. ZACKON: I have names. I 4 have names. 5 MR. HESS: I do like the notion 6 of a sense of the committee as guidance for 7 the steering committee. 8 MR. ZACKON: Do we have a sense 9 of the Council that we would look to replace 10 these eight seats with individuals 11 representative to keep the balance that we've 12 been working with. 13 MR. HESS: I would, actually, I'd 14 like to get Nielsen's -- I haven't heard 15 Nielsen's sense. But when the committee was 16 first formed, none of us were on it. I know 17 you had a reason for the number to be magic 18 38 or whatever it was. So how do you feel at 19 this point from a feedback perspective? 20 MR. DONATO: The number 38 wasn't 21 magic. But there was an explicit effort to 22 make sure that all our clients were 23 represented in an equitable way. Nothing 24 magic about 38. But representation was key. 25 MR. HESS: I would like Nielsen 114 1 2 to be involved in those discussions. 3 MR. DONATO: We'll be happy to. 4 MR. ZACKON: The last item was 5 about a next meeting date. And what we found 6 that's best done by E-mail. We'll make sure 7 to do it quickly, recognizing the busyness in 8 November, December. But we will schedule a 9 fourth quarter meeting. 10 Is there any other new business. 11 MR. HESS: Is there still a 12 motion on the floor, sense of the Council. 13 MR. ZACKON: I think that motion 14 passed. I think you have that sense of the 15 Council. 16 MR. STERNBERG: Before we adjourn 17 I was thanking everybody. And I forgot to 18 thank Rebecca. So thank you Rebecca also. 19 MR. ZACKON: I thank Rebecca 20 every day. So thank you, Rebecca. 21 Is there a motion to adjourn? 22 MR. HESS: Move to adjourn. 23 MR. ZACKON: So moved. All in 24 favor. 25 (Vote taken.) 115 1 2 MR. ZACKON: Opposed? 3 Great work. We got a lot 4 accomplished today. Really excellent work. 5 Thank you. 6 (Time noted: 4:00 p.m.) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 116 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T E 3 STATE OF NEW YORK ) : ss 4 COUNTY OF NEW YORK) 5 6 I, ROBERT M. LEVINE, CM, a Shorthand 7 Reporter and Notary Public within and for the 8 State of New York, do hereby certify: 9 That the minutes hereinbefore set forth 10 is a true record of the proceedings. 11 I further certify that I am not related 12 to any of the parties to this action by blood or 13 marriage, and that I am in no way interested in 14 the outcome of this matter. 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set 16 my hand this_______day of________________2006. 17 18 19 20 __________________________ ROBERT M. LEVINE, CM 21 22 23 24 25