1 1 2 --------------------------------------------x 3 COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH EXCELLENCE 4 5 6 --------------------------------------------x December 1, 2006 7 11:00 p.m. 8 9 Millenium Hotel 10 145 West 44th Street 11 New York, New York 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 REGENCY REPORTING, INC. 22 Certified Shorthand Reporters & Videographers 23 425 Eagle Rock Avenue 575 Madison Avenue 24 Roseland, NJ 07068 New York, NY 10022 25 www.regencyreporting.net 1-866-268-7866 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: 3 RICHARD ZACON, Facilitator MARK KALINE, Chairperson 4 MIKE HESS 5 SHARI ANNE BRILL TIM BROOKS 6 SUSAN CUCCINELLO HENRY DeVAULT 7 NANCY GALLAGHER GEORGE IVIE 8 LYLE SCHWARTZ HOWARD SHIMMEL 9 PRESENT VIA PHONE: 10 IRA SUSSMAN 11 MELVA BENOIT JOANNE BURNS 12 MICHELE BUSLIK DON GLOECKLER 13 JEAN GOLDBERG DAVID GUNZERATH 14 PAT LIGUORI JESSICA PANTANINI 15 DAVID POLTRACK CERIL SHAGRIN 16 JONATHAN SIMS JACK WACHSLAG 17 18 ALSO PRESENT: 19 REBECCA MITCHELL 20 ROBERT M. LEVINE, CM 21 Court Reporter 22 23 24 25 3 1 December 1, 2006 2 MR. KALINE: Good morning 3 everybody. Thanks for either coming in 4 person here in this rather soupy late fall 5 soon to be winter day here in New York. 6 Thanks to you on the phone who made time on a 7 Friday to be here. This is Mark. And 8 hopefully you all can hear me okay on the 9 phone. Is it coming through okay? 10 A VOICE: Yes. Mark. 11 MR. KALINE: Okay. We've got a 12 full, but somewhat time-abbreviated agenda 13 today. And I think we'll tackle some pretty 14 important subjects that I know a lot of the 15 subcommittees have been working on as well as 16 the steering committee. So with that I'll 17 just say welcome. 18 And first on our agenda today is 19 Mr. Hess. And he's going to take us through 20 a couple of things. 21 A VOICE: We can't hear, Mark. 22 MR. ZACKON: You want to repeat 23 that verbatim, Mark. 24 MR. KALINE: I think our worthy 25 scribe has been taking it. 4 1 December 1, 2006 2 MR. ZACKON: We're on transcript 3 so we're fine. 4 MR. KALINE: With that I'll turn 5 it over to Mike Hess and we'll get rocking 6 and rolling here. 7 MR. HESS: Good morning, 8 everybody. Mark just informed me that our 9 turnout today is such that we each have our 10 own microphone. So if you can't hear me let 11 me know. Because I'm using my own personal 12 microphone. That means I'm not talking into 13 it. 14 For the steering committee we 15 actually have two things to cover. As you 16 can see on your agenda one is the critical 17 issue of membership. And then second just as 18 critical and related to it is bylaws. And in 19 the case of membership, when I started 20 reviewing the membership project a few weeks 21 ago, I noticed that I had received 22 recommendations a number of different kinds 23 of recommendations from Howard Shimmel, from 24 other people about members. 25 And I thought that today's 5 1 December 1, 2006 2 meeting can just be about giving you those 3 names and just voting thumbs up or thumbs 4 down. But I think it turns out as you saw in 5 your materials that were sent today that 6 there's probably a bigger issue we should 7 address first. And that is the issue of just 8 structural composition for the committee. 9 In other words, do we have the 10 right number of agency people. Do we have 11 the right number of broadcast network people. 12 Should we make room for rep firms and so on. 13 And we're well within my understanding 14 numerically. We're well within the bylaws 15 which allow 40 members. And so let's have 16 that discussion first about membership. 17 Before we get into the structure, 18 however, I think it probably makes sense to 19 vote to let me recommend and then we can vote 20 on one. People still coming in. Just wait 21 for a second here as a couple of people walk 22 in. 23 What I'd like to do is then break 24 this into two or three sections. The 25 discussion of the structure. But I'd like to 6 1 December 1, 2006 2 see that with one, if I can call it 3 no-brainer type of vote. And if not, then of 4 course that's why the committee is here, to 5 tell me I'm wrong. But there's one direct 6 replacement recommendation that we have. And 7 that is Colleen Fahey Rush to be a substitute 8 for Betsy for the let's call it the Viacom 9 slot. That's a recommendation that's a 10 direct replacement that doesn't really have 11 as much to do with do we need seven agency 12 people or four broadcast people and so on. 13 So I would like to recommend and 14 move that we vote to accept Colleen Fahey 15 Rush as a substitute for Betsy Frank. And 16 then move to the broader structural 17 discussion where we consider other names and 18 so on, okay. 19 A VOICE: Seconded 20 MR. KALINE: We've got a second. 21 Okay, everybody. 22 Anybody opposed? 23 MR. HESS: Is anybody opposed to 24 that? 25 A VOICE: I agree. 7 1 December 1, 2006 2 MS. BRILL: Actually... 3 MR. HESS: Shari Anne. 4 MS. BRILL: I did have one 5 comment. I'm not necessarily opposed. But 6 given our strict guidelines with attendance, 7 she had volunteered to participate, be in our 8 subcommittee and didn't make a single meeting 9 pretty much. I don't know. I mean, I would 10 totally vote her in, but I think it needs to 11 be stressed to her that she needs to 12 participate and to be here. Because that's 13 the whole underpinning of being in this 14 Council. 15 MR. HESS: Okay. 16 MR. ZACKON: I offer to have a 17 gentle conversation with her in that regard. 18 MS. BRILL: Okay. 19 MR. HESS: Beyond that we have no 20 opposition, okay. So let's note for the 21 record then that that Colleen Fahey Rush is 22 approved as the substitute. And she's on the 23 committee. 24 A VOICE: Were we not also going 25 to review other people? 8 1 December 1, 2006 2 MR. HESS: We are. We are. That 3 one I thought I would start with because I 4 think that's an easy one to accomplish and to 5 move in as a direct substitute. But then 6 beyond that there are other names that I will 7 get to. Yes. 8 A VOICE: A gentle conversation. 9 But it does need to be made clear to her for 10 her own benefit. Because it's not clear she 11 won't realize that. No showing you're out. 12 MR. HESS: Absolutely. 13 A VOICE: Then that led to my 14 next question. Are we not going to address 15 other people? 16 MR. HESS: We are going to 17 address other people. But the address for 18 the other people, and I think, and this was 19 kind of part of the discovery process in how 20 to prepare for this meeting, I think should 21 follow a discussion of the page that I hope 22 everybody has access to that has the date 23 December 1st that was sent out, Richard, I 24 think this morning or last night. It says 25 Council For Research Excellence Membership 9 1 December 1, 2006 2 Composition. 3 So you were all sent three 4 attachments. This is one of those 5 attachments. If you look at it it's set up 6 where it says on the left side advertiser and 7 then agency national broadcast. Those are 8 the ones. And then next to that there are 9 three columns. How many people, for example, 10 for advertisers that we had five slots for 11 advertisers. We currently have three. 12 There's a gap of two. And so on. 13 As I reviewed this with Richard, 14 it became apparent that before we got to the 15 names and especially because we in some cases 16 we actually have the luxury of having more 17 names than slots, frankly. And so to kind of 18 avoid that issue, if possible, it makes sense 19 to just look at the slots and see if we're 20 comfortable with that or if we want to move 21 to a slightly different structure. So does 22 everybody have that? 23 A VOICE: I got the file. But is 24 anyone else having a problem? 25 A VOICE: I can't hear at all. I 10 1 December 1, 2006 2 don't know what kind of file. But it's 3 formatted. 4 MR. HESS: Then I'll tell you 5 what, it's not that complicated. If you have 6 pencil and paper, perhaps I can just quickly 7 read it to you and you can make notes there. 8 So the columns are simply the 9 initial number of slots. Then next to that 10 the current. And then the gaps. And now 11 down the left side there's just a few. 12 Advertisers, we had originally 13 had five slots initially. We currently have 14 three. So there's a gap of two. 15 Agency as in advertising agency, 16 initial nine, currently eight. I'll let you 17 do the math for the gap from now on. 18 National broadcast we had five 19 initially and we actually have five 20 currently. 21 Syndication, one and one. 22 Local broadcast, initially seven, 23 but currently just five. 24 Subs cable, four initially, 25 currently three. 11 1 December 1, 2006 2 And then we created a category of 3 industry/academic, initially three, current 4 two. 5 And then two Nielsen reps, 6 neither of whom has resigned, Howard, right? 7 MR. SHIMMEL: No. 8 MR. HESS: Two initially and two 9 currently. They've attended meetings so they 10 qualify. And then maybe the only one, for 11 those who are looking at the grid, we also 12 have other, where initially we had none and 13 currently none. But we're saying that 14 there's a gap of four there. Because if you 15 total the columns and I gave you the numbers 16 right, if your math is right, then you get 36 17 for initial and 29 for current. So we 18 actually have a working gap of seven. But 19 then the bylaws allow for four more. 20 And so under Other, we should 21 also consider whether or not we want to, in 22 fact, bring that number up to 40 as the 23 bylaws currently permit. So potentially 24 there's a gap of 11. 25 Susan, for those who are writing 12 1 December 1, 2006 2 it down, let me move to the next very short 3 section. Richard pointed out that it 4 probably also makes sense to look at the 5 number of sellers and the number of buyers. 6 Because I think there was a general tendency 7 to try to balance those off pretty much. And 8 so under the initial, we had 17 sellers and 9 14 buyers with the rest made up by 10 industry/academic, Nielsen and so on. So 17 11 sellers and 14 buyers. And at present we're 12 currently in about that same ratio. We have 13 14 sellers and 11 buyers. So the gap is 14 three, okay. 15 And then the last section is we 16 broke out as ethnic interest. People who 17 represent the interests or have interest in 18 representing ethnic groups. 19 So, for example, so first, the 20 list is African-American. We initially had 21 one but we currently have zero. 22 Asian-American we initially had one and 23 currently zero. Hispanic, one and currently 24 one. And then various is, Richard you may 25 want to talk to various. 13 1 December 1, 2006 2 MR. ZACKON: That was Jessica. 3 Multicultural. 4 MR. HESS: Representing 5 multicultural. We had various. So Jessica, 6 one, and currently one. So that's the 7 current structure. 8 Before I read some of the names 9 who have put themselves up or have been 10 nominated, I think it makes sense to talk 11 about just this structure. So let's have a 12 discussion about that. 13 One of the points to discuss that 14 we reviewed is I think Susan recommended the 15 rep firms, somebody be represented for a rep 16 firm. And so should rep firm be a separate 17 breakout or should rep firm possibly be 18 subsumed within one of these categories? 19 Susan, do you want to talk about 20 that for a second. 21 MS. CUCCINELLO: Yes. It could 22 be a representative for local broadcasts. 23 It's just that I had noticed that initially 24 that that group wasn't represented. They 25 deal with stations of all sizes. And they 14 1 December 1, 2006 2 have a great, you know, way to analyze, you 3 know, market needs in terms of research. So 4 I thought they should be included. But I was 5 thinking of it as a subset of local 6 broadcast, not as a separate section. 7 MR. HESS: However, on that point 8 though, for local broadcast would your 9 formal, and maybe you haven't thought of it 10 this way when you recommended that, given 11 that we do have some gaps here that we have 12 space for four more, would your 13 recommendation be to increase the number of 14 local broadcasters from seven to eight or 15 seven to nine, or to keep the the same but 16 just make sure that one of the seven or two 17 of the seven are reps? 18 MS. CUCCINELLO: Well, I can be 19 greedy. 20 MR. HESS: You probably haven't 21 thought about that. 22 MS. CUCCINELLO: I haven't. 23 MR. HESS: That's actually what I 24 want to discuss now. 25 A VOICE: I think that seven when 15 1 December 1, 2006 2 you look as a proportion is a fair enough 3 number for local. But you did mention 4 something that's important. We have to make 5 sure that reps as a subcategory of local is 6 always represented. And not get the buried 7 in the general local number and say, okay, 8 we're okay on local. If a rep drowns out, we 9 should get another rep. And I agree a rep is 10 important. They not only bring local; they 11 bring everything. Because they look at 12 national network and syndication and cable. 13 Their focus is local. But they bring 14 everything. 15 A VOICE: I agree that it should 16 be one of the seven. But we should make it 17 clear that we always want at least one of the 18 seven to be a rep. 19 A VOICE: That's what I'm afraid 20 of. That if we look at our total local count 21 and go we're fine and you just have to always 22 make sure that there's a rep in there. So as 23 soon as whoever we have drops out, we need to 24 replace a another rep. 25 MR. HESS: None of you so far is 16 1 December 1, 2006 2 saying let's dip into the four other pool and 3 actually add, okay. 4 A VOICE: Well, the reason I left 5 it with local was because I thought that 6 proportionately, local was pretty heavy right 7 now. And we can afford, and it's down two, 8 we can afford to absorb a rep and a logical 9 place to put them. 10 MS. CUCCINELLO: Who's counting 11 in industry academic? We lost Larry Bobo. 12 MR. ZACKON: These two gentlemen 13 here are representing the ARF. 14 MR. HESS: And George. 15 MR. ZACKON: And the others, put 16 them in as local broadcast. I didn't know 17 where else to put them. They're industry. 18 But they're industry as a point of view as 19 opposed to the MRC and ARF, as are you, from 20 my point of view. 21 MR. HESS: Any further 22 discussion? I mean, so far I don't hear 23 Richard or anybody not only no objections, 24 but, well, I hear no objection. Let's maybe 25 if we go one at a time. 17 1 December 1, 2006 2 MS. GOLDBERG: This is Jean 3 Goldberg. I certainly would like to see more 4 than one syndicator represented. This is a 5 pretty big industry. 6 MR. SIMS: Actually, I had a 7 question. Who is this syndicator? Is it 8 Jean, or I'm wearing two hats? Jean and I 9 are also both syndications. 10 MR. ZACKON: I counted you, 11 Jonathan, as the syndicator. 12 A VOICE: Jean was there from the 13 beginning. Warner Brothers. 14 A VOICE: We both have more 15 than -- you know, it's syndication plus. 16 MR. SHIMMEL: She must have been 17 in cable with Jack. 18 MR. ZACKON: You know what, I may 19 have made a mistake Jean. I'm sorry. And I 20 mean this in a flattering essential, I may 21 have put you in agency, just not thinking. 22 MS. GOLDBERG: Oh. 23 MR. HESS: So, Richard, you're 24 saying moving from agency to syndication is 25 an upgrade. 18 1 December 1, 2006 2 MR. ZACKON: No. I just have 3 such high regard for agency people, when I 4 thought of Jean, she must be agency. 5 MR. HESS: I'll tell you what, 6 maybe before we move to that discussion, 7 let's wrap up the one on the rep firms. 8 It sounds like we have a 9 concensus that nobody's moving to add a body. 10 But rather make sure that at least one rep 11 firm be subsumed within local broadcast; is 12 that right? 13 MS. CUCCINELLO: Hmm-hmm. 14 MR. HESS: So we're not saying to 15 add that. Okay. 16 Just in terms of point of order, 17 Richard, or whoever, do we need to formally 18 vote on that? I mean right now I think we 19 have a sense of the committee that we want to 20 take the rep individual, make sure there is 21 one there, but to put them under local 22 broadcast. 23 MR. ZACKON: I think it's 24 informal. Again, these initial distributions 25 were kind of what worked with the community, 19 1 December 1, 2006 2 what Nielsen felt was reasonable. There's 3 nothing secret about this. 4 By the way, if you're counting, I 5 feel like awaiting election results, we now 6 have seven agency current, two syndication 7 current, which means a 15 to 10 seller-buyer 8 split. And one socialist from a New England 9 state somewhere. 10 MR. HESS: Okay. All right. 11 A VOICE: Remember this is being 12 recorded. 13 MR. HESS: So we have a sense of. 14 A VOICE: I think with Jonathan 15 and I, we both represent not just syndication 16 but voice from the studio. And we're into a 17 lot of other areas, you know, with cable 18 sales and network sales to network 19 programming and things like that so... 20 MR. HESS: Most of us. We were 21 not involved the way I say Howard and Richard 22 were based on the initial allocations. So I 23 think Richard's already made some comments. 24 I'm not sure that this was ever 25 intended by you guys up front to be a formal 20 1 December 1, 2006 2 split. On the other hand, I think there was 3 a sense of fairness and a sense of multiple 4 stakeholders and so on. 5 A VOICE: I think the idea is to 6 get every facet represented. 7 MR. HESS: Now, we've had a year 8 and a half to have experience now as we 9 considered to consider names and where to put 10 those names, especially since we have more 11 bodies than slots in some cases, I think it 12 makes sense just to review this. 13 And I think before we move to 14 naming any names, are there any other 15 comments? I heard one, okay. There should 16 be more syndicators. We basically changed 17 that from one to two in any event, right. So 18 we're saying syndicators, Richard, you just 19 updated us, initially was two, in effect, and 20 currently two. 21 MR. ZACKON: Correct. 22 MR. HESS: So we have no gap 23 there. Then we reduced the agency from 24 initial eight from 29 to eight, and then the 25 current from eight to seven. So we still 21 1 December 1, 2006 2 have a gap of one there. 3 Are there any other thoughts on 4 that? 5 MS. BRILL: Yes. One thought in 6 the other category. In the other category, 7 just one idea that I wanted to throw out is 8 maybe somebody who comes from the Internet 9 industry, just to add that perspective. 10 Because as you move forward in the A2/M2 11 initiative, one of the big areas that we need 12 to tackle is measuring Internet and 13 television together in the same set of homes. 14 And maybe their expertise could offer 15 something here as well. 16 MR. SHIMMEL: Yes. I had the 17 same thought. And one of the things I think 18 maybe we can talk about is do you want to 19 represent both the media side of the digital 20 world as well as the agency side? 21 You know, we do have AOL/Yahoo as 22 clients to our service. Would you also want, 23 you know, potentially take one of them and 24 also potentially take one of your digital 25 subsidiaries from the agency world? 22 1 December 1, 2006 2 MR. HESS: You want to respond? 3 MS. BRILL: I don't. I really 4 haven't thought it that far. It was just 5 something that hit me as we were going 6 through the list. So I guess maybe it's 7 something that would be for better discussion 8 just to have somebody here who can really 9 speak to that technology and with some breeds 10 in that environment. So I haven't really 11 taken it to the next level. Maybe that's 12 something we can chat about here. 13 MR. HESS: I do think this is a 14 good opportunity to do it because the step 15 that I anticipate is that from this meeting 16 if we can get concensus, great; if not, we 17 can get a sense of the committee, the CRE 18 today. And then roll that into a steering 19 committee initiative that we can address. 20 Richard, probably we should try to before the 21 end of the year. Right. I mean, it has 22 enough importance to try to address before 23 the end of the year. Because then after we 24 completely agree on the structure, then we 25 can make sure that the names fit. And start 23 1 December 1, 2006 2 coming back with a steering committee 3 recommendation, a slate, if you will, of 4 names that we would then put up for the 5 entire CRE to vote on. 6 I think that that voting 7 mechanism, by the way, since our next meeting 8 is not slated, I believe, until March. That 9 voting mechanism could be by E-mail. So the 10 steering committee would give you a slate of 11 names. And then thumbs up or thumbs down on 12 that slate. And we can do that by E-mail 13 vote. 14 MR. BROOKS: Can you distribute a 15 list of the current members too. Because 16 I've kind of lost status. 17 MR. ZACKON: It was actually sent 18 out in the E-mail. Not intentionally. 19 MS. GALLAGHER: It's unreadable. 20 MR. SCHWARTZ: Mike, one of the 21 questions here, the mission of the group 22 given by Nielsen, our steering group as 23 Nielsen expands exactly what they're doing. 24 We need to expand what we're encompassing 25 here. Some of these positions really should 24 1 December 1, 2006 2 be used to add onto all these. Not just the 3 Internet, but the iPod, the video, or any of 4 those. 5 MR. HESS: I think the beauty 6 here is that we do have four available slots. 7 And again, I think what I found from day one 8 when we created the steering committee and 9 then later my experience with the steering 10 committee is there's no written charter. I'm 11 sorry. There is. But there's no rules on 12 how we have to do things. And so I think now 13 after a year and a half, if it's your 14 recommendation, and we just heard one 15 recommendation, meaning Internet, well, we 16 get to say that. And I think our committee, 17 unless we do something that's really counter 18 to Nielsen's interest, let's say, or to the 19 basic charter, we can do that. So do you 20 have a formal recommendation? 21 MR. SCHWARTZ: The formal 22 recommendation is to open up and try to 23 expand the platform by which we're dealing 24 with. And to encompass those that can help 25 us in that area. 25 1 December 1, 2006 2 MR. HESS: So we have a couple 3 of -- I mean, we basically have Internet as 4 one. What else would you suggest? 5 MR. SCHWARTZ: You've got the 6 mobile media. You've got iPods, the gaming, 7 PSP. And all those so... 8 MR. HESS: So, again, in terms of 9 structure and timing for today with respect 10 to the fact that there are other things we 11 want to accomplish, maybe we won't get 12 concensus on that. But on every one of those 13 slots we can try to spend a couple of minutes 14 to do that. 15 Can we all agree on what the 16 other new four slots would be? Let's say one 17 for Internet. 18 MR. IVIE: I think gaming is 19 pretty decent sized. There's actually one 20 company out there that represents about 99 21 percent of market share in game advertising. 22 It's called Massive. It's a division of 23 Microsoft. 24 MR. HESS: Gaming is one. 25 Internet is two. 26 1 December 1, 2006 2 MS. CUCCINELLO: Maybe Internet 3 is two spots. 4 MR. HESS: Then we would have one 5 slot left if we agree. 6 MS. GALLAGHER: Mobile. 7 MR. HESS: Mobile, okay. 8 Nielsen, any problems with that, 9 follow the video and we have -- 10 MR. BROOKS: Just a question. 11 All of this is going to relate back to 12 measurement of video going forward, right? 13 MR. HESS: Well, I don't know if 14 that's something we debate right now. 15 Probably it makes sense, given we're looking 16 for slots. 17 MR. BROOKS: Kind of a 18 fundamental purpose of the Council as I 19 understand it is we're not going to take 20 television, but measurement of video with 21 respect to the platforms going forward. 22 So I have no problem with gaming 23 or something like that. But I think whoever 24 that person is needs to be someone in that 25 area who is related to that as opposed to, 27 1 December 1, 2006 2 you know, pure Playstation sales or something 3 like that. Because some of these areas, 4 particularly when you get into the really 5 niche products are not really products about 6 video. Even iPods are turning out not to be 7 about video. Turning out to be about audio 8 and the music industry and that sort of 9 thing. 10 So I agree that we need to have 11 the expertise from different areas. But I 12 want to keep it focused on people who are 13 involved on the video side. 14 MR. HESS: I assume Nielsen 15 agrees. 16 MR. SHIMMEL: Yes. 17 I think there are two other areas 18 we should think about before we finalize it. 19 One would be would you want someone on the 20 market research side at a cable operator, you 21 know, someone who's involved in the 22 technology of distributing to homes and then 23 potentially, you know, someone from say Sony, 24 a manufacturer, an equipment provider. I 25 think those are the areas that wouldn't make 28 1 December 1, 2006 2 sense if we can plug into. 3 MR. BROOKS: MSOs are very 4 important. They're also the hardest to find 5 anybody who's in research in. A problem all 6 the time. 7 MR. SHIMMEL: Tim's point, he's 8 on the sales side. He's not the technology 9 guy at Comcast. 10 MR. BROOKS: I agree. To have 11 that perspective would be great. 12 MR. HESS: We can open another 13 window here. Just because I said that there 14 are four slots doesn't mean we can't be 15 creative and say, you know what, there's some 16 openings here. I'm not suggesting this. 17 I'm telling you that this is a 18 possibility, especially if Nielsen doesn't 19 disagree. Let's say for local broadcast or 20 oh, hey, I'm not saying this as a 21 recommendation, but right now there's a gap 22 of two let's say on advertiser. Let's assume 23 most of us want to keep five advertisers. 24 I'm just pointing out that given 25 that there are gaps between the initial and 29 1 December 1, 2006 2 the current, if we as a committee feel that 3 another category is better served, then we 4 could work with those four that we have the 5 obvious gaps on that we had 36, but we could 6 go to 40. But we could also potentially 7 recommend a cut-back in one of those other 8 categories. 9 I'm just saying that that could 10 be another source of volume, so to speak. 11 Right now I've got written down, gaming, one. 12 Internet, two, and mobile, one. That makes 13 four. 14 Are there any other strong ones, 15 Tim? 16 MR. BROOKS: MSO. 17 MR. HESS: MSO would be five. 18 And you're saying that you're not 19 recommending to move the Internet back to 20 just one. So if we go to a fifth one, then 21 what that would mean is we would have to cut 22 back on one of the other ones since right now 23 we can't go past 40. 24 MR. IVIE: I just want to 25 communicate one thing. You have gaming on 30 1 December 1, 2006 2 the top of that list. I'm not sure that's 3 necessarily the top priority. 4 MR. HESS: I don't mean it as a 5 priority. I just wrote it down as it kind of 6 came out. 7 MR. KALINE: I think it 8 fundamentally comes down to you can talk 9 about the categories until you talk about the 10 companies and the people that are associated 11 with those, it really won't be enough for the 12 group to react to. And once you get a list 13 of those kinds of people from that, from 14 those various disciplines together, then I 15 think we have something more concrete to say 16 yea or nay. Then we can decide where to bin 17 those people, I think, most appropriately. 18 MS. GALLAGHER: Also, I think 19 other than the buyer and seller categories, 20 there's a lot, as Jay was saying, there's a 21 lot of overlap. A lot of us work with 22 broadcast and cable and digital and local. 23 So there really is a lot of overlap. 24 MR. HESS: Richard, you wanted to 25 comment. 31 1 December 1, 2006 2 MR. ZACKON: Just one point. 3 That we had an academic on the Council. And 4 there's no natural reason why we need to have 5 a position for an academic. So that was 6 originally three. That could add someone. 7 MS. CUCCINELLO: I was thinking 8 that as well. I was just going to go there. 9 We can use academics as consultants on 10 different projects without putting one on the 11 committee. 12 MR. HESS: Okay. Any further 13 discussion? I don't want to cut that 14 discussion off too fast. It sounds like one 15 sense we're getting now, let's give up the 16 academic slot and make that the fifth new 17 slot, if you will. 18 So to reprise that, George, I 19 won't start with gaming. I'll start MSO, 20 one. Mobile, one. Internet, two people. 21 And gaming, one person. That makes five. Is 22 everybody good with that? Because what I'm 23 basically trying to get a sense for here is 24 if we have a sense of the committee on this 25 we don't have to move it to the steering 32 1 December 1, 2006 2 committee for a recommendation. We can just 3 say we agree now what those 40 slots look 4 like. There's no rush to judgment here. But 5 if we all agree, I think I'm pretty 6 comfortable with that. 7 MR. ZACKON: Mike, and we'll get 8 names, how will we search? 9 MR. HESS: The names, I'm open to 10 that as well. Nielsen has provided a couple 11 of names recently. I think there had been 12 some self-volunteer names. Because people 13 read about the committee. And then I think, 14 Richard, maybe you got contacted once with a 15 name. 16 MR. ZACKON: I'm speaking 17 specifically about these new categories. 18 MR. HESS: How did we do it last 19 time? Did Nielsen search? This time we have 20 the committee. We can also come up with a 21 recommendation. 22 MR. SHIMMEL: We can do part of 23 that. We have businesses that are dealing 24 with mobile and gaming. So I can reach out 25 to the person who runs those businesses and 33 1 December 1, 2006 2 get some recommendations. 3 George, maybe for Internet we can 4 look at people who are on the Internet audit 5 committee. Get some recommendations. 6 MR. IVIE: Yes. I'd be happy to. 7 MR. BROOKS: I'll help you out 8 with MSOs too. 9 MR. HESS: Who would come up with 10 the MSO recommendation? 11 MR. BROOKS: I'll give you some. 12 MR. HESS: You're saying you 13 would. Thanks. Great. I love this 14 discussion. Actually beyond what I 15 anticipated, that we can come up with those 16 slot bins right away. That's super. 17 Now, I'd like some input from 18 Richard on this. It's my sense that it would 19 be appropriate that I could read some of the 20 names to you now. I think we purposely 21 didn't put them on a sheet of paper to pass 22 out. 23 A VOICE: Mike, you're breaking 24 up. 25 MR. HESS: I think it would be an 34 1 December 1, 2006 2 appropriate step for me to read some of the 3 names to you now. Just so you have a sense 4 of names that have either volunteered 5 themselves or that Nielsen, a number of 6 different ways came in. But I would suggest 7 not voting on those names now, but rather as 8 I mentioned a few moments ago, letting the 9 steering committee come up with a slate of 10 names, now that we know what the 40-person 11 structure is. And then that slate would 12 reflect both the current names I'm about to 13 read, as well as the new names that we would 14 get for the MSOs, the gaming, the Internet, 15 and so on. 16 So we would come back with a 17 slate I would suggest before the end of the 18 year. Because this is an urgent priority. 19 And then I would put that out. After the 20 steering committee develops the slate, then 21 we would put that out for a thumbs up/thumbs 22 down vote from the entire CRE. 23 MR. DeVAULT: When you read the 24 names, will you tell us what part of the 25 industry they represent? 35 1 December 1, 2006 2 MR. HESS: Will do. And if I 3 don't have all that information, I'll ask for 4 help. The names that have been submitted are 5 John Vitanovich who works for the Chicago 6 Tribune. I hope I'm pronouncing that right. 7 MR. SHIMMEL: Tribune Company. 8 MR. HESS: Tribune Company. 9 Matt Ross, who's the research 10 director for Hurst Television. Another name. 11 Hurst Argyle. 12 MR. SHIMMEL: Very good guy. 13 MR. HESS: Billy McDowell who's 14 the research director for Raycom TV, okay. 15 Those three names kind of came in as a group. 16 And then after Susan had 17 recommended reps, a couple of names I think 18 were suggested, Howard, by Nielsen people 19 two. Alex Corticelli, who's with Telerep 20 and John McMorrow who's with HRP, okay. 21 We already talked about and voted 22 in Colleen. And so two other names came up. 23 Mike Pardee, who's with Scripps, Scripps 24 Network. And I think that was a 25 self-recommendation; is that correct, 36 1 December 1, 2006 2 Richard? 3 MR. ZACKON: I believe. I 4 believe so. I would say Mike's already 5 joined Shari's committee as a committee, 6 which he can do. 7 MR. HESS: Then also the last 8 name I have on here is Susan Nathan from the 9 agency side. I think also recommending 10 herself, I believe. 11 MR. SHIMMEL: That's right. 12 MR. HESS: Those are the names 13 that I've been given through a variety of 14 sources through E-mail over the last four to 15 five weeks. And in terms of the first three 16 that I read, John and Matt and Billy, we at 17 least had some. It went in front of the 18 steering committee a few weeks ago. And 19 everybody seemed to be in agreement that 20 these people were acceptable. 21 I think, on the other hand, if 22 after Richard and I started doing the math 23 the other day we found out that, as I 24 suggested before, we may have more names than 25 we actually have slots. So this is why I'd 37 1 December 1, 2006 2 like to take advantage of taking these names. 3 And now we could discuss if somebody, I think 4 we have the flexibility, if there's a 5 unanimity about a name like there was with 6 Colleen, I think we don't have to end the 7 discussion now or vice versus. 8 If somebody wants to suggest for 9 the record that a certain name here is just 10 not qualified or shouldn't be on, we can say 11 that. But short of that, I would take this 12 to the steering committee and come up with a 13 slate, as I said. And that slate would 14 include the new names for the new five slots 15 for the MSO, mobile, and Internet and gaming. 16 MR. ZACKON: In my facilitator 17 role as timekeeper, I just want to move this 18 particular discussion. 19 MR. DeVAULT: Mike, one quick 20 question. Hi, this is Henry. I think 21 hearing the advertisers on that and we have a 22 gap of two -- 23 MR. HESS: That's right. 24 MR. DeVAULT: And that presents a 25 problem for me. 38 1 December 1, 2006 2 MR. HESS: Right. The 3 advertiser, that was not intentional. We 4 just don't have any names yet. But clearly, 5 given that nobody when we were looking for 6 places to draw from, no one said, well, let's 7 reduce the advertiser number. I mean, I 8 think it would be a priority to find two more 9 advertiser names. 10 MR. DeVAULT: I agree. 11 MR. HESS: Then that would become 12 part of the slate. In fact, to really fill 13 this out and be sensitive to time, Richard, 14 we should, as part of the naming process, we 15 have some names here for a couple of the 16 different titles, like national broadcast. 17 Not that one. Local broadcast. But wherever 18 there's a gap we will try to fill the gap. 19 And that's part of the slate development 20 process. 21 MR. ZACKON: I would suggest 22 maybe some of our current advertisers and 23 agency members might make recommendations in 24 case of agency members, clients are theirs 25 they think. The requirement here is they be 39 1 December 1, 2006 2 Nielsen clients. That's it. That's an 3 issue. 4 MR. KALINE: I think I can work 5 with Howard and Paul to find out. Because 6 there are clients that do go to the Nielsen 7 annual meetings and things of that nature, 8 people who have been active in the past that 9 we could, at least, reach out to and say 10 there's an slot open, would you be 11 interested. And, yes, you have to attend and 12 be an active member. And all those kinds of 13 good things. So they're not just getting on 14 the list. But I'm happy to do that in 15 conjunction with you guys. 16 MR. SHIMMEL: Sure. 17 MR. HESS: Thanks for the 18 reminder on advertising. That was an 19 oversight on my part, clearly. Clearly 20 there's no intent here to say we're not going 21 to get those names. 22 Maybe just one other comment as 23 we leave this, you'll note we didn't formally 24 discuss ethnic interest. We don't have an 25 ethnic slot, if you will, but we do have a 40 1 December 1, 2006 2 goal. One of our several goals beyond 3 collegiality, et cetera, is also diversity. 4 So as we look for these names we will 5 maintain a sense of diversity as we try to 6 get the names, the nominees as well. 7 MR. SHIMMEL: Well, on that, 8 Mike, Nielsen has formed an Asian-Pacific 9 American Council and also an African-American 10 Council. So I'll get the name, get 11 recommendations. I remember Asian-American 12 was Saul Gitlin. To sort of scrambling to 13 try to have someone. But I don't think he 14 ever attended any meetings. So I'll get you 15 recommendations on those. 16 MR. HESS: Right. Well, then 17 that ends this part. I think we can very 18 quickly address the next part about the 19 bylaws. The bylaws have been rewritten a 20 couple of times. And despite the fact 21 they've been rewritten a couple of times, 22 when we went then around to the steering 23 committee the other day, several of our 24 members, notably Henry, still found some 25 issues. 41 1 December 1, 2006 2 So thank for you finding those 3 and upgrading them. We will not vote on the 4 bylaws today. Please take the time to read 5 them. And then we will vote on them at the 6 next full Council meeting. 7 We have tried to rewrite the 8 bylaws. Because as most recently written and 9 drafted, and I realize as Chair of the 10 steering committee and I'm about to describe 11 the fact that one of the corrections in the 12 written bylaws was that for some reason they 13 ceded too much power to the steering 14 committee. And we tried to address that as 15 best we could. Henry still caught us not 16 completely doing that. And so we've 17 rewritten it for that. 18 I think we also, Richard, as part 19 of the discussion on the bylaws, the lawyers 20 also pointed out to us that we have an 21 officer slot that we have not filled. And 22 that is the office of secretary. 23 MR. ZACKON: Right. Two points 24 on the bylaws. One is that we're asking 25 someone from the Council to step up in a 42 1 December 1, 2006 2 largely ceremonial role as secretary. You 3 know, Rebecca makes my job that much easier 4 by just how good she is. And I'll take care 5 of whatever legwork we already have set up 6 for minutes, et cetera. So if someone is 7 willing to step up to be secretary of the 8 Council, it's a necessary function. 9 Though one point of lively 10 discussion, I'm just going to put it out, we 11 don't have to handle it now, in terms of the 12 focus of the work of the Council, we moved 13 initially, it said television following the 14 way the industry gone. It said video. And 15 there seems to be broad support on the part 16 of the members to expand beyond video. And 17 my sense is that's a question between Nielsen 18 and the Council members as to what that focus 19 should be if it goes beyond video. I don't 20 have a point of view. 21 MR. HESS: Anybody want to 22 discuss that? I mean, I think we got a clear 23 sense a few moments ago from several people 24 it should be video. But at the same time I 25 know we have a committee now that's going to 43 1 December 1, 2006 2 be on video. So, is there a way to phrase 3 that and capture the essence of that? 4 MR. KALINE: Well, I think my 5 point of view is I would tend to want to 6 leave it open in the sense that Nielsen 7 themselves are sticking their fingers into a 8 number of different areas. And it would 9 probably be in their best interest to at 10 least entertain research work or trying to do 11 discovery work in areas that include video, 12 but also could include audio and some other 13 things. 14 We've also got Apollo that's 15 going on out there and some other initiatives 16 where you can easily see this Council being 17 involved in work that's related to that. So 18 I think it would be in their best interests 19 to at least, it's now an obligation, but it's 20 at least you're not closing it off. 21 MR. SHIMMEL: Hmm-hmm. 22 MR. KALINE: And truth is the 23 video could become out-of-home very soon. It 24 is in many cases becoming digital. 25 MR. SHIMMEL: Sure. 44 1 December 1, 2006 2 MR. KALINE: And so it's going to 3 be hard to just contain things in that 4 respect. That's my own point of view. 5 MR. HESS: Assuming we go that 6 way, and given that bylaws are formal 7 comments and formal points of view, is there 8 a way maybe, Richard, you can help us phrase 9 it? Is there a way to phrase it that perhaps 10 for us should continue to be video, but we 11 would make allowance for. 12 And this is the formal part, 13 Howard, Richard. We would make allowance for 14 flexibility as appropriate or as approved by 15 Nielsen. I think, you know, where do you 16 draw the line of. Because the committee, 17 what if the committee suddenly said radio. 18 Then you'd probably say, no, I don't think 19 so. So who becomes the arbiter; the CRE or 20 Nielsen? 21 MR. SHIMMEL: I think that's art. 22 We don't have veto power over research in 23 this document. And I think you want to leave 24 it that way. But I think the way you just 25 described it is right, where if the committee 45 1 December 1, 2006 2 wants to fund research, that's outside of 3 sort of the video parameters, and we'll have 4 to figure out, let Mannana figure out how to 5 write this. Then at that point we do have 6 veto right. 7 MR. ZACKON: Could we say media 8 measured by Nielsen and just leave it that 9 way, or is that too restrictive still? 10 MR. IVIE: Sort of outdoor. You 11 would measure that. That's why I'm asking 12 the question. 13 MR. KALINE: To me it seems like 14 it's video and that seems to be what we're 15 talking about. 16 MR. ZACKON: Video and other 17 media agreed upon. 18 MR. KALINE: It's not like we're 19 going to go off and do a newspaper study or 20 something like that. 21 MR. HESS: I think it comes back 22 down to the language who needs to approve it; 23 the CRE or is it Nielsen? Because clearly 24 people wanted to have the flexibility to go 25 beyond video. But the question is do we get 46 1 December 1, 2006 2 to say here it is or is that the Nielsen 3 part. Everybody wants to be flexible. So 4 it's just a question on the wording there. 5 MR. SCHWARTZ: The one question I 6 have there as we expand, and I think we 7 should, we also have to remember we have to 8 have representation on these committees. And 9 we may have to then rethink whether the 10 limitation is. 11 A VOICE: We can't understand 12 what's going on. 13 MR. ZACKON: Lyle's concern was 14 if the focus expands beyond, oh, video, we 15 wanted to make sure we have members on the 16 Council with interests in those areas to 17 bring some expertise to the work. 18 MR. IVIE: Maybe I'm linked to 19 the party and this is what you guys are 20 talking about. Bylaws, documents that I've 21 seen in the past. Usually the very first 22 statement is it in the bylaws. 23 A VOICE: I don't know who's 24 talking. 25 MR. IVIE: Bylaws is generally 47 1 December 1, 2006 2 the very first section of the bylaws describe 3 the function and purpose of the organization. 4 And I don't think that's in here, unless I 5 missed it somewhere, that really what we're 6 talking about. And then we're going to add 7 that. 8 MR. ZACKON: Actually, we have a 9 separate charter. And I believe it's in the 10 charter. Let me pull up the charter and 11 look. Fair question. 12 A VOICE: If the Council needs to 13 go beyond video and we don't have that 14 expertise, can we invite that expertise in 15 as opposed to having an established Council 16 member at this time. 17 MR. KALINE: I think that's a 18 good suggestion. Because, you know, I think 19 fundamentally the core work that this Council 20 does is going to be video related. I think 21 that there just are opportunities that are 22 going to naturally arise as the industry 23 changes, where if we decide to do some work 24 and it could easily expanded to include 25 something outside of the video range, that we 48 1 December 1, 2006 2 should be open to it or the traditional 3 descriptions that we have. Not that that's a 4 driving piece of it. 5 MR. HESS: Richard, do you have 6 enough to take to Mannana? 7 MR. ZACKON: I think so. A 8 conversation with your steering committee. 9 MR. HESS: Okay. 10 MR. GUNDERATH: David Gunderath. 11 Can I make another comment on 12 that draft? I just read it this morning and 13 I was struck by a couple of things. 14 MR. HESS: Yes. 15 MR. GUNDERATH: I shared the 16 concern that you raised earlier about the 17 power invested in the steering committee by 18 it. I assume that the draft reflects the 19 changes that were even made to it to the 20 original version. And could just suggest a 21 couple of approaches that might alleviate 22 that concern somewhat for the Council's 23 consideration. 24 Perhaps if the steering committee 25 meetings were announced to the full Council 49 1 December 1, 2006 2 ahead of time and if Council members wanted 3 to sit in on them, even without standing 4 within the steering committee, but just as 5 observers, I think that might be something 6 that would help. 7 And also if the steering 8 committee produced some minutes after the 9 meeting that were distributed to the full 10 Council within a fairly short time frame. I 11 think both of those things would go a long 12 way to addressing that area. 13 MR. ZACKON: Excellent 14 suggestion. 15 MR. HESS: That sounds good. 16 We'll do that. 17 Can we move on to the next 18 section then? 19 A VOICE: Jack. 20 Henry, did you have a comment? 21 MR. DeVAULT: Yes. Yesterday I 22 objected to the use of the word investment. 23 And I thought the focus should have been on 24 research. 25 A VOICE: We can't hear again. 50 1 December 1, 2006 2 MR. DeVAULT: How research is 3 being conducted as opposed to any particular 4 area of it. So that's the broadest sense of 5 what we can get out of it. 6 MR. KALINE: Then saying the 7 focus of the Council is, you know, Research 8 Excellence. And it doesn't necessarily need 9 to be defined as video research, or, you 10 know, some sort of a special topic. Because 11 we're talking about universe estimates. 12 We're talking about a whole bunch of 13 subjects, you know. Nonresponse and all 14 these kinds of things. Which are generic in 15 a sense to the research realm, as opposed to 16 just industry related. 17 MR. BROOKS: That gets back to 18 the charter. And I think it would be a good 19 idea perhaps to make the charter part of our 20 packet every time or something like that 21 because it's very easy. 22 We had this on our own committee 23 to kind of expand and expand and expand. 24 Because that would be interesting. This 25 would be interesting. And pretty soon you've 51 1 December 1, 2006 2 expanded so far you don't have any focus 3 anymore or have gone into intractible areas. 4 So I think reminding ourselves all the time 5 of what the purpose of the Council is, 6 whether, and we can discuss, whether includes 7 the word video or not, we need to keep that 8 in front of us, I think. 9 MR. ZACKON: Will do. 10 MR. HESS: That completes the 11 steering committee discussion. 12 MR. KALINE: Okay. 13 I think we're ready to get into 14 some of the committee report-outs. Ceril, 15 you're on the phone still? Ceril? 16 MR. HESS: Is anybody out there? 17 MR. ZACKON: Anyone on the phone? 18 Can you hear us? 19 Ceril, you're up. 20 MS. SHAGRIN: Okay. I just 21 wanted to add the one comment on 22 video-related is to say video 23 measurement-related. Because I think my 24 concern on the video-only was that there's 25 some issues related to measurement that may 52 1 December 1, 2006 2 not get into the video definition. 3 Having said that, I'll go on to 4 talk about nonresponse. And hopefully, there 5 won't be too much noise because I'm in an 6 airport. But we are working on the 7 questionnaire right now for nonresponse. I 8 have just gotten comments back from the 9 members of the committee. And I will be 10 sharing those with our little subgroup that 11 will work with the professors to finalize 12 that questionnaire. Right now it's running 13 around an hour. And we need to try and 14 reduce the length of it without giving up 15 some of the information we want to collect. 16 And if we can get the questionnaire finalized 17 in the next few weeks, then we'll be ready to 18 start our early interviews. 19 MR. KALINE: Great. 20 MR. ZACKON: Ceril, will members 21 of the Council not on your committee have an 22 opportunity to look at that questionnaire 23 before it actually goes into the field, not 24 foreboding. 25 MS. SHAGRIN: I'll send a 53 1 December 1, 2006 2 questionnaire, out to the whole Council once 3 we have a near final version. 4 MR. ZACKON: Excellent. Great. 5 MR. DeVAULT: Okay. 6 MS. SHAGRIN: Any more questions? 7 MR. KALINE: You don't need any 8 more money, do you, Ceril? 9 MS. SHAGRIN: I always need more 10 money. 11 MR. KALINE: Henry actually 12 whispered that. 13 MS. SHAGRIN: At this point every 14 time Nielsen said they underestimated the 15 cost in the initial proposal, I tell them to 16 have to eat those differences because they 17 gave me the proposal. 18 MR. KALINE: Okay. Any other 19 comments on the nonresponse or questions? 20 Okay. We'll move on to Shari 21 Anne. Talk about our consumption and 22 engagement. 23 MS. BRILL: Yes. Good morning, 24 everyone. At our last session back in 25 September the Council voted to implement 54 1 December 1, 2006 2 funding to place a pilot into the field in 3 concert with Ball State University and 4 Sequent Partners. 5 Part of that discussion, and I'm 6 a little fuzzy from the minutes, was that it 7 was really important to have criteria for 8 success before the Council would vote on 9 whether the full longitudinal study could be 10 implemented. So, with that in mind, our 11 subcommittee meeting, consumption engagement 12 formed a sub, a deeper subcommittee or a 13 minisubcommittee, if you will. I don't know 14 what you call a subcommittee of a 15 subcommittee, but we formed a smaller group 16 making sure that we had representation from 17 the buy side and the sale side. And we spoke 18 in very detailed discussion with Ball State 19 and Sequent about how we would go ahead. And 20 we came up with different criteria for 21 success. So with that in mind, let me take 22 you through that. 23 The most important criteria is 24 the representativeness of the sample. Our 25 pilot sample consists of 50 respondents. And 55 1 December 1, 2006 2 we wanted to make sure that we represented 3 some key target groups of interest, including 4 ethnic groups such as Spanish language 5 dominant. And we learned that it could 6 probably be accomplished in Indianapolis. 7 That's where the survey's actually taking 8 place. They do have a substantial Hispanic 9 population and quite a bit of an array of 10 Spanish language media. 11 Another group we wanted to place 12 emphasis on was that we were able to recruit 13 and measure African-Americans. Members of 14 urban areas particularly. Can we identify 15 low income homes that could be incorporated 16 into the pilot. And the next level that was 17 of great concern was our ability to identify 18 and measure high-tech homes. 19 As part of the instrument survey 20 that was also being put together in tandem, 21 we identified several criteria for what we 22 would deem as being a high-tech participant. 23 Including things as to whether or not the 24 participant owned three or more of the 25 following items: A high-tech TV, an HDTV 56 1 December 1, 2006 2 rather, having either digital cable TV 3 service or satellite service in their home. 4 A DVR capability, either a TiVo type device, 5 or something within your cable set-top box. 6 Video capable, cell phone, PDA, portable 7 video player, DVD capable gaming console. 8 Laptop computer in the home with wireless 9 connectivity. A broadband connection in the 10 home, et cetera, et cetera. 11 So that seems that, and we're 12 seeking to at least bring in about one-fifth 13 of the sample group as being advanced 14 technology users. Also explored was our 15 ability to work with Nielsen-forced turnover 16 homes. Most likely in the Chicago DMA 17 because we want to be able to bring in 18 Nielsen homes just to get a sense of the 19 viability of how these types of homes who 20 have already participated in media research, 21 if they would be, how they would be receptive 22 to being in an observation type study of this 23 type. 24 As to another demographic group 25 of interest, while it wasn't specifically 57 1 December 1, 2006 2 spelled out in our original RFP, it was 3 really important to start thinking about the 4 impact of teens in terms of their acquisition 5 and usage of high-tech products. They're 6 often the ones who are the most receptive to 7 the gaming consoles, wireless devices. 8 They're the most open to all of that new 9 technology coming into the home. And 10 probably the driver's behind it. 11 And as we have further 12 discussions with Ball State and Sequent, we 13 started realizing the complexities associated 14 with measuring this very important group but 15 underage group data. They represent a whole 16 slew of measurement complexities on their 17 own, particularly because it's very difficult 18 to gain access into a school. And you also 19 have to get parental permission. 20 And it really in this day and age 21 of, you know, protecting children and all the 22 crazy people that are out there these days 23 that we're hearing more and more about, it's 24 just not advisable to probably have an 25 observer travel with this child and be with 58 1 December 1, 2006 2 them all day if a parent isn't also at home. 3 But we found out from the Center 4 of Media Design that they are funding a pilot 5 of their own during fourth quarter that is in 6 tandem with a high school that they have a 7 relationship with. And based on the learning 8 from that, they'll be happy to share what 9 their findings are with us. But at that 10 point our group can decide whether it is 11 actually viable to include a teen sample in 12 the full longitudinal study, or if we have to 13 do a separate undertaking to measure this 14 very important group because of the 15 methodological differences that may occur. 16 For example, with adults, you can 17 pretty much be able to follow them to the 18 workplace, get into a car with them, et 19 cetera, et cetera. Not so much with the 20 kids. That's as problem. So it may be that 21 down the line we may have to do, and I'm not 22 saying what we're going to do for sure, we 23 have to get all of that learning. But there 24 is a possibility that we may have to go out 25 separately and do a freestanding teen study 59 1 December 1, 2006 2 which would be just in-home observation. 3 We also want to look toward 4 making sure that we have samples to, you 5 know, to handle every day of the week and 6 especially weekend media usage. Because 7 weekday and weekend can vary widely. 8 Also, we need to show that the 9 pilot demonstrates our ability to also get 10 data beyond the observational day of 14 11 hours. We had set a 14-hour threshold as the 12 length of the observational day. But, as you 13 know, there's time when people sleep and 14 there's waking time. And also time before 15 they go to sleep where people want their 16 privacy. So a separate questionnaire will be 17 designed to handle those hours of the day 18 during the respondent's waking state when 19 they are not in the presence of an observer. 20 So some self-report questions 21 have been generated. And that's also part of 22 this grander instrument document that we 23 have. We're hoping another criteria is that 24 the viewership data that we get will compare 25 somewhat logically to what we know in 60 1 December 1, 2006 2 Indianapolis, rather for their regular usage 3 data and day parts. And then we also need to 4 show that the pilot can demonstrate the 5 ability to measure video exposure across 6 multiple platforms and multiple locations. 7 Platforms such as the video iPod, 8 mobile phones, other portable devices, 9 desktop computers. And, most importantly, 10 simultaneously usage of these different 11 devices. We also need to evaluate that the 12 training processes for the observer and the 13 materials developed also provide confidence 14 and the data that will be collected. 15 And, finally, we need to also 16 show that the pilot demonstrates the utility 17 of the companion instruments for measurement 18 of relative video media attributes, 19 perceptions and uses and gratifications. 20 And, lastly, that the pilot 21 demonstrates the utility of the methodology 22 for identifying gaps in video media 23 measurement. Because we know from the past 24 that observer behavior, the observation 25 methodology picks up very different 61 1 December 1, 2006 2 information than when diameter is 3 self-reported or implemented through 4 self-report. 5 The push button meter technique, 6 for example, is still, even though it's 7 continuous measurement, it's still up to that 8 respondent to determine whether or not he is 9 viewing the observation method could lead 10 enhancements and shortcomings that the 11 current measurement system may not take into 12 account. 13 So, all goes well. The pilot 14 should go into the field in mid-January with 15 results starting to come out in the latter 16 part of February. And hopefully there will 17 be some data that we can share at the 18 national client meeting. 19 MR. KALINE: Did the Ball State 20 folks give you any idea when their study 21 would be available on the teens, give you any 22 indications? 23 MS. BRILL: I'm looking for that. 24 MR. ZACKON: The early part of 25 '07. 62 1 December 1, 2006 2 MS. BRILL: I think it was 3 sometime in the first quarter. 4 MR. ZACKON: Prior to us going to 5 the broader study. So we'll be able to gain 6 from that knowledge. 7 MR. KALINE: Great. Okay. Any 8 comments, questions on substance, the study, 9 or the pilot I should say? 10 MS. SHAGRIN: What's the sample 11 size for the test. 12 MS. BRILL: Fist, it's a pilot. 13 MS. SHAGRIN: And how are teens 14 going to be recruited? 15 MR. ZACKON: The question is how 16 will we recruit for the pilot. 17 MS. SHAGRIN: You mentioned 18 something about using turnover homes. But 19 other than that, where are they going to get 20 the sample? 21 MR. SHIMMEL: From our point, 22 Ceril, Nielsen is going to recruit everything 23 but the ten homes that are the high-tech 24 homes. We're going to start with people 25 meter forced turnover homes in the 63 1 December 1, 2006 2 Indianapolis area. Then require going to go 3 to forced turnover set meter homes. Then 4 we're going to go to diary, diary households. 5 And we think by the nature of the three 6 samples we should be able to more than 7 complete the sample requirements. But then 8 I'm not sure Ball State's frame for the 9 high-tech homes is that just an RDD sample in 10 the area. 11 MR. ZACKON: I believe so. 12 MS. GALLAGHER: How are you going 13 to be able to correctly identify them before 14 they're observed? Because as we're finding 15 out in the media universe is already a big 16 issue that people do not correctly identify 17 their technology. 18 MR. ZACKON: Shari may speak to 19 it. There's been a lot of discussion as to 20 what the requirements are to be characterized 21 as a high-tech home. And there's a roster of 22 technologies. If I remember correctly it's 23 three out of that roster of technologies. 24 MS. GALLAGHER: Some people don't 25 even. But one of the issues is people can't 64 1 December 1, 2006 2 even necessarily correctly identify 3 themselves as having that technology until 4 somebody actually sees what they have. 5 People don't know what they have. 6 MS. BRILL: Well, we're looking 7 for high-tech participants. So I would 8 safely assume that if they are a high-tech 9 participant, hopefully they know what they 10 have. 11 MS. GALLAGHER: But the problem 12 is the nonhigh-tech participant who thinks 13 they're a high-tech participant. 14 MR. ZACKON: That will be in the 15 pilot. 16 A VOICE: People, they may look 17 like they qualify for the study. And then 18 when they're followed around we'll actually 19 find out what they are. 20 MS. GALLAGHER: That's why I'm 21 wondering if there's going to be a buffer for 22 that group of thing. But Nancy brings up a 23 good point. And I don't think you've thought 24 of it. 25 Do you have some sort of check in 65 1 December 1, 2006 2 the morning when you get to the respondent, 3 verify that they're a high-tech person if 4 they're not paying them the incentive and say 5 thank you and just go to someone else? 6 MR. ZACKON: Good suggestion. 7 MR. SHIMMEL: So at the end you 8 do have ten of the right people that you've 9 observed? 10 MS. SHAGRIN: I'll refer to Ball 11 State for that. What were your plans? Just 12 like when we do focus groups. We do a 13 rescreening when they arrive in the lobby. 14 So what was your rescreening process for when 15 you arrive at the home to confirm their 16 status. 17 MR. KALINE: I think that's what 18 we're suggesting here. 19 MR. SHIMMEL: Yes. 20 MS. GALLAGHER: Yes. 21 MR. IVIE: I have one other 22 suggestion, I guess. And it has to do, I 23 think with number two and three on the list. 24 I sat through the earlier call when Shari, 25 you guys were going through the original 66 1 December 1, 2006 2 proposal. And I can remember my concern was 3 are we actually going to capture data from a 4 typical day of this person or the fact that 5 we're observing them so closely may lead to 6 some kind of unusual media behavior. And 7 we're not accomplishing what we hope for. 8 And I think you might be trying to address 9 that in two and three. But I'm not sure the 10 wording is clear. Because you're saying does 11 the pilot demonstrate our ability to capture 12 data from an average observational day of 14 13 hours. That seems like it's focused on can 14 we actually capture, write this down 15 accurately or something. Where I think at 16 least my concern and focus was are we going 17 to get a typical day. Maybe that's what you 18 mean by the word average. Are we going to 19 get their typical unbiased behavior on a day? 20 MR. ZACKON: As best as we can 21 tell we will have their diary information, 22 their meter information. They have that. So 23 there will be some way to compare that in 24 aggregate to the day that we have to what 25 this population had done previously. That's 67 1 December 1, 2006 2 the advantage of using homes which have been 3 Nielsen homes. 4 MR. IVIE: So that would be what 5 point No. 3 is somewhat, somehow. 6 MR. DeVAULT: Quick question: 7 What 14 hours? 8 MR. ZACKON: Waking hours. 9 MR. DeVAULT: People get up at 6 10 o'clock in the morning and go to bed at 10 11 o'clock at night. So that's way more than 12 14. 13 MS. CUCCINELLO: I think I 14 remember seeing other studies. 15 A VOICE: Let's be honest. We 16 know that they're not going to act in a 17 totally candid way if they're being followed 18 around. I mean, Mike's already said that in 19 all the time that he's done these types of 20 studies, nobody's ever spent time watching 21 porn. 22 MS. BRILL: Well, we're not so 23 much interested in what, you know, the 24 content they're consuming. We kind of want 25 our focus is more on how they're consuming 68 1 December 1, 2006 2 that content. So, they watch, I think what's 3 on the screen, the program content that's on 4 the screen is probably less relevant because 5 we're not really screening for that. 6 MS. GALLAGHER: I think Henry's 7 question though was more related to TTD. 8 A VOICE: Will we be able to 9 compare it to other reports of television 10 viewing data streams? George, you tell me of 11 a better way that you know of. This is 12 essentially behavioral monitoring. 13 You know, we've seen studies 14 where people have cameras in their homes. 15 All of that stuff suffers from the same 16 problem. But we're hoping we can learn 17 something about somehow these people use 18 media and simultaneous media use. 19 Understanding that there is nothing perfect 20 about this particular method. 21 MR. BROOKS: There isn't. 22 A VOICE: It's an improvement 23 over simply taking what people say over the 24 telephone. 25 MR. BROOKS: Yes, it is. And 69 1 December 1, 2006 2 Ball State having had experience in this area 3 one of the reasons we went with them is that. 4 However, this criteria set I think is going 5 to be very important. And I think it's a 6 good suggestion that we add here something 7 about how normal the day appeared to be. 8 You'll never know for sure what they would 9 have done. But if they're pulling straws out 10 of their pocket every moment, you can ask is 11 it if that's what they normally do. And you 12 might be able to get some measure of that. 13 You'll never know for sure. 14 A VOICE: I don't think we should 15 be asking them a lot of questions during the 16 course of the day. 17 MR. ZACKON: At the end of the 18 day, Jack, what do you think. 19 MR. WACHSLAG: At the end of the 20 day I'm okay with asking them anything they 21 want. But for now I want to see how close 22 can we get to observing their behavior. 23 That's also why we're doing this as a pilot 24 before we do it large scale, expending tons 25 of dough. We'll be able to see what it is 70 1 December 1, 2006 2 people are doing. We'll be able to see if 3 they are misreporting their media usage. And 4 if we find that it's a significant issue, we 5 would add just the big stuff. 6 MR. IVIE: I think the objective 7 of my comment was accomplished. All I wanted 8 to make sure was that the group was 9 sensitized to the fact that I think one issue 10 is are we observing relatively typical media 11 behavior. Because if one of your goals is to 12 see how they consume TV and for 49,000, the 13 pilot they choose not to show you when 14 they're watching TV because it's in some 15 other hour, we would know something's wrong. 16 And as long as you're sensitive to that, 17 that's I think what I'm searching for. And 18 it sounds like you're going to be comparing 19 them to the Nielsen behavior. Maybe Tim's 20 suggestion of trying to after the fact figure 21 out if we saw a typical day, that kind of 22 thing I think would address my concern. 23 MR. WACHSLAG: We also know that 24 Ball State's looked at that in terms of 25 general patterns. And they're finding, I 71 1 December 1, 2006 2 mean, they're not finding that people have 3 stopped watching television in prime time. I 4 mean, the aggregate patterns of viewing by 5 hour of the day seem to conform to what we 6 know. 7 MR. KALINE: Henry. 8 MR. DeVAULT: My question about 9 time, the duration has to do with what will 10 we get a comprehensive view of their media 11 behavior throughout the course of the day. 12 Because when we're doing early morning 13 studies, we find that people get up earlier 14 and earlier, and they turn their television 15 sets on at 6, 5 o'clock in the morning, these 16 same people are, you know, some of them are 17 watching late night television. If we cut it 18 off at 12, we may not be getting, for teens 19 we may not be getting a comprehensive 20 perspective of media consumption throughout 21 the course of the day. And if that's our 22 goal, then maybe we have to re-evaluate that 23 14-hour duration. 24 MS. CUCCINELLO: I think 14 hours 25 is just the average of what a person will 72 1 December 1, 2006 2 allow Ball State observers to be in their 3 house. Some people let them there longer. 4 But I think that's the reported averages. 5 MR. BROOKS: And, Henry, if you 6 remember, we brought this up at an earlier 7 meeting when the Ball State people were here. 8 And their answer to that is you're not going 9 to be able to stand next to them from the 10 time they wake up in the morning until the 11 time they fall asleep. 12 What you do is you get there as 13 early as you can. And then you have an 14 instrument when it's fresh in their mind to 15 try to fill in the gap to ask what they did. 16 MR. KALINE: Then also bring into 17 the fold the Nielsen data that you can say, 18 okay, the TV was on and all. 19 MR. BROOKS: Compare it to that. 20 Obviously, they've got a plan. We'll see how 21 it works out in the pilot. But that's their 22 plan to cover the gap between the 14 and the 23 actual 16 or 17 or whatever. 24 MR. ZACKON: The committee's been 25 working pretty closely and regularly with 73 1 December 1, 2006 2 Ball State. I would invite anyone on the 3 Council who wants to attend any of those 4 committee meetings. That would be a great 5 place to contribute. 6 MR. SHIMMEL: Tim, there may be 7 though. Richard to Tim's point, you may want 8 to rethink the way Ball State is doing that. 9 Because the way I understand it, and I could 10 be wrong, Ball State is collecting the early 11 morning and late night usage the next day 12 when they do a follow-up interview when 13 they're doing that big questionnaire you may 14 want. 15 MR. WACHSLAG: Ball State is only 16 collecting media usage, behavior media usage 17 using these devices, using the AlphaSmart. 18 They may ask people the next day to estimate 19 how much time they spent watching television 20 or listening to the radio the day before. 21 MS. BRILL: Actually, when the 22 observer arrives in the morning, they are 23 asked upon the arrival of the observer what 24 time they woke up. Did you watch TV between 25 when you got up and now. So there's a whole 74 1 December 1, 2006 2 bunch of questions that the observer does ask 3 them to fill in. 4 And then after the fact they 5 follow up with them, you know, asking them, 6 you know, what time did you actually go to 7 sleep. They also, to begin with, asked them 8 whether or not everything went as expected 9 with the observation. 10 They have a choice of yes or no. 11 Then the person can elaborate about their 12 experience. They're asked whether or not 13 they've watched TV between when the observer 14 left and when you went to sleep. So these 15 blanks are filled in. And they're done 16 pretty much, well, in the morning you can. 17 They're done prior to the start of the 18 observation. So it's extremely fresh in 19 their mind. Because at most they probably 20 have to reflect back to what they did two 21 hours earlier. And they should probably have 22 a pretty good clear sense of what they did. 23 MR. WACHSLAG: Yes. But I for 24 one am not interested in seeing the recall 25 data mixed in with the behavioral data unless 75 1 December 1, 2006 2 I simply see the behavioral data alone. I 3 want to see, if I'm going to see one of them, 4 I want to see the behavioral data. Otherwise 5 we might well just do a recall study. 6 MR. ZACKON: They can separate 7 that out again. In the interests of time 8 here, I'd invite all interested parties to 9 join the committee. And we're going to learn 10 a lot from the pilot which is the purpose of 11 this. 12 MR. KALINE: Good comments 13 though. That was all important. All right. 14 Ira, you still on the phone? 15 Hello, Ira. 16 MR. SUSSMAN: Yes, sir. I'm 17 still here. 18 MR. KALINE: You're up, pal. 19 MR. SUSSMAN: Someone's going to 20 be doing my section for me today. 21 MS. LIGUORI: Hello. I just had 22 to take everyone off the speaker. I'd like 23 to thank Ira for giving me the opportunity to 24 present this, Ira. Thanks a lot. I just 25 wanted to say that. I really want to thank 76 1 December 1, 2006 2 you for this. 3 MR. ZACKON: Regarded as 4 insincere. 5 MR. KALINE: As sincerely stated. 6 MS. LIGUORI: And whomever is 7 advancing the slides, there are some slides 8 that you might have to click more than once 9 to get all the data on. Because, you know, 10 it's it in stages. But I didn't realize it 11 anyway. 12 A VOICE: Can we get some E-mails 13 to follow you on the phone? 14 A VOICE: She did E-mail us. 15 MS. LIGUORI: Just to refresh 16 your memories, the original plan was we were 17 going to review what the current practices 18 were for buying and selling in the 19 marketplace by conducting interviews with 20 media professionals from the different 21 constituencies. We attempted to identify 22 practices that were questionable as, you 23 know, if they were good ones, that's great. 24 And just to identify where the potential 25 weaknesses are. 77 1 December 1, 2006 2 We engaged David Sarnow to 3 conduct the questionnaires. And we sat down 4 and designed a series of questions that we 5 wanted him to ask of the respondents. I 6 believe even after the initial questionnaire, 7 we went back and revised it because of some 8 of the learning that David was encountering 9 as he went along. And let's see. Ira, I 10 don't know what this technical advisory panel 11 is. But anyway, we're going to report on our 12 findings. 13 I think I just said some of these 14 things we've, 100 percent, we completed all 15 of our interviews. The last time we met we 16 were in the 70 percent range. We've now 17 completed all of them. And have received a 18 final Top line report, okay. 19 The slide that says the game 20 changed, keeps changing, if you just keep 21 hitting the enter key, two more, three more 22 times, the game does keep changing initially 23 when we presented this, we had the A2/M2 24 announcement. But as you all know we're in a 25 time of tremendous technological transition 78 1 December 1, 2006 2 and change. And it's not going to stop. 3 We're never going to be the business that we 4 were for so many years where it was static 5 and, you know, life was humming along nicely. 6 Some of the changes that were 7 announced with the A2/M2 was the expansion of 8 LPMs. We now know three markets are going in 9 in 2007 and another five in 2008. We know 10 that the goal is to have electronic 11 measurement of some sort in all markets and 12 to phase out the diaries. 13 Coming in January '07, one of our 14 changes or one of the changes we'll see is 15 the extended home viewing being brought into 16 the national panel. I believe it's January 17 29th. Video streaming and Internet 18 integration also on the agenda. How we're 19 going to measure it. What it's going to 20 mean. 21 Engagement. I call it the E-word 22 because it's something that really, I've not 23 seen a clear definition. And until you do 24 get one, I don't know how you're going to 25 measure it. So for now it's an E-word. 79 1 December 1, 2006 2 VOD. Recently aired content has 3 been measured. And now in just a matter of 4 days, the library content that people request 5 on demand will be phased into the sample. 6 And of course the commercial minute which is 7 I don't recall the exact date of the 8 availability, but I think it's sometime in 9 first quarter. 10 The bottom line is there are more 11 potential currencies available for us to use, 12 yet, we have completely inadequate tools and 13 systems to analyze with which to analyze the 14 data findings. 15 You can click twice. The 16 interviews resulted in us learning of eight 17 areas of concern. Sample size, estimating, 18 share, posting and auditing systems, 19 education, media as a commodity, and the role 20 of the software solution providers, formerly 21 known as third-party processors. 22 Next page you can hit a couple of 23 times. Sample size. There was general 24 concern about the instability of the sample 25 sizes. Not only from the size limitation 80 1 December 1, 2006 2 aspect of it and the impact that it does have 3 on the numbers producing variance, but also, 4 are we expecting too much from these samples. 5 You know, they're age gender samples. And 6 increasingly we're putting more and more 7 demands on them as we're looking for 8 household characteristics. And now other 9 behaviors that whether we're fusing data with 10 it or just trying to glean more from the 11 sample homes themselves. Are we realistic in 12 our expectations? 13 Estimating and share. Half of 14 the interviewees mentioned one or the other 15 as a problem. I was particularly interested 16 in the comment, "share is dead." And when 17 you consider how Nielsen is handling time 18 shifting and VOD, you completely understand 19 that not only is share dead or near dead, but 20 the concept of HUT is also not what it used 21 to be in that. We really don't know who's 22 available to view at any given moment of time 23 because of how the time shifted in VOD 24 viewing is credited. 25 The multiplicity of platforms and 81 1 December 1, 2006 2 sources just, it's last century. Share times 3 HUT is last century. It's completely not 4 applicable when you're considering the other 5 platforms. And increasingly less predictive 6 on the traditional platforms. 7 The question of impressions. The 8 use of impressions which I know is used on a 9 national level. Locally it's not. But there 10 was mention that there's an increasing use or 11 request for data on impressions felt basis. 12 It certainly makes sense to me in that it 13 puts us all on the same playing field, 14 whether we're cable or local broadcast, 15 whether you're network or national cable. 16 I also wonder what its role might 17 be as we increasingly sell against the 18 Internet and their impressions. They don't 19 have ratings. They have impressions. Stage 20 increase, whatever. I don't know. I believe 21 it's something that, you know, we have to 22 think about. 23 Hit the thing a couple of times 24 for the next slide. Posting and auditing was 25 the area of the greatest respondent level 82 1 December 1, 2006 2 dissatisfaction or level of respondent 3 dissatisfaction. Everybody had something 4 they were dissatisfied about. And I'm 5 preaching to the choir in telling you what 6 some of the issues are. But the accuracy of 7 the data in the third-party systems was one 8 of the issues that came up. 9 Forget questioning Nielsen. 10 Let's assume that Nielsen is truth, which we 11 know it's not. But how their data gets into 12 the software systems and what is spit out for 13 use. There's questions. There's uneasiness 14 with the validity or the accuracy of what 15 goes in. And also the lack of uniformity. 16 Because you know that you can do things to 17 adjust how many minutes comprise a break. 18 Whether it's one minute, two minutes, 19 whatever. So there's lack of uniformity in 20 how some of the settings of these systems are 21 applied. 22 There's the reasonableness of the 23 available data in terms of ratings are so 24 small at this point. Are we still justified 25 in using them to predict future performance? 83 1 December 1, 2006 2 The standard errors, the plus or minus 10 3 percent, it seems like it's an outmoded 4 procedure. And that in conjunction with the 5 reasonableness of the data, given that we are 6 splintering it for what we're looking at. 7 We're not looking at a broad demographic. 8 We're expecting a lot more from it. 9 So there's just question about 10 the whole reasonableness. And the inevitable 11 client perception of the data as truth or 12 absolute. We know they are estimates. The 13 numbers are estimates. But the auditors and 14 the clients have the misconception that these 15 are absolute numbers and pure truth. And 16 that's a problem. It's a problem when they 17 get back to the agencies and what the 18 agencies need to do to make good. And, you 19 know, what they demand of the stations, the 20 media providers. 21 But it's a problem for both buyer 22 and seller side if someone is perceiving 23 these numbers as gospel. The systems and 24 role of the software service providers. 25 Another area. 95 percent, 95 percent agreed 84 1 December 1, 2006 2 that the systems are not keeping pace with 3 the industry. We're in transition. 4 Technology is moving forward at an incredible 5 pace. And yet the technology can't help us 6 use the data. So there is excessive 7 frustration with that. The lack of 8 flexibility in the system sometimes 9 oftentimes dictates how we work, limits us in 10 what we do. And is not allowing us to move 11 forward. 12 And also there was a sense that 13 many individuals, many, many have an 14 incomplete knowledge of the system 15 capabilities. So it's kind of, you know, on 16 the one hand I'm saying the systems aren't 17 keeping pace. On the other hand, I'm saying 18 we may not know that some of the things the 19 systems can do can bring us forward. I doubt 20 it very much. I'm sure there are a few. But 21 there is a disconnect there. But 22 nonetheless, there are greater capabilities 23 than any of us are utilizing. 24 MR. ZACKON: Pat, I'm just going 25 to just step in in the interests of time. 85 1 December 1, 2006 2 We're a little long. That's fine. There are 3 people here in the room we said we would 4 alert them we will be complete by 1:00. If 5 it's okay we can go longer. No one's 6 objecting. People on the phone can be 7 objecting. 8 MR. HESS: If we can limit it to 9 one. 10 MS. LIGUORI: Increased cost to 11 the system users which the endless costs of 12 paying for Nielsen data takes over and over 13 and over. And just how much data is too much 14 data. We're all witnessing data overload. 15 And not just from the perspective of data 16 storage, but who's got the time to process 17 it. 18 Education, again, users, 19 end-users are not as informed as they should 20 be. And we're all pressed for time. There 21 is no real structure for passing on knowledge 22 to, you know, next generation of researchers. 23 And there's a lack of understanding on both 24 buyer and seller sides of the objectives as 25 Michelle and I learned in Orlando last year. 86 1 December 1, 2006 2 It was a very interesting dialogue that we 3 had about the buy side and the seller side. 4 And how we use the same data to achieve 5 things different objectives, but we're not, 6 we assume we know the others objective. But 7 we don't. And there has to be greater 8 understanding there. Media as a commodity 9 concern about the online auctions. Google 10 and other services. The remnant inventory. 11 And are we or aren't we a commodity. And 12 time to, you know, really look at this. And 13 if we are, then maybe that will help us 14 evolve how we conduct our business. 15 Conclusions. You can keep 16 hitting until you get all of them on the 17 page. There is a general uneasiness about 18 the future of measurement. There's so much 19 that we're asking to be measured. We don't 20 know what is going to be valid, what is going 21 to be good. There's just great uneasiness. 22 There are the misconceptions 23 about the data are exceeded only by the 24 disinterest in learning about the data 25 itself, the systems. And that's a problem. 87 1 December 1, 2006 2 If you don't learn, I mean, you just feed the 3 misconceptions. They're going to continue to 4 grow. More data, not always better. Just 5 because it can be produced, just because it 6 can be fused, should it? I don't know. 7 Sometimes yes; sometimes no. 8 Clearly, we don't have the time 9 to do all the things that we want to do. And 10 some wonder whether or not solutions are even 11 possible because of the size and scope of 12 this problem. And how we're an ever-changing 13 industry. So, you know, you're shooting at a 14 moving target. 15 Next step. Somebody said we need 16 a procedure in the industry. Not knee-jerk 17 reactions. I thought that was very 18 interesting. We do need a vision because 19 we've been humming along. And we pay lip 20 service to the change. But no one has really 21 sat down and given it good, hard thought 22 about where we're going and how we're going 23 to get there. 24 We should decide are we a 25 commodity or not. As I just said there might 88 1 December 1, 2006 2 be advantages in figuring out what we are. 3 There might be different ways to approach it 4 if we admit we are a commodity. The idea to 5 engage an outside consultant who can 6 objectively study the challenges facing us 7 further and recommend solutions. And just to 8 investigate alternative research practices. 9 For instance, if we determine we 10 are a commodity, are there practices on Wall 11 Street, given that their product as unstable 12 as ourselves and react to things like 13 political changes and crashes. And, you 14 know, disasters. Is there something we can 15 learn? That's it. 16 A VOICE: Thank you, Pat. 17 MR. ZACKON: If I can just 18 acknowledge, Ira, you and your committee is 19 really having the first findings to have been 20 brought back to the full Council. So thank 21 you. 22 How will what you have there as 23 the report that they've prepared be 24 disseminated? 25 MR. SUSSMAN: We can. We'll work 89 1 December 1, 2006 2 with you to do that. 3 MR. ZACKON: Happy to work. 4 Thank you. 5 MR. HESS: Also this, Mike. Ira, 6 as a committee member, I didn't have a chance 7 to participate in this last draft. But in 8 terms of effectuating or actualizing those 9 next steps, how do we do that? Does that 10 mean the committee continues? 11 Would you suggest the committee 12 continue to operate to begin to actualize the 13 next steps or what? Because I think that I 14 sense that there was general agreement with 15 the next steps. But how do we actually 16 accomplish that in the formal sense within 17 the CRE? 18 MR. SUSSMAN: I think the 19 committee needs to regroup. We have not as a 20 committee gotten a chance to go through all 21 the findings and discuss them. So I think we 22 need to regroup. Have a meeting on what 23 we've learned. And out of that what do we 24 believe is the next proper thing to do. And 25 we'll bring that back to the Council. 90 1 December 1, 2006 2 MS. BUSLIK: This is Michelle. I 3 also like to thank Pat in doing such a great 4 job in preparing. Can we get copies of that? 5 I did not get one. 6 MR. SUSSMAN: I will you get one. 7 A VOICE: Also, Ira and Pat, you 8 did a great job. 9 MR. BROOKS: I want to make one 10 comment on that. Will this go onto the Web 11 site? Is this going to be -- 12 MR. HESS: You mean the report? 13 MR. ZACKON: The report. 14 MR. BROOKS: The report that we 15 just saw. 16 MR. ZACKON: There's a fuller 17 report. There was a text report prepared and 18 then this PowerPoint in addition to that. 19 Ultimately, the text report will go on the 20 Web site. 21 MR. BROOKS: The findings of the 22 study are fascinating. I think that's the 23 kind of thing we're here for. The 24 conclusions at the end are somewhat 25 interpretive. And I wouldn't want the 91 1 December 1, 2006 2 Council by default to come out and say we 3 need to be a commodity or something like 4 that. 5 MR. SUSSMAN: I think the 6 conclusions and recommendations will come out 7 of the committee as opposed to out of the 8 report. So we need to have that discussion, 9 it wouldn't be verbatim, that came out of the 10 report. 11 MR. BROOKS: Fine. And I think 12 that if they're going to go onto the Web 13 site, either they need to be marked as that 14 of a committee and not the Council or perhaps 15 better, they should be submitted to the 16 Council before the Council endorses them for 17 the public. That's all. 18 MR. HESS: Actually, that brings 19 up the process comment. Again, I think for 20 the last year and a half we've been inventing 21 process on the fly. And this is, as Richard 22 said, this is like the first report. Well, 23 we now have to evolve into a decision-making 24 group that says, okay, a report is from a 25 committee. Does the Council need to kind of 92 1 December 1, 2006 2 approve it. And we have to evolve toward 3 that. So thanks for starting us on that 4 path. 5 MR. IVIE: Could I make one 6 comment? First, Pat, I think you did a great 7 job as working at an organization that 8 represents a wide range of diverse companies. 9 A lot of the things that Pat went through 10 ring true with me. But one of the things 11 that particularly ring true is the idea of 12 the third-party processors. And the 13 accountability and validation of what they 14 do. 15 It's something the MRC has tried 16 to put forward for a long, long time. And as 17 the CRE and a group that advises Nielsen on 18 things, one of the points that I've taken to 19 Nielsen. And this is a personal opinion. 20 But I want to throw it out for the group's 21 consideration. I don't know if Nielsen's 22 been strong enough in that area. 23 Nielsen spends millions of 24 dollars making sure their data meets certain 25 quality levels. They invest in internal 93 1 December 1, 2006 2 quality. They invest in internal controls. 3 They invest in external auditing. They 4 invest in all kinds of things. And then they 5 pass their data, their baby to another 6 company and they let it go. And they have 7 internal audit groups. They have the MRC. 8 They have all these other weapons to say, you 9 know what, if you guys should step up to the 10 table and subject yourselves to similar 11 validation as we do, because it's in the 12 industry's best interests. 13 And when I mention that to 14 Nielsen, that they have the ability maybe to 15 use some of that leverage, and I'm not a 16 lawyer, but they don't seem to make a move in 17 that regard. I'd like to throw that out for 18 the committee's consideration. Because I 19 don't think Nielsen is very strong on that. 20 MR. SUSSMAN: That could be a 21 recommendation from the committee. That's a 22 good idea. 23 MS. BRILL: I just want to make a 24 comment about this. Because I had an 25 experience with a software solution provider 94 1 December 1, 2006 2 as they are now go by, where they were 3 calculating mean age incorrectly. It was 4 heinous what they were doing. And I had 5 tried to enlist the support of Nielsen to 6 make them fix it. And I guess it was felt 7 that they didn't have that type of 8 jurisdiction. 9 I said, hey, you're handing over 10 this data to them and they're doing it 11 completely wrong. And we're caught in the 12 middle. I can't process incorrect data. We 13 were able to get information out of Galaxy 14 Explorer. But the problem was we have a 15 group of about 70 buyers who are all trying 16 to get things from the use that other 17 processor all the time. And it was a problem 18 for us. We ultimately did get it fixed. We 19 were told that, you know, Nielsen hands over 20 fields and guidelines for calculations. But 21 it seems that these providers or processors 22 or whatever we want to call them, they just 23 do their own thing. 24 MR. ZACKON: I'm going to step in 25 again and concerned with time and say this is 95 1 December 1, 2006 2 an appropriate issue for the committee to 3 consider and bring back in its 4 recommendations. 5 I promised Nancy at least ten 6 minutes to get her report in. And I have 7 something I'm prepared to do in two minutes. 8 MS. GALLAGHER: Okay. We'll go 9 fast enough. We're working on media related 10 universe estimates which, more unfortunately, 11 it's one of those things that's worse than 12 sausage making. The more you dig in, the 13 more and more you find issues. 14 I mean, we've talked to Nielsen 15 about what they're doing and Paul and Stan 16 were very, very helpful with letting us know 17 what they're doing and what they would like 18 the committee to help them do which is more 19 important for focus to kind of find out where 20 they felt we could fit in here. 21 Then we also talked to David Tice 22 who you probably know is the person running 23 the Knowledge Network's technology group. 24 And it's kind of considered to be the best 25 there is out there. I think it's at least 96 1 December 1, 2006 2 the most respected, and certainly one of the 3 longer term solutions. And he also, you 4 know, gave us a lot of the big concerns. And 5 this is something we all know. You can't ask 6 people what they have because people don't 7 know what they have. And it's very easy to 8 realize that if more people say they have an 9 item, then the manufacturers say they've 10 sold. So there is a very icy validation 11 process in play through. And I am actually 12 going to thank you, David. We got to talk to 13 the Consumer Electronics Association too. 14 Kind of get some of their input on there. 15 They actually do a lot of 16 research I found on their Web site which was 17 surprising to me. I didn't realize they did 18 quiet as much. But the big thing, what it 19 really comes down to, is how do you ask the 20 question which is very, very important. And 21 also, and I think this is a thing we're going 22 to need to get into, who are you asking the 23 questions of. Because I think the age and 24 status of the person you're talking to, if 25 you're trying to do this on a household level 97 1 December 1, 2006 2 may also be skewing any data you get if you 3 ask the 18-year-old what they have versus the 4 67-year-old, you may get very different 5 answers even within a household. Which I 6 think was going to be one of the facets I do 7 think we're going to want to study. Because 8 I just know that's something that the 9 identifying of what you have is difficult. 10 And, you know, some people use multiple 11 question techniques. 12 We're also, I'm also trying to 13 set up a meeting with a group that 14 specializes in trying to do this within 15 ethnic communities. Because I think that's 16 where there's going to be some other issues. 17 But, basically, a lot of it comes down to how 18 do you ask the questions. How do you sample. 19 I read an absolutely scary report 20 about, you know, bias error in technology 21 studies using telephone sample frames because 22 of the cell phone-only skew which in 23 technology is a much greater bias than in 24 almost every other aspect. So that's a whole 25 other area that also is going to have to be 98 1 December 1, 2006 2 researched more. 3 Because, unfortunately, a lot of 4 the studies done out there, in fact, pretty 5 much all of them that we found rely heavily 6 on telephone frame which is definitely an 7 issue in this area. So we're going to have a 8 couple more conversations on ethnic and then 9 the manufacturers. And then we're going to 10 kind of, I think, get together as a group and 11 try to decide what are the aspects we think 12 are the key issues so we can kind of hone in 13 a little bit on how we want to address this. 14 Because it's a huge, huge problem. 15 But I think if you kind of start 16 cutting it back into different processes it 17 will become a little bit more orderly thing 18 to then go out and study. Because it's 19 critical information. Nobody knows it. And 20 I'm sure everyone else in the room has had 21 the same time every day. How many people 22 have HDTVs, then you sit there and explain 23 you want to know how many sets. You want to 24 know who's connected to an HD service. Then 25 people started looking at you. And people 99 1 December 1, 2006 2 that think all digital is HD as opposed to 3 all HD being digital. This is where you get 4 into trouble with self-identification and why 5 the observation validation is really, you 6 know, going to become a critical factor in 7 this. So we're work our way through it. 8 MR. KALINE: Becoming 9 increasingly complex as you dig more. 10 MS. GALLAGHER: The more you see 11 the scarier it gets. 12 MR. IVIE: I think you can tell 13 why we have the right person leading this 14 group. I just want to echo one thing that 15 Nancy said. I think what we're learning is 16 that doing this over the telephone is a 17 non-starter right now. I mean, just not 18 going to be possible. And, ironically, the 19 way Nielsen does at this time is not over the 20 telephone. So learning and bringing the 21 Nielsen experts in and really learning from 22 them too, I think, is something the group 23 really has to take on. 24 MR. KALINE: That might be a 25 great brainstorming idea, actually. 100 1 December 1, 2006 2 MR. ZACKON: Nancy's complete? 3 MS. GALLAGHER: Yes. 4 MR. ZACKON: The last item, and 5 we'll get out of here by 1 o'clock is an idea 6 I have. Been having some conversations. And 7 principles, the values we've been working on 8 as a Council has been transparency, 9 inclusiveness, diversity, imagination, 10 collegiality, practicality and client 11 leadership. 12 And I would say for the most part 13 we've really honored that. And it's really 14 gratifying that that's so. And a couple I 15 think we have, may have fallen a wee bit 16 short. And largely because of everybody's 17 busy schedule and their imagination and 18 collegiality. Because we just haven't had a 19 lot of people time to be together and to 20 think and to brainstorm. 21 So what I would like to propose 22 to the Council, the possibility of take a 23 day, maybe day and a half. It could be in 24 New York. It can be in a warm climate in the 25 wintertime and think. And think together. 101 1 December 1, 2006 2 And there are a couple of areas 3 that occurred to me. And I said I've had 4 some conversations about this. One is sort 5 of classical brainstorming, looking at some 6 areas that we might have not considered in 7 the research we put together. Because the 8 ideas largely came out of a one-day meeting 9 that was wonderful and exciting of the 10 steering committee, but somewhat constrained. 11 And didn't include everyone. And I think 12 there's a lot of opportunity, certainly since 13 that time there have been enough changes in 14 Nielsen Media Research and changes in the 15 industry generally to revisit that. 16 And the other possibility is a 17 problem I identified called the day job. 18 That all of us have this thing that gets in 19 the way of working more on the Council called 20 I have this day job. And somehow all the 21 changes that are happening in the industry 22 don't fit the day job. Because the day job 23 was defined before all these changes were 24 occurring. So we never get an opportunity to 25 include them in our day job. And I thought, 102 1 December 1, 2006 2 gee, there might be a possibility, and I say 3 this kind of from my coaching experience, for 4 us maybe to recontextualize what our day job 5 is and think about it. 6 One idea I had, there's a 7 professor out at Stanford some of you may 8 know. Mike Ray who's kind of a guru of 9 creativity out in Silicon Valley. And 10 whether it's him or someone else, but to get 11 together and kind of enrich our professional 12 experience and kind of look at that issue as 13 to how we might be more effective with all 14 these other kind of off-the-focus topics that 15 seem to present ever more. 16 But the basic idea is to get 17 together for a day, day and a half and think. 18 And think together. And one possibility is 19 to do that at our scheduled March 9th 20 meeting. 21 And I just wanted to open it to 22 the group on the phone and in here to get a 23 reaction to it. And if there's a positive 24 sense we'll do some planning, come back by 25 E-mail to plan that. 103 1 December 1, 2006 2 MR. HESS: Richard? 3 MS. BUSLIK: Richard, this is 4 Michelle. I think it's a neat idea. But 5 it's very hard to get all of us out of the 6 office. Even those who are in New York, we 7 can't even get to you for a half a day. 8 Maybe if we can make part of the March 9th 9 meeting something to incorporate some of 10 this. But I'm not really, and I don't think 11 management would be that gung ho for another 12 day and a half out of the office. But we 13 also have the Nielsen meeting in February. 14 Maybe we can do something around that. 15 MR. ZACKON: Would people want to 16 add a day? I don't know if everyone is 17 attending that. Would people want to add a 18 day to that meeting? 19 MS. BUSLIK: Or take a half day. 20 You know. I don't know. I just think it's 21 very hard to ask us, expect us to do that and 22 for management to go along with this. I 23 mean, right now I get a lot of you need to be 24 more devoted to client work. And this is 25 client work. But it's not direct. So it's a 104 1 December 1, 2006 2 hard problem for at least me. 3 MR. HESS: Back to Richard's 4 point of the day job. 5 MR. BROOKS: I agree. It's 6 certainly a worthwhile thing to do. I'm a 7 little afraid of tacking it onto the client 8 meeting which is already fairly long. And I 9 would suggest that if we could arrange 10 something, much as I would love to travel on 11 Nielsen's dime to someplace exotic, maybe 12 someplace in the area and try to arrange a 13 time when at least the maximum number of 14 people can get to it and have an offsite 15 basically in this area. 16 MR. ZACKON: The 9th was a day 17 that we had previously identified on people's 18 schedules. And how many hours might we 19 devote to such an event? 20 MS. SHAGRIN: Why not take the 21 whole day. Why not start in the morning, 22 take the whole day and maybe end at dinner. 23 But that way people, it's one day for those 24 of you in New York. It doesn't involve hotel 25 costs. And we still get to spend more than 105 1 December 1, 2006 2 just getting caught up on what everyone else 3 was doing. 4 MR. HESS: Richard, do you think 5 we need eight hours? One thing that I've 6 learned in terms of whole day that seems to 7 work well is, I've attended some conferences 8 recently, let's say that run from 11:00 to 9 5:00, or noon to 5:00. That way there's 10 still a chance to this. I don't know. Go in 11 and do voice mail. Get one critical meeting. 12 But then 11:00 to 5:00 gives you 13 six whole hours. Or if you want to include 14 dinner for those that can say great, might 15 that work. I think an entire day might 16 screen some people out who could go if they 17 can still get to the home office for an hour 18 or two. 19 MS. GALLAGHER: I do think that's 20 a good idea. The thing is dinner stuff is 21 important. The real stuff happens after the 22 day when everyone's got it there in the back 23 of their mind and then when they start 24 talking about it that's kind of I think when 25 like kind of the good ideas come out. It's 106 1 December 1, 2006 2 like when you're walking home from work. 3 Halfway home it's like that's how I should 4 have done that. 5 MR. ZACKON: The 19th is a Friday 6 which may make dinner a problem. But we 7 could then find another day where dinner 8 could be a possibility. 9 MR. SCHWARTZ: Can I ask the guys 10 that network, you have development meetings 11 during around this time just to let us know 12 whether you're going to be at these 13 development meetings. Because that will take 14 at least eight people out of this group. 15 MR. KALINE: Right. 16 MR. SCHWARTZ: What I had asked 17 is if the people representing the networks 18 would look at the development meeting 19 schedule. Because if the development 20 meetings are during this week, there's going 21 to be at least five or six of us who will not 22 be able to attend. 23 MR. HESS: Lyle, what if we 24 started like, because I'm now trying to be 25 sensitive to the dinner idea, what if we 107 1 December 1, 2006 2 started at 1:00 in the afternoon, then 3 included through dinner, would that work 4 better? 5 MR. SCHWARTZ: The dinner is 6 fine. But the development meetings are out 7 in Los Angeles. And they're normally three 8 straight days or four straight days. And 9 there'll be a lot of us who'll have to travel 10 out there to attend. So it would preclude 11 that week. I just want you to be cognizant 12 to that before you started sending notes to 13 everybody and start scheduling this. 14 MR. ZACKON: What it sounds like 15 people would be I believe willing to do 16 something like noon to 5:00. Then dinner 17 afterwards. And find the right day that 18 doesn't conflict with a major industry event. 19 MR. KALINE: I think it's a good 20 idea. Gives us a little chance to grow some 21 of the other sides of our brain that we don't 22 always get here. And get underneath some of 23 the issues that are, you know, on everybody's 24 mind. 25 MR. ZACKON: Okay. And it's 1 108 1 December 1, 2006 2 o'clock. And you all got day jobs. 3 A VOICE: Thank you. 4 MR. ZACKON: Thank you. 5 MR. KALINE: Thank you for 6 phoning in and coming. I appreciate it. 7 Meeting adjourned. 8 (Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the 9 meeting adjourned.) 10 o0o 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 109 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 I, ROBERT M. LEVINE, a Shorthand Reporter 4 and Notary Public do hereby certify that prior to 5 the commencement of the examination, the witness 6 was duly sworn by me to testify to the truth, 7 the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 8 I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is 9 a true and accurate transcript of the testimony 10 as taken stenographically by and before me at 11 the time, place and on the date hereinbefore 12 set forth, to the best of my ability. 13 I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither 14 a relative nor employee nor attorney nor 15 counsel of any of the parties to this action, 16 and that I am neither a relative nor employee 17 of such attorney or counsel, and that I am not 18 financially interested in the action. 19 20 21 22 23 _____________________________ 24 ROBERT M. LEVINE 25