Audience measurement : Other systems using mobile phones without using the watermarking

Other systems also use ordinary mobile phones and tablets panelists without using the watermarking. Their recognition technologies using channels and stations in ambient sound. These systems measure all channels and all radio stations without limitation. They measure audience share, they are in real time. Their technologies do not have hte handicap of the watermarking in noisy and parasitized environments. Some are integrated into larger systems with monitoring tools advertising and media planning, which brings more than other required system.

Arbitron PPM - MediaWatch Gfk - Ipsos Phone

Arbitron PPM This is one that has been the most concession contracts and partnerships with major institutions who have paid for not using it (like Gillette bought the patents of products that prevent the beard to grow to be not broadcast). It can provide data in near-real time by a mobile Internet connection. The fact that it is a box to always carry oneself is a handicap. "It is a not declarative system but binding and almost punitive but as the electronic bracelet of remand" as a panelist said. This is a closed system (hard and soft). Well protected by patents. Therefore, it evolves very slowly, more slowly than technology and telecom signal recognition. For this reason, he lost the advance it had ten years ago. MediaWatch Gfk It is a passive individual PPM and mobile integrated into a wristwatch. It has the advantage that keeps constantly on itself. It does not have audience data in real time because it is not on-line, you must connect it to a rack to download its measures. A small module can integrate the audience of the press (in declarative). It also uses the principle of watermarking, even if Gfk Telecontrol pushed his researches far enough in recognizing the signals without watermarking. Its designers have forgotten that a watch is a very personal object, which bears the image and style of its owner. They developed models very ugly and very recognizable. This double bias unfortunately handicap strongly MediaWatch when recruitment panelists and affecting the social behavior of these panelists identified as such by their relatives. It is also a closed system (hardware and software) and condemned to move slowly in a technological changing. Ipsos Phone This is an application for the recognition of watermarking signals which can be incorporated in current smart-phones and transmits what it recognized in almost real time. This is the device that would bring the most ideal if the algorithm did not have a capacity as low recognition in a noisy environment (discussion, engine, etc.) and if not drained quickly if the battery phone. This is not a closed system by the hardware as is the case for the two systems mentioned previously. It can take advantage of other phone features such as the location, the ability to measure the behavior of Internet audience on the phone. This is one of the three that is most likely to change quickly.

Audience measurement : New systems available today

New systems available today These are the Arbitron PPM (the pioneer) MediaWatch the Gfk, the Ipsos mobile phone and other less known. All can be used for both television and radio. They are mobile and personal. All use watermarking channels and stations. They can not measure the audience, even merged, of channels and stations not watermarked. They only measure very partially the competition and do not allow to measure audience share which is known to be the No. 1 indicator of analysts from programming content. Forcing the institutions to this technology is essentially justified because it obliges the stations to pay to be measured and it constitutes a barrier for competition. This choice is not justified by the search for improving the reliability of the data These technologies relate only to the extent of the audience measurment Institute does not offer an integrated solution with the audience measurement, monitoring broadcasting of advertising programs and media planning tools.

Audience measurement : The sidelining of the real experts

The sidelining of the real experts The experts who are approached by groups are often ex operational groups or other institutions. These are not researchers. These experts tend to reproduce what they know, that is to say, the old devices. However, there are many researchers who work and publish many of these themes. I found a lot of publications that focus on dysfunctions that I mentioned. They are not solicited by groups. Themselves usually take away from these markets. Researchers that I could ask are rather pessimistic about the chances of deep change initiated by organizations today. Some imagine rather a sudden break.

Audience measurement : The major institutes have no interest in that change

Audience measurement: Audience measurement : The major institutes have n...: The major institutes have no interest in that change Audience measurements are highly profitable and safe for major institutes. They are a s...

Audience measurement : The major institutes have no interest in that change

The major institutes have no interest in that change Audience measurements are highly profitable and safe for major institutes. They are a stable part of their business, while other activities are much more fluid and disrupted. A contract for audience measurement involves several years, he leaves a margin greater than 30% and is often extended. There is virtually no industry that has both a margin so high and so low risk. Measurements in the field of television audience, there is a technical barrier to entry. It is almost impossible to institute to win one of these tenders. In some cases, major media institutions participating in the capital that measure them. In many other areas, typical conflict of interest would be impossible. Large institutions do not pressure to break the status co, especially with new technologies that could reduce the budgets of audience research and open the door to new institutes competitors.

Major media pay and control the audience measurement

Major media pay and control the audience measurement Groups and committees who conduct audience measurement media are dominated by big media. These are necessary because they have a historical leadership but because they pay more and others. It is therefore difficult to oppose their views. The orientations of these media are naturally rather conservative and not very innovative because the old systems protect their dominance. The amount of the subscription media studies is used by major media such as a barrier to exclude small media. It is clear that if audience measurement were much cheaper, their leadership would weakened. They tend to favor heavy methodologies and denigrate innovations that could reduce costs. Small and new media will have no say in the market as long as they do not break the taboo that leadership or they will not leave groups.

Audience measurement : Manipulation of data

Manipulation of data More serious than the induced abuse by the aberrant tender specifications, data are sometimes manipulated, at the request of the media, policy makers, content producers or communication agencies. Of course, not at home or at home, but elsewhere. The Patrons of large groups located in large countries I have explained that they sometimes pay institutes have more favorable hearing. In another country, the engineers that programmed applications skinning measures of television audience explained to a reporter how the audience of public channels were routinely boosted by a discrete weighting. Moreover, media planners have detected a ratio always identical in the daily number of minutes of audience average chain from major brands for several weeks. All these examples are recent. They have not been possible because data controls are deficient.

Audience measurement : A almost complete absence of control

A almost complete absence of control Within modern markets such as exchanges, control systems are very stringent. They focus on the design of systems, their operation, their integrity and the absence of abuse in the use of data. Each of these controls is assigned to a separate institution and whose control is the only activity. For example the control systems engineering computing prices can be assigned to control a company or an international technical audit firm recognized. Strangely, control practices for audience measurement beyond these rules. The controls are organized as part of committees often people who participated in the selection of the device, or close to them. Technical assessments are not assigned to companies of technical control or audit firms whose job it is, but individual experts whose methods lack rigor. Their actions are not frequent.

Audience measurement: The time for access to data making it little use

Audience measurement: The time for access to data making it little use: More information is available quickly in a market, that market is more active. That's what I thought until I worked for the radio station. F...

Recruitment methods creating bias

Recruitment methods creating bias I was lucky to have me information from teams leading institutes audience measurement hearing. One point that is most disturbing the representativeness of the recruited for these measures. One factor through the most important is the rate of refusal to participate in the investigation or panel. But for audience measurement, much would be very difficult to recruit: 9 out of 10 refuse during telephone surveys, nearly 99 out of 100 for panels to people meters. This is far above the standards that would have to pretend that representative samples. Some profiles (upper socio-professional categories in the example) proved to be impossible to recruit. This means that some key targets would simply not represented. Although their presence is indicated in the methodological notes institutes. Contrary to what is said by some, no method of recovery can correct these problems. Samples are unfortunately largely composed of atypical people who can not realize the real hearings.

The time for access to data making it little use

More information is available quickly in a market, that market is more active. That's what I thought until I worked for the radio station. For us, the audience measurement are made using a telephone survey. About a thousand people every week questioned on what they heard yesterday. One might say that data every week, it's not bad, it is expected to stimulate the market. This is not the case. The data are processed once per quarter and it takes almost six weeks month to have access to intermediate data. So I have now the end of October, data from August. So I can not use the data to justify my fees with my new grid schedule. Advertisers can not make a decision and do not buy my space unless I sell out. Next year, we will not change the grid. Why not treat data every day?

Audience measurement : Dysfunction due to the lags...

Surveys of radio audiences and the press are conducted four or five times a year in most countries. The data are provided with a processing time of several weeks. However, most of these media campaigns that use no more than three weeks. How could - justify the quality of the space that we sell to buyers whom we could not provide information on the effectiveness of our media campaigns for several months after? Some advertisers are forced to drive further action against them to adjust their campaigns. Why?

Sample size and structure are inadequate for audience measurement

Sample size and structure are inadequate for audience measurement Sample size and structure are inadequate for audience measurement I feel that the survey samples and panels have been designed without the knowledge of data users. Very strangely, they are often structured as reduce models of the overall population. There should be an overrepresentation of the third of the population which aim the two-thirds of advertising campaigns, this is rarely the case. Much of the information collected is not used for much. In addition, the sizes of these samples appear to be really important tests that would like to make. How it comes that the designers of these systems do not being asked about the uses to be made of these data? Do not they have asked for help from statisticians? How it comes, there were so anxious to have very large samples, if uselessly representing every part of the population, including those not interested data users? Addition to the inadequacy of the sample structure, research manager and data users have reported to me that people who are recruited to participate in these surveys or panels are sometimes poorly trained and profiled: the minimum criteria, especially when compared to what offer the new media on the Internet. However advertisers and agencies communicate easily their criteria. I met with advertisers and media agencies who proceeded to risky interpolations on the basis of these truncated data. In addition, despite the fact that there are basic criteria, it is difficult and expensive to access data extractions audience crossing these criteria. What could guide the designers of these systems in these choices? Are they knew that making it more difficult to access these directly measures they reduced the turnover of media that fund?

Inadequacy to the real professional needs

Those who have the responsibility to define the specifications of audience measurement bend there on the real needs of the main users? The audience measurement used primarily to give a value to the advertising space in the market between buyers and media. This value should fluctuate depending on the relationship between supply and demand based on the target audience . Is then expected that a main objective of audience measurement is to improve the flow and efficiency of this market. It is well known that the fluidity of operations is an important factor that determines the volume of transactions in a market. This implies that different kinds of data required (broadcast programs, broadcast commercials, audiences, forecasts) are available in continuous flow and in real time through consistent tools for consultation, analysis and order placement. Structured in all markets, all these functions are integrated into one homogeneous system, optimized and controlled. In the advertising space, these functions are split between heterogeneous actors without overall coordination and seems , almost without control.

Weaknesses in the technical and marketing segmentation

I also noticed weaknesses in the technical and marketing segmentation It seems that the media groups drive in favor of measuring devices for the audience measurement which cover a population with a single methodology. However, it seems that no device data collection audience is perfectly suited to all segments. Some are more suited to certain targets and others to other targets. In addition, different segments of the population are carriers of advertising targets different issues. One might expect that the most promising targets budgets should be subject to more accurate measurements and more frequent. Which directs groups to these methodological choices which require a more than a lowest common denominator and not a strategic vision of the audience?

I especially found problems of bad conception. The audience studies seemed to be too narrow

For complementarities between traditional media appears and the interest to be strengthened in the eyes of buyers space, it seemed necessary that the measurements are cross media audience. This requirement has been explicitly expressed by advertisers and reference by the Coalition for Innovative Media Measurement. The CIMM has defined in 2009 as the required systems "able to measure from the same source and real-time by all television channels and other media?". Still new devices continue to implement and they are not cross media or in real time. What explains this discrepancy? Groups that control measures would they not understand the current challenges? Would they not have enough information? Is it because their organizations are not adapted to the cross-media? Will they apprehend change too difficult to master? They would be afraid that the data generated not damaging of established interests? Would they just as conformist? The fields of audience is too narrow for another reason: many media are trans-national. For a radio station or a television broadcast by satellite or Internet, the audience area is its linguistic territory. For example, most of the Russian-speaking channels are viewed in fourteen countries. French chains in forty countries. For many stations and channels, the audience of other countries now weighs heavier than the country of origin. For radio, this phenomenon should be spread even faster, at a rate of mobile Internet. The major advertisers have internationalized their communication strategies by linguistic and cultural territory. Their purchasing decisions are based on space analysis audiences in these areas. For this, the most powerful of them make their own multi-country action on their target audience. International media, for example, those offering digital packages, data are available for measuring audience in patchwork, inconsistent, difficult to use and to argue that lead to under-value proportions in their advertising space. What is the thinking of professionals on this subject? I have not found much in their publications

Audience measurement : Problems?

By conducting this research, trying to understand these devices, I detected dysfunctions and abnormalities which surprised me. I had to pinch myself several times to admit it, but when the market advertising space is one of the very first markets in the world economy, I discovered that it established important trading erroneous database, and inadequate or approximate and using methods that would have surely smile brokers and traders in the fifties. I present them in this blog a little loose and I'll update and order based on feedback and information that potential readers are kindly requested to send me.

In two words what I understand how far is made of the audience measurement?

Who decides? They are groups of media professionals, agencies and advertisers who decide the choice of methods and means to implement and determine, by calls for tenders, which will be the operating institutes. How is it done? For radio, it is usually surveys by telephone or self-administered questionnaires on paper or via the Internet or continuous waves. For television, these are books of hearing or people meters to push buttons. Some systems, yet rare, using people meters individual phones. Who pays? These devices are primarily funded by the media who want their audience to be measured.

What I understood of the utility of the audience measurement

For radio stations, but also for other media, audience measurement allows teams selling advertising space to give it a value and promote to buyers. It also allows teams that are responsible for programs to identify who listens to what, on what stations and thus to adjust programs. For advertisers and agencies, audience measurement allows, before a campaign, to identify areas with the best cost / audience to maximize the effectiveness of their advertising targets of their campaigns. During and after the campaign, it permits evaluation its impact on advertising pressure and (sometimes) on the cover.

What I hear about the old media strategies

I have chosen three ideas of what is reported to me that the analysis would today committees strategic groups that hold the major big and old media. Traditional media are expected to gradually disappear in favor of online content distributors. This changeover was speeding up when the advertising market share captured by these new channels would make definitely unprofitable old media, what would happen in five to ten years. The strategy is to impose on them would make it last as long as possible and profitable this phase of decline. To do this, it would be vital not to disturb the factors that bring them always important advertising budgets, among other systems, audience measurement. A large part of the new entrepreneurs in traditional media such as TV, radio and the press would today this analysis: It would be easier and less expensive to create and operate a new media (even TV) with new low cost technologies for the production and Internet broadcast. New and small media have access to content that prices getting lower and lower with new technical tools of production but also with content sources. New and small media could focus quite naturally with social networks. They would be better preserved the risk of extinction by their ability to deal with issues of proximity, community, and their generation ad targeting. But hearing these media would not be hurt or measured by the devices and the old major media would not change.

Audience measurement

Just few months ago, I had a very vague idea of what an audience measurement. After taking the responsibility of marketing for a group of radio stations, I first tried to understand how decisions were made for buyers and sellers of advertising space. I found that I was disappointed. These are the impressions that I wanted to share these notes. Thank you to the professional audience measurement who were willing to answer my questions, who shared with me on their blogs and on my own and who were willing to read and comment on drafts with my cold blood, despite everything I 'had not understood or misinterpreted, despite my ideas sometimes candid and inconoclastes. Tarama