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?