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.