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?