Small parenthesis about watermarking

The use of this technology obliges each station or channel that wants to measure its audience to include a code in the audio signal and therefore to pay. It is strangely almost never mentioned that the recognition of watermarking signals for radio functions poorly in noisy environments (such as in cars is one of the contexts in which the hearing of terrestrial radio is still virtually not challenged by Internet). Tests conducted on these systems have noted very low rate recognition. The television people meters have an average error of 10%. And yet, in this case, the noise can not affect recognition. The individual passive people meters tested in 2009 by Rajar had a recognition rate of about 50% Large institutions heavily involved in the audiovisual media audience measurement have been converted to the virtues of watermarking, even those who had long been criticized for its lack of reliability. The individual passive audience measurement can be performed without watermarking and with fewer errors. But that choice could lose competitive advantages to the major institutions.

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.