 |
     |
|
|
Interesting development (for some people): Nielsen Media and BBM Canada are planning to merge their electronic ratings systems creating a monopoly situation in television ratings. Notwithstanding a peculiar governance issue (the provider of the numbers, which are used to determine advertising costs, is also governed by . . . . the broadcasters who stand to benefit/lose from the numbers), it could be more efficient for all.
Personally, I'm not so concerned about an effective monopoly here because the ratings system is based on viewership. That feeds a decaying marketing (advertising) model that pushes impressions until the consumer submits. A new measure will arise to provide feedback on effectiveness of the advertising. After all, the television viewership volume is less relevant if the effectiveness coefficient doesn't correlate. (To be perfectly clear, if the Super Bowl is the most watched television program its ad spaces will be the highest. But that's only if we infer that most-watched means most valuable because in the causal chain there is nothing to prove or disprove that assumption. What if it could be proven that although the highest volume of people watched the game and the ads, BUT they were so enthralled with the goings on that the effectiveness of the ads neared nothing (i.e., the ads didn't move the needle on consumer interest or actual purchasing an iota)? What would be the value of knowing the volume except as a mere, small factor in the overall calculation? I suspect the value of the rating -- and, hence, the monopoly -- would deteriorate.
The Globe and Mail item is here: Advertisers wary of plan to fuse TV ratings systems.
Posted by Grayson at July 13, 2004 07:42 AM