Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1963)

TWO SUPPORT RATINGS IN 'RANGES' Washington investigator, TvB, join in urging change Politz Research, warned against 'ARF's possible role in advising the advertising fraternity as to what kind of information they should have." He said "the further it steers away from such advice, the more it will contribute to the progress of media research." He advised the ARF to confine itself to investigations of "whether organizations do what they say, and say what they do." ARF's function would best be a policing organization, Mr. Politz stated, checking the work of interviewers in the field and reviewing the actual questionnaires before the research company sees them. SRDS Data Inc.'s opinion of the ARF statement as expressed by president Phillip W. Wenig was one of "minor disappointment." Mr. Wenig said the foundation was falling short of its potential and that areas selected for study are "of a lower order" than they should be. He stated that research in the area must be conducted with a view to computerized use of media data. He revealed that a forthcoming all-media SRDS Data project would be submitted to ARF for analysis. Relation of computers to the audience research problem was also discussed by Stanley D. Canter, vice president and research director of Ogilvy, Benson & Mather, at a later session of the ARF conference. Mr. Canter suggested that agencies pool their funds to gain full benefits that he feels computers promise in media selection. He added that he intends to discuss with ARF its possible role in such a project. He said his agency is "ready to contribute both money and talent to such a common endeavor." The Pulse Inc., a major audience research firm, was not invited to participate on the ARF panel. Dr. Sydney Roslow, Pulse director, told Broadcasting last week that he could not yet comment on the foundation's policy statement. NAB View ■ Queried later, Donald H. McGannon of Westinghouse Broadcasting, chairman of the NAB research committee and of the NAB Ratings Council, said ARF's statement did not seem to indicate a policy greatly different from what he had thought ARF's policy already was, but that it appeared now to be on a somewhat higher level than before. He said that he and his NAB groups — which have docketed broadcast audience research methodology as one of their basic concerns — welcomed ARF into this area. The more complete the partnership at work on this problem, he said, the more complete the solution is apt to be. Charles P. Howze Jr., chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on Investigations, and the Television Bureau of Advertising last week joined those who are urging the reporting of broadcast ratings in ranges rather than in precise figures. Speaking before the Advertising Research Foundation conference in New York, Mr. Howze said that radio-TV time is bought on the basis of ratings that are "imbued with a degree of precision that not even the rating companies in their more candid moments claim for them." The chief counsel of the subcommittee which conducted a two-year investigation of ratings, joined other government officials who earlier had warned the industry that it must cure ratings Showdown for ARF? If there was doubt last week as to where the Advertising Research Foundation would find financial support for its ambitious plans in the field of audience research, a concrete suggestion was available from at least one quarter. Barton A. Cummings, chairman and chief executive officer. Compton Advertising, suggested that ARF be given the responsibility of judging the validity of data offered by the major independent research firms and that the cost be borne by ARF members — not by the research firms. He proposed that every ARF member donate an amount for this purpose prorated on its membership category. Mr. Cummings offered this solution in a luncheon address at the ARF's annual conference (story, page 46) in which he described the current state of audience measurement research as having drifted "into the calcification of techniques whose value is dubious to us in many cases and which has certainly proved exploitable by people in high places." "If the challenge is not met," he said, "the advertising community will have to face this question: Does the ARF serve any useful purpose?" Mr. Cummings said he hoped to see the ARF develop as "the watchdog of the research industry." abuses. He reminded his ARF audience of the possibility of government control of the rating business and said that legislation in the field is being discussed. He placed part of the blame for alleged misuse of rating data on "laziness — an unwillingness to bother with statistical complexities and to evaluate the numbers in the context of other pertinent facts." On reporting in ranges, Mr. Howze said it might be a good idea for researchers to change the format of rating reports "to dramatize the fact of statistical variance. There are quite a few sophisticated users of ratings who understand the fallibility of absolute numbers, but I fear they are hopelessly outnumbered by those who do not." He expressed amazement that broadcasters and advertisers have accepted audience measurement figures without criticism for so long. Mr. Howze warned the broadcasting and advertising industries that it is time to discard practices of the past and adopt needed reform which, he said, will not be as painful as first appears. TvB on Ranges ■ In coming out for reporting, TvB's president, Norman E. Cash, suggested that the difficulty presented by the complexity of figures which such range statistics would represent to media decision makers was outweighed by the sounder decisions they would afford. Mr. Cash qualified the TvB position, noting that "our people say such 'ranges or error' could be just as misleading as the small differences to which they would be applied. But," he said, "this in no way reduces our need for such figures or our willingness to work with them once applicable ones can be determined." TvB, along with the Radio Advertising Bureau and ARF, had previously been cited by Ruth Jones, of J. Walter Thompson, and head of the Broadcast Media Committee of the American Association of Advertising Agencies, as proponents of the range concept (Closed Circuit, Sept. 23). Vote Against Ranges ■ James Seiler. director of American Research Bureau, took an opposite view on range reporting. Mr. Seller said the principal objection is that inexperienced users would take range reports to imply that the true figure could just as easily be at any point within the reported range, rather than the median figure, presently published as a rating. Statistical laws specify that in a majority of cases results would cluster around the center, with a rapid dropping-off toward the extremes, he said. There also is a technical problem in BROADCASTING, October 7, 1963 47