Weekly television digest (Jan-Dec 1963)

4— TELEVISION DIGEST MARCH 25. 1963 NIELSEN & PULSE SURVEYED: Both Harris Subcommittee and Nielsen were primed for rating hearings last week (p. 1) — and Nielsen got its share of lumps, though nothing like the fierce keelhauling suffered by some firms on stand preceding week (Vol. 3:11 p3). Pulse had no picnic. Nielsen was represented by 4 top-rung executives, although Chmn. A. C. Nielsen Sr. was in Paris, Pres. A. C. Nielsen Jr. en route to Australia. Henry Rahmel, exec. & media research div. mgr., explained that a rating is an “estimate” — but not a “guess.” With help of Warren Cordell, & chief statistical officer, Rahmel attempted to define accuracy of small samples. He referred to special 1954 Census study made at request of Nielsen. This compared characteristics of households in 400-home samples with those of all U.S. households. Error was very small, Cordell asserted. But, Harris said. Census study dealt with household items, not human behavior. Cordell said that “perfection is not our goal,” because of budget limitations of clients. He also gave elaborate detail on Nielsen’s current installation of new sample based on 1960 Census. (Company has been criticized during hearings for allegedly not having changed basic design since 1947.) Moss asked, regarding use of 1960 Census: “How many homes have you changed up to now?” Cordell said “Very few.” Nielsen then produced chart after chart on its national services. Moss interrupted, said company had taken “maximum amount of time to present minimum amount of material” on validity of sample & measurement tools. Subcommittee also questioned field work & controls. Staffers Robert Richardson & Rex Sparger told about visit to Audimeter home in Texarkana. Woman didn’t like Jack Paar statement about Mississippi integration crisis. Although she would have watched program if she had no Audimeter, Richardson said, she cut Paar off, aiming to affect his rating. “Isn’t this a bias?” Richardson asked. Noting that one Nielsen sample home equals 50,000 homes and that 10-12 homes make one rating point, subcommittee counsel speculated on possibilities of interested parties learning which homes have audimeters — ^because Nielsen has a fixed, not variable, sample. Rahmel said if subcommittee thinks there is real danger of people tampering with these homes. Congress can pass laws. Richardson countered: “Why don’t you do away with the fixed sample?” Subcommittee also charged that Nielsen’s national & local reports aren’t compatible, as claimed in one of its ads. This referred to testimony of ABC Radio Pres. Robert Pauley that in one case (he provided 6 examples) national rating showed 98,000 homes listening while total of only 5 local reports equalled 138,000 for same program. Nielsen conceded the situation, although its tally was somewhat lower for both figures. Cordell said figures are well within “our statistical tolerance.” Subcommittee is more interested in “common sense,” said Moss. Pulse’s Roslow was questioned sharply on sampling design & execution. For example, much heat was generated by Subcommittee analysis of Nov. ’61 report for metropolitan Louisville, covering 3 counties. Subcommittee said one county’s survey was made in city 80 miles from Louisville, another 160 miles. Roslow conceded it was “laxness.” Subcommittee also brought to light that radio stations receiving below minimum share-of-audience in Pulse survey aren’t listed by call letters unless they buy report. Roslow conceded that accuracy of reports can fluctuate 20-30% and that judgment is needed to use ratings properly. Richardson also charged that in some cases a station’s program listings are left off Pulse’s “aided roster recall” sheet that intersdewers present to householders. “Isn’t that harmful to stations?” he asked. If a station won’t send program logs, Roslow said, there’s nothing that can be done to include programs. He said interviewers should carry newspaper logs, too. Richardson charged that in some cases intemdewers don’t carrj’ those, either. “Is this a true reflection of listening?” he asked. “If a station’s listening is significant, it would .show,” Roslow replied. Subcommittee counsel said that Pulse interviewers aren’t carefully super\dsed and that, in fact, they don’t keep to sample design. Richardson also asserted that Louisville report had stated sample of 1,609, but actually only 796 households were sampled. He eliminated coincidental calls and “not at homes.” Pulse was criticized for its weighting procedures. Subcommittee produced chart comparing audience shares on basis of field work with figures published in report. In one case, field work showed station with 23.6 share, but printed report gave it 12. In other cases, stations were graded up, while some stayed same. Subcommittee claimed that weighting procedures were “arbitrary.” Rep. Younger (R-Cal.) wanted to know if Pulse would make refunds to stations harmed by reports. Roslow said he’d review matter with counsel. At week’s end, Nielsen submitted these suggestions to improve ratings, dependability. Among them: (1) Develop standards to govern unusual promotions during rating week and ask FCC to require stations to ad\'ise it of such promotions. (2) Launch cooperative effort among agencies, advertisers & broadcasters to recommend definitions of metro or central areas. (3) Form technical committee, possibly under NAB, to ser\-e as clearinghouse to safeguard against abuses of ratings. FTC filed false-advertising complaint against Plough Inc. and its agency, Lake-Spiro-Shurman Inc., Memphis, charging misrepresentation in claims for St. Joseph aspirin arising from FTC’s o^vn test of analgesics as reported in Journal of American Medical Assn. Complaints were similar to those leveled against Sterling Drug Co. in Bayer aspirin case — in which N.Y. federal judge refused to grant FTC request for injunction to stop the ad claims (Vol. 3:6 p4 et seq.). FTC charges Plough deceived by implying that study was made by AMA, that investigators found product caused no “noticeable stomach irritation” and that it was “gentle to the stomach as a sugar pill.” Help for uhf technology is fine function for FCC, but Commission should steer completely clear of business & managerial matters. So stated FCC Comr. Ford, in letter to Sen. Pastore (D-R.I.), expressing his views on FCCsponsored Committee for Full Development of Uhf Broadcasting (CUB). Ford said he’s concerned lest FCC help “oversell” uhf, run danger of “tragic setback” uhf suffered in early 1950’s. He’s also concerned that “artificial stimulation” of commercial uhf activity could interfere with orderly growth of ETV^ on uhf — and he said he believes that nationwide ETV system can be achieved only through uhf.