Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan - Mar 1951)

Research Muddle (Continued from page 23) farther by recommending that the test and methods for carrying it out should cover both radio and television. Furthermore, it felt that the test Should not be confined to San Francisco but should cover a half-dozen communities. After explaining that its actions and findings represent the opinions of a group of research men and not the companies they represent, the committee hopes "the radio and television industry will find the funds to underwrite the entire study, toward the end of removing some of the confusion now rampant in the field of audience measurements." Finally, the committee declared itself dissolved, with members ready to aid in carrying out the recommended projects. "It is the responsibility of the medium itself to assume the leadership in resolving the existing confusion in the area of radio and television, audience measurements," the committee stated. It recommended that NAB, representing both radio and television broadcasters, "undertake to set up the machinery for implementing the plan in the report." To do the job, the committee said, a fulltime project manager will be needed, aided by a volunteer committee of five industry research leaders consulting on procedure, analysis and interpretation. This advisory group would include broadcasting, advertiser and agency representatives. Television can be included in the study for a small increase in cost, removing confusion in the visual field, according to the committee. A half-dozen cities should be covered, it was felt, because a comparison based on San Francisco alone, as originally proposed by Mr. Breyer, would be influenced by the city's 86% telephone home ratio compared to a 74% median in the 41 largest cities. Besides, informative comparisons should be collected under conditions other than those existing in San Francisco. The committee explains it has had no official status at any time, merely representing a group of research men willing to help find a solution to a research problem that has irritated the entire industry. The group has no desire or intent to promote or attack any service or method, it explains. It feels the buyers" and sellers of time "should be the ones to set up the definitions and the specifications of the conditions under which these data are to be collected; that this important and basic step in the collection of measurements should not be left to the measurement organizations themselves." Ratings services were praised for their "unqualified offers of cooperation." The Hooper and Pulse firms provided special San Fran nothing but smiles under our umbrella! KALAMAZOO NOW — 107,297 SETS CHANNEL 7 GRAND RAPIDS LIVE INTERCONNECTED Represented by John Pearson Mr. Krueger Mr. Hooper Mr. Beville Mr. Avery Mr. Wilbor Mr. Shearer Mr. Manchee Dr. Chappell Mr. Roslow Dr. Deckin^ei cisco tabulations at their own expense. A section of the report covering methods and data sources lists the basic methods of measurements, with names of some of the firms using each technique. The chapter covering differences between measurements reported by ratings services is described as a "primer on timebuying" and wraps up in one package, perhaps for the first time, a detailed analysis of methods and reasons for the differing results. "Chance differences," for example, center in the fact that two different samples, obtained in the same way and intended to give the same totality, can yield different results even when exactly the same method is applied to both. Differences in methods used involve such factors as psychological processes affecting the group contacted; audience size characteristics, with average vs. total audience and individual vs. household listening as the two pairs of concepts; behavior measurements; method of tabulation; reporting periods; differences within methods, for any basic technique. Varying Results Furthermore, differences in samples can bring varying results. These variations arise from the area sampled and from representativeness of samples. Other variations center around differences in hours reported, collateral information supplied, speed of reporting and cost. The body of the committee's report is divided into three parts — analysis of methods, comparisons of available data and outline of recommended field studies. Having outlined main causes of differences in data, the report seeks to show how information can be obtained which will permit appraisal, understanding and evaluation of these differences. In analyzing methods, leading audience measurement services would be asked to submit the answers to a series of questions dealing with their coverage, methods, costs and data. "Thorough study IT'S TIME to stop and take stock of whole research situation, according to these top-flight representatives of buyers and sellers of time. They are supported by three leading research executives who operate different types of measurement services. Mr. Baker !: j m III of the answers to these question: will be necessary to an informei evaluation of what the service: produce," according to the com mittee. The chapter on analysis of meth ods goes into much detail as i specifies the type of informatior to be obtained from each measure ment firm. Especially penetrating are questions on techniques of sam pling, but the committee feels thorough analysis requires that th< questions be answered. Details ol field operations, tabulating, cost1 and other elements are sought. "Analysis and synthesis of al material that can be obtained frorr' any source on the above points wil in itself help eliminate much oi the present industry confusion or the ratings subject," in the opinior of the committee. In comparing available data th committee suggested retabulation: in New York, Philadelphia, Los An geles, St. Louis, Cincinnati anc [ Washington. In New York, radie retabulations would include Hoop er, Nielsen and Pulse; TV woulc include American Research Bureau, Hooper, Nielsen, Pulse ancj Videodex. Philadelphia radio would include Hooper, Pulse, Sindlinger, and TV ARB, Hooper, Pulse, Videodex. Los Angeles radio would include Hooper, Nielsen, Pulse, and TV ARB, Hooper, Pulse, Tele-Quo Videodex. St. Louis radio would include Hooper and Pulse; and TV, ARB Hooper, Pulse, Videodex. Cincinnati radio would include Hooper, Pulse, Nielsen; and TV ARB, Hooper, Pulse, Videodex. Washington radio would include ARB, Hooper, Pulse; and TV woulc I " h It a m h Ion k :tc hi cuti erei BOB Ofl tan UN e m l!5 Page 64 • March 5, 1951 Telecasting BROADCASTING i,