Broadcasting (Apr - June 1960)

SPECIAL REPORT NOW TWO COUNTS OF U.S. TV HOMES ■ ARB and Nielsen issue rival measurements for all counties ■ There are enough differences to raise question: who’s right The second set of county figures on television homes in less than two weeks is being published today (June 20), raising not only the obvious question — which is more reliable? — but also a more basic one: How important are any of them any more? Among thoughtful — and influential — researchers there is a substantial body of belief that television has reached a size, and the measurement of its audience is being so refined, that the value of coverage studies — in themselves— is now much diminished and, in the most extreme view, may in time reach the point where they are not worth what they cost. And what they cost in terms of total agency, advertiser, network and station subscriptions is estimated at about $1 million. The consensus is more moderate: It appears that coverage studies are by no means as important as they used to be, but nevertheless are the only source of information which is still needed to answer some questions that still need to be answered. One suggestion is that they could be spaced farther apart— that certainly the industry doesn’t need two within a year, which is what it is about to get. American Research Bureau, whose county-by-county set estimates are out this week, and A.C. Nielsen Co.’s, whose figures were released a week ago (Broadcasting, June 13) — for side-byside comparisons, see page 71 — can offer almost any number of reasons why it is not true that coverage studies are no longer extremely important. Both have coverage studies, of which the county figures are a part, coming up. But among both agencies and networks they run into some strong challenges regarding the degree of importance involved. Circulation Figures ■ County tvhomes estimates are a basic but by themselves relatively minor component of the coverage studies currently being offered, ARB for delivery Aug. 1 and Nielsen in the summer of 1961. In use by buyers and sellers of television time, the more important components relate to the audience — potential and more or less actual — of individual stations. But even these have lost much of their former importance, in the opinion of many who use them. One network, NBC, says it is not buying either the ARB or the Nielsen coverage service, and experts at CBSTV and ABC-TV — which have signed for ARB’s — agree that coverage studies are by no means as useful as they used to be. They disagree primarily in how far they carry that belief. The same variance of opinion may be found among important agencies, whether their current allegiance is to Nielsen, to ARB, or uncommitted. One researcher put it this way: “The closer television penetration comes to 100% — it is now 87-88% — the less important coverage studies become.” Another said: “I think coverage studies have just about gone out of style.” If they are indeed on their way to being passe, the development of “area” as opposed to “metro” or metropolitan reports by ARB and Nielsen may be given a large share of the credit, or blame. “We used to have to take the metro reports and then use some formula — the one developed by Station Representatives Assn, or one of our own devising — and apply it to the coverage figures in order to determine the audience of a station,” one research authority asserted. “Now the area reports take care of all that. We need coverage data to resolve problems in cases where two or more stations overlap, and for not much else.” Among networks, officials said, the coverage data becomes really useful in deciding on which stations to affiliate — “and how many cases are there like that?” Defense of Studies ■ Nielsen and ARB maintain that such studies not only are important in many ways, but invaluable in some. And they can still count on important agency support in this contention. These users of coverage data point out that they are the only source of information as to where a station’s audience is located. Thus they are valuable in determining media allocations, for example; in tailoring campaign plans to fit specific marketing situations; in selecting markets and to some extent in selecting stations: in establish Agencies that have bought ARB Ten of the top 25 agencies in terms of television billings and 18 below the top 25 have signed for American Research Bureau’s upcoming television coverage service, according to a list released by ARB last week. ARB expressed confidence that most of the other major television buyers would follow suit in time. CBS-TV and ABC-TV also have signed. Signatories in the top 25 are, in rank order of 1959 television billing, McCann-Erickson; Ted Bates; Young & Rubicam, BBDO; Leo Burnett; William Esty; N.W. Ayer; Foote, Cone & Belding; Erwin Wasey; Ruthrauff & Ryan, and D’Arcy. J. Walter Thompson Co., heaviest television spender last year, heads the list of unsigned agencies. Others— some of whom have indicated privately that they probably will sign, some that they probably will wait for A.C. Nielsen Co.’s coverage study a year from now — are Benton & Bowles; Dancer, Fitzgerald, Sam ple; Compton; Kenyon & Eckhardt; Lennen & Newell; Sullivan, Stauffer, Colwell & Bayles; Campbell-Ewald; Cunningham & Walsh; Geoffrey Wade; Tatham-Laird; Needham, Louis & Brorby; Parkson; Grey, and Norman, Craig & Kummel. Below the top 25. ARB said it had contracts from D.P. Brother; Fletcher Richards, .Calkins & Holden; Gordon Best; Guild, Bascom & Bonfigli; Gardner; Lambert & Feasley; Lawrence Gumbinner; Fitzgerald Adv.; Bozell & Jacobs; Richard Manoff; Honig-Cooper & Harrington; Frederick Baker; Gray & Rogers; Miller, MacKay, Hoeck & Hartung; Johnson & Lewis; Walker Saussy; Monroe Dreher; and Tucker Wayne. Nielsen started only two weeks ago to distribute plans for its new coverage study, to be known as NCS ’61, so that there is as yet no indication of who will or will not sign for it. Among networks, NBC has said it will sign for neither ARB’s nor Nielsen’s. 66 BROADCASTING, June 20, 1960