Nielsen Isn’t Joining TV’s Latest Measurement Collaboration

Measurement’s biggest player will not participate in the industry’s latest effort to enable multiple currencies. The Joint Industry Committee (JIC)—formed earlier this year by OpenAP, along with a working committee of media agencies, premium video programmers, streaming platforms and trade bodies—has the goal of creating a certification process to establish the suitability of cross-platform measurement solutions ahead of the 2024 upfront. However, the committee will now continue that mission without Nielsen's participation. Adweek has confirmed that the measurement company has declined to partake in the first round of the JIC's efforts to develop standards for measurement providers. A source familiar with the matter told Adweek that the JIC has already received responses from other measurement companies, including Comscore, iSpot.tv, Samba TV, VideoAmp, Innovid/TVSquared and 605. But Nielsen is a notable holdout. In a letter to OpenAP CEO David Levy, obtained by Adweek from several sources close to the matter, Nielsen CEO of global audience measurement, Karthik Rao, outlined why the company declined to participate in the JIC’s request for information (RFI), stating that the company disagrees with the JIC’s recently announced criteria for premium video. Nielsen CEO David Kenny on Nielsen One Learnings, Reaccreditation and What’s Next “We support the emphasis on aligning the industry around greater use of census data, transparency in metric calculations, interoperability of systems and a robust and transparent approach to identity resolution—all vital to the acceptance of audience measurement solutions,” the letter reads. According to Rao, the JIC’s standards “contain biases” and “are not supported with statistical evidence.” Among its disputes, the company disagreed on the JIC's definition for "premium quality" and said big data should not be assumed to always be better than panel data. “Responding to the RFI now will give a false impression that we endorse the JIC’s requirements. We do not,” Rao said. “This well-meaning process has been rushed, and we respectfully suggest that more time be spent addressing the above issues before a formal RFI is issued.” Nielsen is also concerned about what Rao described as a lack of clarity on the need for Media Rating Council accreditation—which was restored to Nielsen last week. Sources close to the JIC told Adweek that the industry body agrees with Nielsen that the MRC plays an important role, but it is a different role than what the JIC is solving for. Though the MRC looks at measurement methodology and validation, the JIC concentrates more on creating industry readiness for a shift in how analysis and measurement are done, focusing on cross-platform currency transaction standards. In the letter, Nielsen pointed out that it had already engaged with other industry bodies including ANA, WFA, 4A’s, ARF, CIMM, IAB and the VAB, and that it is open to reconsidering participation if the JIC addresses its concerns. Measuring the validity of a complaint Answering Nielsen's challenge, OpenAP told Adweek that the JIC will address the concerns head-on at an on-the-record upfront event on April 27. “The JIC is moving with velocity to bring transparency to the currency readiness of new cross-platform measurement solutions and to define common standards so that we can ultimately have more competition across multiple currencies,” OpenAP said in a statement to Adweek. Nielsen declined to comment beyond what was shared in the letter to OpenAP. What Buyers and TV Insiders Really Think About the Top Measurement Companies Read Rao’s full letter below: April 21, 2023David LevyCEO, OpenAP, on behalf of the US Joint Industry Committee Dear David, Since the announcement of the formation of the JIC earlier this year, we have appreciated your ongoing candor, willingness to discuss the goals of the JIC and the subsequent invitation to submit a response to the request for information (RFI). We are writing to inform you that we will not be submitting a response to the RFI today, as there remain a number of concerns about the standards as they exist at this time - which we have shared with you and which we re-iterate below. We remain hopeful that we can continue the dialogue and want to assure you that we are open to reconsidering our response as these items are addressed. We always welcome objective discussions about the best way to estimate where the media audience is investing their time, and the right information to help the media market work with trust and transparency. This is why we have engaged with a number of industry bodies in the U.S. on these topics, including ANA, WFA, 4A's, ARF, CIMM, IAB and VAB. We believe the JIC can also be helpful in this regard. We support the emphasis on aligning the industry around greater use of census data, transparency in metric calculations, interoperability of systems, and a robust and transparent approach to identity resolution - all vital to the acceptance of audience measurement solutions. However, in the JIC’s published standards as confirmed in our conversation, there are fundamental legal, operational and scientific issues that will need to be resolved before Nielsen will agree to participate. Standards that contain biases and/or are not supported with statistical evidence. The first set of criteria laid out a number of methodological rules without any statistical support to back them up. For example:Big data should not be assumed to always be better than panel dataThe definition of premium quality appears to be based on production costs, not audience perceptionsThere is a requirement to delay any change for two years, even when there could be clear evidence for faster change given the rapid evolution in television technology No objective standards or process for "certification." We have asked multiple times for clear criteria and scoring systems. We have not received clarification. There can be no trust without transparency, and we won’t change the rigorous standards that are essential to being the most trusted currency. Disregard for Intellectual Property will stifle innovation and investment. Nielsen has invested billions of dollars in technology and methods to accurately measure the audience. You are now asking us to turn over UEs, panel data, make proprietary data collection techniques standard to everyone and supply metadata IDs to let anybody use our data. Lack of clarity on the need for MRC Accreditation (and potentially conflating certification with accreditation). The MRC remains an essential element of the audience measurement environment. Created at the request of Congress, it has the experience, legal structure, independence, scientific rigor, and clear by-laws to regulate audience measurement. We do not agree that simply "seeking" MRC accreditation is an acceptable standard. At a minimum, measurement companies need to actively participate in the MRC’s audit process including being transparent about any remediation plans. Any use of "certification" to shortcut this process is too risky for creating accurate measurement. Absence of key players. We define the industry the way the audience defines TV in 2023. That needs to include Disney, Amazon, Netflix, YouTube, and any major streaming platform. Only a subset of industry participants created the JIC standards, and significant media companies either were not invited to participate or have chosen not to participate. And we don’t see how a company owned by a consortium of industry players, vs the independent, non-profit status of most JICs around the world can manage this. Anti-competition concerns. We also have antitrust concerns related to the JIC and the significant competitor interactions required by the JIC. What protections has the JIC put in place to safeguard against antitrust? We recently read a press statement that the JIC is encouraging the industry to reduce competition. That raises concerns of insufficient protections against antitrust. Unfortunately, that sentiment can attract regulatory attention which needs to be met with clear by-laws, governance, and legal structure. We are concerned that responding to the RFI now will give a false impression that we endorse the JIC’s requirements. We do not. This well meaning process has been rushed, and we respectfully suggest that more time be spent addressing the above issues before a formal RFI is issued. We are encouraged by the desire to collaborate and move toward open innovation. But we must do so in a responsible manner that adheres to the current trusted and acceptable MRC standards. That is why we remain committed to undergoing independent audits and the MRC accreditation process. It’s the standard we’ve always set for ourselves—and the standard the whole industry should demand. Once you can address the essential issues we’ve raised with the JIC, we would be delighted to engage in thoughtful dialogue and reconsider our position. We hope the offer still stands to participate in your meeting next week as we remain interested in learning and better understanding what this new committee is thinking about. Sincerely,Karthik RaoCEO, Global Audience Measurement, Nielsen

Measurement

Why Nielsen Isn’t Joining TV’s Latest Measurement Collaboration

The U.S. Joint Industry Committee is preparing to answer the company's concerns

Mollie Cahillane

About

Subscriptions

Events

Publications

WORK SMARTER - LEARN, GROW AND BE INSPIRED.

Subscribe today!

Mollie Cahillane