The Channel | 2002 | June

8 / 22

the channel | 9
viewing among Germany’s top earners, only 25 such respondents
participated. No serious conclusions can be drawn from such small
samples.
Another problem with recall surveys is that they are not dynamic
and simply present one undifferentiated set of results based on
interviews conducted over a year in several “waves”. They provide
no basis to analyse trends, and they provide no basis to analyse
changes in viewing that occur week-to-week and month-to-month.
This year’s surveys will highlight that problem in the extreme. The
survey methodology will provide just one average viewing number
for the period both before and after September 11, the most
extraordinarily volatile period in global television viewing in modern
memory and possibly ever. Viewing patterns obviously shifted
dramatically immediately after 9/11. But the pan-European survey
numbers that will be published within the next few weeks, which
purport to be a guide for advertisers making decisions in 2002 and
2003, will not enable anyone to know viewing patterns before
September 11, viewing patterns immediately after September 11,
and viewing patterns as they changed weeks and months after
September 11. Obviously, there was a huge spike in TV viewing
during these months. How much still exists today? One average
number simply cannot describe viewer behaviour for this entire
tumultuous period. Such figures will be impossible to interpret and
use in making sensible assessments of television viewing in 2002
and 2003. Nothing better demonstrates why we must move to a more
accurate system that actually measures viewing at specific hours, on
specific dates, than this amalgam of
recollections mixed together in an
undifferentiated blended number.
So what about ratings, which are the accepted
currency in national advertising marketplaces?
While it will be necessary, in my view, for pan-
European channels to move in the direction of
a ratings-based pan-European measurement
system, changes are needed here as well. Each
country in Europe has its own television
audience measurement system. Each ratings
system has different demographic categories.
Most of these systems are tailored to the needs
of the over-the-air broadcasters in each country,
in terms of sample sizes, as well as fees charged
to those who would use the data. It is
unfortunate that the area of audience research
in Europe has seen little meaningful movement
toward cross-border, pan-European uniformity. It is time to adopt
uniform criteria for audience research across Europe. Definitions
and criteria today vary country-by-country, often based on historic
practise, making it difficult to aggregate or analyse comparable data.
Across Europe, uniform standards have been adopted in nearly every
other major field of commerce. Now is the time to move toward
pan-European uniformity in television audience data, which should
keep pace with the evolution of pan-European business standards
and practices.
I am convinced that both the pan-European cable and satellite industry
in general, and CNBC Europe in particular, have exciting prospects
in the years ahead – both in increased viewing and a corresponding
increase in advertising revenues. But as often happens, old decision-
making habits lag far behind changing consumer patterns. It is our
task to close this gap as quickly as possible by providing the
advertising industry with data that accurately and credibly reflect
what is actually happening with viewing to pan-European channels.
Only then will advertising expenditures follow these actual viewing
patterns.
pan-European channels. This presents our industry with a pressing
sales and marketing challenge. We must act collectively – through
trade associations, joint research projects and new consortia – to
become more effective with the advertisers and their agencies to
convince them that today’s advertising budgets do not accurately
reflect these dramatic changes in viewing patterns.
One of the most critical elements that is within our control is the
research we use to validate viewing to pan-European or international
channels. In my view, today’s research tools are not up to the task.
In particular, the use of so-called “recall” studies – based on once-
yearly annual surveys – will never compare to the “ratings” currency
that prevail in Europe’s national markets.
Let me use one particularly graphic example of the problem involving
the Europe 2001 media study and its findings about the viewing of
the BBC World channel in the UK. Let me also emphasise that my
comments are not intended as a criticism either of BBCWorld or the
research organization that conducted the study, but dramatise the
inherent flaws in using recall surveys to measure TV viewing. The
Europe 2001 study reported:
• 42,000 people in the UK view BBCWorld on a daily basis;
• 196,000 people in the UK view BBC World on a weekly
basis;
• the UK viewing of BBC World represents 23% of BBC
World’s total European viewer-ship;
• the daily viewing of BBCWorld in the UK is reported to be
higher than any of the other pan-European news channels.
There is only one problem with these findings: BBC World is not
distributed in the UK! So these conclusions are totally implausible
and cannot represent any reality that is meaningful to an advertiser
or that allows an advertiser to validate viewing following an
advertising campaign. How could this happen? Some respondents
may, of course, have actually seen BBCWorld while travelling. But
certainly not on this scale. The most likely explanation is that BBC
World is part of the very strong “BBC” brand, with four other BBC
channels seen in the UK. So many UK respondents either confused
BBC World with another BBC service or, when questioned, just
instinctually responded by citing a strong known brand. This
illustrates what most media professionals acknowledge —“recall”
surveys cannot be relied on to give a reasonable measurement of
actual television viewing, and also demonstrate that “recall” surveys
artificially favour known brands regardless of actual viewing patterns.
Second, these surveys have great difficulty in obtaining participation
from affluent respondents. Let me again use Europe 2001 as an
example: In the Netherlands, of the “c-class” executives interviewed,
only 4 reported that they earned more than 225,000 Euros. In
Germany, Euro 2001 includes 9 “c-class” who earned more than
225,000 Euros (UK £147,000). Overall, out of 7100 respondents, a
mere 46 identified themselves as “c-class” (Chairman, President,
Chief Executive, Chief Operating Officer, CFO, Finance Director or
Treasurer), with incomes above 225,000 Euros. Indeed, Europe
2001’s report on the viewing habits of “c-class” individuals were
based on respondents with incomes that are simply not consistent
with high executive rank; more than 80% reported income below
150,000 Euros a year and more than 45% reported income even
below 75,000 Euros a year.
Based on this data, it is apparent that current methodology fails to
obtain the viewing habits of true top corporate executives. And the
overall samplings of upscale individuals are just too small to provide
any degree of confidence in the results. For its analysis of France’s
top income earners, Euro 2001’s sample of individuals earning more
than 225,000 Euros was only 13 people. Similarly, to estimate
The inaugural conference of the AIB
Manchester, UK, 30 April 2002