ABS-CBN vs. AGB Nielsen vs. GMA

Recent Post

Media and the Manila Hostage Crisis

---

The perfect case study

---

Media buying: Print up close (Part 2)

---

Media buying: Print up close

---

Media in the news

---

The current big brouhaha over the allegedly tampered ratings released by research company AGB Nielsen is a first in recent memory. But it certainly is not the very first such case of questioned research integrity. Some fifteen years ago, the Television Research Council (TVRC) was established in 1992 precisely to have an industry-accepted standard for television audience measurement. The year before that, the Radio Research Council (RRC) was formed. It was the trial balloon upon which the entire advertising and media (particularly broadcast) industries would base their decision whether or not we should have a single authority to govern broadcast media research (well, technically tw one for radio, and one for TV).

It is interesting to recall that one major reason the Radio Research Council was formed was precisely to address the many cases of survey manipulation that was plaguing radio research. The other reason was funding. But the bigger issue was really credibility. Three major industry organizations got together and formed the RRC were the PANA (Philippine Association of National Advertisers), KBP (Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas), and the 4A’s (Association of Accredited Advertising Agencies).

Before then, research companies would peddle their services to whoever needed such information. This meant the radio stations and networks themselves, as broadcast media is always bought and sold on the basis of ratings. But if a particular station was paying for the survey in its broadcast area, say Cebu for example, wouldn’t it be obviously self-serving? And in many cases it was. In fact there was a time when the KBP pulled out of the RRC and commissioned its own surveys independently of the RRC. Some say it did that because the RRC was too successful in preventing them from cheating. Needless to say, it was a total waste of time and money. The agencies simply ignored their surveys.

In the case of the TVRC, the bigger issue was funding. The advertisers and their agencies maintained their position that it should be the media that should pay for the surveys, inasmuch as it is what everybody uses as basis for buying and selling commercial media airtime. Of course the counter argument to this was, the networks produce and air shows, and they sell commercial spots in these shows. They are not in the business of creating ratings. Since only the advertisers and their agencies insist on using ratings, they should pay for it. It’s a never-ending cycle of arguments and counter-arguments. Ratings may have dwindled in recent years compared to what they were two or three decades ago, but television remains a major national pastime, hence the continued need for TV ratings.

The TVRC resolved that – at least in theory – by getting (again) the major industry sectors involved (PANA, the 4A’s, and this time around, only the TV members of the KBP) and making them part of the single governing authority on television research. Funding was provided by the genius idea of having the networks donate some of their unsold spots (of which they have a lot anyway) to the TVRC and the TVRC then sells these spots to the advertisers. And the money pays for the research. This was the formula tested earlier with the RRC.

The actual TV audience measurement service was bid out to the research companies. There were only two bidders. AGB beat ACNielsen and so AGB had the contract to provide the TV ratings for the next so many years. But in spite of having lost the bid, Nielsen continued to conduct their own surveys and sold their data to whoever wanted a “second opinion” with regard to TV ratings. Many of the bigger multinational agencies and advertisers subscribed to both.

Fast forward to 2007; with the collapse of the TVRC a couple of years ago, and the earlier merger of archrivals AGB and Nielsen, we have effectively evolved into a monopoly situation. And a monopoly, as experience has taught us in other industries, is rarely a good thing.

In fact, if ABS-CBN actually succeeds in stopping AGB from conducting the surveys, it may unwittingly be doing every other network a favor. Right now, all that ABS-CBN has is a temporary restraining order (TRO), but imagine if it becomes a permanent injunction? It would throw the entire industry into utter chaos. We will have a free-for-all situation where everybody and his brother will try to sell his programs on the basis of everything but ratings. Ahh… the cable channels would love that. Maybe even the recently relevant UHF stations like SBN and RJTV will start getting some ads.

Actually, it shouldn’t be a problem anymore after Solar transfers two of their cable channels to them in January. I wonder who will emerge as the real winner in that war? I’m talking about ABS-CBN’s decision to kick out the Solar channels from their subsidiary, Skycable. Since Solar moved them to the UHF channels, SkyCable is forced to air them without getting paid for it – because UHF are free-to-air channels and cable operators are required to carry them for free. But I digress. Going back to the chaos situation of having no ratings, I think it would be quite an interesting experience. Hey, maybe the government networks will finally get some attention? What a nice thought. I never imagined chaos could be so desirable.

I don’t have a ready solution to the current impasse among ABS-CBN, AGB, and GMA (and I suspect this little lovers’ quarrel will get a lot worse before it gets better), but I can’t help thinking; this situation would not have happened if we had two research companies conducting parallel surveys. I don’t suggest mere competition will prevent a criminal mind from tinkering with the panel homes of research companies, but if the outcome such an act could be easily sifted from an analysis of comparable data from another source, then the whole cheating exercise becomes pointless.

Let’s see if we can apply this concept to another popular Filipino pastime. Imagine if we had two completely independent counting systems for election returns? And if we required that they tally or we invalidate the elections, wouldn’t that make election cheating virtually impossible?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions advanced in this article is the author’s own, and may not necessarily represent the views and opinions of THE LOBBYiST, its editors, or its publishers.

Factual Errors? Email us at editorial@thelobbyist.biz.

Copyright 2007 The LOBBYiST. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the expressed permission of The LOBBYiST.