As we explained in our last post, editing rules can have a significant impact on ratings.
Computers using algorithms sift through panelist listening logs and make material decisions on what listening will and will not be included in the final numbers.
Nielsen as with Arbitron before it has never allowed broadcasters to see PPM panelist level data.
With diaries there is a physical record of what a listener wrote down, as well as notes on any edits that were done in preparing the diary for data entry.
A Nielsen client can review the diaries to see if the editing rules are being applied consistently and according to official procedures.
There is no equivalent with PPM.
Panelist logs are directly uploaded to Nielsen computers where upon the editing rules are applied and the numbers generated.
Nothing physical or reviewable exists within the PPM ecosystem. The whole process is a black box.
Which raises the question: How do we know that PPM editing is being applied consistently and according to official procedures?
The failures of software and algorithms are well documented. A day does not go by without some story of software errors creating havoc.
This author has reviewed thousands of completed diaries and found them to be full of editing errors, most small but some significant.
Can we believe that the man-made algorithms assigning credit to stations are any more accurate than the people crediting radio stations based on edits to Nielsen paper diaries?
The voltair controversy has proved that PPM is not flawless. Far from it.
PPM has flaws causing it to under-report listening. As a result, PPM distorts ratings and rankers.
Editing rules cannot fix a technology that has been shown to create winners and losers based on format and programming.
Nielsen didn’t create PPM, they inherited it.
But now PPM is a Nielsen product. The company has to own up to the fact that PPM is flawed and in need of a serious fix.
Nielsen also needs to create more transparency so that broadcasters have the ability to watch over the entire PPM process.
How else can Nielsen regain the confidence of broadcasters so they believe that ratings are as accurate as possible.
Enabling Nielsen clients to examine panelist level data would be a good place to start.
We just hope pulling back the curtain isn’t like the proverbial visit to a sausage making factory.
Comments