NewsLine Column: The Trials And Tribulations Of Media Research
Following the controversy surrounding the new BARB research contract and Kelvin MacKenzie’s recent attack on RAJAR’s diary system, Denise Turner, of Media Planning Group discusses the trials and tribulations of media research.
In the media industry 2002 has undoubtedly been the year of spotlight on the industry research currencies. They have between them been one of the main topics of discussion and the occupier of many column inches in the trade press for most weeks this year.
We started the year with the launch of the new BARB research contract. There was a general consensus that the new system was long overdue and that it was just what is needed because it contains huge improvements in the way audiences are measured. However, a lot of the talk about the new contract has not focused on the huge improvements but on concerns with how the implementation of the panel is going. The slow progress has been well documented over the course of the year.
The National Readership Survey has been having issues of its own. The introduction of the new double-screen CAPI technique has not gone down well with all parties and there has been talk of a feud between newspapers and magazines which could lead to divorce and separate surveys. This would have huge implications for how press is bought and sold.
And on the radio side, RAJAR has been fighting with BARB for the lion’s share of the headlines this year. The research methodology used by RAJAR has come under fire from a number of sources this year. The Wireless Group, led by Kelvin MacKenzie, has conducted its own survey into radio listening using electronic measurement amidst claims that revenue was being lost because smaller stations were not being accurately measured. And just this week a report was published by the US-owned investment bank and equity research specialist Robert W Baird, which attacked the RAJAR system as “fundamentally flawed”.
The numbers from these research surveys provide the numbers on which billions of pounds are traded every year. It is undoubtedly important to get it right! However, it also highlights the dilemmas which we face in delivering research which is credible and up-to-date.
Taking all the problems at face-value it would seem that industry media research in the UK is very sick indeed. However, we need to take a step back and think about what we are trying to achieve.
It is essentially a debate between currency and truth. On the one hand, the primary role of research is to provide a currency. Consistency in the numbers provided by research is necessary so that buyers and sellers can effectively negotiate and trade on both an annual and a regular daily basis.
On the other hand it is also important that the research is as good as it can be, providing truth in its audience measurement. Improvements need to be made and progress is necessary so that the research doesn’t fall apart at the seams.
Unfortunately consistency and improvements in the accuracy of measurement do not generally go hand-in-hand. Changes in research mean changes in numbers. When a new research panel is brought in it is hard to know what is a true increase or decrease and what is simply the result of the switch to the new system. In the case of RAJAR they are very sensibly conducting a series of lengthy tests to assess the impact of a new form of measurement on the numbers that come out and to smooth the transition to a new currency.
Unfortunately ensuring a smooth transition does not come speedily, which calls patience and pragmatism on the part of everyone using the research numbers to trade. We have to accept that we will always have to live with the tension between new developments in media and the time it takes to be able to measure them.
If you would like to respond or make further comment on this or any other NewsLine article, please email [email protected]
Subscribers can access previous articles by NewsLine columnists in the Columnist Archive – click button on left.