Do you spend any time on LinkedIn? Much like Facebook, you have to put up with a lot of chaff to find the wheat. Between the “congratulations” notes and the “I’m so inspired” cheerleading for something the poster’s company has announced, for me, LinkedIn’s value has declined. Nielsen has increased its LinkedIn usage, and I’m not sure it’s for the best.
I’ve seen more people “thrilled” on LinkedIn than at a theme park roller coaster. Maybe you’ll be inspired and thrilled by this week’s column or at least send along some “congratulations”!
I peruse LinkedIn occasionally and while I don’t follow companies per se, the fact that I’ve worked for some directs their releases to me which leads to this week’s topic: Should a referee have an opinion, or at least, should the ref publicly state a view? In this case, my reference is to Nielsen.
Diversity or DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) is a hot topic. I’m not going to offer my view, but rather question whether a company like Nielsen, the arbiter of audience measurement, should publicly take sides.
When I used to talk to automotive people who were unfamiliar with Arbitron and then Nielsen, I used the Switzerland analogy. As a neutral party, the company didn’t really care who won, rather the goal was to give the best representation of what the public was listening to or viewing. Of course, using the umpire or referee metaphor worked as well.
If you review Nielsen’s posts on LinkedIn, you may begin to wonder. A recent post celebrated Pride Month. In and of itself, this isn’t troubling as many companies are doing the same thing. However, when I read “Diverse stories in media are needed—and should be celebrated”, to my way of thinking, that’s taking a side. Is it Nielsen’s role to make suggestions to content providers?
That wasn’t the first time. A week prior to that post, Nielsen told us “There needs (sic) to be more South-Asian women in lead recurring roles on television!”. Earlier, this was posted: “Representation is not a trend! Hmong actor and writer Doua Moua, shares the importance of listening to consumers and telling diverse stories that are not always deemed popular.” That seems odd.
If it’s important to listen to consumers, why give them something that’s not popular? And then earlier on, the company proclaimed “There needs to be an increase in Native American lead roles!”
Posts like these can easily lead to unfounded conspiracy theories. If Nielsen is suggesting particular content, can we count on Nielsen to be neutral in terms of their data collection procedures?
Are they willing to release data showing that content providers who don’t agree with their public DEI stances have large audiences? The recent controversies involving Bud Light and Target suggest that not everyone agrees with Nielsen’s corporate views. It’s not a big leap for someone with ulterior motives to complain that Nielsen’s motives are not entirely pure.
Before anyone thinks I’m impugning Nielsen’s output based on their external DEI stances, let me be very clear. I don’t believe that for a minute. In my time at Arbitron (prior to the Nielsen takeover), we were accused of many transgressions, but even when the data collection operation made a mistake (very rare), it was never done with a bias.
I don’t think Nielsen is any different and while I have issues with some of their actions, “rigging” results has never crossed my mind. If I wanted to call them out, it would be over issues such as reneging on fully implementing an announced PPM sample increase, the recent RIFs at Nielsen Audio while other Nielsen people were attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland (perhaps Nielsen has a way to end the war in Ukraine), and the slow progress on Nielsen One with no mention of how radio will benefit from this initiative.
At Arbitron, I don’t remember the company taking public or even internal stances on controversial issues although I may have missed something. When Nielsen took over, the company sent ice cream trucks to Nielsen facilities to celebrate the Supreme Court’s Obergefell (gay marriage) decision in 2015.
Unfortunately, I was out of town and so missed the free ice cream (word was that it was very good), but the action struck me as odd although as an internal stand, that’s up to the company.
It’s not a matter of whether one agrees or disagrees with these sentiments. There are some companies and many organizations and governmental bodies that take public stances on any number of substantive issues, many of which echo the Nielsen statements.
However, I can’t think of many that represent themselves as neutral unbiased parties and then take sides on matters directly affecting or criticizing the industries that require neutrality.
Perhaps Nielsen should limit their public pronouncements and let others handle the controversy.
Let’s meet again next week.
