In the past, I’ve mentioned a couple of interesting items raised by Evan Shapiro, who has a Substack called Media War and Peace. While going through old email, I read his column from January 27th titled “Measure for Measure” with a subtitle of “Nielsen FINALLY Enters the 21st Century”. The topic was one I’ve covered here before, which is the use of big data in the Nielsen video ratings.
His last paragraph caught my eye:
My proposal to the industry: Fold the MRC.
This is an organization formed the same year the original Star Trek launched. The last few years have proven, emphatically, that in the digital era, the MRC’s useful life has come to an end. The only accreditation that really matters now is the one you give, based on the trust your partners earn and the credibility they can prove.
I’m going to hold my thoughts on Evan’s comment until next week. If you don’t know about the MRC, you should. Here’s the background:
MRC refers to the Media Rating Council, an organization I’ve mentioned before in passing, but this column will help you understand the group’s role. If you want to do your own review of their material, check out www.mediaratingcouncil.org. Just a warning: the word “dry” doesn’t begin to describe MRC materials.
Evan is nearly correct in that the MRC was formed in 1964 (two years before the original Star Trek). It was christened as the Broadcast Rating Council, changing to the Electronic Media Rating Council and eventually the Media Rating Council. Even an organization like MRC must consider branding.
MRC exists because of Congress. In the early ‘60s, Congressman Oren Harris of Arkansas held hearings on ratings (the Harris Committee). I haven’t read the material in years, but apparently, there were companies out there “creating” ratings for TV and radio, not based on surveys, but made up.
The committee’s conclusion was essentially “Clean up your house or we’ll do it for you”. Perhaps some of you would prefer a federal Department of Ratings, but the MRC (as the BRC) was started to ensure that audience measurement met a minimum level of quality. The Minimum Standards document, with revisions over the past 60+ years, remains the basis of the MRC’s remit.
Any company that uses media measurement can become a member. Only entities (companies, associations, etc.) can be members; individuals cannot. There are some unusual situations where a company may be both a buyer and supplier. For example, Amazon, Google, and Meta (Facebook) are MRC members but also have MRC-audited services. They can review audits and vote on other services but are not involved with the deliberations about their own offerings. Companies that are only suppliers (Nielsen, comScore, etc.) cannot be MRC members.
MRC’s role is to “accredit” services. In other words, based on a (very) thorough confidential audit by an independent auditing firm, a review by MRC members, followed by votes, that the service in question meets the MRC’s minimum standards. Subcommittees exist for different media (there is an MRC Radio subcommittee) and the subcommittees review each audit and vote first.
Whether the vote is up or down, the entire membership, referred to as the Board of Directors, then votes. Each member (an entity can hold multiple memberships) is automatically on the Board of Directors (currently around 170) and has one vote per membership. Positive votes confer MRC accreditation and the ability to use the MRC double checkmark logo on the product.
Measurement suppliers don’t have to apply for MRC accreditation, but many on both sides of the table consider the double checkmarks a necessity to be a serious player. At a minimum, going through the audit process is proof that a service wants to be in the “big time”.
Full disclosure: I’ve represented companies at MRC and presented numerous times to MRC committees during my time at Arbitron/Nielsen. I brought Clear Channel (now iHeart) in as an MRC member in the mid ‘90s and later represented Cumulus at MRC.
The audits themselves can be lengthy. Audits of PPM or the diary service run into hundreds of pages although from personal experience, much of the document is repetitive. When I was at Arbitron, I’d see an advance copy and any findings of “violations” of MRC minimum standards were sore points. I would meet with the auditors to discuss and question their findings and there are others who can vouch for a raised voice and the use on my part of various words that you can’t say on broadcast media. The audits were annual affairs which I compared to a colonoscopy, although the auditors didn’t always appreciate being likened to proctologists.
MRC’s operations are funded entirely by member dues. MRC is the contractor for the audit services (usually with Ernst and Young, but other audit firms are doing MRC work as well) although bills are sent to the firms being audited.
At one time, I had responsibility for the audits at Arbitron and even then, my annual audit budget was around $2 million. Since we’re beyond the statute of limitations, I can tell you that I always padded it and Fred and Paul Jacobs can confirm that the MRC audit budget paid for The Bedroom Project and Goin’ Mobile, two wonderful industry research studies funded by Arbitron. That budget line for audits didn’t include two full time staffers whose sole role was working with the outside auditors.
The MRC has been headed since 2000 by George Ivie, a former partner at Ernst and Young who was in charge of the MRC audits back in the ‘90s. George has been an excellent leader for MRC taking the group into the digital world and growing the membership and scope of the group over the past quarter century. You’ll hear nothing but good things about George from me as well as most everyone who has ever worked with him.
There are other staff members as well, all with solid experience. The key person though is Albana Gashi. She was there before George’s arrival and keeps the trains running on time.
So, what about Evan’s comment about the MRC folding up its tent? My thoughts will hold until next time because without some context about the MRC, any comments won’t mean much to you.
Let’s meet again next week.
