Last week, I wrote about what the Media Rating Council (MRC) does based on a comment by Evan Shapiro from this past January: My proposal to the industry: Fold the MRC.
This is an organization formed in 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.
Again, his comment was in the context of the MRC’s accreditation of Nielsen’s new Big Data + Panel measurement for video. His point was to welcome Nielsen into the 21st century. Evan rarely says much about radio/audio, so he didn’t mention that Nielsen Audio is still firmly planted in the 20th century with no apparent plans to move forward in time.
If you read last week’s column, you now know more about how the MRC operates than most people in the business, but fully understanding the workings of that organization would require multiple pages, and the term “TMI” would come to your mind well before you would finish reading the piece. Nonetheless, the combination of researchers and auditors, while deadly if you were planning an invitation list for a party, is essential and especially so for radio and audio.
The industry needs a watchdog, preferably one that is grounded in a set of broad standards that, like the US Constitution, are subject to interpretation and can be considered in the light of the research world as it stands today.
When MRC began as the BRC in 1964, television in most markets consisted of three network affiliates and an “educational” station (PBS didn’t start until 1967). Some big markets had an independent station struggling on the UHF band because most TVs couldn’t receive it (the All Channel Receiver Act was passed by Congress in 1962). For radio, most markets had a bunch of AM stations that were serious competitors, while FM was this new band that your car radio or transistor radio didn’t receive.
Also, people weren’t surveyed constantly. If Nielsen or Arbitron picked your household to be part of a survey (all diaries for radio but some meters along with diaries for TV), it was an honor. Response rates were high as were the usage numbers. A network TV show typically needed a 20 rating to survive…that’s 20 percent of US TV households watching it. In 2025, only the Super Bowl can beat a 20 rating.
Today’s media landscape is incredibly complex. Just consider your own media usage, and if you think that’s messy, your kids are probably far worse. As a result, many audience measurement systems have multiple sources (Nielsen’s Big Data + Panel, for one) and require modeling.
Most users follow the advice from 1939 in The Wizard of Oz: “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”. If there are estimates, sellers sell and buyers buy, or in other cases, media offer up advertising opportunities for auction and an algorithm buys them. But do we have any idea of what the individual behind the curtain is doing?
Further, how many media people, even researchers, have the credentials to understand what is going on behind the curtain? There is intellectual property behind that curtain so any service can only say so much. Any time you hear the word “transparent”, ask for all of that company’s intellectual property. They’ll say “no” and you can then ask for their definition of “transparency”. What they meant was “open”.
Yours truly has worked for stations, groups, a trade association, as well as two different rating services and I’m not unique in that respect. If you put your intellectual property out there for all to see, someone may use it elsewhere. Except for Nielsen, do you want to be involved in a lawsuit?
That’s where the MRC process comes in. The audit firms can look at the intellectual property without giving it away. The audit reports can tell in a general sense if the system being used works as it’s designed and if it meets the MRC Minimum Standards. The MRC staff’s job is to work with services and they have a level of expertise that no individual company can match. Sure, a subscribing company could hire a consultant with the right skills to review the systems, but the vendor is likely to say no. Besides, could you get a consultant who is that good for less than the cost of an annual MRC membership? No way.
For radio, it’s not so much the audit report as the PPM and diary systems have hardly changed in years and the new three-minute rule doesn’t count. But the value is that Nielsen must meet with the MRC Radio Subcommittee as requested by the MRC staff, giving members the opportunity to grill them on the results of the audit as well as future plans, and to do so in a private setting. I’ve harangued Arbitron and Nielsen multiple times in private MRC meetings as well as occasionally supporting their stances. Having worked for the company, I’ve also been the “ haranguee”.
It’s been over five years since I last attended an MRC meeting. If I called George Ivie today and asked him to update me on private MRC Radio subcommittee discussions for this column, he’d (correctly) say no and would probably tell me that I should know better.
Evan’s a provocateur, and suggesting that the MRC fold is provocative. But “trust” and “credibility” are tough when the systems are so complicated and so many dollars are at stake. I think the more appropriate approach is the Reagan Doctrine, “Trust but verify”. Without verification, it’s hard to have “trust” and “credibility”.
Let’s meet again next week.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. To stay updated, sign up for our newsletters and get the latest information delivered straight to your inbox.
