Bettina Hollings, TV3 program director, once summed up the ratings unforgettably, saying: ÒRatings are a fiction we have all agreed to believe in.Ó Fact or farce, New ZealandÕs Peoplemeter system of measuring ratings has been criticised by a range of observers and industry spokespeople. The latest, most trenchant and comprehensive criticism comes from Geoff Lealand, author and head of Waikato UniversityÕs Film & Television Studies. He makes no apology for his strong language, and in a paper for the New Zealand Journal of Media Studies, he explained why this was necessary. ÒThe measurement of television audiences as based on Peoplemeter readings is now the primary form of currency exchange between producers, funders and broadcasters Ñ measuring size, value and success . . . it is an exchange of little more than foolÕs gold, and the passing of dud cheques.Ó Lealand added that the Òbrutal truthÓ was that viewing choices of the great mass of the New Zealand viewing public (potentially 3,128,000 citizens aged 5 years or more) were irrelevant to the process of measuring audiences for television. ÒThe only viewers who matter are those who live in 440 homes, scattered throughout New Zealand, giving temporary accommodation to a People-meter on top of their television set. These households comprise approximately 1,050 individuals, or about 0.034% of the New Zealand viewing public.Ó Lealand said it was these individuals, pushing or not pushing their individual buttons on the Peoplemeter handset, who created and delivered something called the New Zealand television audience. He also disputed claims that the viewing panel was a fair representation of the viewing behaviour of New Zealanders. Because the identity of People-meter households is confidential, there was no way of checking these claims. In the US, the major networks are all unhappy with the Nielsen measurement methods, according to research cited by Lealand. In New Zealand, thereÕs similar disquiet ranging from people like Lindsay Mouat, president of the Association of Advertisers, to programmers at TV3. Lealand quoted TV3Õs programmers as saying that having just four extra viewers in one region watching their Home Improvement on one night could make a significant difference in ratings. Peoplemeters, says Lealand, do not tell us whether people are watching television. ÒThey enable a sample of New Zealanders to report their proximity to a television set which is on Ñ or more specifically, their presence in a room in which a television is on. ÒThe panel pushes its buttons as they come and go. But there is no way of really knowing what is happening in these homes.Ó Like others, Lealand believes most of the audience are engaged in some other activity while the set is on. He says Peoplemeter technology can answer questions like who in the sample was watching, what they were watching and for how long. But he believes the list of questions they cannot answer is much, much longer Ñ and it addresses qualitative data of value to marketers. Lealand says though ratings data are quantitative, they are read and misinterpreted as qualitative data to make judgments about: l the success or failure of single programs (mostly local), TV channels and careers l what gets funded and screened, where programs are scheduled and how long they stay there l discouraging experimentation and encouraging cloning. AC Nielsen executives were unavailable for comment, but they will be preparing an answer to LealandÕs analysis.
Have something to say on this? Share your views in the comments section below. Or if you have a news story or tip-off, drop us a line at adnews@yaffa.com.au
Sign up to the AdNews newsletter, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for breaking stories and campaigns throughout the day.
