1National Association Of Broadcasters

19-21 August 2013

TAMS Information Sharing

2

We’ll share the following points with you in around 40 mins and then go into a Q&A session :

1. The background to the TAMS Audit2. How we went about doing the Audit3. What we discovered4. What we’re doing about it 5. AND, the way forward ………..

This is a joint SAARF / NAB presentation / where we are going to be discussing TAMS,

the TAMS Audit and the way forward….

1. Background to the Audit VH

2. Audit Report: Main Findings NAB

3. Way Forward NAB

4. Wrap up VH

5. Q&As All

3

Contents

• TAMS tender process in 2009• 3 global players were short listed• Contract awarded to Nielsen

• New contract included:

- Entire panel equipped with Unitam meters

- 92 channels measured via TV Events

- Panel expansion from current 1700 to 2500 reporting homes

- The classification tree of TV events library to be shared with the industry

4

Background to the Audit: Tender process

• Broadcasters had raised numerous concerns in the past around TAMS results.

• During the course of 2012 we saw quite dramatic shifts in the data, without clear explanations as to why this was happening.

• Things came to a head in August when LSM 5 was unbundled, shortly after the audience adjustment that occurred in July.

• For the most part, many of us did not understand the implications of unbundling and our (SAARF’s) communication of the changes and how it affected the ratings was also poorly handled.

• By September 2012, the SAARF Board received correspondence from the SABC (supported by the other broadcasters) and the AMF, formally requesting a TAMS Audit

5

Background to the Audit2012 Developments

• The SAARF Board decided to proceed with a full end to end external audit of the TAMS system

• A Board task team was appointed

• Audit brief developed

• A selection process

• In December 2012 the board appointed Centre d’Etudes des Supports de Publicité (CESP) to conduct the audit

6

SAARF Board Meeting:Audit

• The general methodology is sound and in line with international standard

• However……..

7

Audit Report: Main Findingsmethodology

1. Not keeping pace with the evolving South African population?

2. No balancing the panel by individual LSMs (as opposed to groups)

3. Not alerting the TAMS council to the partial measurement of homes. (Not all TV sets in home were measured).

4. Not informing the industry of the differences in technical measurement between the Eurometer and Unitam

5. Not fully reporting on the declining polling rate of the Eurometer (had dropped to 73%)

6. Not reporting to industry the increasing range of TAMS weights

Key concerns of the audit reportNAB & Task team consolidated findings (Cont…)

7. Not controlling and managing the number of RIM weighted variables

8. Not sufficiently alerting the TAMS council to the severely under-sampled LSM 1-4 before unbundling LSM 1-5

9. Not reporting on the declining efficiency of the panel

10. Poor longitudinal panel controls (eg long viewing sessions).

11. Not pro-actively managing the declining daily viewing

12. Ageing panel (some households on panel for more than 10 years).

Key concerns of the audit reportNAB & Task team consolidated findings

10

1. Panel balance, weighing, and resultant low efficiency levels – under-represented in lower LSMs, over-represented at the top (HD boost).

2. The ageing technology used in the panel – resulting in polling levels dropping off and not all TV sets being monitored

3. Panel management - length of time households served on the panel)

4. oversight and controls – longitudinal management, KPIs

Key Concerns: Identified by the NAB members and Audit Task Team

l

42%

16%13%

30%

• Proportionate sample is based on AMPS 2011B HHs, and actual households on November 2012 reporting HHS.

• Rural areas are under-sampled by half. • The other inhabitants’ strata are all slightly oversampled.• These discrepancies are corrected by the weighting.

Panel Profile: Community size

Source: November 20120 TAMS

49%

22%16%

14%

• We observe some gaps on the age.• These discrepancies are corrected by the weighting.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

8.4 7.8 7.8

21.217.6

19.3 18.0

4.56.8 7.9

21.1

14.0

19.0

26.7

Population Panel

%

Panel Profile: Age

Source: November 20120 TAMS

• These discrepancies are corrected by the weighting.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

18.019.4

24.8

12.4

9.3 9.6

6.5

3.7

14.8

33.3

14.5

10.2

12.511.1

Population Panel

%

LSM 4 LSM 5 LSM 6 LSM 7 LSM 8 LSM 9 LSM 10

Panel Profile: LSMs

Source: November 20120 TAMS

14

Summarizing of 71 days weighting reports

HHs 2011 HHs 2012 Ind. 2011 Ind. 2012

Weights

Average 8 575 8 006 8 688 8 320

Min of MIN 1 096 287 250 148

Max of MAX 99 000 99 000 99 000 99 000

Efficiency %

Average 44,6 43,9 54,6 44,5

Min 37,3 36,9 48,2 36,8

Max 53,8 54,7 60,6 50,8

Minimum and Maximum Weights

Source: November 20120 TAMS

• The panel imbalances has a direct result on the panel efficiency. It has meant the range of weights has been extreme.

Panel efficiency measures how hard the Rim weights must work to correct for sample imbalances. If the panel was perfectly representative of the audience it was measuring, everyone would carry the same weight (grossing up factor). The efficiency shows how much smaller the sample size of a perfectly representative panel could be to have the same error margins for the results from the panel.

The TAMS panel efficiency steadily declined from about 58% at the start of 2011 to below 40% at the start of 2013

• This was a result of:• the imbalanced sample - contracted to some extent.• the low polling rate of the Eurometer

• 70%+ efficiency levels is globally accepted and desirable

Panel Efficiency

• In 2012 alone the panel efficiency dropped from 48% to 37%.

• CESP identified two contributing factors to this sudden drop:

1. the under-sample of the lower end of market LSM 1-4. The unbundling of the LSM Rims in August 2012 revealed the extent to which LSM 1-4 was under represented, which had not been as evident previously when LSM 1-4 was grouped with LSM 5 in the weighting process

2. The 170 additional DStv HD homes. Whilst DStv’s own analysis did not support this, DStv suspended the boosted homes in May 2013

Panel Efficiency

• Approximately 20% of TV sets were not measured (i.e. exclusion of second TV set in households)

• Polling rate of Eurometers was dropping off (to a low of 73%)

Ageing Technology

• Not specified in the TAMS contract. • Each country has to decided its most appropriate turnover period. A

maximum of five years in-panel period is the most common agreement/practice.

• panellists’ participation for more than 10 years is rare.

Panel Management: Ageing panel

• Declining daily viewing levels

• Long viewing sessions

• No KPIs set

• Limited monitoring

Oversight and Controls:

20

What’s been done since the release of the Audit Report?

21

We would like to acknowledge the spirit in which Nielsen have embraced this process

and the huge progress they have made in a short period of time.

NAB/Nielsen Engagement

• Replaced all 700 Eurometers with Unitam technology by end March 2013, predominantly

out of the Lower LSM’s.◦ Polling now averaging 88% with a target of 90%◦ FTA homes polling better ◦ Now able to measure all second TV sets in home. TV sets monitored increased from

80% to 86%

• Unitam meters now constitute 60% of the Panel• Unitam technology can measure all broadcast platforms:

◦ Future Proof the panel◦ Prepared for Digital Migration. ◦ Multichannel satellite-ready (Freesat)

• Unitam technology operates independently, does not require co-operation from

broadcasters.• TVM5 meters will be converted to Unitam technology 2013/2014 to

standardise types

22

Eurometers replaced with Unitams

• Increased sample in LSM 4: Stabilised fluctuating viewing in the lower

LSM’s• Introduced forced Panel churn:

◦ Switched some ageing Households (On the panel 10 years+)◦ Replaced older viewers 50+ on the panel with younger ones in Lower LSM’s,

improving the younger profile

All the above better balanced the sample which has already improved

viewing in Lower LSM’s, in KZN and Eastern Cape and given Nguni

speaking a larger sample

Household training and internal checks have been implemented to monitor:o Irregular viewingo Better button pushingo Logging in of guests

23

Further Panel Implementation

• Pollux Recruitment Model implementation complete allowing for total recruitment from

AMPS, the Establishment Model for TAMS

• IBIS, a Quality Control software tool that interfaces with Pollux is fully implemented.

• Each household is included in a coincidental check once per annum with monthly

updates.

• A set of KPI’s are being delivered to the TAMS technical committee weekly and will be

further refined.

24

Panel Quality Control Measures

Proportionate sample is based on AMPS 2012A individuals, and actual household on June/July reporting individuals

• Rural areas are under-sampled by 60%. • The other inhabitants’ strata are all slightly oversampled• Disproportionate sample cells are corrected by the weighting.

Source: June/July 2013TAMS

Panel Profile: Community Size

We observe some gaps on the age. Disproportionate sample cells are corrected by the weighting.

Source: June/July 2013TAMS

Panel Profile: Age

. Proportionate sample is based on AMPS 2012A individuals, and actual household on

June/July reporting individuals Disproportionate sample cells are corrected by the weighting.

Source: June/July 2013TAMS

Panel Profile: LSMs

29

Minimum and Maximum Weights

Summarizing of 71 days weighting reports for 2011/2012 Data set for 2013 (June/July)

  HHs 2011 HHs 2012 HHs 2013 Ind. 2011 Ind. 2012 Ind. 2013

Weights            Average 8 575 8 006 8 000 8 688 8 320 6 721Min of MIN 1 096 287 1065 250 148 376

Max of MAX 99 000 99 000 31 830 99 000 99 000 99 000

Efficiency %            

Average 44,6 43,9 71,1 54,6 44,5 57,2Min 37,3 36,9 68,8 48,2 36,8 53,9Max 53,8 54,7 72,8 60,6 50,8 59,1

2011/2012: Selected 71 days2013: June and July only

Source: June/July 2013TAMS

Panel Expansion

• Increase the TAMS panel to 2500 reporting households as quickly as possible

• Ensure that the panel balance is correct and maintained:

◦ International panel experts have been appointed by the NAB to provide best recommendations regarding the sample design and weighting for the panel expansion, taking into account the findings of the recent CESP audit.

◦ This work is already under way.

◦ The panel expansion is planned for completion by year end

The Way Forward

NAB Television Objectives

• Ensure uninterrupted continuation of TAMS data

• Ensure the on-going integrity of the data.

• An expanded more robust panel to be established as quickly as possible

• Establish a tripartite TAMS contract to govern the process until the NAB resignation from SAARF takes effect in December 2014. Contract will be direct between NAB and Nielsen for the remainder of the term thereafter:

◦ Broadcasters will continue their funding contributions and commitment to SAARF until December 2014.

◦ Thereafter, a new research structure will take over the TAMS research functions

The Way Forward

National Association Of Broadcasters

32

Wrapping up