Nielsen Begins Layoffs That Will Reduce Its Global Workforce By 9%.

[davideduardo]

Correct, but the differences between ad-supported and subscription have not been brought into this discussion.

And, while subscription services are growing, the focus of this board is on radio, both OTA and streams.

Nielsen's problem is the growth of subscription services that don't need their information.

As far as the ad industry, paid services that carry no advertising are of no interest; they are, in fact, an obstruction to the delivery of messages. For broadcast radio which, today, is prohibited from charging for program delivery by scrambling or encoding, today's problems are retaining usage while a significant portion of the population opts for paid, ad-free services.

In the process of continuing such services, radio needs data that validates advertiser spending.

 

[TheBigA]

And, while subscription services are growing, the focus of this board is on radio, both OTA and streams.

And as I've pointed out, there IS subscription radio that isn't covered by Nielsen. Lots of it. SiriusXM, for example,

Also EMF. They may subscribe for a month, but most of the EMF stations don't subscribe, and they replace stations that did.

As far as the ad industry, paid services that carry no advertising are of no interest;

Not to the ad industry, but if you're Nielsen, and all you do is provide data to advertisers, there's a growing media business that doesn't need the service you provide. That reflects on the subject of this thread. Why is Nielsen laying off staff? Because the business of ad-supported media has a new competitor that doesn't need what they do.

A year ago, we saw the demise of BDS. Why? Because most of it was built around broadcast radio. We may be seeing the same thing affecting Nielsen for the same reason.

 

[davideduardo]

And as I've pointed out, there IS subscription radio that isn't covered by Nielsen. Lots of it. SiriusXM, for example,

But it is not ad supported except for a few talk channels. "Radio" has always supported ratings with the main reason being for ad sales.

Also EMF. They may subscribe for a month, but most of the EMF stations don't subscribe, and they replace stations that did.

And they subscribe to a select number of stations for tracking, but not for ad sales.

Not to the ad industry, but if you're Nielsen, and all you do is provide data to advertisers, there's a growing media business that doesn't need the service you provide. That reflects on the subject of this thread. Why is Nielsen laying off staff? Because the business of ad-supported media has a new competitor that doesn't need what they do.

Okay, then that is a Nielsen problem and not a radio problem. The services needed by subscription and listener supported audio have to do with "customers" who pay or support the audio product itself. They do not sell their audience to a third party and that is the function of Nielsen or any other audience quantification and analysis service.

The paid services know how they are doing through subscriptions. Commercial ad supported radio depends on outside measurement to make their case to advertisers.

A year ago, we saw the demise of BDS. Why? Because most of it was built around broadcast radio. We may be seeing the same thing affecting Nielsen for the same reason.

We saw the demise of The Pulse, Hooper, Mediastat, Audits and Surveys, Burke, Birch and others because the market has not supported more than one provider for about 50 years. Same with music monitoring: just one too many for a limited market.

 

[TheBigA]

But it is not ad supported except for a few talk channels. "Radio" has always supported ratings with the main reason being for ad sales.

Always? Really? There has been non-commercial radio going back to the 1920s. The original KDKA didn't run ads. Ad supported radio began with WEAF. But at that same time, you had non-commercial stations such as WHA and WOI.

Okay, then that is a Nielsen problem and not a radio problem.

That's what this thread is about. What's the first word in the subject line?

 

[Kelly A]

I've heard rumblings from both radio and TV groups that several are seriously looking into using exclusively streaming data for pitches because it's gotten to the point where streaming favors their stations and the sample is that much higher. Paying for Nielsen numbers when damn near free numbers that average as more complimentary is a no-brainer. That and agencies are already used to seeing online analytics, so it's not like the old days when Google or other analytics were considered some sort of flash in the pan.

 

[davideduardo]

Always? Really? There has been non-commercial radio going back to the 1920s.

And that is when, around 1929 to 1930, advertisers began finding ways to measure the effectiveness of radio. Networks bought ratings to show to advertisers. So saying that "radio always supported ratings" is accurate since, as soon as audience measurement became available, CBS and RCA began supporting them... encouraging them in fact.

The original KDKA didn't run ads. Ad supported radio began with WEAF.

Actually, nearly all the significant and earliest stations ran ads... they were simply "ads" for Westinghouse or some insurance company in Nashville or a car dealer or a seed dealer in the Great Plains or a department store or, of course, a newspaper.

World's Largest Store or World's Greatest Newspaper were not just idle statements.

But at that same time, you had non-commercial stations such as WHA and WOI.

That does not negate the fact that ratings were created to support commercial radio... and in the earlier days of the commercial radio era, most commercial radio was made up of network stations.

(And it is interesting that neither of those stations got fulltime licenses!)

That's what this thread is about. What's the first word in the subject line?

And Nielsen does audio ratings in many countries. Everywhere there is a demand to measure all forms of audio, not just that delivered by over-the-air RF energy.

Everywhere the delivery and scope of ratings is changing. Even in Canada, where broadcasters own their own ratings company, they quit giving away free ratings data!

 

[TheBigA]

Actually, nearly all the significant and earliest stations ran ads... they were simply "ads" for Westinghouse or some insurance company in Nashville or a car dealer or a seed dealer in the Great Plains or a department store or, of course, a newspaper.

But they didn't use ratings services in the way they do now. Bill Paley was one of the first who recognized the importance of quantifying the audience in a scientific way. For the other stations you mention, it was simply a form if branding. Branding can be a form of advertising, but in less direct ways. Non commercial and subscription radio does branding, but it doesn't do advertising, so it doesn't need Nielsen.

That does not negate the fact that ratings were created to support commercial radio...

I'm not negating anything. I'm just pointing out that there's a decrease in the customer base for things Nielsen does. That's simply a fact, and could be the reason why the company is cutting 9% of its staff.

 

[davideduardo]

But they didn't use ratings services in the way they do now. Bill Paley was one of the first who recognized the importance of quantifying the audience in a scientific way. For the other stations you mention, it was simply a form if branding. Branding can be a form of advertising, but in less direct ways. Non commercial and subscription radio does branding, but it doesn't do advertising, so it doesn't need Nielsen.

But remember that advertising in the later 20's and 30's was far less agressive than today. No comparitive ads vilifying the competiton. No "Pepsi Challenge". Far less puffery. So those mentions on business-owned stations were ads back in that era.

I'm not negating anything. I'm just pointing out that there's a decrease in the customer base for things Nielsen does. That's simply a fact, and could be the reason why the company is cutting 9% of its staff.

With consolidation, more group contracts with discounts, far fewer small owners. And more and more stations going to EMF and the like, making the field have fewer acres.

 

[radiofan2023]

I've heard rumblings from both radio and TV groups that several are seriously looking into using exclusively streaming data for pitches because it's gotten to the point where streaming favors their stations and the sample is that much higher. Paying for Nielsen numbers when damn near free numbers that average as more complimentary is a no-brainer. That and agencies are already used to seeing online analytics, so it's not like the old days when Google or other analytics were considered some sort of flash in the pan.

Is it like this free analytics service for podcasts?

OP3: The Open Podcast Prefix Project

 

[boombox4]

So, what happens when streaming services decide to become more and more ad-based? They'll just stick with their internal metrics, right? Will they need a company like Neilsen?

When streaming services like Apple pay out 50% in royalty fee costs, and other services like Pandora and Spotify have yet to prove they are indeed profitable, more and more advertising is undoubtedly on the way on those services, even for those who pay for their subscriptions.

When the big national cable channels began to roll out in the 1970s, one of the selling points was "no commercials! That's one of the things you're paying for!"

We all see how that promise worked out.

 

[TheBigA]

So, what happens when streaming services decide to become more and more ad-based? They'll just stick with their internal metrics, right? Will they need a company like Neilsen?

It sort of depends on the advertisers. If they're satisfied with the metrics they're getting, then that will be the future. At the same time, the record labels don't like free streaming, and are trying to make it more expensive for streaming companies to do ad-supported streaming. So there are outside factors to consider.

 

[davideduardo]

So, what happens when streaming services decide to become more and more ad-based? They'll just stick with their internal metrics, right? Will they need a company like Neilsen?

They will need more precise metrics, which "subscriber household" won't provide.

Here is an example of a service "in development":

OP3: The Open Podcast Prefix Project "The Open Podcast Prefix Project (OP3) is a free and open-source podcast prefix analytics service committed to open data and listener privacy."

You will note that it can't get user demographics unless the user volunteers them.

When streaming services like Apple pay out 50% in royalty fee costs, and other services like Pandora and Spotify have yet to prove they are indeed profitable, more and more advertising is undoubtedly on the way on those services, even for those who pay for their subscriptions.

But the moment ads appear, subscribers will threaten to defect. And then they can offer an ad-free version but for a higher price.

When the big national cable channels began to roll out in the 1970s, one of the selling points was "no commercials! That's one of the things you're paying for!"

If you are talking about HBO, that is a paid service. And it was conceptualized early in the 70's but was not a factor for quite a few years.

Wikipedia "HBO is the oldest and longest continuously operating subscription television service in the United States. HBO pioneered modern pay television upon its launch on November 8, 1972: it was the first television service to be directly transmitted and distributed to individual cable television systems, and was the conceptual blueprint for the "premium channel", pay television services sold to subscribers for an extra monthly fee that does not accept traditional advertising and present their programming without editing for objectionable material."

CNN and MTV began in 1980 and 1981. WTCG in Atlanta started rolling out in 1976, but it took it several years to get a decent number of cable systems, most of which were independent and not big multi-market cable providers. "On December 17, 1976, at 1:00 pm, WTCG Channel 17's signal was beamed via satellite to its four cable systems in Grand Island, Nebraska; Newport News, Virginia; Troy, Alabama; and Newton, Kansas."

None of the free services promised "no commercials". HBO was a premium service with a monthly fee and no ads. It was limited early on by poor cable penetration, particularly in larger markets that already had a variety of free TV stations.

 

[boombox4]

But the moment ads appear, subscribers will threaten to defect. And then they can offer an ad-free version but for a higher price.

If you are talking about HBO, that is a paid service. And it was conceptualized early in the 70's but was not a factor for quite a few years.


None of the free services promised "no commercials". HBO was a premium service with a monthly fee and no ads. It was limited early on by poor cable penetration, particularly in larger markets that already had a variety of free TV stations.

RE: HBO and other premium channels of the time: As mentioned in the Wiki you quoted, the idea was the subscriber would pay for no commercials. By the time Cable kicked in in the 1980s, the concept of the premium channel had changed. There were plenty of ads.

It's the same with streaming services. They can't keep operating with 50% of their revenues going to royalty costs. So even the paid subscriptions will have to include another revenue stream, i.e. commercials, which I believe most subscribed streams include to a certain extent. As streaming transforms from the dominant music and content consumption model to the ONLY one, where are subscribers going to go when they threaten to defect? Pirate sites, perhaps.

Or FM radio. Keeping the medium alive for a decade longer. And that would also keep AM alive for the immigrant communities, many of whom (I'm guessing) probably can't afford many paid subscriptions.

The local (and regional) Punjabi stations, for example, don't just cater to older demos. A LOT of the music they play is Hindi and Punjabi hip-hop pop and rap. Obviously their demo skews younger then your average AM listener. If FM remains vital (and packed, like in my metro), that leaves AM for the immigrant and other ethnic populations.

If streaming decides to jack up the rates, free is always a preferable option. Radio is still free. I think BigA mentioned that in one of these threads last year, that FM radio's free nature works in its favor against streaming.

Just speculating here, obviously. I don't claim to be an expert on this, and I have no crystal ball.

 

[DOB]

RE: HBO and other premium channels of the time: As mentioned in the Wiki you quoted, the idea was the subscriber would pay for no commercials. By the time Cable kicked in in the 1980s, the concept of the premium channel had changed. There were plenty of ads.

It's the same with streaming services. They can't keep operating with 50% of their revenues going to royalty costs. So even the paid subscriptions will have to include another revenue stream, i.e. commercials, which I believe most subscribed streams include to a certain extent. As streaming transforms from the dominant music and content consumption model to the ONLY one, where are subscribers going to go when they threaten to defect? Pirate sites, perhaps.

Or FM radio. Keeping the medium alive for a decade longer. And that would also keep AM alive for the immigrant communities, many of whom (I'm guessing) probably can't afford many paid subscriptions.

The local (and regional) Punjabi stations, for example, don't just cater to older demos. A LOT of the music they play is Hindi and Punjabi hip-hop pop and rap. Obviously their demo skews younger then your average AM listener. If FM remains vital (and packed, like in my metro), that leaves AM for the immigrant and other ethnic populations.

If streaming decides to jack up the rates, free is always a preferable option. Radio is still free. I think BigA mentioned that in one of these threads last year, that FM radio's free nature works in its favor against streaming.

Just speculating here, obviously. I don't claim to be an expert on this, and I have no crystal ball.

It's quite the advantage based upon the fees, probably wouldn't want those going higher.
Do lots of People who vote alot in like local and state elections listen to local Country, News Talk, and other contemporary terrestrial radio stations, still? They worked out local ads syncing?

 

[Kelly A]

Or FM radio. Keeping the medium alive for a decade longer. And that would also keep AM alive for the immigrant communities, many of whom (I'm guessing) probably can't afford many paid subscriptions.

But you assume programming on AM is attracting new listeners, even immigrants, as the old batch ages out. I don't believe there is any data to back up that assumption.

The local (and regional) Punjabi stations, for example, don't just cater to older demos. A LOT of the music they play is Hindi and Punjabi hip-hop pop and rap.

Again, just because some well-heeled immigrant owns a radio station and plays hip-hop, doesn't mean there is a large enough audience, nor certainly advertiser support, to keep the lights on in the long haul.

If streaming decides to jack up the rates, free is always a preferable option. Radio is still free. I think BigA mentioned that in one of these threads last year, that FM radio's free nature works in its favor against streaming.

Streaming will never replace FM radio, but streaming isn't going away either. GenZ doesn't seek out radio, it might just be there in the car. After that, it's all streaming.

 

[davideduardo]

But you assume programming on AM is attracting new listeners, even immigrants, as the old batch ages out. I don't believe there is any data to back up that assumption.

In fact, many immigrants from Latin America come from places where AM is dead or nearly gone. Mexico moved about 80% of AMs to FM, and a few AM replacements are mostly community stations, often in rural areas and not in Spanish.

In El Salvador, nearly every remaining AM is evangelical Christian. None get ratings. Salvadoreños who get to the USA don't look on the AM band if they even know what it is.

Again, just because some well-heeled immigrant owns a radio station and plays hip-hop, doesn't mean there is a large enough audience, nor certainly advertiser support, to keep the lights on in the long haul.

We saw that with the attempt to do a Black format on 1580 in LA... two years and the sale has not closed and the station has no ratings.

Streaming will never replace FM radio, but streaming isn't going away either. GenZ doesn't seek out radio, it might just be there in the car. After that, it's all streaming.

And nobody yet has a business model that works for streaming ad-supported audio.

 

[TheBigA]

And nobody yet has a business model that works for streaming ad-supported audio.

It depends. If the streaming company also is an electronics manufacturer or an online retailer, then they have a business model.

That's what broadcasting needs: Another revenue stream.

 

[Kelly A]

Time to sell those Nielsen shares.

 

[davideduardo]

Time to sell those Nielsen shares.

Claritas, ArtsAI Are Kicking The Tires On An Audio Measurement Service.

Could the combination of marketing research company Claritas and the ad tech company ArtsAI produce a new solution for measuring radio and audio listening? The two companies, which are uniting in an acquisition announced last week, are having discussions about it, a Claritas exec said last week...

www.insideaudiomarketing.com