by Dave Zornow
Published in Cable Avails magazine, April 1993
Cable reps who want to "level the playing field with broadcasters," should take a closer look at the ground rules of the current ratings system. The sweeps -- the local market ratings periods in February, May, July and November of each year -- send spot cable to the plate with two strikes because broadcasters do a better job of manipulating ratings than their cable competitors.
Sweeps' advertising comprises a major part of the yearly promotional budget for TV stations. The broadcast networks and syndicators support this effort by supplying new episodes, special programs, 'stunts' and cameo appearances by guest stars all designed to pump up local ratings during sweep months.
These four months are critical to most TV stations because the sweeps are the only periods when Arbitron and Nielsen produce syndicated ratings (Continuous ratings are only available in the top-ranked ADIs and DMAs). Broadcasters sell with the most recent ratings "book" until the next survey is published. In a worst case scenario, a broadcaster who suffers a "bad" May book might have to use weak ratings for up to six months until the November results are out.
How similar are sweep ratings to the unmeasured, non-sweep months? Not very, according to an examination of key spot markets with continuous electronic measurement. Household meters show us that sweeps have a dramatic impact on non-broadcast ratings, cutting the average prime rating for cable and other sources by as much as one-third compared to the month preceding a sweep period.
To demonstrate this point, TV HH ratings were analyzed for two sweep periods in several top markets. The average prime time rating during the February and November 1992 sweeps was compared to the respective rating in the preceding month for each ADI or DMA. In each market, a "total broadcast" rating was created by summing the TV HH ratings for the top stations in each market. A rating for cable/other was derived by subtracting the broadcasters' ratings from HUT (Homes Using Television, or the average percentage of TV HHs who had their sets turned on during this daypart for each month.)
In Chicago, the top six broadcasters' ratings increased by 5% or 2.8 rating points from January to February, while cable and other sources suffered a 3.2 rating point loss -- a drop of 36% compared to its January of rating 8.8. The top TV stations gained five share points (from 87 to 92), while cable/other fell an equal amount (13 to 8). Cable also took a hit for Total Day, falling 20% from it's January ratings as broadcast remained relatively flat (1% increase).
A similar pattern was repeated in Boston for these two months. February prime ratings for the top six broadcasters increased 11% compared to the previous month. Despite a 2% increase in HUT, the cable/other rating dropped 23% from January to February 1992. In Detroit, the prime rating for cable and other sources slipped 19% while broadcasters gained 3%; in Los Angeles, seven broadcasters showed a combined 8% increase while cable and other sources lost a third of their January rating. Similar, though less dramatic changes were seen in October and November. The smaller prime time loss in the Fall months (Chicago: -25%, Boston: -1%, Detroit: -9%, Los Angeles: -14%) is probably due to the affect of the new TV season, raising October broadcast viewing prior to the November sweeps.
What this means to media buyers is that the ratings delivered in spot markets with only four books are probably not representative of broadcasters' performance during the other eight months. What this means to the fledging spot cable business is that their chief competitor enjoys a powerful programming, promotion and ratings advantage which impacts spot cable only during the months when syndicated ratings are produced.
Spot TV gets a lot of help from the broadcast networks and syndicators with special sweep programming designed to maximize ratings. Cable networks, by contrast, rarely concern themselves with sweeps because their focus is on generating 365 days of ratings to support national ad sales, not local affiliates' ratings. "We think in terms of months, but not necessarily sweep months," says Lisa Mateas, VP of Programming and Scheduling at TNT. "The competition is tougher during sweep periods because the networks and Indies are breaking out their big guns. In terms of scheduling original movies, we try to avoid sweeps because we want to protect the publicity potential of premiers -- it's just harder to get exposure during a sweep month."
If sweeps aren't fair, don't blame broadcasters; they're just capitalizing on the system. Cable networks, which have ignored the sweeps which the broadcast networks emphasize, shouldn't be criticized either. Programmers at the cable networks have developed strategies to exploit their competitor's weaknesses while working around their strengths. If there's something wrong, it's the idea that four isolated monthly surveys can correctly measure the complicated medium of television.
"The sweep doesn't reflect what's really going on in terms of the packages which are purchased," says Joe Philport, Senior Vice President of Media Research at Young & Rubicam. Philport favors continuous measurement, but only with electronic measures. "Spreading the [current diary] sample out over time would only introduce more noise into the equation, " Philport says. Y&R prefers continuous electronic measurement of demographic viewing which should also correct problems the agency has with the methodology used by the ratings services to integrate household meters and paper diaries.
Ratings, and parity with broadcast will be on the agenda at this month's CAB conference in New York. As spot cable's decision makers debate the future of the industry, they should carefully examine the limitations of the current system and decide if they want to "play ball" on a field where all of the rules are stacked against them. ##
Dave Zornow is President/TNG Research, a media research consultancy and applications development company that works with media sellers and research providers.
Return to: Home • Published Articles