Nielsen has declined to participate in the first round of the Joint Industry Committee, a cross-industry council of media companies and agency executives to develop standards for measurement providers. The so-called JIC, which is currently being managed by OpenAP, issued a set of requirements earlier this year alongside a request for information from measurement companies to begin a certification process.

In an open letter to OpenAP CEO David Levy, obtained by Ad Age, Nielsen CEO of global audience measurement Karthik Rao announced the company’s refusal to participate in the RFI and provided a list of disputes with the JIC’s set of requirements. (Although the OpenAP is currently managing the JIC in its launch phase, JIC is a separate legal entity, an OpenAP spokesperson said.)

A source familiar with the JIC said OpenAP has already received the requested information from measurement companies including Comscore, iSpot.tv, VideoAmp, 605 and Samba TV. 

Rao asserts that the JIC's requirements are biased or not supported by “statistical evidence,” including the assumption that big data is better than panel data (the latter of which is what Nielsen has historically used to measure audiences) and the attempt to rate the quality of programming by production cost.

Rao also claimed to have “asked multiple times for clear criteria and scoring systems” for how certification will be granted with no response, and accused the JIC of “conflating certification with accreditation” due to its vague stance on requiring participating measurement companies to be certified by the Media Ratings Council (Nielsen regained accreditation earlier this week).

In a statement to Ad Age, OpenAP on behalf of the JIC said the Nielsen letter, which can be read in full below, contained “several inaccuracies and misinterpretations” that will be addressed in the JIC's official response on Monday. 

“The baseline requirements are aggregated feedback developed in a cross-industry collaborative forum with media agencies, publishers, streaming platforms and trade bodies having equal voice on what is needed to safely and responsibly transition a multibillion-dollar marketplace,” OpenAP said in the statement. “No one measurement company should be able to influence the requirements to benefit their bid for certification over their competition.”

Nielsen did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Among other concerns put forward by Rao are a disregard for its proprietary data techniques, antitrust concerns around supposed ambitions from the JIC to reduce competition and absence of media companies such as Disney, Amazon, Netflix and YouTube.

Rao's letter appears to go beyond the stated JIC standards in a few ways. The standards require participating companies to share methodological data with the JIC, but does not say that data will be shared among the competitors or that a common methodology will be required.

While the standards call for a content quality measure to be incorporated into currency measurement, they do not call for that measure to be based on production costs. The one content quality measure proposed by a JIC member—NBCU's Content Quality Index—is based primarily on ad recall scores among viewers of ads across a measured platform.

Read the full letter below:

April 21, 2023

David Levy
CEO, OpenAP, on behalf of the US Joint Industry Committee

Dear David,

Since the announcement of the formation of the JIC earlier this year, we have appreciated your ongoing candor, willingness to discuss the goals of the JIC and the subsequent invitation to submit a response to the request for information (RFI). We are writing to inform you that we will not be submitting a response to the RFI today, as there remain a number of concerns about the standards as they exist at this time - which we have shared with you and which we re-iterate below. We remain hopeful that we can continue the dialogue and want to assure you that we are open to reconsidering our response as these items are addressed.

We always welcome objective discussions about the best way to estimate where the media audience is investing their time, and the right information to help the media market work with trust and transparency. This is why we have engaged with a number of industry bodies in the U.S. on these topics, including ANA, WFA, 4A's, ARF, CIMM, IAB, and VAB.

We believe the JIC can also be helpful in this regard. We support the emphasis on aligning the industry around greater use of census data, transparency in metric calculations, interoperability of systems, and a robust and transparent approach to identity resolution - all vital to the acceptance of audience measurement solutions. However, in the JIC’s published standards as confirmed in our conversation, there are fundamental legal, operational, and scientific issues that will need to be resolved before Nielsen will agree to participate.

• Standards that contain biases and/or are not supported with statistical evidence. The first set of criteria laid out a number of methodological rules without any statistical support to back them up. For example:
• Big data should not be assumed to always be better than panel data
• The definition of premium quality appears to be based on production costs, not audience perceptions
• There is a requirement to delay any change for two years, even when there could be clear evidence for faster change given the rapid evolution in television technology

• No objective standards or process for "certification." We have asked multiple times for clear criteria and scoring systems. We have not received clarification. There can be no trust without transparency, and we won’t change the rigorous standards that are essential to being the most trusted currency.
• Disregard for Intellectual Property will stifle innovation and investment. Nielsen has invested billions of dollars in technology and methods to accurately measure the audience. You are now asking us to turn over UEs, panel data, make proprietary data collection techniques standard to everyone, and supply metadata IDs to let anybody use our data.
• Lack of clarity on the need for MRC Accreditation (and potentially conflating certification with accreditation). The MRC remains an essential element of the audience measurement environment. Created at the request of Congress, it has the experience, legal structure, independence, scientific rigor, and clear by-laws to regulate audience measurement. We do not agree that simply "seeking" MRC accreditation is an acceptable standard. At a minimum, measurement companies need to actively participate in the MRC’s audit process including being transparent about any remediation plans. Any use of "certification" to shortcut this process is too risky for creating accurate measurement.
• Absence of key players. We define the industry the way the audience defines TV in 2023. That needs to include Disney, Amazon, Netflix, YouTube, and any major streaming platform. Only a subset of industry participants created the JIC standards, and significant media companies either were not invited to participate or have chosen not to participate. And we don’t see how a company owned by a consortium of industry players, vs the independent, non-profit status of most JICs around the world can manage this.
• Anti-competition concerns. We also have antitrust concerns related to the JIC and the significant competitor interactions required by the JIC. What protections has the JIC put in place to safeguard against antitrust? We recently read a press statement that the JIC is encouraging the industry to reduce competition. That raises concerns of insufficient protections against antitrust. Unfortunately, that sentiment can attract regulatory attention which needs to be met with clear by-laws, governance, and legal structure.   

We are concerned that responding to the RFI now will give a false impression that we endorse the JIC’s requirements. We do not. This well meaning process has been rushed, and we respectfully suggest that more time be spent addressing the above issues before a formal RFI is issued.

We are encouraged by the desire to collaborate and move toward open innovation. But we must do so in a responsible manner that adheres to the current trusted and acceptable MRC standards. That is why we remain committed to undergoing independent audits and the MRC accreditation process. It’s the standard we’ve always set for ourselves—and the standard the whole industry should demand.

Once you can address the essential issues we’ve raised with the JIC, we would be delighted to engage in thoughtful dialogue and reconsider our position. We hope the offer still stands to participate in your meeting next week as we remain interested in learning and better understanding what this new committee is thinking about.

Sincerely,
Karthik Rao
CEO, Global Audience Measurement, Nielsen

Read OpenAP's full statement on behalf of the JIC to Ad Age:

We received Nielsen’s letter and are working with the 18+ companies involved with the JIC on a response. There are several inaccuracies and misinterpretations in the letter, which will be addressed in the JIC’s response that will be issued on Monday.

The JIC is moving with velocity to bring transparency to the currency readiness of new cross platform measurement solutions and to define common standards so that we can ultimately have more competition across multiple currencies. The baseline requirements are aggregated feedback developed in a cross-industry collaborative forum with media agencies, publishers, streaming platforms and trade bodies having equal voice on what is needed to safely and responsibly transition a multibillion-dollar marketplace.

The JIC believes that all solutions must be subject to the same level of scrutiny so that buyers and sellers have confidence transacting. No one measurement company should be able to influence the requirements to benefit their bid for certification over their competition.

Collaboration is the only way to move this industry forward. We believe that there is an important role for Nielsen and we encourage them to join JIC members and all other measurement companies under the tent to listen to feedback and respond on how they are going to address their customers’ concerns.

Contributing: Jack Neff