Radio's stake in the Burns bill battle
TV station owners and ad buyers have a clear stake in whether or not Congress passes S.1372, the bill proposed by Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), to regulate TV ratings. But RBR has covered the issue all along because we know how Washington works - - if TV gets hit with new regulation today it's very easy for Congress to decide to add radio to the mix tomorrow, claiming "fairness" if nothing else. As we noted in our story yesterday (7/28/05 RBR #147), Arbitron weighed in against the bill, even though it would currently not affect its radio ratings business. Instead, it endorsed a voluntary code of conduct, which is currently under development by members of the Media Rating Council (MRC).
"Arbitron has worked with the Media Rating Council for over 40 years, since the early days of its formation as the Broadcast Ratings Council. As a company, we have invested millions of dollars and countless hours of staff time on the MRC audit process, working closely with the MRC staff to earn accreditation for our currency products and services. Arbitron strongly supports the MRC's mission and continues to recognize the value of its accreditation process," said Arbitron CEO Steve Morris.
Arbitron listed several reasons why it wants a voluntary code, along with several things its sees wrong with the Burns bill.
Among the benefits of the proposed "Voluntary Code of Conduct," cited in the Arbitron comments:
Responsiveness to needs of the marketplace: While the company acknowledges that the MRC's role should be a preeminent one, it believes that ratings providers need to be responsive to an even broader base of other industry group organizations such as the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) or the American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA)
Continued innovation in ratings services: Arbitron believes that with voluntary accreditation, new companies and services can determine marketplace support for new approaches for television ratings before investing the considerable additional resources that accreditation requires.
Incentives to embrace accreditation: Arbitron maintains that industry support for voluntary code of conduct would be a strong incentive for measurement companies to seek MRC accreditation and for the MRC to make the review process reasonable, interactive and flexible.
Among the specific objections to the legislation cited in the comments:
Impact on innovation: The Company maintains that mandating Media Rating Council accreditation before any television ratings service could be offered in the marketplace would stifle market entry by new companies and inhibit the development of new measurement techniques by existing providers and new entrants.
Risk of extensive litigation: Arbitron believes that delegating regulatory authority to the MRC would make all parties involved more confrontational and more likely seek remedy in the courts. For example, if mandatory standards are enforced which allow some services into the marketplace and keep others out, litigation alleging anticompetitive behavior and challenging the due process provided would be inevitable.
Threat to respondent privacy: Arbitron is concerned that, since the MRC would be given regulatory authority, the legislation would make audit findings that may contain personally identifiable information of respondents subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
RBR observation:
We've warned all along that if more government regulation is piled on the TV industry today, radio is likely to be hit with the same a few years out. That's obviously a concern for Arbitron. Also, a company spokesman notes, Arbitron is hoping to get Nielsen to become a partner in its Portable People Meters, which would then be subject to the new law covering TV ratings - - that is, if the bill becomes law. Since not a single Senator besides Burns showed up for Wednesday's hearing on his bill - - not even his three co-sponsors - - it seems unlikely that S.1372 is going to be high on the priority list of the Republican leadership this session. Getting Nielsen to sign onto an MRC code of conduct, which it has agreed to in principle (ah, but the devil is in the details) seems like a much more likely course for progress than banking on congressional action anyway.
Are you reading this from a forwarded email?
