[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 91 (Friday, July 1, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7912-S7913]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BURNS (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Martinez, and Mr. 
        Allen):
  S. 1372. A bill to provide for the accuracy of television ratings 
services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President. I rise to introduce the FAIR Ratings bill. 
I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by my colleagues, 
Senators Martinez, Snowe, and Allen.
  As a former broadcaster, I understand that when TV stations plan 
their programming, they and their advertisers must rely on the 
information provided by commercial TV ratings companies. And it is 
vital that this data be as accurate, fair, and inclusive as possible, 
because TV ratings ultimately determine what programming ends up on the 
air. They also help broadcasters to meet their public interest 
obligations. For these reasons, I feel that it is very much in the 
public interest for TV ratings to be fair, accurate, and as fully 
representative of the population as possible.
  The dominant company that provides TV ratings, and has done so for 
the last 50 years, is Nielsen Media Research. Nielsen is a great 
company and a great American institution--no doubt about it. The 
innovation that Nielsen showed in its early years, and continues to 
show today in other ways, show that its leading role in the field is 
well-deserved.

[[Page S7913]]

  Our friends from Nielsen may have already spoken to many of you about 
this bill, and let me assure you up front that this is not a bill 
``against'' Nielsen. It would apply to any other company or new 
technology whose ratings service determines what we see on TV. But 
Nielsen will definitely be the most affected party if the bill passes, 
so let me characterize this instead as a bill to keep Nielsen honest 
and accountable to its customers, and to the public.
  Because Nielsen today is pretty close to being a monopoly, any way 
you look at it. A private, unregulated monopoly provider of an 
essential public service. And as basic economics and everyday practice 
show, monopolies have the ability to abuse their power, because they 
are not constrained by competition--there is nowhere else for a TV 
station or advertiser to go if they don't like what they get or how 
they are treated. Barriers to entry are pretty high in that business--
it is not simple or cheap to set up a nationwide TV ratings service.
  And that monopoly power has been abused in the past. Forty years ago 
or so, there were a couple of nationwide scandals about TV ratings. I 
remember that well, and some of you may even have seen the movie. 
Payola and game shows. At that time, Nielsen's service was found to be 
mixed up with all that in some way, and was reporting flawed data.
  And Congress got involved. The Senate had hearings for many months, 
and at the end of it, there was a report--the Harris Commission 
report--that called for the creation of an independent, industry-run, 
private oversight body to audit and accredit Nielsen's ratings 
measurement systems for accuracy.
  That body was created in 1964 and is now called the Media Rating 
Council. It continues to audit and accredit TV ratings systems to this 
day, consulting closely with Nielsen and its own members, who are the 
main consumers of TV ratings data. It has long experience and great 
expertise at conducting audits of ratings data for quality and 
accuracy. And it has broad industry support and participation.
  The Media Rating Council's role today, and its relationship with 
Nielsen, or any other TV rating company that may come to equal 
prominence in the future, are what concern me and moved me to introduce 
this bill.
  Last year, Nielsen introduced a new technology called Local People 
Meters, which was designed to measure viewer behavior in a more 
accurate way and to replace the old paper diaries. This system was 
similar to a technology that Nielsen had introduced in the late 1980s. 
In both cases, there were big changes in the TV ratings when Nielsen 
moved from the old system to the new one. To the extent that these 
changes simply captured viewer preferences more accurately, this was 
good for the industry and for TV viewers in general. There is no public 
interest in which channel gets higher or lower ratings, so long as the 
measurement is accurate.

  But in certain cases, in four of our largest cities last year, it was 
not. It turns out that, since the meters operate differently from the 
diary system, there were flaws in the measurement of the underlying 
data by demographic group, due to higher ``fault rates'' among certain 
groups: African-Americans, Hispanics, younger viewers, larger families, 
and certain others.
  And here is where the Media Rating Council came in. They had audited 
the data and examined the people meter system in certain cities in 
advance, in a trial period, and identified these problems. And they 
told Nielsen about them in advance. And they told Nielsen that the 
undercounting should be fixed before it sold the data from this system 
commercially.
  And what did Nielsen do? It effectively ignored the MRC's prior 
findings. It said it would work to fix the system while it was already 
``live'' and producing real TV ratings--with those flaws--and would 
continue to roll out the new technology in other cities before the 
problems were fixed in the old ones.
  I chaired a hearing last summer in the Commerce Committee on this 
issue, and have continued to monitor the situation closely since then. 
At that hearing, Nielsen indicated that it would have the problems 
fixed within a few weeks. Now, a year later, they are still not fixed, 
despite clear instructions from the Media Rating Council. And while 
Nielsen has been cooperative with customers and critics--to its 
credit--the fundamental issue of oversight enforcement has not been 
resolved.
  Now I agree with Nielsen, and most others do too, that the people 
meters, when implemented correctly, produce better numbers than the 
diaries. And we should be glad that Nielsen is devoting the resources 
to developing new technologies, as it should. The diary system, after 
all, hasn't really changed much since the 1950s.
  But it is also clear that Nielsen should not have moved ahead without 
the full prior approval of the Media Rating Council, which is the 
expert organization set up--at the behest of Congress--to ensure TV 
ratings accuracy. It was this action, more than any of the other 
details of the controversy, that indicated to me that the oversight 
system was missing some essential teeth.
  So my bill simply makes prior Media Rating Council accreditation for 
TV ratings systems mandatory, not voluntary, as it is today. It 
backstops a system that has been in place for 40 years.
  It is not a bill about the Local People Meter system. It is not a 
bill about the ratings of one broadcast company or any group of 
companies. It is not even a bill about Nielsen, although it will 
clearly be the most affected company.
  Further, there is no government role whatsoever envisioned in this 
bill. It does not create any new government standards, regulation, or 
bureaucracy: the oversight will be carried out by a private, self-
governing, industry body that has already been operating for 40 years.
  So, I hope we can all agree that accurate TV ratings are in the 
public interest. I hope we can all agree that private industry 
oversight, by the entity set up by Congress 40 years ago, is the best 
way to ensure that. And if we can, I hope all of my colleagues in the 
Senate will support this bill, on behalf of all television viewers 
throughout the United States.

                          ____________________