The Unity Project - looking at both sides

In the world of Canadian media research, the Unity Project has been one of the most ambitious endeavours in recent years, one that sparked considerable discussion and debate. As with anything of this import, opinions seem to be divided regarding implementation. Let's take a look at Unity from both sides.

The initiative has been spearheaded by the Canadian Media Directors' Council, more specifically by well-known media director Hugh Dow. Dow terms it "our attempt to bring some order to Canadian media audience and project usage data."

Audience measurement sources have to date consisted of separate research associations funded by and dedicated to serving their membership constituencies. These include BBM (RTS), PMB, Nadbank, Nielsen, etc. It is true that many of the data sources are not comparable and, in fact, sometimes produce contradictory information. Which represents the "standard" is a very subjective observation. Some planners swear by PMB, while others point to the superior sample size of RTS (currently 57,000 nationally). There can be no dispute that there is a significant triplication of product usage categories between RTS, NADbank and PMB, although the exact natures of the questions differ. Similarly, the measurement periods and length of time between releases are quite different.

The goal of the Unity Project was to standardize demographic breaks, create better data linkage and allow for better inter-media comparisons by media planners. In essence to create one industry accepted source for product usage data. Of course, a dilemma arises when we recognize that ad agencies aside; we have far more than one industry screaming to be heard. There are a number of different industries being represented (print, newspaper, radio, television), each with a different mandate and each seeking a return on their investment.

Unity would seek to eliminate duplication among the various product usage databases. Confusion arises because apparently similar questions yield different results from the various studies. The solution is not as straightforward as it may seem. Even if there was agreement between the competing companies and amongst all their subscribers that one approach was possible/desirable, one or more of the studies would lose all of its historical data and therefore much of its value. How would they be compensated in such an event and by whom?

When one discusses duplication, there is a larger and more fundamental issue. The wording of the questions is different by design because the studies themselves were developed to serve very different needs from very different constituencies. Without unified needs, how do we go about achieving unified methodology?

Certain other project objectives seem to have evolved somewhat from the original proposal. For example, one of the original objectives was a significant reduction in hard costs to each of the industries. This has gone by the wayside since the original estimates were somewhat inaccurate. For example, RTS revenues were estimated to be $5 million when they were actually $1 million. It is also possible that the Unity Project, if implemented, would require a third party to coordinate sales and distribution of the data. This might mean that the overall cost could be more, not less.
 

Before Unity, there was no consistency in terms of demo breaks among the principal database providers, making it difficult to do intermedia comparisons. This has been largely corrected under the auspices of Unity.

Unity would drop local/retail type questions from PMB and replace them with comparable questions/data imported from NADbank or RTS. They would similarly drop national type questions from RTS and replace them with comparable questions/data from PMB. They would also seek to attach PMB (national) or NADbank/RTS (local) to BBM and Nielsen TV panel questions. After much testing and analysis, the media committee concluded that the fusion approach best met the objective of the Unity project.

The Unity vision of one industry accepted source (PMB) effectively demands that in future radio and newspaper subscribers be content with "fused" data as opposed to the "single source" data they now use and an industry accepted source that they consider to be inferior in sample size and implementation. While the fusion tests have been encouraging at a national level, the data does start to deteriorate rapidly as the requirements become more granular. Radio broadcasters and newspapers may very well ask why a magazine-oriented study should be the national database to which all others are fused.

The appeal of Unity to media planners everywhere is quite clear. And there can be little question that it is, in theory, a worthwhile and noble cause. The other side of the issue is the fact that competing industries invest in this research to give each an exclusive and competitive advantage. Some of those entrenched in individual camps have declared opposition to any such initiative. For example, those intimately involved with RTS, an excellent piece of research, feel the required concession would be hugely detrimental to the study and to radio broadcasters in general. The same can be said of NADbank or, to a lesser extent, PMB. Take away the competitive advantage and the rationale for the investment quickly disappears. It is clear that there are two (or more) sides to unity. The biggest question that remains to be surveyed is whether there is any possibility of a unified vision.


(Published in "Media in Canada" Magazine.)