Unsatisfactory Audience Ratings of Minorities a Factor in Loss of Nielsen’s Accreditation Status

 

Two recent events – seemly unrelated -- should give survey practitioners cause for concern when conducting studies of multicultural audiences.   First, two recent articles in Advertising Age announced that Nielsen had lost its accreditation from the Media Ratings Council – big news since Nielsen ratings have been the gold standard in television ratings for many decades.[1]    Part of the reason for the loss of their accreditation, according to the Advertising Age article, is the dissatisfaction of industry subscribers with the ratings of minority audiences. [2]  Although little detail was provided about Nielsen’s minority audience ratings, it is common knowledge that concerns about the ratings of minority audiences have been documented in past years.  Indeed, one study of Latino television audiences funded by ABC and CBS television networks challenged the television ratings of The George Lopez Show and found that Latino audiences were significantly under-estimated due to greater weight being placed on the television ratings for Latino immigrants – not the primary audience for The George Lopez Show. [3]

The second event is a recently published industry report by an American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) Task Force that studied the transition of telephone surveys to self-administered and mixed-mode studies.[4] AAPOR is a global organization whose membership includes public opinion and survey professionals from the private, public and academic sectors. Importantly, AAPOR provides research and leadership on issues and trends that influence the quality of measuring public opinion. The task force report was intended to guide the research industry during this transition by reviewing the most recent research on mixed-mode studies and offering recommendations for survey practice. While the report is an excellent review of the relevant research, it was incomplete in one important way: it was race neutral.  That is, it failed to review important research on mixed mode studies that documented key race-ethnic differences. [5]  The modest discussion of language factors also overlooked the important work by the Census Bureau and other investigators. [6]  Furthermore, this writer presented relevant research on race-ethnicity and language factors in mixed mode studies to the AAPOR virtual conference on June 11, 2020. [7]  The exclusive focus of the task force on studies that had transitioned to self-administered and mixed-mode surveys may have shifted attention away from mixed-mode studies that analyzed factors related to race-ethnicity and language. The omission of key race and language research on mixed modes was unfortunate but could still be addressed by AAPOR by supplementing the task force report.

The review of incentive options by the task force report was very informative and underscored the advantages of pre-paid and promised incentives for increasing response rates in mixed mode studies.[8]  However, the review of incentive studies did not offer any guidance on the effectiveness of incentive options for improving the response rates of diverse race-ethnic groups – clearly a topic that is in dire need of attention by the research industry.  The relative absence of research evaluating the effectiveness of incentives for diverse race-ethnic groups points to a vacuum of knowledge that may require attention by AAPOR.  

These two events suggest that Nielsen may not be the only research organization that needs help with improving the recruitment and measurement of multicultural audiences. Meaningful changes will not take place simply with declarations about the need for racial equity and diversity. Academic institutions are training the next generation of research practitioners and need to step up to the plate by introducing research courses or content that focuses on the common sources of bias in studies of multicultural communities.  AAPOR could provide grants or obtain sponsorships for research that documents the various factors that impact the response rates or engagement of multicultural persons in mixed-mode research. And while important research on mixed mode studies has been conducted in countries outside of the U.S., a critical need exists for a focus on domestic audiences like African Americans, Latinos, Asians and Native Americans whose life experiences and environments differ significantly from residents of foreign countries. 

What is the recommended timeline to implement these changes? Well, just consider the fact that the multicultural population in the U.S. numbered 144.3 million in 2020.[9]  One can only wonder why it has taken so long for the research industry to implement these changes.      

Reference Notes

---

[1] Neff, J. (2021 Sept. 01).  Nielsen TV ratings accreditation suspended by MRC. AdAge.com, Accessed at:   https://adage.com/article/media/nielsen-tv-ratings-accreditation-suspended-mrc/2362556

[2] Neff, J. (2021 Sept. 9).  Nielsen CEO predicts TV ratings accreditation restoration ‘in months’ – but see bigger issues. AgeAge.com  Accessed at:  https://adage.com/article/media/nielsen-ceo-predicts-tv-ratings-accreditation-restoration-months/2363731

[3] Rincón & Associates (2004, February 1).  Latino Television Study.  National Latino Media Coalition, Accessed at:  https://www.rinconassoc.com/category/publications

[4] Olson, K. et al. Transitions from telephone surveys to self-administered and mixed-mode surveys:  AAPOR Task Force Report. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, Vol. 9, Number 3, June 2021.

[5] Bureau of the Census (2020 Oct. 27). People and households represented in each American Community Survey data collection mode. Accessed at https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/acs-collection.html#   

[6] Rincón, E.T.   The Culture of Research.  Publisher: Writer’s Marq LLC, 2020.

[7] Rincón, E. T.  Mixed-mode studies:  The need to consider race-ethnicity and language factors.  Presentation to the American Association for Public Opinion Research: A Virtual Meeting Place, June 11-12, 2020.

[8] Biemer, P.P., Murphy, S., Zimmer, C., Berry, G, Deng, and K. Lewis. (2018). Using bonus monetary incentives to encourage web response in mixed-mode household surveys. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 6, 240–261.

[9] Census Bureau (2021 August 12). 2020 Census statistics highlight local population changes and nation’s racial and ethnic diversity,  Release Number CB21-CN.55. Accessed at: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/population-changes-nations-diversity.html