1. The Local Ratings Landscape George Ivie CEO, Executive Director Media Rating Council, Inc.

2. Agenda  Introductions  Review of Emerging Local Measurement Alternatives  Arbitron PPM  Nielsen LPM  Viewer Modeling  Questions/Answers

3. Our Panel:  Erwin Ephron, Consultant, Ephron, Papazian & Ephron, Inc.  Jay S. Guyther, SVP International Marketing, Arbitron, Inc.  Ken Wollenberg, SVP NSI, Nielsen Media Research

4. Summary Format  The “Basics”  Conceptual Advantages  Conceptual Questions …for each alternative None are currently Accredited by the MRC

5. Arbitron PPM  The Basics:  The PPM:  Personal measurement  Pager size device -- worn or carried  Recognizes inaudible codes in media source that consumer is “exposed” to  Self-Installed by telephone-recruited panelists  Tested in UK, now being tested in the US  Encoding-based measurement  Measurement is possible for Radio, Television (broadcast, wired cable, satellite, digital, etc.), and Streaming per Arbitron

6. Arbitron PPM  Conceptual Advantages:  Multi-media data from single sample  “Partially” passive  Measures out-of-home?  Large sample sizes planned  Measures digital sources  Measurement is dependent on encoding…not calibration of tuner

7. Arbitron PPM  Conceptual Questions:  Does it work?  Will panelists carry the device?  Arbitron indicates its tests prove “yes” for both items above  “Exposure” to audio…is a changed basis for crediting audience  Everyone must encode…no encoding, no measurement, e.g., local cable  For television, muting equals non-measurement  Uncertainty of joint venture arrangement  Response Rates

8. Nielsen LPM  The Basics:  Movement of People Meter technology into the local measurement arena  Set meters with added people button device  Calibration of tuners  Software solutions for some digital cable/satellite  Boston roll-out, scheduled to become official in May 2002  600 Households  Demonstration period since April 2001  Further markets planned after Boston

9. Nielsen LPM  Conceptual Advantages:  Known performance  Continuous electronic measurement of both households and people  Eliminates the diary and the integration process  Larger effective sample sizes

10. Nielsen LPM  Conceptual Questions:  Viewing levels and shares change  Two issues being studied in Boston  Tuning without viewing  Distribution of NILF Females  Intrusive metering is still the rule  Button pushing requires coaching / Nielsen field staff diligence  New viewing technologies require different metering approaches…and marketplace cooperation  Will the stations support the Service?

11. Viewer Modeling  The Basics:  A model used to predict viewers directly from the composition of the set meter panel itself, without the use of the diary  Multiple regression technique  Initial project is to model eight key persons demos and then apply to other demos as well  Validation tests planned using Boston LPM data

12. Viewer Modeling  Conceptual Advantages:  Principally cost (and per Erwin – better data)…increased set meter sample sizes could be gained through elimination of diaries, with modeling handling the demography  Expansion of number of meter markets  Consistent methodology across all NSI markets

13. Viewer Modeling  Conceptual Questions:  Will the marketplace accept a modeled technique?  Can an accurate enough model be constructed?  How to decide when separate models are necessary? Smaller breaks…presence of children…race…etc.  Model updating? New programming? Sports? Specials?  Ongoing evaluation of accuracy?