"We are not the problem"

WW: Dominik Kaiser, you are not the only one who is unhappy with the new TV data. But only you went to court, only you are constantly in the media. Seen in that light, you are a lonely fighter ...
Dominik Kaiser: The impression is deceptive. Telesuisse also communicates effectively with the media; ten regional TV stations have just terminated their contract with Mediapulse because they have no confidence in the correctness of the figures. But it's true: Goldbach, the marketer of the German private stations in Switzerland and also of us, works more in the background. We, too, waited a long time before voicing our demands publicly, because basically the ratings problem doesn't belong in the media, but would have to be solved differently. Until the end of March, we tried to find an internal solution with Mediapulse. Only when this did not work, and because we received no answers to our letters and demands, did we go to court. Immediately after the high court granted the super provisional injunction, we offered Mediapulse to find a solution without publicity. Mediapulse decided on a different path and went to the media. Since then, we have also been communicating openly about the ratings debacle.

As mentioned, Goldbach is keeping a very low profile. As an observer, you could get the impression that 3+ is being sent ahead and letting you fight the feud.
That is your interpretation. Goldbach is very active in the background. Together with Publisuisse and Mediapulse, the company has just drawn up an action plan with around 50 points. This includes almost all the points that we are also demanding. But to answer your question: It takes courage and perseverance to stick your neck out. However, based on our previous cooperation with Mediapulse and Publica Data, I believe that this is the only right way to go.

What do you mean by that?
Cooperation in the past was often not constructive. Even in the old system, we noticed and questioned irregularities in the data. In very few cases were our inquiries answered completely, and when they were, it was always only after repeated inquiries. Another example: We have been trying for eight years to obtain from Mediapulse, in return for payment, the pin data that is customary internationally and was also available in the old system - to date without success.

But the changeover of the measurement system involved the industry. The Board of Directors and the User Commission, both made up of stakeholders, waved the change through. The discussions didn't start until the data was in.
The discussion started after Mediapulse published the data in January and immediately blocked it again and it became clear that something could not be right. We already demanded a test of the whole system at the end of January. The User Commission (UC) was not involved in many decisions. As far as I know, only one assignment rule was discussed in detail in the UC, for example. The others were not discussed at all or were addressed only very superficially. Assignment rules are critical in the new audiomatching system because the system does not know directly what is being watched, as it used to, but often has no clear information. To date, after much pressure, the UC is only aware of a small portion of the assignment rules. If committees are not informed, they cannot have an active say. That the UC has signed off on everything is therefore not true.

A delicate point. Can you substantiate this?
Since 3+ did not have a seat in the UC until now, I do not have any minutes. We have only been allowed to have a representative since May 13. I got my information from conversations with commission members.

Nevertheless, shouldn't the broadcasters and marketers be taking themselves by the nose? They could have reacted before the data was available.
I can only speak for 3+. We insisted too little last year when Mediapulse informed. We asked whether the panel households could be recruited representatively in the short time and connected on time, whether the different feeds of the German stations could be mapped with audiomatching, or whether a feature film running on three different stations at the same time could be assigned to the right channel. The answer was always: no problem. The rules according to which the signals are assigned were not explained to us. We would have had to ask and insist. The fact that we didn't do that last year is a big mistake in retrospect. Especially with the example of the movie or series that runs on several stations and is played back without advertising, it is technically impossible, with the audio signal alone, to recognize on which station it was recorded. The system has to guess. Besides, we begged in vain until the end that there should be at least one month of parallel operation.

The aforementioned problem of allocation could be circumvented with watermarking.
That's why we already lobbied for watermarking last year. But Mediapulse assured us that this was not necessary and that watermarking would only be introduced later, if at all. We should have exerted more pressure here, too.

You always emphasize that 3+ is interested in a constructive dialog. What is your proposed solution?
The industry needs numbers - not only our customers and the agencies, but also ourselves. As long as we don't have data, we can't optimize our program planning and it's difficult to decide which shows to buy or produce. That's why we are very interested in a quick solution. That's why we made concrete demands for the first time at the end of January on how to restore the credibility of the system, followed by a major effort to find errors, and finally compiled a catalog of points that would have to be adjusted. Basically, there are three levels involved: a. the panel corresponds to the Swiss population and is therefore representative, b. is the system measured correctly and does it work, and c. does the industry know the background and details of the TV research, in other words, is the system transparent. On all levels, there is great need for adjustment or catching up.

What are you doing to get the numbers back as quickly as possible?
We are ready to actively collaborate. But Mediapulse seemed little interested until recently. Even Mediapulse has not disputed so far that the distribution types as well as the urban-rural distribution are not correctly weighted and that the PC-only households (households that do not have TV) can be mapped as we suggested. These undisputed errors must be corrected retroactively. They lead to a noticeable distortion of the audience figures on average and to considerable differences at the level of commercial breaks and programs.

Can you elaborate on this?
If we compare the panel's figures with those of the Federal Statistical Office, for example, the rural population is heavily overrepresented. The proportions of the distribution types (IPTV, cable digital and analog, etc.) would have to be adjusted to the information provided by the providers. And a third point: As long as TV use on tablets and smartphones cannot be recorded, households without TVs must not be included. We know from online TV providers such as Zattoo, Teleboy and Wilmaa that the vast majority of web TV usage is via tablets and smartphones. Particularly in the case of PC-only households, TV usage is massively underestimated if tablets and smartphones are not included.

However, this is not just a methodological problem, but is related to Apple, whose policies do not allow apps to communicate with each other.
That's true, and without it, it's not possible to measure PC-only households in a representative way. That's why we shouldn't even pretend that this is the case. The fact that tablets and smartphones are not measured has only been known since the beginning of winter. If this had been known earlier, the decision would certainly have been different.

Are these all the demands?
We also propose to test the system on the fly and over the raw data. Switzerland is probably the most complex country for audio matching. The signal has to be compared with almost 400 TV stations and many more radio signals. The two-channel sound leads to a doubling for some stations, stations with country-specific advertising windows like RTL have three feeds (Switzerland, Germany, Austria). In addition, many programs run more or less simultaneously on different stations. The test would show whether the system assigns signals correctly even in difficult situations. Another demand: transparency. We want the research basis to be disclosed. We want to know the assignment and weighting rules and have insight into the New Establishment Survey to understand the basis of the panel. This is in line with the EBU's international standard GGTAM (General Guidelines for Television Audience Measurement).

These are some of the demands. Accordingly, we can look forward to a longer period without quotas.
We have structured our list of requirements in such a way that publication of the data would be possible relatively soon, within a few weeks, if implementation were finally started. The laboratory test and the introduction of watermarking will take longer. There we want a binding commitment that this will be initiated. The implementation itself can take place after the data has been released.

Your schedule assumes that Mediapulse, Goldbach and SRG agree with your demands ...
That is why it is very important that all parties finally sit down at the same table. We have been demanding this for more than three months, and for the first time in mid-February. Instead of getting to the bottom of the errors, Mediapulse has tried in a non-transparent process to gloss over the deficiencies with the help of superficial incomplete expert reports and thus silence criticism of the system. Mediapulse is desperately trying to create the impression that we are the problem, while ignoring the problems of the system. Mediapulse has not only rushed, ill-prepared and untested to introduce a completely new system with a new panel, but is also managing the ratings debacle that has now arisen very poorly. For example, Mediapulse announced in Werbewoche (Issue 7, 26.04.13), there were intensive discussions with us, while just one meeting had taken place and Mediapulse left our further appointment proposals unanswered for weeks. Fortunately, there is now communication again.

You have mentioned it: You didn't just make friends by obtaining the provisional injunction. What reactions did you experience?
All kinds, from very positive to very negative. Even threats I received.

How did advertisers react?
Many customers finally want data. However, they usually showed understanding as soon as we explained the background, the flaws in the fundamentals and the complexity of the system. The vast majority of customers I have met personally in recent weeks agree with me: The industry does not need any data as quickly as possible, but above all valid data - and this as soon as possible.

Do you fear a migration of advertising from 3+ to other channels?
No. We have no signs of customers, nor do we detect any churn.

Clients can place TV ads without any problems without 3+.
The selection of bookable channels is basically very large. However, many channels are often full and cannot be booked additionally. Also, there is no other station with Swiss German entertainment in the kind and quality that 3+ offers. We are a good, popular and inexpensive addition to the big channels.

How do you handle the performance guarantee?
Goldbach has the lead there. Until April, customers received 100%. Now it's 80-90%. How much the customers have benefited depends on the audience figures. Once the errors are adjusted, the credits can be calculated. Credits are to be expected because TV usage across all channels is lower with the new system than with the old one and the difference between programming and commercials has become bigger. We are proactively booking more spots at the moment to counteract a build-up of high credits.

What does the positioning of 3+ look like in the future?
We will continue to develop 3+ within the framework of its current positioning. The main target group continues to be 15- to 49-year-olds, and 3+ also has slightly more female viewers. We'll expand programming as before, showing a little more Swiss programming each year and a mix of U.S. series, Swiss-German docu-soaps, feature films and emotional docs now and then.

Will there be adjustments by Hardy Lussi/Mike Gut's planned channel S1? S1 wants to broadcast far more Swiss content than 3+.
I can't say much about S1 because I don't know enough details. I advise the makers to budget conservatively. The Swiss TV market, as a private station without high fees, is very tough and demanding. I wish Hardy and Mike good luck and I am curious about the concrete program and when it will start. According to the makers, the project will be aimed at older viewers. This means that we are addressing different target groups. Incidentally, the idea of repeating German programs is not new. We have already bought in "Rosamunde Pilcher" and "Tatort. These shows do very well on ARD or ZDF. But what works on one channel is not necessarily successful on the other. For us, the shows were disappointing, so we quickly took them out of the program.

Finally, a question about channel 4+, which was launched last fall. How are things going there?
We are very pleased with the launch of 4+: 4+ is off to a good start.

Isn't the lack of ratings for 4+ an even bigger problem than for 3+? After all, the new channel has not yet proven itself on the market ...
We are not allowed to give figures at the moment. 4+ is well booked. But we are waiting for the new data to optimize the program. As long as we don't have the right figures, we can't do that, unfortunately. That's not ideal, especially for a new station.

Interview: Isabel Imper and Pierre C. Meier
Photo: Pierre C. Meier