1. National Association Of Broadcasters 1 19-21 August 2013 TAMS Information Sharing

2. Well share the following points with you in around 40 mins and then go into a Q&A session : 1.The background to the TAMS Audit 2.How we went about doing the Audit 3.What we discovered 4.What were doing about it 5.AND, the way forward ……….. 2 This is a joint SAARF / NAB presentation / where we are going to be discussing TAMS, the TAMS Audit and the way forward….

3. 1. Background to the AuditVH 2. Audit Report: Main FindingsNAB 3. Way ForwardNAB 4. Wrap upVH 5. Q&AsAll 3 Contents

4. TAMS tender process in 2009 3 global players were short listed Contract awarded to Nielsen New contract included: - Entire panel equipped with Unitam meters - 92 channels measured via TV Events - Panel expansion from current 1700 to 2500 reporting homes - The classification tree of TV events library to be shared with the industry 4 Background to the Audit: Tender process

5. Broadcasters had raised numerous concerns in the past around TAMS results. During the course of 2012 we saw quite dramatic shifts in the data, without clear explanations as to why this was happening. Things came to a head in August when LSM 5 was unbundled, shortly after the audience adjustment that occurred in July. For the most part, many of us did not understand the implications of unbundling and our (SAARFs) communication of the changes and how it affected the ratings was also poorly handled. By September 2012, the SAARF Board received correspondence from the SABC (supported by the other broadcasters) and the AMF, formally requesting a TAMS Audit 5 Background to the Audit 2012 Developments

6. The SAARF Board decided to proceed with a full end to end external audit of the TAMS system A Board task team was appointed Audit brief developed A selection process In December 2012 the board appointed Centre dEtudes des Supports de Publicité (CESP) to conduct the audit 6 SAARF Board Meeting: Audit

7. The general methodology is sound and in line with international standard However…….. 7 Audit Report: Main Findings methodology

8. 1.Not keeping pace with the evolving South African population? 2.No balancing the panel by individual LSMs (as opposed to groups) 3.Not alerting the TAMS council to the partial measurement of homes. (Not all TV sets in home were measured). 4.Not informing the industry of the differences in technical measurement between the Eurometer and Unitam 5.Not fully reporting on the declining polling rate of the Eurometer (had dropped to 73%) 6.Not reporting to industry the increasing range of TAMS weights Key concerns of the audit report NAB & Task team consolidated findings (Cont…)

9. 7.Not controlling and managing the number of RIM weighted variables 8.Not sufficiently alerting the TAMS council to the severely under-sampled LSM 1-4 before unbundling LSM 1-5 9.Not reporting on the declining efficiency of the panel 10.Poor longitudinal panel controls (eg long viewing sessions). 11.Not pro-actively managing the declining daily viewing 12.Ageing panel (some households on panel for more than 10 years). Key concerns of the audit report NAB & Task team consolidated findings

10. 1.Panel balance, weighing, and resultant low efficiency levels – under- represented in lower LSMs, over-represented at the top (HD boost). 2.The ageing technology used in the panel – resulting in polling levels dropping off and not all TV sets being monitored 3.Panel management - length of time households served on the panel) 4.oversight and controls – longitudinal management, KPIs 10 Key Concerns: Identified by the NAB members and Audit Task Team

11. Proportionate sample is based on AMPS 2011B HHs, and actual households on November 2012 reporting HHS. Rural areas are under-sampled by half. The other inhabitants strata are all slightly oversampled. These discrepancies are corrected by the weighting. Panel Profile: Community size Source: November 20120 TAMS 49% 22% 16% 14%

12. We observe some gaps on the age. These discrepancies are corrected by the weighting. Panel Profile: Age Source: November 20120 TAMS

13. These discrepancies are corrected by the weighting. LSM 4 LSM 5LSM 6LSM 7LSM 8 LSM 9LSM 10 Panel Profile: LSMs Source: November 20120 TAMS

14. 14 Summarizing of 71 days weighting reports HHs 2011HHs 2012Ind. 2011Ind. 2012 Weights Average8 5758 0068 6888 320 Min of MIN1 096287250148 Max of MAX99 000 Efficiency % Average44,643,954,644,5 Min37,336,948,236,8 Max53,854,760,650,8 Minimum and Maximum Weights Source: November 20120 TAMS

15. The panel imbalances has a direct result on the panel efficiency. It has meant the range of weights has been extreme. Panel efficiency measures how hard the Rim weights must work to correct for sample imbalances. If the panel was perfectly representative of the audience it was measuring, everyone would carry the same weight (grossing up factor). The efficiency shows how much smaller the sample size of a perfectly representative panel could be to have the same error margins for the results from the panel. The TAMS panel efficiency steadily declined from about 58% at the start of 2011 to below 40% at the start of 2013 This was a result of: the imbalanced sample - contracted to some extent. the low polling rate of the Eurometer 70%+ efficiency levels is globally accepted and desirable Panel Efficiency

16. In 2012 alone the panel efficiency dropped from 48% to 37%. CESP identified two contributing factors to this sudden drop: 1.the under-sample of the lower end of market LSM 1-4. The unbundling of the LSM Rims in August 2012 revealed the extent to which LSM 1-4 was under represented, which had not been as evident previously when LSM 1-4 was grouped with LSM 5 in the weighting process 2.The 170 additional DStv HD homes. Whilst DStvs own analysis did not support this, DStv suspended the boosted homes in May 2013 Panel Efficiency

17. Approximately 20% of TV sets were not measured (i.e. exclusion of second TV set in households) Polling rate of Eurometers was dropping off (to a low of 73%) Ageing Technology

18. Not specified in the TAMS contract. Each country has to decided its most appropriate turnover period. A maximum of five years in-panel period is the most common agreement/practice. panellists participation for more than 10 years is rare. Panel Management: Ageing panel

19. Declining daily viewing levels Long viewing sessions No KPIs set Limited monitoring Oversight and Controls:

20. 20 Whats been done since the release of the Audit Report?

21. We would like to acknowledge the spirit in which Nielsen have embraced this process and the huge progress they have made in a short period of time. 21 NAB/Nielsen Engagement

22. Replaced all 700 Eurometers with Unitam technology by end March 2013, predominantly out of the Lower LSMs. Polling now averaging 88% with a target of 90% FTA homes polling better Now able to measure all second TV sets in home. TV sets monitored increased from 80% to 86% Unitam meters now constitute 60% of the Panel Unitam technology can measure all broadcast platforms: Future Proof the panel Prepared for Digital Migration. Multichannel satellite-ready (Freesat) Unitam technology operates independently, does not require co-operation from broadcasters. TVM5 meters will be converted to Unitam technology 2013/2014 to standardise types 22 Eurometers replaced with Unitams

23. Increased sample in LSM 4: Stabilised fluctuating viewing in the lower LSMs Introduced forced Panel churn: Switched some ageing Households (On the panel 10 years+) Replaced older viewers 50+ on the panel with younger ones in Lower LSMs, improving the younger profile All the above better balanced the sample which has already improved viewing in Lower LSMs, in KZN and Eastern Cape and given Nguni speaking a larger sample Household training and internal checks have been implemented to monitor: o Irregular viewing o Better button pushing o Logging in of guests 23 Further Panel Implementation

24. Pollux Recruitment Model implementation complete allowing for total recruitment from AMPS, the Establishment Model for TAMS IBIS, a Quality Control software tool that interfaces with Pollux is fully implemented. Each household is included in a coincidental check once per annum with monthly updates. A set of KPIs are being delivered to the TAMS technical committee weekly and will be further refined. 24 Panel Quality Control Measures

25. Unitam technology and audio tracking has the capability to measure: 3-screens (5% threshold to measure) SD and HD channels Video in Demand Interactive Services +1 Channels vs PVR PVR households must be included in accordance with natural occurrence so that Time Shifted Viewing is measured from Day 1 Unitam meters allow for alternative options of measurement for larger samples: Set Meter Panel and Return Path data 25 Unitam Technology for the Future

26. Proportionate sample is based on AMPS 2012A individuals, and actual household on June/July reporting individuals Rural areas are under-sampled by 60%. The other inhabitants strata are all slightly oversampled Disproportionate sample cells are corrected by the weighting. Source: June/July 2013TAMS Panel Profile: Community Size

27. We observe some gaps on the age. Disproportionate sample cells are corrected by the weighting. Source: June/July 2013TAMS Panel Profile: Age

28. . Proportionate sample is based on AMPS 2012A individuals, and actual household on June/July reporting individuals Disproportionate sample cells are corrected by the weighting. Source: June/July 2013TAMS Panel Profile: LSMs

29. 29 Minimum and Maximum Weights Summarizing of 71 days weighting reports for 2011/2012 Data set for 2013 (June/July) HHs 2011HHs 2012HHs 2013Ind. 2011Ind. 2012Ind. 2013 Weights Average8 5758 0068 0008 6888 3206 721 Min of MIN 1 0962871065250148376 Max of MAX 99 000 31 83099 000 Efficiency % Average44,643,971,154,644,557,2 Min37,336,968,848,236,853,9 Max53,854,772,860,650,859,1 2011/2012: Selected 71 days 2013: June and July only Source: June/July 2013TAMS

30. Panel Expansion Increase the TAMS panel to 2500 reporting households as quickly as possible Ensure that the panel balance is correct and maintained: International panel experts have been appointed by the NAB to provide best recommendations regarding the sample design and weighting for the panel expansion, taking into account the findings of the recent CESP audit. This work is already under way. The panel expansion is planned for completion by year end The Way Forward

31. NAB Television Objectives Ensure uninterrupted continuation of TAMS data Ensure the on-going integrity of the data. An expanded more robust panel to be established as quickly as possible Establish a tripartite TAMS contract to govern the process until the NAB resignation from SAARF takes effect in December 2014. Contract will be direct between NAB and Nielsen for the remainder of the term thereafter: Broadcasters will continue their funding contributions and commitment to SAARF until December 2014. Thereafter, a new research structure will take over the TAMS research functions The Way Forward

32. National Association Of Broadcasters32 Wrapping up