MRG Meeting – JICNARS
Last night’s timely MRG meeting on JICNARS co-incided with the awarding of the new contract and the announcement of JICNARS’ reorganisation.
Fortunately, JICNARS’ Roger Beeson was on hand to clarify yesterday’s announcement.
Beeson pointed out that the five year contract (instead of three years) was to allow the research company to cover the cost of the expensive computing equipment that will be used.
The new Computer Assisted Personal Interview system has not been used in the UK for readership before, and hasnot been used for a national survey any where in the world before.
Beeson acknowledged that the issue of sample size is still under discussion, with debate over whether the survey should move to a 40,000 sample.
The new NRS management board will now comprise those who contribute to the funding of the NRS.
New information which has already been added to the survey, or is planned for the future, includes the addition of topic interest by personal interviews, and the monitoring of Saturday reader- ship (as for Sundays). With regard to disproportionate sampl- ing, an increase in AB’s of 50% and of ABC1s of 50%, together with less extreme weighting, are being examined.
Beeson went on to outline the methods of data collection by CAPI. The system allows for fast and easy changes to the survey, interviews can be sent to head office by modem, a computer editing facility checks answers, and the computer can control interview routing.
In addition, the system eliminates data transfer errors, makes conditional questioning easier, there is less possibility of interviewer conditioning and interviews are faster. CAPI also means faster reporting. Data and tapes could be available within two weeks of the survey being completed with printed reports available after three weeks. Six month tapes could be made available weekly, two weeks after the survey period.
Beeson concluded by stating that two pilots will be conducted in 1991, to test the new system, and to monitor the new sampling arrangements.
Nicky Messham and John Ferguson of McCanns gave a joint presentation of a user’s requirements from the survey. They began by outlining the nature of the current marketplace. The more dynamic market, with faster and more frequent launches, has resulted in greater pressure on planners and buyers.
The publishers themselves are calling for more frequent reporting and magazines in particular are seeking more qualitative research.
Messham pointed out how JICNARS’ reputation has suffered in recent years, with the recent NI/Associated Newspapers break-away prompting people to question JICNARS more closely. However, JICNARS has already improved; it is faster, there is section and Saturday readership measurements, and quality of reading and source of copy measurements are now being tested.
Of the three specifications that JICNARS is now considering, four qualitative questions, and weighted sampling are common to all. The three specifications are:
* A basic survey, with the same size panel as currently (28,000)
* A reduced survey, with the 28,000 sample, composed of newspapers and the top 50 magazines
* A 40,000 sample, split between types of publicationBoth Messham and Ferguson believe that the third option is the best. It encompasses a larger sample, better quality data, more qualitative opportunities, more frequent reporting, and a greater concentration where the bulk of money is spent. This is the best compromise solution.
Both believe that the publishers should pay more for the survey, because it is a sales tool for them.
Things that still need to be addressed by the survey are source of copy, time spent reading, place read, and attach- ment/loyalty. Proxy measures and AIR for certain titles with well established sections are also important. McCanns called for a page traffic study.
Ferguson concluded the presentation by stressing that if improvements are not forthcoming, JICNARS’ authority will be undermined by the supplementary outside research that will be necessary.
John Bermingham then took the floor to describe why BMRB decided not to pitch for the JICNARS contract.
Bermingham admitted that the NRS is a large and prestigious contract, which would have economic advantages to anyresearch company, and which would attract other clients to that company.
BMRB had reservations, however, on the trend of falling response rates that the NRS has been experiencing. In addition, after 1987, the number of homes where 2+ interviews are conducted has doubled, and this has led to a certain imbalance in some of the results.
Bermingham went on to outline the NRS’ source of funding, and described the whole area of financing and ‘who pays the piper’ as confusing and blurred.
Bermingham rounded-off his presentationby stating that the specifications are a compromise, but he congratulated RSL for retaining the contract, and for their good work in the past.
Question time was somewhat dominated by the old argument, who should pay for the NRS. Representatives of the press felt that the NRS didn’t cater for all their requirements, whilst those from agencies questioned why they should fund the press’ sales tools.
Some thought that the NRS was expected to do too much, and that it should be kept simple and supplemented by in- house research. All seemed to agree that the NRS was improving.