Page 78 - Living Room WarsDesprately Seeking the Audience Rethinking Media Audiences for a Postmodern World

Desperately seeking the audience 66
they start and stop watching …(Broadcasting 5 January 1987; 6 April 1987; 5 September
1988). Given all this, Rubens put his verdict in extremely militant terms:

People meters go against human nature. You can’t expect people to work
on data entry during their leisure activity of watching TV. Either they take
a leisurely approach to data entry, or TV viewing becomes work—and
they may ease the burden by watching less.
(Broadcasting 21 March 1988)

‘Accuracy’, then, has become a key term with which evaluations of the people meter are
4
formulated. The ratings firms try hard to solve the perceived problems. Thus, much
attention is given to general methodological issues such as attaining a sample base which
is as representative as possible, improving response rates, and developing incentive plans
to get sample members to push buttons more diligently (e.g. Soong 1988). For example,
Nielsen started a programme to coach younger viewers by letting them order from a
merchandise catalogue as a reward for consistent button-pushing (Broadcasting 5
September 1988)! Such shrewd conditioning procedures notwithstanding, however, the
bottom line remains that the people meter can only work if people are willing to submit
themselves to it and co-operate properly. This subjective element is perceived as the
fundamental ‘weak link’ in the current state of affairs in people meter technology. Again
and again, one hears expressions of lack of confidence in ‘button pushing’. This
‘imperfection’ of the people meter looms large in the consciousness of the audience
measurement scene. Even Nielsen officials are convinced that ‘the device isn’t the
ultimate ratings solution because it requires viewer co-operation’ (Broadcasting 4 May
1987:72). It should come as no surprise, therefore, that furious attempts are being
undertaken to develop what is called a passive people meter: a meter that doesn’t require
any buttons at all, and senses automatically who and how many viewers are watching
what in the living rooms (Broadcasting 26 December 1988).
Several proposals ‘bizarre enough to boggle James Bond’ had already started to
circulate in the ratings firms (Waters and Uehling 1985). An article in TV Guide summed
them up with an acute sense of incredulous amazement it:

One suggestion is to implant tiny electronic ‘bugs’ in the navels of all
family members in a people-metered household. That way, the meter will
automatically ‘know’ who’s watching, with no action required of the
viewer. Another solution is to give every family member a special bracelet
or wristwatch that would transmit a signal identifying the wearer to the
meter. Or how about an ultrasonic device (like those used for burglar
alarms) in all the rooms with TV sets, so that family members would be
recognized by the meter the instant they switched on the set. Another
modest proposal is to build into the TV set a photoelectric eye that would
watch you. And finally—the device audience-measurement theorists
fondly call ‘the whoopee sofa’: a divan wired to detect tiny variations in
the temperatures of household members’ bottoms and thus identify them
for the meter.
(Hickey 1984:10)