Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google to Compete with Nielsen?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the google-speculation dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Jason Lee Miller thinks that Nielsen Media Research's ambitious new plan for measuring all types of video audiences could put it into competition with everyone's favorite company: Google. From the article: 'The Mountain View's next potential rival: Nielsen Media Research, the audience measurement company that has held a virtual monopoly in the sector for decades. And it shouldn't be surprising. Google's MO is information collection and research.'"

97 comments

  1. Sounds more like by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Nielsen is attempting to compete with Google.

    I doubt Google is going to be conducting research surveys or distributing their own rating monitoring boxes.

    The part they are going to overlap on is a small part of the publicly visible loss leader.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    1. Re:Sounds more like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I doubt Google is going to be conducting research surveys or distributing their own rating monitoring boxes.

      With video.google.com, the audience comes to them rather than the other way around.

    2. Re:Sounds more like by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Informative
      With video.google.com, the audience comes to them rather than the other way around.

      Nielsen make their money conducting market research surveys.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    3. Re:Sounds more like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I doubt Google is going to be conducting research surveys or distributing their own rating monitoring boxes.

      Actually, they already have: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/10/132922 7

      With a simple application, they can turn your laptop (pre-deployed) into a ratings monitor.

    4. Re:Sounds more like by apnielsen · · Score: 4, Informative
      Nielsen make their money conducting market research surveys.
      ACNielsen makes their money conducting market research surveys. Nielsen Media Research makes their money by selling overnight TV viewing data to networks, advertisers, and whoever else wants to pay for it.
    5. Re:Sounds more like by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      the audience comes to them rather than the other way around
      That is the feeblest attempt at an "In Soviet Russia..." joke I have ever seen.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. Good idea! by nurhussein · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps then the demographics will represent the hip, happening and geeky crowd as well as whatever boring old fogies Nielson represents. I hate it when my favourite shows are cancelled because "ratings were down".

    Then again I'm not 'Merican, so I have no idea why good shows get cancelled *cough*Firefly*cough*. I just know that they do, and the dumb ones remain (latest reality show, WHO WANTS TO MARRY A MIDGET MILLIONAIRE APPRENTICE?)

    1. Re:Good idea! by bartyboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sounds to me like you're more upset about the cancelling of Firefly than the Nielson rating system.

      Nielson samples a very wide demographic, not just "boring old fogies". You can read about it here. The wikipedia article also brings up the point that their research system is not perfect, but it's close enough to give advertisers a picture of who's watching what. If it wasn't, Nielson wouldn't be in the TV ratings system for long.

    2. Re:Good idea! by corychristison · · Score: 1
      ...latest reality show, WHO WANTS TO MARRY A MIDGET MILLIONAIRE APPRENTICE?
      I still prefer the one from College University:
      "Who Want's To Live on the Real Survivor Idol Millionare Island Dance and Chili Cookoff!"
      [ link to episode -- WARNING: FLASH! ]
    3. Re:Good idea! by qmVSE*w!7e,QF(, · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly... Nielsen looks at EVERYBODY, because there's a market for everybody's information. Furthermore, it's a joke to think that Google is going to compete with Nielsen as **Google sells advertising**. This is not an unbiased source. The reason that Nielsen even exists is that [insert Ford, Apple, or any other buyer of advertising time here] is not going to take [insert NBC's, Comedy Central's, or any other seller of advertising time here] word for it about how many people are watching their shows. Apple wants to hear from an unbiased souce that X million people are watching ABC during the period for which Apple is buying advertising time.

      --
      The Power to Serve
    4. Re:Good idea! by drsquare · · Score: 4, Informative
      Nielson samples a very wide demographic, not just "boring old fogies".


      It only samples a very small demographic: people who want to be monitored.
    5. Re:Good idea! by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      If you assume that there's no correlation between people who want to be monitored and TV preference, then it's fine.

      I wonder if it could be argued that people who enjoy sci-fi are more likely to object to being monitored? A lot of sci-fi is rather dystopian, portraying the sinister side of that sort of thing...

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    6. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Nielson samples a very wide demographic, not just "boring old fogies".


      Not really. According to this
      article, Nielson has plans to start monitoring college students in 2007, which means they haven't been monitoring college students this entire time. This is probably the reason that Arrested Development got such terrible ratings, even though it was one of the most popular shows at my university, anecdotally and according to ratings on Facebook.
    7. Re:Good idea! by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      If you don't want to let the networks know your opinion, then you have no right to complain when they won't listen to what you're not saying.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    8. Re:Good idea! by GreenHead · · Score: 1

      my parents are a nielson media house. Now both my brother and I live inside the house, but we both rarely watch tv. While my parents watch most of the tv hours. Nielson has no idea who is actually watching tv, just that someone is. In our house hold it looks like my brother and I watch alot of cooking shows, network tv and soap operas. If our house truly represents a family older people tend to watch more tv, and skew the results towards shows that appeal to their demographic (desperate housewifes, lost, house, etc...). I'd admit their system is slightly flawed, but it's close to perfect as one can get. I think this is the case with most young adults they rarely watch tv, except for mostly one or two key shows.

    9. Re:Good idea! by Distinguished+Hero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps then the demographics will represent the hip, happening and geeky crowd as well as whatever boring old fogies Nielson represents.
      I'm no expert in the matter, but if Nielson is doing its job properly, they would be using a representative sample of the population of T.V. viewers (of which you and your friends are but a small fraction) or a representative sample of the population of T.V. viewers willing to pay for stuff (of which you and your friends may be an even smaller fraction).

      Then again I'm not 'Merican, so I have no idea why good shows get cancelled *cough*Firefly*cough*. I just know that they do, and the dumb ones remain
      I'm not a "'Merican" (great, even more illiteracy) either, but it seems rather peculiar that you would insult the very people who produced the entertainment you so enjoyed to begin with.

      If you truly want to know why "good shows get cancelled," the explanation is rather simple. In a free market, you make money by giving people what they want. Ideally, you want to give as many people as possible things that they really want (and are therefore willing to pay high prices). I would wager that not that many people wanted to watch Firefly, and those that did, did not value it high enough to pay a sufficient price to make it worthwhile.

      P.S. If you truly want decent sci-fi, I suggest you stop being intellectually lazy and visit your local library.

      --
      Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
    10. Re:Good idea! by maxume · · Score: 1

      Firefly was cancelled because the ratings didn't justify the production costs. Fox didn't do the show any favors with the out of order run and timeslot, but they didn't cancel it because they were making too much money or anything.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    11. Re:Good idea! by Secret+Agent+X23 · · Score: 1

      Is Nielsen doing it differently now? We had a Nielsen box a few years ago, and it had buttons on it you were supposed to press to indicate which members of the family were watching at any given time. It was fun for the first couple hours, just because of the novelty, but then it got real old real quick. Of course, it was terribly inaccurate. People forget to press their buttons when they start or stop watching. We'd press extra buttons to add fictitious viewers for shows we really liked. Etc.

    12. Re:Good idea! by Jeian · · Score: 1

      It only samples a very small demographic: people who want to be monitored.

      That's OK, we already know the people who don't want to be monitored are watching porn.

    13. Re:Good idea! by apnielsen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Is Nielsen doing it differently now? We had a Nielsen box a few years ago, and it had buttons on it you were supposed to press to indicate which members of the family were watching at any given time.
      No. People meters have had the buttons since 1991 (possibly before that too).

      It was fun for the first couple hours, just because of the novelty, but then it got real old real quick. Of course, it was terribly inaccurate. People forget to press their buttons when they start or stop watching.
      Pressing buttons is currently the only accredited way of making sure you're actually watching. Just because you're in the same room as a TV set doesn't mean you're watching. As you point out, it also introduces a certain amount of inaccuracy. "Button fatigue" is a hot topic in Research, and they're looking at everything from adapting A/P Meters to installing facial recognition devices to fix it.

      We'd press extra buttons to add fictitious viewers for shows we really liked. Etc.

      That's possibly why you're no longer a Nielsen home. We do notice these things, believe it or not. ;)

      Each day, Nielsen publishes an install count and an intab count. Installs are all the homes with people meters. Intabs are those homes that aren't trying to play Tetris on their set tops.

    14. Re:Good idea! by riflemann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It only samples a very small demographic: people who want to be monitored.

      And these are the people they're after. If you're concerned about privacy and not wanting your viewing habits watched, then you're probably too smart to be swayed by TV advertising anyway.

      --
      Sparks:Gadget:Beer Maker
    15. Re:Good idea! by Secret+Agent+X23 · · Score: 1
      We'd press extra buttons to add fictitious viewers for shows we really liked. Etc.

      That's possibly why you're no longer a Nielsen home. We do notice these things, believe it or not. ;)
      I suppose it might look wrong if someone overdoes it, like maxing out all the buttons every time your favorite show is on. We didn't go that far just because we thought it might indeed look suspicious. I assumed the reason we're no longer a Nielsen home is that at the beginning, they said they wanted us to do it for a year, and that's exactly how long they left the box here. Maybe our behavior got us on a list of families they won't ask again, but if that's the case, it's perfectly all right with me. I don't want to do it again.
    16. Re:Good idea! by kimvette · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nielsen does not look at everybody. They only look at people who still have land lines. You can only become a "Nielsen Family" by invitation, and those invitations are via telephone calls. I have only a cellular phone, and when I bother to get 'net access at home, my "land line" will be VOIP through the office. So, I have exactly ZERO chance of ever being invited by Nielsen to participate in the rating system.

      It sucks, too. I'm in the target market for most advertisers (by age, income, and interests) and because of me and others like me who don't want to pay Verizon/etc. monopolies money for an immobile phone, we lose out on great shows like Futurama, Arrested Development, Firefly, and other shows which are really probably not reflected accurately in the ratings system.

      What Google should do (I didn't RTFA yet so please pardon me if TFA mentions this) is team up with cable providers and track viewership by both digital cable (the cable company DOES know what you tune to with a digital receiver, how do you think you get that nice MPEG stream?) and by surveys/journals. DVRs should be included, and MythTV plugins (OSS of course!) should be made available as well so that timeshifting is tracked accurately. This would provide far better, near-realtime feedback to ratings systems, and not only will they be able to accurately gauge who watches what, but they can also know which advertisements were skipped, how often advertisements were played, and also how many times the timeshifted program was re-viewed. They would be able to know via survey (perhaps the cable box/DVR/MythTV software could pop up and optional survey) which family member (or friend, or guest) watched the show, how often they watch the show, and why did they skip the advertisements? Maybe they'd learn that, oh, say, advertising McDonalds during a fitness-oriented show does not pay off at ALL (or you just find oh, say, Bob's Discount Furniture ads to be totally obnoxious), but airing a Lexus advertisement during that same timeslot does. Advertising could be more targeted, therefore more interesting to the target viewers, and entice viewers to not skip them. Advertisements would also likely become far more entertaining (remember Outpost.com's ads? Those were better comedy than most SNL sketches lately).

      The Nielsen system is a fucking joke.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    17. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the invitation comes by mail.

    18. Re:Good idea! by stanmann · · Score: 1

      They are testing out pagers that you can carry around with you, that will make not of subliminal signals that participating networks insert into their stream. My wife and I have them. I'm 30, my wife is 28. we've been doing the market survey(shopping segment for 3 years now) and recieved the pagers last winter. They must be worn. they will sleep if thye think they aren't being worn, but they are very motion sensitive, so even while sitting still, breathing, stretching and normal body motions keep it awake.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    19. Re:Good idea! by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Actually the demographic is people who are willing to get paid to be monitored. there's a small difference IMO.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    20. Re:Good idea! by indifferent+children · · Score: 1
      It only samples a very small demographic: people who want to be monitored.

      Democracy sucks! It only offers representation to those who are willing to vote.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    21. Re:Good idea! by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      I have only a cellular phone
      Presumably this makes you part of a tiny minority? Or have things changed that much in the US?
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    22. Re:Good idea! by PMuse · · Score: 1

      [Nielson's] research system is not perfect, but it's close enough to give advertisers a picture of who's watching what. If it wasn't, Nielson wouldn't be in the TV ratings system for long.

      It appears that the precise duration of "long" will be known shortly.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    23. Re:Good idea! by sowth · · Score: 1

      There is the whole problem. The entire system is based on what Advertisers(tm) want on tv. If people paid for TV directly instead of indirectly through the companies who advertise, then maybe there would be better choices.

  3. Google's MO by tommertron · · Score: 3, Funny
    Google's MO is information collection and research.

    ... and word processors. Oh, and web accelerators.

    --
    Random rants about technology: http://technorants.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Google's MO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful


      Google's MO is information collection and research.
      ... and word processors. Oh, and web accelerators.
      ...that, in turn, collect more information and produce better research results.

    2. Re:Google's MO by ciroknight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Web accelerators and Word Processors lend themselves brilliantly to information collection and research. Accelerators help the company to see what pages are loading slowly and why, word processors help them see what people are writing about and technologies of dealing with it (such as different compression algorithms, search algorithms, etc).

      Add spreadsheet in there and maybe Google's trying to find a better way of extracting metadata from Spreadsheets. Add blogs in there and maybe Google's trying to find a better way to tell a Blog from an ordinary webpage to improve search results.

      As you can see, each element lends itself to Google's core business: helping people find things.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    3. Re:Google's MO by JFitzsimmons · · Score: 1

      FYI: Google already owns Blogger.

      --
      Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Anonymous
  4. Long tail by KayEss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wonder if either of them will actually manage to get the long tail of consumption recorded? Then maybe the rest of us won't have to put up with all of the rubbish that passes entertainment in the mass market.

  5. muntz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HaHa!

    Oh wait, it said Nielsen...

  6. stupid people = stupid shows by Bluude · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah, but even in a society where everyone gets a vote, you are still going to have around 20% that like reality shows, 15% that enjoy game shows, 20% that like daytime talkshows, 20% that like medical drama, and 20% that enjoy cop drama. So even in pefect world where everyone is counted, we will still have a lot of crap on tv because there are a lot of stupid people in the world that find comfort in watching the same old crap they have always watched.

    Heck sometimes I think those people are threatened when a new show like firefly comes on. they just don't know how to classify it so they don't bother watching it.

    1. Re:stupid people = stupid shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cant you see, this is how we Hack the system into total collapse and meltdown! By injecting stupid show votes! TV isnt worth it anyway, revenge on the media mongrals! This is good for US and bad for THEM. This puts MORE power into OUR hands :) Let the chaos commence!

    2. Re:stupid people = stupid shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful
      Heck sometimes I think those people are threatened when a new show like firefly comes on. they just don't know how to classify it so they don't bother watching it.

      Just because a day-time talk show isn't your thing, you shouldn't call people stupid for watching it. I imagine that the 'stupid' people who enjoy watching the 'crap they've always watched' thought firefly was utter crap, I certainly did.

      I think we can both agree that standards are low but if you want to go mindlessly bashing people who don't watch your fave show, you're on your own.

    3. Re:stupid people = stupid shows by thelost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      while people do watch dreadful shows I've found that the last reason is that they are stupid. Among my friends the number 1 reason for watching crap TV is that they've spent the whole day working/studying and they just want to switch their brain off. The aforementioned tv genres are pretty good for tuning in and dropping out to.

      --
      Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
    4. Re:stupid people = stupid shows by drsquare · · Score: 1
      Who are you to say people are stupid for watching medical dramas? You sound like an arrogant elitist, the sort who would only watch something if no-one else did, then wonder why they cancelled it.

      Heck sometimes I think those people are threatened when a new show like firefly comes on. they just don't know how to classify it so they don't bother watching it.


      Utterly unbelievable. With an attitude like that, no wonder it was cancelled. People like you probably don't believe in watching commercials either as they're for people more stupid than you, so there's no profitability in showing things you want to watch anyway.

      What if I thought that Firefly was stupid, with a stupid, lowest-common denominator script, laughable dialogue and low quality actors? Does that mean you're stupid for watching it?
    5. Re:stupid people = stupid shows by algerath · · Score: 2, Interesting
      GP doen't need to point to medical/cop dramas to prove his point about a lot of stupid people. One just needs to go to a public place and observe for a while, it becomes obvious very quickly.

      Someone who is going off on someone else for being an "arrogant elitist" should not start a sentence with "people like you" and then call them stupid.

      Yup, I am sure Firefly was cancelled due to his attitude. That must have been it. I bet mine didn't help either.

      I don't watch commercials, according to your logic I am smart, Thank You. I don't think commercial watching is an accurate predictor of intellect. I have seen people I know staring blankly at the set watching some crap about cheetos or whatever and realized why advrtising is such a big business.

      just my .02

      Algerath

    6. Re:stupid people = stupid shows by Distinguished+Hero · · Score: 1

      So even in pefect (sic) world where everyone is counted, we will still have a lot of crap on tv because there are a lot of stupid people in the world that find comfort in watching the same old crap they have always watched. Heck sometimes I think those people are threatened when a new show like firefly comes on. they just

      Oh, boohoo. Television is a medium for illiterates to receive instant gratification. If you think you are too good for that, go to your local library.

      --
      Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
    7. Re:stupid people = stupid shows by Pink+Tinkletini · · Score: 1

      "...we will still have a lot of crap on Slashdot because there are a lot of arrogant, self-important fartsniffers in the world that find comfort in sniffing the same old farts they have always sniffed."

      *plonk*

      --
      And now, a PSA from David Lynch.
    8. Re:stupid people = stupid shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just so you know where this conceited little fuckstain is coming from, he's the one who wrote "Show some respect for [Joss Whedon's] genius even if you are too ignorant to appreciate it."

      Ah yes, Joss Whedon, king of the dweebs. Guess I'm too "ignorant" to give a shit about him or the formulaic pap he vomits out to the delight of undemanding viewers like you. I think I'll pass.

    9. Re:stupid people = stupid shows by Bluude · · Score: 1

      Man you bastards get nasty when somebody bashes your type of tv.
      What a bunch of fucking fanboys!

      Yes, I enjoy the odd cop or medical drama too. but there are how many different fucking Law and Order shows?

      I was just pointing out that firefly was different. Not better. I just want variety, but the networks are afraid to take a chance on anything new because the ratings aren't there for it. The ratings aren't there because as someone else said, people want to just veg out and not try anything new. they are comfortable. But veging out is a form of self induced stupidity no matter how brainy you are during the day. That was my fucking point. Now stop saying I am elitist, I watch the same crap you do, I just want something new now and then as well.

      Yes I understand that Firefly is not the end all be all of tv. Heck, even it took elements from other tv shows and jsut threw them together. but they did it in a different way, whether that was for better or worse.

    10. Re:stupid people = stupid shows by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      Somehow that doesn't seem like a good idea.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    11. Re:stupid people = stupid shows by waferhead · · Score: 1

      Firefly did not die of idiots not "getting" it...

      The Network KILLED it, by showing the episodes in random order, at seemingly random times, if at all.

      Any show with any kind of story arc would die the same death if given the same treatment.

    12. Re:stupid people = stupid shows by Bluude · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree firefly died because of the network screwing with it, and I agree with the point made about how it cost too much and the reality shows are cheeper. That is why the network ruined firefly on purpose. It was just a way for them to get out of a contract.
      But when it ended people just watched whatever crap took it's place, and the ad dollars kept rolling in. So the people are partially to blame even if they really had no control. They are responsible for making those low budjet reality shows popular, and as long as people watch them there will not be any really new shows with a big budget taking the chance.

      I am just glad the BBC came out with Dr. Who, HBO had Rome, and showtime had penn and teller Bullshit. Now those were some origional shows, well with the exception of DR. who, but it was reinvented for our generation. So at least the ratings don't control those entities. Not yet anyway.

  7. Harry? Scott? Here's what Harry has to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're breakin' my heart
    You're tearin' it apart
    So fuck you
    All I want to do
    Is have a good time
    Now I'm blue

    You wanna boogaloo
    Run down to Tramps
    Have a dance or two -- ooh!

    You're breaking my heart
    You're tearin' it apart
    But fuck you
    You're breakin' my heart
    You're tearin' it apart
    Ooh!--ooh!--

    You stepped on my ass
    You're breaking my glasses too

    You wanna drive my car
    Buy a lot of stuff
    I've had enough
    Of you -- ooh!
    I'm goin' insane
    There's no one to blame
    So fuck you

    You've gotta have your way
    There's nothin' left to say
    There's nothin' left to do--ooh!
    You're breakin' my heart
    You're tearin' it apart
    So fuck you

    You've gotta have your way
    There's nothin' left to say
    There's nothin' left to do--ooh!
    You're breakin' my heart
    You're tearin' it apart
    But I love you

    Hey! Everybody's talkin' at me...
    my sentiments exactly, Harry.

  8. Google builds geographical barriers on Internet by Elixon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm sure that audience is coming to Video.Google.com, but is google coming to the audience?

    This is what google served me instead of the clips in "Music Videos" menu:

    "We're sorry, but the provider of this video has not authorized Google to display this video in your location.
    To see more videos visit our home page."

    Does it matter that I'm from EU?

    --
    Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
    1. Re:Google builds geographical barriers on Internet by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So if the provider of a video doesn't want to show it in the EU, Google should refuse to host it at all?

      It's the same as Apple and DRM; I'm not buying it, but it doesn't offend me that they use it, the RIAA wasn't coming to the table otherwise.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Google builds geographical barriers on Internet by Elixon · · Score: 1

      I hope that this is just coincidence ;-) - this is what Google serves me today:

      ---
      Response Headers - http://video.google.com/
      Cache-Control: private
      Content-Length: 141
      Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 07:36:00 GMT
      Content-Type: text/html
      Server: GFE/1.3

      404 Not Found
      ---

      When I use the American IP then I see normal content of http://video.google.com/ content.

      When I use the URL "http://video.google.com/?test" instead of "http://video.google.com/" from my european IP it works OK. Funny.

      --
      Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
    3. Re:Google builds geographical barriers on Internet by rtechie · · Score: 1

      So if the provider of a video doesn't want to show it in the EU, Google should refuse to host it at all?

      Absolutely. By giving people the OPTION to censor, you are indirectly endorsing censorship. And eventually the "option" to censor, will turn into a mandatory requirement.

      An example: Region coding on DVDs.

      The spec on DVDs REQUIRES to you fix both your DVD and player to a region, so even if you wanted to distribute a "region-free" DVD you CAN'T, because it won't work in many players. You you MUST fix your content to the US or Europe, not both. This is done soley to fuck small content producers (who have to do different printings and packaging if they want to distribute worldwide) and to gouge customers.

      And speaking of digital music, you do know (if they haven't already) they're going to start including region restrictions so the can change availability and pricing. They also want tracks to self-destruct after 30 days. You think any of this is for the customer?

    4. Re:Google builds geographical barriers on Internet by maxume · · Score: 1

      The DVD spec never requires you to purchase a DVD player. It's a choice, one that many many many many people made. *If you want to watch DVD's* you must fix your content to the US or Europe.

      As far as music goes, I have so far chosen not to purchase any drm music. My point was that I don't give a shit what a company sells to other people.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:Google builds geographical barriers on Internet by rtechie · · Score: 1

      The DVD spec never requires you to purchase a DVD player. It's a choice, one that many many many many people made. *If you want to watch DVD's* you must fix your content to the US or Europe.

      And people would buy DVD players with the intention of NOT playing any DVDs?

      But I was mainly referring to content PRODUCERS, and the fact that since you can't distribute the same pressing of a DVD worldwide, this creates major hurdles for small content producers who must do a seperate pressing for each region. You CAN master "region-free" discs, but they don't work in many players.

      So how does this work? It means that if you're an indie film producer you will have to do seperate small pressings of your DVDs rather than one large pressing wiich drives up your costs. That's why many "indie" movies are more expensive at retail than (much more expensive to produce) Hollywood movies.

      As far as music goes, I have so far chosen not to purchase any drm music. My point was that I don't give a shit what a company sells to other people.

      You don't seem to realize that YOU are one of those "other people". DRM music restrictions affect everyone: ALL music listeners and ALL music producers. That's the whole point.

    6. Re:Google builds geographical barriers on Internet by maxume · · Score: 1

      Indie movies: Life ain't fair, and it ain't never gonna be, let's not make laws pretending it will. Making "Consumer choices" that are more fairer to everybody is fine, but the only way to make things fair for little producers would be a law giving them equal status at a table that they aren't currently even sitting at.

      DRM: DRM as law is horrible and bad and evil, DRM as content producer choice is just that, choice. As long as Joe Not That Good Of A Six String is allowed to post unencumbered music to his website, DRM isn't affecting him, not enough to matter anyway.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:Google builds geographical barriers on Internet by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Indie movies: Life ain't fair, and it ain't never gonna be, let's not make laws pretending it will. Making "Consumer choices" that are more fairer to everybody is fine, but the only way to make things fair for little producers would be a law giving them equal status at a table that they aren't currently even sitting at.

      What you're saying, literally, is: "We shouldn't bother changing the laws to benefit end users and smaller content producers because the current market is soley the result of market forces and changing the laws will do nothing to help smaller cintent producers."

      Read a book. Yes, back in the days when there was no home video available (the 1970s) independent film producers struggled. Not to produce their films, but to get distribution in movie theatres. Then home video came along and small producers had a way to distributed their movies more easily. The big studios fought the sale of home video players/recorders tooth and nail, but eventually they lost in court and laws we passed to protect VCRs. Consequently, we saw a HUGE explosion in small content from independent film studios, documentarians, etc. So here we have an example of a combination od new technology AND legislation that encouraged small film producers and greatly expanded that market. Imagine that.

      As long as Joe Not That Good Of A Six String is allowed to post unencumbered music to his website, DRM isn't affecting him, not enough to matter anyway.

      And if he's not allowed to because the new players will only play DRM music and he can't (or they won't give him) the DRM license, what then? This is the situation the DVD producers are in RIGHT NOW as I described.

  9. stupid people = stupid posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    see parent.

  10. Already happening by apnielsen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nielsen's been working on total measurement for years. Arbitron and VNU (current holders of Nielsen Media research) got together to build Project Apollo. However, because of the trouble Arbitron is having getting its Portable People Meter accredited, Apollo's deploying Nielsen's A/P Meter instead, which I've commented on before.

    I work at Nielsen Media at the GTIC facility in Oldsmar FL and I've been hearing about Apollo for many years, but it seems that the rest of the world has only heard about it recently. Project Apollo has been described (internally) as the "holy grail" of measurement, which follows a consumer across every media channel and measures the affect on purchasing habits.

    What it looks like Google is doing is a subset of Project Apollo, and even if it could compete on the TV/video side they probably need to license the tech from Nielsen. I'd love to have Google as an ally, but as a competitor I think they'll find Nielsen pretty hard to dislodge.

    1. Re:Already happening by jfcantu · · Score: 1

      I work at Nielsen Media at the GTIC facility in Oldsmar FL

      Hail and well met, my fellow swampfronter. ;)

  11. Simpsons reference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *points* HAHA

  12. US TV needs a better rating mechanism by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps it will actually stop the freekin' weird US scheduling.

    Seriously - Why do the studios and advertisers rate the ratings so highly? The system is inherently gamable, so the very act of gathering statistics affects the schedules. This is why they have "sweeps". Is there somethign magical about that time? Nope. It's just when the people who are doing the counting decide they're going to look. If it wasn't for this, there woukld eb a much more regular spread of quality programming throughout the year, rather than the bursts of new episodes followded by weeks of repeats.

  13. How far down the tail are you going? by KayEss · · Score: 1

    Sounds great. What are the operations outside the US like? I live in Thailand, but I still consume US and UK television on satelite. Are you heading that far down the tail?

    At the moment I end up paying a lot to buy DVDs of shows when I'm back in the UK because all the ones I want to watch just aren't available over here. I guess that does get counted somewhere, but I'm also guessing it isn't data that Nielsen are selling anybody.

    1. Re:How far down the tail are you going? by apnielsen · · Score: 1

      Nielsen Media Research (NMR) mainly does TV ratings, so DVD sales don't really count. ACNielsen (ACN) does consumer market research, which does track DVD sales. VNU now owns both, which is what makes Project Apollo possible in the first place.

      VNU has media and market services in 100 countries, including Thailand. NMR operates television and radio measurement services and ACN operates consumer market measurement services, both out of Bangkok. Granted, the Thai ratings don't mean as much to the major networks as the US ratings do, but do they mean a lot in the local markets.

  14. Why Nielsen is Bad for TV by Mortamer2k · · Score: 1

    I wish Google would decide to compete with Nielsen's main business, which is recording what people watch on TV. For the few that don't know (it's at least common knowledge where I live) theirs only about 5,000 people with "Nielsen Boxes" which is hardly a good measurement of the entire country. This is why such good shows get canceled or end early.

  15. Hmmm... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1
    Google's MO is information collection and research

    I thought it was slitting the victim's throat, drawing renditions of Eric Cartman on the wall in the victim's blood and raiding the victim's fridge.

    I think that's a much better MO.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  16. Google juggernaut =bad? by spineboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Is anyone else getting a little freaked out at how much Google is attempting to do on the web? It does stuff well, and a free market indicates that it is doing well, but I worry about a monopoly eventually. Papers and radios have limitations on how much of the audience that their company can reach, so as to prevent a monopolistic control over the information that people receive. The internet should be no different. How to enforce that though? - Make Google break up like Ma Bell did in the 70's? And at what point? Not yet I think, but the time will come soone I think.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:Google juggernaut =bad? by rm69990 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google does have a high usage of their search engine, but seriously, name me a single other product Google has that has higher usage than their competitors. Gmail? Nope. GCalendar? Nope. Google Earth/Maps, recent surveys say Mapquest still beats them out. Google News? Yahoo! News and CNN.com still have higher readership.

      Oh, and it's not illegal to have a monopoly, what ever gave you that idea? It IS illegal to use your monopoly to push into new markets while pushing others out, or to use anticompetitive market behaviour. Considering most of Google's products aren't even linked to on their homepage, please explain to me how Google is doing either.

      Hell, Google doesn't even lock their customers in. I use Google Calendar, Gmail and Google News, yet I still use ask.com and search.yahoo.com, direct competitors to Google's cash cow, almost as often as I use Google search itself.

    2. Re:Google juggernaut =bad? by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      Monopolies are okay. Abusing monopoly power is not. If Google starts using vendor lock-in and product tying to force its way into dominating other markets or by charging outrageous prices, then we have a problem.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    3. Re:Google juggernaut =bad? by moochfish · · Score: 1

      UNLIKE other well known monopolies, the web is waters down the potential dangers. If microsoft squeezes out a competing technology, we as consumers never see it until they release their own broken version. If MS abuses your rights, it's hard to switch your desktop at home and all 300 of your corporate installs and all your partners and the office suites you use and file formats to an alternative. But on the web, things work differently. If Google omits results, I start using Yahoo. If google starts abusing my data, I stop giving it to them. If google's solutions don't give me a way to export, I never started using it in the first place.

      After all, it's only 1 click to switch from "google" to "yahoo." Unlike, say, an operating system vendor, Google has to play nice if they want to keep their dominant market position.

    4. Re:Google juggernaut =bad? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Monopolies are okay. Abusing monopoly power is not
      But where's the fun in being a monopoly if you don't get to abuse your power?
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  17. Google better take care of existing biz first by The+Mutant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've noticed Google page loads seem a hell of a lot slower lately than say one year ago. I'm not sure why, some folks blame Analytics, but it seems that sometime front page loading drags. I've turned off personalised search and it's about the same.

    It's gotten so bad at times that I'm able to open a second tab, load then execute the same search on yahoo! before Google presents its front page.

    In a recent IHT article, Schmidt first admitted problems, mentioning "Those machines are full. We have a huge machine crisis." .

    The Register also raised several complaints from users about the (negative) impact of recent changes.

    I think Google should take a pause, and reinforce their core business before heading out to capture new markets. Their aggressive growth strategy threatens to turn them into the Microsoft of internet computing; get there first, capture the market and worry about quality later.

    --

    A message from our sponsor

    1. Re:Google better take care of existing biz first by yellowbkpk · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hit the Google page at least 100 times a day and over the past year it has never taken more than half a second to appear. The times that it was slower than 300-400ms were when my net connection at school was being flooded by virus attacks.

      Maybe your location has something to do with it? Have you tried connecting with multiple net connections?

    2. Re:Google better take care of existing biz first by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      I'm having a hard time prooving your hypothesis. Loads fast for me every time.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    3. Re:Google better take care of existing biz first by The+Mutant · · Score: 1

      The problems seem to come and go...now loading fine as well. However lots of complaints (I just linked to two) being raised by folks about their core business.

      And lest we forget, Adwords is under attack by click-fraud and everyday sees the emergence of increasingly viable competitors in search and other business activities that currently account for material amounts of Google's revenue.

      Googles own Annual Report to shareholders details a wide area of risks it faces.

      No, I think they are neglecting core business as they deploy resources to capture new markets, and in doing so increasinly open themselves up attack.

      --

      A message from our sponsor

    4. Re:Google better take care of existing biz first by moochfish · · Score: 1

      Your post is a good indication that they worried about quality first, which subsequently got them where they are.

    5. Re:Google better take care of existing biz first by The+Mutant · · Score: 1

      Actually they are required to disclose risk as part of SEC regs; issues raised in their annual reports aren't really indicative of any focus on their part, rather it's a regulatory driven acknowledgement of underlying problems.

      Seems to be lots of complaints lately about Google, and issue with service. I love the company and just hope they don't blow it in a rush to dominate all markets.

      --

      A message from our sponsor

  18. This won't improve TV at all... by boredandblogging.com · · Score: 2, Funny

    Considering MySpace now is in the top 10 list by traffic volume, Google and Nielsen are just going to show the need for more stupid reality tv and medical dramas.

    --
    http://www.boredandblogging.com - yes, another pointless blog.
    1. Re:This won't improve TV at all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bring on the medical dramas!

  19. US TV already has a better rating mechanism by apnielsen · · Score: 1

    Sweeps are purely a local market abomination. Sweeps used to be the only times of year that all the local markets could afford diary service. Now that most of the major local markets in the US can afford Local People Meters which measure viewing year round (like the National sample has done since 1991), sweeps will likely become meaningless.

  20. Why Nielsen is (not so) Bad for TV by apnielsen · · Score: 1
    For the few that don't know (it's at least common knowledge where I live) theirs only about 5,000 people with "Nielsen Boxes" which is hardly a good measurement of the entire country.
    Your information is quite out of date. Last I checked (about a week ago), NMR maintained a sample of 8,144 metered households in the US and they're currently expanding to 10,000. Any high school statistics student can tell you that's more than enough to produce meaningful estimates for any size population.
    1. Re:Why Nielsen is (not so) Bad for TV by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but they (at least used to) supplement this with random samples of additional households. Years ago (early 1990s), my family was "Nielsen" for one week. They sent us a little book, one for each TV, and we filled in by hand what was watched on each TV, and by whom (by demographic).

      I expect that they continue to do things like this, to ensure that their monitored households continue to represent an appropriately balanced sampling.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    2. Re:Why Nielsen is (not so) Bad for TV by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Any high school statistics student can tell you that's more than enough to produce meaningful estimates for any size population.

      If the sample is carefully weighed to reflect the demographics of the population it's trying to represent, then this is true. This is NOT the case with Neilsen ratings. Unless you believe that (for example) single urban black men watch exactly the same kind of television white suburban nuclear families do. My understanding is that 90%+ of those metered households are white suburban nuclear families, which is hardly consistent with their representation in the population. Single people and (especially) "minorities" (blacks, asians, latinos, etc.) are grossly underrepresented by Neilsen.

      As least, this is how all the people I know that work in TV advertising see it.

  21. stupid people != stupid shows by BobDigiDigi · · Score: 1

    You think it's coincidence that the type of tv programmes you listed are the cheapest ones to produce?
    They push the shows thats the cheapest, yet above the limit of view-a-bility for the general public (Sorry for my english). How much do you think a reality or game show costs?

    Here in Spain normally only air tv is available without paying, with 5 nationwide channels, plus a few regional channels maybe. In the afternoon on ~3 of the main channels they show "Telenovelas", which are romance dramas, incredibly cheap, with incredibly bad actors, apparently never ending - including cheap cliffhanger in every episode, bought from Southamerica for what i figure must be peanuts, and they dont even have to translate them. It's just the cheapest they can get, and they figger that they can push that.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  22. Neilsen has salivated at the prospect for years by Wry+Cooter · · Score: 1

    When I first got broadband via cable at the turn of the century, I was a Neilsen family, one of the wired ones, as opposed to the type that fill out diaries ala Arbitron). New cable boxes and modems required Neilsen to come in and disconnect/reconnect their tuner spying hardware, into cable box, VCR, and TV This was in the days before DVRs, and I had a tuner card for my brand new g4 (the power PC processor Mac) , that I was planning to use to watch TV, perhaps digitize it, on my mac, and they saw it there, near the interconnection of cable modem and all, and, by god, they nearly peed their pants in excitement... they wanted to wire that up as well, by jingo! I staved them off, saying the card and external tuner didn't work, and I only used it for frame grabs from video for web pages, and they backed off. BTW, Neilsen's biggest problem those days was spoofing... people would call all the time pretending to be Neilsen (sort of the same marketing idea as people pretending to be the Yellow Pages). And sometimes Neilsen would call me, because I really didn't watch TV as much as keep it on one channel all the time as an ambient newsource, so they wondered if their connection was broken, or if I died, or whatever. I usually told the real Neilsen about the fake Neilsen that would call up and ask questions they wouldn't have to, had they known the nature of the hardwired connection. So if you have Tech TV in your market, you may be able to thank/blame me. This was before they were bought out by G4 (the cable channel) by the way

  23. Flashback by kahrytan · · Score: 1

    Cuecat flashback.

    Does anyone remember the CueCat and the fact you could hook up the thing to your tv to display websites of a particular product in a commercial?

    It is possible to build better device that will record what channels you remain at for more then 15 minutes and have the computer upload the data to Google through wireless interface.

    Related Slashdot Story to Article:
    Google Researchers Create TV Audio Analysis System

    --
    \
    1. Re:Flashback by 3waygeek · · Score: 1

      I've read that digital cable tuners already have this capability, but cable operators aren't using it.

  24. Nielson is slipping... by 7Prime · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My boss (I work as a commercial producer for a TV station), is starting to consider dropping Nielson, as many other TV stations around the country are doing. Having a Nielson rating tends to do more harm than good (and trust me, in the rural area I live in, there is NOONE else even close to being able to compete with us for viewership). Large corporations, while still looking to Nielson for guidence, have been doing so less and less. From what I hear, it's quickly becoming one of the biggest concerns in the broadcast industry. So this move to branch out into other fields doesn't surprise me.

    --
    Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
  25. Free censorship software from Google, why? by Elixon · · Score: 1

    What makes me different? Why does this censorship apply to me? I feel offended that Google offers tools for censorship to its users. I guess that Chinese see the same message for many political videos...

    Once they build the censorship software for itself they should not allow customers to use the same *****. Or maybe it is the purpose? Let people use free censoring software and if there are thousands of real Americans using the real censorship then who will dare to blame Google for censoring information?

    Restricting information based on the geographical location is simply BAD. Dot.

    I hope that you will never read something like this (because this is exactly what I feel they do):
    "Sorry, you are not authorized to see the content you requested because your government is not as good as ours or your continent is not as cool as ours or your currency is not as hard as ours... Try again few years later. Your Free Google."

    --
    Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
    1. Re:Free censorship software from Google, why? by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      Use proxies.

    2. Re:Free censorship software from Google, why? by maxume · · Score: 1

      So don't use it. If you are really offended, don't use anything associated with Google.

      I understand your sentiment, and I don't really disagree, but I also understand why Google would offer tools to restrict by location, and I don't really care that they do.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  26. You made a typo by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 1

    lends itself to Google's core business: helping people find things.

    I think you meant to type "helping advertisers sell things", because Google sure as heck doesn't make money (you know, what businesses do) by helping people find stuff. That's more of a pleasant side effect. But yes, everything they do is lniked to this.

    --
    I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
    1. Re:You made a typo by Temporal · · Score: 1

      If Google does a better job at helping people find things, more people will use Google, and thus there will be more people to advertise to, which means more money.

      So, you're incorrect. Google does, in fact, make money by helping people find things.

  27. google-analytics vs imrworldwide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Hi folks,
    people using firefox and noscript extension can easily check how many sites uses some script-based systems to spy users. The most widespread systems have the google-analytics.com and imrworldwide.com domains: imrworldwide is a Nielsen brand, while google-analystics... well, it's obvious ;)
    Slashdot.org has google-analytics, so a little disclaimer should be appropriate.

  28. Nielsen Netratings Killer by salber · · Score: 1

    Nielsen is in grave danger of awakening the Giant. Google has all the weapons to put a Nielsen/NetRating killer online. The statistics sample size from its toolbar is far greater than Nielsen's panelists by several orders of magnitude. Tie in some demographic data and it has a product to kill off Netratings and Hitwise. Given the $10000 a year pricetag on hitwise and Netratings, there are many companies out there (including my own who would love another Google freebie.