Technically Incorrect

NBC President Jeff Zucker has been explaining to the U.S. public just how right the network was to not screen the Olympic opening ceremony live.

"There's no question we did the right thing in holding the opening ceremony to air in prime time on NBC that night," he said on CNBC's Squawk Box. "The excitement that built out of word of mouth that the opening ceremony was the most spectacular thing that people had seen, that China had wanted to make a statement and they made a statement and people wanted to see that."

I have many friends who would like to be media moguls, so I pored over these words in the hope of learning something that will help their careers.

Mr. Zucker seems to believe that word of mouth comes from deprivation, from tantalizing people that something amazing has happened and that they will only be able to see it on NBC television.

I think I can understand that.

(Credit: CC Zoutedrop)

So one assumes, given that this strategy has been so successful, the next time NBC's cameras exclusively witness, say, an assassination or a politician saying or doing something nutty, they will keep it to themselves until prime time comes along. You know, just to build up the excitement.

However, I am still a little bit confused as to how he can be sure that if NBC had run the ceremony in real time, people would have told their friends that it was a dull, lifeless experience, not unlike the U.S. version of Coupling?

Might it not have been vaguely possible that those who saw it live would have offered positive word of mouth? You know, just as people do when they see a movie they enjoy. And might it not have been possible that these people would have tuned in again in prime time, given what a spectacular show it turned out to be? You know, just as people sometimes watch excellent movies twice, or enjoy reruns of Frasier.

Still, another thing I learned was that "the pipes," as Mr. Zucker refers to network television, are still the most powerful medium for mass viewing: "I think what's been great, we've been able to bottle that excitement since the opening ceremony and I think the team has captured that in every day since," he said.

I learned a lot from Mr. Zucker's use of the words "bottle" and "capture." Here's an example of how capture worked the other night to bottle ratings.

At the time, America's mouths were full of anticipatory words about the all-around women's gymnastics final.

Two Americans, Shawn Johnson and Nastia Liukin, were poised to show the Chinese that you could survive both puberty and grueling training and still be a wonderful gymnast.

So what time did Americans witness the final result? Why, a few seconds before one in the morning. Which didn't seem quite perfect to me.

I mean, if this mythical prime time was really the key to all the scheduling decisions, surely one might have expected that NBC would have enjoyed more viewers at, say, a few minutes before 10 in the evening? You see, that would have been the time on the West Coast when the result was finally decided.

But, no, the West Coast had its excitement bottled until after bedtime as it endured its usual tape delay and thousands and thousands of adults and children disappeared, never to be inspired by some of America's most wonderful women athletes.

That bottle seems to be a little corked to me.

Here's a thought. Just a small one. Is it possible that this TV attitude is affecting the NBC's online audience?

For all Mr. Zucker's public delight at the network's Olympian Olympic performance, I understand that some advertisers have not been entirely happy with the returns they are getting from the splendid NBCOlympics.com.

Indeed, word of mouth in the business is that several of NBC's advertisers have, over the last week, been discreetly attempting to augment their online presence by seeking to buy space on sites other than NBC's.

Does this mean that NBC's online Olympics site is somehow underdelivering on promises made?

While Mr. Zucker trumpets NBC's all-around performance, claiming some 30 million unique visitors to NBCOlympics.com, some interesting numbers have emerged from ComScore. They suggest that Yahoo's Olympic section actually had 8 million unique users in the U.S. in the week ending August 10. This compares to NBC Olympics.com's 6.7 million.

Brands are funny things. And NBC's is a very strong brand, one that has brought us brilliant programming such as The Office and 30 Rock, the latter a brave and funny series that superbly satirizes TV production.

But I wonder whether real people, real American people, not amused by NBC's bottling, capturing mentality, have expressed a small rebellion against the NBC brand and avoided the online offering in sufficient numbers to make the private projections fall short. As the ComScore numbers show, some people seem to have gone for their online Olympic fix elsewhere, despite the availability of good-quality video on NBC's site.

This is a pity because the NBCOlympics.com is a very fine place to spend time. While you're waiting for, you know, the live events to be shown.

Click here for more stories on tech and the Beijing Olympics.

comScore has done a wonderful job. Of marketing comScore results.

If the Internet abacus company sees its readings suggest a significant conclusion, it releases the information in an interesting and digestible form.

However, I understand that both comScore and its frats-in-stats at Nielsen Online are having their audits audited by the Interactive Advertising Bureau after mlb.com declared that Nielsen Online's score for its site of 6 million was a "conScore." The real figure, according to mlb.com, was actually 19 million. (the results of the audit's audit are due at the end of this year.)

I try to leave discussions of numbers to intelligent people.

But there seems to be a big difference between 6 million and 19 million.

As I was thinking about this, a book wafted beneath my nose that tended to crystallize some human instincts about facts, something that numbers purport to be.

It's called "True Enough: Learning to Live in A Post-Fact Society" by Farhad Manjoo.

(Credit: misocrazy)

Mr. Manjoo performs an enjoyable analysis of some recent political controversies, such as the allegations that the elections of 2000 and 2004 were stolen by devious and surprisingly organized Republicans. (His conclusions seem to suggest that Mr. Gore was hard done by, Mr. Kerry was not.)

The book is at its strongest in describing just how deeply most human beings want to find information that most closely confirms their own prejudices. And how they shut out information that counters those prejudices.

What prejudices do research companies have? Is it, perhaps, important for them to have their research come up with newsworthy results? Are their methodologies actually primed to achieve that?

There are allegations that comScore's and Nielsen Online's figures tend to discriminate against, for example, foreigners and MacOlytes.

Why would the research companies allow for this sort of speculation?

Why would they allow for the perception that someone on a Mac in Krakow, Poland, is nothing more than a hanging chad?

According to the Interactive Advertising Bureau's CEO, Randall Rothenberg, these companies are "still relying on panels, a media-measurement technique invented for the radio industry exactly seven decades ago, to quantify the Internet".

Wait a minute, they're using panels? Does everyone know about this? Do the people who use their numbers know about this?

For so many people in the advertising business and beyond, who have their prejudices too, it is the headline that matters. They present in headlines. They talk about themselves in headlines. They need news.

Being 21st Century humans whose budgets are shrinking, attention spans are short and careers even shorter, they sometimes eschew analysis for today's news currency, the soundbite.

comScore and Nielsen Online are in the business of creating some very soundbiting headlines indeed. (FACEBOOK OVERTAKES MYSPACE!!! OHMIGOD!!! I NEED TO WRITE A SONG ABOUT THIS!!!)

Which leads me to the headline of this post.

I have no reason to believe that the folks at comScore and Nielsen Online are anything other than well-meaning, dedicated but imperfect professionals.

But what if the conclusion of the IAB audit is that the figures from companies such as these have been wildly inaccurate?

What would their PR people do with that?

Would they publicize these findings, as a declaration that they need to work harder, to find better methodologies in order to reveal more accurate truths? (Oh, there are so many inaccurate truths out there..)

Or would they decide that wouldn't be good for business?

I'm just asking.

You see, I only have a MacBook and I'm feeling ignored.

This week sees the Cannes Advertising Festival. Where a lot of advertising people and clients drink themselves silly and whisper sweet everythings into each others' ears.

I love it myself. But, being on the creative side of the business, only when you have something in competition that has a chance of winning an award.

McDonalds has already achieved a victory this week, according to the eyeball counters at comScore.

Not in Cannes (yet), but on the web.

comScore announced this week that McDonalds enjoyed the unprecedented attention of almost 600 million eyeballs in March with their display ads. (that's two eyeballs per person, for the cyclops reading this)

Which means that the burger company comScored more than 33% of the share of voice of the Top Ten Quick Serve Restaurants.

For some reason, McDonalds enjoys almost fifteen times the number of display views as Burger King.

It appears that Ronald and his cohorts (who have been responsible for some truly excellent advertising over the last twenty years) have worked out that there are huge numbers of bored workers sitting in front of their computers getting hungry all morning.

So why not tickle their palate, which is probably being destroyed by those two bitter office staples- coffee and gossip.

(Credit: Ryan McFarland (www.zieak.com))

The rumor is that the growth of display advertising on the web is markedly slowing, because clients are not seeing the results that they would wish.

Another rumor is that the reason for this slowdown is that people see the display ads, but then go to search ads to find the very best deal for the very desire the search ad has stimulated.

Let me toss out a subjective rumor.

The pop-up did a lot of damage. Banner ads that flashed to the point of vomit-inducing vertigo made it worse.

While TV audiences were used to seeing ads from the very beginning, and at least some of them were entertaining, people recoiled against some of the advertising detritus they were served online for years.

They preferred word of mouth that sent them to specific entertaining sites, like BurgerKing's brilliant subservientchicken.com or Philips' astoundingly deep shaveeverywhere.com.

People just aren't that fond of being interrupted online. They have things to do. Like seeing if Rumer Willis really can find a way to look like her Mom.

TV quickly became part of the domestic furniture, just another light you turned on when you came into the house.

Your laptop is a different being. Something more personal, something far more evocative of your private self.

Many display ads online are the equivalent of a father walking into his teenage daughter's room to check on what she's doing.

In the vernacular of my home town, the reaction they get is "Bog off."

McDonalds clearly feels that its dominating presence will bring rewards.

It will be interesting to see whether the company will see its heavy online activity slide more burgers into the nation's epiglottises.

Yes, there is a McDonalds in Cannes. On the main square where locals play boules. And just a few paces from the Palais des Festivals.