Media Decoder: Nielsen Adjusts Its Ratings to Add Web-Linked TVs

Damian Dovarganes/Associated Press People watch TV in lots of ways Nielsen does not count. The company said it would add TVs hooked only to the Internet.

9:04 p.m. | Updated

For media executives, there may be nothing worse than a viewer or listener who is not counted.

On Thursday, in a move that might help ease those concerns, Nielsen said that it would start considering Americans who have spurned cable, but who have a television set hooked up to the Internet, as “television households,” potentially adding to the sample of homes that are rated by the company, the standard for television ratings. In front of skeptical network officials, the company pledged to measure TV viewership on iPads and other mobile devices in the future.

Those executives have a gnawing feeling that their consumers are being missed more and more often. As new pipelines open up for viewers and listeners through social media, mobile apps and game consoles, advertisers fret that they don’t know how many people are really seeing their ads, television networks fear they’re not getting credit for getting those people to tune in and record companies wonder how they can keep up with all the ways their customers consume music.

These problems will only worsen in the years to come as new technologies further erase the boundaries that once existed between television and Internet; newspaper and cable news network; video and article.

Nielsen’s move was announced a day after Billboard said it would start including YouTube streams in its calculation of the most popular songs of the week. That shift immediately vaulted “Harlem Shake,” a modestly selling hip-hop single that has become a viral video sensation, to the top of the charts.

Nielsen’s decision was the culmination of two years of thinking, a painfully long time for media executives. Their collective sense of urgency has increased as new Web services like Aereo have allowed people to watch TV channels, ads and all, without a cable subscription or an antenna.

The new definition “will include those households who are receiving broadband Internet and putting it onto a television set,” said Pat McDonough, the senior vice president for insights and analysis at Nielsen. Currently a “television set” is the flat-screen kind, but in the future a tablet computer like an iPad could also be considered a TV set.

Nielsen’s decision won’t have an immediate impact on the ratings system that governs billions of dollars in advertising decisions, because just 0.6 percent of households in the United States meet the new description.

As that statistic shows, a large majority of households have chosen not to cut the cable TV cord to date. But predictions of “cord-cutting” continue to resonate; the Dish Network chief Charles Ergen said earlier this week that “I think cord-cutting is here to stay and will accelerate over time” as customers reject increases to their monthly bills. By beginning to count Internet-only homes, Nielsen is trying to get ahead of the change.

In some media corners on Thursday, the reaction was summarized in a word: Finally. Television executives who have long prodded Nielsen to evolve — and been disappointed before — said they would wait and see how far the company actually goes in counting online views.

Right now, most Internet views of their shows are not counted in the TV ratings that serve as a kind of nationwide popularity contest, either because there are no ads attached (see Netflix) or because the ads are not exactly the same as the ones that appeared on the original TV broadcast (see Hulu). But new services are popping up that stream TV shows and ads without the need for cable.

NBC, via Associated Press Broadcasters are eager to have television ratings consider viewers who, for instance, watch N.F.L. games on the Internet.

Aereo, which is available in New York and is expanding to other cities, is one. NimbleTV, which is in a test phase, is another. Further into the future, Intel is planning to start a cablelike subscription service that will be delivered over the Internet, and a bevy of other companies are interested in doing the same thing. If and when these services steal customers away from cable, advertisers will need to know if their spots are being seen and Nielsen will need to track it.

Alternatively, cable companies and the owners of cable channels are trying to keep customers by streaming shows in a manner known as TV Everywhere. In some cases, these services need to be rated, too.

Ms. McDonough said in a telephone interview on Thursday that viewing on Aereo would now be included in the Nielsen ratings sample. Theoretically, a cablelike service from Intel would be included, too.

The new definition also applies to homes that have cable but also have extra TV sets that are hooked up only to PlayStations, Rokus or other Internet devices.

The changes emanated from a measurement committee comprising Nielsen executives and two dozen representatives from networks and advertising firms. The committee met in New York on Tuesday and discussed Nielsen’s proposals. They were subsequently obtained by The Hollywood Reporter.

The proposals, Nielsen said in a statement, were necessary to “more completely reflect media consumption.”

There is intense anxiety about the ratings at the major television networks because, in some cases, their ratings are evaporating before their eyes. The culprits include digital video recorder use, delayed viewership thanks to the existence of Netflix and other online sources, and increased competition from other channels and the Internet. Counting the small sliver of homes that have Internet-connected TVs, but not cable, will not make a big difference in the short term.

Then again, as Ms. McDonough put it, “It’s up to the networks to decide how best they want to monetize their content.”

If a network like ABC decided to run the same commercials with “Modern Family” on TV and on Hulu and on ABC.com and on its app, Nielsen would count all those views equally.

PEGI Ratings: What Does It All Mean?

This week something important happened. PEGI replaced the BBFC as the legally-enforceable ratings body for video games in the UK. Its 12, 16, and 18 age ratings are now enforceable under British law, meaning a fine of up to £5,000 or six months in jail awaits the retailer or individual responsible for selling games to those too young to play them.

To be honest, it was all something of a mess. The two systems had coincided for way too long, creating foggy confusion – the exact opposite of what such regulatory bodies are supposed to do. Which ratings were parents supposed to trust: the familiar BBFC ratings or the new PEGI ratings? And if indeed it was was the latter, what good was a classification system that didn't have the law on its side. After all, it’s very unlikely that a number 18 stamped on the back of the game box would be capable of deterring a 12-year old from playing Battlefield 3 on Christmas day. No font is that disapproving.

The Byron Review (Safer Children in a Digital World) came to a similar, if somewhat less flippant conclusion. Delivered in March 2008, the report examined how video games were consumed by children, and how they should be responsibly licensed and distributed. One of the main issues tackled by the report was the very confusion that arose from having two conflicting systems.

BBFC Ratings System

Many parents, because of their familiarity, recognised the BBFC ratings on the front of boxes as indicators of ‘suitability’; however, this led to some parents inferring that the PEGI ratings had something to do with the game’s perceived difficulty. This led to a ludicrous situation: the very ratings that were supposed to protect children were actually doing the very opposite.

From an administrative perspective, the two bodies have always worked amicably together, but there needed to be a clearer solution to help the game-buying British public.

Overall the report is a measured assessment of a topic that normally courts hysteria. It concludes by recommending the government consolidates the existing systems into a new hybrid system, with a prominent leaning on the existing BBFC system because of its familiarity and the reputation and experience of the BBFC.

This didn’t happen. Probably because it would have required significant investment in the BBFC to ensure it could function as the sole arbiter of video games in the UK, but there was also concerns that the decision to support the BBFC could undermine PEGI and even precipitate its demise.

PEGI Ratings System

I’m not saying that choosing to go with PEGI is a bad or wrong decision; indeed, there are plenty advantages to adopting PEGI, but the loss of the BBFC’s ratings and general involvement in the regulatory process is significant for a number of reasons.

Firsty, PEGI is a European-minded ratings agency. This potentially removes the ability to ban a game in the UK if it's awarded a rating by PEGI. This is unlikely, since PEGI tends to be much sterner when awarding ratings; it has consistently awarded higher ratings for games than the BBFC.

This comes down to the way in which PEGI assesses individual titles. Publishers are asked to submit their games along with an assessment form, declaring all of the content which could influence the final rating. The form has 50 categories, detailing all imaginable types of sexual content, violence, drug abuse, even gambling. They are spread across the five different age ratings.

So “Depictions of nudity in a non-sexual context”, which includes breast feeding and sunbathing, receive the lowest rating of 3. But games depicting “sexual activity with visible genital organs” or “sexual violence or threats” rightly receive the highest rating of 18.

The licensing body which deemed the violence to be ‘moderate’ has been replaced by one that considers it to be ‘extreme’.

This declaration form, submitted by the publisher, is then used as the basis for a subsequent review; essentially, it lets the ‘administrator’ focus on the elements of the game that will most likely influence the final rating. PEGI refers to this content declaration aspect as a “significant strength as only the developer/publisher of a game has a complete overview of the content in the game”.

While it might streamline the process, it could also be one of the system’s biggest disadvantages.

As always, this is more apparent when you give real world examples. A conspicuous, often-cited case is that of Mass Effect. The BBFC passed the first part of EA’s space odyssey as a 12; PEGI certified the same game as an 18, the highest rating it can award.

Mass Effect. BBFC rating (left). PEGI rating (right).

Evaluating what age rating a game or film should receive is a complex process. It should take into account a multitude of factors. It shouldn’t just be based on instinct. But if you’ve played Mass Effect, which one sounds more appropriate to you? I imagine most of you are thinking it’s a 15. It doesn’t revel in its violence, nor is it particularly gruesome. It doesn’t incentivise the dismemberment of an enemy’s limbs, like Dead Space.

The BBFC describes Mass Effect as containing “moderate violence and one moderate sex scene”; PEGI describes the same game as containing “extreme violence” and “sexual activity without visible genitalia”. This disparity is potentially worrying. The licensing body which deemed the violence to be ‘moderate’ has been replaced by one that considers it to be ‘extreme’.

the limitations of the PEGI system could potentially put even the most sensitive, considered depiction of violence beyond the reach of anyone below 18

Although PEGI’s checklist is capable of distinguishing between a cartoon sprite inflicting a comedy slap and the jaw-smashing right hook of a street brawler, it’s less useful when it comes to grey areas, like Mass Effect. For years the BBFC has provided an exemplary service, consulting with the British public on how films should be certified. It’s a ratings body which crucially takes into account context when deciding what rating to hand out, one which understands that not all forms violence are equal, that context can be a mitigating factor and that audiences can discriminate intelligently.

PEGI isn’t prudish or reactionary. It doesn’t think video games are evil. Its intentions, I have no doubt, are thoroughly good. But since its inception in 2003, it has consistently awarded higher ratings than the BBFC. And this disparity comes down to PEGI’s ‘significant strength’: that declaration form. It’s a rigid form of certification, which is neither culturally nor contextually sensitive. It’s not about interpretation or consideration, it’s about holding a game against a checklist. Tick any of the 18 boxes and the game is automatically an 18.

So if a game contains "depictions of apparently motiveless killing or serious injury to multiple numbers of innocent human-like characters", it automatically receives an 18. Yet Schindler's List is a 15, and it tackles one of the most senseless, motiveless acts of mass slaughter ever recorded. Arguably video games are still too immature of a medium to depict something as culturally harrowing and historically significant as the holocaust with gravitas that is demanded. But the limitations of the PEGI system could potentially put even the most sensitive, considered depiction of violence beyond the reach of anyone below 18. For instance, if the same rubric was applied to literature, it would be illegal for anyone below the age 18 to read Shakespeare's tragedies, with all their eye-gouging and cannibalism and suicide. Bad luck if you're studying Macbeth for your English GCSE.

There are lots of unseen situations that lie ahead in which the PEGI system might prove unbearably restrictive. Over time, its questionnaire might need to be rephrased or rewritten or torn up completely, as the scope and ambition of video games grow. Otherwise, we could potentially face a ludicrous situation in which the most meaningful games will gated behind a forbidding, blood-red '18' .

The Byron Review itself cited this as major weakness of the PEGI system. It was thought that excessively high (or low) ratings could be a source of mistrust, and nothing could be more damaging to a ratings body in its infancy than suspicion. Hopefully, this won’t be the case, and at least in the short term, the PEGI ratings - now giving the full backing of British law - will make parents think twice before caving to the bouncy hectoring of their children wanting to play Call of Duty.

Daniel is IGN's UK Staff Writer. You can be part of the world's worst cult by following him on IGN and Twitter.