The future of media currencies in the platform era

Speaker 0 · 0:00

Welcome to our weekly podcast, Media Unfiltered. Today, Ian and I are delighted to be joined by the wonderful and omnipresent CEO of BARB, Justin Sampson. BARB is The UK's joint industry currency, otherwise known as and will be referred to in this podcast as a jig. They are the industry standard in The UK for the market to know what people are actually watching and when. The timing of this podcast is important for a number of reasons. Jigs around the world face enormous pressure to evolve, to cope with the huge fragmentation of viewership. Plus, as Todie Regan presented at ASI and at the Future of TV Global, spend via JICs or transparent measurement frameworks, if you like, is declining. So where will the money investment come from as brands and agencies opt to spend outside of these frameworks? And finally, perhaps Justin sees this as a timely way to step aside and allow the new era of talent to take over as he has announced his departure from Barb after nearly fourteen fantastic years. At the helm, Ian, Justin, welcome.

Speaker 1 · 1:06

Hello. Hello there, everyone. Hi, everyone.

Speaker 0 · 1:10

So, Justin, this could get confusing with the two Justins, but obvious first questions, particularly with referencing Tony Reagan's presentation. Are you jumping a seeking ship, or you have you just had enough after fourteen years of, what is a a politically a a particularly political job?

Speaker 2 · 1:31

No. There's there's no sinking ship in sight here, and my beliefs are resolute. They haven't really changed throughout my fourteen years at Barb, and they won't change just because I'm stepping back from being chief executive. I think the future of audience measurement for the whole industry is fundamentally a governance question. It's not a technical one. We have more ways of measuring audiences than ever before. We've got an abundant data yet. Confidence in what those numbers mean is perhaps a bit harder to establish these days. We hear advertisers and agencies talking about the profusion of data that's available at media audiences, but they're also saying that there isn't an equivalent increase in knowledge. And I think that paradox is telling us something important. And and there's a critical question to the whole industry about how we define what counts, and and I think finding the answer to that question is is relevant to understanding how we shape the standards by which success is assessed and whether the standards are defined through collective industry endeavor or whether they're defined by the priorities of individual participants in the market. And that's not meant to be a moral judgment. It's a structural observation. It's why I believe independent jointly governed measurement systems matter now more than they ever.

Speaker 0 · 2:56

Yeah. I I have to agree. And I and I've said this before, and I I will say it again. I I think you've had a a a fine run-in leading what I believe to be the world's leading JIC. It's not an easy task. But with this divide, if you like, of how JICs should operate and and the challenges presented by the market and then the trust element that you just mentioned. Do you believe the job is much harder now than it was when you started?

Speaker 2 · 3:23

I I mean, I don't think it's harder. No. I mean, I think the the the challenges that have to be navigated are perhaps more complex. I mean, fragmentation has has existed from all of Barb's history. I mean, our first, taste of fragmentation was the launch of channel four in 1982 where we had to go from doing two channels to three channels. And so dealing with fragmentation is is a constant. And I think that these days, fragmentation is, as I say, more complicated, and there's more more players in the market. But I think that the fundamentals of how do you enable an industry to reach consensus to preserve independence in audience measurement systems is it's the same challenge as it has always been. I mean, I should say independence isn't a slogan. It it's not a political position or, or indeed, it's a competitive weapon. It's it's a design principle that makes joint industry measurement worth having in the first place.

Speaker 0 · 4:34

So you mentioned all the additional players. That brings us on to the the sort of Google news. What's your view on the future of audience measurement when you when you look at what occurred with Google? You obviously you you had that great article in the Feet and the media leader. What's your your view on on how this all plays out with these events in mind?

Speaker 2 · 4:56

I think, as I say, I I don't see that the future of audience measurement is a is a technical question. It's a government question. And I think we need to be absolutely clear that Barb's relationship with all the major platforms is one we we take seriously and we want to develop. I believe that there's a shared interest in robust trusted audience data. I I believe there is path towards greater collaboration, which I think we all know works best when it's built on shared principles. I think the conversation that we need to have as an industry is what what those shared principles look like and how different voice different voices help us to define them and and and how we continue to evolve. I think it's, sometimes we get challenged by the point that Barb is, only interested in protecting the interests of established sort of players. But the honest answer is that credibility depends on whether the industry believes we're genuinely trying to measure what people watch all of it rather than defending any particular set of players. And I think we've got a strong set of evidence that Barb is committed to a progressive agenda. We've we capture viewing across broadcast, a VOD, subscription platforms, connected TV devices. We've we launched this year Barb Ads Hub, which is our full cycle campaign optimization system, which includes the likes of Amazon Prime Video, Disney Plus, and Netflix. And that expansion's sometimes been uncomfortable for our long standing stakeholders because it reveals audience fragmentation they might have preferred not to shine a light on, but that's exactly what independent measurement should do.

Speaker 1 · 6:43

I just wanna come back, actually, if I can if may just jump in. I mean, I come from the world of finance as my background. And what's sort of very interesting to the a lot about what you're saying here So it really seems the same as if you look at currencies in the real real world. I mean, they need to be trusted. They need generally to be seen as incredibly independent. They need also as well to be at least transparency on the exchange rate if those currencies are to be widely accepted. And it seems very much as though sort of that has been the traditional function with the measurement industry. Do you think there is a danger that attitude is starting to be challenged? And, obviously, we've had the recent news flow over, sir, Google and YouTube. But, also, as well, there's been other commentary out there as well.

Speaker 2 · 7:35

I think that I mean, firstly, I think that people talk about currency, and clearly currencies need to be stable, and they also talk about the need for innovation. I don't see innovation and stability as opposites. I think they only become opposites when innovation happens outside a shared framework. If you have innovation within a shared framework, that's how I think currency stays relevant, and relevance is what ultimately sustains trust. But having said that, we need to recognize a tension between innovation and stability. But but it's one I believe that's manageable, more manageable than it sometimes appears, and joint industry governance is actually well designed to handle it if we trust the process. And for me, the key is to distinguish between the currency itself and the methodology that underlies it. A stable currency doesn't mean a methodology that never changes. What it does need is that changes to methodology are made transparently, collectively, and with enough notice and communications for the market to absorb the changes. And, as I've already said, I think Barb's history is a good illustration of this. We've we've significantly expanded what we measure. Each of these expansions have involved methodological innovation, and yet the currencies remain stable enough for the markets to depend on it. And I don't think that's a coincidence. I think where instability comes from is opacity when methodologies change with our scrutiny. When new metrics are introduced either unilaterally or without clear communication. And and I think having an industry sort of agree what success so I have to define success is is, I think, really important. If you don't have that, the market loses, an anchor, a very important anchor.

Speaker 1 · 9:29

And I I'd agree just as a follow on. I'd agree with that just given, you know, certainly the if we take the analogy with real life currencies, you can see that exactly in what happens with currencies in the real world when there are competing systems where there is no no is it where unified trust, then what happens is general trust breaks down very, very quickly, and the currencies very, very quickly lose value. And and also it's absolutely right that change itself is not the issue. It's how that change is executed, but crucially, as you say, also as well, whether it's transparent or whether it's opaque.

Speaker 2 · 10:07

And I was reading just yesterday, obviously, a lot of uncertainty around what's happening in sort of macro, sort of global economic situations with tariffs, particularly since the Supreme Court decision last week. And and I was reading yesterday about the relative divergence in how gold is doing versus crypto, and gold is on a tear and crypto is having some really tricky times. And that, for me, is a real life example of when when people are uncertain, they go for things that they know and understand.

Speaker 1 · 10:41

And trust. And trust. So, Justin, I want to come back to something that you actually said before, and I thought it was quite interesting that you said there is so much more data out there when it comes to measurement than there's been in the past. But the feedback has been from advertisers, from the industry in general that actually the level of insight hasn't improved. And, arguably, I would make the case that it may even be said that some of the understanding has actually gone backwards rather than forwards because there was an issue here that there is so much data out there that it's become too complex. Do you think there is a risk that what's happening in measurement at the moment is falling into the trap of perfect being the enemy of good. I that essentially, there are so many calls as it were to find the perfect answer involving what seems to be a never ending quest. So what happens is then miss the opportunity just to provide a solution that actually is very good, maybe not a 100% perfect, but certainly suits the needs and requirements of all the major players in the market.

Speaker 2 · 11:55

To an extent, yes. I mean and and we we we're always going to as Bob trying to get MS authority, which is as which which stands up to as much scrutiny as possible. But for me, the sort of point about, the profusion of data in the industry is perhaps slightly differently. There's a great book written a couple of years back by Daniel Kahneman, Olivier Siboney, and Cass Sunstein, which was about noise. And, essentially, they're, talking about how, human beings' judgment is improved by reducing noise. So it's not just about bias. I mean, we we spend a lot of time worrying about commercial bias, platform bias, ideological bias, but we talk far less about noise, and there's this sort of unmanaged sort of variability that creeps in when you're dealing with different reach numbers from different sources. You've got a variety of different datasets modeled in different ways, and you've got different numbers sort of competing for attention and sort of questions about which number deserves to be elevated to a signal. And and markets, I think, are well sort of accustomed to compensating for bias, but I think they struggle to function in the presence of noise because it destroys comparability, and comparability is the foundation of trust. And trust breeds confidence, which in turn breeds accountability.

Speaker 1 · 13:32

And it's funny with this because it is sort of and Justin Neli is gonna love this because I'm gonna bring in one of my history examples. So, apologies for this, but there's a so there is, yeah, a known principle called the quantification fallacy. It's actually its other name is called the MacMahon fallacy after The US secretary of defense during the Vietnam War. And the reason it's called that is essentially the idea that, you know, all you need is data. That here, if you have masses and masses of data, then that is the best way to approach a problem. And inevitably, what happened both in Vietnam and also as well other examples where that's been the case is that eventually the system breaks down because it can't cope with the both of the masses of data that's produced, but also as well because understanding that data and having a coherent narrative becomes more and more difficult. I guess from your standpoint, how do you make sure that that nightmare scenario doesn't happen? Because it feels as though at the moment, it we're looking at the the industry in general and what you pointed out in terms of increasing data and so on. It only seems as though there's a sort of things are trending in one direction.

Speaker 2 · 14:47

Well well, I think that this is where there's a sort of a a collective responsibility, around the industry to sort of the choice about the future of audience measurement is, do we continue to believe in the value of collective endeavor in establishing audience measurement data for I mean, in our case, it's for what people watch. Do we think that the value of collective endeavor is worth the effort that you need to put into it. And, I mean, it's not it's not always easy to find joint industry alignment, but I think that kind of joint industry alignment, history shows, is is enduring. And it does help to provide a set of evidence for the industry to work with, which which mitigates the risks of people struggling to work out which data they trust and which data they they.

Speaker 0 · 15:46

So we're we're we're almost beating around the bush here a little bit. It was very easy to do this in the past because you had only a few stakeholders who contribute to the majority of viewing. But when you even look at the the modern streamers, they have their own ways of counting their numbers. Right? Netflix uses engagement, and I'm sure there's a plethora of others of what they take to the market and the data sources. And ultimately, it requires those guys plus Google to come to the table and unify the way that we count, essentially. But do you ever really expect all these new players to sit in a room and agree on a single methodology in a market to do what you're explaining here to to actually have a consistent way of counting. I I totally agree with you. It needs to be it needs to be right. It needs to be balanced. Everyone needs to be on the same page. But do you really expect that to happen? I

Speaker 2 · 16:40

no. I'm genuinely optimistic about this. I I think that, there's there's a great opportunity for the the industry to work together. I think it requires honesty on all sides about what that participation means and what it asks to everyone involved. But, I mean, I think the case for platforms engaging is strong. I mean, we see in our day to day conversations that advertisers are sophisticated about the difference between independently verified reach and self reported metrics. And as that sophistication grows, I think commercial value of independent measurement increases and platforms that can point to externally audited comparable audience data have a more credible position to bring to market than those that can't. I do think there's a commercial logic to participation, and the question is whether that logic is enough to outweigh the perceived loss of control that comes with shared governance. And, I mean, Barb's committed to that conversation about shared governance, and it's obviously one that that we need to have with the industry in in its, broadest definition. The the thing we have to bear in mind is any joint industry body, Bob, is an example of that. We doesn't have the luxury of operating, sort of through bilateral kind of negotiations. We're guardians of a system that advertises agencies, broadcasters, and regulators watch closely. And we have to, be aware of the debate that's going on amongst our stakeholders. We can't suppress their questions. We need to engage when there is a debate about the principles of independent collective measurement, and and our commitment is defining resolutions. And our value lies, I think, precisely in the fact that no single participant defines the standard, and that applies to everybody whether they're a new player or one that's been working with Barb for many, many years.

Speaker 0 · 18:49

Yeah. I agree. It's it's good answer to that. And and I think a lot of people in the market, particularly the new age digital folks who are who are working in the CTV space, do not understand the the independence and the rigor that Barb goes through in order to define those standards. I am less optimistic than you though about all the players coming together and agreeing. I just think a lot of them don't need to and a lot of them come from a digital background. And, you know, opacity helps margins, and advertisers are voting with their wallets. With that in mind Oh, sorry. Just for jumping

Speaker 1 · 19:21

Go on. To say that I'd actually agree with that as well. I think at the end of the day, this all boils down some money. And I think, unfortunately, what what Justin Justin else says is absolutely right. I think, you know, what will decide this is really the economic interests. And at the moment, there is definitely certainly the attitude of, you know, certain players in the market is that there is more economic value to be extracted from opacity than there is from being transparent.

Speaker 0 · 19:50

Mhmm. Yeah. And I would, yeah, I would, I would add that I think that there's a USP to be had as well with the traditional players to be audited transparently or or measured transparently, I should say. And I think that will come. I think there's gonna be a real advantage, particularly in the era of AI slop and other issues that's coming to video, if you like. So I think that there's advantages, and I think some will and some won't is the reality of it.

Speaker 2 · 20:19

I think I just can I just say one final thing, though, just to Sure? Reinforce my reasons for optimism Go. With you two. I'm gonna be the optimist in the in the room. We we we have to sort of recognize the, I think, very important framework that's been set by the WFA for cross media measurement, and and there's some really important principles in there. And I know that some of the biggest players in the world are sort of committed to those principles. And, actually, those principles could have been written about Barb, whether it's about, sort of methodologies that don't prejudice for or against one channel or service or platform, the importance of having buy side and sell side represented in the governance, and the importance of consistent audience building blocks. If we stick to those principles, which the WFA have articulated and which are very close to Barb's heart, then I I think there is a good reason to believe that with those principles in mind and with agreed purposes in mind that the practicalities can be worked out, and that's my reason for being optimistic.

Speaker 0 · 21:34

So referencing Ian's point about the economics and Tony's slide that I I mentioned earlier, we've been talking about this for a while, but JIX and MOCs around the world need investment to deal with this new world of fragmentation. Yet, they are getting in typically less money because spend is going elsewhere. Just, you know, finally, we'll just, I guess, wrap up the pod about the the future of GICS. You know, do they do they look healthy to you? Are you optimistic that that they can ride this out and and survive, continue to get the investment they require in order to evolve, or does the outlook look a little grim for them?

Speaker 2 · 22:15

Says financial pressure everywhere, and

Speaker 0 · 22:17

and there are two Not if you're the platforms. Not if you're the platforms. They're doing quite well.

Speaker 2 · 22:22

But when you come to measurement, there are cost pressures. So if you go back to the very first founding days of joint industry measurement, I mean, I think there's two principles that the industry at its broadest sense needs to keep an eye on. One is how do the players in the market bring together their collective resources to avoid duplication of effort? And the second is how do they do that to, maintain a sing a a sort of shared, source of truth. And and if you do end up in a situation where there are more than one measurement system in the market, and I think The US is a, sort of exhibit a in this sense, you you get more systems in the market, and the costs go up, and you get more versions of the truth. And you you might get more innovation, but you get more friction, and you get more costs. And there'll come a point where the industry surely has to say, how do we sort of reverse those trends? And, I I think there's a strong case in in different countries based on their own particular circumstances to look at, are we inadvertently or indeed or have we fallen into willingly kind of spending more money on all these different solutions than we should have done. And have we, by doing that, kind of ended up with more versions of the truth that we need. And and I think that there's a a big case in any country to kinda collectively say, how how do we put together all the results that people wanna put into audience measurement and get the the best out of a a system we can all trust rather than funding the creation of multiple different sources of the truth.

Speaker 0 · 24:02

Yeah. How many panels are there in The UK at the moment?

Speaker 2 · 24:08

There's a few. Yeah.

Speaker 0 · 24:10

Yeah. Is that too many for a market of, you know, 65,000,000 people or so?

Speaker 2 · 24:17

I mean, there's different panels for different purposes. Out there. Yeah. Yeah. That makes sense. So, Ian, final question is for you. And establishment surveys as well. Yeah.

Speaker 0 · 24:33

Ian?

Speaker 1 · 24:34

Yeah. No. Again and I think this has been touched on sort of really several times, but it also leads into the question about sort of economics as well. I mean, if you were to play if I was to play devil's advocate and say going on to the point about funding, going on to the point about different sort of of different platforms, having different standards and so forth, I might argue that the role of jix becomes just less and less important over time, potentially coming into going into relevance. Give me sort of the very powerful arguments why you don't think that will be the case.

Speaker 2 · 25:11

Well, if we're saying the joint industry measurement is something that we don't value, then I think we're fundamentally saying we don't value a a shared understanding of a sort of truth that we helps us define what success looks like. And if that's a a way the industry's going, then let's go back to your original question, Justin. Maybe I am getting my timing right, but that doesn't stop me believing that we, shouldn't be investing all we can in preserving the importance of joint industry measurement as a way of assuring we get that fundamental sort of trust into markets that allows people who are making investment decisions, whether it be in advertising or which content to acquire or commission or how to distribute it. All those people need confidence when they're accounting for their decisions. And I'm I'm looking sort of The UK at the moment. There are matters, kind of around, sort of the the BBC and its future or charter. There may be questions coming up about ownership issues in in TV. And in in that regulatory space, again, I mean, you have to ask the question if regulators and legislators don't have access to sort of a shared version of the truth about what people are watching, how can they do their job really, really well? I think whether it's about investment accountability or accountability to society, you will always find me arguing for the importance of joint industry approaches to establishing, what people watch.

Speaker 1 · 26:51

And but for avoidance of doubt, I'd agree, and I I'd argue the most powerful weapon you actually have is around this whole issue of trust. That it is absolutely right. Advertisers, consumers, anyone, society as a general, what it fundamentally needs is trust, and that's where an independent body actually sits.

Speaker 2 · 27:11

Absolutely. Absolutely. I think trust trust breeds confidence. Confluence breeds accountability. Sorry to repeat that line again, but I think that's fundamental to how we all operate as individuals and companies from day to day.

Speaker 0 · 27:29

Well, it's an interesting interesting way to end it because, the IPA had done lots of studies recently on trust along with Peter Field on how much trust is actually impacting effectiveness. It wasn't a thing twenty, twenty five years ago, pre sort of social media, and now it's becoming a great asset if you like to advertising that if you advertise within trusted environments, the environment rubs off to your brand and the appeal of it and all the rest of it and it's, there's been lots of research around that and TV remains very highly trusted and it's because of these frameworks, because of the way it's measured, because of the way it's governed, contribute all to that. Justin Sampson, I'd like to thank you for your time. Ian, excellent questions as always. And as usual, this is not investment advice.

Speaker 1 · 28:15

And thank you very much, Justin.

Speaker 2 · 28:17

Thank you for keeping me on my toes.

Speaker 0 · 28:20

Till next time. Thank you, guys. Thank you.