Social Climate
Integrity, the ‘sine qua non’
By Mahar Mangahas
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:22:00 01/12/2008
MANILA, Philippines -- The reason for the great controversy over alleged tampering with a media research company’s ratings of TV program audiences is that integrity is a sine qua non -- literally translated as without which, nothing -- in survey work.
TV ratings that are scientifically reliable are guides for commercial sponsors in placing their advertisements. Such ratings do not tell TV viewers what to watch; that’s a ridiculous idea. In fact, the TV ratings have no influence on the taste of the viewers. Such ratings earn their keep simply by telling the business sector what programs people most like to watch.
Similarly, pre-election surveys do not tell people for whom to vote; that’s equally ridiculous. In fact, the election surveys do not influence the preferences of voters. Such surveys earn their keep by telling political players and interested observers the candidates for whom people most prefer to vote. If scientifically done, these surveys are guides for political players in choosing candidates to support and for observers in general in making their plans.
By influencing the sponsors’ demand for individual programs, the TV ratings affect the prices which the broadcast companies can charge for airing the ads. In line with market principles, highly-watched programs deserve to charge relatively high rates for advertising time. So they are envied by the relatively unpopular shows. However, it is not the low ratings that make the latter unpopular with TV viewers; rather, it is their lack of popularity that makes their TV ratings low.
By influencing the political support for specific candidates, the pre-election surveys affect the contributions, in money and in kind (such as volunteer work), to the candidates’ election campaigns. Highly popular candidates deserve, in line with democratic principles, bigger contributions. Thus they are envied by the relatively unpopular candidates. However, it is not their low survey standings that make the latter unattractive to voters; rather, it is their unattractiveness that makes their survey standings low.
Now, if the data underlying the TV ratings made by a research company are prone to tampering, even if only at certain times and/or locations, then the resulting ratings will become untrustworthy, and the commercial sponsors will have to think of alternative providers. The very viability of the research company is at stake.
In the current controversy about TV ratings, the program audience is measured by a device, attached to a television set, which is capable of recording the channels to which the set is tuned during the day. It is the research company’s job to obtain a statistically representative sample of the households that are willing to have the device attached to their TV, and to have the recordings accessed by the company periodically.
This sample is called a panel because its members stay on over time. In order to be statistically representative, they must originally have been chosen at random. They also need an adequate incentive for staying in the panel -- after all, they know they are rendering a continuing service to a business venture, and that it is fair to be compensated. What is critical to the research is that the amount and the form of their compensation should in no way influence which TV programs they would tend to watch.
It is common sense that the research company should keep the membership of its TV rating-panel a secret. This is a safeguard against tampering, i.e., against a panel-member being bribed, coaxed, or somehow induced by anyone outside the household to tune (or even not to tune) his/her television set to specific channels at certain times.
Of course, the longer that a household stays in the panel, the harder it will be to keep its membership a secret. The news may get around to friends and neighbors, who can make “suggestions” as to what the panel family should watch. Gradually, a panel with rigidly fixed memberships will grow more and more vulnerable to contamination, if not to outright tampering.
One way to keep sample members a secret is not to have a panel at all, but to draw a completely fresh sample for every new survey --as is done in standard opinion polling. Another advantage of this is that it is not necessary to offer compensation for a one-time interview -- many respondents consider it a privilege, or good luck, to be chosen at random and be able to express their views in the opinion poll; a thank-you card is enough for them.
Occasionally, political clients of SWS have asked for hints about the locations planned for our next sample. We just laugh and say that that’s impossible; maybe such clients are just testing us. It’s good practice for survey management to wait until the last possible moment before drawing the sample locations, and also before informing the interviewers of their “barangay” [village or neighborhood district] assignments.
A bona fide survey institution cannot tolerate any dishonesty in the data-gathering process. If the secrecy of any sample sites is compromised, then those sites must be replaced. If an interviewer has done any fudging, not only must she be discharged, but all of her work (not only the “bad portions”) must be purged, and the interviews re-done by someone else.
Failure of integrity in research will have dire consequences. Who remembers Facts Base, the pollster that insisted that Jose de Venecia would win in 1998? It vanished a few months after that lopsided election.
* * *
Contact Social Weather Stations: www.sws.org.ph or mahar.mangahas@sws.org.ph.
More Inquirer columns
Previous columns:
Some 2007 survey lessons – 01/05/08
Statistics for justice- 12/29/07
Happy or sad on Christmas?- 12/22/07
A Filipino definition of social justice - 12/15/07
Agrarian reform through peaceful means – 12/08/07
Walking 1,600 km for social justicev – 12/01/07
|
