Upfront 2013: Attack Of The Shrimp-Eaters

TV Board AKA TV Bored...PJL By Ed Martin, TV Board for Friday, May 10, 2013 Let’s consider the traditional upfront week. Are its days numbered? If not, they ought to be. Almost everything about it has become a great big expensive waste of time. The crush of outsize events has made the week more of a grueling marathon than a valuable business event. And to what end? Thanks to digital technology and social media, advertisers already know what they’re dealing with before the week begins. Reporters and bloggers are already on top of each network’s new schedule and programming announcements before they enter any venue. As I write this column on Thursday, in fact, I already have full details about the new series NBC, Fox and The CW have picked up for next season, and I know which shows on its current schedule CBS is going to renew. (That would be most of them.) And then, of course, there is the exasperating number of new programs and programming moves introduced by broadcasters throughout the week that inevitably crash and burn. Remember last year’s upfront, when the most-talked-about new show was a spectacularly ill-conceived NBC comedy titled “Animal Practice,” and the most-talked-about new stars of the upcoming season were Crystal, the simian star of that show, and Britney Spears, who was being hauled in to salvage Fox’s “The X Factor?” Enough said. Look, if the madness of upfront week is something the networks feel they must endure to please the talent involved with their shows, along with the representation and management communities, so be it. But they are mistaken if they think this is the only way to impress media buyers and planners and television reporters and critics. Changes are already happening. It’s worth noting that NBC, ABC and The CW no longer have post-presentation parties. It’s worth remembering that NBC boldly attempted to extract itself from upfront week several years ago, only to be roundly (and wrongly) criticized. And consider this: Fox on Monday will for the first time attempt to draw the viewing public into its upfront extravaganza with something called the Fox FanFront, which could expand the traditional presentation into a bigger, better and more profitable investment. Certainly new ideas are called for, because the whole upfront celebration thing suddenly seems as outdated and irrelevant as the quarterly network sweeps. This sentiment is not exclusively reserved for broadcast. In fact, at almost every cable upfront event I have been to this year, as well as certain business meetings that had nothing to do with it, top network executives have asked me if I thought all that partying had any real value beyond offering nights out to harried young media planners who might otherwise be chained to their desks until the wee hours as usual. In general, I told these executives that I couldn’t speak for the advertising community, only to be told in turn that few if any “decision-makers” come to the parties anymore. I did suggest that any kind of network event that allows the press unfettered access to executives and talent still has great value, even in the age of digital communication. Looking at the massive crowd at one event of relatively young people merrily consuming alcohol and whatever food was at hand, one executive quietly confided, “We call them the shrimp-eaters.” Well, the shrimp-eaters will be out in force next week, busily focusing on their mobile devices during all those presentations and gobbling up everything in sight at the parties. But who will benefit from it all? Certainly not the broadcasters, who could handily get their messages out via press announcements, social media communication, links to sites where clips from new fall programs may be screened, and packages of promotional DVDs. Come to think of it, the broadcasters already take full advantage of all those things, often before their events begin. The Spanish-language networks, which are increasingly powerful competitors to the traditional broadcasters, can definitely benefit from the exposure that upfront events bring, but I don’t understand why they feel the need to occupy every available space during an already punishing few days. Wouldn’t their important messages stand out to greater effect outside of upfront week? The same is true of the cable networks and cable network groups that have seen fit to wedge themselves into the week’s all-consuming craziness: ESPN, Turner Networks and USA Network. I get that they want to be considered viable and valuable alternatives to the traditional broadcasters, but I don’t think they need to stand next to them in order to get that message across. FX gets great results renting New York’s Lucky Strike Lanes every March and letting agency people and reporters drink beer, eat hot dogs and bowl with its executives and the casts of its shows. The sad fact is, most of the upfront parties and events could probably disappear next year and it would be business as usual. This is true of broadcast and cable. ABC Family, which in 2012 mounted a spectacular upfront lunch featuring most of its series talent at one of Manhattan’s most impressive restaurants, had no event of any kind this year and doesn’t seem to be suffering for it. Instead, ABC Family went with personalized agency meetings, which I’m told can do more to boost a network’s business than outsize events. Is that the wave of the future? It probably should be.

Can Cable Or Digital Content Networks Provide Relief For TV's 'Failure Tax'?

TV Watch May Be Time for Radio to Step Up... A media critique by Wayne Friedman Friday, May 10, 2013 Failure tax? Is that what marketers continue to pay to TV broadcasters? Yes, according to Mel Berning, president of advertising sales for A+E Networks. But there are ways to defeat this -- though a tax haven in the Cayman Islands isn't one of them. It's no mystery what has become of the TV broadcast business in terms of decreased viewers. Yet advertiser costs -- at least in terms of cost-per-thousand viewers [CPMs] -- keep climbing, anywhere from 5-9% last year. And overall out-of-pocket costs have gone down. CPMs aside, if you are a broadcast network, that can be a bigger worry. During upfront time, you still hear from many national advertisers that there is a scarcity of valuable broadcast inventory Cable networks complain their CPMs still aren't comparable overall to broadcast networks -- that they need to be higher. Those $30-35 broadcast show CPMs for 18-49 viewers are still a premium over the $20-30 CPMs for cable network scripted programming. Media agencies say CPMs can be comparable for cable -- but only for a select few original scripted shows, like AMC's "Walking Dead," TNT's "Rizzoli & Isles," FX's "Sons of Anarchy" or History's "The Bible." "In most businesses, you reward success with more investment," Berning said. He noted that marketers continue to reward broadcast networks. But a complete failure? Broadcast networks would tell you that that though there have been tough times, they still move product for marketers. All this isn't a complete picture. Many of the top ten cable networks have shown audience erosion (though not A+E Networks like A+E, History, and Lifetime this year). The reason: Top cable networks are getting hit with the same viewer fractionalization as the broadcast networks. Much of this results from increased viewing to small to mid-size cable channels. Talk about your TV media cannibalization. It turns out some key media agency executives aren't happy with TV overall. So much so that many media agency executives have signed a rare, joint letter to big digital content platforms imploring them, in effect, to get their act together. They want them to come up with a way to scale some of their new original content and find some common ground when it comes to measurement. If they can do that, money will flow to digital. If not, it appears agencies will continue to recommend that their clients make more TV payments for their usual broadcast season tax returns.

Local TV VIewers Crazy For Social Media, Newspapers Generate More Tweets

MediaDailyNews Monday, May 13, 2013 by Wayne Friedman, 8 hours ago Which media does better with social media? Seems everyone can claim some victory -- with TV believing it grabs more benefits. Local broadcast TV viewers are 85% more likely to post photos and videos than users of all media -- this is compared to radio, newspapers, broadcast and cable television. But local newspapers does better all other media in generating retweets -- 54% more likely number. Radio and cable TV users will hit the Facebook "like" button more often -- 46% more likely. This data comes from the TV trade association group TVB which worked with Colligent, a social-media mapping company. TVB added in data from Nielsen and Kantar Media looking across Twitter and Facebook. The research observed social media posts among 167 million Facebook and Twitter users across 4,400 prime-time television programs, 540 consumer brands, 570 TV stations, 1,823 radio stations and 358 local and national newspapers. Concerning TV, the TVB research revealed that broadcast TV at the national and local level generated as much as 192 times more brand fans within social media than advertisers in the same category that only purchased cable. Overall, the TVB believes broadcast TV have the most balanced when it comes to social media. Brian Wieser, media industry analyst at equity research firm Pivotal Research Group, states: “This important research from the TVB highlights the growing inter-relationships between television, social media and second-screen content more generally.”

Vacation Time

Hi All: Happy Daze are here again! Gonna hit the vacation trail May 20-June 1. So if you don't see any cool updates....I'll have much more when I return. Additionally, but following my return, I will be visiting my doctor as I am having my brain removed so that I may be promoted to management. Thank You, Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D.

Go Ahead, Man, Lean In

Media Post's Engage: Men By David Measer Thursday, May 9, 2013 It’s one of our cultural paradoxes that women’s issues tend to be treated as a discrete subject that affects only half the population. And, while many men have probably heard about the hoopla surrounding Sheryl Sandberg’s book, Lean In, it seems that very few have read it. An informal survey of 20 of my male colleagues found that zero men had read the book, and none planned to. Yet, the ideas in Lean In are as important for men to consider as women. One area of the book that has far-reaching implications is a simple sentence: “A truly equal world should be one where women ran half our countries and companies, and men ran half our homes.” Take a moment to digest that sentence. Especially the second part. I think we’d all agree that women ought to be much better represented in business and government. It’s embarrassing that the United States ranks 71st in female legislative representation in the world (behind Bangladesh, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates) and that women make up only 2% of Fortune 500 CEOs, 6% of top earners, 8% of top corporate leadership positions, and 16% of board directors and corporate officers. Yet, the second part of the statement – that a truly equal world has men running half our homes – is dizzying and challenging to the point of being radical. Would it even be possible for men to run half the homes in the world? And, if so, what would it look like if men played a much more active role in the home? The deficit in men’s assistance with housework and child care is striking. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, 82.5% of women engage in household activities, while only 65% of men do. And when a husband and wife are employed full-time, the mother does 40% more childcare and 30% more housework than the father. This translates to 1.17 hours per day that women spend on household and caregiving activities. Which translates to 18 days a year. Imagine a world if half of those 18 days were converted. Imagine what it would look like if men added nine days to their housework and childcare duties, and women subtracted nine days from the same. Let’s first think of this in business and marketing terms. That’s nine days – about four hours a week – for men to cut from their leisure and recreational activities. And men spend 37 hours per week watching TV, playing games, socializing, and exercising. There are some obvious benefits. What if men bought more groceries, shopped for more kids’ stuff, and had a more active hand in doing the laundry. The marketplace would have to reflect a more male point of view towards food, fashion, entertainment, design, and many other things. I, for one, would be okay living in a world with more ribs and Bugs Bunny, and less kale and Dora. Stepping up with housework and child care would be a behavioral change, but I can’t imagine it would feel like a major sacrifice. Nor would it be disruptive to business or society. If men picked up nine days of housework and childcare, I have to believe that big, powerful cars would still get bought and sold. I think we’d still figure out how to make our Fantasy Football activities look like Excel spreadsheets. And the world will be damn sure to hear our opinions on potential plot lines for Star Wars 7 (if Han Solo is not in it, so help me god…). But let’s forget about women and men and gender inequality and Sheryl Sandberg entirely. What if men decided to lean into their families? Imagine the implications for future generations. Study after study shows that the more fathers are involved in their children’s lives, the more advantages their children have. Highly involved fathers raise children with higher levels of educational and economic achievement, better psychological well-being and cognitive abilities, and a stronger emotional quotient (they’re more empathetic and socially competent). Every one of these areas touches on the critical cultural, political, and economic issues of our era. So, by getting more ambitious at home, men stand to get better and smarter kids, happier and more successful wives, and probably more ribs. If that’s not enough, according to Ms. Sandberg, there will be more sex, too. Anyone up for leaning in and starting a men’s movement?

Mobile Marketing Spend Hits $6.7B In 2012, Forecasts Soar

Online Media Daily by Mark Walsh, 11 hours ago The mobile marketing ecosystem generated $139 billion in additional sales within the U.S. economy last year, with that figure expected to grow 52% annually to $400 billion by 2015. The vast majority of mobile’s sales impact -- at least 85% -- is taking place offline rather than through m-commerce transactions. Separately, spending on mobile marketing (across mobile phones and tablets) in 2012 totaled $6.7 billion, with that amount projected to reach nearly $20 billion by 2015. The findings come from a new study commissioned by the Mobile Marketing Association designed to provide what it calls the first overview of the mobile marketing industry and its contribution to U.S. economic performance. The MMA’s “Mobile Marketing Economic Impact Study,” was released Thursday at the trade organization’s New York Forum. “Even in its infancy, mobile has irrevocably transformed society,” said Peter A. Johnson, who co-authored the study with Joseph Plummer. Both are principals at emerging media consultancy mLightenment and adjunct professors at Columbia University. In addition to economic factors, the white paper also looks at mobile-related employment, privacy issues, and the social benefits of mobile. To highlight the role that mobile marketing is already playing in the economy, the 118-page report noted that such activity added a half a percentage point to total U.S. output last year, when measured against the $33 trillion in domestic sales. That proportion is expected to rise to 1.05% of total output by 2015. Almost 85% -- or $117.6 billion of the $139 billion in incremental sales driven by mobile marketing last year -- occurred in the brick-and-mortar world, according to the report. The estimate for mobile-influenced sales offline is based, in part, on deducting the roughly $21 billion in m-commerce sales in 2012 from the $139 billion total. “The balance represents…the minimum amount that can be said to flow into the brick-and-mortar accounts of apparel merchants, restaurants, supermarkets, and car dealerships across the country, although none of them will ever have a mobile “conversion” to which these mShopping sales could ever be traced,”states the report. What the study calls “mshopping” includes promotional vehicles like mobile coupons, sweepstakes, loyalty cards and mobile wallets used in physical locations, as well as showrooming -- the trend toward comparison shopping via mobile in offline stores that can lead to purchases elsewhere. Regardless of where sales take place, the study suggested that increased sales caused by mobile marketing benefit all 16 major U.S. industry categories, especially CPG-related retail, CPG-related manufacturing, and educational services. To help highlight the effectiveness of mobile as a marketing communications tool, the study calculated a “marketing impact ratio,” or MIR, by measuring mobile sales impact against marketing expenditure. In 2012, mobile MIR peaked at $20.77 billion, and it is expected to plateau or decline slightly to $20.25 billion in 2015. The analysis indicated that increased marketing spend in mobile to date doesn’t appear to lead to diminishing returns. Higher-spending industries saw higher-impact ratios or returns. “The strongest hypothesis is that mobile marketing does not function alone, but serves as a catalyst for all other marketing platforms,” the report noted. When it comes to the estimated $6.7 billion in mobile marketing spend, the study divides it into three categories: mobile media advertising; direct response/enhanced traditional advertising, which might include an 800 number, SMS short code, or QR code; and mobile CRM, including branded mobile sites and apps, as well as company-related social mentions. Mobile advertising accounted for $3 billion in spend last year, direct-response, $669 million; and mobile CRM, almost $3 billion. The total is projected to increase to $10.5 billion this year, with mobile advertising again accounting for the bulk of spending ($4.9 billion). That pattern will hold through 2015. In addition to the “media buy” of mobile marketing, the study estimated related costs for agency and PR fees and media measurement and metrics services -- which represented an additional $3.9 billion last year -- rising to $10.5 billion in two years. Finance, retail (excluding CPG), and non-CPG manufacturing were the three largest industries in terms of mobile marketing investment last year, together accounting for about $3 billion in spending. By state, California ($865 million), New York ($587 million), and Texas ($573 million) generated the highest mobile spending levels. Attracting the most marketing dollars, mobile media advertising is credited with having the biggest sales impact -- driving $73.8 billion in incremental sales in the economy in 2012. Mobile CRM was responsible for $54.9 billion, and direct-response, for $10.3 billion. The report also addressed the paradox of mobile advertising; doubts still surround the medium despite studies showing that mobile campaigns deliver strong brand lift metrics compared to online or other channels. Skeptics point to the novelty of mobile ads and the “fat finger” syndrome as factors behind higher mobile response rates. There are also long-standing issues with tracking and targeting in mobile, given the lack of traditional PC-based cookies, especially on iOS devices. That makes it hard to gauge the effectiveness of mobile marketing efforts. “In our view, the greater factor keeping demand for mobile advertising low is likely that agencies and their clients have far more metrics and analytics for desktop than they do for mobile,” the report states. It argues that brands and agencies need to learn to measure mobile more broadly, beyond just clicks or taps, to see its full sales impact. At the same time, the authors acknowledge that tracking the indirect influence of mobile is an especially “slippery moving target” because the medium crosses over both the online and offline worlds. The findings of the MMA study were based on mLightenment’s own research, as well as that from third-parties. Underwriting the research were Google, mBlox, The Coca-Cola Company, ExactTarget and Target. Is your station's clients online with you asks Dr. Philip Jay LeNoble of Littleon, CO

Upscale Hispanics Have a Lot of Spending Power: Upscale Segment is Young Entrepreneurial and Online

MediaPost's Engage: Hispanics By Lee Vann Thursday, May 9, 2013 The Association of Hispanic Advertising Agencies and Nielsen just released an insightful study, “America’s New Upscale Segment: Latinos!” The research paints a compelling picture of the upscale Hispanic market and helps dispel Hispanic stereotypes. For this post I thought it would be helpful to summarize the characteristics of the upscale Hispanic market and suggest that marketers use digital to engage with this segment. Fifteen million Hispanics are considered upscale, that is, they earn more than $50,000 annually, which is roughly the median household income in the United States. The group represents 29% of the Hispanic population but controls 37% of U.S. Hispanic buying power of $500 million. What’s more, the study projects that by 2050, there will be 35 million upscale Hispanic in the United States. For marketers, upscale Hispanics represent an interesting opportunity for several reasons: •They are young. A full 75% of upscale Hispanics are under the age of 45 compared to only 59% of upscale non-Hispanics. •They have large households. 77% of upscale Hispanics have households or four people more vs. 45% of upscale non-Hispanics. •They are geo-graphically concentrated in the South Western and Western regions of the country. •They own lots of businesses. This group is extremely entrepreneurial with upscale Hispanics owning 500,000 small businesses. •They have high graduation rates. More education has translated into an influx of Hispanics into the white-collar work force. Upscale Hispanics Spend More on Personal Care Products Marketers take note: Upscale Hispanics represent a strong and growing consumer segment. In the majority of categories, upscale Hispanics spend as much as their non-Hispanic counterparts but spend much more on personal care products. They spend more per trip and shop more frequently for personal care items ranging from men’s grooming, women’s fragrances, hair care and cosmetics and tend to prefer premium brands vs. store brands. Upscale Hispanics also speak Spanish. A full 75% of this segment speaks at least some Spanish and Spanish-dominant upscale Hispanics have grown 18% in the past two years. What’s more, upscale Hispanics spend 52% of their television broadcast time viewing Spanish language programing. Upscale Hispanics Love Technology So how do you reach upscale Hispanics? Although the study did not touch on the digital behavior of upscale Hispanics, plenty of other studies suggest that this segment is extremely digitally engaged, over-indexing the general market when it comes to social media and mobile penetration. The fact that upscale Hispanic’s love technology coupled with the inherent advantages of digital including cost efficiency, measurability and quick time to market make digital the ideal medium for reaching upscale Hispanics.

Targeted or Random; How Do You Like Your Ads?

Research Brief: From The Center for Market Research Wednesday, May 8, 2013 According to a new study by Zogby Analytics for the Digital Advertising Alliance, 40.5% of respondents chose targeted ads, while another 27.6% were content to see both. Only 16.1% preferred random ads, with 15.8% unsure. Separate results from the DAA survey indicate that 47.3% of respondents are opposed to a law that “restricted how data is used for online advertising, but also potentially reduced the availability of free content such as blogs and video sites.” Opposition to such a law, says the report, is possibly due more to potential reduction of free content rather than restrictions on the use of data. In the study, 9 in 10 respondents said that free content like news, weather, email, blogs and videos are either extremely (68.7%) or somewhat (28.6%) important to the overall value of the internet. 75.4% of respondents would rather get free ad-supported content, compared to 9.3% who would rather pay for ad-free content. Importance of Free Content To The Overall Value Of The Internet Importance % of Respondents Extremely 63.7 Somewhat 28.6 Somewhat unimportant 2.8 Completely unimportant 1.1 Source: Zogby Analytics, April 2013 Almost 6 in 10 respondents said an online ad had at some point helped them find an offer or product they wouldn’t otherwise have known about. When asked “... has an Internet ad ever helped you find an offer or product that you wouldn’t otherwise have known about?...” 58.5% said yes, 25.8%, no,  and 15.7% said “... not sure.” 42.1% of respondents reported having purchased a product because they saw or clicked on an online ad, but that was fewer than the 46.3% who said they had never done so. The remainder were unsure. And 50.2% reported saving money or time  because of an Online advertisement, though 37.2% said “no.” Preference For Internet Ads For Random/Generic Products And Services, Or Ads For Products And Services That Reflect Personal Interests Response % of Respondents Ad directed towards my interests 40.5 Ads for random products and services 16.1 Both 15.8 Not sure 27.6 Source: Zogby Analytics, April 2013 3 in 4 believe they should be the ones making choices about what sorts of ads they see and how they’re generated, while 11.3% feel the company that makes their browser software should choose. 9.4% think the government should choose. Concurrently, 61.5% don’t trust the government to trust how internet advertising is delivered, while 17.8% do. Identity theft is respondents’ biggest concern about the Internet, followed by viruses and malware Identy theft   38.7% Viruses and malware   33.5 Government surveillance   12.3 Behaviorally targeted advertising   4.4 41.1% of respondents believe that if a major internet browser were to make it harder for companies to display advertising to users, the impact will be that they will have access to less free content. A similar proportion, though, believe that it either wouldn’t have any effect (27.8%) or that it would result in access to more free content (8.7%). About the Data: The poll allows for a margin of error of +/- 3.2% points. For additional information and access to the complete PDF report including charts and graphs, please contact Zogby Analytics.   We use the term research in the broadest possible sense. We do not perform an audit, nor do we analyze the data for accuracy or reliability. Our intention is to inform you of the existence of research materials and so we present reports as they are presented to us. The only requirements we impose are that they are potentially useful and relevant to our readers and that they pass the rudimentary test of relying on acceptable industry standards. We explicitly do not take responsibility for the findings. Please be aware of this and check the source for yourself if you intend to rely on any of the data we present.

Luxury Is In The Words Of The Beholder

Media Post's Engage: Affluent By Bob Shullman Wednesday, May 8, 2013 Recently, I had the pleasure of presenting the results of our latest monthly pulse to luxury and affluent marketers in Chicago and New York. This ongoing, insights-oriented survey differs from others as it focuses on consumers’ thinking about their lives and the economy, as well as their plans for the future. This, in turn, provides marketers with the context they need for the decisions to be made, delving into consumers’ optimism about the economy, financial goals, worries, etc., plus probing issues of current interest in both the affluent/luxury marketplaces and the mass markets. In that context, I was frequently asked to find out: What do the words “luxury” and “luxurious” really mean to consumers in their own words? So, in a recent wave of the survey, we asked that question and, when we reviewed their descriptions and put them into a Word Cloud, we noted that all consumers (mass and affluent as well as very affluent buyers) used the 23 words in the following exhibit most frequently to describe the words “luxury” and “luxurious.” Notably, the word used most frequently by all consumers was “expensive”, while two of the words, “indulgent” and “unnecessary” were not particularly positive terms. Three words that emerged were about specific items--cars, hotels and jewelry. As luxury items are largely bought by high-income segments, we then decided to delve into how those who tend to buy luxury describe the words of interest. Based on the following exhibit from the same survey, we looked at the words used by those consumers who live in households with incomes of  $250,000 or more (about 7 million adults), as the majority of these adults (57%) told us they had bought a luxury in the past 12 months.  When we reviewed the words these high-income adults used and then sorted them by the words women tend to use (they are in pink) compared to those men tend to use (they are in blue), it’s evident these high-income consumers use materially different words (24 words) than all consumers use to describe “luxury” and “luxurious” as noted in the following exhibit. In the next exhibit, we’ll focus on the words that high-income men and women share in common. Notably, the 14 words the high-income women use are more emotionally tinged and passionate while the 10 words the high-income men use are more descriptive and also include one brand name and two less than positive words to describe luxury--“waste” and “overpriced.”   When one reviews the 11 words that both women and men use that are displayed in the following exhibit, it is notable that they are descriptive and in most respects devoid of any passion. Clearly, based on our recent survey, we recommend that marketers of luxury products and services take into account that luxury is in the words of the beholder and that luxury differs materially when the consumer is a woman compared to a man.

Nielsen Trades In Trade Unit, Will Use Cash To Fund Arbitron Deal

MediaDailyNews by Joe Mandese, Yesterday, 8:48 AM In a move that will free up cash that will help it complete its proposed $1.26 billion acquisition of Arbitron, Nielsen this morning announced a deal to sell its trade shows division to Toronto-based private equity firm Onex Corp. for $950 million in cash. The deal, which is expected to close in the second quarter, will divest one of the largest operators of business-to-business trade shows -- a business that Nielsen said generated $183 million in 2012. Calling it a non-core business, CFO Brian West said: “We are thrilled to have this bump up right against Arbitron” because the deal gives Nielsen a better cash position to complete its acquisition of Arbitron. He did not say exactly when that would happen, only that it would be “as soon as the regulatory review comes to a close.” The Federal Trade Commission currently is conducting its second review of Nielsen’s proposed acquisition of Arbitron, which is the dominant supplier of radio audience measurement, as well as other media and marketing research services. West reiterated what Nielsen execs said in their recent earnings call, that the regulatory process should take another “two to four months” to complete. West said the trade show unit is the last “non-core” asset remaining in Nielsen’s portfolio.