06-09-14-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

budget, legal and other real world considerations, it was appropriate for Group W to conduct the survey as it did. 2. Talmey-Drake implies that the Group W survey report did not include what it believes is sufficient methodological detail, and states that this negates “the trustworthiness of the survey and the professionalism of the expert who is presenting the results of the survey.” This criticism is not supported by standard industry practice. 3. Talmey-Drake added in respondents who were not asked a particular question to minimize survey results that show support for community access services and programming. It is inappropriate and misleading to calculate a result that includes people who were not asked a question and call it the “total sample response.” 4. One example of the double standards employed by Talmey-Drake: A Group W survey finding that 72.5% of respondents said it was “Very Important” or “Important” to have local cable programming is belittled by Talmey-Drake as “not particularly high.” But it states that its survey finding that 69% of customers say they are very or somewhat satisfied with cable service shows that customer satisfaction is “solid.” 5. Talmey-Drake’s critique contains several statements that involve unfounded assumptions, including: a. Talmey-Drake states that if CTV programs were rated using the same methods as commercial channels, “their ratings would barely be infinitesimal.” It is impossible to know what the ratings of the CTV programs would be under that scenario, since national ratings firms like The Nielsen Company have never included community access channels in their ratings. b. Talmey-Drake states that if a respondent says he is very interested in watching local sports, “he may well be imagining a production level on par with NFL games, but when he actually sees a televised local game it is anything but NFL quality play or production and he loses interest." Talmey- Drake simply assumes that CTV’s award-winning local sports productions are poorly produced, an inappropriate assumption that is easily refuted. 6. Talmey-Drake says the Group W survey is “flawed” because, unlike Talmey- Drake’s survey, quotas were not enforced to select respondents based upon their gender, level of cable service, and geographic location. One could ask, why not also enforce requirements for age, income and ethnic distribution? At what point of “enforcing” requirements does a random sample cease to be random? 7. Rather than asking about the importance of the CTV channels directly (as the Group W survey did), Talmey-Drake simply assumes that weekly viewing amounts are a valid “indication of the importance of community access channels.” Weekly viewing amounts have no substantiated relationship to the perceived “importance” of community access channels. These reported weekly viewing amounts could be related (for example) to the fact that unlike the other 7