The U.S. television advertising industry spends enough money on audience measurement that at least two competing companies can survive profitably, according to new research released today. But keeping competition alive will require major changes in how the industry does business.

Think of TV measurement companies like the Nielsen ratings you've heard about. These companies count how many people watch TV shows and commercials. Advertisers use these numbers to decide where to spend billions of dollars in advertising. For decades, one company—Nielsen—dominated this business. Now several competitors want a piece of the market.

The Coalition for Innovative Media Measurement commissioned the study to answer a basic question: Is there enough money for multiple measurement companies to succeed? Industry veterans Manish Bhatia and Josh Chasin researched the costs of running these services and how much money is available.

What it costs to measure TV audiences

The study found that running a basic TV measurement service costs about $110 million per year. To make money with typical profit margins, a company needs to bring in $135-140 million annually. That's the bare minimum.

A more competitive service that does everything major advertisers and TV networks need costs significantly more. This fuller-featured option requires closer to $250 million in annual revenue to remain profitable.

Where does the money go? Measurement companies need several expensive components. They license viewing data from cable boxes and smart TVs—information about what millions of households actually watch. This data costs $16-50 million annually depending on how many households they track.

They also need panels—groups of people who agree to have their viewing monitored in detail. Licensing this panel data costs $3-10 million yearly. Companies spend $20-30 million on computer systems to store and process massive amounts of viewing information. Reporting systems that deliver data to advertisers cost another $30-40 million. Add corporate overhead, quality checks, and industry audits, and costs pile up quickly.

The good news: these costs appear stable for now. Smart TV manufacturers like Roku and Vizio have decided that sharing viewing data helps their own advertising businesses. When measurement companies can track what people watch on these TVs, advertisers are more willing to buy ads on those platforms. Several companies now sell panel data, creating competition that keeps prices reasonable.

How much money is available

The total U.S. market for national TV measurement services is worth $1.5-2 billion annually. That's how much TV networks, streaming services, and advertising agencies spend to understand what people watch.

Currently, Nielsen captures 85-90 percent of this money—roughly $1.2-1.8 billion. Competitors including Comscore and VideoAmp split the remaining 10-15 percent.

If you do the math, there's theoretically room for several companies. If the market shrinks to $1 billion (which many expect as the industry changes), four evenly-matched companies would each get $250 million—right at the threshold for running a competitive service.

But there's a catch: the market won't split evenly. The study warns that having more than two competitors creates confusion. Advertisers need to compare TV shows and ad performance, which becomes much harder when different measurement companies report different numbers for the same show.

Why switching is so difficult

The research identified a major problem: switching from one measurement company to another is extremely difficult and expensive for TV networks and advertising agencies.

Here's why. Imagine a TV network has used Nielsen data for 20 years. They have two decades of historical ratings showing how their shows performed. Ad buyers know what a "6 rating" means for a particular show. Talent contracts might promise bonuses if ratings hit certain levels.

Now suppose they switch to a different measurement company. The new company uses different methods and might show different ratings. Suddenly, historical trends are broken. What looked like a ratings increase might just be the measurement change. Comparing this year to last year becomes impossible. Explaining this to executives, advertisers, and talent agents creates massive headaches.

For advertising agencies, the problems multiply. Their computer systems for planning ad campaigns are built around one measurement company's data. Switching requires retraining hundreds of employees, updating software systems, and risking mistakes during the transition. Many agencies can't justify the cost without clear proof they'll save money or get better results.

The study found five major switching obstacles for advertisers:

First, trend breaks. When you change measurement systems, you can't compare new numbers to old ones. About 90 percent of TV ad spending still uses traditional age and gender targets (like "women 25-54"). For this traditional business, switching measurement companies means losing the ability to track performance over time.

Second, labor costs. Changing systems requires extensive work by employees to learn new tools and processes.

Third, client management. Advertising agencies worry that changing measurement will upset their clients, who may question whether past campaigns were measured correctly.

Fourth, added expenses. Most agencies have contracts with Nielsen that cover most of their measurement needs. Adding a second company's data increases costs without reducing what they pay Nielsen.

Fifth, missing features. None of the newer competitors offer everything Nielsen provides, forcing agencies to maintain multiple subscriptions or go without certain capabilities.

For TV networks, the biggest concerns are content measurement, local market ratings, and out-of-home viewing (like people watching sports at bars). Networks use content measurement to make programming decisions—what shows to renew, when to air reruns, how to price shows they sell to other networks. Most newer measurement companies focus heavily on measuring advertisements but don't provide the same depth of content analytics.

The changing TV landscape

The TV industry is transforming rapidly, creating both opportunities and challenges for measurement companies.

Streaming services like Netflix, Disney+, and Max have fundamentally changed how people watch TV. Nielsen announced in January 2025 it was ending its traditional panel-only ratings system, shifting to a hybrid approach combining panel data with information from 75 million connected devices.

This shift matters because streaming is inherently measurable. When you watch a show on Netflix, the company knows exactly what you watched, when, and on what device. This built-in measurement capability reduces the need for third-party measurement companies—at least for counting viewers.

But the study notes streaming also creates new measurement challenges. Traditional TV viewing happened on TV sets at scheduled times. Now people watch on phones, tablets, computers, and TVs, at any time, across dozens of services. Measurement companies must track all these devices and platforms without double-counting people who watch on multiple devices.

Industry consolidation adds another complication. Media companies are merging rapidly. Skydance acquired Paramount. Netflix announced acquisition offers for Warner Bros. Within a few years, perhaps three to five giant companies will control most TV and streaming content in America.

These mega-companies will have enormous negotiating power. Instead of dozens of TV networks each paying measurement fees, a handful of very large buyers will negotiate aggressively for lower prices. This consolidation threatens to shrink the total dollars available for measurement services.

One TV network research executive told the study authors: "My willingness to pay prevailing rates for currency is inversely proportional to the share of my impressions delivered via streaming." In plain English: as more of their advertising shifts to streaming (where they have their own measurement built in), they want to pay less for external measurement services.

Privacy makes everything harder

State privacy laws create growing problems for measurement companies. Traditionally, these companies figured out viewer demographics (age, gender, income) by matching viewing data to large databases of consumer information.

Now privacy laws classify characteristics like race and ethnicity as sensitive personal information that can't be freely shared or matched. This makes it much harder for measurement companies using big data approaches to report demographics that advertisers need.

Panel-based measurement doesn't face this problem because participants explicitly agree to share their demographic information. This creates a potential advantage for approaches that include panels, though panels alone can't track the fragmented modern viewing landscape.

What needs to change

The study recommends several changes to support a competitive measurement marketplace:

For TV networks and advertisers: Negotiate contracts that allow mixing and matching services from different measurement companies. Currently, bundled pricing makes it financially painful to use competitors' products for specific needs. Creating more flexibility would allow market forces to work better.

Take a longer-term view—perhaps three to five years—when deciding on measurement providers. The cheapest option today might not create the competitive, innovative market you want tomorrow. Supporting multiple viable competitors might cost more initially but should drive innovation and lower prices over time.

For the industry: Create shared resources that multiple measurement companies can use. The Advertising Research Foundation's DASH study is one example—it provides population statistics that all measurement companies can license rather than each conducting expensive duplicate research.

Other potential shared resources include standardized ways to identify ads, centralized schedules of when commercials actually aired, and common definitions for what counts as a viewer. These shared foundations would reduce costs while making it easier to compare results across different measurement companies.

Strengthen industry oversight through organizations like the Media Rating Council, which audits measurement companies. But for oversight to matter, the industry must actually reward companies that earn accreditation and punish those that don't. Currently, losing accreditation has little commercial consequence.

For measurement companies: Expand services beyond just measuring advertisements. The study found that TV networks need program and content measurement to make business decisions about shows. They need local market data. They need measurement of out-of-home viewing, especially for sports.

Companies that want to compete seriously must offer this full range of services or find profitable niches where they can establish strong positions. Focusing only on measuring commercials leaves gaps that make it hard for customers to fully switch providers.

Why TV advertising needs a measurement currency

Television advertising operates fundamentally differently than most other business transactions. When an advertiser buys a commercial slot during a TV show, they're purchasing something that doesn't physically exist yet and whose value can only be determined after the fact. This creates a unique problem that requires a standardized measurement system—what the industry calls a "currency."

The invisible product problem

Consider how this differs from normal purchases. When a company buys office space, they can see the building, measure the square footage, and verify what they're getting before signing a lease. When they buy raw materials, they can inspect quality and quantity on delivery.

TV advertising offers no such clarity. An advertiser buying a 30-second spot during a Thursday night drama is purchasing the opportunity to show their commercial to whoever happens to be watching. But nobody knows in advance how many people will actually watch. The show might attract 8 million viewers or 4 million viewers. A celebrity scandal might dominate news coverage that night, keeping viewers glued to news channels instead. A competing network might air a special event that pulls audiences away.

Without measurement, TV advertising would be impossibly speculative. Networks would claim their shows reach huge audiences. Advertisers would have no way to verify these claims or compare different options. Negotiations would devolve into guesswork and arguments.

The role of a common currency

This is where measurement currencies like Nielsen become essential. A currency in this context means a measurement standard that both buyers (advertisers) and sellers (TV networks) agree to use for pricing and transacting advertising inventory.

Just as the dollar provides a common unit for valuing different products—you can compare the cost of milk versus bread because both are priced in dollars—Nielsen ratings provide a common unit for valuing different TV advertising opportunities. A rating point represents roughly 1 percent of TV households. This standardized metric allows advertisers to compare a spot during a football game against a spot during a sitcom, even though these are completely different viewing experiences.

The currency function serves several critical purposes:

First, planning and forecasting. Advertisers need to plan campaigns months in advance, especially for major events like the Super Bowl or holiday shopping season. Historical ratings data from the currency allows them to estimate how many people will likely watch specific programs. A show that averaged a 4.2 rating last season provides a reasonable basis for predicting next season's performance.

Second, pricing negotiations. When networks sell advertising for the upcoming season during "upfronts" (annual advance-buying marketplaces), they use currency ratings to justify prices. A network might say: "Our Thursday night comedy block averaged a 3.1 rating among adults 18-49 last season. Based on that performance and our programming improvements, we're pricing spots at $200,000 each." Advertisers can evaluate whether that price makes sense by comparing it to other shows with similar ratings.

Third, campaign guarantees. TV advertising deals typically include guaranteed audience delivery. A network might promise that a schedule of commercials will deliver 100 million total impressions to adults 25-54. The currency provides the measurement system for verifying whether the network delivered what they promised. If the shows underperform and deliver only 85 million impressions, the network must provide additional commercials for free to make up the shortfall—a practice called "make-goods."

Fourth, post-campaign evaluation. After a campaign runs, advertisers use currency data to assess performance. Did the commercial schedule reach the intended audience? How did different time periods or programs perform? This analysis informs future buying decisions.

Why everyone must use the same currency

The currency only works if both sides of every transaction use the same measurement. Imagine if an advertiser wanted to use Measurement Company A while the TV network insisted on using Measurement Company B. They might show completely different ratings for the same program.

Suppose Company A shows a Thursday drama averaging 6.2 million viewers while Company B shows 4.8 million for the same show. Which number determines the price? How do you write a contract guarantee when the parties can't even agree on what the audience size is? How do you calculate whether make-goods are owed?

This creates powerful network effects that reinforce the dominant currency. An advertiser using Nielsen data to plan campaigns needs networks to use Nielsen for verification. Networks using Nielsen to price inventory need buyers to accept those Nielsen-based prices. Each participant's use of the currency makes it more valuable for others to also use it.

The standardization extends throughout the advertising ecosystem. Media buying software systems are built around the dominant currency's data formats and metrics. Agencies' planning tools incorporate the currency's historical data. Financial models and talent contracts reference the currency's ratings. Marketing mix models use the currency to quantify TV's contribution to sales.

This deep integration creates what economists call "switching costs"—the expense and difficulty of changing to a different system. Even if a new measurement company offers better technology or more accurate data, transitioning requires updating countless systems, retraining hundreds of employees, and breaking continuity with historical performance data.

The trust requirement

For a measurement service to function as currency, the industry must trust its independence and accuracy. Both buyers and sellers need confidence that the measurement isn't biased toward either party's interests.

This is why measurement companies like Nielsen traditionally operated as third-party service providers rather than being owned by advertisers or networks. It's also why industry oversight bodies like the Media Rating Council conduct independent audits of measurement methodologies.

The trust requirement creates another barrier for new measurement companies. Nielsen built its reputation over decades. When a new company enters the market claiming their measurement is more accurate, both advertisers and networks face a dilemma. They may believe the new data is better, but can they trust it enough to use it for billion-dollar advertising negotiations?

If a network switches to a new measurement company that shows higher ratings for their programs, advertisers may suspect the network cherry-picked a measurement service that makes their inventory look better. If an advertiser switches to a new company showing lower ratings, networks may worry the advertiser is trying to pay less for the same inventory.

When currency measurement breaks down

The traditional currency model faces several challenges in the modern media landscape:

Platform fragmentation: People now watch video content across dozens of platforms—traditional TV, streaming services, YouTube, social media, mobile apps. No single measurement company tracks all of these comprehensively. This creates pressure for platform-specific measurement rather than unified currency.

Server-side measurement: Streaming platforms like Netflix know exactly who watches what because they serve video directly from their servers. They have their own measurement built-in. This reduces their need for third-party currency measurement, though advertisers still want independent verification of platforms' claims.

Advanced targeting: Traditional TV advertising bought audiences defined by simple demographics—women 25-54, men 18-34. Increasingly, advertisers want to target specific consumer segments—"luxury car intenders" or "frequent travelers." Different measurement companies offer different audience segments, making it harder to maintain a single currency everyone accepts.

Different viewing patterns: When everyone watched shows at scheduled times on traditional TV, a single measurement approach worked. Now some people watch shows when they air live, others watch on-demand days later, others binge entire seasons on streaming services. Measuring this fragmented viewing requires different methodologies that may produce different results.

These challenges explain why the study examined whether multiple "currencies" can coexist. In practice, this might mean one measurement company becoming the standard for traditional TV transactions, while another specializes in streaming measurement, and another focuses on advanced audience segments.

The economic implications

The currency function has profound economic implications for measurement companies. Being the accepted currency for a large portion of TV advertising transactions ensures consistent revenue. Losing currency status means losing most of that business.

This creates what the study calls a "winner-take-most" dynamic. The dominant currency provider captures 85-90 percent of spending not because their technology is necessarily superior, but because standardization itself has value. Advertisers and networks pay a premium for using the same measurement everyone else uses.

For competitors, breaking into the currency business requires convincing large portions of the industry to switch simultaneously. A measurement company that signs up a few advertisers or a couple of TV networks has limited utility because most transactions still happen using the dominant currency. The competitor needs to reach critical mass—enough buyers and sellers using their measurement that it becomes practical as a transaction standard.

The study found this is theoretically possible given the revenue pool available. But achieving it requires overcoming massive coordination challenges across hundreds of companies that currently use compatible systems based on one measurement standard.

Looking forward

The study's conclusion that the market can support multiple currency-grade measurement solutions doesn't mean multiple currencies will actually succeed. It means the economic fundamentals allow for competition if the industry chooses to support it.

The actual outcome depends on decisions by TV networks, advertisers, and agencies about whether they value competition enough to accept the costs and complexity of maintaining multiple measurement standards. It depends on whether new measurement companies can build sufficient trust and technical capability. And it depends on whether the industry can develop infrastructure—like shared standards and common definitions—that makes it easier to compare results across different measurement providers.

The alternative is maintaining the current model where one dominant currency sets the standard, with competitors serving niche roles or specific use cases rather than functioning as true alternatives for mainstream TV advertising transactions.

For now, measurement currency remains one of the less visible but more consequential pieces of infrastructure in television advertising. The companies that provide this measurement may not be household names, but they provide the fundamental measuring stick that determines how billions of advertising dollars flow through the TV industry.

Why this matters

Understanding these economics matters because measurement companies provide critical infrastructure for a massive industry. U.S. TV and video advertising is worth tens of billions of dollars annually. The measurements that determine how this money gets spent affect what shows get made, which programs survive, and how the entire entertainment industry operates.

Competition among measurement companies should drive innovation, improve accuracy, and potentially lower costs. But only if the market can sustain multiple viable competitors.

The study concludes the market has enough revenue, assuming spending doesn't collapse as streaming grows. A competitive market with two strong providers appears financially feasible. Supporting more than two becomes challenging without market segmentation—perhaps one company dominates traditional TV measurement while another specializes in streaming and advanced audiences.

Jon Watts, Managing Director at CIMM, said the research provides essential foundation for industry decisions. "While barriers to entry for currency-grade measurement remain high, recent developments—such as the availability of large-scale television datasets and third-party calibration panels—have meaningfully lowered costs and shortened payback periods," Watts explained.

Bhatia noted the opportunities created by modern data sources. "The broad spectrum of industry leaders we spoke with are excited to leverage these insights to develop higher quality content and more efficient advertising campaigns. Having choice does tend to drive costs down in the long run," he stated.

The next few years will determine whether the U.S. maintains competitive measurement or reverts to a single dominant provider. Industry participants face a choice: adjust business practices to support competition, or continue with familiar arrangements that entrench the current market leader.

Timeline

Summary

Who: The Coalition for Innovative Media Measurement commissioned research by measurement industry experts Manish Bhatia and Josh Chasin examining whether companies like Nielsen, Comscore, and VideoAmp can all survive financially in the same market.

What: An economic analysis examining whether the U.S. TV measurement industry has enough revenue to support multiple competing companies, finding that basic services need $135-140 million annually while comprehensive services require approximately $250 million, with total market worth $1.5-2 billion.

When: Released January 22, 2026, based on research conducted in mid-2025 including interviews with TV network executives, advertising agency leaders, and measurement company executives.

Where: United States national television and streaming advertising market, which represents the world's largest TV advertising market and accounts for roughly two-thirds of global spending on TV audience measurement.

Why: To provide clear, factual analysis of whether multiple measurement companies can survive financially, helping industry executives make informed decisions about measurement investments and whether competitive alternatives to the dominant provider are economically sustainable long-term.

Share this article
The link has been copied!