• by David Goetzl  @dgoetzl, June 4, 2013

The anti-Nielsen crusaders will likely be marginalized again. Those who accuse the company of greedy, monopolistic activity while hoping it would lose a crucial round appear headed for a defeat. Nielsen is primed to emerge as the dominant currency provider in online measurement.

The forecast is an easy one: its leadership position in the TV space has it in the pole position. There may have been a window for another measurement company to establish a beachhead, but that’s just about closed.

After attending an investor day Monday for comScore, which dearly wants the online currency checkered flag, Bernstein analyst Todd Juenger came away convinced the prize is likely Nielsen’s. If TV remains intrinsically linked with online activity, then how can another provider gain an advantage?       

“Ultimately, the most important need of marketers will be to see how the two most important forms of marketing (TV and Internet) work together,” Juenger wrote.

Tellingly, he didn’t suggest Nielsen has a superior product, really just incumbency. In fact, his comments could be interpreted to mean Nielsen would have to really screw up and offer a widely unacceptable online measurement product to lose out.

“When faced with two multi-platform offerings (comScore and Nielsen), one of which is tied to the TV currency (Nielsen) – as long as the two products are reasonably comparable, we believe Nielsen will win,” he wrote.

ComScore claims some competence in the TV space. It uses set-top-box (STB) data to gather information it can use alongside online data for multi-platform measurement. It’s also presented to the Association of National Advertisers credentials for providing exact commercial ratings. But TV is not in its DNA.

Nonetheless, as Juenger noted, comScore executives repeatedly mentioned during the investor day that it offers the currency. Clearly, though, Nielsen feels it has plenty of wind at its back with its Online Campaign Ratings (OCR).

ComScore has made recent noise with word about Procter & Gamble and Publicis signing notable client deals (the latter the subject of a Wall Street Journal piece). But Juenger notes that Publicis hasn’t dropped Nielsen. He suggests that P&G and Publicis may have traded their names for “better pricing” and increased influence with comScore.

In fact, P&G is exactly the sort of large advertiser that is likely to propel Nielsen in the online space since it is a huge TV spender. Simplicity -- one company offering multi-channel currencies -- can't be underestimated in large institutions. 

Which leads to the matter of whether Nielsen’s proposed acquisition of Arbitron will be cleared by the FTC. There’s no question comScore will fight tooth and nail to prevent it, right?

ComScore is involved in a joint research initiative for ESPN with Arbitron. Success there might lead to a joint venture and other opportunities together in multi-platform measurement. Certainly, it wouldn’t want Nielsen to swallow a potential long-term partner in Arbitron.

But Juenger came away from the comScore investor event suggesting comScore hasn’t given the FTC any grist to block the proposed deal. If true, that’s cause for a sip of champagne at Nielsen.

ComScore would certainly have a case to raise about Nielsen-Arbitron stunting innovation and competition in cross-platform measurement. But Juenger writes that comScore suggested it can still compete without Nielsen’s TV data.

He did note that comScore might be providing a “different story” to the government than the optimistic one it offered to investors. Which seems likely. Why give investors anything to fear on a day when you’re rolling out the red carpet for them?

Nonetheless, they may have walked away convinced Nielsen’s TV preeminence will pose a trouble spot whether Arbitron joins Nielsen or not.