State of the Union 2026 - Dubble interview with Stefan Lameire and Koenraad Deridder by MM

Time logging as the "elephant in the room", CIM ONE entering its operational phase and European regulation potentially reshuffling the cards for audience measurement: in the wake of the CIM and Conseil de la Publicité/Raad voor Reclame State of the Union, we met with Koenraad Deridder, General Manager of the CIM, and Stefan Lameire, its chairman, to discuss these matters.

Implicitly, their answers to our questions bring one priority to the fore: regaining control over the infrastructure of Belgian measurement and integrating international platforms into a common, comparable and verifiable framework.

Let us start with this "elephant in the room", as you called it during the State of the Union: the time logging issue. Where do things stand?
Koenraad Deridder: We need to distinguish between the new data and the historical data. For the former, continuous delivery is working properly today. It has been in place since the end of January for programmes and since April for spots. When an error is detected in programmes, GfK has to correct it within the day; for spots, the deadline is one week since we work on a live+7 basis.

What remains to be resolved therefore essentially concerns the historical data. We have already re-delivered several months, but this involves a considerable amount of data. At some point, we also need to be pragmatic: if its quality is sufficient to draw up the statements and calculate advertising investments, we must be able to close the months, even if an anomaly remains here and there.

Can agencies now invoice normally?
In many cases, yes. When an agency needs a specific campaign in order to invoice, it can request that it be corrected specifically. The difficulty mainly concerns the mass correction of all campaigns.

There are still specific situations depending on the sales houses. We will communicate clearly about what is possible and what is not yet possible. But we should no longer give the impression that the entire system is blocked: that is no longer the case.

Beyond the incident, what lessons do you draw from it for CIM ONE?
The time logging issue was a huge learning experience. The first lesson is that we need to become more independent from the major institutes and have a different contractual relationship with them. During the crisis, we had to intervene ourselves to restart certain operations. CIM ONE's contracts therefore include "step-in clauses" that allow us to intervene directly when a service needs to be restored.

The second lesson is that we need to have greater control over the solution itself and be able to transfer it more easily from one institute to another.

Finally, there is the infrastructure. When we moved from Nielsen to GfK, we only had four months and tried to preserve as much as possible the flows that had been built over nearly thirty years. With CIM ONE, we need to start more from a blank sheet of paper and build a "future-proof" infrastructure. During transitions, the production systems will also need to be able to run in parallel for long enough.

Does this issue nevertheless undermine CIM's credibility?
Stefan Lameire: Of course it hurt us. We would obviously have preferred not to go through this episode.

But there is also a paradox: we are extremely critical of CIM figures that are controlled, audited and collectively discussed, while the market accepts on a daily basis figures coming from major platforms that are not necessarily controlled or aligned in the same way.

CIM ONE: entering the hard part
Where exactly does CIM ONE stand today?
Koenraad Deridder: CIM ONE comprises more than 20 sub-projects. A significant part of the foundations is now in place. The production system exists, as does the virtual population, that is, the database into which the various pieces of information will be integrated.

We are notably in a phase of optimising digital measurement. This is extremely complex because practically every panellist constitutes a different case. The available data vary depending on the consent given, the browser, the operating system, the applications or sites used. We therefore need to combine different sources and use modelling to complete the missing data.

This is also why we have put very extensive controls in place. On some days, up to 20% of traffic can pass through a "waiting room" in order to be checked. This does not mean that 20% of the data is incorrect: it means that our models have detected something that deserves to be checked. If the audience of a news website suddenly increases, for example, we need to determine whether this is a technical anomaly or simply the consequence of a news event. These checks are automated and then, when necessary, carried out manually. And above all, we are transparent about this. The market knows which data are being checked and why.

You have also made a lot of progress with the panels?
Yes. For the router installed with members of the TV panel to measure their digital usage, we were targeting 80% acceptance and we are close to 90%. The smartphone panel is already operational in the North and recruitment in the South is practically complete. We have also integrated the North-South production systems. The major task now is to combine these different databases in order to gradually achieve Total Video and Total Audio.

So you are maintaining the launch of Total Video on 1 January 2027?
That is the objective, but it is important to understand that Total Video will probably be rolled out in stages. We could start with traditional television and add, in particular, "viewing out of home", measured via the smartphone. Then there will be a stage devoted to streamers, which today are part of this "other screen use" that we can now measure but which is not yet fully integrated into the published currency. Then there will be the more complete integration of digital measurement with traditional television. The exact order still needs to be discussed with the technical commissions and strategic committees.

Total Audio is planned for 1 April 2027 and Total Publishing will be integrated during the same year. For the new planning software and its connection with agency systems, we are rather aiming for early 2028.

Why has this connection with agency systems become so important?
Because their environment is also changing extremely quickly. The large groups are developing their own models and platforms. We need to determine how to connect our "Large Media Model" to their systems, at what level of granularity and at what level.

A specific task force will work on these questions. The issue is very concrete: Belgian data must be able to enter the new international planning and trading systems. Otherwise, in the long term, our market risks being bypassed.

And the major streaming platforms? Will they be integrated into CIM ONE?
We can already measure them at platform level and publish their market shares without needing their authorisation. However, as soon as we want to go down to the level of content, programme or advertising, we need to collaborate with them. We are therefore in discussions with them.

The problem is also technical. International players tell us that they cannot install a different tagging solution in every country. That is understandable. We therefore need to find solutions that potentially allow us to integrate their own data, but on the condition that we can control their quality and harmonise the definitions.

Models already exist abroad. In the Netherlands and Germany, for example, Amazon Prime data have been integrated into measurement systems. Médiamétrie is also working with the platforms in France. We are studying these experiences.

Could the platforms tomorrow even become part of CIM's governance?
Stefan Lameire: the CIM aims to be inclusive. Everyone is welcome around the table, provided they operate within its framework.

Our fundamental principle remains the balance between "sell side" and "buy side". We want to prevent one party, or a particularly powerful player, from becoming dominant. Our statutes allow for up to two additional seats on each side. It is therefore conceivable that, in the coming years, a representative from the streaming sector could join the board of directors, while preserving this balance.

EMFA: more transparency for measurement
The famous Article 24 of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) notably imposes transparency, comparability and verifiability on audience measurement. What does this change?
Koenraad Deridder: For a Joint Industry Committee such as the CIM, the philosophy of the EMFA is rather positive. It recognises the importance of independent, transparent and comparable measurement. The challenge now lies in its practical application and in the European guidelines: how do we translate these principles into practice and how should the platforms be integrated into this system?

The Italian example is interesting. The regulator there has adopted an approach whereby platforms must have themselves measured by the JIC or conclude an agreement with it. We hope that a comparable logic can develop at European level.

Can the EMFA put an end to a situation in which platforms are judge and party in measuring their own audience?
We need to wait and see how it will be applied and, above all, distinguish between two approaches: on the one hand, audience measurement aims to produce data that are comparable between players and a common reference for the market; on the other hand, platforms have their own analytics, designed for their environments. If we integrate their proprietary data into a common measurement system, we need to know exactly what they represent, how they were produced and be able to control their quality.

Stefan Lameire: This is where the debate about time logging takes on another dimension. The market is very demanding when CIM figures encounter a problem, and that is normal. But the same level of scrutiny should apply to all figures used by the market. A piece of data does not automatically acquire credibility because it comes from a major technology platform.

Digital Omnibus: simplifying without weakening measurement
There is nevertheless a paradox: the EMFA calls for greater comparability while data protection rules can make measurement more difficult…

Koenraad Deridder: That is exactly the problem. The first proposal of the Digital Omnibus was extremely problematic for independent audience measurement. Since then, the text has evolved.

An important improvement is that a clear distinction is beginning to be made between audience measurement and platform analytics. There is also a willingness to simplify the issue of consent for certain uses related to audience measurement. But everything depends on how the exception is defined. If it only benefits platforms in measuring their own services and not independent organisations producing the common market measurement, we arrive at the opposite result to the one sought by the EMFA.

Would a relaxation of consent improve measurement?
Potentially, but the issue is not limited to consent. In order to produce reliable measurement, we need to be able to control the data before aggregating them, particularly to verify that they represent human activity and not bots. We also need to be able to combine datasets, which is essential in a cross-media approach. Some versions of the Digital Omnibus that have been discussed create problems on both these points. Simplifying consent can help, but not if, at the same time, we are prevented from properly controlling or combining the data.

So you are now also lobbyists in Brussels?
(smiles) It has become an important part of our work. We act in particular through the Audience Measurement Coalition, which brings together various JICs and European research institutes. This enables us to define a common position and explain our needs to the European institutions.

Stefan Lameire: The major platforms have considerable lobbying machines, whereas European measurement organisations historically worked in a much more fragmented way. The fact that we are coordinating changes things.

Don't time logging, CIM ONE and regulation ultimately tell the same story: that of a market that needs to collectively regain control of its infrastructure?
Stefan Lameire: Indeed. We can continue fighting in our own corners while the pie gets smaller, or we can collaborate on what constitutes the common infrastructure of the market.

Advertisers, agencies, media… We all work in the same market. Certain investments therefore need to be considered collectively. I still sometimes have the impression that this infrastructure is seen as a cost. To me, that is a mistake: it is an investment in our market's ability to exist and develop in an international environment.

Koenraad Deridder: The gradual disappearance of cookies and the loss of signals make this infrastructure even more important. Everyone has data, but there are gaps everywhere. CIM's role is to help rebuild this common view and harmonise the data.


Interview by Fred Bouchar - MM.