Q Score

The Q Score is a measurement of the familiarity and appeal of a brand, company, celebrity, or television show, used in the United States. The higher the Q Score, the more highly-regarded the item or person is among the group that is familiar with them. Q Scores and other variants are primarily used by the media, marketing, advertising and public relations industries.

Usage

The Q score' is metric developed by Marketing Evaluations, Inc. which uses an annual survey of mail panelists making up a representative sample of the United States to determine a "quotient" ("Q") factor or score. The Q score identifies the familiarity of an athlete, celebrity, news anchor, cartoon, TV show, or brand and measuring the appeal of each amongst those persons familiar with each. Other popular synonyms include Q rating, Q factor, or simply Q. However, there is much debate as to the Q Score's use as a likability or popularity metric.

The Q Score was developed in 1963 by Marketing Evaluations, Inc., an American company based in Manhasset, New York. Other companies have also created different measures and metrics related to the likability, popularity, and appeal of athletes, celebrities, and brands. To calculate someone or something’s Q Score, Marketing Evaluations surveys a mail panel of U.S. consumer households about their awareness and opinion of that person or thing. The Q Score is influenced by both people’s familiarity with the subject and their favorability toward it. Q Scores are calculated for the population as a whole as well as for demographic groups such as age, sex, income or education level. Q Score respondents are given the following choices: A. One of my favorites. B. Very Good C. Good D. Fair E. Poor F. Never heard of for each person or item being surveyed.

Marketing Evaluations claims that the Q Score is more valuable to marketers than other popularity measurements such as the Nielsen Ratings because Q Scores indicate not only how many people are aware of or watch a product, but how those people feel about the product. A well-liked television show, for example, may be worth more as a commercial venue to an advertiser than a higher-rated show that people don’t like as much.

Q Score methodology debate

There is some debate as to the utility of Q Scores to determine athlete, celebrity, or brand appeal. Davie Brown Entertainment has created one measure while Nye Lavalle's Sports Marketing Group created a more definitive popularity metric from 1988 to 2004. From 1992 through 2004, Lavalle wrote a number of white papers with regards to Q Scores for clients and media executives. The following explanation and debate is taken directly from the SMG white paper of 2004 and adapted to today's climate. Turnkey Sports and Entertainment has developed a branding metric for sports teams and sports that has become popular in recent years.

"Q Scores have been used for over 30 years by the advertising, marketing and television communities to measure an athlete’s, entertainer’s, actor’s or anchorman's so-called “popularity.” Q Scores provide a rating quotient based on a celebrity’s likeability among those who are familiar with the celebrity. The letter "Q" stand for quotient. The Q Score quotient is based by dividing the total percentage of respondents who say the celebrity is “one of their favorites” by the total percentage of the population or audience who are familiar with the celebrity."

For illustrative purposes, we’ve prepared this scenario for you. Imagine that Celebrity One is known by 100% of the U.S. Population. 25% of the population stated that Celebrity One is “one of their favorites”. Celebrity One’s Q Score would then be 25. Celebrity Two, on the other hand, is known by only 5% of the population because Celebrity Two is known only to an avant-garde community. However 2.5% of the population or 50% of the 5% who know Celebrity Two said Celebrity Two was one of their favorites. Celebrity Two’s Q Score would be 50, twice the Q Score of Celebrity One. A nearly 2 to 1 higher Q Score would go to Celebrity Two even though Celebrity Two’s “so-called” popularity among the population was 10 times “less” than Celebrity One and Celebrity One’s name recognition was 20 times greater than Celebrity Two’s.

"Furthermore, since Celebrity Two was only known by 2.5% of the total population, and the total sample size for Q ratings is around 1000, only 25 respondents would actually be aware of Celebrity Two. A base number of only 25 is far too low to use in making a finding or determination with an accurate measure of statistical probability. The responses available to Q Score respondents can also be misleading. When asked to give their opinion of a celebrity, Q Score respondents are given the following choices: A. One of my favorites. B. Very Good C. Good D. Fair E. Poor F. Never heard of."

"As you can see, Response A. of “one of my favorites” may deal with a personal rating of popularity but it can also refer to performance. However, responses B. through E. are even more confusing. Is this response used to rate the “popularity” or the “performance” of a celebrity or athlete? The key question is “how can we define popularity?” I reply that’s easy! There is only one way to properly define popularity. I repeat, there is only one way to “properly” define popularity! Simply put, popularity is the expressed opinion of how much a person or group loves or likes someone or something."

Websters Dictionary defines popularity as "the quality or state of being popular," and "commonly liked or approved." Here again however, approval ratings such as those used in the various presidential popularity polls are subject to misinterpretation and bias. A president may have high approval ratings during a war, but his popularity measured by likability can sway from several to over twenty percentage points.

If you were asked to give your opinion of Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Terrell Owens, Alex Rodriguez, Mike Tyson, O.J. Simpson, Don King, John McEnroe, Michael Jordan or Michael Jackson which response would you select? You might think Mike Tyson and Barry Bonds are or were very good athletes, but you might not care for either one of them as a person and especially a spokesperson or role model for your children since their personalities may rub many people the wrong way.

The same applies to so-called “interest scales.” Asking someone how interested or the level of interest in an athlete does not equate to popularity. A keen example would be the hoopla surrounding Michael Jackson. Many millions might be interested in Michael Jackson and his exploits, but the same millions may view him as an oddity or pedophile! The only reason for the interest is publicity and it's negative at that. People may be interested in reading about Bear Stearns, AIG, Alex Rodriguez, Madonna, and corporate scandals, but many may not have any positive opinions of these persons or companies.

Yet, while many people might not like someone as a person, they still can put their personal feelings aside and still appreciate or respect someone’s performance. There are many cases where someone doesn’t like an individual as a person, but respects and appreciates their talent such as Michael Jackson’s music or Mike Tyson’s boxing. Many individuals may not like Mike Tyson as a person, but they still consider him an excellent boxer and may consider him one of their favorite boxers. Still others might not like John McEnroe as a person but really enjoys him as a tennis player. Using this form of non-uniform scale, in of itself, does not provide an accurate reflection of popularity.

A seven to nine point Love to Hate Likert Scale would be most appropriate with a neutral No Opinion response in the middle and a “Never Heard Of” choice at the beginning. In this manner, the researcher would be able to ascertain a handicapping likeability “quotient similar to Q Score that would show an up and coming athlete’s or celebrity's likability within a targeted group compared to a well-known veteran. This type of scale can also provide other advantages. You can determine avid, core, strong, lukewarm and total fan bases as well as negative fan perceptions. More important is the fact that if a company is considering a well-known and sometimes controversial athlete, how much can positive or negative opinions outweigh one another? With the love to hate Likert scales the total positive responses can be added to or subtracted to the total negative response to give a total likeability or negative score as an overall benchmark.

Forms of Q Scores

Marketing Evaluations regularly calculates Q Scores in 8 categories:

• TVQ rates broadcast television programs
• Cable Q rates cable television programs
• Performer Q rates celebrities
• Dead Q rates the current popularity of dead celebrities
• Sports Q rates sports figures
• Cartoon Q rates cartoon characters, video games, toys and similar products
• Product Q rates brand and company names
• Kids Product Q rates children’s responses to brand and company names

TVQ and Cable Q Scores are calculated for all regularly scheduled broadcast and cable shows.

Other Q Scores are calculated to order for clients who pay Marketing Evaluations and who want to research public perception of a brand or celebrity. For example, in 2000, IBM hired Marketing Evaluations to calculate the Q Score for Deep Blue, the supercomputer that defeated chess Grandmaster Garry Kasparov. Deep Blue’s Q Score was 9, meaning the computer was as familiar and appealing at the time as Carmen Electra, Howard Stern and Bruce Wayne. In contrast, Albert Einstein’s Q Score at the time was 56, while Larry Ellison and Scott McNealy each received a Q Score of 6.