Forgot your password?
Everybody wants to be a comedian. Everybody wants to be on TV. Perception is 9/10 of the law. Yadda Yadda.
Cory, while I believe that, ultimately, the sellers of "addressable TV" will come up with solutions to their lack of GRP inventory and lack of viewer data issues, the basic problem with applying this concept to the bulk of TV, not just a small, selective-oriented subset, is obvious. Your typical TV program content supplier, who relies on "addresable TV" to sell time to advertisers, will discover that many of the shows offered are not desirable due to their older and low brow audience demos and that 75-85% of the time buyers will want to air ads in only 35-40% of the program schedule. To satisfy such demands, while virtually giving away time in the rest of the program lineup, the seller will have to greatly increase commercial clutter in the preferred content---or, if that is a no no, double or triple the CPMs, over and above the CPM premiums already biult into the "addressable TV" model just to break even. From an advertiser's point of view, neither of these solutions is even remotely desirable as they will almost totally negate the benefits of the "addressable" idea. If you look at the totallity of TV audience delivery on a show by show basis, you will see what I mean. Entire program type categories cater to older, low brow constituencies, in most dayparts and across many channels. Since youngish and more afluent consumers are, in fact, the prime targets of many advertisers, the overall pull of "addressable TV", if applied on a total TV basis, will find far too few really "desirable" shows to buy, creating a glut of buyers for a limited number of avails. Result; much higher CPMs and/or more ads per episode---or both.
This makes me wonder whether this will allow AT&T to deal with one of the major problems it faces in selling its "addressable TV" GRP inventory---namely the lack of viewer data so advertisers can target "addressable consumers" not just TV sets. By having viewer- per- set---or home--data from a selected subsample of its coverage base, AT&T could estimate far more precisely how to target viewers, using Nielsen's data. As for Nielsen combining its rating panels with AT&T's "set top subscriber data" , this sounds like a very iffy proposition. For example, what if the AT&T subscribers do not represent a true crossection of the total population--very likely----does this force Nielsen to use more of its ascription/simulation wizardry to "marry" the two sets of data?
Still, tough to beat live video from the Pittsburgh Steelers locker room.
And as for Trump being a "pathological liar" Garfield... I don't know. I heard him tell many truths that were very unpopular with the majority in this country throughout the campaign (costing him many votes), and he seems to be doubling down on them now, with full intent to make them happen. That's actually refreshing when you consider that "W" lied about what he was going to do in office, as did Obama after him. Already, Trump is proving himself more honest than those two...I mean, what career politican isn't a liar? I gave Trump credit for telling more truth than most... even when he knew it would hurt him with many voters.
Well, I would submit that Trump has made it clear that where there is fat, there will be cuts. The "press corps in the White House" has become superfluous. Trump is not going to waste taxpayer dollars on things that have, over time, become enirely unnecessary, and wasteful. He's not cut from the unaccountable cloth of the typical career politician that, because he/she is not spending his/her own money, allows unnecessary things that serve little purpose to continue to exist simply because they have previously. That is not going to fly with a guy that has always had to be accountable for the money HE INVESTED in his projects. Things are going to be turned on their ears, and feathers will be ruffled... but if it all amounts to even a tiny baby-step being taken toward making our government less ineffective, less inefficient, and less FEEBLE, well, it will be worth it.And if Trump decided to fill the space previously taken up by the money drainers (press corps) with something that will actually create revenue (DJT merchandise)... what would be the harm in that?
I don't know how you can beat a Facebook live video from the Pittsburgh Steelers locker room.
Andy Rubin in no way shape or form created the cellphine industry. He rode coat tails of Tim Barners Lee and Steve Jobs. Google after all is a search engine that tries to overtake other businesses. They were and will never be a cellphone company.....theyre simply business thieves.
I like it. It will be a lot easier for attornies to go after one company this wayHow can any sane person read this article with so many references to "potential disaster zone""haven't yet been programmed", "traveling across state lines", "unfamiliar traffic laws".I personally have never gotten behind the wheel and asked these questions to my self, BECAUSE I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN MY DRIVING ABILITY, but now I got to be on the lookout for cars guided by clusters of computer chips and no common sense.
SInce these facts are buried, you wonder why the press has been villified with loss of trust ?
Thanks for the comment. The offering is our digital media full-service buying solution for agencies (holding company and regional independent) and advertisers. Our 2000 customers benefit from strategic media planning, fast execution, smart in-flight optimization and seamless reporting and reconciliation.
My first reaction to something like this is always, "Dead guy in ad? Really?" Unless it's for something like smoking cessation. For some reason these feel different -- not exploitative at all, and using Steve Jobs is neither heavy-handed nor maudlin. It helped make me aware of the USDS. Now if they could only overcome the disconnect of government and digital and the train wreck that was the launch of healthcare exchanges. There's a fundamental doubt about the capability of government to improve anything that is likely only to continue given the current roster in Washington.
1. What is the name of this product?2. Who are the customers?3. What material benefits will this platform provide my business?4. I feel like I've read this article several times over the last several years.
Yeah, megopoly and higher prices for all.
One is only worried about labor from south of the border if the job one once had was selling avacados out of a bag on the freeway.
Since you put "fair and balanced" in quotes, may I assume you were specifically targetting those who work for Fox News? If that's accurate, no worries. None of them are actually journalists.
John: Permission granted (with proper attribution of course!). Thanks!
Good piece Maarten. Permission to pinch your acronym?
Yes, keeps getting bigger, Claudia.
As it has always been.We conduct random 'co-incidental' surveys via phone with our TV panellist homes to check that they are pushing the PeopleMeter buttons correctly. We ask which channel and programme was being watched on each TV when the phone rang. We get a surprising amount of impossible combinations. We take programme name as primacy.
Joe, while social media made a difference, I would rate Hillary Clinton's mistakes far higher up on the list. The "Deplorable" comment made everyone who quested Mrs. Clinton's position feel like second class citizens. So in short, it didn't matter what media got people talking and thinking, it was still Hillary's own mistakes.
Once one descends to name-calling, Clint, any further arguments are rendered null and tainted by your disrespect for other opinions.
These findings document what we have long known, namely that people select program content, not channels---unless the channel is of a highly thematic nature like The Weather Channel, The Food Network, CNN, BET, etc. The finding that people who claim to have watched off-network or off-cable series fare long after their original airings, ,via syndication or SVOD channels, certainly makes even more sense. Why would someone, who might or might not have seen a show like "Seinfeld" on NBC many years ago, know that it was originally an NBC series? Some might recall, but many rerun viewers are "new" to the shows and could care less who funded their "original" outings.