I know that everybody must say the same thing, but I just think that you put it in a way that everyone can understand. bluetooth speakers review 2015

It is a money losing game in specific local content. Don't bet on neighborhood coverage.

No, you cannot have my data. The world does not revolve about every one individually. If you want a conversation, turn the entertainment off. No, your comments are not important and do not want to see or hear them. I am watching a show.

This should be titled "Do You Want to be a BIG Media Agency CEO?" Couldn't be a better time to lead or start a new media agency model.

You are probably not a gang member or undesirable person looking to do others harm.

Television is not about authenticity. It's entertainment.

I thought AMC, not Netflix, owned Better Call Saul. So how can Netflix run it on a competing schedule, if another network makes the decisions?

How would a Wazer know to report police presence if they were undercover? Are they at a stake out all night sitting in their vehicle and Wazer's are thinking.. hmm. these people have been sitting in this car for hours and hours, eating, sleeping, watching.. must be police so I should put in on Waze, I think not. I've never reported police presence in Waze unless I'm on the freeway and see them on the side of the road (certainly not if moving). Besides, if they are moving and you report it, they won't be there for the next Wazer anyway. What's the point? Since I'm driving and using a GPS to save time, avoid traffic and hazards, and get to my destination quickly and safely, my priority is certainly not thinking about clicking buttons on my phone to report police presence. If Wazer's are reporting undercover officer presence, IMHO, I would say the officers aren't very "undercover".

Is it realistic to assume that everybody from 2-95 years old will log in as a "viewer" whenever the set is turned on or the channel is changed and then log out, then back again, whenever they leave the room? I doubt it. And what about attentiveness? Is it realistic to assume---as is now done in our national TV ratings---that when a person claims to be "viewing" a TV show, that he "watched" every ensuing second of the content that flashed across the screen----including commercials-----so long as he did not change channels or "log out"? In other words, do we really believe that people are fully engaged with all TV content, once they claim to be "watching" a TV show? Is that the way anyone but a zombie engages with the medium?

I'll bet that the moguls of "linear TV" are quaking in their boots----if they have boots--- because of the threat that countless millions of their viewers will defect to Netflix and never come back. Question: Did Netflix really claim that all episodes of "House Of Cards"would be "made simultaneously"----I wonder how they managed that trick? Or did they mean that all episodes of the series would be offered to the hordes of eager "binge viewers"at the same time, thereby wiping out "linear TV " in one fell swoop?

Your premise here, which I agree with, depends on a narrow definition of Native. You are essentially claiming that Native (ie Paid Facebook, Twitter, Outbrain, etc.) is Content Amplification. But "Native" has a secondary meaning -- advertorial content that is created (and owned) by Publishers on behalf of brands. And that model is still far from perfect.

Simple math: we own the SVOD model and there is an audience paying for linear TV so not accelerate the release of content as it is finalized post production and hit that linear TV audience by default. Some c-suite Netflix folk are really baking cookies. Now if the major TV broadcasters can get some quality innovation DNA.....

'...future on one's neighborhood," requires innovation and innovation requires guts. Do local TV stations have guts?

Come on......I hate going to movies and simply don't do it anymore. The movie industry is tied to a turn of the century distribution system...movie theaters that exposes us to the most base human total lack of respect for fellow humans, or sub humans as the case may be, people that won't stop texting despite pleas by promos to turn your stupid phone off, someone got shot this past year, and on a certain level I can understand the frustration, talkers, seat kickers, paper rattlers and every other annoying human trait that can occur in a theater. Every media commentator speaking to the "surprising" online revenue of The Interview, simple misses what actually is happening.....a huge movie audience that will pay theater prices to watch new movies on the device of their choice. I don't want your theater distribution model, your DVD with its added premium features or your Blu-Ray, give me a streaming 24 to 48 hour ticket and I will watch your new releases without having to endure sitting with people who I want to throttle.

It will eventually be revealed that Miss Bunting has early onset Dementia, or an inoperable brain tumor which accounts for her lack of a suitable filter in social dialog.

Yes some subscription services may be used, but the real issue is that options now exist to TV, I don't watch live TV, I subscribed to Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu Plus....gladly. Alternate channels for content is the new American Dream. Long live the new King....The Alternate Content Distribution King.

With all the discussion everywhere about how select advertisers are creating and executing "marketing plans" around their Super Bowl advertising, it's important to remember where all of this strategic and integrated behavior started. In 2007, Nationwide Insurance was the first Super Bowl sponsor to release its ad before the game, a move many deemed heretical to the Super Bowl ad experience. (USA Today headline: "Nationwide Gives Away Super Bowl Ad Surprise.") I led the team responsible for this effort. We supported the release of the ad with PR, social media (local and national) the creation of a "director's cut" of the ad, recording and releasing an extended remix of the music used in the ad, and appearances by the ad's star. The commercial in question, "Rollin' VIP," which starred Kevin Federline--check it out on YouTube--changed Super Bowl adverising history and forever changed Super Bowl sponsor engagement with their advertising.

It's truly amazing to me how much snapchat has grown within the last six months. From just being able to post to your story to the whole world being able to collectively post to our story, SnapChat has truly changed the realm of social media. I think that adding in these advertisements and media partners is going to impact SnapChat in a significant way. That being said, I hope these media partners allow for users to become more educated with what is going on around the globe, rather then in their small circle of snap chat friends. I wonder how much it costs to become a media partner and how they are going to enhance the feature once users get tired of the articles that are being posted. It would be cool if you could purchase for say, $1.99, a media of your choice that isn't on the list of free media partners, for example, E Network.

Eric the large companies have learned that mobile ads are not for them. There is no Super Bowl on the Internet for advertisers and large multinational companies. I have what they need. A universal platform for all people worldwide that can be easily translated to all languages and has a track record. I am have the FREE www.aimhightips.com they have over 1,110,000 real FB "likes" www.facebook.com/aimhightips just waiting for the CMOs to catch up with Internet people and vice versa. I seriously doubt mobile ads are for anyone and just are a fad like most tech apps and things on the Internet. I have the real McCoy. Thank Brad

Cory - One more angle on your patent - why not have each user automatically "register" themselves to the TV when they come into a room and sit for a period of time via their a smartphone? This would work best as a passive login, that doesn't require the user to do anything. A simple BlueTooth sync would do the trick and could account for multiple viewers within the same room watching the same show. Now with a mobile device registered as watching a specific TV, on a specific channel, during a specific day/time (and unregistered when you leave the room to get a snack), we are much closer to getting a 1:1 read on actual exposure. Moreover, it may even be feasible for the TV to push the record that someone was exposed to a particular ad directly to sync'ed mobile phone itself and maintain a roster of ads exposed to a specific user on their local device. (Think redeemable coupons that get picked up by your mobile phone upon TV exposure so there is some incentive for the consumer to opt-in to such a sync). Since I'm carrying my mobile phone everywhere, it is now possible to correlate my trip to a particular retailer with exposure to the ad (think beacons for in-store movement and coupon redemption from my smartphone at POP systems). We can also get at causation if there is a reasonable control group of unexposed users too. There are clearly a number of privacy considerations here, but the technology to do all of these pieces is absolutely here right now. Now... about that patent.

While this is interesting, I agree with Hollis on the label (and yes the industry is guilty of being squishy on biz segments). Further, I'd be curious about composition of the 250 respondents: agency, ATD, brands? Headcount/revenue ranges, etc. Not seeing vendors such as Turn and Criteo makes me question results how "Market Presence" is factored. Both represent global, multi-channel platforms. They also happen to be more representative of 'marketing' platforms than some of those listed, e.g. Turn + Marketo alliance; Criteo acquisition of Tedemis.

I don't know about the efficiencies of the publishing business but I don't think this is really about the Native Advertising aspect. It's about the video and the future of online advertising.

Maybe this is splitting hairs, but the headline of this piece should be revised to read "...'Leaders' in Cross-Channel Ad Delivery/Management" because the word "marketing" to me implies something altogether different (more broad and certainly less about advertising exclusively). And therein lies the rub. We who report on the industry need to do a better -- not a more confusing -- job of helping marketers distinguish between and among all the different buckets of solutions providers. The companies listed here, for example, are not cross-channel marketing platforms if you think of those in the context of the Signals, Ensightens, or Tealiums of the world, and nor are they marketing automation software solutions like Marketo, Pardot, or HubSpot. And the confusing list could go on and on. Let's make an effort to be more specific and less elusive when posting what's supposed to be informative content, even if it's at the expense of a more exciting or sexy headline, shall we?