Forgot your password?
It is SOOO easy to spot 'fake news'.Trump (or one of his flacks) lips are moving.
Good points, Doug. As I noted about a year ago, a tally we did of the kinds of broadcast TV network and basic cable shows that Netflix subscribers watched revealed a marked lack of interest in the former but much more viewing---higher than the overall nationwide norms---for many basic cable shows---including quite a few that the elitist snobs would decry as dumb or "sh-t". The basic message ----in my view---was that many Netflix subscribers want something different from the "mass appeal" but mostly older skewed stuff that ABC/CBS?NBC are peddling. Since basic cable provides such an alternative and many levels of content diversity, it, as well as Netflix, satisfies such needs.
Precisely correct Ed.Put another way:* there are 10,080 minutes in a week* smartphone video's average is 36 minutes per week per adult* linear TV (live+catch-up) averages 32 hours per week (1,920 minutes) per adult.Advertising is all about the intersection between programme content and advertising content. The content must be right (for the target), the contact must be made, and the context of the ad within that content must be harmonious.So based on the data above:* a TV ad has a 19% chance of a contact being made (hopefully in the right content and context)* a smartphone video has a 0.35% chance of a contact being made (again hopefully in the right content and context).So how do you boost the effectiveness of the smartphone video to get the required reach. Some opt for higher weights. Bad idea - that's the best way to annoy the consumer by bombarding them with the same ad. The answer is ... there really isn't an answer until smartphone video reaches mass usage (and not just penetration).
1. The trump base that won him the election in the battleground states wouldn't know any stock outside of a NASCAR track. 2. The rise in the stock market could be an indicator of economic health, or it could be an inflated measure that is in fact a precursor to an alarming market correction.
One thing missing entirely from this opinion piece is the reality of OOT and internet based options. Certainly, there are some decent, well made, and interesting shows. But there's also a lot more Vanderpump's off of basic cable than on it. And once they leave basic cable, each of them gets 5 or 10 viewers.When I hear someone whine about quality of TV shows, I wonder if they've looked honsetly at the other options. In online video, cats, babies and catastrophe's are the TRUE measure of human interest. And we don't yet have a 24 hour cat video network. Perhaps the more important truth is that basic cable seems to be our last bastion of hope for preventing full quality cultural decay...into all kinds of trivia people kill time with.
While I would love to believe that story, I choose to follow the president's advice and consider it "fake news."
The answer to the question in the headline is---yes----if we are referring to national TV branding advertisers. As for other types of "TV" advertisers---who knows?
Stan was a true visionary who could see the need for an independent media data processing and planning enabling service when most of us were fixated on doing it ourselves. I saw Stan only a few weeks ago---sadly for the last time. He will be missed. RIP, Stan.
And PS - of course I loved your take on Jack and his Deere machine.
Gord, I'm close to the end of "algorithms to live by," by Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths. I think you would love it...and I'd also love to read your take on it.
I truly don't want to be "that guy"; ... the one with too many birthdays who waves his cane, while railing about "kids these days", but I cannot think of another way to address this "fake news" topic. My primary education was nothing special, yet we were all taught basic civics and, most importantly, the basics of journalism. How to read or write and verify a story, piece by piece. The rules were very simple and easy to put into practice. And they were dead-obvious, like knowing which end of the hammer to hold when driving or removing a nail.With that very basic knowledge, recognizing fake news is simple. So, what the hell happened? Why do so many people not only fail to see the obvious faults in fake news, but actually fiercely defend it? Anyway, keep it up MediaPost. You are doing an important service.
I'd like to hear the opinions of a MediaPost reviewing pro. To me, these are ideas that sounded great at the concept stage, but came up juuuussst short at the final cut. They could have at least hired some good racquetball players.
The ONLY thing that needs to be "checked" is TRUMP and then he should be IMPEACHED!!!!
Some of Trump's base is delighted with their stock portfolios. http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2017/02/21/trump-bump-for-dow-industrials-is-biggest-post-inaugural-move-since-fdr/
A true entrepreneurial titan in our business who I worked for years ago will be greatly missed. Telmar evolved into a major independent global media/advertising TPP - Third Party Processor under Stan's astute leadership and is a key resource to our industry in this data tsunami world. RiP Stan.
The "fake news" that concerns me are the stories that open with a false premise and then run with it, Fox News being the most obvious culprit.The other problem is that those bloviating the loudest about fake news are always the ones benefiting most from it.
If you need this then you should get yourself fixed before becoming a parent.
Wiretapping is illegal. You must get permission or a warrant. Same goes for video via glasses.
It is a gauge. Proceed, but proceed with caution never just depending upon one factor without checking on the info put into the "machine".
And we members of the free and highly self-esteemed press hereby agree to make sure we tell the truth - always avoiding narrative-driven, agenda-laden reporting. We will make sure that we don't salivate over the salacious but actually investigate to seek what the facts are - before we publish. We seek to focus on cleaning our own house of the consistent propagation of garbage stories and ideology-focused "journalism", wishing to repair the American people's current view that we are largely untrustworthy in how we report.
Laurie, yes, video usage on smartphones is rising at a fast pace---as it began from virtually zero, so large percentage gains are only to be expected. However, before we get overly excited about this "explosion" in usage, we should note that smartphone users devote far less time to the videos they access via this means than your typical TV viewer does when watching TV content. Also, there is the now familiar issue of respondents overclaiming in such studies.As a frame of reference, Nielsen's Third Quarter 2016 report, which is meter based, found that the average adult in the country spent 36 minutes per week "watching" videos on smartphones----up dramatically from only 16 minutes per adult in the comparable 2015 report. So maybe, "exploding" is the right term---or is it? By way of comparison, "linear TV" viewing---live and delayed----actually rose by one second in 2016, with the average adult devoting 32 hours and 3 seconds to the tube, compared to 32 hours and 2 seconds last year. Even if we take the 18-24s---yep, smartphone video usage surged from 39 minutes per person in 2015 to 1 hour and 11 minutes in 2016, but "linear TV" still dwarfed smartphone video "viewing" despite a loss in total volume, dropping to 14 hours and 21 minutes in 2016 from 15 hours and 30 minutes in 2015.
Since the published rule does not mention which or any social media platforms, did your paragraph noting the main Chinese-language sites come from a government explanation or did you do their job for them? Or do they think, as Steve Martin once said, that English is the universal language and therefore everyone is on Facebook and Twitter? It's also been noted that espionage experts from China are only too willing to provide their social media login information on their primary accounts, because they have nothing to hide. (Italics=sarcasm font).
You know what they are doing and calling it raining. Bend over, bend over red rover.