I agree that life was less complicated when it was simply CBS, NBC and ABC along with Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report, but--well--we asked for it. Today, I have 300 cable channels at home and 170 satellite radio stations in my car, and I'm happy about it. Thanks to the Internet, I subscribe to (more like, "register with") a plethora of newspapers and magazines from all over the globe, and get pounded by clippings from countless other periodicals, blogs and Web sites via email.

As a consumer, I spend a lot of time crisscrossing the new media terrain, but my interests can only sustain a steady relationship with a few places. Despite all the cable channels we pay for, I watch PBS mostly, some sports on the weekend, and occasionally Food Network and Frasier reruns, in addition to what we spend on Pay-Per-View and Netflix. I have 12 of my 170 satellite radio stations pre-set in my car because there is room for 12 pre-sets on the radio. The other 160 or so stations get scant attention.

But, as I say, I wouldn't give back any of the hundreds of media choices I have. I like the value that having media options provides. Last week, for instance, on a road trip to visit schools around the Northeast with my youngest son, we tuned to the weather and traffic station on XM Radio in Philadelphia. It was very gratifying.

So what's the matter with 300 ad networks acting on behalf of the abundance of great online content? The ratio of 300 networks to the thousands of Web sites that are viable advertising vehicles, plus the millions upon millions of Internet users that frequent them, seems rather efficient--assuming, of course, that the networks are all bundling those viable sites and audiences together in ways that add value to buyers and sellers.

And that's what we should be talking about: value. The world can support as many ad networks or food channels or hip-hop stations or local newspapers as can contribute value. Are 300 ad networks each contributing incremental value today? Of course not.

We don't need 300 ad networks that all operate in the arbitrage of online ad inventory. It's not the number of networks that is the problem, however--it's the number of networks doing the same thing that is the problem. That will change, most people now predict. But going forward, I expect we'll still have 300 networks and maybe more, but they will be unique in what they offer by helping to segment and--more importantly--make sense of online media so that advertisers can support all of this great online content enriching the lives of consumers.

That's the opportunity, after all: To more precisely identify with consumers through their personal media preferences. We want slices and segments; not just anyone, but specifically someone. Consumers are on the same wavelength; they specifically want something. Connecting with that "something" has a value that cannot be fully extracted at great media planning distances because it cannot be fully understood from there. To truly succeed, the new media-buying experience must reflect the new media-consuming experience, which means it must be intimate. It must focus. It must get personal. An adequate supply of ad networks can help with that.

I'll finish the point this way: I think there should be more media-buying agencies. The fact that seven companies purchase something like three-quarters of the world's media substantially undermines the impact that new media can have on the intimate desires of relationship marketing--particularly given how those buying companies are organized today, which is by media channel.

The Internet is a vast, vast space. How is an Internet media specialist expected to deeply understand such a vast space? The answer has been to focus on the technology (does it pop/expand/ widget/flash/stream/optimize) and the handful of sites big enough to be generally recognizable. But the biggest Web sites have not represented much of a departure from traditional media. Not much value gets transferred in the minds of the buyers.

And technology is not what makes the Internet different, it's simply what makes it possible. Indeed, in a side-by-side comparison with what television can do to convey brand messages, Internet technology is not yet a good reason to reallocate budgets. For example, we still have no accepted video standards online. Does that mean the media value is missing? No. I'm online continuously. So are you, and if we wait for standards, because we've said video is important to the Internet value proposition, we've missed the opportunity!

So, I say, we don't need fewer ad networks, we need more media buyers--specialists and experts with a real affinity for the consumer segments and their motives that are critical to brand success. Which is another level of complexity worth adding: there are countless more products today. My Post Toasties of yesteryear have begat Post Low Fat Cinnamon Raisin Sun-Dried Toasties of this week. We are kidding ourselves to think that we can consolidate the variety of segments and interests and preferences in a way that leads to brand success. More of everything will be required.

This commentary is insightful. I recommend it to others.