As Ronald Regan noted, "everyone that is pro abortion has ready been born."

The late Terence Cardinal Cooke, of New York said, "The gift of life, God's special gift, is no less beautiful when it is accompanied by illness or weakness, hunger or poverty, mental or physical handicaps, loneliness or old age. Indeed, at these times, human life gains extra splendor as it requires our special care, concern, and reverence. It is in and through the weakest of human vessels that the Lord continues to reveal the power of His love.''

There is no life more frail and vulnerable than that of an infant still in its mother's womb. They are the weakest of the weak.

That is the spirit behind pro life state legislators and the issue of abortion. Not criminalizing women as Newsomes Pac and your article protrays it.

Ed & Joe: One of the fundmental underlying flaws in this document is the "convenient" confusion driven by whether the media measurement is device/surface measure and therefore based on content rendered, or a measure of people and their potential exposure (at some level) to the medium.  The social media data pirates have managed to persuade the industry that for smart phones, desktops, and erroneously TV, a content rendered count is "good enuff" as a measure of OTS.  However as Ed and Route UK point out, not a real OTS and certainly not an attention or Eyes-On/Ears-On measure.    
Of course this hypothetically assumed OTS condition based solely on contnent rendered does not work for TV, print, or radio and especially not for OOH - a one panel/board to very very many people which requires an empirical measure of persons and their "presence" at a minimum for an OTS, i.e., a measure of audience for the medium!  These differences between media are part of what makes cross-media measurement so tricky.   
As the OOH research cognoscente are fully aware, the list and order of the elements on the chart are not only confusing but as pointed out by several members of the Working Group woefully incorrect also noting that "Audience" should not even be on the chart. 

I have a unique perspective in aggregating the supply of our independent members in a co-op fashion with our IBO Speedway (100K+ footprint), and as the MRC OOH Chairman currently, have seen the sausage being made for several years, and fully support the work the staff and committee have done to balance the wide variety of comments and opinions, all of which are valid and worthy, so the added time has been worth it albeit frustrating for all.  

I very much align with George’s efforts and simple observation that in just one quarter, YouTube alone booked what our entire industry does in a year.  George didn’t mention that digital fraud amounts to $50 billion and is forecast to be $72 billion this year, many large multiples of the spend allocated to OOH no matter what value is considered.

The industry suppliers (of which I am one) have built strong businesses over the years prior to digital displays and now with the technological advancements, we are all adjusting to the confusion these advancements bring and how it has impacted our past selling strategies and future revenue stream potentials.  The publicly traded companies have been quicker to embrace the changes and have their influential voice and company positions.  Common ground suggests we all wish for the OOH spend to increase, and to do so, we must all align as we can and provide the information to the buy side as they desire it - a goal of mine for many months with the independents.  There’s no better way to measure that desire unfold than to watch the brand purse strings grow.

For me a goal can be to target the digital fraud buckets and to do so with the best, most believable data and traffic metrics services, to prove to the buy side that OOH is worthy of their budget.  This will involve deep educational efforts for our members to accentuate their selling processes and I expect the next phase of the standards will go more smoothly both in crafting and adoption.  We as an industry, whether on the buy or sell side, should embrace accountability and transparency and encourage any service that provides this information to seek accreditation.  I know the suppliers we are working with are committed in this direction and not only will our members and industry benefit as these processes mature, but so will the buyer comfort which we can then measure in an increase of industry spend over time.  Who doesn’t want to raise the tides and lift all boats?

We are now in a transitional phase and we can all come together to make this process more meaningful and expedite the evolution of the next steps in Phase 2.

Charlene, it's always fine to dream about changes in the upfront and how it might be done better but a few exceptions as described by Todd don't make the rule. For the most part, the impending 2024-25 season upfront will be executed based on multi-brand corporate, CPM-driven, big volume buys using the same old audience "currency"---Nielsen age/sex GRPs---- and this will apply to CTV as well as linear TV. In this context, targeting---to the extent that it is even possible without paying too great a price----will be subordinated to the corporate goal---getting to the most eyeballs at the lowest cost. And the isolated use of secondary ---or "alternative"  metrics in certain cases by certain sellers and buyers is probably not going to change things significantly.

In the chart depicting the MRC's "core" metrics, the only one that has any significance for advertisers, as well as offering some measure of comparability in value, is the last one----"liklihood to see". But here we need something tangible---and measurable---like attentiveness for TV as well as digital video and display and OOH media. Theoretical metrics based on time on-screen----such as "completion " ----are simply not acceptable. As for audio and print media, it is not even clear how attentiveness to ads can be measured---but as nobody seems to care about those media we are talking mainly about TV and or video in this discussion. So my question is if the MRC comes up with a "core" metric for "likliehood to see" will this be based on measurements that  determine whether people look at ad messages ---and the duration of that exposure---or is even  this  clear and basic definition yet to be determined for application sometime in the possibly distant future?

Pardon me for being skeptical, but based on past experience, I have a suspicion that we will never get to the point where visual attentiveness to ads or program content is mandated as a "standard" part of the equation. And I also suspect that this will  be the case for "audience" which is very closely related to the issue of attentiveness. Of course, I'd love to be wrong on this and I am a strong supporter of the MRC, but I think that the rececnt experience of the "JIC"suggests that if the sellers don't like a MRC decision to include attentiveness as a standard, they may simply "certify" sources that do not employ it as being better suited  for "transactions". In that case, where does that leave us?

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

Bounce is on WXMI FOX17 DT3 was on Wood TV about 8 years 2013 to 2021 before moving to Scripps. I wonder if Scripps sells Bounce if Fox17 will drop it they still air Antenna TV even know Nexstar owns the network, Antena TV has been on Fox17 since day 1 when it was a Tribune TV station. Not really a fan of diginets.

Thank you Joe.  I will be the first to admit this standard is not perfect, in fact no standard we've produced has been perfect.  Flaws can be mined from certain of the details.  The OOH standard is vast majority good (my opinion).  This standard took 5 years to write, unfortunately, and compromises have been hard won.  As I previously commented the standard builds a bridge toward comparability.  I personally care about this and have a strong desire to finish the job getting to standards for OOH audience metrics in phase 2.

George Ivie: Thank you for the visceral marketplace example, and for explaining how phase 1 is a building block toward a workable common denominator.

Those who think they can accurately measure impressions (and/or their 'quality' or 'effectiveness') are deluded.

The more marketing requisites the more data points (not just digital data) are required and the permutations rapidly increase. In the vain attempt to increase permutations, the accuracy generally decreases.   And then the results are generally atypicaland very often misleading.

Phase 2 will cover audience measurement; the phase 1 standard is not intended to be anti-audience measurement or anti-Geopath.  MRC believes strongly in the merit of audience measurement.  

Consider an example: YouTube had $8.1 billion in ad sales for Q1 2024, a 21% increase year over year and Alphabet, YouTube's parent, had total revenue of $80.54 billion and net income of $23.66 billion for Q1, a 15% and 57% increase respectively.  We still have people arguing against seeking to align OOH measurement with other media types and prepare OOH for cross-media measurement, which was one of our key objectives.

This corroborates the findings of Dr. Vilma Todri from the Goizueta Business School at Emory University, who researched the effects of ad blockers on online spending. Her study indicates that the decrease in ad exposure among ad blocker users leads to a reduction in overall online spending. This effect is particularly pronounced for new market entrants. Moreover, the study suggests that the use of ad blockers also impacts overall brand searches, as reduced product awareness from decreased ad visibility affects consumer search behavior.

https://blog.getadmiral.com/adblock-use-drops-consumer-spending-14-billion