Programmatic TV: Breach & 'Feequency' Ruminations

Rumination I

Opaque is the new transparency.

Can visualize it,

Though hazy.

Sales channel conflict.

Protect the supply-sider at all costs.

Make cents.


Promulgated mesmerizing, distinctive target indexes.

A sampling:

-- variegated household incomes  

-- propensity for universal travel and inward contemplation

-- somnambulistic aspirations and acquisitions.


Rumination Two

To date, all national inventory represented in proposals is opaqued. A proposal delineates TV networks and impressions by networks, but not impressions by programs or dayparts for the individual networks represented in the proposal. It is extremely difficult to vivisect. Also, TV network target indexes are provided for a 24-hour rotation -- though the marketer’s schedule might only include a spot in no more than one daypart.



Every national programmatic TV proposal includes multiple valued, insightful targeted indexes. Each delineates a specific target or vertical. Unfortunately, these indexes cannot be cross-tabbed... mixed… proportionalized…or even scientifically harmonized. They exist in complete isolation from one another,given their disparate sourceness -- though all are valued for their singularity in the proposal.

Given the supply-side platform prime directive to avoid sales channel conflict at all costs -- and who could blame them -- we need to breach this reach conundrum with the introduction of a tool that would enable a programmatic platform to build a schedule of targeted reach indexes across a multiplicity of specific programs, telecast across a variety of TV networks. Granted, this horizontical proposal construction would still take place behind a walled sanctuary but it would allow target-indexed reach to exist as it was meant to be: horizontally – taking flight across all indexes rather than restricted to one vertical.

Post-Rumination (or, in programmatic TV parlance: as ruminated)

The issue of feequency. Why are the members of the media community who wish to partake in the programmatic TV experience burdened with the responsibility of divination of the actual inventory package cost?

Is it gross?

Is it net?

Is it net as gross?

Is there a transaction fee?

Is the transaction fee based upon net or gross or net as gross?

If there is a transaction fee, who assumes the cost?

Why didn’t I know the answers to these questions when the negotiation began????

1 comment about "Programmatic TV: Breach & 'Feequency' Ruminations".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, October 30, 2015 at 1:15 p.m.

    Mitch, I don't buy your description of a typical TV buy. If you are describing a broadcast network deal, they are virtually all show- and telecast-specific. Moreover, in primetime, even if the seller supplies only an overall package cost, both the seller and the buyer have tacitly agreed on on a value---or price--- per show---in case of a cancellation clause being activated. Also, the network has to deliver the overall promised GRPs, not anywhere or anytime it chooses but exactly in the sum of the shows selected and on the dates as indicated.That's not very opaque, it's real. Cable buys are sometimes less rigid as to scheduling and there is a greater tendency towards "fair" rotations, but any agency that's doing its job, monitors all of this in the post buy phase. If the seller doesn't deliver what was agreed to, the buyer will insist on compensation---not many years later but, usually, on a quarter by quarter basis.

Next story loading loading..