CIMM To Assess Economic Impact Of New Ad Currencies
- by Joe Mandese @mp_joemandese, April 1, 2025
The Advertising Research Foundation’s Coalition for Innovative Media Measurement (CIMM) this morning announced plans for a new industry study analyzing the impact that new TV advertising currencies might have on its stakeholders -- both buyers and sellers.
The initiative, which is being led by independent consultants Manish Bhatia and Josh Chasin, who happen to be former heads of research at old-school media currency providers (check their LinkedIn profiles), will focus on the explicit economics of a new advertising currency supply chain, including:
Costs to advertisers, agencies and media.
advertisement
advertisement
Revenue models for the currency providers.
The “competitive dynamics” of a multi-currency marketplace.
What the initiative will not do is assess what constitutes a currency. That will be up to the marketplace to determine, including various elements of testing, assessment, certification and accreditation by bodies ranging from the U.S. JIC to the Media Rating Council, and especially -- and ultimately -- customers themselves.
More details will be unveiled during the CIMM East conference in New York City next week, but the time frame -- including when and how the findings are released -- currently is “to be determined.”
What is a likely going-in scenario, however, is what one of the end-result presumptions is: that there ultimately will be two surviving TV advertising marketplace currencies, meaning there will be a shakeout among long-standing default currency Nielsen (and its new Big Data + panel) service, and the U.S. JIC’s three alternative currencies “certified” as being "transactable" in the U.S. TV advertising marketplace: Comscore, iSpot and VideoAmp.
Comscore just last week was also named the TV audience data provider for the Association of National Advertisers’ ambitious cross-media measurement solution, Aquila, which has its own implications for the advertising currency marketplace, but so far has not actually positioned itself as one.
Aquila likely is above that fray, serving as a meta-level understanding for brands to conduct analyses of unique reach and unduplicated frequency to adjust their strategic planning, mix models, and the client briefs they give to their media-buying agencies and in-house buying units.
Interestingly, the CIMM initiative’s Chasin recently was named Aquila’s Chief Research Officer, although he is doing that under the auspices of his own consultancy, KnotSimpler Inc.
Aquila aside, what is most interesting about the new CIMM economic analysis is the presumption of a two-currency marketplace outcome. That’s interesting for a couple of reasons, including the fact that the advertising and media-buying industry historically has had those kinds of duopolies in the past:
Arbitron and Nielsen in local TV audience measurement.
Nielsen and Comscore in the early days of online audience measurement.
Nielsen and a long litany of attempted startup rivals in national TV audience measurement.
Mediamark Research Inc. (MRI) and Simmons in magazine audience measurement, as well as overall media planning research.
History suggests duopolistic marketplace currencies are the most cost-effective in terms of what the marketplace can afford, as well as sparking enough competition to foster continuous research innovation.
More than two would create both extraneous marketplace costs (or at the very least, exposure for private or public equity underwriting them), as well as more marketplace confusion about what the currency actually is.
Less than two would create a monopoly in which customers have little leverage negotiating costs, although it simplifies what all sides go to market with.
Joe, you are right about local market TV ratings as well as online and magazine/planning duopolies in past media audience "currency" contests. And the same was the case for local market radio----Hooper vs. Pulse vs. Arbitron, etc. ----but there was never a duopoly in national TV ratings. It was always Nielsen. Also, in the other duopolies one always came out the winner and the others disappeared or were absorbed by the winner---creating a virtual monopoly situation. In short, we have long had currrency monopolies in both national and local TV, in local radio, in magazines and newspapers---with very few exceptions. And online sellers , themselves supply most of the "audience" data to buyers---or programmatic computers --- so here, too, we are looking at monopolies---aka , "walled gardens".
The reason for this is simple. There needs to be a single standard "currency" for each media platform, otherwise one can't evaluate one seller's offerings and perfprmance from another's. In the case of national TV that doesn't mean that Nielsen can't be challenged. But to do this you must be able to show that it's methodology is producing misleading---or "wrong" data and that you can do "it" better---and, maybe, cheaper. And what exactly is "it"? Simple. Its some meaningful definition of "audience".
As for the other "currencies" that will be evaluated, I hope that this investigation considers the practicality of each when applied on a mass--all sellers covered--- basis as well as how it might be funded. Without these factors being included, we are merely theorizing---again.
I would add to my MP comments, that any "currency" other than "audience" must be evaluated re the likeliehood that advertisers and their time buyers will use it in planning and executing their buys. And the same is true of the sellers--how willing will they be to guarantee such results?
For example, if it is some form of "outcome" ---not audience-- how many brand managers can state exactly what they expect from next year's ad campaign--and, to what extent will sellers grant them what they want in the form of guarantees? Or, will such "alternative currencies" remain as nothing more than selectively employed add-ons to audience guarantees?
Joe, as THE most knowledeable trade reporter on the Ad/Media business in the US, I must respectfully suggest that your assessment of this US multi-currency farrago is misguided and fundamentally flawed. I sadly suggest it preserves the misinformation, slight of hand and masquerades that are being increasingly embraced by our industry. Why?
First, it ignores the wisdom and experience of Ed Papazian who we must surely listen to more. As I experienced first hand at MediaCom, "duopolistic market currencies" are a "bloody nightmare" for all involved. Based on mulit-media global experience it is JICs/MOCs, REAL ones, that are "most cost effective". Period! (Aquila may eventually be a media planning resource but not a currency.)
Second, it is based on your apparent misunderstanding and/or rejection of the hard earned, long established, role, value, structure and operational procedures of REAL media JICs (and MOCs). Once again, there is no REAL TV/Video JIC in the US. There is a highly conflicted Multi-Currency Certification Committee. The M-CCC unequivocally fails to meet,"The Ten Cornerstones of JICs/MOCs" as researched by John Grono and myself and published gratefully by both Media Post and ESOMAR. https://researchworld.com/brand-stories/insights-into-media-currency-research.
This was my comment on LinkedIn when this CIMM initiative was announced:
"As we are awaiting the assessment of JICs in the US by Jonathan Steuer and Julian Zilberbrand commissioned by Coalition for Innovative Media Measurement (CIMM) last April, I am nervous for your intriguing project. This is especially as the TV Networks that own OpenAP, which masquerades as a JIC (at best a Multi-Currency Certification Committee), exert a powerful influence at CIMM along with Meta et al.
As Richard Marks [UK media measurement guru] opined regarding TV/Video "multiple currencies" in the US, "I just don't get it". As Edward Papazian has consistently and correctly encouraged, establish an agreed industry persons-based, content-exposed, audience trading currency ("currency" for any entity is singular) with ancillary databases for enhancements. In my opinion, ideally via a REAL JIC (per my JIC White Paper with John Grono).
That "we" have not established a universal Eyes/Ears-On based currency (singular!) across ALL media is ...!!! The use of IAB's/Media Rating Council's "viewable impressions", no REAL OTS, aka "content rendered counts", i.e., circulation/distribution, takes media measurement and metrics back 50 years. Per The Attention Council, "No attention (Eyes/Ears-On a prerequisite), no outcomes.". Keep me posted.