Search by name, company, title, location, etc.

Tony Jarvis

Member since April 2006Contact Tony

As proprietor and Research Architect for the Olympic Media Consultancy we serve global clients in 3 key areas: Provide expert leadership, analysis, planning and strategic thinking to optimize the value and usage of available media/marketing and data/systems information. Generate increased marketing ROI (revenue, profitability and brand equity) by providing relevant insights through designing, executing and interpreting superior advertising research. Evaluate and improve advertising and media effectiveness for agencies and their clients by understanding, developing and managing meticulous consumer research and applying "leading edge" models and concepts. Tony was Chairman of CARF, Canada and is a former Board member of The ARF and MRC . An Olympian he was formerly the British Olympic Swim Team Captain. He writes Op Eds exclusively for Media Post and also offers regular pithy comments on Media Post articles. He refuses to use "Fakebook"!

Articles by Tony All articles by Tony

Comments by Tony All comments by Tony

  • Prediction Science Does Not Support Biden Dropping Out by Ed DeNicola (Marketing Politics Weekly on 07/05/2024)

    Ed: A truly insightful piece.  In view of the ever present range of bounce in poll results and the fundmental flaws in using and reporting "standard error", I believe that if we use double the stated and misguided "standard error' to establish the reange of potential poll repsults we are on much safer ground.  If this approach is indeed more meaningful, we will likely have a statistical tie on any of the reputable polls from now until November.   

  • Why Initial Standard Will Be Two Steps Forward For Out-of-Home by Joe Mandese (Planning & Buying Insider on 05/07/2024)

    As a reminder, one of "The Ten Cornerstones to JIC's" originally and gratefully published by Media Post and subsequently by ESOMAR V 1.04, is that they develop and manage a single "industry agreed" audience currency for the medium.  To Ed's point, it avoids chaos and delivers metrics very cost efficiently as JIC's are also highly specialized and non-profit.  However, use of a JIC currency does not preclude the use of anciliary databases in any way to "enhance" the agreed single common currency whether a buyer or seller.  As JICs consistently and transparently monitor the research and executional quality of their deliverables via a fully professional independent management team, overseen by their tri-partite industry members, the relevance of a body like an MRC for any JIC comes into question.  

  • Why Initial Standard Will Be Two Steps Forward For Out-of-Home by Joe Mandese (Planning & Buying Insider on 05/07/2024)

    Kym: As you understand, this farrago stems from the significant differences in media consumption across media plus their different means of delivering the content & ads to the  consumer.  The consequent research complexities and innovations required to measure actual exposure by real people are necessarily different by medium but some agree that an Eyes/Ears-On measurement for all media would provide a truly meaningful basis for cross-media comparisons.  OOH was the first medium to really solve this measurement goal 20+ years ago. Geopath (with which you are familiar!!) reflects that media metrics leadership for OOH in the US along with OOH JICs worldwide.   As I posited, based not only my own knowledge but also reflecting other OOH research experts I checked with globally plus Ed's comment regarding "audience first" which produces a REAL OTS, "... this MRC document is considered not only flawed, but out-of-step with audience measurement and metrics for other media including TV, Cinema, Print, audio, etc. (It also contradicts the WOO Global Guidelines which GeoPath participated in.)  As such, any accreditations earned based on these standards [sic] would be specious, i.e., B.S." In short, using content-rendered-counts aka "viewable impressions" (per George Ivie, "nothing to do with people") or any "lowest common denominator", has limited value for advertisers or their media agencies albeit is critical for subsequent Proof-of-Posting/Play for any campaign and its ultimate billling & paying.  Meanwhile the media agencies have embraced attention -  Eyes/Ears-On - adjustments across media in their planning & buying despite the higher aaCPMs.  As you have already suggested elsewhere, ignoring the fundamantal differentation in value across billboards (its not all digital!!) or panels that Eyes-On or Visibility Adjusted Contacts, VACs, provides buyers and sellers will increase OOH's "Numbers" and decrease its CPMs.  However, I agree that ultimately it will hurt this Eyes-On, reach medium and its unique abilities to generate creative and consequent brand impacts. 

  • Why Initial Standard Will Be Two Steps Forward For Out-of-Home by Joe Mandese (Planning & Buying Insider on 05/07/2024)

    Ed: Spot on as always.  Deterministic (machine measurement of a device/surface) which does not reveal a "REAL OTS" (per Euan Mackay, Route UK) but is relatively inexpensive versus person-based survey data, does not serve advertisers and their brands with meaningful target audience exposure data. Of course, MRC had the both the starting and virtually the "two steps forward" end point for OOH measurement & metrics with the World Out-of-Home Organization's, Global OOH Audience Measurement Guidelines from May 2022 which it refused to embrace! I would suggest that this response to my Media Post Op Ed, "In Dissent" fails to understand the value that Eyes-On or "contacts" metrics, detailed in the WOO Guidelines and used by OOH for 20+ years, brought to OOH versus other media. there is so so much more to this saga than meets the eye or is that Eyes-On? For those that want to follow this discourse two LinkedIn posts will be insightful.

  • In Dissent by Tony Jarvis (MediaDailyNews on 04/29/2024)

    George: Ignoring the "higher value builds", i.e., "Eyes-On" audience measurement that OOH embraced over 20 years ago, plus the WOO "Global Audience Measurement Guidelines" 2022,  as well as the counsel of recognised expert members of the secret Working Group may destroy any equity that MRC has left with the global OOH research community. I respectfully suggest those factors alone indicate both the "anti-audience" nature of this Guideline (or is it some general misunderstanding of audience and gross impression measurement for media?) as well as the extensive anti-GeoPath implications of its framework.  As stated, it is simply out-of-step and out-of-date, especially for OOH.  For full transparancy, the MRC needs to include the names and companies of the Working Group involved with this project in the document as requested at the meeting notably to officialy recognize any, "In Dissent".  MRC should also publish the names and companies of: the MRC Member OOH Committee; the MRC Member Standards Committee; and the MRC Executive Committee.  The latter two Committees should have officially approved this release if I understand MRC proceedures corectly? These Guidelines, they are no more, actually include audience references and measures.  As already mentioned with reference to this atrociously written, confusing and flawed document, the definition of Gross Impressions used, as an example: "The number of individuals over a period of time with Presence in the defined Display Exposure Zone while the Display is functional" reflects a measure of people and consequently their OTS whether for a classic display or a digital panel (OOH displays are not all digital!!).  Gross Impressions, which have been equivalent to OTS forever in media, whether for classic or digital displays and however crude, are a measure of audience.  It is fully understood that the content rendered on classic or digital display panels or on any device or surface should fulfill viewability requirements and be indpendently verified that it is the correct/required purchased ad content/creative.  That is the Proof-of-Posting, Proof-of-Play, Proof-of-Printing, etc. arena which could be executed at the same time as the OTS is measured but is independent of it and often is checked later during the billing and paying process of viewable, verified content delivered with an OTS (at a minimum). 

  • MRC Issues Finalized OOH Media Standard, This Phase Excludes Audiences by Joe Mandese (MediaDailyNews on 04/26/2024)

    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. 

  • MRC Issues Finalized OOH Media Standard, This Phase Excludes Audiences by Joe Mandese (MediaDailyNews on 04/26/2024)

    Anyone who supports this chart would fail "Media Research Terms, Definitions & Derivations 101".  Several members of this purposely unidentifed MRC Working Group explicitly pointed out the flaws which were ignored by MRC staff.     

  • Share Of Measurement Voice by Joe Mandese (Planning & Buying Insider on 04/04/2024)

    Amen Ed.  Kudos to you, Joe for pointing out the increasing vendor bias of CIMM since the retirement of Jane Clarke and its take over by ARF.  BTW:  It's Ted McConnell, brilliant former P&G exec., who sagely commented a year ago on a Media Post Op Ed, "When is  JIC not a JIC?" -  "It's beyond me why big advertisers are not fighting for a real JIC"

  • U.S. JIC Fully Certifies Comscore, VideoAmp As 'Transactional' Currencies by Joe Mandese (MediaDailyNews on 04/03/2024)

    "Enjoy your CPM's?" But, as we know, CPM, stands for Completely Positively Mad especially when they are based on content-rendered-counts (aka so called 'viewable impressions' that reflect NO REALOTS) rather than an attentiveness metric. As you know John Grono & I developed and published (ESOMAR), "The 10 Cornerstones to JICs & MOCs" based on extensive research, intimate experience and a full international peer review.  This M-CCC, Multi-Currency Certification Committee, fails to meet any of the 10 long established and refined operational critera of JICs.  This is why it is so shameful that this group, with its massive conflict of interest, continue the abuse and blatant misrepresentation and, in addition, that the global media agencies have not fully addressed this sham.  The 4As wrote an excellent critique of the choas situation unfortunately with a non-sequitur conclusion.  

  • U.S. JIC Fully Certifies Comscore, VideoAmp As 'Transactional' Currencies by Joe Mandese (MediaDailyNews on 04/03/2024)

    Ed: Perhaps we simply have the blind leading the "don't want to see"???  May this shameful US "JIC" masquarade continue the TV/Video "currency" (it's singular, per the great Jack Wakshlag, and all real JICs around the world!) chaos!

About Edit

You haven't told us anything about yourself! Surely you've got something to say. Tell us a little something.