Tony Jarvis

Articles by Tony All articles by Tony

• Regular Commenter John Grono Loses His Home In Australia in MediaDailyNews on 01/15/2020
  

  John Grono & Donna Andrews' home in the Southern Highlands of New South Wales, Australia was completely destroyed in the raging fires affecting much of the southeastern regions, which is heart-wrenching.

• Counterpoint: When Is An Impression Not An Impression? in MediaDailyNews on 10/13/2019
  

  Kym Frank, president of Geopath, invoked Erwin Ephron in a recent MediaPost commentary. As a student of Ephron's, I would respectfully remind Frank about his "ring of truth" principle in applying a "visibility adjustment index." So, here is some out-of-home measurement history I believe Ephron would give in response.

• Q&A: MRC's George Ivie Weighs In On Duration Weighting in MediaDailyNews on 08/05/2019
  

  The Media Rating Council's proposed Cross-Media Audience Measurement Standards, especially its plan to implement "duration weighting" in 2021, has produced confusion and concern. George Ivie tries to set the record straight.

• 'Reporter's' Notebook: ARF Conference, Day Two in MediaDailyNews on 04/17/2019
  

  JERSEY CITY, NJ -- The second day of the Advertising Research Foundation's Audience X Science Conference began with the empirically based "Rules of Marketing Effectiveness in a Digital Era," presented by Les Binet from the U.K. office of adam&eveDDB.

• 'Reporter's' Notebook: ARF Conference, Day One in MediaDailyNews on 04/16/2019
  

  Advertising Research Foundation President-CEO Scott McDonald underscored importance of unified, independent, third-party measurement across each media platform.

• 'Code Of Conduct' Needs Real Teeth in MediaDailyNews on 04/05/2019
  

  The ARF's new Code of Conduct uses a seal of approval to give some "self-regulatory teeth" to companies that comply, but the use and interpretation of this code requires very careful review and assessment.

• 2019 'Erwin Ephron Award' Winner: Leslie Wood in MediaDailyNews on 03/20/2019
  

  Leslie Wood, Chief Research Officer, Nielsen Catalina Solutions, has been announced as the winner of the 2019 ARF Erwin Ephron Demystification Award. She joins an elite group of past winners - Bill Harvey, David Poltrack, Irwin Gotlieb, Jim Spaeth and Gian Fulgoni - that reflect the brilliance, qualities and legacy of Erwin Ephron, who passed away in October 2013.

• My CIMM Summit Sum-Up in MediaDailyNews on 02/08/2019
  

  CIMM's cross-platform measurement summit Thursday reminds the industry that some of the issues are leading edge, while some are, quite frankly, old chestnuts. However, solutions for both have become ever more difficult to solve in our rapidly changing and ever more complex data and digital video worlds.

• T-Mobile Ran 4 Ads In The Super Bowl - Why? in Television News Daily on 02/04/2019
  

  T-Mobile ran the ads to heavily influence various federal government departments and commissions it needs to approve the $26 billion T-Mobile/Sprint merger.

• Steele Offers Experience, Marketing Savvy As 'Real' Republican in MediaDailyNews on 01/15/2019
  

  In the new world of Trumpers, who sometimes misguidedly refer to themselves as Republicans, many of whom serve in Congress, Steele's observations and candor were refreshing. The increase in the ease of consumer data access and manipulation brings out positive and negative attributes of political marketers, he noted.

Comments by Tony All comments by Tony

• Why The Ad Industry's Attention Finally Is Shifting To, Well, Attention by Joe Mandese (RTBlog on 12/02/2019)
  

  Ed:I would posit that OOH (excluding Digital Place-based network measurement at least in the US) is there in terms of Eyes-on-Display (or on screen or panel) and has been for some time.  OOH has also embraced the fundamental requirement to be in the visibility zone with eyes-on the display to count as "audience", a broad generic term, which OOH determined was better described as "Visibility Adjusted Contact", VAC or "contact" for short.  In other words a highly refined and defined "impression".  You raise many valid considerations regarding how to apply these eyes-on-screen priniciples, which should include the visibility zone requirement, to other media platforms to produce a common harmonized cross-media currency.  However in your example of ads on smartphones versus 30 sheet posters or even versus cinema I am not sure it needs to be that complex.  Media agencies have been dealing with assessing and comparing screen or display or page size or ad duration for ever along with the myriad of other campign and media oriented elements that will make the ad campaign more relevant and effective, i.e., impactful.  We used to develop a composite adjustment by media platform and often by media vehicle for modifying ad exposure or eyes-on-screen data, our common currency, to impacts for any campaign for any brand target group.  As you would fully understand such an impact weight was the result of co-mingling many elements based wherever possible on category research and/or experience and good judgement.  What we did understand was that impact weights could only be applied to audiences that had been exposed to the ad in each medium versus applying it to some mix of divergent defintions of various so called audience impressions.  Without a known ad exposure or eyes-on-screen or contact there can be no impacts of course.  There will be winners and losers if all media base currencies were eyes-on-screen within the visibility zone (or visibility adjusted contacts).  It would surely be the greatest possible service to advertisers and their media agencies?  So will CIMM/ARF and/or MRC embrace this fundmental media measurement foundation for a common basic common currency any time soon?  Cannot wait for Joe to set the date for the Media Post Summit on this topic!

• Why The Ad Industry's Attention Finally Is Shifting To, Well, Attention by Joe Mandese (RTBlog on 12/02/2019)
  

  If the industry decides to use "Attention" as a surrogate for Ad Exposure, Eyes-On or Visibility Adjusted Contact or VAC and nothing more (very important!) and not to be confused with "impressions', then in parallel with John and I believe Ed, the industry would have a universal, harmonised comparable media currency.  Per the ARF's, "Making Better Media Decisions", engagement, impact, brand awareness, propensity-to-purchase, and ultimately sales are all driven from the base of achieving ad exposure but are not media measures as such as they involve so many other elements especially creative, still the driving force of any campaign.  Circulation, traffic or served, opportunities-to-see and likelihood-to-see are each very different in value and are the subsequent stepping stones to achieving the goal of ad exposure for which media platforms take responsibility and without which none of the  subsequent Ad & Campaign effectiveness measures can be achieved.  (My article in Media Post , "When is an Impression not an Impressiosn" may help understand the fundamental differences.)  As we always asked at the media agency when presented with any media data, "What is the defintion of "audience" and what is the defintion of "impressions"?  Those two generic media terms can cover a great many sins and typically require significant adjustments to put the data from different media platforms on a level playing field for meaningful comparison.  It should be noted that OOH globally has generally embraced Visibility Adjusted Contact or VAC which is a measure of ad exposure or Eyes-On and as such does not require adjustement in any media mix evaluation.  The use of PPM to measure radio in major markets also reflects a measure of ad exposure but based on being reported at the average commercial minute level.  Look forward to Media Post's Summit on, "Achieving Universal Currency Across Media  Platforms".  And by-the-way should that currency include duration weighting?

• Media Planning In A Fractured-Screen World by Karlene Lukovitz (Advanced TV Insider on 11/22/2019)
  

  If you are reading this you will have read John Grono's commentary on some of the somewhat self-serving "drivel" offered by some of the Panelists at this Media Post TV & Video Insider Summit.  I suggest you read John commentary again. It is absolutely spot-on!  His last paragraph regarding creative being "King" in any campaign has always been and will remain fundamental.Just in case anyone points to the recent MRC Cross-Media Audience Measurement Standards (Phase I Video): 1. It surely raises as many questions as it attempt to solve?2. It has confused so so many with its term, "viewable impression".  It is NOT an audience impression.  In other words, when is an "impression" as in common use in media planning, buying & selling not an "impression"?  Answer:  When its a "viewable impression" or so so much better - "fully renderded viewable content"!  If you think this description would eliminate most of the current rampant confusion, please advise MRC.3. It recommends duration weighting of aforementioned viewable impressions as of 2021.  Surely completely out off MRC's mission and scope?  Media agencies have been dealling with the miriad of qualitative and contextual dimensions of various media platforms in addition to audience delivery well beyond duration for years.  It's part of the value they deliver to advertisersin making their ultimate media mix reommendations.  And they are very good at it!Delighted if "OMC" has helped to enhance the evident "GAP" in undersstanding these tricky issues!  

• TV's Impact On Movie Theaters Might Change Rules Of The Game by Wayne Friedman (TV Watch on 11/21/2019)
  

  Insightful challenging piece related to a medium offering the optimum sound, picture size and quality via a special "relaxed" uninterrupted viewing environment with a virtually guaranteed exposure (not merely a gross impression) when compared to other any video content or digital video advertising.  As such cinema offers potentially the highest impact of any digital video content.  Of note,  there can be no "impact" unless there is an audience exposure!  Cinema also consistently delivers 100% viewable impressions rendered on a screen so no substantial loss concerning "rendered" losses versus some other digital video platforms.  How Cinema should ultimately be structured corporately as part of any larger media or production conglomerate to protect consumers is tricky and certainly a concern for the FTC or DOJ.  However with the right movie content Cinema still offers audiences a truly dynamic experience while offering advertisers a powerhouse medium.   Will stay tuned.

• Facebook Agrees To $643,000 Fine To Settle Privacy Investigation In U.K. by Wendy Davis (Digital News Daily on 10/30/2019)
  

  The greatest con man the world has ever experienced continues his journey and Fakebook remains unscathed.  Shameful that the maximum fine was only $643,000. Suggest reading Aaron Sorkin's piece in the NY Times, "Facebook isn't defending free speech, it's assulting truth".  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/opinion/aaron-sorkin-mark-zuckerberg-facebook.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage  Enjoy!

• Counterpoint: When Is An Impression Not An Impression? by Tony Jarvis (MediaDailyNews on 10/13/2019)
  

  Insightful as always.   Your perspicacity clearly points to the need for advertisers and their media agencies to seriously  "drive audience measurement" to ensure meaningful equitable intra and Inter media audience comparisons surely at the content exposure - "eyes-on" (or ears-on") level.  Attentiveness (which is beyond simple exposure), impact, or communication measurement per the ARF model are higher order measures than exposure and are also much more related to the creative execution, brand category, etc.   As such these campaign attributes could be considered beyond the primary responsibility of the media platform.  Attentiveness, impact, communication and ultimately sales response cannot be achieved without first achieving a known ad exposure.  Which brings us right back to my theme and "our" conclusion.  Perhaps the ANA and 4As are listening???

• Industry Leaders Weigh In On MRC's Final Cross-Media Standards by Karlene Lukovitz (Advanced TV Insider on 09/13/2019)
  

  Some internationally recognised media research industry leaders have expressed very different technically based POVs on these proposed cross-media audience measurement Standards (Phase I Video - which are focussed primarily on digital!) rather than offering "politically correct" observations.  It is disappointing that these expert positions, reflected in extensive comments on an array of articles on these Standards in Media Post, were not captured in this article.  Notably the concerns with "Duration Weighted Viewable Impressions" plus the disconnect that until such Standards can comprehensively embrace ALL major media platforms (which the current Standards have NOT been designed to accomodate without huge challenges) they should not be released.  Interestingly while agreeing with Greg Stuart's rejection of DWVI, the cognoscenti have done so for very different reasons.  Notwithstanding, effectiveness and its measurement, as Greg states, are driven by a myriad of complex factors that have non-linear relationships.  These Standards attempt to address cross audience measurement primarily for diigital video NOT effectiveness and do NOT include other major media platforms, e.g. press, magazines, OOH, radio (non digital), cinema, etc.  As a reminder, DWVI as proposed, is included solely a pre-measurement control factor although no audiences are reported at the second by second level!  Perhaps Media Post should hold an industry Summit on this vitally important opportunity to fully move the entire industry forward towards a MRC required common media currency?  That currency should simply be "ad exposure" or "contacts" rather than all the varieties of gross impressions currently offered.  The value of those actual measured ad exposures or  contacts to a target audience based on campaign duration, ad size, medium, time of day, propinquity, environment, context, creative (huge!), etc. etc. etc. can be subsequently adjudicated as to the effectiveness of the various attributes to the entire campaign and the overall effetiveness in total.  Surely it is only with a true common media currency base of ad exposures or contacts that such effectiveness evaluations can ultimately be made?   

• MRC Finalizes Cross-Media Standard, Revises Duration Weighting To 'Relative' Approach by Joe Mandese (MediaDailyNews on 09/04/2019)
  

  Ed, as usual, is spot on regrarding how these Standards including even the revised version of 'duration weighted viewable impressions' will, or possibly more likely, will not be readily applicable to linear TV and certainly problematic to other major media platforms in view of their focus on digitial video.  Raising "what is meant by outcomes" and the complexities of what dimensions of that arena to measurement entail are unlikely to achieve any meaningful consensus from any MRC Committee.  Once again Ed underlined the fundamental difference and importance of requiring measurement of ad exposure or "eyes-on" and its complexities as any first step before addressing ad impact.  Surely measurement beyond gross impressions to ad exposure needs to be mandated by MRC in order to earn an accredited media currency before considering the pursuit of any Standards for the measurement of outcomes or 'impacts'?Geroge Ivie in a recent interview in Media Post correctly, I believe, recognised that incorporating other major media platforms into the current proposed Cross Media Audience Measurement Standards (Phase I Video) would be "much more challenging".  I suggest that this is a huge understatement.  As such, should other major media and critically advertisers investing in complex mixes of media be asking the MRC not to release the proposed Standards until the myriad of "challenges" that incorporating other major media will drive based on the current "final draft" are fully identifed along with solutions for incorporation at least in principle.  Otherwise the industry could be accused of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.  As the new head of the ANA's new "Measurement for Marketers" perhaps these issues are a top prioriity for ANA EVP Bill Tucker and his "Measurement Advisory Board"?

• MRC Finalizes Cross-Media Standard, Revises Duration Weighting To 'Relative' Approach by Joe Mandese (MediaDailyNews on 09/04/2019)
  

  Just for clarification:As stated, my comments were solely those of OMC and not on behlaf of the MRC Working Committee whose deliberations are and remain confidential.  The cognoscenti referred to were as referenced: the media reserch gurus that have extensively commented in Media Post on 'Duration Weighting' articles including Ed Papazian; Dorothy Higgins; Nicholas Schiavone; John Gruno; Joel Rubinson; and myself as just a gnu; among others.As to my "rubbish" suggestion made with the greatest respect, it merely, but I believe importantly, was directed to underline Ed's initial comment regarding your piece, that this Standard does not require audience exposure or ad impact measurement a critcal missing dimension in virtually all audience measurement today.  Further it is clear that MRC staff are committed to duration weighting of viewable impressions as you reported despite its rejection by some of the best media researchers in the business - the flip side of this story!I would add that "duration weighted viewable impressions" remains significantly misunderstood and is per Geroge Ivie (Media Post) no more than a preliminary control factor prior to any actual audience measurement being executed.  As such no different say, from excluding men in proceeding with a survey of women.  As video audiences that generate an actual exposure (versus commonly inadequate gross impressions) are not measured or reported at the second by second level it appears the the entire duration weighting concept is irrelevant and should be dropped from the proposed Standards. 

• MRC Finalizes Cross-Media Standard, Revises Duration Weighting To 'Relative' Approach by Joe Mandese (MediaDailyNews on 09/04/2019)
  

  Joe:Sorry but in my opinion you have this giant MRC mis-step element of the new Standards mis-represented and as such keep falling into the trap that Ed clearly and correctly identified.  Your words:  "... a Standard for accounting for Ad exposure" with the implication that duration weighting is an important part of the new Cross Media Audience Measurement Standards.  Surely rubbish?  I believe this position is confirmed by the cognescenti that have commented extensively on several previous articles on "duration weighted visible impressions"!  Some of the cognoscenti have also recommended that duration weighting, which remains misunderstood and misinterpreted, shoud be dropped from these Standards; and further, that "outcome" based measurement or "impacts" as some of us call it should be be left well alone by MRC.  At least until they require as a Standard the measurement of actual audience "contact" or "ad (or content) exposure" versus merely gross impressions.  And even then this level of measurement standards may be a bridge too far?  "Contacts" are very very different from "impacts" as the global OOH industry fully understand.    Cannot wait for further comments from Media Post's readers.  Disclosure:  I am privildeged to sit on the MRC Working Commitee for these proposed Standards but these particular comments are strictly the position of Olympic Media Consultancy.

About Edit

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