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

  • TV Ad Impressions Grow, Sports Programming Pushes Higher Results: by Wayne Friedman (Television News Daily on 05/17/2022)

    Wayne:  As you are fully aware this data is NOT an "accurate representation of US Households".  Also, such a data source (smart TVs and STBs) represents at best content rendered counts on screens and NOT "impressions" which are based on persons measured for an OTS - opportunity to see, at a minimum. The iSpot definition of an impression is "convenient" but specious.  This data reflects neither "viewership" nor "viewing" by an audience.    When is Media Post going to caution its readers on deliberately misleading reports of this nature? 

  • Nielsen Strikes Smart TV Data Deal With Vizio by Wayne Friedman (Television News Daily on 04/26/2022)

    John & Ed:Amen.  At best a highly complex simulation but agree ultimately specious.

  • Nielsen Strikes Smart TV Data Deal With Vizio by Wayne Friedman (Television News Daily on 04/26/2022)

    "captures viewing data ..." "Viewing"?  Really?  Unless I am missing something, Inscape and various other video data tech companies capture content rendered, aka "viewable impressions" per MRC, on a screen using ACR.  No persons survey or persons measurement is invloved whether in the room, pressing meter buttons, having eyes-on/ear-on or paying attention.  ACR data is at best tuning data and I am sure Nielsen understands this restriction.As The Attention Council reminds advertisers, without Eyes-On/Ears-On at minimum and preferably "attention" there can be no creative message effects.  For Media Post, referencing "viewing" when it is not supporrted by the methodology is beyond disapointing and inappropriate.  How Nielsen will use this ACR "tuning data" to enhnance its Nielsen One persons ratings is, I suggest, the real story. 

  • The Most Important Media-Mix Study, So Far by Joe Mandese (RTBlog on 03/28/2022)

    As Erwin Ephron espoused years ago regarding the value of increasing the mix of media, it's about target audience reach, preferably exposed i.e., Eyes or Ears-On.  Frequency, as he opined in one of his famous newsletters, is "crab grass".  CPM, which is driven by frequency, stands for "Completely Positively Mad", of course! In addition, I would posit that ROI studies are campaign rather than media studies (ANA please take note regarding hyour Cross Media Measurment initiative) due to the overwhelming influnce of the creative to drive attention and therefore impact plus, the interest in the brand category and the equity of the brand being advertised going in.  However, all things being equal, incremental target group Eyes/Ears-On reach will typically improve campaign outcomes based on the "right" message.  Please remember John Grono's warning in all this.  Brilliant creative can overcome a bad media plan but not vice versa!!

  • Comscore, SMI Strike Deal For Advanced eCPM Metric by Wayne Friedman (Television News Daily on 03/17/2022)

    Interesting opening.  It is, perhaps conveniently (?), missing the definition and derivation of "impressions" and therfore lacks clarity on th use of "effective" which would be determined by the rigour of the impressions used.

  • Crown Media Inks Ad-Measurement Deal With For Reach, Attention Metrics by Wayne Friedman (Television News Daily on 03/15/2022)

    While it is intriguing and indeed exciting that iSpot has partnered with TVision to go beyond its nebulous impressions or content rendered counts data, I suspect that the research cognoscenti, MRC and indeed NBCU would be particulalry concerned with the comment from Sean Muller, CEO,  "By calibrating our extrapolated HH-level demographics to data from TVision's panel we can provide person and demographic level data".  In other words, a simulation of a simulation for a final database revealing typically very very small program ratings driven by a highly diverse viewing public via diverse devices.  I suspect the research industry will look forward to receiving a full proper Tehnical Appendix of this joint partnership technique as well as the results of MRC's accreditation of it.  (This accreditation would go well beyond just iSpot's Ad content rendering element currently in process with MRC). 

  • Crown Media Inks Ad-Measurement Deal With For Reach, Attention Metrics by Wayne Friedman (Television News Daily on 03/15/2022)

    A caution:  We need to be very careful with definitions and methodology when interpreting  and reporting on iSpot data.  My understanding, which may or may not be completely accurate, is that iSpot's impressions data are merely, but fundamentally, "content rendered counts" from smart TV's use of ACR technolgy - Automatic Content Recognition.  In other words, measures of the device and what is on the screen also known as "viewable impressions", the misnomer defined by MRC.  Per MRC, this is pure device measure and involves no persons or audience measurement.  Content rendered measures, while essential for makegoods, do not reflect persons actual viewing or watching; in other words, there is no eyes-on/ears-on persons measurement involved.  As to the iSpot "attention" measures, my understanding is that again this not a persons but a device measure of content rendered on the screen that has been changed or switched on a smart TV.  So "Attention"???These measures surely do not approach the Eyes-On measure of persons by TVision, so critical to the brand campaign's creative effectiveness, and based on surveys of people's actual viewing habits with additional queries that raise their Eyes-On data to the level of attention.  Whether my assessment of iSpot is correct or not, the real moral of this report for all journalists in our business is: The term "impressions" has become nebulous and must be expicitely defined in any report based on the measurement being used - devices/screens or persons, and if persons, whether at the level of OTS, LTS, Eyes-On/Ears-on or Attention.  Each of these persons exposure levels have significant differences in value for advertisers and the sellers!  In addition, the same plea goes for the key media terms, "audience", "viewing", "reach", "attention", etc. which should all be persons/target group survey based not device/screen/content rendered based. So, if my assessment is correct, will Media Post change the misleading headline? 

  • Marketer-Led Measurement Initiative To Be 'Productionalized' By Early 2024 by Joe Mandese (MediaDailyNews on 03/04/2022)

    This marvellous dialogue reveals, once again, the fundmantal issue with media terminology as used today.  The lack of precision has lead to the misunderstanding, and often deliberate abuse, of key media terms, notably "impressions" and "exposed" (per Marc Prichard) and whether such terms are even based on a legitimate device, or distinctly, a persons measure. As John Grono eloquently pointed out, which Ed & I have consistently supported, an ad served (or a so called and misnamed, "viewable impression" which should be referred to as "content rendered counts") does not equate to a tradtionally defined impression, or opportunity-to-see by a target group of persons; which does not equate to a liklihood-to-see or LTS impression by a target group of persons; which does not equate to a contact (Eyes-On or Ears-On impression); which does not equate to "attention" by a target group of persons - primarily a creative measure!As Lumens and TVision have consistently found, measures of actual contacts (a media measure) and more signiificantly attention (a creative measure) by target groups are wildly different and significantly lower than device measures - "viewable impressions".  They also confirm that it is only ads that generate attention which can expect to achieve a brand outcome.  So, when using the terms "impressions" or "exposed" please precisely define them and verify their foundation.  It may help understand, and also help dismiss, some of the numbers being thrown around and protect some of our esteemed leaders from sprouting unadulterated twaddle.  Perhaps embracing this precision, will help the industry finally understand the valid foundations of media measurement versus creative measurement versus outcomes measurement and their complex relationships???

  • Study Benchmarks Cheapest/Most Expensive Ad Media by Joe Mandese (MediaDailyNews on 02/25/2022)

    Joe:  Ed makes sound points on the use (or not?) of CPM's for buyer or sellers, especially when derived from very different basis definitions medium by medium.  I have also commented on this specious chart in past years.  So you really should know better than reporting on these flawed findings.  At Mediacom, we always insisted our planners/buyers  ask, "CPM on what basis?"  The CPM's provided medium by medium were always significantly different due to different audiences, actual level of exposure measured, ad sizes, etc., etc.) and our job was to equivalize them at the highest value and most relevant level for our clients.  Highest not lowest level!  OOH CPM's based on "Eyes-On" (not box car traffic numbers which always were and will be heavily discounted!) were always relatively high.  Bad for OOH?  Absoutely not!  When other media were adjusted for an Eyes-On or Ears-On equivalent for the brand's target audience, OOH CPM's would generally be very competitive and in addition OOH delivers comparatively very high Eyes-On weekly reach.  I would suggest that Mark Broidman's comments on "reach-per-dollar" when referencing a CPM chart is also flawed.  Using CPMs is about driving frequency not reach, whether for OOH or any medium.  The bottom line for OOH?  The creative innovations (3D!) and impact generated when using OOH formats provides brands incredible messaging opportunities. As the last truly mass medium, OOH can deliver very high weekly reach versus other media plus there is no remote to avoid OOH Ad exposure.  Using GeoPath's OOH Eyes-On for a brand's target group as a basis for CPM's demands the same basis by other media platforms whose CPM's will typically rocket when "converted".  As a result OOH becomes relativley cost effective.  OOH unquestionably has a critical role in a brands media mix but surely not based on this research.  As has been noted by many media planners.  CPMs?  Completley Positively Mad!  BTW:  We need to be very very careful with attribution models.  Their plethora of issues are well documented and may disadvantage OOH.   Ed, John:  Did I get this about right?

  • Updated: ANA Confirms Plans For TV Ratings RFP, Scope And Timing Not Disclosed by Joe Mandese (MediaDailyNews on 02/22/2022)

    As I have suggested over the years, CIMM could serve the industry, and consequently the ANA, as a TV Ratings JIC - Joint Industry Commitee, by establishing an industry agreed exquisitely defined SINGLE TV currency.  This would eliminate the confusion and complexity of multiple TV currencies currently being released and outlined at the recent CIMM Summit.  Some of us from media agencies remember the nightmare dealing with target audience currency data from Nielsen and Arbitron for TV and MRI and Simmons for print. However, at least they all measured impressions based on actual persons with a real measured opportunity or liklihood of looking at or seeing or hearing content compared to a device measure of content rendered - so called "viewable impressions".  (The latter is fundmanental of course, but only Level I of 8 Levels, per the ARF Media Model, in an ad's journey to impacting a consumer with a superb creative message as a result of an actual measured exposure with attention to consequently drive a brand outcome.) 

About Edit

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