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

Ted Mcconnell

Member since April 2005Contact Ted

  • SVP, Audience Validation Lucid Llc.
  • luc.id
  • Cincinnati Ohio
  • 45206 USA

Long time at P&G running Digital Marketing Innovation. 5 Years consulting in the online Ecosystem, mainly measurement related. Now SVP Audience Validation at Lucid.

Articles by Ted All articles by Ted

  • Data Quality Update in Media Insider on 03/07/2019

    How can we best measure data quality? The "nutrition label" idea is helpful -- but a few facts do not comprise transparency.

  • A Convenient Falsehood in Media Insider on 02/07/2019

    What's shocking is that massive regulations about Internet privacy are based on research subject to a major paradox.

  • You Are What Represents You in Media Insider on 01/03/2019

    One application of AI, customer service, is so compelling it has become core strategy for many. But relegating your reputation to a persona with an EQ of zero is risky.

  • Advertisers' Access To Justice in Media Insider on 12/06/2018

    The sheriff's finally in town, y'all, ready to investigate ad fraud. Consider yourselves fortunate -- and cooperate.

  • The Agony of Digital Transformation in Media Insider on 11/01/2018

    How would you know if you were digitally transformed?

  • The Editorial Purview Of Algorithms in Media Insider on 10/04/2018

    While algorithms have a lot of power, they are deeply flawed, non-transparent, and inherently greedy.

  • Revisiting Close Your Eyes, Make a Wish in Media Insider on 09/06/2018

    Here's what we could do as an industry to make advertisers' wishes come true -- maybe not exactly practical, but pointing us in the right direction.

  • Close Your Eyes, Make A Wish in Media Insider on 08/02/2018

    Last month the WFA dropped a little bomb: eight principles designed to improve partnership in the ad industry. Here's what they say they wish for:

  • The Lion Jumped The Shark in Media Insider on 07/05/2018

    The Cannes Festival of Advertising, where Lions come from, may not have jumped the shark yet, but it's headed that way. That's important not just because the Lions are the Oscars of advertising, but because the festival itself is a mirror of our industry. This year's look in the mirror gave a rather unflattering reflection. What happened?

  • My Horribly Dis-Integrated Living Room in Media Insider on 06/07/2018

    A recent study reported that consumers like streaming TV more than cable TV. Way more. Duh. However, there is a cost to all this wonderful stuff. Making all the tech play together can be excruciating. It shouldn't b

Comments by Ted All comments by Ted

  • Advertisers' Access To Justice by Ted McConnell (Media Insider on 12/06/2018)

    Thanks for your comment Bill. you will note the ANA comes off the hero in the Article. And the quote you are objecting to was among the few points made as reported in Ad Exchanger, here:https://adexchanger.com/agencies/ana-confirms-fbi-criminal-investigation-on-ad-transparency/ on October 10th. It was a quote from Bob L. I do not know if he was quoting from the Paper you cite. I was shocked when I read it. I believe the ANA would have encouraged cooperation except for a Legal posture, but I did not want to let it pass. It takes a huge effort to catch these criminals, as you know, and the last thing we need is advertisers thinking they don't need to cooperate. I am sorry that the ANA lawyers kept you from stating your true position (if that is indeed why Bob said that), but it is very important to enable, rather than discourage cooperation in this matter. Without enforcement, your outstanding efforts will be significantly blunted. 

  • The Editorial Purview Of Algorithms by Ted McConnell (Media Insider on 10/04/2018)

    That would be interesting. In MZ's congressional testimony he was very careful to say that FB is not a publisher. One might imagine this is fair because after all, it was a person who said something, not FB. However, the algorithm in effect published it to an audience. So the algo was acting like a publisher. If it quacks like a duck .... It does not seem fair to collect $Billions based on content created by "consumers", and bear no responsibility for any outcome of anyone seeing it. It also does not seem fair that they should have all my data, and then gift it to criminals by virtue of sloppy security procedures. 

  • Unpacking Omar Sheikh's $100B Call On Future Of Data-Targeted TV Ads by Dave Morgan (Online Spin on 05/11/2017)

    Nice Dave. And its not only not implausable, it seems likely, but the sensability does not take 400 pages. All you have to do for an incremental 100 billion is roughly double the current average cpm. How could targeting do that? Its not complicated. If you halve out-of-target impressions at the same cpm, you double the roi. But then, of course, you have more impressions than you can sell, all things being equal. However, targeting allows smaller buyers to buy just what they need, so you make up the difference with fill rate. Think about a Walmart. There are 10's of thousands of Brands. Only a small portion can afford to advertise on TV ... because most brands know that their target is a person, not a demographic. Enabling all Brands to pay only for access to their target, and no others, will bring them to the TV media marketplace. As you know, that's exactly what happened with digital. Data can halve waste, double ROI, and enable access to media for those who did not previously find it productive. It might come at the expense of digital to some extent. In any case, its no stretch to think that TV can double their cpm by introducing radical quality improvements. Even today, in addressable TV, pinpoint targeting gets triple the cpm, and advertisers happily pay. Why? I guess it works. 

  • Advertising's Top Model by Ted McConnell (Online Spin on 02/02/2017)

    Ed. Yes. The difference between commercial and program ratings maps to the difference between advertising exposure and vehicle exposure, as you know. There are of course dozens of measures at each layer, but the model itself (and I suspect you personally knew some of the people who developed it) provides a basic framework that transcends all the complexity we are now dealing with. With all the measurement gaffes that have made the news, I thought our readers might appreciate solid ground in the swamp of spin.

  • Meddling With Models by Ted McConnell (Online Spin on 12/29/2016)

    From Wikipedia A statistical model is a class of mathematical model, which embodies a set of assumptions concerning the generation of some sample data, and similar data from a larger population. A statistical model represents, often in considerably idealized form, the data-generating process. So ... I'd say, by this definition, yes, Nielsen ratings are a model. 

  • Addressable TV: If It's So Smart, Why Isn't It Rich? by Ted McConnell (Online Spin on 12/01/2016)

    A couple of slight adjustments here, responding both to Ed and David, and Thank you both very much for your kind comments. Dish, and I assume AT&T, offer like 50 demo targeting variables (which are as accurate as axciom or experion HH information ... so now you can distinguish easily between different sorts of 18 to 49 year olds (Income, Ethnicity, Kids, geo, etc.).  They also offer (and I assume AT&T has this as well) program type propensity targeting. So, people in the top decile for "News", for example, for about 30 program types.  Typical inventory is last minute of every half hour, so, 4 30 second spots per hour. Across 50 million HH, that would be 200 million impressions per hour ... many billions per day, which is nothing to sneeze at.  The surrogate for viewing is more than just the set being on ... it includes any STB operation as evidence of a person in the room, and the reach is not counted unless such evidence exists. (Ask Rentrak). Probably as accurate as depending on someone pressing a button on a Nielsen box, or self reporting in a diary ... and the sample sizes are huge, close to 1/3rd of all sets for Satellite, and census for at least some Cable addressble like CableVision. To David's question,  there are some pretty good tricks. Here is one. If you have a TV campaign targeted to programs (as a surrogate for demo), just buy the demo you want across the addressable network, but only target program propensities that are not covered by the network buy. So, you will get everyone you want except the ones likely to have watched the Network TV you bought. In effect, optimizing cost per reach point. Another trick is to use it like Digital. Just take all the email names of your converters, hand them to you supplier, and they will develop a privacy compliant custom segment of STB-ID's which can be trafficked. That datset can also be modeled out for reach extention. I would expect any of the Addressable suppliers can do this stuff. There is a lot more cool wonky stuff having to do with integration with Digital campaigns, and the media suppliers are quite famliar with it. 

  • Confessions Of An Ad Blocker by Ted McConnell (Online Spin on 10/27/2016)

    Thanks Ed. But I did say "bombastic". :). Regarding the plug that will refrain from blocking if you pay. That's pure thug. Did you hear about Ad Nauseum? They have a plug that will click on every ad with the intention of confusing optimization and creating bad data. That's more like vandalism. Niether one of those however refute the idea of a democracy of computers. Open systems, like democracy, suffer some consiquences to support freedom. Without police, though, its anarchy. All it says to me is that its still the wild west. There's no Sheriff. Rules, and rule of law, make a free system, safe for honest citizens. 

  • The Data Quality Imperative by Ted McConnell (Online Spin on 10/13/2016)

    Amen. + "Provenence" ... beautiful word choice. :). t.  

  • The Most Important Book I Read This Summer by Dave Morgan (Online Spin on 09/09/2016)

    Wow. Eloquent, and timely. 

  • Programmatic TV Ad Buying Will Never Work by Ari Rosenberg (Publishing Insider on 09/08/2016)

    Ari, I must respectfully disagree with a lot of this, although the point of view is not uncommon. Programmatic did not drive prices down. Publishers creating inventory from thin air did that.  In fact, publishers support audience targeting by retargeting their own audiences, right?  Audience targeting does not demean content. It just gets advertisers what they wanted in the first place. Content had been a surrogate for audience since the beginning. Look at the flow of a media plan from advertiser to media. It starts with audience, and great content gets more audience but not necessarily aligned to every advertiser's needs. Does context help. Yes. Tons. That's why Brands want both. Auctions only drive prices down when the buyers can't inspect the goods. If they can,  the prices go up if the goods are good. Clicks were indeed the definition of "works" for direct sellers, but they never were for Brands. I have Brand after Brand tell me they don't care about clicks. In the early days, clicks were so irrevalent that the agency would not even code a click tag in the ad! And true, clicks are great for DR, but remember that the in the total world of retail, only 6-9% is online. The other trillion is driven by the top of the funnel. There was never any idea that clicks drive commerce. There were just publishers who wanted to serve the campaign objectives of their DR focused customers, which is fine.  Having created an exchange for linear TV, I can tell you that programmatic TV advertising can work for seller and buyer for the simple reason that it creates a transparant distribution channel for a high quality medium. I would predict that programmatic would work better for TV than online precisely because oversupply is not a problem. Precision matching of audience with need is a killer strategy.PTV is in fact a lot about workflow and (you did not mention) access to the medium. Broader access to the medium creates fill rate, which drives prices up because media value goes up when niche audiences can meet niche products. How many customers does Google have? So, yes. PTV will take some time, but only because of the natural vaguries of Broadcast communications. But, soon, data will prevail. We will be able to evaluate spots, and pay a fair price for them. Remember that buying groups are complicit with all this. Maybe they should buy the best spot, not the cheapest. Its up to us to be able to show what's good. Shame on us if we can't. 

About Edit

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