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

Dave Morgan

Member since March 2008Contact Dave

Articles by Dave All articles by Dave

  • Who Wins And Loses When 9 Trillion Linear TV Ads Disappear? in Media Insider on 08/09/2018

    Linear TV viewing -- all of it loaded with ads -- is declining at a significant rate, projecting an enormous amount of lost advertising opportunity.

  • Fewer, More Relevant Ads in Media Insider on 07/26/2018

    It's hard to imagine a media future that doesn't involve the delivery of fewer, more relevant ads. However, that's not what's happening at the moment. Ad loads are up on TV. Both satellite and terrestrial radio have increased their ad loads. And the explosion in connected digital screens - in people's hands, on their desks, in taxis, on gas station pumps, on the sides of buildings - means that many more ads are being shown to more people in more places than ever before. In spite of that trend, I believe the explosion of ads will slow down and then actually reverse over the next five or so years. Here's why:

  • Be Wary Of Ad-Tech Stories That Are Too Good To Be True in Media Insider on 07/19/2018

    While companies in the advertising, marketing and media worlds are entitled to a certain degree of boosterism, the claims for technology solutions often reflected in the press are sometimes a bit extreme. Here's what I try to keep in mind as I review what seem to be inflated claims:

  • TV Advertising's Future Will Focus On What We Actually DO With Data in Media Insider on 07/12/2018

    Data is not going to define the future of successful TV advertising, any more than it has defined digital advertising. I know that's not what you hear at most conferences, but as someone who has worked at the center of data-driven advertising for the past 25 years, I can say this with certainty.

  • Direct-Brand Revolution Will Hit Media Industry Hard in Media Insider on 06/28/2018

    Are big media companies ready for another big wave of disruption? They'd better be. The direct-brand revolution is starting, and it might not be pretty for large incumbent players in the media industry.

  • Nielsen Sets A New Tone in Media Insider on 06/21/2018

    Two weeks ago I attended Nielsen's annual Consumer 360 conference in D.C. and it was unlike any industry conference I've ever attended. It opened with high-profile stars from the entertainment world talking candidly about a number of very "uncomfortable" issues weighing on the media and entertainment industries today, from MeToo and diversity and inclusion to alternative facts and attacks on the news media.

  • TV Advertising Has A Marketing Problem in Media Insider on 06/01/2018

    If you follow the trade publications in our industry today, you know that TV is dead in the U.S. Right? Actually, no. But TV advertising DOES have a marketing problem.

  • The Levy Solution: Spend 5% Of TV Budgets On Audience-Based Delivery in Media Insider on 05/24/2018

    The world of television advertising is undergoing dramatic change, and one of its top executives is taking a page out of history to help fix it.

  • Answers To Some Great Questions About Outcome-Based TV Ad Selling in Media Insider on 05/17/2018

    "How can anyone promise sales outcomes -- and then also work with your competitors?" That was one of several questions posed by Joe Marchese on big industry stages this week, first at the Fox upfront presentation and again at Luma Partners' Digital Media Summit.

  • TV Has An Attribution Problem in Media Insider on 05/10/2018

    The advertising industry is quickly approaching a future where household-level sales attribution becomes table stakes for all media campaigns and channels. This future sets up digital media companies well, but could be disastrous for TV companies. TV has an attribution problem, and the industry needs to fix it.

Comments by Dave All comments by Dave

  • Who Wins And Loses When 9 Trillion Linear TV Ads Disappear? by Dave Morgan (Media Insider on 08/09/2018)

    Ed, you are directionally correct. The heaviest viewing quintile doesn't eat up all of the GRP's, but it gets a masssive amoiunt of them. And, yes, the actual reach on some of their campiagns now falls pretty low and doesn't always get to 80% ... though not down to 30%, but frequently 50%.

  • Who Wins And Loses When 9 Trillion Linear TV Ads Disappear? by Dave Morgan (Media Insider on 08/09/2018)

    Ed, you are assuming that the theatrical campaigns' frequency delivery correlates with the amount of total viewing by overall TV viewing quintiles. It does not. Almost no campaign I have looked at does. Current bulk buying methods dramatically oversaturate a portion of total viewers at an even more skewed precentage than the rest of thier viewing time cohort. Who are they? They disproportionally watch broadcast prime and highly rated shows. There was day (many years ago) when most/all viewers watched like that. Now, only a subset do.Under any circumstance, you I agree on one of the biggest barriers to smarter, better delivered campaigns. We need to unshackle brands from bulk corporate buys. Bulk buying (and allotment) only makes a difficult situation totally untenable.

  • Who Wins And Loses When 9 Trillion Linear TV Ads Disappear? by Dave Morgan (Media Insider on 08/09/2018)

    Ed, you are correct that the "average" R/F balance in GRP's hasn't changed as dramatically over the past 20 years, though it the F component is up a lot on average. However, if you de-average the Reach and Frequency at a person/impression level is where you see the massive increaase in Frequency as a component of the GRP. A theatrical release 15-20 years ago might have been supported with $15-20 million on TV for 2-3 weeks before the premier. It would have reached 90% of total audiences on TV (and similar portion of frequent movie-goers) 10-12 times each on average over those 2- 3 weeks, with the heaviest quintile of TV viewers getting 15-20 ads each and the lightest quitile getting 5. In that scenario. Today, since theatrical release TV buyers are super focused on primetime, 18-49 demo and shows with the highest average rating point, which is opposite to where fragmenting audiences now view TV, they will spend $50-60 million on national TV in 2-3 weeks. They will reach 80% of total TV audience (and similar portion of heavy moview goers), but the lightest quintile of TV viewers will get no ads over that time, the next lightest will get 1 ad, and the heaviest quintile will get 50+, and the next heaviest at 20. The average Reach and Frequency balance will still look OK - total reach of 80% with an average of close to 10, but more than 80% of the total GRP's will have been delivered to viewers who had already seen the ad 10 times in the preceeding two weeks. That is where the massive increase in frequency has happened - the crabgrass that Erwin warned us against.You don't have to look at different timeslots to come up with these numbers.Key takeaway - we need to stop planning, buying and measuring TV ads by "averaging" methods that don't work in today's fragmented TV ad world. We have tons of data at the person/impression level, whether in directl measured at the set-top box or Smart TV, or in the Nielsen AMRLD. That is where the truth of today's GRP is told.

  • Who Wins And Loses When 9 Trillion Linear TV Ads Disappear? by Dave Morgan (Media Insider on 08/09/2018)

    John, my piont on a GRP today being all about frequency was not suggesting that the definition has changed - a GRP is still R x F. My point is driven by the reality of today's GRP's. Because of massive audience fragmentation and the failure of the industry to change how we package/buy/sell TV ads - and in spite of many, many warnings from Erwin Ephron - a GRP today in practice contains 9X more frequency than it did 20 years ago. For sure, it is not "all about" frequency, but it might as well .

  • Who Wins And Loses When 9 Trillion Linear TV Ads Disappear? by Dave Morgan (Media Insider on 08/09/2018)

    Very good points Ed, but I think that the issue transcends GRP's. Today, unfortunately, because of the accelerating audience fragmentation on TV and the failure of how planning/buying/measurement to respond well, GRP's mean frequency, not reach. Thus, their not as substitutable as they were a decade or two ago. Your point about cable newtorks potentialy increasing their ad load is a good one, certainly given their history of doing it in the past. However, at 18+ minutes an hour already, I'm not sure that adding more wouldn't just accelerate the move by viewers to ad-free or ad-light alternatives.

  • Who Wins And Loses When 9 Trillion Linear TV Ads Disappear? by Dave Morgan (Media Insider on 08/09/2018)

    John, I agree. I wriite often about poor intermingling of correlatoin as causatoin. The point of this piece was not to establish that the adoption of streaming services were causing linear TV declines, though I certainy could have done that. It just would have taken several paragraphs to lay at the data at the individual household level showing that when a household adopts a streaming service, it watchs less linear TV. Given that those streaming services frequenlyt offer exactlly the same channels and content as the linear bundle that is being viewed less, it's not a stretch that we're seeing some direct consumer replacement going on.The point of this column though was to focus on the clear facts on the ground that linear TV is losing viewership - and ad load - at a large rate, and that this loss of ad impressions would have consequences for the industry. The relationship with streaming services is important because whether they caused the loss or not, they are growing, and they are a potential substitute for the lost ad impressions. Except, they have little or no ad load.I get the point about Correlation v. Causation - we all know that the opening of umbrellas at scale isn't the cause of rain. Rather, I'm trying to ask folks to pay attention to how hard it is raining and wondering what happens when it washes away one-half of linear TV's ads.

  • Who Wins And Loses When 9 Trillion Linear TV Ads Disappear? by Dave Morgan (Media Insider on 08/09/2018)

    Craig, that’s correct, but I think it’s fair to suggest that there is a correlation been the penetration of streaming services and the declines of linear tv viewing. It would be better to also show streaming usage by content type and household, but that data is very fragmented and sparse and not available in robust, representative sets.

  • Who Wins And Loses When 9 Trillion Linear TV Ads Disappear? by Dave Morgan (Media Insider on 08/09/2018)

    Sean, here are some recent trends by type of programming, which may continue as linear TV declines: sports, down slightly; national news up slightly; dramas, down a lot; unscripted, down less; big networks, down big; small nets, flat to up; morning shows, down; daytime game shows, flat. I hope this is helpful. However, there is no question that the loss loss of so much ad-funding will undermine the platform of linear TV to support all kinds of programming. It could go into a death spiral.

  • Who Wins And Loses When 9 Trillion Linear TV Ads Disappear? by Dave Morgan (Media Insider on 08/09/2018)

    Doug, no question that ads can be annoying, but they also pay the bills ($70B wiorth) to create and deliver content in the US. Plus, ad-support is particularly important to get video content to the 90+ million Americans without broadband. Also, it works. It certainly informs people of products and services that they then decide to buy.

  • Who Wins And Loses When 9 Trillion Linear TV Ads Disappear? by Dave Morgan (Media Insider on 08/09/2018)

    Ed, yes. I mislabeled the year-over-year number and will fix it in the piece over the weekend. The year-over-year decline for linear (including delayed) cable and English-language boadcast viewing according to Nielsen is 4%. The 9% number, as you correctly pointed out, is Nielsen's number in the adult (18-49) demo. It shows the same decline rate both for prime-time and all day. The 19 Trillion number is derived from stitching the Kantar ad occurrence data to Nielsen AMRLD data at the minute level. Year over year, that data actually shows a P2+ year-over-year decline above the Nielsen rate, closer to 6.5%. Projecting that out steady-state, it would suggest a 7 Trillion impression decline rather than 9 Trillion. Given the several year acceleration from classic pay TV bundles to skinnier SVOD & vMVPD bundles, both are probably within a pretty fair range of the likely linear (and delayed) TV ad impressions over the next five years. Thanks for catching and pointing out the mistage!

About Edit

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