Merely making a mathematical observation Ed.

John, are you implying that they just made up those estimates? After all, they "based" them on a survey of almost 20 "buy" and "sell" side industry "leaders". Maybe these leaders forsee a linear future for ad revenue growth---it's possible I guess.

That is a surprisingly linear annual increase across five years, with the rate of increase slowing in a pretty linear way as well.

Ummm ... What can I do with pumpkins?

Use them to smash your 'phone when they change how you use it once you have finally got used to it?

Very much agree. I am an avid @Nandoodles twitter follower!

the BRANDED newsletter is a must-read about the ad fraud and chicanery seen in the world of poorly-targeted programmatic ads. https://branded.checkmyads.org/

The Science Channel always seems to be left off the channels available from Discovery+.  For some of us, it's one of the top 3 channels Discovery offers; too bad it never gets mentioned.

Wayne, I wonder how anyone who reads these millions of minutes figures evaluates them---except some are larger than others. For example, what's the norm for new shows during the same period? Or how do these stats compare with typical "linear TV" audience projections for new prime time shows?I'm not blaming you---it's just that reporting the "digital way" ---which is how these stats are presented doesn't---- give you the dimensional frame of reference that TV's average minute tallies do---as these level the playing field.

Not suprising---but didn't they also ask how much time the AVOD viewers devoted to AVOD content? That's where one would expect real growth to take place as there is more to watch now.

Interesting review, Adam. The TV programmers and thier producers never seem to learn that what most people want is entertainment ---not education or to be told how to think. It reminds me of the grat shift to "relevance" around 1969-1970 when scads of new shows showed young adults changing the world by becoming more relevant to societal needs and even old hits were affected by the "new' sentiment and did their best to chime in---I cover this in detail in my book, "TV Now and Then", Media Dynamics Inc, 2015. What happened was that virtually all of these shows flopped badly and only later when Norman Lear launched "All In The Family", which sired many spin-offs and copiers, did large numbers of viewers pay attention---why? Beacuse these  "tell it like it is" sitcoms were also very funny. Meanwhile, most of America's TV eyeballs were focused on hosts of law and order shows as that was the greatest concern of the "silent majority" in those troubled times.

This whole TV should be bought on impressions narrative is mind boggling to say the least. I've been reading numerous comments on this topic that say TV buying should be audience based. OMG!

It's staggering that so many who see themselves as pundits do not understand the very  basics of an $80 Billion industry that has been doing business the same way for 60 years. Rating points , GRPs.. are simply audience impressions expressed as a percentage of the population. We have been buying Television based on audience impressions for 60 years. Duh!!
Media buyers have been reporting ratings and audience impressions complete with CPMs to their clients since the sixties. 
The lack of basic understanding around how linear TV has been traded for decades is tragic. Thank you Ed for being there day in day, out to set the youngins straight.

If one surveys a group about something they should have knowledge of, but are actually ignorant about....dangerous misleading results and headlines like this are perpetuated. 

All quite tragic IMHO.

Tony, I will confirm that reach is rated far higher than frequency by most branding advertisers---though the time frame varies and is usually about a month for such evaluations. As I commented in my first post, I doubt that the sample is representative of your typical national TV advertiser as they are not as confused-----or muddled in their thinking---as the respondents to this study appear to be---judging by some of the reported findings. As for buying by "impressions" not GRPs, that's just a great leap sideways as branding advertisers will continue to want to attain certain reach and frequency levels---at specified GRP levels ----and such goals are always going to be expressed in percentages. Worse, it is far from established that a "page view" of 2+ seconds for a digital video commercial is equal to a complete playout of a "linear TV" commercial from start to finish---with no other content on the screen in terms of ad exposure or impact. So what  good are comparisons of "impressions" across platforms when  their value may vary in ways we have yet to determine?

Without the definition of "Impressions" this piece is puzzling.  If the "impressions" referenced are defined as 'content rendered counts' aka MRC's so called, "Viewable impressions", then surely we have the blind leading the blind at least based on the proponents of attention metrics (which are based on the target group and the context).  Their position is that without attention (persons based versus device based) there can be no outcomes.  In addition they have found that ratio of attention to these nebulous impressions varies wildly by media platform, content, duration, screen size, etc., etc. etc. Conseqeuntly, 'impressions' are a very poor surrogate for delivering campaign effectiveness. 
As Ed will no doubt confirm, weekly reach of the brand's target grouip based on Eyes-On or attention is still an optimal media planning/buying approach. 

In 2021, start earning cash from your home and getting paid(500$ to 700$ / hour ) by this job. These are the best online jobs I’ve made $84, 8254 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Join it today here...______ http://www.maxweatlh.com/

PJ, the same thing is true for much  of advertising. Most ads are best received by people who already use the advertised brand and many stock up after seeing their favorite brands' ad messages.

The easiest sale has always been to get someone who is already using your service to use it more often.  Some things never change.

Based on the replies as cited in this article, I assume that the sample did not include a fair proportion of major national TV time buyers who account for 90%+ of the national TV ad dollars actually spent. What's needed to evaluate such study findings are breakouts of the answers by spending levels in the various media. For example if 20% of the respondents claimed to handle brands spending $10 million or more in national TV yearly how do their replies compare with those whose clients spend much less or nothig at all?

Most people are closer to friends and family than feasible before social media, especially old friends. In exchange for a free service, social media collect as much private information as users freely volunteer to share (and advertising is easily blocked). Objectionable posts can be blocked or reported.

Traditional mass media is one-way communication, connecting people to a manufactured world where physical beauty or prowess distorts normal life, dissuading viewers (a few of whom are similarly addicted) from joining clubs or attending local meetings. The 1986 book No Sense of Place suggests a dystopian world of disengaged television viewers spending less time with friends and sometimes family. Media observers in glass houses might hesitate to point fingers.

A major factor in the success of W+K was that David and Dan never sold themselves to a BDHC (Big Dumb Holding Comany) So, where not answerable to a bunch of bean counters who's sole interest is making the quarterly numbers. 

 Of course the amount of money advertisers spend in various media does not necessarily correlate with how effective their ads are as communicators of brand positioning or as sales motivators---especially for branding campaigns. I realize that the various sources haven't the info but if direct response, search, and sales promotional advertising were eliminated from the totals----leaving only branding dollars---I'll bet that local TV as well as radio would have a far larger share of ad revenues than is shown in the table.

John I agree with you it's the individual responsibility to own what they click. However there is a question on the table that is important. Has Facebook knowingly allowed or partisipated in the serving of the ads.  I wrote yesterday that Facebook book blocked my account because I was blocking large quanities of Fake Chinese accounts and online Whatsapp.com hookers.  Facebook actions in blocking my account only proves to me that they could have been involved. 

Per population that is a buck-fifty each per annum.

Ummm.

So when the last packet of Oreos is picked up off the shelf, everyone on the email list should be emailed?    How full would your spam file be within a week.