1. Adam Warren from PTSM
    94 minutes ago re: RIP, Brand Purpose by by Sarah Mahoney, Staff Writer (Marketing Daily - Feb. 10)

    This kind of mindset is exactly why consumers have grown increasingly disillusioned with brands—and why America is facing such a steady decline. If capitalism is the essence of the American spirit, but corporations only focus on selling more at any cost, then they are the ones being short-sighted, self-serving, and out of touch. Fortunately, younger generations are rejecting this outdated approach because they see firsthand the consequences of capitalism without purpose—where only the owners benefit. Instead, they are advocating for a new model, one where brands operate with integrity and follow the Golden Rule.

    And as for it “only just getting started”—that’s wishful thinking. The reality is that the Super Bowl's audience skews older, and brands that fail to acknowledge this shift risk being left behind. The future belongs to the youth, and they’re making it clear they expect something better.

  2. Dave Morgan from Simulmedia
    over 1 hour ago re: Willie Sutton Would Love The CTV Ad Business by by Dave Morgan, Featured Contributor (Media Insider - Feb. 06)

    Great story Ed. For now, retaliation for speaking out on these issues tends to be getting shut out of spend ... hopefully, we won't see retaliation at the Arnold Shuster level!

  3. Thomas Siebert from BENEVOLENT PROPAGANDA
    2 hours ago re: RIP, Brand Purpose by by Sarah Mahoney, Staff Writer (Marketing Daily - Feb. 10)

    A "brand's purpose" is to sell more stuff. That's all. That's capitalism. Anything else is propaganda. Anti-capitalists are now being punished for their foolish, selfish, arrogant, abrasive, annoying and asinine attempts to clumsily mold society into their awful (AWFL?) antithesis of the American Spirit. It's extremely satisfying to watch the humilating Bonfire of their Vanities, especially with the percolating Narrative subtext that it's really only just getting started....

  4. Joe Mandese from MediaPost Inc.
    2 hours ago re: Move Fast And Break Democracy by by Joe Mandese (Red, White & Blog - Feb. 07)

    @Ben B from Retired: 

    https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/357340/this-just-in-from-the-mars-news-channel.html

  5. Ben B from Retired
    10 hours ago re: Move Fast And Break Democracy by by Joe Mandese (Red, White & Blog - Feb. 07)

    Wrong Murdoch didn't start the attacks on democracy FOX doesn't distorted views which you can't back up either. Cable news in general is the reason why there is a divided the country in my opinion MSNBC is the worst of the worst when it comes to cable news. And I'll never root for the country to ever fail in a big no matter who is the President if I don't like them or not. I didn't vote Trump in 2020 or 2024 I voted 3RD party for president and proud of it as I don't vote for the 2 evils not ever going to happen. 

  6. Jonathan May from HorseTV Global
    10 hours ago re: Jeep Wins The Super Bowl by by Tanya Gazdik, Staff Writer (Drive Time - Feb. 10)

    Sadly, a commercial doesn't improve the poor quality of their products- and isn't THAT what really counts?

  7. Ben B from Retired
    11 hours ago re: Do Super Bowl Scores Affect TV Ad Performance? by by Laurie Sullivan, Staff Writer (Performance Marketing Insider - Feb. 10)

    When The Super Bowl is a blowout I'm more into the ads since it's their Super Bowl as well. I was rooting for the Eagles I thought The 3 Peat was going to happen and I don't think a 3 Peat will ever happen in my opinion just too hard to do the Chiefs were the closet to do it and was denied.

  8. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc
    Yesterday, 6:57 PM re: Willie Sutton Would Love The CTV Ad Business by by Dave Morgan, Featured Contributor (Media Insider - Feb. 06)

    Dave, your Willy Sutton example calls to mind the sad case of Arnold Shuster, the mild mannered clothing salesman who helped the cops nab Willy. The mob--- or Willy's pals---weren't happy about that and zapped poor Arnolda few days after he appeared in TV interviews about his role in Sutton's capture.

  9. Amy Mckeever from Criterion Global
    Yesterday, 6:33 PM re: Super Bowl LIX Ad Buys Slide 2% To $800M by by Wayne Friedman (Television News Daily - Feb. 10)

    Same question here: back of the napkin Super Bowl math is that 63 national advertisers paid $8M per 30-second ad slot which would be $504M USD? 

    Where's the other $300M?

  10. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc
    Yesterday, 4:43 PM re: Super Bowl LIX Ad Buys Slide 2% To $800M by by Wayne Friedman (Television News Daily - Feb. 10)

    Wayne, where does EDO get its ad spend figures---certainly not from the TV network I would think. So are these just  guesstimates? Also, it used to be said that the networks which aired the Super Bowl usuually made public comments about the pricing of their commercials that implied that it was about 5% higher than most advertisers actually paid as a promotional ploy  suggesting that those who paid slightly less got a good "deal". I don't know if this practice still applies---but?

  11. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc
    Yesterday, 1:30 PM re: 'Premium' Live TV News Content: Streaming Bound? by by Wayne Friedman, Staff Writer (TV Watch - Feb. 10)

    Wayne, I'm a bit surprised by your Fox News Channel revenue figures. They seem very low compared to what we hear from various sources. These indicate a total revenue figure per year of about $3.0-3.3 billion and ad revenues of about $1.0-1.2 billion. $1.8 billion in total revenue for CNN seems about right and MSNBC trails well behind with only $.9 billion in total revenue---which may decline at a fast pace unless they figure how to win back many of their disappointed, left leaning, viewers who have reduced their consumption dramatically after the recent  POTUS election.

  12. John Caldwell from JACaldwell Inc
    Yesterday, 1:15 PM re: Why Diverse Data Is As Critical As Diverse Media For Multicultural Audiences by by Mario Carrasco, Op-Ed Contributor (MAD - Feb. 09)

    Throwing around names like McKinsey, Nielsen, and ANA sounds impressive, but let’s be real—just because a study says something doesn’t make it an absolute truth. These reports often confirm what people already want to believe, and they’re usually funded by companies with a vested interest in the outcome. Sure, brands investing in multicultural marketing might be performing well, but is that because of the marketing or because they’re already big brands with deep pockets doing a ton of things right? Correlation isn’t causation, no matter how fancy the report looks.

    If broad targeting didn’t work, why do the biggest brands still rely on it? McDonald’s doesn’t survive by hyper-targeting niche audiences. They blast their message everywhere because their goal is to reach as many people as possible. Same with Netflix. They aren’t successful because they’ve cracked some secret code of cultural relevance. They throw out a ton of content, and some of it sticks. It’s more about volume than some perfectly crafted audience segmentation.

    As for zero-party data being the “future,” let’s not get carried away. Yeah, with third-party cookies going away, marketers are scrambling for alternatives, but that doesn’t automatically make zero-party data the holy grail. People aren’t exactly spilling their deepest, most honest preferences in surveys. They click random answers to get through a quiz or get a discount. Behavior speaks louder than words, and what people do is way more telling than what they claim they like.

    The argument that bad data leads to bad execution is pretty obvious—kind of like saying, “Bad ingredients make bad food.” Sure, but even with the best ingredients, a bad chef will still mess up the dish. Data helps, but it’s not the end-all-be-all. You still need creative ideas, good timing, and honestly, a little bit of luck. Some of the worst-performing ads have had perfect targeting; they just didn’t resonate.

    And let’s talk about this idea that consumers “reward brands that speak to them authentically.” Sometimes, yeah. But other times, people just want whatever’s cheap, convenient, or available. No one’s forming a deep emotional bond over a bottle of dish soap. We love to think every purchase is part of some meaningful connection with a brand, but honestly, most people are just buying what’s on sale.

    Bottom line? Diverse data isn’t useless, but it’s not the magic key to marketing success either. It’s just another tool in the box. Good products, smart strategies, and solid execution will always matter more than chasing the next big data trend. The market isn’t some wise judge handing down verdicts—it’s just a bunch of brands trying different things to see what sticks.

  13. Mario Carrasco from ThinkNow
    Yesterday, 12:10 PM re: Why Diverse Data Is As Critical As Diverse Media For Multicultural Audiences by by Mario Carrasco, Op-Ed Contributor (MAD - Feb. 09)

    John, thanks for engaging. Let’s break this down:

    1.      “Business strategy isn’t about ethics, it’s about ROI.”
    Agreed—ROI drives decisions. But diverse media and data do deliver results. McKinsey, Nielsen, and ANA studies show brands investing in multicultural marketing outperform those that don’t. Diverse data isn’t about ethics—it’s about reaching the right consumers effectively and driving better performance.

    2.      “Advertisers don’t need hyper-specific labels; they need performance metrics.”
    If broad targeting worked best, every brand would use it. Instead, companies like McDonald's and Netflix succeed by leveraging audience insights to create culturally relevant campaigns. Assuming all Hispanic consumers are the same is like assuming all Gen Zers behave alike—lazy marketing that wastes ad spend.

    3.      “Zero-party data is limited and biased.”
    First-party and zero-party data are the future of digital marketing (see Google’s Privacy Sandbox, Meta’s shift away from third-party cookies). No data set is perfect, but self-reported data validated with behavioral insights beats outdated third-party models. Consumers engage more when ads reflect their actual interests.

    4.      “The gap isn’t about data; it’s about execution.”
    Execution matters, but bad data leads to bad execution. If your DSP relies on weak audience data, your campaign fails before it starts. Great creative without great targeting is wasted budget. Data ensures the right message reaches the right consumer at the right time.

    5.      “Advertising is about selling, not authenticity.”
    Tell that to brands like McDonald's and Netflix, who profit by understanding their audience. Consumers reward brands that speak to them authentically, and diverse data makes that possible.

    Bottom line? Diverse data isn’t a buzzword—it’s a performance driver. Advertisers who use it outperform those who don’t. Appreciate the skepticism, but the market has already spoken.

  14. John Caldwell from JACaldwell Inc
    Yesterday, 11:58 AM re: How to Create Culturally Relevant Brands by by Jim Misener, Op-Ed Contributor (MAD - Feb. 07)

    The claim, "Chappell Roan, Nike, Roblox, and Netflix are cultural powerhouses, so brands should chase 'cultural relevance' to build loyalty" sounds inspiring, but here’s the problem—brands aren’t people. They don’t have “values” or “beliefs.” They exist to sell products, period. Slapping on a “culturally relevant” label doesn’t magically create deeper emotional ties. It just makes marketing sound fancier than it is.

    Nike’s success wasn’t because “Just Do It” became some universal creed—it’s because they made great products, invested in top athletes, and dominated advertising channels. The slogan didn’t transcend culture; Nike’s relentless marketing made it impossible to ignore. Same with Roblox. It’s not a “cultural hub” because of some strategic branding genius. Kids like games. Roblox lets them make games. That’s it. No need to dress it up as some grand cultural movement.

    Then there’s the idea that brands need “diverse data” or AI to track trends and stay ahead. This is just marketing jargon. Culture doesn’t move because brands study it—it moves because real people do things organically. Netflix didn’t create 80s nostalgia with Stranger Things; they capitalized on a trend that was already bubbling up. The whole “Netflix sparks cultural shifts” argument falls apart when you realize they throw spaghetti at the wall—some sticks, most doesn’t. It’s not deep cultural insight. It’s volume and luck.

    The Patagonia example is trotted out because it’s one of the rare brands where activism and business genuinely align. But that’s the exception, not the rule. When other brands try to mimic it, it feels fake because it is fake. Consumers can spot performative nonsense a mile away. Remember when Pepsi tried to solve social justice with Kendall Jenner handing out a soda? Exactly.

    And let’s not overlook the contradiction here. On one hand, the argument claims brands should stay authentic and not chase trends. On the other, it praises brands for “adapting faster,” “pivoting with AI,” and “tracking trends in real-time.” Which is it? You can’t be both the cool kid setting trends and the desperate follower trying to stay relevant. That’s not cultural authenticity—that’s marketing whiplash.

    Bottom line: Cultural relevance isn’t some magical formula. It’s not AI-driven, data-backed, or trend-hacked. It’s often just luck, good timing, and not trying too hard. Most of the time, brands would be better off focusing on making great products and treating people well instead of obsessing over whether they’re vibing with Gen Z on TikTok.

  15. John Caldwell from JACaldwell Inc
    Yesterday, 11:48 AM re: Why Diverse Data Is As Critical As Diverse Media For Multicultural Audiences by by Mario Carrasco, Op-Ed Contributor (MAD - Feb. 09)

    Let’s start with the central claim: that engaging multicultural consumers through programmatic media is not just ethical but a strategic business imperative. That sounds good on paper, but let’s be real—business strategy isn’t about ethics. It’s about ROI. Companies spend money where they see results, and the idea that brands must engage in multicultural marketing as a moral obligation is more of a marketing pitch than a business truth. If it drives revenue, great. If it doesn’t, businesses move on, no matter how “authentic” it feels.

    The argument pivots to data, claiming that most programmatic campaigns rely on outdated, generic datasets that lump people together. Sure, there are lazy data sets out there, but the idea that the entire industry is stumbling because it doesn’t have enough “diverse data” is a stretch. Advertisers don’t need hyper-specific labels to be effective—they need performance metrics. Does the ad convert or not? That’s the question. If a generic dataset leads to profitable outcomes, brands will use it every time over some expensive “nuanced” alternative.

    The piece also pushes the importance of zero-party data, claiming it’s a “game changer.” In theory, yes—getting data straight from consumers sounds ideal. But in reality? It’s limited. People aren’t lining up to fill out surveys about their cultural identity for the sake of better ads. The scale isn’t there, and the quality varies wildly. Plus, most of this data is self-reported, which means it’s biased, incomplete, and often inaccurate. Not exactly the goldmine it’s made out to be.

    Then there’s the argument that diverse data “bridges the gap” between strategy and activation. This is just buzzword filler. The gap isn’t about data; it’s about execution. Good campaigns succeed because of smart creative, strong messaging, and effective targeting—not because someone figured out that a certain group prefers eco-friendly laundry detergent. Overcomplicating it with “seamless integration with DSPs” sounds impressive, but it’s not fixing the actual problem: bad ads don’t convert, no matter how much data you throw at them.

    Lastly, the piece wraps up with the usual emotional appeal: the responsibility to push the industry forward with authentic stories. But advertising isn’t about telling authentic stories; it’s about selling products. If authenticity helps, great. If not, brands will happily stick with what works, whether that’s a heartfelt cultural narrative or a dancing mascot.

    Bottom line: The pitch for “diverse data” sounds noble, but in practice, it’s more about selling new data products than solving real marketing problems.

  16. Arthur Tauder from Thunderhouse
    February 8, 2025, 6:12 PM re: Move Fast And Break Democracy by by Joe Mandese (Red, White & Blog - Feb. 07)

    Joe,  Thank you for the link to the Economist YouGov poll.  Today, the most important role of media, consumer and trade, is to cover the voice of voter.  In today's ultra-partisan environment, only the direct voices of the voters, as expressed in approval ratings, have any chance to impact the President and the policies of his Administration.  Thank you for speaking up for our MarCom and related Media & Entertainment industries.


  17. Ben B from Retired
    February 8, 2025, 1:18 AM re: Politico Denies It Has Received Funding from USAID by by Ray Schultz (Publishers Daily - Feb. 06)

    I don't believe Politico they did get money from the Biden admin them denying it proves their lying.

  18. Ben B from Retired
    February 8, 2025, 12:56 AM re: Tegna Pulls Its Verify Fact-Checking Unit: Who's Next? by by Wayne Friedman, Staff Writer (TV Watch - Feb. 07)

    Social media is a beast and hard to fact every post on the many platforms with thousands of posts daily. The users don't care about facts or the truth just want to post what they believe and give their opinion on everything even if what they say isn't true and just a flatout lie they don't care. I liked TEGNA's Verify Fact-Check the few times that I saw a report on WZZM which I don't watch all that much.  

  19. Marcelo Salup from Iffective LLC
    February 7, 2025, 5:18 PM re: What Drives Brand Loyalty For Each Generation? by by Josh Ginsberg, Columnist (Marketing Insider - Feb. 06)

    "Generations" is bullshit. There, I said it. We need to stop believing in these amazingly oversimplified terms. Each "generation" includes tens of thousands of amazingly different people who have nothing in common with each other.

    A young black girl growing in the deep south might have been born on June 11, 1991 and have zero in common with my daughter, born into an affluent family on June 11, 1991. 

    Enough.

  20. Barbara Lippert from mediapost.com
    February 7, 2025, 2:32 PM re: Yes, Yes, Yes! Updating A Classic The Hellman's Way by by Barbara Lippert, Columnist (Mad Blog - Feb. 06)

    Thanks, George! 

  21. Jay Goldstein from Gamut
    February 7, 2025, 12:44 PM re: Move Fast And Break Democracy by by Joe Mandese (Red, White & Blog - Feb. 07)

    Joe, Unfortunately the democracy is under attack, and two foreigners are the key players. Murdoch started it with Fox's distorted view of the world to scare the minions into submission(they havent mentioned egg prices in 18 days-coincidence?), and Musk is now pulling the levers to destroy it. Until it is broken beyond recognition, and people are effected in a tangible way nothing will change. Unfortunately we need a natural disaster where Fema fails to help. We need a month where ss checks dont go out. We need a month where medicair/medicaid does not pay providers. We need a terrorist attack that the newly thinned out FBI and CIA's could not stop. It is really sad, but real democracy loving Americans need the country to fail in a big way at this time. Unfortunately it very well might.

  22. George Parker from Parker Consultants
    February 7, 2025, 10:27 AM re: Yes, Yes, Yes! Updating A Classic The Hellman's Way by by Barbara Lippert, Columnist (Mad Blog - Feb. 06)

    Further proof that no one knows more about the ad biz than Barbara.
    Cheers/George "AdScam" Parker

  23. M Gingrich from GI
    February 7, 2025, 9:41 AM re: DeepSeek Code Capable Of Sending Data Direct To Chinese Government by by Laurie Sullivan, Staff Writer (Performance Marketing Insider - Feb. 06)

    Well done on solid reporting. Sadly I think we can all file this under "not shocking".