Thanks Jack. As much of an optimist as I am, I'm with you that the fraudsters will try to find ways to penetrate any automated systems that enter TV. However, I'm aslo hopeful that strong, hybridized panel based measurement can go a long in helping us sniff out the attempts.

Ed, spot on. The taxes of programmatic alone make it super unattractive for TV.

Dave, this is really well stated from someone who knows. I hope you are right, but fear that the fraudsters and others will find ways to make advertisers think they are getting the quality inventory at bargain basement prices wiping out the costs Ed correctly foresees. But all these middle men will find the fake or bad inventory and advertisers will buy it because that is what they know how to do. 

Democracy, baby, democracy. It is not a neat, fascist bundled up, name calling, murderous job of a death and destruction administration.

You may want to check with the millions of people who have nothing by social security to live on - the elderly, the disabled, babies, the interstate highway system, the military.....

Right, Dave. And, let's not forget the likely cost of programmatic TV time buying were it done the digital media way. Like it or not, advertisers would pay up to 10% for the use of a programmatic buying platform and a similar amount for "data" processing used for targeting purposes, plus who knows what for getting their commercials disrtibuted--5%, 10%? and since the sellers would have to use SSPs-selling side platforms--- to deal with the buying computers, that cost---say 5-10% ---would also be footed by the advertiser via higher CPMs. Net, net, advertisers who now pay 1% for broadcast network TV time buys and 2.5-4% for cable and spot TV buys would be faced with execution costs 20-30 times higher, maybe more. Is that an attractive scenario? Can the programmatic folks guarantee improved targeting efficiencies  of 30%, year after year to justify their costs? And what if the sellers notice that certain programs command more interest than others---as they surely will? Wont they raise their CPMs on those shows accordingly---which will nullify the assumed targeting efficiencies edge that are promised? The primary difference  between TV and digital is this.  In TV land the ad sellers will not be helpless pawns of the computerized buying systems and ad distributors as is so often the case with digital  "publishers". Rather, they, the TV ad sellers, will chart their own course and few but some desperate players will  subordinate their interests to those of cherrypicking computer buying systems.

Henry, actually, I believe that the real-time bidding feature is one of the key enablers for the bad that programmatic delivers. If a media company truly has precious and scarce audiene attention to sell, there is ery little if any incentive to wait until anything close to "real-time" to execute a media transaction. And, I find no reason to let the advertiser be the final one to determine what ad the person should see. Shouldn't that be the decision of the publisher/newtwork? Fundamentally, racing against real-time creates a lot of messiness.

Dave, instead of "programmatic," should RTB be substituted when explaining the issue you describe? Or is it enough to use "automation" as you do, to distinguish between processes that are automated to achieve greater efficiency as opposed to the programmatic snake oil you dislike?

Lowe's is based out of Mooresville, NORTH Caroline. I know this because my wife works there at the corporate HQ!

Your comparing apples to oranges with the stock market which has to be put into context...Obama was elected in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and he took office about six weeks before the market bottomed out. Trump was elected amid universal U.S. growth: a rising GDP, and low unemployment rate (4.8%) that was less than half what Obama inherited (10%).  And the market has continued to grow while unemployment is at it's lowest levels despite the onsluaght of negative news with the trade wars and impeachment.  Don't try to fool yourself into thinking socialism might be beneficial...

True, but the Swiss also have smartwatches.

Sadly most people live paycheck to paycheck.  Now that the layoffs have started we will begin a downward cycle, while the rich people watch the stock market go up thanks to the Fed cutting interest rates...
http://pjlehrer.blogspot.com/2020/02/whats-driving-your-investment-strategy.html

Hi Carole. The IHAF study indicates that 42% of corporate marketers are UNAWARE of their IHA’s mission, purpose and/or objective, not that it doesn’t exist. There is a communication gap between IHAs and their clients, indicating that IHAs would benefit by socializing their mission internally and corporate marketers would benefit by taking gaining a deeper understanding of the IHA’s reason for being. Increased awareness and alignment among the two is essential in order to optimize their potential as partners.

This is not utterly surprising, I mean the world is going digital.

Are there any figures for Nancy Pelosi?

You are so right, Richard. Fortunately for Bloomberg, very few people are watching these "debates" and seeing his dismal performances---so there is still of time to get better prepared and learn how to present himself---providing Mike is capable of doing so.

Good question. I'm not a lawyer, but there are plenty of examples where legal settlements include publicly disclosed damages and fines. In other words, NDAs aren't always included in settlements.
 

"The decision to limit the use of NDAsis a positive step in getting rid of a common method of silencing harassment victims and covering up bad behavior." 


If an NDA is a euphemistic term for "extortion," will eliminating them lead to the extinction of 
payoffs?

what was his reason for resigning though?

COVID-19 is a slow moving economic train wreck.  The only question for investors is whether or not their loss averison is stronger than their FOMO.
http://pjlehrer.blogspot.com/2020/02/whats-driving-your-investment-strategy.html

When you wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are.  Or no difference when you abdicate.

Hey fellow Lowcountry neighbor! Tulsi signs just started popping up this past weekend, but both Bloomberg and Steyer are billionaires and only one is truly bombarding SC residents with a media frenzy. The main point of difference is his visibility compared to the national media. He is in the running here, but nationally doesn't attract any attention. 

Hey, I live here in Charleston. Modest-sized Tulsi signs along major (and rural) roads are more abundant than any other candidate. And I get Steyer mail every single day (and have since November!) but I recycle it. Direct mail is effective for recognition. After a while, he went from "who's this guy" to instant recognition (and then the recycle bin). Steyer TV ads have been running 2 or 3 times per hour since before Christmas. It helps to be a billionaire.  I attended the CNN Town Hall on Monday night and Steyer has more passion than Pete and very good ideas. Yeah, he owned private prisons years ago but he atoned for that and gives much of his money to good causes. His emphasis on climate change is unmatched. But I'm undecided.