I've been on both sides and ad tech vendors were the ones that quickly found the gaps and ran for it. they ran so quickly, it kinda got out of control.

fb is now teaching publishers that will some innovation and "failfast" ethos, they too can take control.

meanwhile,i'm eating my

I've seen mobile traffic grow to now above 50% in most markets. However, the returns from mobile differ from business to business. Some products and services naturally work for mobile users, whereas other produce zero leads.
I created this cost-per-click estimator tool to help advertisers get started with Google Advertising.
http://clickprofits.com.au/google-cost-per-click-estimator

Neither Colbert or Fallon reaches as much as 1% of the "coveted" 18-49-year-olds in the U.S. nightly and the differences in their ratings are minimal---like a few more homes tuned in one night or another. In times past---when, it should be noted, there were many fewer channels to chose from----Carson routinely reached  far more viewers that all of TV's current late night gabfest/varieties put together.

Agreed, very well written and with a little tweaking, yours is not a bad idea at all! The issue then becomes, who makes up the Board and what criteria is used to receive "certification"? At the very least, it would add credibility to both the real journalist and news organization, except, it still won’t stop bad journalism or opinions from both good and bad.

"When the transactional costs are reduced to a scanning of a newsfeed and hitting the “Like” button, the brain says “What the hell, let’s add them to our mental friends list. It’s not costing me anything.”

There's the rub, Gord, because in fact it costs me and others quite a lot to simply acquiese to the socially shallow and needy. So when we do roll our eyes at them it's only the first step before deleting or at least muting them from our Social lives. No, it costs too much to allow any of our social streams to be swamped by the unworthy, the wasteful, the trivial. 

Indeed, "not all agree." I for one would rather have Google continue employing its own search engine marketing criteria -- hardly secretive at all, as anyone who has ever been in SEM knows well -- than suffer them to follow the uneducated diktats of EU (or for that matter, USA) bureaucrts. And, oh, the rich irony of Oracle and Yelp worrying about "bring(ing) true innovation" to the Internet, and News Corp -- owner of Fox News -- the mother-of-all Fake News outlets and the pot calling the kettle black. Please...

And the edge is not so firm: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-ratings-fallon-snaps-colberts-5-month-winning-streak-1016985

So much written about Colbert, Fallon... Kimmel?  Who Cares?  Just because they (All of the late night shows) hate Trump, Love to show their cultural and moral superiority over Trump?  Yes, it all boils down to Anti Trump for you and those who watch. (Would a Trump fan actually watch these to hear unending bashing?)  Why else would Mr. Nice Guy travel to Russia?  Oh, maybe he's tracking down Clinton Foundation money?  Had to spout off, I'm so tired of late night.   When Leno left, so did watchable late night.  Carson was and still is the King.  Leno, very close second.  The left overs is what you have now.

If he actually runs, he can experience the reduced screen time that greeted Pat Paulsen so many years back, owing to Equal Time. 

Where's the BRAVO button brother?

When looking at attribution and audience measurement / collection for digital audio, or even mobile, the word "cookie" shouldn't be mentioned. Supply and demand sides need to agree on a consistent parameter, passable within the bid stream, to identify devices and impression opportunities. 

Some publishers will have to learn the hard way.

Thanks, Jim. Point well made. My thoughts aren't designed to replace but to suppliment the "Gold Standards" of productive marketing.

Jim:  Very useful and focused piece.  The apparent "art" or "skill" is crafting a good but brief story addressing consumer pain points.  I would add the import of message testing whenever possible.

How many holding companies are there competing for this award?

I believe this suggests a display advertising model. It's hard to see how this will rival Google search, which I think is Google's main revenue stream. The difference with search is, the user is actively looking for the product or service. Versus a display ad that interrupts the user while watching Football, as you suggested. Two very different channels. Not to mention Google's very low barrier to entry - businesses can choose their own budget. I createed this tool to estimate Google Cost-Per-CLick in any market: http://clickprofits.com.au/google-cost-per-click-estimator

1964 GE Brings Good Things to Life.

Terrific----- if a buyer isn't interested in knowing who was potentially exposed to the client's ads. To have a meaningful TV buying and selling audience "currency". you must have viewer---not set usage---data.

Wayne, the real profits for primetime entertainment fare on the broadcast TV networks----for both the producers and their network "partners"--- comes from rerun syndication sales -----not their airings as "originals". If these were trimmed down to ten-second length---even if the networks were carzy enough to take them----their rerun value would be zilch. If YouTube wants to cut risks and foster short form original videos, that's fine and dandy, but it means that such content will garner very limited audience acceptance and equally limited ad acceptance---assuming that the ads can even be seen. As far as the costs of "quality" fare, such as "House Of Cards" and "Game Of Thrones", if Katzenberg is corrects about the numbers that tells me that Netflix and HBO are probably paying far more for such fare in order to induce people to subscribe than makes sense for a network or major cable player that relies on ad dollars tied to ratings to supply 50-60% of its revenues.

Right, Doug, the long-term promises often have a hard time being met.

Looked scarily like Robin Williams to us.

"Asshole" really sings

I am getting some deja vu here...remembering all the tech miracles that were supposed to bring huge profits in implementation. Perhaps what the study means is that consultants and service providers are ready to see huge profit jumps - fleecing clients with algorithms that are merely AI wannabe's... Given the past couple of decades of tech miracles this seems far more realitistic. So much tech makes profits for providers - not for those using it.