Assumptions, assumptions. Even if Netflix gets to the 30 million sub level with its AVOD service and garners $2.5 billion annually in net---less agency commission ?---ad revenues per year, aren't there any costs associated with this service? For example, marketing and ad sales costs to say nothing of whatever must be paid to program producers--residuals, maybe.  And shouldn't one figure in some reasonable overhead charges and how about charging the AVOD service for the technical process of pumping out its content, maintaining the flow, servicing subscribers, keeping track of their payments, etc. Is all of this free? So one might ask how much of that $2.5 billion will actually contribute to the corporation's bottom line after the added expenses are deducted.?

Yes, agree, given the point of how challenging the accuracy is to predict margins across (with this example) 30+ brands...and where the efficiencies lie in validating "active" and "quality" readership coverage in print, from an ad buyer standpoint. 

Coupled with all the M&A activity and the "ultimate" success of ending this article with the crowning glory of an IPO....again, where are the margins and general COB being addressed...clearly...in a very short time Pocket Media execs hugely overestimated the heft of print...especially given that its been so pervasive over the past 7-10 years of print's continuing demise...niche or mass audience driven.   I'd be curious how many of these 30 brands are the market leader in their respective categories, for sure there are the obvious brands...but Clean Eating..?? 

The print-magazine business is collapsing faster than most expected, but maybe the scaling frenzy is also misplaced?

Leo, it has ramifications much wider than the Rockies!   It has a domino affect in that production in other countries such as Australia are affected.   Our government (that was just booted out on the weekend) basiclly threw their hands in the air and reduced local production requirements.

There are two key things with media.   Convenience.   Content.

You can have the most convenient access, but if you are showing junk then the audience will quickly wane (which I think is happening globally for broadcast).   If you have great content but hard to access you have a very happy but small audience numbers.   Neither are ideal.   Investing in content by the broadcasters, rather than conceding, is their best bet.   Content generation rather than content acquisition is the best bet for streamers.

Thank you Andrew and Ed.

I was bashing away on a calculator as I was reading the article then I saw your comments about higher than norm frequency delivering lower than hoped for reach.  The CPMs would have to be pretty highly discounted compared to broadcast to deliver.

Good points, Ed. Also to be considered in the equation should be geography, and demographics as linear TV is not dead to approximately 20% of the country that don't have broadband access to streaming services (mainly in the deep south, upper midwest and Rocky Mountains), and that the heaviest television users - older demos account for about a  25% share in that demo who do not have smartphones to view TV shows on streaming services. Of course, all of this might be moot during the upfronts, as famed ad executive Jerry Della Femina once stated, "To most marketers, consumers die the minute they turn 50. According to most marketers, 10,000 people die every day. These days, doctors don't pronounce you dead, marketers do." 

Gabe, I'm all for reforming the upfront, however we have to look at it realistically. It's a futures market bought on a corporate ---not a brand by brand--- basis---and until the CMOs of this world understand that there's more to advertising success than how well their brands are positioned and how well their commercials are executed, it will remain so. This precludes any serious attempt at improved brand by brand targeting as there is no way to come up with a single meaningful metric for all of a corporation's brands ----often in many varied product categories---for upfront buys. As the sellers and buyers need a single, unifying 'demo" to base their audience guarantees on, we are stuck with something like adults aged 18-49---or, if the sellers wise up, adults aged 18+---as either way it makes little difference. We must also recognize that a huge portion of national linear TV time is allocated to must buys---sports, news, specials, certain non-prime shows such as "Today", etc. so that money is out of play---it doesn't matter what the data reveals about better ways to target or any of the talked about add-on metrics like attentiveness, clickthroughs, etc.  advertisers will keep buying time in the must buy shows regardless. By the way, only a small portion of the upfront buys are cancelled in a typical year---the only exception was 2020 when the pandemic hit us. 

We monitor the upfronts very closely---and have done so since the 1980s. While there is considerable speculation about alternative sources being used instead of Nielsen, we don't see much beyond a number of cases---usually for specific brand deals---where a network or cable channel includes an add-on guarantee based on data from other  sources ---attentiveness, clickthroughs, etc.--- which it feels comfortable with. Net, net, we think that roughly 95% of the coming upfront will be negotiated based on the current Nielsen people meter panel's findings.

Just for the record, I am one of those who keep advocating new ways to deal with the upfront. For example, why not two upfronts? The first would be for individual brands  who are freed by their CMOs to seek better targeting opportunities as well as more attentive audiences---even if they pay higher CPMs. Once this is done, the sellers could invite CPM chomping advertisers who want to play the futures game to participate in a second---mass audience/lower CPM upfront. Thatway everybody---including the sellers --wins.

Hey Ed I am not sure I agree. The upfront model and selling low CPM's for big investment committments in a market where both national and local buyers are all willing to compete for the impression and we have scarcity and finally measureability at scale does not seem to be what is in the best interest of the publisher. 

Other than for live events, I think the upfront's need to change is now. Offering a buyer getting bargain basement rates for early committments - which a large portion they cancel anyway is no longer in the best interest of the greater ad community, but most importantly not for the publisher at all. 

We do not represent pubs/broadcasters in anyway, so this is not a self-serving comment. I just think that there are many more buyers than there is inventory and therefore the upfront model does not work as well as it once did. While I recognize the similar scarcity existed before with linear, measurement and other elements that make new TV more attractive change the dynamics. 

Interesting piece, Wayne.

While everyone keeps harping on the so-called streaming "wars", and how much is being spent to create "original" content for the network's new streaming ventures, the base for all of this activity continues to be the incomes earned by the broadcast TV networks and their owned cable channels via a combination of "linear TV" ad revenues, retransmission fees and profit sharing pacts with prime time sitcom and drama show producers. Even though there is continiued slow attrition in "linear TV" viewing time as well as its aging demos, the latest data indicates that the average adult now watches about as much linear TV content as he/she  did way back when---in the early 1960s. And, instead of capturing 60-75% of all viewing time---as  some have expected--- streaming now accounts for only 30-31% and may rise to 40-45% over the next three to five years.

As a result the TV networks are in an enviable position relative to a Netflix. Where the latter must keep gambling on new  productions plus a dwindling supply of off-network fare to stock its library ---and will soon launch an ad-supported service---the TV networks have a still solid financial base consisting of their profitable "linear TV" national programming services plus their O&O stations in the larger markets---also profitable---and this allows them to gamble on streaming services which, if successful, will add ad sales as well as subscriber revenues. Also it's likely that  original content developed  by the networks as a means to hook streaming subscribers will also be recycled profitably via their "linear venues and in syndication---if this  is planned properly. Finally, as I see it, , "the plan" calls for significant increases in the networks' "linear TV" CPMs, again exploiting the fact that "linear TV" remains the largest reach base for national advertisers---despite cord cutting, the rise of streaming, etc. It's a sound plan---but there is always the chance that the networks may louse it up.

Until they find a way to use "smart TV" set "cameras" to tell marketers who, exactly in these homes is "watching" what programs---and get their permission to provide such information to advertisers this is not such a big deal. You've got a built in error margin in set usage  relative to viewer data of about 40-50% , meaning that if you are trageting, say, the male household head---or the female counterpart ----and the set is tuned to a particular sitcom, chances are only about 40-50% that the person you really want to reach is the one who is watching.

Accirding to this study of "household audiences"---not to be confused with viewers----the average CTV campaign  granered the rather small number of 47 GRPs over its course and attained a mere 13% reach. Which resulted in an average frequency of 4.6. From this we are told that there really is no "excess frequency "problem". Yet if we were to replicate the average CTV  campaign as a typical "linear TV" buy, with 47 GRPs you would probably get a 22-25% reach, not 13% and your average frequency would be only 1.9-2.0 So before we accept the notion that most CTV campaigns have  a very "light" frequency we might ask, "compared to what?"

The same analysis also tells us that you ned over 100 million impressions to attain a 42% reach of CTV homes. Translating this into terms that a brand manager might understand, this calls for something like 140-160 GRPs, maybe more. Yet if you bought that many GRPs in "linear TV" your reach would probably be in the mid to high fifties. Again, much higher than what these brands would attain in CTV. And once again, the reason seems to be that you do get considerably more frequency in your CTV buys than their "linear" counterparts.

From my experience i've found it's about the distribution of frequency - not the 'average' frequency is the issue/challenge.

If 98% of devices reached get a frequency of 1 and 2% get a frequency of 200, it doesn't really matter that the average frequency is ~4.9 - the vast number of targets have far too low and a small number far too high.   

Just a great summary of how to become a more powerful communicator in the marketplace of life. Not only in our media messaging, but in life. If you want to be a force for good, it starts within our own heart and soul. We must be fact-based, we must be trustworthy, then we can hone our messages to the steps outlined here. Our words and our visuals bonded for greater energy, action and memorabiliy. Thanks Caroline!

HB20 is dead-on-arrival at the US Supreme Court. The two federal appeals court judges that even allowed it to be enforced while not ruling on its constitutionality must be nutty Trump appointees.

The number one thing I see brands need to get back to fun and excitement in their advertising. Advertising has gotten way to political and the focus needs to get back on the value and benefits of the product. 

Is the data reported daily, weekly, monthly total campaign?  The only chart I see that says anothing about this is the last one. It says daily. These figures are a problem if that holds for the rest. 

I agree, Dave. Far more likely ---if CTV is going to grow significantly in ad revenue---- will be a combination of what we have long seen in traditional TV---upfront,, low CPM, futures buying plus individual brand buys with specific targeting and other considerations being the prime drivers---not, necessarily CPMs.

As to how these will split the national TV CTV pie that's not quite clear as yet, but it will be stupid for branding advertisers not to allow their brands more flexibility in their usage of CTV. Another variable whose impact has yet to develop will be the push by traditional TV ad sellers for major CPM increases---the reduction in available GRPs being their main selling point. If this happens, more and more brands may be freed from the shackles of corporate time buying and allowed to go their own way. But will CTV time sellers understand this and stop trying to make CTV a digital media buy---instead of a "TV" buy?

Katie Nauman's comments about the value of connections made at MediaPost's Insider Summits reminded me of tip #29 (Network regularly within and outside your industry) in Chapter 6 (Be Visible) of my new book Fast Start to Career Success. 

Shelley Pratt's comments about finding work-life balance reminded me of tip #35 (Pay attention to your family. Keep your work and personal lives in balance. You need the enjoyment and ... the support your family gives you. The hours not spent with spouse and children can never be recovered) in Chapter 8 (Be Real) in my new book FastStarttoCareerSuccess.

Having worked five upfronts--'75-'76 thru '79-'80--as an ABC salesperson, and attended all three broadcast network upfronts from '69-'70 thru '74-'75 as a Y&R network time buyer, anything that adds even a microscopic smidgen of humor is 'cause for overwhelming gratitude...! Hooray for Jimmy!!!

I recall there was a link last year to see the actual monologue. Is there such a link this year?

I still think that Walken would make an ideal Trump  when "they" finally decide to make that movie---tentatively titled "The Big Steal". As for who plays Biden, Tim Conway doing his "old man" routine on "The Carol  Burnett Show" would be my first choice---but, sadly, Tim is no longer with us.

Agree with you Ed. The only way I could see Chris Wallace boosting CNN's ratings is to somehow create a bold new format and put him on 5 days a week. Hard to build ratings off a single weekly hour. And his reason-based personality is not about painting a story in loud primary colors. If it were up to me, I'd put him in charge of a new round-table probe of the top-of-mind views from 6 or 7 average folks. Each hour, new, different people, all incomes, all races, educational levels, etc get into all the sensitive subjects that drive our personal, social and political lives. Sorry -- if Wallace has done this already, I didn't catch it!