totall agree with Ed.  The value of what Netflix knows about consumer entertainment profiles is enorous to advertisers. Why would they leave this on the table? Once the rise in subscriptions stalls, they would have to consider a two tiered model of ad free vs. ad supported.  In fact, industry reports are that Hulu subscriptions are 70% ad supported.

Besides Rent the Runway, how many do you think will still be standing next year ? in 5 years ?

Good article.  There is a final group that I would consider that is missing.  This would be method. This means what is the instrument that is being used in the message. I am emailed nearly daily, fake sweepstakes to ad to our website. This is fruitless because we add only only quality name brands sponsors. For security we hand place all sweep ads.  The bad guys get stopped in their tracks.

Second are fake data miners with coupon and discount offers.  They pose as vendors with great offers on a products. They are sent mostly by emails but as your article suggest, social media comes into play.

Last, I have posted about going back to hand place ads again. This is the best security of ads that there is. However the advertisers are led to believe that programmatic is their only choice fror distribution.  Yes, it is cheap and fast but programmatic is like driving a car down a two lane road at night with no headlights. Something bad will happen.  

Very true. There is so much extra stuff out there, we are drowning. However, buyers of new are not on the same trip as buyers of used. Since the ability to donate and get a tax break is pretty much gone, people are selling. You are so right that this is the beginning of the end. 

Cure: Advertiser - EIther they get the right to know every site and have the ability to pull their ad from any site they deem inappropriate for any reason or they are gone. Oh, that will never happen. Greed, pure and simple. An agency would then have to spend more for more time and money to buy more individual sites not just for a clean buy, but a conscious buy. Those who support people who pull the trigger are responsible for the chaos and death, too. Those who allow ads on the sites for the trigger pullers are the supporters. It's only a 3 step chain. Some changes must be forced.  "We have met the enemy and it is us."

I find it curiously amazing that major retail chains are testing alliances with various trendy firms and activities that have not proven they have significant sales potential and a profitable business model. These experiments will distort the retailer's image and distract from the real opportunities to strengthen their business, i.e. those obvious actions that will make shopping in their stores a more pleasant and rewarding experience. 

@Rick Furr: We'll report on the full findings as soon as its released by Global Disinformation Index next month.

Re. grading professional media, that's also GDI's ranking, pulled from their previous report, which you can link to and download from the article we published.

Ultimately, these are all value judgements, but at least GDI has some method and criteria for valuing them.

Interesting article, I'd like to see more research, I noticed you have professional media at Stage 5, what grading did you provide Liberal Networks for falsely reporting the news or misleading the public, known as "Fake News". 

You are so true about social media ads, have no clue about their truly reporting accurate eyeballs, however reporting "Fake News" is more serious, you are trying to switch the consumer's behavior by reporting inaccurate news. In my opinion, that is 10X worse than misleading the public on the number of eyeballs that will see your ad... 

Rick Furr
CEO, Bullseye Interactive Group 

Ken Kurtz: All you've done is make vehement assertions of your own opinions without any proof and called them facts. I've politely stated my opinions and labeled them as opinions and said I am willing to wait and see whether your opinion about gun controls or mine is correct.

You know, the dearth of depth on this from the left, this blind insistence that governmental "controls" will work when they have never before worked in the history of America (quite the opposite, to be sure) is reminiscent of Dubya's insistence that going into Iraq post 9/11 would be a "good, and right" thing to do. According to Dubya (or Alfred E. Neumann, who Dubya reminded me of), "if the only thing that comes out of it is sending the right message, then it will be worth it."

I'm not big on "sending messages" especially if in the "sending" MATTERS ONLY GET WORSE. When we invite black market in to meet the demand for dangerous products, history has demonstrated clearly that matters always get worse. Again, in the six months after Sandy Hook, with all the "empty talk about controls" MORE GUNS WERE SOLD IN AMERICA than had been sold in the previous three years. Was that "better" Kenneth? Of course not, all that empty "political" talk about "controls" resulted in far more guns on our streets.

I thought Dubya was crazy back then, but most sheeple thought he was dead on. Many Republicans parroted Dubya, raising fists, and claiming "we need to send a strong message" and "kick some ass" over there. When I asked Republicans what going into Iraq, a place that Hussein and his Republican Guard had done a decent job stabilizing (what with the endless fighting between Muslim sects there) would accomplish, I got a lot of what Kenneth Fadner is offering up here. Nothing.

When I asked people why Iraq, when the perpetrators of 9/11 were all Saudi Muslims, I got a lot of Kenneth Fadner. Nothing.

When  I asked why in God's name we would put our own children between those bloodthirsty Muslim sects that have hated each other for centuries, and will still hate each other until the end of time, I got nothing but FADNER. Nothing. 

We killed Hussein, a guy that for many years we supported because he was tough enough to provide relative calm in Iraq, and sent in American soldiers (our children) to take over that job. People used to ask me similar questions back then when I was insistent that going into Iraq would be a terrible mistake that could only make matters FAR WORSE THERE...

What authority do you have to claim that toppling Saddam Hussein and sending our children in there to calm things down, and die WON'T RESULT IN SOME GOOD?

JUst like today, my answer was...

I have common sense, and can see. The Fadners of the world, not so much. 

You didn't make "a case." You offered nothing substantive at all to bolster your contentions. We'll consider you "well rested."

I rest my case.

My "authority" for claiming that U.S. governmental attempts to put controls on popular, and beloved (not by this American, mind you. Never owned a gun, and although I tried heroin, and alcohol, I haven't partaken of either in 35 years) recreational products will not work is, plainly and simply, the eyes that allow me to look back at American history. You're standing on thin ice if you want to conflate things with some other, lesser country's history, and experience. That's not very smart.

You'll do well to study how the black market has operated, and will continue to operate in America (efficiently, and ruthlessly in the face of governmental prohibitions on popular products) to truly understand, and get on the correct side of this issue. I understand the proclivity to attempt to "send some message"... but if the message backfires, as it will, and winds up making more dangerous guns available, well, how dumb is that?

Other countries aren't America, Kenneth. Other countries were not built like America was, on the foundation of gun ownership. Without guns, we'd be a British colony. Apple and oranges, comparisons with other countries.

I've provided more proof for my assertions than you have. You have provided whim, and prayer. And a loose comparison to a country so unlike ours the comparison borders on idiotic.

Your mind is made up, Kenneth. You, like many, will stand up for what cannot work, which is the primary reason it will not be attempted in earnest. Politicians have connected the dots on prohibitions, and their utter inability to stem any tides, even if sheeple like you have not. Too many law abiding Americans will say "hell no" and too many criminals will merely go to the black market to get whatever guns strike their fancy. The black market will provide that which Americans want, more cheaply, and will get rich doing so. Doesn't matter the product, all that is required to make black market pop up like an angry pack of hemorrhoids is inept governmental attempts at "control." That's the ONLY door opener for the criminal element.

My drug analogies are very apt, but you don't want to consider them because they sting you. Recreational drugs like alcohol, and heroin kill many more Americans annually than guns do (isn't your beloved "control" for stopping "killings?"). Aren't you claiming that we're tired of all the deaths? How in hell then are my analogies not germane? You've come with NOTHING about why there's even a chance that attempts to control just another dangerous and deadly recreational product (less deadly than alcohol, which kills 100,000 Americans annually, and less deadly than heroin which kills 75,000 Americans annually) that America loves will provide different results. You've come up with ZIP. ZILCH. NADA.

Why do you think attempted controls on guns, again, a recreational product that only kills about 33,000 Americans annually (22,000 of those suicides) would actually make guns harder to come by? Do you think Americans desire guns LESS than heroin and alcohol? Do you not understand economics, or supply and demand? 

Jose's lament that markeing is " fundamtenal " but "oten misunderstood" has a long history.The pair of defintiions he cites are part of that history and can be justified on descriptive (what marketiers do) or prescriptive (what marketers shoud do) grounds. But marekting has been defined in othe ways that bear repeting. My personal favorite "oldie but goidie" is: "marketing is the delivery of a standard of living" (Paul Mazur, "The Standards We Raise," 1953). Isn't that defintion of marketing still timely in this era where issues of consumer privacy and surveillance, ad fraud, brand safety,cybersecturity, income and wealth inequality, immigration, trade (the list goes on...) are  compelling public policy issues?

Ken Kurtz: You say the same thing over and over based only upon your opinion and without any evidence or proof. I'm going to repeat myself once and then be done:
The political tide will turn against unfettered access to guns and then we will see if that makes a difference. I have confidence it will. The experience of other nations with strict gun controls makes a compelling case that fewer guns per capita means fewer gun deaths.
I'll let you have the last word if you will confine yourself to concisely stating what your authority is for this assertion: 
" ... history has repeatedly demonstrated << gun control >> can only cause MORE GUNS to flood the market, and be purchased ...." And, please do not drag your prohibition or anti-drug law analogies into this again.

Picture tells it all,  Phone in one hand, looking at "Smart" watch.  No time for LIFE.

How about committing to hiring drivers who can drive, and eliminate paying for an engineer.  Speaking of costs.    HOW MUCH DOES THIS ADD THE THE PRICE OF THE TRUCK to eliminate a truckers job?   No one ever posts that info.  Too caught up in, "this is technology, it must be good. " The other thing that no one ever thinks about is how many
new monitors do we need to shut down a truck with fuel problems, electrical problems, or how about air brakes?   just because you can guide a vehicleis no big deal.  And here is another one.  Automatic transmissions on 18 wheelers has never been as efficient as manual transmissions with an actual person using the gears to pick up speed, downshift for downhill and also for braking.    Again, Dumbest Idea of the 21st Century.

You are dangerously insane if you think that governmental attempts at "control" will EVER stop a single madman, or madwoman from executing innocent people on our streets. That somehow "controls" will make it so that they cannot access the guns needed to commit their horrific, and sick crimes. The sooner the left gets the paradoxical truth about "control" through its thick skull, the sooner we'll be able to move toward bipartisan solutions that actually have a chance of reducing the senseless American carnage. Until then, it's all meaningless political posturing.

Be careful out there.The left does not look ready, willing, or capable of giving up tired, old ghosts.

And therein lies the problem, Kenneth Fadner. You, and others like you understand the points, you see the paradoxical truth that governmental attempts to control ultimately fail, and result in more widespread and dangerous availability due to criminal commandeering of market, and profits... and yet you still call for the same actions that have already been proven capable ONLY OF MAKING MATTERS WORSE. You blindly fall back on "Let's see" or "We'll see" when WE'VE ALREADY SEEN.

Have you ever heard the phrase "doing the same things with expectation of different results is insanity?" Paula says I'm dangerous, but the real danger is pretending that things that have been tried before, failed miserably, and actually made matters worse "might somehow be solutions." It's dangerously insane.

I know it must be frustrating for the left. You all have a difficult time grasping paradoxical truths. In your world views, things should be cleaner, more "cut and dried." But they are not. Sorry. Pretending that something that has failed multiple times might work in the future will continue to diminish the prospects of the Democratic party, perhaps forevermore. It's time to get real.

Demand for guns in this country will not go away. Governmental attempts to control demand and supply of guns will only increase both those things. There is ZERO evidence that the opposite, what your type "blindly wishes for," will ever result from "controls." The black market GUARANTEES that people that want AR-15's will be able to get them in the future.

How many decades has it been now that manufacture, distribution, sale, and ingestion of heroin will get you jail time? Surely you understand that nearly three times as many Americans died last year from heroin than from gunshot wounds. Surely you understand that because of the decades long "controls" on heroin,  the vast majority of black market criminals that have commandeered that trillion dollar market have now turned to importation of synthetic heroin. A packet of synthetic fentanyl, carried into the US in somebody's jacket pocket, is worth the same on the street as two bricks of natural heroin from poppy plants. GUESS WHICH ONE gets through (unfortunately, they both do, but the one that is easier to slip in is FAR MORE DANGEROUS)? Guess which one kills immediately if even a single extra grain of powder gets ingested?

Let's hear it for governmental controls! Hip, hip, hooray. This is the tired, old canard that the left resorts to as a possible "solution" and that the left wants to hang its hat on?

Until enough people feel enough personal pain, nothing changes. They don't. Or they would strike.

People give their data away for even less. Example: At a street fair last evening, people were giving their data for a piece of  99 cent or less logo crap they handed out which included State Farm Insurance among others. I told them to keep their stuff.

Thanks Ed. I am totally with you about how important consolidating broadcast and cable will be if all brands are allowed to buy their TV media on their own - you and I will keep wokring to make that a reality some day!