Or as I like to call it phony outrage most of the time I go after one group on Twitter & FB The PTC I believe they support censorship which they do on TV shows, Netflix, broadcast TV although when it warrants it for them don't go after it as much as they use to. Largely on streaming platforms as I said, Netflix, HULU etc.

There's a huge difference between what people say and what they do.  Do you have actual usage numbers to show there is a decline?  Or are we just taking people at their word?  How was the survey done?  Online or by phone.  It matters.

Interesting, Karlene. And there is probably some truth to the "relevant" ad pitch. However advertisers will need to know more if the plan is to use this kind of research to justify higher CPMs than others are charging. For example, if TVision was utilized it could tell advertisers whether the viewers of this show were more attentive to those  "relevant" commercials and what their dwell time was with each message. Or a carefully done ad recall study could document significantly higher proven recall and, more important, attitude change metrics, revealing how the  relevant commercials performed in getting their message across and motivating viewers to favor the advertised brand. Will such much tighter, brand-specific, studies also suppport the basic premise? That's the $64 question.

Thanks for the correction. Didn't notice the Peloton tweet. I have a little experience in product placement and took a stab beyond what Peloton’s response was. 

OAN's onan?

I guess we know who doesn't read any of those 700 newspapers.

The article clearly states that Peleton did NOT provide the equipment or even know it was going to be used:

In a tweet in Sunday morning, Peloton, the digital video-fitness-subscription/equipment company, said the brand’s placement in the episode was not approved by the company:

“We get TV shows that want to include @onepeloton to get people talking, but to be clear, we did not agree for our brand or IP to be used on @SHO_Billions or provide any equipment. "

Ed...
Good point. Never forget, their are more lawyers in the US than rat catchers. Same thing really. Time for a Mad Man Martini.
Cheers/George

 

This is totally inexcusable. Peloton has got to take credit for its actions - meaning a $4,000 bike doesn’t just appear on a production when the set decorator could have gotten a $200 bike for the scene. None of my colleagues in branded entertainment would have delivered the bike if they didn’t read the script first and knew exactly how the product was going to be used. Product placement is a very powerful media sword, however, it’s a sword that can cut both ways. Peloton is a great professional product and they should have employed professionals to handle its product placement initiatives.

Surprising he didn't reach out to the now unemployed "lawyers", Rudy G. and the Krajken lady, to manufacture some "dirt" for him to feed to  his  shrinking audience.

For the past 20 or so year, the experts have predicted the death of linear TV.  It's almost like predicting the apocalypse.

It just shows how far into the slime pit we have descended when this guy actually said... “If you’ve got any dirt” on Kennard, “I’d love to see it and put it on this program.” Truly disgusting. But, I am sure the OAN audience will gladly oblige.

@Ed Papazian: I don't know that they were responding explicitly about advertisers sponsoring TV news, so much as media companies -- especially social media platforms -- that disseminate misinformation. With a couple of noteable exceptions, most TV news outlets are not considered to be disseminating misinformation.

That said, IPG Mediabrands plans to begin rating TV news outlets via NewsGuard, so we'll see how that nets out this year.

I wonder  how many of the 600 consumer respondents realized that in most cases advertisers who "sponsor" TV news have nothing to say about their content are merely buying time in their commercial breaks. In fact, looking at the second table, one might ask the same question about the 120 "advertisers" who responded.

Goodone, Maarten. Here are a few more examples. Back in the early 1980s the sages were saying that the advent of cable TV would doom the broadcast TV networks to virtual extinction by 1990---which never happened. And twenty years later, we were told that TV advertising was in great jeopardy thanks to the impending DVR revolution---as soon everyone would get them and,  as everyone despises commercials, every DVR owner would "zap" every commercial---thereby eliminating TV advertising. Of course that didn't happen---at least not nearly to the grandiose extent that was predicted. More recently, we have, once again, the supposed massive shift of TV viewer eyeballs to digital venues---thereby destroying the TV networks and cable channels due to the loss of advertising. Yep, there has been cord cutting and reduced consumption of "linearTV " content but the current amount that the average adult watches is just about what it was way back in the 1970s--a far cry from zero---and the TV networks and cable channels are not only invading the streaming space they have drastically altered their business plans and now obtain  all of their profits from non -advertising sources.

Ed, Dave. Great conversation. Two greats!

It is also of note that Edelman who is the king of distrust by promoting false information (for instance, there campaigns for Exxon and Shell trying to pooh pooh climate change and the oil companies role in that). So, the grand lie that Edelman is telling is that by using us and PR we can spread "honesty and trust" while spewing total misinformation yet that is ok because we are properly trusted.

Yes, broadband capacity increases every year, pandemic or otherwise. And cable companies automatically make higher connection speeds available, often for free. That's becauser higher bit rates free up broadband capacity for others.

When comparing broadband metrics as you've done here, it's useful to look at what 100 Mbps does for consumers that 50 Mbps doesn't do. Are there applications today that work with 100 and not with 50? I'm not aware of any. Netflix and Zoom only need about 5 Mbps for HD and 20 for 4K.

Finally, is it reasonable to ask whether the networks of today can support the applications of tomorrow? Probably not, given my first two observations.

A thooughtful analysis asks if today's rate of improvement, if maintained, puts networks in a good position to support the applications of tomorrow. It always has, of course.

The number one consequence of COVID for networks is fewer people moving around because of working from home and limiting exposure to crowds. In the lockdown scenario fixed trumps mobile; but the Internet has been shifting to mobile primacy for a long time, and that trend will reassert itself next year and for all subsequent years, won't it?

Never bet against mobility, it's a virtue all by itself.

You might want to look at the last two BITAG reports on broadband. 

Correction: Conde Nast

Tony: Good story. Unlike SI, Parade continues to publish weekly (except for major holiday weekends). I would not be surprised if Arena Group reduces the frequency.  Parade's print edition has always had a lengthy lead time for newspaper distribution, and that resulted in the January 16 "Happy 100th Birthday" salute to Betty White having no acknowledgment of her December 31 passing. (It was posted on Patade.com.). Incidentally, AMG purchased Parade about a decade ago from Advance Publications, but Parade was never part of Donde Nast.

Karlene, it's always difficult to take such replies as serious evidence of the values of the various media as, in all probablilty, they reflect the respondent's bias in favor of media they use heavily as opposed to media they don't use or do so only sparingly. Take the case of magazines. There is overwhelming evidence that magazine readers are more ad -receptive than TV viewers---I did a study about this in 2003. Not only that, magazine ad readership----or noting---is as high or higher than TV commercial viewing and the typical magazine reader---despite the medium's current woes----is a better prospect for most advertisers than the average TV viewer. Last but not least, there are studies showing that magazine ads deliver the same or higher product purchase results as TV commercials. Yet "TV" clobbers "print" by more than ten to one in this study. I suspect that a similar bias applies against "audio", though here there is much less ad impact data available for audio.

As for how "TV" time is bought, a respondent my say that he/she "bought TV programmatically" in the past year when this ---even if true---applies to only a  small amount of activity---mainly at the local market level. Moreover, it is unlikely that the computer system did much more that chomp data and handle paperwork while the buy was made by humans directly with the sellers---also humans---as this is how most of these TV systems are set up. That's a huge difference from "programmatic" as it exists in the digital world---where the computers make the buys. However, if we accept the findings shown in the table, we might think that "Programmatic" buying for TV is coming pretty  close to the level of such activity for social media, when , in reality, the volume as well as the mode of operations are not even close.

Totally wrong.  Any censorship is wrong, evil, and fascist. It has to be up to US to determine for ourselces as to what is truth and what is lies.

Freedom of expression DOES mean that a public utility, like the Internet, be accessible to any and all.  Those who try to monopolize it and control public opinion are in direct violation of FCC regulations.  The internet is NOT at all private as FaceBook, LinkedIn, and Twitter claim.  They are the greatest threat our freedom has ever been faced with.  If they want to be private and arbitrarily censor, then let them start the own private network system.  They certainly are violating FCC rules if they want to use the public internet.

And you have Fascism totally and completely backwards.  Fascism is EXACTLY when the wealthy elite control the majority with arbitray edicts based on force.  The fact that force is government, is irrelevant.  The point is private censorship of the public Internet is totally and completely illegal and fascist.  The point of a democratic republic government, is to prevent private Fascism.  Go read some history.  Fascism was defined by the Roman wealthy elite, and it is not about government.  It is about how a wealthy minority can prevent majority rule.

Tell you what - how's this. you post your home address here or email me, and I'll come over to your house and build a platform out of two by fours and put a rope on it and see how you feel about it. Cause, you know, it's just for a laugh - don't mean anything by it - just fooling around. I might even bring some white hoods and we can wear them. How's that - free speech - you ok? When can I come by? 

Honestly, our comment is beyond crazy. 

As long as you're listing all of Congress's crimes, what about the Bush Tax Cuts, the Trump Tax Cuts, the The Military Budget - and allowing China to take over Walmart?