People notoriously misreport their future behavior when asked questions about what they plan to do. It's a version of the halo effect: They want to appear highly rational but sometimes change their mind about spending when it comes time to renew or cancel. Interpret with caution.  I love surveys when they ask about past or current behavior/attitudes, but not so much for planning.

With regard to the supposedly "unfair" pricing between cable and broadcast TV on a national basis---it's quite different locally----this goes way back to the very beginnings, around 1980. Traditionally buyers---with client agreement---- had penalized low rated broadcast TV sellers ---by paying them lower CPMs than high rated sellers. The reasoning was that the low rated sellers were not putting out content of the same quality as those with high ratings so they didn't deserve to get paid equally per viewer. Add to this the excessive use of reruns and the heavy ad clutter on low rated TV---all seemingly supporting the lower quality assessment and the practice of penalizing low rated sellers was locked into place when cable arrived on the media scene.So it continued-----to the point where even in cable there are well established CPM tiers---with the lowest rated channels earning CPMs at about half the rate of those at the top.

Is this fair? Probably not. but in the buyers' defense, if they paid every seller purely by the "audience" attained, their clients' overall  TV CPMs would rise through the roof---or those of the broadcast sellers and top rated cable CPM tiers would need to decline significantly. And what about TV news or sports CPMs? Is it fair that they are much higher than those attained by reruns of "Gilligan's Island"? And why should primetime TV command double or  triple the CPM per woman "reached" than daytime TV? Is that fair?

Brands often face challenges when it comes to measuring return on investment (ROI) across multiple marketing channels.

Data silos: Brands often have data scattered across multiple systems, making it difficult to track and measure the impact of their marketing campaigns.

Attribution: It can be difficult to determine which marketing channels are responsible for driving conversions. This is because consumers often interact with a brand across multiple channels before making a purchase.

Time lag: There can be a lag between when a marketing campaign is launched and when it generates results. This makes it difficult to track the immediate impact of a campaign.

Cost: Measuring ROI across channels can be expensive, as it requires brands to invest in data analytics tools and resources.

Offline/Online Integration: Brands that operate both offline and online face additional challenges when measuring ROI across channels. Linking online marketing efforts to offline sales can be complex. For example, a customer may see an online ad but make a purchase in-store. Without proper mechanisms for tracking and integrating offline and online data, brands struggle to measure the impact of their online marketing efforts on offline conversions.

Here are some tips for brands that are struggling to measure ROI across channels:

Invest in data analytics tools: Data analytics tools can help brands to collect and track data from multiple sources. This data can then be used to create reports that show the impact of marketing campaigns.

Use attribution models: Attribution models can help brands to determine which marketing channels are responsible for driving conversions. There are a number of different attribution models available, so brands should choose the one that best suits their needs.

Track results over time: It is important to track the results of marketing campaigns over time. This will help brands to identify trends and make adjustments to their campaigns as needed.

Consider the cost: Measuring ROI across channels can be expensive. Brands should carefully consider the cost of data analytics tools and resources before making a decision.

There is another question.  Is your agency a participate in blacklisting against certain publishers or ad distributors?

The trifecta of advertising.

A lot of people talk about "authenticity". I think "authenticity" by itself is BS. People want relevance: is this product relevant to me? Does it solve my problem? The icing on the relevance cake is, of course, proficiency: will it solve my problem better than others.

Kotex hit the trifecta of advertising: Authentic Relevance demonstrating Proficiency. Wow. Hats off to the Kotex team


#authentic #relevant #proficient #authenticity #relevance #proficiency #kotex #periods

Wayne, as an added clarification, the figures cited for prime time in its totality can't  be for all viewing that takes place between 8-11PM, NYT.  Also it's either a HUT or a PUT figure---the two aren't the same so I'm assuming that its PUT, not HUT/PUT. As for the real PUT figure for prime time, counting all program sources, that would be  double the numbers in the table---so I assume that the current season's 20% figure is for the broadcast TV networks only  not cable, indie stations, streaming, etc.

At $7.99, that is just a dollar more than Nielsen's "Basic With Ads" option, launched last November.


I'm guessing you mean Netflix...

Douglas, I believe that the numbers in the table represent average commercial minute "viewers" aged 2+ with ad zappers deleted. If that's correct then the number of program content viewers per minute would be considerably higher. As a basis of comparison, assuming a   base of 1 million homes subscribing in the U.S.---if that's the latest figure---the Netflix AVOD service probably reaches about 55,000 viewers per minute during prime time----8-11PM , NY time.

6 million HUTs. You gotta be streamin'!  Last one out turn out the lights.

Interesting, Maarten. But will HALO also be able to tell advertisers how many and what kinds of people looked at their ad messages and for how long----or are we held rigidly to that old standard---and very inflated "metric"----namely "impressions" based simply on the ad message appearing on a screen?

Thanks, Jonathan. Yes, the blurb under the headline had a typo, of my own making, using "millions" instead of "billions," whereas the story itself used the correct billions. 

Shamelss plug for the book. Can't wait to read it!

Your lead sentence says they are apart "tens of Millions" when in the story it says "tens of Billions."  Better get another Intern to proof read the articles.  Accuracy in media counts, or at least it should.

Estimates of this kind must always be evaluated based on their assumptions. For example, is all "live" sports shifting to streaming---and away from linear TV at the same time---and will it be on an exclusive basis---only available via streaming? Not likely in either case. And how many homes will remain "pay TV" homes---30 , 40, 50% million? As for ad revenues isn't it likely that the broadcast TV nets and cable channels will begin to charge major CPM increases as the supply of linear GRPs declines---hence what's left becomes more valuable? Or might the "pay TV" time sellers increase their commercial clutter---thereby creating GRPs to offset rating losses? As for retransmission fees---will they cease or decline to very small levels? Or will they remain a vital factor in "pay TV's"profit picture. And speaking about profits what are the projections for streaming services, generally as regards profitability---compared to the "pay TV" folks?

Clearing the decks, but for what and whom?

I think that WWMT will air news at 4PM come the fall since DR. Phil has ended and that WXMI Fox17 & WOOD-TV have 4PM newscasts which will be a 1 year for WOOD-TV that is what replaced Ellen when she ended her talk show. Sinclair owns WWMT in West Michigan. 

Thanks for the great questions James.

1)  In this use case, affinity analytics is being deployed to help amortize content investments. For TV programmers, this means identifying the shows where ad promotional dollars could be used to stimulate tune-in. This starting point could be blended with attribution analytics to determine tune-in performance of the shows that surface in affinity analytics.  We do also have a similar solution that creates viewer segmentations using respondent level data and those solutions can be integrated with ad/martech tools in a privacy compliant way.

2)  Our example is based on viewer behavior that is used to form the affinity clusters; in many cases the clusters may, in fact, closely align with genres like dramas, documentaries, etc. So there is likely to be overlap. The clusters can be "described" with any viewer or device attributes that can be associated to the respondent level data that is used for the solution.  To be clear, the affinity view solution is based  purely on the viewer behavior.  We dont use the genre or other characteristics of the program to drive the solution.

I really think it is parents' job to use the tools you have if you don't want your teens on social then don't let them and set limits to me that is common sense than the government overreach and violating the 1ST amendment as well.

Zuckerberg is stumbling all over himself in the metaverse and we need to remind ourselves that he bought Instagram - he didn't create it.  The people who use Instagram are different than the people who use Twitter. 

I'll keep my money on Musk vs. Zuckerberg taking down Twitter.

Ed, when you wrote "agonized interviews" I immediately thought of Parr with Oscar Levant. Talk about "one of a kind...!" Of course so was Oscar.

Sadly, the guy who really turned late night TV into what it became for many decades---Jack Paar----is no longer with us. When he replaced Steve Allen, who was the original host of NBC's "Tonight Show"---one of NBC prexy, Pat Weaver's, brainchilds in the early and mid- 1950s---the others were  "Today" and "The Home Show"----the show's ratings took off just  when the competing stations' "Late Show" movies were running out of gas due to over exposure.  Where Allen had drawn average minute ratings in the 3-4% range Parr doubled this performance by specializing in thought provoking, often agonized interviews with interesting guests.

By thetime Paar finally burned out as NBC/s late night host and Carson took over, many viewers---especially those under age 50, living in large cities---- had built up a steady late night viewing habit which Johnny exploited brilliantly.But even though he lasted only four years on "Tonight" ---some of them very tortured ones---Paar is the guy who made late night TV what it was---until the last ten years or so. It's all in my book, "TV Now and Then", Media Dynamics Inc, 2015.

13% increase in visits to which websites?

Oops the only newsmags in early access prime is ET at 7PM WZZM been there forever since 94 & Inside Edition 7:30PM WOODTV, Accss Hollywood use to be in early access prime until the fall of 2019 moved to 5:30PM and this past fall 4PM on WOTV.