How is Amazon any better at battling ad-blockers? Since I added FBpurity to my Facebook, I stopped all ads.

Consumers have so many additional tools with which to avoid unwanted intrusions, even the so-called helpful ads.

Great write-up. I'm seeing some brands leverage Amazon Advertising Platform (AAP) that I wouldn't immediately tie back to Amazon ecommerce data (e.g. Egos and Kia). It will be interesting to see how much market share AAP and Amazon Media Group (AMG) can capture.

Posting on Google+ still remains the best way to keep a secret on social media. Should it grow, I could easily foresee it running into the same dissatisfaction issues. 

Count on your bills mounting and eating into descretionary income.

Isn't because human brains are not fully developed at this point, they are still very malliable and impressionistic ? It is when they know more than their parents.

Erik, as you point out, only a small number of people used Google in this manner. Do you happen to have the base---percent of sample responding----for each of the "social Networks" measured in the study?It might shed some light on how one interprets such findings.

Stomped on that one, Mark.

wonder if the competition is feeling "Sour grapes"???

The Strain.

Cara, just out of curiosity, what percent of all millenials qualify as "affluent" based on their own earnings, not their parents? There are a lot of media/marketing people who seem to think that a high proportion of millennials are "upscale" or something akin to being "affluent", however, the BLS and other stats for this population group as a whole, say quite the opposite?

Interesting to read that iProspect is coming out stating 36% higher CPC rates for their accounts on the same day that AdAge is reporting on Google's revenues, specifically calling out "Although cost-per-click was down 23% year-over-year, paid clicks were up in a major way: 52% when compared to the same time last year."   Source: http://adage.com/article/digital/brand-safety-holding-google-back/309907/

Hi Paula:  The affluent millennials we survey earn on average $260K.   They are prudent and respectful when it comes to their finances – they are saving 32% of their income and 73% indicate they pay off their credit card balances each month.   Many (46%) have a strong desire to leave a financial legacy for their heirs – seeking professional advice is an important part of achieving that goal.  The average affluent millennial engages the services of two advisors.  (Caring for aging parents is not currently content we have in the study.)

It's called planning. Read, learn and plan before you go. The travel industry must be educators.

Agreed, David, however using time -on -screen as a measurement of  ad "viewing"  is not going to get you anywhere unless other metrics,  such as ad message reacall and sales motivation are also included. Just because one video commercial is on a user's screen for 20 seconds while another is on for only 10 seconds doesn't mean that the first one was twice as effective nor does it mean that it was any more compelling. Also, you need to account for type and length of message---especially the latter. How do you compare a five second video ad with a 15- or 30-second TV commercial, using time -on- screen?

I have a feeling that we are asking for too much, too soon in our atempt to quantify media and ad audiences on a purely comparable basis. We can't even define or  measure TV viewing on a minute by minute basis and certainly not for commercials. How do we expect to do this for digital platforms? There are so many variables to consider. For example, are mobile users more attentive to ads when they use their smartphones at home versus when they are walking down a street, joined by and talking with some friends while, at the same time visiting Facebook?

I think that we should backtrack and think about developing a proper way of determining  "viewing" for various forms of video content and see if we can come up with  effective yet meaningful ---or, I might say, "actionable"---definitions. Then we need to see whether what we come up with can even be measured with some degree of accuracy and affordability. Only then can we tackle the cross platform distinctions and try to zoom in on ads, not just program content. It's a daunting task and I'm not sure that it is possible. But we've got to move forward in logical steps---like working with building blocks----not bypass all of the issues and pitfalls to move quickly to "the answer".

Long, the upfront and many scatter buys on national TV are corporate not individual brand buys. The selection of a broad based "demo" like 18-49 or 25-54 is not a targeting device but is an accomodation between seller and buyer creating a single GRP "currency" for the multi-brand buy and its attendant audience tonnage guarantees. Individual brands in any corporation define their targets in many ways, often  applying weights to several demos or product user groups and, in many cases, drilling down to consumer mindsets, as well. When TV time is bought, the corporation, which wishes to maximize its "clout"---not necessarily to get the lowest CPM but for other reasons----must compromise  using an umbrella metric that all of the sellers will agree to, otherwise it can't compare the offers of one seller with those of another. As for the 50+ population, as this is by far the easiest to reach via TV, many advertisers who sell lots of goods and services to middle aged and older consumers see no reason to use 50+ as a buying "target" assuch a move tilts the odds decidedly in favor of the sellers and this would be against their interests. But that does not mean that they place little or no value on people who  may account for 40% or more of their sales.

The reason that A18-49 is much more relevant than A50+ is that advertisers value younger audiences. Very few brands buy on anything older than A25-54. 

First thought was your last sentence. So true, Adam.

Just to clarify, these declines are not additive. In other words, if a year-to-year decline of 8% was recorded for one month or quarter and the next month or quarter sees a 9% decline, this does not mean that ratings were down 17%, just 8.5% across the longer time frame. Also, adults aged 18-49 may be a common, though not the only, national time buying "currency", but this group does not represent the majority of the broadcast networks' vewers. The median age of primetime broadcast network viewers is well over 50 years and, in the case of ABC, CBS and NBC, is closing in on 60.

All very interesting, Steve, but comparing everything on a relative basis----like share of time with types of screens----may be a bit misleading. For example, your typical 18-24-year-old is a very light TV viewer to begin with and is out viewed by older adults by a huge margin, especially by those over the age of 50. If the TV networks and many cable channels were really depending on 18-24s as much as they do on older and far more numerous adults to sell advertising, they would have been out of business long ago. Also, it is well established fact that as people age their TV viewing increases, so the real issue is what will be the impact of increased digital video viewing not only on the amount of 'linear TV"viewing people consume, but also on how advertisers allocate their TV/video media spending.

Of course, there will be a continued audience tonnage downward spiral for "linear TV" but hardly the massive swan dive that the digital folks were predicting---and praying for. Also, while digital video uasge will grow, if most of this consumption takes place on mobile, not desktop PCs, that, in itself, limits the amount of time that will be spent due to the much shorter attention spans of mobile users as well as the  smaller screens and where the activity  ocurrs----often away from home where there are many distractions. The contention that only 5-second commercials "work" on mobile is another limitation for many branding advertisers.

Finally, the move by the broadcast TV networks, their station partners and owned cable channels into the digital viewing arena via Hulu, and YouTube, is spurring other "skinny bundle" offerings which will generate advertising GRPs via streaming that can replace those lost on "linear TV" as ratings continue to fragment. So as the "eyeballs" move gradually to digital, so are the "linear TV " ad sellers, who may be poised to provide much of the streaming users' content in the near future----we shall see. As you say, "Content is king", and I agree, but for digital to generate suficient volume of viewing, it cant just offer "Game Of Thrones", it must provide, sports, news, and all sorts of more basic stuff that is only available on "linear TV" which people with time on their hands and middle or low brow tastes will consume in massive doses. Who is going to provide such content at scale?

"The majority of his editorials were published without a personal byline, signed instead by “The Editorial Board.” 

"Humility"?  Or something else.

Erik, this is an eloquent and beautifully written tribute to to Rago: "His approach was the opposite of hectoring..."

It's Texas. And it does have a mutant abott.

These particular microchips aren't really trackable, unless it comes within six inches of a reader, Mark, much like NFC mobile payments in both iPhones and Android phones.