A great and accurate posting.

The 'internet' was originally to make most things to be easier, quicker, safer, cheaper etc. for all.    I feel very sad that your dad is being not-trusted or handled humanly.

So Ed: if revenues are up but CPMs are down, one of two things must be happening: either a higher % of inventory was sold in the upfront than in the past; or, there must be more inventory (you can't raise total revenues and lower unit costs without one of these things happening.)

Which is it? I'm guessing the latter (more streming inventory, same linear inventory.)

Sorry for your lost Gord 91 is pretty good. Yeah, going through hoops with programs and the government is a pain and it shouldn't have to be that way.

I appreciate this piece Joe. I think that last point is really interesting. The chill does cut both ways. Advertisers have every right to decide what environments they want to fund, and publishers and platforms have every right to decide how they want to operate but neither gets to pretend those decisions don’t have consequences. Three years later, the revenue numbers make that pretty hard to ignore. It’s also a good reminder for those of us making media decisions every day that where we invest has an impact on what ultimately grows.

Wayne it's interesting to note how important to streaming those national TV ad dollars are. In addition to the $17 billion in upfront buys other negotiations ,which may shift some linear TV scatter dollars to streaming, might amount to another $3-4 billion throughout the upcoming season. If so, that means that this type of advertising will amount to, say $20 billion. Since You Tube garners about $10 billion under its way of capturing screening ad revenues, this leaves very little for those supposedly super targeted "outcome" based streaming campaigns that we hear so much about from the theorists at the various industry gatherings.

The question is will traditional TV advertisers simply swamp streaming with their ad dollars to the point where take it over and use it as they have always used TV or will there be some sort of push back to prevent this from happening--as it did, largely, to cable. Will streaming become mostly an untargeted eyeball aggregator--based on 18-49 time buying with lower CPMs the primay goal and upfront buys the mechanism for attaining that--or will some of the promises bear fruit in a big way--to the possible benefit of advertisers, screening services and consumers.

Now, if only Meta would turn its attention to eliminating bots from its Facebook platform!

My father was blind in one eye and his other eye had blurred vision. 

The optometrist office had a visual captcha puzzle necessary to access his account. 

The level of stupidity and incompetence is unfortunately, normal  

As I have urged for too long, Congress needs to abolish Section 230.   

Dave, I often use Gemini to find sources of information which I then access to dig deeper. Also, if you ask it media questions like what percent of the average minute TV audience watches an average TV commercial you get a pretty good answer--often citing TVision or even myself. On other queries I have received off the wall answers but when I challenge Gemini on them it seems to reboot, check new sources and often cmes up with a totally different and better answer. 

90 hours a month is 3 hours a day. 

This also touches on discoverability as a catalyst for the deal. As AI search impedes clickthroughs, brands need to figure out which partnerships will aid discoverability. And it is going to get pretty crowded on social networks soon - if not already. 

As Josh Chasin opined in a comment on this revival of the X suit against the WFA and its now shuttered GARM initiative, brand responsible social media planning & buying requires ardent brand safety considerations which the major social media site contemt gutters do not deliver. Meta, X, etc. do not need a boycott just the application of fundamental solid media planning & buying principles based on persons-based attention metrics and common sense! 

He didn't tell "the ad industry"
to F off. He said any advertiser who is going to tell him what kind of content is/isn't appropriate and using their ad dollars as investment can F off. 

Advertisers threatening to remove or reduce their ad spend based on editorial coverage or content is nothing new. A publisher not kowtowing to the threat and telling the advertiser he doesn't care is. 

Josh - amen!  Beyond real person-based media audiences and typically unsound CPMs (Completely Positively Mad), overall media and program content and environment have always been a critical part of planning and buying effective media along with concerns for other brand messages displayed and their "suitability" on any media/channel under consideration.  As noted, the GARM Guidelines were voluntary.  However, placing one's brand message on the various gutters of social media is an unecessary risk when so many quality safe media vehicles are available that protect a brand's stature and long term equity.  

When did brand safety become a crime?

Agreed Tony.

In Australia we've had a few 'researches' reported that in a month that more than 100 million Aussies watched a particular programme.   Quite a miracle with Australia when it just crossed 28 million people!

Great commentary Gord.

I agree that effectiveness over efficiency is a likely road to staleness rather than expansion.

But I have spotted that when you tried various podcasts but still felt things missing ... it's serendipity found your hat! 

Wayne: We need to always remember "served" is not necessarily "viewed" and even real persons-based "viewed" metrics are not necessarily reflective of "attention".  Without attention there can be no outcomes for programmers or advertisers.  So the final attention proportions across the programming and channels mentioned will, most likely, be significantly different.  

What's next ... maybe AI going to the toilet for you ?!?!?!

What is the step-by-step process that can put an end to the Super PACs?  Who is the "we" in "we declare the Super PACs are over."

Money will always be in politics and I don't believe politicans on either side when they say that which Abdual El-Sawayed ads is saying he'll get money out of politics not happening. In Michigan Larry Lessig idea maybe on the ballott to get money out of politics I'll vote to end it, it will be the courts that decide it as will be a lawsuit in my opinion.

"It is hard to defend soliciting donations from the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor, has been trying."

That's your friend?

Wayne, haven't the TV/Movie guys--the ones who make TV series,  movies, etc--always been willing to license their fare--originals or rerus--to Netflix or anyone else who will pay them? Isn't standard "TV" content the backbone of the libraries of virtually all streaing services?