1. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc
    94 minutes ago re: Advanced TV Priorities: Workflow Solutions, Mentality Shift by by Karlene Lukovitz, Staff Writer (Audience Buying Insider - April 21)

    Karlene, when I see the term "audience buying" I assume that we are referring to a digital media purchase where each consumer is identified individually as to supposed ad exposure and, in certain cases, sales response. The broadcast networks and their owned cable channels, who purport to be allocating $1 billion of "linear time" to so - called "audience buying" are merely applying an index---based on set usage and product purchase information---on top of Nielsen ratings and they will still package their spots in discounted bundles that force buyers to opt for many low indexing shows. Whether they will sell $1 billion in this manner is problematic as I doubt that they will turn down normal---non index---buys  for the "witheld" GRPs if there is a demand for same. The same point applies to "addressable TV" , except here each home---not consumer----is sent a particular commercial---which is not the case with any form of "linear TV"---even if it is dubbed "audience" bought. However, most "addressable TV" buys are also based on profiling---not the purchase habits of each home. I think that it is fine for the promoters to label these systems  and call them by whatever name they wish, but it is not OK to lump them all together as if we are talking about the same thing. We aren't.

  2. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc
    Yesterday, 6:30 PM re: Eye Tracker Finds Which Ads Actually Stick, Pushes 'Cost-Per-Visual' As New Madison Avenue Currency by by Joe Mandese (Online Media Daily - April 22)

    Very interesting, Jeff. Do you plan to issue any general findings---type of ad, format, video vs display, etc. soon? Also, have you developed your own definition of when an ad is "seen"----like eyes must be on a 15-sec. video ad for all 15 seconds?---eyes must stop for at least three seconds on a static display ad, etc.?

  3. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc
    Yesterday, 4:28 PM re: Study: Nearly Half Of All TV Buying Will Be Programmatic Within 3 To 5 Years by by Tobi Elkin (Real-Time Daily - April 19)

    Doug, the "findings", themselves, give you a good idea of the projectability of  the sample that participated in the "study". Having conducted surveys of advertisers, myself, I know how difficult it is to even contact, let alone conduct such a survey with CMOs and others in at the kinds of advertisers that really count---the big branding spenders. They have better things to do than answer vague questions such as these---if you can even get through to them....and that's not even close to being a given.

  4. Doug Garnett from Atomic Direct
    Yesterday, 2:51 PM re: Study: Nearly Half Of All TV Buying Will Be Programmatic Within 3 To 5 Years by by Tobi Elkin (Real-Time Daily - April 19)

    I get really tired of surveys of attitudes that are headlined as if there was some kind of scientific reliability to the research. It's not. And these studies are generally 100% wrong...

    Their only validity is a conclusion "programmatic is a great hype/fad to jump onto to sell services for the moment. We will just shift to a different fad in a few years."

  5. Kenny Kurtz from creative license
    Yesterday, 2:11 PM re: Aspartaming History: Pepsi, The 'Un-Woke' Cola by by Barbara Lippert, Featured Columnist (Mad Blog - April 07)

    Been around media for a long time, and I don’t understand why Barbara would characterize a spot that every human being on the planet has now seen, and that everybody has been talking about for weeks (without having to invest in a media buy) as a “debacle” (defined as a “catastrophe, disaster, ruin”). I’m not sure either why she calls the spot “tone-deaf” (in what parallel universe is empathy for the hard-working, underpaid, “put their lives on the line every day for us” law enforcement community considered wrong?). Let’s face it, it’s really easy to “pull a spot” that everybody on planet earth has already seen, and is already talking about (and, by the way, that anybody can pull up in a millisecond on the Internet). Pulled? Sounds more to me like the left is attempting to pull people’s legs. As for that spot “trivializing” the “BLM” movement… “BLM” is doing a fine job of that all by itself. Let’s face it, the whole “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative revolving around the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson back in August 2014, and which served as flashpoint for BLM, has been entirely debunked. It was false, totally bogus. Facts are, Brown committed six crimes that day in a very short period of time, the last of which (attempting to relieve young police officer Darren Wilson of his government issued gun) got him shot, and killed. Had Brown been white, yellow, brown, purple, or rainbow… he would have wound up just as dead for such a bumble-headed final crime regardless. For BLM to cease, and desist with their very own self-trivialization, the African-American community in this country will do well to stop gunning each other down, and BLM will do well to REALLY FOCUS on that unfortunate proclivity toward violent crime among their own. Blacks are 13% of America’s population, yet commit over 50% of all America’s murders. Add in other violent crimes like assault, rape, armed robberies and burglaries, arson, carjackings, and attempted murder… and 13% of our population is committing over 80% of ALL VIOLENT CRIME in America. These are real Department of Justice numbers, and if you watch the news (and have even a minimal level of intellectual honesty), you’re aware that those numbers are on the rise, as opposed to decreasing. It’s tone-deaf to provide a cold drink to the law enforcement community that bears the brunt of this? There are a few bad apples in every universe… stop throwing the baby out with the bath water.

  6. Kenny Kurtz from creative license
    Yesterday, 2:02 PM re: Six Degrees Of Internet Excoriation by by Barbara Lippert, Featured Columnist (Mad Blog - April 14)

    Been around media for a long time, and I don’t understand why Barbara would characterize a spot that every human being on the planet has now seen, and that everybody has been talking about for weeks (without having to invest in a media buy) as a “debacle” (defined as a “catastrophe, disaster, ruin”). I’m not sure either why she calls the spot “tone-deaf” (in what parallel universe is empathy for the hard-working, underpaid, “put their lives on the line every day for us” law enforcement community considered wrong?). Let’s face it, it’s really easy to “pull a spot” that everybody on planet earth has already seen, and is already talking about (and, by the way, that anybody can pull up in a millisecond on the Internet). Pulled? Sounds more to me like the left is attempting to pull people’s legs. As for that spot “trivializing” the “BLM” movement… “BLM” is doing a fine job of that all by itself. Let’s face it, the whole “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative revolving around the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson back in August 2014, and which served as flashpoint for BLM, has been entirely debunked. It was false, totally bogus. Facts are, Brown committed six crimes that day in a very short period of time, the last of which (attempting to relieve young police officer Darren Wilson of his government issued gun) got him shot, and killed. Had Brown been white, yellow, brown, purple, or rainbow… he would have wound up just as dead for such a bumble-headed final crime regardless. For BLM to cease, and desist with their very own self-trivialization, the African-American community in this country will do well to stop gunning each other down, and BLM will do well to REALLY FOCUS on that unfortunate proclivity toward violent crime among their own. Blacks are 13% of America’s population, yet commit over 50% of all America’s murders. Add in other violent crimes like assault, rape, armed robberies and burglaries, arson, carjackings, and attempted murder… and 13% of our population is committing over 80% of ALL VIOLENT CRIME in America. These are real department of Justice numbers, and if you watch the news (and have even a minimal level of intellectual honesty), you’re aware that those numbers are on the rise, as opposed to decreasing. It’s tone-deaf to provide a cold drink to the law enforcement community that bears the brunt of this. There are a few bad apples in every universe… stop throwing the baby out with the bath water.

  7. Erik Sass from mediapostpublications
    Yesterday, 10:07 AM re: Dropping Anchor: Getting Rid Of Bill-O by by Barbara Lippert, Featured Columnist (Mad Blog - April 21)

    That kind of personality takes a psychic toll on viewers and the public after a while. A reliably conservative friend (late Gen X) called O'Reilly a "boorish clown" which I thought was pretty apt, he can't stand him. 

  8. Kenny Kurtz from creative license
    Yesterday, 7:59 AM re: Dropping Anchor: Getting Rid Of Bill-O by by Barbara Lippert, Featured Columnist (Mad Blog - April 21)

    What more is there to say about the now-dumped Bill O’Reilly?

    Ironically, it could be said that his uber-successful existence, and the existence of too many cads just like him was made far more likely by the left's election, and ongoing elevation of Lecher-In-Chief Bill Clinton (a proven serial harasser of women).

    Clinton's smarmy "depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" to deny having sex with an intern three decades his junior in the most powerful, and influential office (Oval) on Planet Earth nicely set the stage for women to continue to be mistreated by men in positions of authority in the workplace. And one of Clinton's lies (as well as his damaged surrogate Hillary's) was that he was "pro-women." What a farce! Bill abusing women, with Hillary standing by to denigrate them, and call them liars for speaking their truths (a la O'Reilly)... both of them proclaiming themselves to be the next best things for women since sliced bread. True enough... this "half-baked" stuff, and bread cannot be made up.

    More irony... Bill Clinton made it possible for a buffoon like Trump to win the White House in two ways. First, by so drastically lowering the bar on the personal behavior front. Secondly, by turning his "stand by my man wife" (political partner) into such an illogical, and pathological liar that she rendered herself unfit for that very same office.

  9. Jack Wakshlag from Media Strategy, Research & Analytics
    Yesterday, 8:52 PM re: Performance Is New Programmatic In TV Advertising by by Dave Morgan, Featured Contributor (Online Spin - April 20)

    Math and algorithms cannot solve for collinearity and spurious relationships. More importantly, marketers will have to rise the the challenge of defining performance. Oh how we long for the arrival of clearly defined goals, operational definitions, data clean enough to produce clear signals.  Bring it on. Obfuscation be gone. 

  10. John Grono from GAP Research
    Yesterday, 8:02 PM re: Performance Is New Programmatic In TV Advertising by by Dave Morgan, Featured Contributor (Online Spin - April 20)

    Mark, I'm all ears.

    I've worked with, used, created and assessed many such systems and algorithms over the past couple of decades.   I'd love to know more about your 'secret herbs and spices' - well as much as you can share about your approach.

  11. Valerie Graves from Valerie Graves Creative
    Yesterday, 6:51 PM re: Dropping Anchor: Getting Rid Of Bill-O by by Barbara Lippert, Featured Columnist (Mad Blog - April 21)

    Thanks, Barbara, for including the account of O'Reilly's unwarranted attack on the Ludacris/Pepsi campaign created by a woman-led team at a small, minority-owned agency. Although he is still rich and likely to soon be back on the air, your column is still a small blow for truth and against the rampant hypocrisy of our times.

    Valerie Graves

  12. Michael Deane from Modern Times Film Company
    Yesterday, 6:26 PM re: Dropping Anchor: Getting Rid Of Bill-O by by Barbara Lippert, Featured Columnist (Mad Blog - April 21)

    An innocent person has no need to pay out $13 million to accusers.  As Barbara Lippert pointed out, others like Letterman have "manned up" and dealt with the controversy head on. O'Reilly is a lying, sniveling hypocrite who brought the level of TV discourse to its nadir. Too bad for the rest of us.

  13. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc
    Yesterday, 3:39 PM re: Performance Is New Programmatic In TV Advertising by by Dave Morgan, Featured Contributor (Online Spin - April 20)

    Interesting, Mark. Can you tell me which of the broadcast TV networks is participating in your guaranteed sales upfront and are they selling "linear TV" time---primetime---on this basis?

  14. Chuck Lantz from 2007ac.com, 2017ac.com network
    Yesterday, 3:31 PM re: Dropping Anchor: Getting Rid Of Bill-O by by Barbara Lippert, Featured Columnist (Mad Blog - April 21)


    Mr.Mcdaniel; ... may I direct your attention to the word prominently displayed, in all caps, at the very top of this article.  ... "COMMENTARY"

  15. Mark Eberra from ONE BILLION LIVE Inc.
    Yesterday, 1:18 PM re: Performance Is New Programmatic In TV Advertising by by Dave Morgan, Featured Contributor (Online Spin - April 20)

    Ed, I believe you misread what I wrote. I never said I was talking to anyone about the “TV upfronts". What I did say was...... “I have it on good authority that is changing in 2017, with the Guaranteed Sales Upfronts."  Ed, the "Guaranteed Sales Upfronts"  is a different meeting and "alternative" process to what you refer to as the “TV upfronts". You most likely would not have heard anything about the "Guaranteed Sales Upfronts" because it has not yet been officially announced.  And I am not at liberty to go in to detail here. Now once it is announced, you may or may not want to attend or even be invited, but that does not change the fact it is happening in 2017. Second, you are the one that is confusing the old Nielsen measured audiences, ratings, CPM, GRP, with what I have refereed to as  "guaranteed sales increases".  Again, it's two different paradigms. One old. One new. Everything you have stated about the old/current paradigm being used by Nielson is obsolete, and irrelevant to the guaranteed sales increases algorithm, that I have pioneered. The guaranteed sales increase algorithm, is a polymathic algorithm ( advanced mathematics that I invented), and has a solid calculus base. It’s been tested for 10 years, certified and it works. If you and John wish we can discuss the math here on this forum. But with all due respect, you are not able to legitimately criticize the algorithm because you have not yet been privileged to learn it.

  16. Dean Fox from ScreenTwo LLC
    Yesterday, 11:42 AM re: Dropping Anchor: Getting Rid Of Bill-O by by Barbara Lippert, Featured Columnist (Mad Blog - April 21)

    Great piece, Barbara, but I have to laugh at the irony of anyone representing Fox or Bill O'Reilly crying "smear campaign" after so many women have been brave enough to come forward and talk about their experiences at Fox with Mr. Ailes and Mr. O'Reilly.

    Fox built its business on their hosts' mostly baseless, unproven and overblown smears against prominent Democrats including Hillary and Bill Clinton, President Obama, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Chuch Schumer, and the list goes on.  The 24/7 hate "journalism" generates ratings and the ratings generate revenue. As you correctly point out, the responsibility for that strategy all goes to Rupert Murdock.

  17. Kenny Kurtz from creative license
    Yesterday, 9:54 AM re: Dropping Anchor: Getting Rid Of Bill-O by by Barbara Lippert, Featured Columnist (Mad Blog - April 21)

    I agree with Chuck Lantz. Excellent. I do take issue, however, with the carefully embedded, and ongoing excoriation of Trump. Barbara writes… The President, as we all know, defended O’Reilly and offered his opinion that he “never should have settled.” A quick correction on that. While we do “all know” that Trump offered his opinion that O’Reilly “never should have settled”… it is far less clear to “everybodys’ knowing” whether that statement rises to a “defense.” After all, Barbara gives Letterman kudos in this very piece for Letterman making that same decision to not be held hostage by extortionists. Bill Clinton, in his pathetic, recorded attempts to deny his sexual harassment of a female intern (she, three decades his junior with the internship opportunity of a lifetime… he, occupying the most influential, and powerful office on planet earth) uttered the infamous words “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” while building his case that he did not use that power, and influence to get that young woman to “perform” for him. So, what’s the meaning of the word “is” here? Is opining that paying hush money is not a good idea, that it not only never puts out the underlying fire, but barely eliminates any of the “smoke” really a defense of O’Reilly’s behavior?

  18. Paula Lynn from Who Else Unlimited
    Yesterday, 9:24 AM re: FCC Shakes Up TV Station Ownership by by Wayne Friedman, Staff Writer (TV Watch - April 21)

    The end result is a form of totalitarian control of media. Makes it even easier for Lenin to take control of it. Lenin (a rose by any other name especially if self declared) - you know, the dude in the White House who sets policy.

  19. Don Perman from self
    Yesterday, 8:59 AM re: Dropping Anchor: Getting Rid Of Bill-O by by Barbara Lippert, Featured Columnist (Mad Blog - April 21)

    Thanks for the witty, insightful and far-reaching column.  Another great read.

  20. Feminista Fan from The Past, Present and Future
    Yesterday, 8:12 AM re: Dropping Anchor: Getting Rid Of Bill-O by by Barbara Lippert, Featured Columnist (Mad Blog - April 21)

    What be the other side of the story Mr. Fairpress?

  21. Dave Morgan from Simulmedia
    April 22, 2017, 6:11 AM re: Performance Is New Programmatic In TV Advertising by by Dave Morgan, Featured Contributor (Online Spin - April 20)

    Very good points Ed. Performance guarantees fit much better in scatter than in upfronts. While TV today doesn't have anything even close to the dynamic and addressable world of media placement, audience databses, data targeting and real-time creative optimizatoin of the digital ad world, there have been some developments that make it much better suited for sales performance guaarentees than it ever could have before. HH matchable set-top box at scale means that we can now build massive single source data structures underlying TV and link TV ad exposure to sales at the HH level very quickly (across millions and millions of household). Audience fragmentaion has become a friend of targeting here (as Erwin Ephron always told us it would), since the eplosive growth of small episodes (75%+of TV ad inventory now occurs o an episode rrated under 0.5%. Near reali-time ad occurence data means that we know where competitive ads ran, as well as ads under the control of other networks. Set-top bob matchable credit card purchase data means that we can know how competitors ads are performancing, as well as our clients. None of this brings certainlty to sales performance, but applying all of this across thousands of small spots in a massive campaign can bring a lot of performance optimiztion to campaigns - certainly 2-5X - as long as we don't let the pursuit of perfection interfere with just doing better.

  22. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc
    April 22, 2017, 4:34 AM re: Performance Is New Programmatic In TV Advertising by by Dave Morgan, Featured Contributor (Online Spin - April 20)

    Mark, I don't know who you are talking to about the TV upfronts, but please try someone else. There are no upfront advertiser sales guarantees being made by the ad sellers nor will this happen in 2017 or later. What you are confusing with sales guarantees is the practice of using product user data melded with set usage ratings to profile Nielsen measured audiences by various sellers for selected accounts. the sellers do this because they know that this methodology creates the illusion that their shows do a better job of targeting product buyers than is really the case----but the actul selling is still done the same old way---with bundled program packages and discounted CPMs that allow the sellers to unload all of their GRP inventory---no matter how bad it is. In short, nothing has changed---it's just a lot of hoopla. There is no rational way for a media ad seller to realistically allow an advertiser to set sales goals for the ads run on a particular media platform, then demand that thye be attained ---or no pay. As John correctly points out, audience duplication and many other fasctors which are completely out of the seller's control as well as being unreadable as to their precise causative effects regarding every "impression", make sales guarantees of the type you are advocating a no no.

  23. Marc Charette from Work Pics
    April 22, 2017, 2:59 AM re: The Realities Of Virtual Reality At Retail by by Matt DePratter , Op-Ed Contributor (IoT Daily - April 19)

    There's a lot of truth about the usability of VR in marketing today but I would not discount the availability of current AR built into platforms such as virtual tours which do not need headsets to be able to create a more powerful user experience. Current technology provides very cost effective ways to add overlay content on a virtual tour (which is essentially the backbone of VR) and in effect is the AR suggested herein.  

    Not only are virtual tours with overlays capable of providing a great user experience witch current technology, but it can also provide better engagement and user analytics. By design, immersive photography used to create virtual tours tends to keep viewers engaged for longer periods of time as they not only choose their field of view but what other content they wish to go deeper into.  

    The big problem with VR and AR is that expectations vs implementation has gone all out whack. Going from a 360 photo to immediately expecting 3D, 3D video and more without taking smaller steps is no different than when people can't fathom the concept of how big the universe is.  

    With that in mind it is the duty and responsibility of media and journalists to ask better questions that help readers understand the truth, the value and set more realistic expectations.