Gord, I think you are spot on. There is one piece missing that is very important at least with my beliefs. Currently, one side is the seller and the other is buyer. However the middle man, the programmatics, are the distributors.  They are the conduit between the buyer and seller. That sounds simple except the distributor (mainly a very big one) sets the rules for both buyer and seller. As a publisher the rules that are demanded upon us are extreme. For the advertisers and agencies, who should have had a major hand in how the ads should be rendered, nothing happened. That is where the bottleneck is in the distribution chain of ads. The distributors have no competition in a real sense. The advertisers should say, I want to place a ad under these terms and conditions or I will take my ad dollars to a different place.  Simply, bring in more competition in ad distribution and terms and rules and you will see a strong agencies again.

They will lie with higher than actual prices. Doctors who write prescriptions without ever finding out if their customer can afford it and without knowing what presciptions cost should be mandated to tell their customers plainly for them to check prices in more than one place regardless of insurance which is not always less expensive.

Perhaps one reason for the reluctance of so many "legacy media thinkers' to jump on the "addressable TV" bandwagon is that this option is not yet fully developed and has pitfalls which, as yet, have not been dealt with. Not that it's a bad concept, mind you. Also, many types of marketers may not need such precision in their mass media buys and many national TV advertisers, in particular, remain wedded to corporate, CPM-fixated, upfront buys, which operate on an overall audience tonnage basis, rather than allowing each brand go its own special way. So it's not necessarily stupidity or a thick headed clinging to old ways that's to blame, though that's part of the problem. "Addressable TV" may not be the only way to go when it comes to TV time buying---despite its potential benefits for those marketers where it best applies.

There have been so many "futures" for "TV" advertising. A while ago, we were told that programmatic  or automated time buying would yield advertisers "undreamed of targeting efficiency". Then came "addressable TV" and its cohort, "advanced TV", with "big data" close behind. Ah, but let's not forget those 6-second commercials that are capturing everyone's interest and, of course, the incredible rise in smartphone video usage and OTT, etc, etc. The truth is that everything has a place--when it can demonstrate that it really does what it promises to do---at a fair cost. But "TV" is far too big, with far too many players and types of content for any single innovation to be its "future"---and that includes "addressable TV".

I'm surprised that "brands" fared so well in this kind of study. With highly generaized questions posed in this non-specific manner you are certain to get lots of negative evaluations as advertising ---along with used car salespeople and the U.S. Congress---- is a faviorite punching bag for most respondents.

Who owns the SI picture collection archive as a result of these transactions? They are a treasure.

John, while you and I plus a handful of others may have a good idea of what the numbers actually mean as well as how they are derived, 99.9% have no idea and they assume that OTS means ad exposure. Hence all of the blabbering about reach or frequency, frequency capping, etc. Worse, brand managers are deluding themselves wth reassuring but bogus reach & frequency estimates which are taken literally as exact indicators of their ad exposure.

Here in the States, there has always been ample evidence of the extent of commercial avoidance via leaving the room. Camera studies dating back to the late 1950s showed that as well as many others--Percy's heat sensors in the early 1980s, for example---- and, just recently, TVision is reporting a 29% asentee viewer rate. Yet nobody seems to be paying attention or drawing conclusions about variations by program or network type, demos, etc. I think that it's up to folks like us, who know what the numbers actually represent, to keep pointing out their inherent fallacies and, in my case, we will shortly release to our Media Dynamics Direct subscribers a recommendation for doing soething about it.

Yes, broken but not in the way you see. The biggest influencers in the USA are the sweepstakes websites. I have been a sweep publisher for over 15 years and published over 75,000 sweepstakes ads by the Fortune 1,000's and well known brands. We are grossly under paid. Yet we are in the highest demand for the 40 to 65 age bracket group and who have real spending power.  Kim, the top 30 websites want a better deal from the ad agencies. It's past the point of ignoring us and to pay us. We give you the best ROI on the net. I am open for a discussion with any ad group that is interesting how our industry really works.

Kim, agree, influencer marketing is broken. Incidentally, it might be worth putting some time to think why everything the industry touches as of lately ends up "broken" (digital advertising is broken, programatic is broken, trust in the client - agency relationship is broken...)
My two cents: in many occasions, we are not really talking about influencers, but celebrities endorsing a brand (Nike). We know that game, has worked well for ages, mainly because the person in question has "authority", and therefore, credibility. Enter the professionsal endorser, today an authority on wellness, next week on fun rides, to be followed by savvy advise on traveling. Lack of relevant track record, plus no concrete, let alone relevant, standing, means there is no authority. Hence, no credibility.
The difference with nano-influencers is that, within their group, they are an authority on the subject. They are sought after for advise. They are credible. 

Ed, by "Opportunity To See" I mean that the TV was on when the ad was shown ... so someone in that household had an opportunity to see that ad.   The "Likelihood To See" would be when we factor out (i) that not everyone in that household was watching that TV set when the ad was broadcast, (ii) that some (or even all) of those in the household that were watching the TV when the ad was broadcast may have left the room, (iii) that those that stayed in the room when the ad was broadcast were not distracted by other things such as chatting, a phone call, a tablet, a newspaper or magazine, a book, a puzzle etc.

Scenarios (i) and (ii) are taken into account by the "button pushing" involved with the TV meter but the compliance rate would not be 100% (the last tests I saw in Australia was around 88%-92% were compliant) so there is a likely overstatement of "in room" audience.

Scenario (iii) is much more complicated.   I remember demonstrating Nielsen's "Passive Meter" here in Australia in the early '90s.   It was basically a humungous box with facial recognition that operated whenever the set was on - and it was expensive ... and it never got off the ground.   I also recall that "whoopee cushions" on the sofa were trialled decades ago.  But the biggest issue was privacy and I believe that it still is.   Would you want a camera watching your every move, blink, nap etc. when you are kicking-back to watch TV?   I wouldn't.

In essence OTS is probably reasonable.   LTS is highly unlikely (though infra-red heat maps spring to mind).

John, the TV industry does not have a valid indicator of "opportunity to see" where commercials are concerned. Nielsen does not know whether a person who claimed to be "watching" a TV show when the channel was first selected is still in the room when a commercial break appears or whether the person leaves the room during a given point in the break. As a guess, the absentee viewer factor during commercials---regardless of their execution quality---may be on the order of 10-15% per ad, perhaps higher. As for attentiveness, sure, it varies with interesting or first time seen ads usually doing better, however, when such a message is buried in a ten commercial break, many "viewers" may have already left the room when it appears or are using another screen or just not paying any attention. I should add that asking Nielsen to rectify this situation without adding some sort of eyes-on-screen verification such as TVision might provide is probably fruitless. A dramatic change is required and I'm not at all sure that the TV ad sellers will support such a move.

Yes Jordan, Nielsen doesn't conduct the Canadian TV ratings which are done by Numeris (BBM Canada).

But even if Nielsen did conduct the Canadian TV ratings it wouldn't change the published TV rating as Canada is not part of the US.

I find it extraordinary that so many advertising executives are blind or ignorant to 'duration weighting' which is a fundamental tenet of media research and has been for many, many decades.

Starting with TV as an example, we need duration weighted programme ratings because that is the best (simple) estimate of how many people will have the opportunity to see the ad.   Take a programme that has a reach of 8 million viewers - i.e. they watched at least a minute of the programme.   But if its rating, the average minute audience (i.e. duration weighted), is 4 million viewers then if you used the 8 million audience you have a 50-50 chnace of your ad being seen (and Ed I am talking about Opportunity To See, as opposed to Likelihood To See which is heavily dependent on the quality of the ad).

The same principle applies to all broadcast media.   Print/Press usually refer to average issue readership as their headline number(i.e. reach), but the closest to the broadcast standard is when data like 'proportion of issue read' is applied which savvy media buyers would use.

All the above is based on audience measurement of the medium, and not of the ad.   The media owner is responsible for delivery of the promised audience and environment.   A good ad can't improve on that number, but a bad ad can fracture it.

So Joel makes a valid point as to whether this should hould also apply to ads.   His argument about the effectiveness of an ad is valid in broad principles but not always correct.  For example, in a 30" TV ad 'the sting' may be in the last few seconds so watching the first six seconds is irrelevant.   Of course if 'the sting' is in the first six seconds then no problems.   This also applies to online ads as it is a behavioural issue and not a delivery issue.   The thing is all ads are different yet we're after a de facto standard.   And media owners can't control the quality of the ads.

But if you look at the current status where 0-seconds can count as an ad viewed (i.e. it was initialised from an ad-server even though the recipient had already swiped the screen, and yes it is still around) it is much poorer than using duration weighting.   The IAB recommendation of 2-seconds as a minimum threshold goes some way to tidying up the mish-mash of different standards (or lack of them).

Is this a new perspective? I thought the marketing department was always supposed to be the consumer advocate within a company. 

Of Course NOTHING like this could happen while there are 100's of thousands of
Auto-tonomous cars running around UNMANNED.

This is why I have said from the beginninbg, "Dumbest idea of the 21st Century"
DBA, Folks..................Dead Before Arrival

Good memory, Mark.

NEXT UP , The Clapper Crapper.

A new week means a new candidate for Coporate Speak B/S :

“We are always looking for new ways to innovate and evolve the delivery experience for customers,” stated Kevin Vasconi, Domino’s executive vice president and chief information officer.

Hey, I'm hungry for a Pizza. let's order from Domino's.  I wonder what kind of Delivery Experience i will have today.. Can't wait, I'm hungry.  Oh wait, when the driver  delivered, he brought it to my door.  Now , I have to get a notice on my phone that i left in the bathroom that the pizza is in a Gro-cart in my apartment complex parking lot.  What a great experience.

“The opportunity to bring customers the choice of an unmanned delivery experience, and our operators an additional delivery solution during a busy store rush, is an important part of our autonomous vehicle testing.”

ONCE Again , where I sign up for this kind of job that I can say stupid stuff and get a PAYCHECK?

The concept of attribution isn’t new and though the broadcast industry may appear behind, in reality, the smartest and most strategic of broadcast marketers, regardless of who they work for, have always striven to show impact and proof of performance through some form of attribution. Layering in data science allows for some advancement for mass media but inherently broadcast wasn’t designed to only sell one item to one person. It was designed to sell millions of items to millions of people. And therefore the concept of attribution for broadcasters is different and the approach, though it can be compartmentalized or seen as “siloed” it is oftentimes purposefully so done. It is important to understand the possibilities before landing on any one solution. And Joe was right that we are learning from the digital attribution capabilities that have evolved over the past several years. It is only natural to take a now proven concept and leverage it for growth potential in a cornerstone industry like broadcasting.

Overall, however, one of the greatest takeaways I had from the meeting was the fact that right now,  there are dozens of various definitions for the term attribution and we all have a bit of a different understanding of how it works, what the best approaches are and where to go next. To take the conversation to the next level, we first need to define the many variations and determine use cases for the various industries. Each industry and organization defines its success metrics differently so the appropriate attribution solution will vary. 

In my mind, and I work primarily in digital marketing, true attribution can connect the dots from stimulus to capture to sale and reengagement. To do this, data systems have to talk to each other and that is the most difficult barrier to cross. Unless advertisers share their data with their media partners, relying on their expertise to leverage the data and harness its power for better campaigns, media providers can only ever tell their own side of the story. To provide clear and transparent attribution, there must be a shift toward the consultative partner with transparency in reporting and trust in the relationship. In many cases, that is not possible which creates a systemic breakdown of the foundational pieces of an attribution model. We aren’t behind though. We are constantly testing and refining and while 5-7 years ago, there was no possibility of ever truly answering the famous Wanamaker question, today it is getting more and more possible to show the proof of what that marketing spend is doing, regardless of where it’s spent. It is exciting to see so many different groups coming together to get us closer to that answer. 

A classy testament to a classy man. I has the pleasure of meeting him at the annual Produced By Conference in Los Angeles. A film lover with great taste from an era with some of,if not the finest movies ever. Hopefully others will take the mantle and put art first. Great piece! 

I'll ask the Pope. 

Very few media and and fewer ad execs understand equivalized base :30 unit lengths which have been around for decades. I can only imagine the arithmetic insanity which will accompany this additional recalibration metric. 

i do not understand the use of bears to sell Charmin. Does a bear sh*t in a bathroom?