The business of media has changed so much over the past few years that the notion of media agencies being "agents" of advertisers may no longer apply. That's the message that Irwin Gotlieb, CEO of WPP's Group M, delivered to a room full of advertising executives at the ANA's Financial Management Conference in Phoenix this week.The context for Gotlieb's Phoenix ANA address was the current swirl of allegations of undisclosed agency rebates. He isn't alone in calling for a reevaluation of how clients and advertisers work together. I applaud the industrywide focus on transparency, and the recognition that the dialogue …

Fellow Online Spinner Dave Morgan recently wrote a column on whether awareness and attribution can live together in an advertising-centric world. His assumption was "yes" - and he cited Sharon O'Sullivan from Discovery Communications (and others) as proof that media execs feel the same way. I'd like to take things a step further. I would simply add that if you don't feel this way, you should be planning your retirement.

When I read Tom Goodwin's Online Spin last week, I immediately jumped on his bandwagon. How could I not? He played the evolutionary psychology card and then trumped that by applying it to the consumption of media. This was right up my ideological alley.

Lately, I have been reading a lot of omni-channel and multi-channel research papers. I shared some findings from Nielsen's "Screen Wars" study last week, but apart from the Nielsen study, I also read a Google/DoubleClick study called "Reaching audiences across screens," while IBM offered "Digital Reinvention," and Digital Doughnut shared their "2015 Multi-Channel Digital Marketing Report."

Great news! Internet ad revenues surged yet again in 2014, reaching nearly $50 billion dollars in the United States. This, according to a new report from IAB, represents a 16% increase over the previous year; compared to 20 years ago it's an increase of... well, infinity.

Last week was a special one in the history of being a geek. In fact it was like Christmas came early. The Internet loves some comic book and fantasy content -- that's for sure! For those of you who may have been buried under a rock the last week or so, the Internet saw the premieres of "Daredevil" on Netflix, the "Game Of Thrones"' season opener and trailers for "Batman vs. Superman," "Fantastic Four," "Ant-Man" and the most amazing, awe-inspiring trailer of them all: "Star Wars: The Force Awakens."

In the age of social media, the editor is fast replaced by the algorithm; curation and distribution comes from our friends, not newsstands; and our opinions are further reinforced and entrenched by selection bias. With major elections underway in the U.K. and U.S., with massive changes in journalism and news brands considering Faustian pacts with Facebook, now seems like a good time to discuss this issue.

The other day, I was having lunch in a deli. I was also watching the front door, which you had to push to get in. Almost everyone who came to the door pulled, even though there was a fairly big sign over the handle which said "Push." The problem? The door had the wrong kind of handle. It was a pull handle, not a push. The door had been mounted backwards. In usability terms, the door handle presented a misleading affordance. I suspect most marketing falls in the same category as that sign. It's an attempt to fight the intuitive …

Nielsen recently published a fascinating study called "Screen Wars, The Battle For Eye Space In A TV-Everywhere World." The title indicates how we as an industry are struggling to redefine the screen world we now live in.

Nielsen has recently published a study called "Screen Wars: The Battle For Eye Space In A TV-Everywhere World," and it is fascinating. First of all, the title indicates how we as an industry are struggling to redefine the multiscreen world we now live in. When TV came, it was (technically) the second screen after cinema. But it quickly overtook cinema and became the first screen.