In the latter years of the 90's, Jack Myers helped usher in the age of cross media marketing platforms (CMMP), whose primary goal was to generate incremental revenue for the parent company as well as to provide its sibling divisions with a multitude of off-channel exposure. In those days, the major media conglomerates were in constant morph by acquiring all kinds of assets - mostly through stock trades - from every conceivable medium, i.e., broadcast, cable, publishing (newspapers, magazines, custom), new media (online), themed venues (retail, sports), place based as well as TV production, brand integration and event marketing. This …

Earlier this week I had lunch with a couple of friends in New York, one of whom happened to be a broadcast client. With the announcement that David Verklin would indeed be the CEO for Canoe Ventures staring at us in the daily press, Canoe's potential effect on research was front and center. While others have discussed the effect addressable advertising will have on the industry, our focus was somewhat more pressing. The question posed to me was: "Given all the promises of more granular data coming out of Canoe, where should local broadcast audience researchers focus their considerable energies?"

Is Hollywood so out of new ideas that we need to bring back old ones with a twist? I am talking about bringing back shows like "Password" and "The Dating Game" and others from my youth. Not that I mind, don't get me wrong. It's just that I would hope that somewhere, out there, in the vast abyss that is the creative genius, that someone, anyone, would be able to come up with something, well, new.

I have audited the TV ratings system in Australia for the last 15 years, both when Nielsen Media Research and then AGB had the contract. The in-home ratings system, even using people meters, has its weaknesses, but is still the most credible measure of in-home viewing.

This past Spring I presented a lecture entitled "Television Addressability Undressed" in the closing session of the IAB Conference along with MediaVest's Jen Soch, who explored the basic tenets of video on demand. The purpose of our presentations was to help share knowledge of interactive TV with an inquisitive audience steeped and skilled in the online realm - to somehow help foster a bridge between the TV guys and gals and their broadband brethren. After all we are constantly talking about the theoretical similarities between the two digital worlds and their mutually appealing attributes to present the most compelling and …

Over the last year I've noticed the frequent use of the word "televisual" by fellow TV Boarder Mitch Oscar. Something about the way the word was being used gave me a sense that a real movement was afoot here -- an effort to use semantics to save all things television.

I've received numerous emails from people claiming they were once Nielsen families; three people have emailed me claiming to be currently enrolled Nielsen panelists. All admitted to some form of petty dishonesty, misrepresentation or manipulation. But one particular email appeared to be different: Here was a panelist that, allegedly. wanted to stick it to the Man -- that is, Nielsen. Now that was someone I wanted to meet. So I did. Sort of.

What does Carat's decision to terminate its Digital Exchange mean? As many readers will know, one of the great achievements of the Exchange has been to gather together groups of people, who would often see each other as competitors, to share presentation and debate ideas -- sometimes even sharing data (warts and all). Such a forum is a rare thing and should be nurtured.

Last year there was a slew of solutions presented by the major broadcast and cable networks to unravel the commercial conundrum: TV viewers don't like to watch commercials, or at least not non-engaging ones, will do anything to avoid them and yet they must be sustained to provide the fuel by which the free TV industry is powered -- $70 billion worth.

Recently, I had the privilege of attending a meeting with a client who buys considerable television advertising inventory year in and year out. The topic for the session was "New Television Opportunities," which they defined as: Addressable Advertising; Ad Supported On Demand Content; and Hybrid Direct Response. In the morning conference, we were treated to overviews of each technology. Then the head of the organization turned to me and asked dryly, "Are we expected to evaluate all of these opportunities based on television ratings alone?" To which another consultant quipped, "I don't think anyone expects you to evaluate any of …