CIMM To Assess Economic Impact Of New Ad Currencies
- by Joe Mandese @mp_joemandese, April 1, 2025
The Advertising Research Foundation’s Coalition for Innovative Media Measurement (CIMM) this morning announced plans for a new industry study analyzing the impact that new TV advertising currencies might have on its stakeholders -- both buyers and sellers.
The initiative, which is being led by independent consultants Manish Bhatia and Josh …
3 comments about "CIMM To Assess Economic Impact Of New Ad Currencies".
Read more comments >
Next story loading 
Joe, you are right about local market TV ratings as well as online and magazine/planning duopolies in past media audience "currency" contests. And the same was the case for local market radio----Hooper vs. Pulse vs. Arbitron, etc. ----but there was never a duopoly in national TV ratings. It was always Nielsen. Also, in the other duopolies one always came out the winner and the others disappeared or were absorbed by the winner---creating a virtual monopoly situation. In short, we have long had currrency monopolies in both national and local TV, in local radio, in magazines and newspapers---with very few exceptions. And online sellers , themselves supply most of the "audience" data to buyers---or programmatic computers --- so here, too, we are looking at monopolies---aka , "walled gardens".
The reason for this is simple. There needs to be a single standard "currency" for each media platform, otherwise one can't evaluate one seller's offerings and perfprmance from another's. In the case of national TV that doesn't mean that Nielsen can't be challenged. But to do this you must be able to show that it's methodology is producing misleading---or "wrong" data and that you can do "it" better---and, maybe, cheaper. And what exactly is "it"? Simple. Its some meaningful definition of "audience".
As for the other "currencies" that will be evaluated, I hope that this investigation considers the practicality of each when applied on a mass--all sellers covered--- basis as well as how it might be funded. Without these factors being included, we are merely theorizing---again.
I would add to my MP comments, that any "currency" other than "audience" must be evaluated re the likeliehood that advertisers and their time buyers will use it in planning and executing their buys. And the same is true of the sellers--how willing will they be to guarantee such results?
For example, if it is some form of "outcome" ---not audience-- how many brand managers can state exactly what they expect from next year's ad campaign--and, to what extent will sellers grant them what they want in the form of guarantees? Or, will such "alternative currencies" remain as nothing more than selectively employed add-ons to audience guarantees?
Joe, as THE most knowledeable trade reporter on the Ad/Media business in the US, I must respectfully suggest that your assessment of this US multi-currency farrago is misguided and fundamentally flawed. I sadly suggest it preserves the misinformation, slight of hand and masquerades that are being increasingly embraced by our industry. Why?
First, it ignores the wisdom and experience of Ed Papazian who we must surely listen to more. As I experienced first hand at MediaCom, "duopolistic market currencies" are a "bloody nightmare" for all involved. Based on mulit-media global experience it is JICs/MOCs, REAL ones, that are "most cost effective". Period! (Aquila may eventually be a media planning resource but not a currency.)
Second, it is based on your apparent misunderstanding and/or rejection of the hard earned, long established, role, value, structure and operational procedures of REAL media JICs (and MOCs). Once again, there is no REAL TV/Video JIC in the US. There is a highly conflicted Multi-Currency Certification Committee. The M-CCC unequivocally fails to meet,"The Ten Cornerstones of JICs/MOCs" as researched by John Grono and myself and published gratefully by both Media Post and ESOMAR. https://researchworld.com/brand-stories/insights-into-media-currency-research.
This was my comment on LinkedIn when this CIMM initiative was announced:
"As we are awaiting the assessment of JICs in the US by Jonathan Steuer and Julian Zilberbrand commissioned by Coalition for Innovative Media Measurement (CIMM) last April, I am nervous for your intriguing project. This is especially as the TV Networks that own OpenAP, which masquerades as a JIC (at best a Multi-Currency Certification Committee), exert a powerful influence at CIMM along with Meta et al.
As Richard Marks [UK media measurement guru] opined regarding TV/Video "multiple currencies" in the US, "I just don't get it". As Edward Papazian has consistently and correctly encouraged, establish an agreed industry persons-based, content-exposed, audience trading currency ("currency" for any entity is singular) with ancillary databases for enhancements. In my opinion, ideally via a REAL JIC (per my JIC White Paper with John Grono).
That "we" have not established a universal Eyes/Ears-On based currency (singular!) across ALL media is ...!!! The use of IAB's/Media Rating Council's "viewable impressions", no REAL OTS, aka "content rendered counts", i.e., circulation/distribution, takes media measurement and metrics back 50 years. Per The Attention Council, "No attention (Eyes/Ears-On a prerequisite), no outcomes.". Keep me posted.