Even in the Southern Hemisphere here in AU we have the same problem.

Some of our commercial broadcasters (which may have unused bandwidth) are providing time for channels endlessly selling things like tupperware sold on TV about 50 years ago.   PUKE !!!

The revenue impact to publishers isn't a 1:1 of % of users using adblockers. There are plenty of SSPs who pay publishers (and charge advertisers) for display ads based on auctions won, not creatives rendered. It's incredibly sketchy and terrible for the entire digital advertising ecosystem. 

Funny, Jon and you are right. I must confess, though, that when I participated in countless new business pitches by BBDO, and we played it like our "creative" was the only thing that mattered I began to wonder what I was doing there. I finally found my answer and when I left the agency business I never looked back. It was a very interesting experience--and fun--for a while. But it changed when we and others went public, the huge mergers strated and making money became end game for too many people.

Ed-shocked, shocked I say. Advertising has paid for your cars, your homes, your food, your life. You should be honor bound to allow it in every facet of your life to payback and be thankful for the bounty it has brought you and yours.

just kidding. I couldn't resist the layup. 

Interesting, Joe. I'm a very heavy user of the internet and I use ad blockers all the time. They are very effective in blocking programmatic ads but those placed directly and positioned in specific bits of content sometimes get to my screen. I'm a really frequent user of You Tube and by its invitation, I pay Google $14 a month to eliminate all ads--so I get none. I wonder how many others do the same on You Tube and what effect this would have on its Nielsen numbers if ad blocking was taken into account.

I won't go into all of the flaws in your approach, and there are many, but maybe, just maybe, that at the same time, the news that some on Biden's staff admitted he wasn't aware of the individuals getting pardons from the autopen and his doctor taking the fifth in closed door meetings about Biden's health might have something to do with more mentions of Biden.

And I hope you search "Epstein Hoax" on other news sites - there are several of them that have five figure results.

Mediapost search results for "Donald Trump" = 3,000

Mediapost search results for "Joe Biden" = 769

I guess clicks matter :D

As media buyers we live and breath frequency control across omnichannel campaigns. Some ads get more frequency because they are easily ignored (display ads typically) - but we are stringent on frequency for CTV because of the issues you identified. It feels like some buyers don't frequency cap and I have to wonder if they are just trying to burn the media budget to get their commission vs. what's in the best interest of the client. 

Your specific instance of email is a more nuanced issue of using frequency in remarketing to get more from an existing customer vs. finding new customers. This is almost never a path to lasting growth and it's not just emails - with so many brands forcing you into a text sign up for a "discount code" and then blasting you with texts at a cadence that is unrealistic. This just happened to me with a leather goods company. I love their products but I don't want a weekly text about an item I may purchase at most 1-2X a year. I think loyalty marketing is fundamentally broken and needs a reset. 

So, Josh, how many times per month do you and your wife sit down and binge watch four or more  one-hour episodes of the same drama series in a row? Is that an every night or a once in a while activity?Just asking? Also, do you feel the same way when you watch a three- hour baseball or basketball game on TV and the same commercials are played every inning?Me--I simply ignore those commercials. 

So the "solution" is to greatly reduce your ad spend--even if competing brands don't reduce theirs? Is less really more when you are using ridiculously inflated ad "audience" data. I think not. 

At best, only 40% of all ad "impresions" actually involve a consumer starting to look at--or listen to or read--your ad. And beyond that most only "connect" with your ad message for a few seconds. So what's the problem re"oversaturation?

Of course it's annoying when a CTV service runs the same ad message 7-8 times in a one- hour episode of a former CBS or NBC drama series--or a movie.But what percentage of a typical consumer's media day sees this kind of stupidity play out---.5%, 1%, maybe 2%? So, are we getting all bothered about what is really an exception for most consumers?

There's a time honored concept in advertising called share of voice. It holds that to maintain your monentum realtive to rival brands you need to spend proportionately to your share of category sales--or close to it. A sudden reduction, if maintained over a long period, is asking for trouble. Just as dropping all advertising for sustained periods is regarded as taking a similar risk. I think that that concept still holds water, though it's desirable to control your frequency so you don't over --or under--do it and so you direcct as much media weight against your prime targets. 

I was recently bemoaning to a colleague with agency and TV network experience that were all so damned smart about targeting and activation, but that if my wife and I sit down to watch for one-hour shows in a row on ad-supported streaming on a binge night, we'll see the same two ads like 4 times in every episode. he told me that this was flipside of advance targets; when the targets get really granular, there aren't enough advertisers bidding on you. So they end up showing you the same ads over and over.  

Meanwhile, every binge night, I have to listen to my wife ragging on me, "if you people are so smart, why is this the 15th time we have seen this ad tonight?" I wish I had a good answer for her. 

As regards Ryan Adams, another point worth noting is that Wednesdays and maybe Black Hole are really the only decent studio albums he's put out since 2020-- and there have been FOURTEEN of them.

Terrific points! The best way to kill an ad or campaign early is wearout from too much saturation. And what I don't understand is why some keep jumping on to the next thing without letting what they've shared marinate and resonate potentially to be appreciated. 

I could not agree more. And that is certainly true in the world of MarTech. Time is everything in na agency. Example: Starta and other systems are old and clunky to use. We started using GaleForce Media for media buying (and thier other products) and there is a huge time savings with much better features (and lower cost). Just one more example of what you wrote about. 

This is great advice. As I moved through my career as a C level exec and consultant, a constant element of my philosphy was the importance of challenging conventional wisdom and existing routines, especailly when a creative solution to a situation was needed.

The book FAST START TO CAREER SUCCESS has 36 other concise tips for being a successful executive. It is available on Amazon 

A lot excape and watch entertaiment to relax and get away from the real world for a few hours. Why I also don't watch a lot of news only 6 or 7 hours M-F and sometimes Spectrum News before bed which is what CNN Headline News use to be. Otherwise I watch sports & entertainment.

Poor Ron Popeil must be turning over in his grave.

Josh, from almost the outset, the broadcast TV stations--especially in the larger markets-- made huge profits while the national networks functioned as loss leaders averaging about a 6% pre-tax profit. Which was fine as their O&O TV stations were mqaking a mint.When cable came along, most channels lost money until penetration increased and there was a demosstrable demand for them. At which point they began to earn major "carriage fees" from the cable systems and, later, the satellite disrtibutors. But the TV stations and broadcast TV networks remained almost 100% ad revenue reliant until they finally demanded equal treatment and began to earn re-transmission fees about 20 years ago. Enter streaming and you have a plethora of business plans---Ad-free SVODS, plus hibrid AVODs and FASTs--in the latter case a return to the long abandoned 1950s-60s TV business model. 

While linear TV viewing has declined significantly it still accounts for about 2.4 hours per adult daily while streaming gets about the same. But only 60-70% of streaming is ad-supported and it offers many fewer commercials per hour. So there's a problem. With only about 1.5 hours of ad-supported streaming being consumed per adult, while cable and broadcast TV used to make their profits based on a daily intake of 4.5 hours daily, how can all of the streaming services make money? There isn't enough viewing to suppport them all.

With the linear TV interests preparing to sell off their least profitable cable channels and diving into streaming ventures the issue is clearly in doubt. Will they all survive or will we see major mergers and a huge shakeout not only of cable channels but many FASTs and AVODs. Also, will the national advertisers change their ways and drop their penchant for big volume, non-targeted upfront buys. And how will all of the deals be measured--by whom? 

It should be a most interesting transformation to watch.

There's a problem for the linear TV companies though, even going whole hog into streaming.

Once upon a time there was broadcast. Basically, you put a big stick in a field, ran ads, and cashed checks. Your broadcast license-- allocating you exclusive access to spectrum space-- was a license to print money. Access to consumers was a scarce commodity and you owne a nice chunk of it.

Then cable came around. Uh oh-- this can't be good! "instead of one in 7 channels, now I'm one of 36!" Only cable brought must-carry and retransmission fees, and now the broadcasters got PAID for the right to carry them. Distribution went from basically free to a profit center. You made money before you even sold a spot.

But now... streaming. THere is no cap on consumer access; all you need is bandwidth, which isn't capped or licensed by the government. Now, instead of getting paid by the company with the cable or fiber, the networks have to bear bandwidth costs to get their shows (and ads) into my house. The migration from cable to streaming turns distribution from a preofit center to a cost center.

At the same time, no one has more bandwidth than companies lilke Google, Amazon, or Apple. These companies are 10X the size of the traditional programmers, and they may not even have to make money on TV. Personally, I buy most of the streaming services for business reasons, but there's one I know I'm NEVER going to cancel-- Prime. And the reason I'll never cancel Prime is, free shipping. How does Paramount or Comcast compete with free shipping? We got Apple TV because we bought a phone. 

So yeah, they have to embrace streaming, simply because tyou don't get to choose the mode of distribution by which consiumers access your content. Just ask record companies. And newspapers. But the shift from cable to streaming fundsmentally and permanently alters the economics of the TV business. Broadcasting I Love Lucy to my living room in 1957 was a way better economic proposition than streaming Law & Order: SVU to me in 22025.

What's interesting about the trending, Wayne, is how the linear TV interests are slowly increasing their share of streaming viewing. It's risen to  about 27-28% and that's just viewing time. The ad revenue picture is probably more favorable. It remains to be seen whether linesr TV managements will make the right decisions and increase their footprint in streaming to a position like they had in cable. 

Thanks so much!  

Ed, in AU proximity and vision of a billboard was around 35% ... may have changed.

Good point Wayne with ... "But wait -- there is more -- although probably not directly connected to this deal. Political comedy -- (and commentary?) -- could be on the block."

I thought that the Political jokes were primarily generated within the White House.

"Impression Multiplier" seems to be a fancy way of saying "BS Factor"

To expand on Ed,"s point, this latest IAB measurement document and the chart referenced contain basic media measurement flaws and contradict the evolution, principles, definitions and metrics derivations of OOH measurement well established by OOH JICs globally over the past 20+ years.  These are embraced by GeoPath in the US and were initially developed by ROUTE (formerly Poststar in the UK). I sat on the technical committees of both organisations.  
It does however echo the fundamental flaws contained in the recently released IAB's Retail Media Measurement Guidelines notably regarding the section on OOH, including DOOH, measurement.  These flaws were formally brought to IABs attention by several industry experts but were summarily ignored despite offers to review and discuss the basic errors and consequently protect retail media from the IAB's missteps.
So Joe, with respect. the proper headline should unequivocally be, "Digital OOH Measurement?  Ignore the IAB!"