The following article is based on national ad spend. Local-direct is the most controllable and highest in station revenue streams. Transactional dollars are not as stable nor commissionable to local sales teams. Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D.

State-Level Ad Spend Predicts Economic Downturn

• by Joe Mandese , Yesterday

The general economy historically has been seen as a leading indicator for U.S. ad spending, but a new, first-of-its-kind analysis suggests it may be the other way around, at least in terms of the impact of local ad-spending trends on state-level economies. And it doesn't bode well for foreseeable quarters.

The analysis, conducted by a new econometric modeling team at ad spending tracker Guideline, indicates that recent cuts in local ad spending have accurately predicted declining GDP in about a third of U.S. states in the second half of this year, and based on continuing local ad-spending trends, the Guideline team predicts that will rise to about half of U.S. states in the next quarter or so.

"In the next three-ish months, what we're seeing in our model today, is that about half the state in the U.S. will be in negative territory from a GDP perspective," explains Sean Wright, who recently joined Guideline as Chief Insights and Analytics Officer, after years of market intelligence and NBCUniversal, and at Anheuser-Busch before that.

"Does that necessarily equate to a recession? Not necessarily, depending on those states' contribution to the overall GDP," he said during a briefing taking me through the new Guideline model, "but our data is pointing to a material weakening in the ad market, because economically, a lot of states are starting to struggle."

Wright's model is interesting to me for several reasons, including the fact that I've covered the correlation between the U.S. ad economy and the general economy for nearly half a century, going back to the early days when the late McCann-Erickson forecaster Bob Coen made his annual and semi-annual forecasts.

Back then, Coen always included a section showing a strong correlation between ad spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy, but he never determined which was the leading and which was the lagging indicator.

And while ad spending historically lagged going into and coming out of U.S. economic recessions on a national level, Guideline's Wright says that likely is because it's easier for big national brands to move budgets around depending on what categories they're in, and the effects tend to be more lagging on a national level.

But on a local/state-level, impacting many small- and medium-size advertisers, economic volatility tends to have more immediacy, and the new analysis proves it.

"It's more of a bellwether for a weakening economy," Wright said, estimating that shifts in local ad spending are about a 1.5 times more predictive indicator of the economy than national ad spending has historically been.

While a few states appear to be outliers that are less predictable -- New Jersey, Wyoming and Washington, for example -- and at least one state (Hawaii) is showing inexplicable growth, Wright said the data points to an overall downturn in state-level economies that the ad industry should consider in near-term media planning and buying.

"As an agency or a publisher, I'd want to get out ahead of this," Wright cautioned, suggesting that media sales organizations might want to do what they can to pre-book advance ad sales, while agencies might want to hedge on greater flexibility until the economic outlook becomes more stable.

In terms of national ad commitments, national TV upfront advertising buys historically are firm for the fourth quarter, are about 25% cancelable for the first, and 50% cancelable for the second and third quarters of each year.

Wright said he plans to update the analysis over time and is beginning to look at correlating other forms of economic data to make Guideline's core ad spending data more meaningful and actionable to different stakeholders, including economists, as well as advertisers, agencies and the media.

Stay tuned.

 

From Demographics to Depth: Why Audience Research Must Go Beyond Personas

• by Christine Perkett , Yesterday

For decades, marketers have relied on tidy labels to define their audiences: “decision-makers in healthcare IT,” “millennial finance professionals,” or “C-suite leaders in cybersecurity,” for example. These descriptors may look neat on a persona slide, but they don’t reveal what matters most: how people think, what motivates them, what they aspire to, or what holds them back.

The risk of relying on demographics is clear. Campaigns are built on assumptions, and in today’s attention economy, assumptions don’t suffice. People don’t engage simply because a message matches their job title or age bracket. They engage when a message resonates; when it reflects their pressures, their ambitions, and their self-perception. That’s the difference between superficial engagement (even a negative comment counts as “engaged”) and true resonance that inspires action.

So how do marketers move beyond assumptions? Modern audience research offers a path. Today’s tools enable us to extract signals from across various digital ecosystems, including LinkedIn, Reddit and niche Slack groups, and translate them into insights that explain not only who an audience is, but also why they behave the way they do.

Artificial intelligence accelerates this process by scanning millions of data points to detect patterns no team could catch on its own. Frustrations that surface before they go mainstream, aspirations tucked into offhand comments, shifts in tone that signal evolving attitudes: all of these become visible when AI is applied at scale.

But data alone isn’t enough. Numbers need context. That’s where human interpretation takes over. Marketers should analyze patterns and translate them through a lens of psychology, values, and decision dynamics.

For example, understanding that a cybersecurity leader isn’t just thinking about stopping breaches, but is striving for recognition as a strategic partner to customers. A nonprofit leader isn’t only chasing donations, but wants to educate and become an authoritative innovator, making systemic change. Those nuances are what transform messaging from transactional to resonant.

This kind of research also uncovers how people think, not just what they say. Do they respond best to rational proof points or to emotional storytelling? Do they lean toward risk-taking or caution? Which archetypes —challenger, guide, protector — surface most often in their conversations? The answers to these questions reshape how marketers frame value, credibility, and trust.

Practical tools can make this work more accessible. Social listening platforms can uncover shifts in sentiment; AI-powered audience insight platforms highlight affinities and overlaps; community analytics tools track what’s happening in niche forums and Slack groups; and conversational intelligence platforms help surface insights from sales calls or support transcripts. Each has a role to play, but none should replace human judgment. Technology can uncover signals, but marketers must interpret them with empathy and context.

The outcome is simple but powerful: resonance. When narratives reflect truths that audiences already recognize in themselves, they cut through the noise more quickly and with greater clarity. Brands stop talking at people and start speaking with them. And when marketers take the time to listen, adapt, and reflect those truths, they don’t just earn engagement; they influence decisions.

 

Commentary

How CTV Is Making Ads More Interactive - And More Effective

• by Danyelle Horrillo , October 1, 2025

Connected TV (CTV) continues to push the boundaries of innovation, and honestly, are we even surprised? Whether consumers are deep into the latest season of “Dexter,” catching up on “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” or just looping their favorite comfort show in the background, they’re part of the many households that subscribe to multiple streaming services. With content more fragmented than ever, streaming has become the default, and we’re all in.

CTV and streaming platforms are constantly reinventing the ad experience to keep viewers engaged, especially during ad breaks. Traditional targeting and contextual relevance are no longer enough. Publishers are stepping up with creative, tech-forward solutions that make ads feel less like interruptions and more like experiences that consumers want to watch.

What’s New in CTV Ad Innovation?

QR codes make a comeback. Watching TV is now a full-on multiscreen experience. Chances are, the target viewer’s phone is always within arm’s reach, and that’s the case when they're tuned into their favorite programming. Advertisers know this and craft experiences for that constant connection. Innovid’s recent study shares that over 30% of viewers say they regularly scan QR codes while watching TV or during commercials.

Publishers are leaning into this behavior with interactive overlays, mini-games, and auto-fill sign-up pages, all designed for seamless engagement without the need to leave the couch. These units are pure gold for direct attribution, customer-initiated response, and first-party data collection.

Shoppable ads turn screens into storefronts. Think Home Shopping Network (aging myself here), but cooler. Shoppable ads let viewers scan codes for instant product access, push info directly to their phones, or sign up for offers -- all from the comfort of their living room. It’s a frictionless path from interest to action, and it’s gaining serious traction.

Pause-screen takeovers. Ever hit pause and walk away? Publishers are taking advantage of viewer pause breaks and turning them into branding opportunities with full-screen overlays or subtle messaging. It’s a clever way to boost awareness and get face time with viewers -- particularly those in households where pausing means someone’s asking a question (guilty).

In-show product placement goes digital. Virtual product placement is here, and it’s changing the game. Platforms like Amazon, Peacock, and Mirriad now offer the ability to digitally insert branded products into content after production. These ad placements blend seamlessly into the narrative, creating countless opportunities for organic brand moments that feel native to the viewing experience.

The Future Is (Still) Streaming

As more consumers shift their viewing habits toward streaming platforms, publishers are rapidly evolving their ad strategies to meet audiences where they are with smarter, more interactive formats that go beyond traditional awareness. What was once considered a space for upper-funnel branding has now transformed into a dynamic, performance-driven environment where advertisers and brands can drive real, measurable conversions.

Innovations like shoppable ads, QR code overlays, and pause-screen takeovers are turning passive viewership into active engagement, creating seamless pathways to direct action. The pace of change in the CTV space is accelerating, and the next wave of innovation—powered by AI, personalization, and cross-device integration—is already underway.

 

Assembly: It's The Political Ad Economy, Stupid

• by Joe Mandese , Yesterday

In case you missed Assembly Director of Political Strategy Tyler Goldberg’s interview at MediaPost’s recent Planning & Buying Summit, you can see it below, but I wanted to draw your attention to a new updated political ad spending forecast he announced – $10.1 billion for the 2025-26 US. election cycle – as well as a new Assembly political tracking report he teased.

The first edition of the new “Election Outlook Report” is being released today and you can find it here.

And based on a conversation I had with Goldberg, he convinced me that it’s the first-of-its-kind to be published by a general market agency – not a political specialist unit – or an outside research supplier.

Goldberg -- who arguably has become Madison Avenue’s authority on political ad spending as well as message and issues targeting -- says the main reason Assembly is doing it isn’t just for its or parent Stagwell’s political advertising accounts, but for all of the media services agency’s accounts, which are impacted to at least some degree by the impact of increasingly big, continuous political advertising cycles that tend to tighten advertising inventory in key markets, and drive ad prices up too.

“We noticed when we started the political practice here about five years ago that it wasn’t just an underutilized area, but it had never been done before. There had never been a brand-focused agency that had an in-house political practice. We quickly realized that our commercial clients could also benefit from this very niche expertise.”

That insight led to Assembly’s launch of Advocacy Consulting Technology, or ACT, which is the umbrella organization covering all of the tools Assembly has built, as well as the new tracking report.

The political team and its new reporting basically buckets the effects of political advertising on general market advertisers in two ways.

The first part is how it affects inventory and pricing in political advertising markets for general market advertisers.

That’s something Assembly began sharing with clients when it published a benchmark report in 2022 including a new metric it dubbed Political Intensity Scores.

“The idea was that not only does this political spending affect your advertising strategy from a buying standpoint, but it affected the very mindset of the consumers brands are trying to reach.

Back in 2022, it was mainly about the impact of political campaigns talking about the economy and inflation, which had an effect on the marketplace psyche of consumers.

“We found that had a tangible effect on their spending habits, especially on Republican voters who were pulling back on discretionary spending.

In terms of the next political cycle, Goldberg predicts the skew will be inverted, with Democrats more prone to cutting back on discretionary spending due to political messaging about the economy.

Other likely political messaging themes could impact consumer sentiment about health care, energy, and other categories, he predicts.

While Assembly's new tracking report differentiates it from other full-service and major independent media agencies, Goldberg says it is not intended to compete with syndicated sources like AdImpact's reports, but it does offer a slightly different perspective by focusing 100% on demand-side implications for general market advertisers.

 

Our Media Classification Does Not Fit The Containers of the Past

• by Maarten Albarda , Featured Contributor, 7 hours ago

Most humans crave organization and structure, although some humans (many of the teenager variety) seem to thrive on chaos. But most humans like to label and box things for ease of reference or use. It helps identify who we are, or who we want to connect with. In entertainment, for instance, the genre of a movie or series often determines whether we hit play, based on previous experiences with a director, cast member, or a favored streaming service.

In the integrated marketing world, we label everyone and everything, too. We segment the industry into clients, agencies, vendors, and platforms. We further subdivide by function: search, production, copywriting, media planning, analytics. The list is endless.

This structure makes it easier to assign responsibilities and define expertise. But as the media landscape grows ever more fragmented and consumer behaviors evolve, I find myself increasingly questioning the usefulness of its classifications. I was reminded of that when I saw the stats below, as shared by eMarketer:

advertisement

advertisement

The labels that eMarketer uses are understood, but are they right or helpful? For instance: why is YouTube separated from free ad-supported streaming TV (FAST)? What's the difference between radio and digital audio?

I frequently watch YouTube content on my living room television, just as I would any traditional broadcast channel or streaming content. But according to this taxonomy, YouTube is neither “traditional TV” nor “FAST.” Meanwhile, I call it “watching TV.”

Similarly, I listen to my local PBS station almost exclusively via digital channels: apps on my smart speakers, streaming on my phone, or through my car’s Bluetooth system. I consider this “listening to the radio,” but using this chart’s labeling, it falls under “digital audio.”.

As an advertiser, how do you determine the most effective way to reach your audience? The industry labels, once helpful, now create confusion. As consumers migrate from one device or channel to another, the old labels are no longer useful for strategic planning. For example, a podcast can be experienced live, streamed later, or watched as a video clip on social media. Where does it fit in our labeling structure -- and does the label actually matter to the consumer?

Some marketers analyze “time spent” versus “budget spent” on touchpoints to determine if they are allocating sufficient resources to each. However, the labels for these touchpoints are no longer effective, as they overlap and become increasingly ambiguous.

The same challenges apply when using attribution models or marketing mix modeling, where outcomes are reported according to similar, standardized labels. But if those labels do not take into consideration the way consumers actually interact with content and advertising, there is real risk of making misguided decisions about where to spend your resources.

I recommend that brands and organizations create their own definitions of what is and isn’t included in their touchpoint classification, rather than relying on industry labels, which may be irrelevant or incomplete. Create labels that reflect your specific brand objectives, your unique consumer journey, and the true behaviors of your target audience. In doing so, you ensure that strategies are rooted in your own business’s reality, not in a structure that does not fit.

And oh, yes, I paraphrased Rishad Tobaccowala’s speech title (“The Future Does Not Fit In The Containers Of The Past”) for the headline of this article. I could do worse than use his wisdom (and magic).

This post was previously published in an earlier edition of Media Insider.

Commentary

Roughing Up the Media: Trust Has Fallen to An All-Time Low

• by Ray Schultz , Columnist, Yesterday

Trust in media has sunk to a new low of 28%, down from 31% last year and 40% five years ago, Gallup reports. 

This is the first time faith in the accuracy and fairness of newspapers, television and radio has sunk to less than 30%. 

At the same time, 36% of readers have little confidence and 34% none at all 

Gallup began measuring confidence in media in the 1970s, when the numbers varied between 68% and 72%. Trust fell to 44% in 2004 but rose to 45% in 2018.

Feelings vary by both age and political preference.

Republican trust, which has not risen above 21% since 2015, has dropped to 8% for the first time.

Trust by independents hit a historical low of 27% last year and has continued at that level. 

For Democrats, the narrowest of majorities (51%) now express trust in the media, which is a repeat of the low previously seen in 2016.

From 2023 to 2025, 43% of persons 65 and older trust the media. 

Among Republicans, 12% of those age 18-29 have a great deal or a fair amount of trust, as do 6% of those in the 30-49 cohort, 8% in the 50-64 demographic and 17% of those 65+. 

Trust is also shared by 29% of Independents in the 18-29 age range, 24% of those who are 30-49, 23% of those in the 50-64 category and 42% of those aged 65+.

Democrats appear to be the most trusting of the media, with the combined 2023-25 data showing 38% of 18-29 year-old readers, 42% age 30-49, 59% of those in the 50-64 grouping and 69% of those aged 65 and older.

 

Where Are the New Ideas for Live Non-Sports Shows?

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, Yesterday

If late-night broadcast TV comedy shows go away, what could pick up the slack -- in terms of viewership and brand advertising buying that content?

Other than the announcement that CBS’ “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” is ending next year because of what parent Paramount Skydance said about financial losses at the show, right now we don’t have much insight into other future late-night shows on broadcast TV.

CBS has not disclosed replacement plans for the “The Late Show” -- yet.

This puts some attention on NBC’s “Tonight with Jimmy Fallon” and ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live” -- with the likely guess that these shows could be in a similar financial situation. And possibly take a similar path.

Kimmel was suspended for a week following remarks in a monologue about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

But unlike what happened with Colbert, Kimmel returned to his spot on the schedule. Still, this doesn’t mean ABC would not -- perhaps in a few weeks -- announce that it would be pulling the plug anyway.

Financial issues aside for these programs, the positive is that from an advertising perspective, networks get premium pricing for brands due to shows’ live or live-to-tape nature.

In addition, these shows also skew to a highly desired, but hard-to-get younger audience -- something young-focused advertisers desire.

So what replaces these shows -- either on the schedule, or when it comes to boosting live TV programming in other spots on the schedule?

Naturally, much attention goes to sports. But increasingly, networks are considering somewhat lower-interest sports programming than the NFL, NBA or Major League Baseball variety.

For example, soon after the announced cancellation of “The Late Show,” Paramount Skydance announced a long-term $7.7 billion media rights deal for programmer UFC. 

Even modest-sized TV broadcast networks continue to add what many might assume are fringe sports programs. Adding to its list of college-based and other sports, The CW just announced a deal with the Professional Bowlers Association.

So what else? Anything non-sports related -- like those late-night shows? 

News content can be live and highly rated. Fox News Channel and other cable TV network networks would attest to that. 

What about entertainment award shows? CBS, for the first time, recently aired “The 2025 MTV Video Music Awards” (along with MTV) -- a show that had been airing on MTV exclusively or with other sister Paramount cable TV networks.

Looking at other non-sports content, networks have done live season finales of shows like “The Voice” and “American Idol.” In recent years, networks also aired live onstage Broadway shows.

But all this doesn’t currently seem to provide enough live, linear advertising inventory for those brands that would be willing to step up and pay for the premium content.

Even then, some of this live content has moved to streaming platforms.

So, are broadcasters looking for live non-sports TV content out of ideas? 

YouTube-style podcasts, anyone?