Nielsen Extends Measurement Deal For The YouTube Mobile App

• by Wayne Friedman , June, 2017

After the recent rollout of its YouTube TV service -- featuring live streaming of traditional TV networks -- the video platform has extended its Nielsen measurement deal for advertising on the YouTube mobile app. The goal is to lure in more big traditional brand marketers.

Nielsen says its Digital Ad Ratings will now provide cross-device measurement of advertising audiences on YouTube across all computer systems and mobile devices. Nielsen clients can have access to age and gender demographics on the YouTube mobile app, as well as reach, frequency and gross rating points (GRPs).

More than half of YouTube video views are on smartphones or tablets, according to the Google-owned video platform.

The YouTube video platform has used Nielsen for digital ad measurement since 2014 -- on desktop and mobile Web browsers. In January 2016, Nielsen's Digital Ad Ratings became available in DoubleClick Bid Manager and DoubleClick Campaign Manager.

“As more people watch video across digital platforms and devices, Nielsen’s comprehensive measurement of YouTube through Digital Ad Ratings is crucial to provide a complete picture of media consumption,” stated David Wong, SVP of digital product leadership at Nielsen.

In February, comScore began providing YouTube mobile-viewing metrics to its partner channels.
Increasingly, through their media agencies, more traditional TV marketers have bought media schedules on YouTube -- especially through Google Preferred, which aggregates YouTube's top content for easy-to-buy packages for big brand advertisers. Like its regular TV buying, it is also Nielsen-rated.

The YouTube mobile app deal comes after the start of a marketing push in April for YouTube TV -- a digital/Internet package of live, linear TV networks.

Already signed on to the service are many traditional broadcast TV networks -- ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC -- and some big cable networks, ESPN, USA, and FX.

Reach Or Frequency? Which is Better? + My Life As A Millennial: The Dress Codes

 

 

Radio Ink

 

 Reach Or Frequency?

     By Bob McCurdy June 25, 2017

 Last week I had a lengthy discussion with a planner at a medium-sized agency who continues to position radio as a frequency vehicle to his clients. We exchanged perspectives and I believe we made some progress.Viewing radio as a frequency vehicle connotes a couple of things, neither good. Either the messaging is not registering or radio’s reach is limited.

We know neither is correct. Nielsen just released their State of the Media: Audio Today 2017 study this week, which showed that 271,000,000 Americans 6+ tune to AM/FM radio weekly, and that listeners do pay attention to commercials per their ROAS studies.

While radio advertising does generate “frequency,” it is largely a byproduct of the medium’s cost efficiency rather than anything intrinsic about the medium itself. More importantly, radio’s efficiency enables an advertiser to generate unparalleled reach, when properly scheduled, which is more often than not the main driver of campaign success.

Viewing radio through a frequency prism is usually not the optimum way for an advertiser to maximize radio payback, as frequency’s relationship to successful radio campaigns is largely one of “correlation” and not “causation.” There is a big difference.

Correlation speaks to a “mutual relationship of two or more things,” i.e. air more commercials and frequency increases. Causation on the other hand speaks to “the action of producing.” While a frequency-focused campaign will produce some sales, just as all advertising will produce some sales, it will typically not produce the most sales, unless the message is unusually complex or promoting a new product intro.

There has been considerable research conducted over the years that has helped distill causation from correlation in ad campaigns, and concluded that the true marketing success driver is largely reach.

Reach x relevance = success in 2017, not frequency x relevance = success, for one simple reason: There’s an inverse relationship between relevance and frequency. The need for frequency decreases as relevance increases.

One study that comes to mind was conducted by Westwood One for an auto aftermarket client which showed that it cost 2.4x as much to generate a 1% increase in sales for those reached 3x-6x, and 3.7x as much to generate a 1% increase in sales for those reached 7+x, as it did for those reached once or twice.

Another high-profile study utilizing actual consumer purchasing  data determined that households exposed to a single commercial purchased ¾ as much of a product as households exposed multiple times. Other studies have come to similar conclusions.

What these studies highlight is not that one or two exposures is “enough” but that in the short term additional frequency brings little additional benefit, as the consumer is not likely to be in the market for what’s being advertised (relevance), so reaching two potential buyers is more productive than reaching one.

One’s point of view on this subject plays a major role in the how commercials are scheduled and the results delivered.

View radio through a frequency prism and a more concentrated schedule (fewer stations and dayparts) will be aired. View it through a reach prism and a more dispersed schedule (more stations and dayparts) will be utilized. The reach-based schedule usually produces a greater ROAS, due to it reaching more consumers who happen to be in the market for what’s being advertised.

Those who are still on the fence regarding this reach/frequency debate, consider this: Assume that commercial exposure increases the likelihood of buying a product (safe assumption). And assume that one goal of marketing strategy is to minimize the time gap between each purchase occasion and each commercial exposure (being thought of in more buying situations). Doesn’t it is then follow that reducing the number of consumers reached by a campaign will result in fewer sales than one reaching more?

It’s radio’s cost efficiency and not its byproduct, frequency, that enables an advertiser to maintain a continued marketing presence that generates the greatest ROAS, when this marketing presence is scheduled to maximize reach.

My Life As A Millennial: The Dress Codes

By Georgia Beasley
June 23, 2017

 I began writing this column after engaging in a debate over what is considered an acceptable dress code for the workplace by our traditional industry standards. Per usual, I was the only Millennial, so my opinion was not exactly the fan favorite, but since that day I’ve continued to ask myself: Does success have a dress code? Furthermore, if I want to be successful today, does that mean I have to look successful by the standards of previous generations? Millennials are redefining what it looks like to be successful, so it may be time for the radio industry to follow our lead.

In researching this topic, I spoke with multiple companies in the industry and the feedback varied based on geography, market size, format, and obviously, the company. One industry colleague said they just implemented a casual dress code because it allows for employees to be more comfortable in how they work, which leads to a more positive work environment and culture.

We are currently in an employee-driven market and our industry must be competitive for talent, especially Millennial talent. We’re constantly striving to attract, cultivate, and develop the right talent on our team. Whether it’s more money, working remotely, or even additional vacation time, we typically do whatever it takes once we find the right person for an available position. Of course, everyone wants more money, but we Millennials want perks that enhance workplace culture, such as a more casual dress code. This may be a new tiebreaker for radio to use as a benefit.

Companies like Apple, Google, and Facebook, make it clear that one’s business attire does not equate to being an executive or having a certain level of professionalism. If anything, we are now seeing more frequently that it can be off-putting when “the suits” show up to a business and the owner is dressed casually. Companies are now saying what matters most is being professional, not looking professional.

I spoke to another colleague in the industry who encourages his team to use their judgment because they are their own business. Good sellers are chameleons and capable of adapting to their environment. There can be a hybrid dress code, one for internal and one for external responsibilities. The dress code could even reflect the seller’s list and actually lead to more business. Tattoos and jeans might be fine for a seller who focuses on clubs and more creative-driven agencies. In fact, this could lead to MORE dollars spent because the clients feel comfortable and trust is built.

Keep in mind, I don’t think Millennials inherently understand what “too casual” means, so if you’ve made the decision to implement a more casual dress code for all the aforementioned reasons, it’s important that there still be specific guidelines. You might enlist several talented Millennials to assist in laying out these guidelines. Make sure to be more specific about what is unacceptable versus what is acceptable. There are always individuals who push the envelope, but creating some clear guidelines will also be helpful for those workers who just don’t know, regardless of generation. It’s important for companies to make sure that everyone in the organization knows what the actual policy is up front and set a benchmark. It’s up to the employers to educate their employees as to what their interpretation is of the dress code; so while it may exist as a section in their handbook, it’s especially important to share this during the new hire/HR introductory meetings.

Our industry can be casual but that doesn’t mean sloppy. We can be flexible but not overly flexible. A looser, yet professional dress code internally could in fact improve morale. A casual dress code did nothing to negatively impact Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and many others. Millennials gravitate to these types of companies because they allow for authenticity. A less restrictive dress code gives us the ability to show our personality, which will translate to more confidence in our role with the company. Furthermore, if we are encouraged to be our authentic selves, trust and loyalty tend to also exist.

Georgia Beasley is Director of Digital Sales for the Beasley Media Group

Consumer Sentiment And Retail Sales UP

Monday, June 26, 2017 Today's Sponsor: System 21: The Only Media Marketing Training Program that Guarantees Results of Your Fee Back!

by Jack Loechner, Staff Writer According to comments by Neil Saunders, Managing Director of GlobalData Retail, focus on month-on-month seasonally adjusted numbers do not give a picture of the real state of retail, but rather the unadjusted year-over-year figures provide a much more accurate view of performance. On this basis, retail is doing well with total sales up by 5.2%, the highest rate of growth since January. Such an increase is aligned with the rise in consumer sentiment and the more robust numbers coming out of other areas of the economy. Higher gas prices contributed to the overall uplift - although price increases were more moderate in May, which resulted in the lowest rate of increase since November of last year. This brake on pump prices was one of the things that helped to fuel consumer confidence over the period, especially around the Memorial Day holiday when spending was elevated. Pure retail spend, which excludes foodservice, gasoline, and automotive sales, saw a healthy increase of 5.3% on a year-over-year basis, says the report. This is the highest level of growth since November of last year, and well above the average growth rate of the year-to-date. Consumer data shows that while shoppers are not in splurging mode, they are becoming more relaxed in their spending habits. On a sector basis, home improvement was the standout category with sales up by 14.2%. Good levels of activity in the housing market, and an upswing in the number of people undertaking outdoor projects, both aided the sector. Furniture and home retailers also benefited from the wave of demand from the housing market, posting a 6.7% rise in sales for May. However, says the report, department stores posted negative growth with sales down 3.1% on the prior year. Store closures, lower customer traffic, weaker conversion rates over the month, and higher discounting all contributed to the poor outcome. Electricals remained in decline, though some robust demand around Memorial Day was offset by more discounting in the sector, together with continued weaker demand for tablets and smartphones. the level of growth posted this month is unlikely to be sustained over the remainder of summer, says the report. If interest rates continue to rise, more consumers are becoming concerned about the impact of higher interest payments on their various debts. Though the forecast for 2017 remains solid, concludes the report, the GlobalData Retail Team posits that growth will be patchy and not benefit all retailers. The pattern of winners and losers is set to continue.

Politics in Advertising

BY MIKE DREXLER JUNE 26, 2017 THOUGHT LEADERS ARCHIVES

1 6    

I did not attend the gathering when advertisers and agencies descended on Cannes this year to hear notable speakers and panels at the Cannes Lions discuss the latest developments in marketing, media and advertising.  But I did see the Wall Street Journal article that covered the discussion on politics in advertising and the consensus seemed to be that it's best to be avoided.

Let me throw my hat in the ring.  Flat out, politics has no place in product advertising.  It was suggested that the use of political issues sometimes can be used to connect with consumers.  Yes, you can connect with some -- but really piss off others.  Why would that make sense?

I learned a long time ago that product advertising should steer clear of controversy.  That's obvious to say the least.  Or should be.  Controversy of any kind will create some aspect of negative thinking -- and controversy is perhaps most apparent in politics.  You're either on one side or the other of almost every topic.  That's not only risky; it's a losing proposition for brand marketers.

Political positions have deep-rooted feelings.  The discussions, as we all know, can be very emotional both for and against.  Why would an advertiser trying to retain current customers and continue to build new business attempts to do that in such a divergent and controversial environment?  At the extreme some people just stop buying the product or worse yet create a boycott.  With social media so prevalent today the Internet is the best tool available to start a conflict.  Before you know it, thousands of people join in.

Then the media (both traditional and digital) have a field day.

There are many examples of brands that faced backlash because they offended some people with a political issue that was expressed or implied in their product advertising. Aren't there enough brilliant creative people out there who can do better than that?  And CMOs or CEOs who should know better?  I understand that most CEOs of corporations have a political leaning.  Let them continue to send money to candidates or PACs.  If they choose they can even make their personal positions known.  But it should be absolutely clear it's a posture that should not affect their employees or their customers.  In my opinion that would just be suicide.

So much for my two cents.

Gross Profits Decline For Cable, Diversification Adds Revenue Sources

 

• by Wayne Friedman , June 23, 2017

Traditional cable TV operators' continued loss of video subscribers will translate into lower gross profit margins over the next four years -- with other company businesses looking to carry more of the load.  

Big cable companies such as Comcast and Charter Communications, as well as smaller cable operators like Cable One, will see a steady erosion of gross profit margins per video subscribers in the coming years.

Craig Moffett, media analyst at MoffettNathanson Research, says Comcast’s average gross profit margins from its video business will drop by 13% in four years -- to $37.18 by 2021 from $42.58 this year.

Charter will decline by a steeper level -- 28% -- to $19.12 in four years, from $26.77 in 2017. Smaller cable company Cable One is projected to drop 27% to $22.63 in 2021, from a $31.09 estimate in 2017.

With regard to the new virtual (Internet-delivered) multi-video channel program distributor businesses, Moffett says: “None of the current crop of vMVPS appears even remotely poised to make any money.”

But Moffett notes that current diversification in broadband, phone and other businesses will help buffer cable operators' video business declines. Video gross profit margins are only about one-third of total gross profit at Comcast, 25% at Charter, and 21% at Cable One.

Gross profit margins for broadband and phone businesses are much higher -- at 95% and 85%, respectively, says Moffett.

Next Generation Of Cable TV Networks Could Be Skinny Bundles

COMMENTARY

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, June 23, 2017

New types of cable-like TV networks for OTT services are coming from traditional TV network creators -- not only in restructuring older fringe cable networks, but developing new cable channels.

Traditional TV network groups -- NBCUniversal, Discovery, Viacom and others, with around a dozen or more channels each -- have worried about their fringe, smaller business networks in a future of “skinny” TV bundles.

Many network groups look to focus on just a handful of networks -- leaving others to fend for themselves. Viacom has already said it will be concentrating on six “core” network brands -- Nickelodeon, MTV, Nick Jr., Comedy Central, BET and the new Paramount Network.

But what about the other six to eight smaller-scale networks that big TV networks groups own? Does anyone believe those will make their way to new digital TV providers? These are services that consumers insist they will pay far less than the $100 a month or so for traditional pay TV providers.

Perhaps the answer is reinventing parts of those networks -- or culling programming pieces as the basis for new networks. CNN’s Great Big Story is one example of where stuff might be going.

Launched in October, Great Big Story quickly established itself online -- on Facebook and other social media -- producing three to five videos a day, short three- to-five-minute-long videos. It also wants to do longer-form TV stuff (like regular half-hour and hour TV shows?) as well theatrical releases. The network describes its goal as “cinematic storytelling.”

Its goal is to be a new kind of TV network. That would include operations on live, linear TV networks and OTT providers, such as Sling TV, DirecTV Now, or PlayStation Vue.

Great Big Story -- as perhaps Vice Media has done with Viceland -- wants to have a foot in the traditional TV cable network arena, with the other in new digital platforms.

Does that play better for traditional TV marketers? Given all this, big traditional TV network groups might need to think differently about their future.

Research: Marketers Oversimplify Complex Womanhood

Commentary

·       by Larissa Faw , Staff Writer, Yesterday

CANNES, FRANCE -- There is no question that women have made progress towardsgender equality, but new research released during IPG's "Through New Eyes" breakfast presentation at Cannes earlier today asserts that progress is not translating into advocacy for all women.

The research, a joint effort from IPG, Refinery29 and National Geographic, finds women are "demanding" to be recognized as more than whatever consumer category marketers tend to box them. More than half (54%) say there are too many stereotypes in the marketing they see, while 51% say there are too many portrayals "that are not relevant to me."

The standing-room-only event kicked off with IPG's Michael Roth introducing National Geographic's Jill Cress and Refinery29's Brooke Hinton who presented key findings from the research.

"As marketers we must recognize this complexity and move beyond a 'one-size-fits-all' approach, becoming more cognizant of the images and words we are using in order to truly connect with our audiences,” said Cress.

One in two women (53%) believe "brands don’t care about their personal experience," and 57% say the world would be a "better place if brands actually cared about who they were targeting."

The research underscores the point that today’s empowered consumer is forcing marketers and the content they are creating to begin addressing personal identifiers rather than traditional demographics.

"As marketers how can we all do a better job of understanding these layered identities?" asks Hinton.

Only 44% of respondents say being a women is a common experience. Other characteristics that women chose as “identity defining” markers vary differently by geography, age, size, and sexual orientation. The U.K., for instance, cares more about class, while ethnicity ranks as more important in the U.S.

"We found a more complex picture of what it means to be a woman," says Hinton. "How do we balance the differences with the common threads?"

Women also continue to struggle in the workforce. Some 70% of women say their workplace is not currently diverse and 34% say companies should focus on building an inclusive environment.

Seven in 10 women agree it’s important to speak up when you hear someone perpetuating "harmful-isms," yet only 24% say they’d definitely speak up if they were uncomfortable with how a group of people were being spoken about or marketed to in their current workplace.

Refinery29, National Geographic and IPG are planning further presentations to showcase the research and its implications via a series of upcoming industry events and content. The research included a survey of more than 4,000 women in five global markets, which was followed-up with qualitative interviews to further explore some of the respondents’ personal lives and societal outlook.

U.S. Ad Spend Rises In May, Digital Up 16%

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

 by Wayne Friedman , Yesterday

Reversing a slight April decline in U.S. advertising spending, May posted a 7% gain over the same month in 2016.

Digital media returned to its strong double-digit percentage gains -- up 16%, according to Standard Media Index. Big gainers here were social media up 59%; mobile ad networks 20% higher, search 18% more and content advertising, 15% higher.

Total TV spend grew 7% in the month. National TV improved 2% -- with broadcast up 1% and cable adding 2%. Spot TV buying tacked on a big 21% hike and syndication added 12%. TV networks’ digital advertising business grew 15%.

Other media showed weakness: magazines down 21%; newspapers, 23% lower; radio flat; and out-of-home off 5%.

May’s overall 7% gain was a sharp improvement from the month before, which had an 1% decline in U.S. ad spending in April -- with digital media up 3% and all television ad spending flat.

Looking at individual TV programming for May, advertising on sports programming on national networks dropped 5% (due to fewer NBA and NHL games) and broadcast prime-time entertainment was 4% lower.

For May in prime time, overall CBS was down 1%, with NBC off 4%, ABC losing 6%, and Fox sinking 8%.

Cable news networks continue their sharp gains -- up 16.9% collectively in advertising spend for the month. MSNBC scored strongest results -- rocketing 43% higher. Fox News Channel grew 14%; CNN, adding 12%.

SMI also said HGTV climbed 16%, while Food Network was 15% higher, E! added 15% and Discovery was 12% higher.

Another overall network winner in the month was Telemundo, up 17%.

 

Vice Media Ramps Up Millennial-Focused Media Effort

Commentary

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, 70 minutes ago

Maybe we need another big millennial-focused media company. The secret sauce? Think TV advertising -- way less of it. Some investors might be thinking along those same lines. On Monday, Vice Media announced Monday it has raised $450 million in investment from private-equity firm TPG. Shane Smith, CEO of Vice Media, told CNBC on Monday the new funding puts the media company’s valuation just under $6 billion.

The big monetary resources will let Vice grow, allowing it, Smith says to build “the largest millennial video library in the world... [including] news, food, music, fashion, art, travel, gaming, lifestyle, scripted and feature films.”

Currently, two of Vice Media highest-profile media assets are its basic cable channel, Viceland, and its continuing news/documentary programming on HBO. Vice programming is also in 80 countries.
Early investors in Vice include 21st Century Fox, A+E Networks and Walt Disney. A+E has a joint venture with Vice Media for its Viceland channel, formerly A+E’s H2 channel.

As for Vice Media’s media competitor with traditional roots in cable? Viacom is an obvious company. At Tuesday’s close, Viacom had a market capitalization of $14.1 billion -- more than twice the private-equity valuation of Vice Media currently. 

Smith told CNBC he has no immediate plans for an IPO.
“Our revenue story is getting better and better. But it has to be more consistent,” he said. He noted the company was looking more for the “hockey stick” trend line.

Vice Media isn’t alone  -- including digital media companies, with many channels on YouTube -- that want to be in the same space. At the same time, big companies like Viacom want to transform themselves.

In addition to its edgy content -- and to appeal to younger viewers -- Smith says Viceland’s goal has been to limit advertising to only 10 minutes of commercial advertising per hour. Many cable networks air well above this level from 15 to 17 minutes per hour.

So where’s the monetization with less advertising?
Early thinking was that Viceland would create special sponsorship/marketing deals. The jury is still out here. One hint in things to come: Smith says, “We are also looking at transactional -- direct to consumer [businesses]. And if we are going direct to consumer we need to build much bigger library.”

No traditional media company wants to be left behind when it comes to grabbing the next generation of adults TV viewers. So if Vice Media has figure out the monetization of targeting millennials, they want in. 

But are there any lessons to be learned  -- in the short term -- when it comes to traditional TV companies drastically cut back on advertising to keep young viewers hanging around?

Borrell: Traditional Media, Including Radio, Holding Strong

June 20, 2017

Between April and Mid-Summer Borrell & Associates asked over 7,500 small business owners 44 questions and has been pushing out the data in a weekly chart. In this weeks chart 1,907 local advertisers responded to the question about whether they planned to cut or eliminate a certain media from their ad budget. So exactly how did radio stack up?

Only 1 in 5 plan to cut traditional media. 18% plan to reduce their radio budgets while 6% plan to eliminate radio. 24% plan to reduce their newspaper budget and only 2% plan to reduce their digital ad budget. Here’s a look at all media…

Are you a boss who plays favorites? Break those bad habits

Joel Garfinkle

June 19, 2017

We all have some working relationships that just work better than others. It can be tempting to latch on to what has been successful for us in the past, whether that’s a certain style, a certain personality type or even a specific person or group. While it’s good to play to your strengths, there’s a difference between sticking with what works and being stuck in a rut.

Playing favorites leads to missed opportunities for you and your team. You lose out on new perspectives, new ideas and unique problem-solving techniques. The company can hardly benefit from the skills of staff that are never given the chance to shine, and staff that is never given a chance to shine may soon leave. Take a look at your leadership style and see if any of these habits describe you. Read on to learn how to break up your “inner circle” and build a better team.

Habit No. 1: Going with who you know

It’s great to have familiar faces on your team, whether you’re starting a new project or moving up in the company and taking people with you. While they can add continuity and get up to speed quickly with your working style, you’re missing out if you don’t add fresh perspectives and new ideas from new people. Don’t forget to consider people you’ve worked with in the past, too – they may surprise you with how they’ve grown and changed since you last interacted.
Instead: Balance your teams with a mix of old and new to keep both continuity and fresh perspectives flowing.

Habit No. 2: Picking youth over experience, or vice versa

Some of us are drawn to the brightness and vitality of young members on the team. Whether we see a glimpse of our earlier selves in them, or we are simply energized by the vigor they bring to the table, it can seem natural to give extra focus and attention to foster and refine that youthful drive. Similarly, it can seem logical to reward knowledge and experience, giving extra weight to the opinions of those who have been at the table the longest.

Either way, it’s a missed opportunity to only consider the opinions of one group or the other, especially when neither side will always have the whole answer to a challenge.
Instead: Bring everyone to the table and leverage the power of both perspectives. A great leader can combine both youth and experience to gain the best advantage.

Habit No. 3: Having one "go-to" person for everything

When someone comes through for us, we want to reward that with more and greater responsibility -- and so we should. It’s a normal part of business to help others grow into new roles. There’s a difference, however, between rewarding great performance and becoming lax in continuing to foster the skills of the whole team. Ask yourself if there really is only one right person for the task at hand, or whether there others on your team who need the mentorship and opportunities you can offer.
Instead: Reward great work, but make sure you’re providing opportunities for all your team members on the path to greater responsibility.

Habit No. 4: Creating a hierarchy

You may say your door is always open, but is it, really? Do you interact with many of your employees a regular basis, or do you have a more rigid structure where information flows through only a few key advisors? If only certain members feel it’s comfortable or appropriate to speak with you, you will be missing out on a lot of great ideas.
Instead: Broaden the number of team members you interact with regularly – in both formal and informal settings. Some hierarchy is helpful, but don’t let it prevent you from seeing everyone in action on a regular basis.

Habit No. 5: Being stingy with trust

It’s easy to fall into the habit of trusting only a few key people on your team. Whether you’ve had a few bad experiences in the past, or just don’t open up easily, sometimes it seems safer to minimize the number of people with critical tasks or key information. The problem is that those on the outside feel shut out and minimized, even when they’ve done nothing wrong.
Instead: Bring the team together by keeping everyone “in the know.” Your team is more likely to trust you if you trust them, in turn.

Habit No. 6: Preferring one style

Do you always listen to the first voice to speak up, or admire the employee who seeks you out with the latest info? Maybe you prefer to draw a well-considered opinion from the quiet one at the table. Perhaps the fastest troubleshooter or most organized presenter appeals to you. A team usually works best when it is made up of a variety of different individuals, each bringing something different to the table. If tend to attract and maintain a certain group of personalities, consider what you’re missing out on.
Instead: Value all the different ways in which people get work done. Make sure you consider and reward the variety of personality and cultural norms that can make up a dynamic working team.
Do you see yourself slipping into any of the above habits? While they all have good reasons to exist, consider how you can break out of your habits and use a more open-minded approach to get ahead.

Analyst: Upfront Forecast To Move Slower, Smaller Gains

• by Wayne Friedman , June 15, 2017

While TV’s upfront advertising market continues early negotiation talks, one estimate now says total dollar volume will be down by mid-single-digit percentages -- reversing versus gains of a year ago.
John Janedis, managing director/media analyst of Jefferies LLC, estimates total volume will be down 3% to 5% for all national TV inventory, with broadcast networks generally outperforming cable networks.

For last year’s upfront market, Media Dynamics estimated national TV advertising grew 4.5% to $18.6 billion, with broadcast networks pulling in $8.75 billion and cable networks tallying $9.86 billion.

This year, Janedis says to look for more big TV network groups to sell all their TV inventory -- broadcast, cable and associated digital platforms otherwise.

Plus, networks will seek more dollars by shifting to C7 from C3 ratings guarantees for national marketers. C3/C7 ratings are Nielsen’s average minute commercial ratings plus three or seven days of time-shifted viewing. The national TV market is estimated to be split 50-50 in terms of C3 and C7 deals.

“The desire for more C7 volume may also slow down the market, but will likely get done,” says Janedis.

When it comes to pricing, he says, the market looks to pull in “mid-single-digit” percentage gains in the cost-per-thousand viewer pricing [CPM], down from a year ago.

Last year’s strong market scored high 9% to 12% increases in CPMs for many broadcast networks, which quickened the pace of the market overall.

Janedis says: “We continue to think NBC will lead the market from a CPM perspective, with the rest of the industry falling into a fairly tight range once NBC sets the market... CBS will likely come in just below NBC, but more C7 volume will make it difficult to make direct apples to apples comparisons.

“Cable-only network [groups] are... starting to write small deals rather than waiting until the TV nets wrap up.”

Is TV Ad Growth Above Investor Expectations? -- RBC Capital Markets

A MediaVillage Community BY STEVEN CAHALL WALL ST. VILLAGE JUNE 16, 2017 We hosted IR management meetings in New York with representatives from CBS, FOXA, IPG, LGF, MDCA and OMC. Below we summarize the key themes/conclusions.  TV advertising is performing in-line with company expectations, but is it above investor expectations? In contrast to investor sentiment, Media companies did not paint a bearish view on TV ad trends. Scatter and Upfront pricing is trending healthily up, and in-line with their expectations from Q1 results. Upfront negotiations continue with media companies expecting historical levels of inventory allocations, more CPM expansion and a continued shift towards more comprehensive measurement currencies. Investor sentiment around ad revenues is decidedly negative, which begs the question that if ad growth for Q2 and H2 comes in at current forecasts is there upside to the stocks? With a decent macro backdrop, we think ad growth is more likely than sub loss to surprise to the upside. Content is King as the Bundle Fragments On the distribution side, the companies we spoke to are in favor of skinnier bundles, OTT platforms and vMVPDs as they each view the big bundle "paywall" as an accelerant for cord cutting and/or a hindrance to getting to premium content. We noted a common theme towards gaining and retaining full in-season stacking (not just 5 episodes) + library in new distribution arrangements to make the viewing experience more aligned with customer behavior (and SVOD competitors). Time will tell whether content companies can resist the allure of exclusive and lucrative SVOD sales for legacy content, and whether vMVPDs are effective enough to mitigate cord cutting. Subscriber declines are still considered the biggest risk to Media following the acceleration in sub loss seen in Q1. Ad Agencies: Business as Usual Advertising Agencies generally suggested that 2017 remains largely on track, with the companies guiding to organic growth of ~3-4% on average with no "new negatives" to call this into question. Weakness in retail and consumer products remains a hang-up for investors, while the Agencies tend to discuss the portfolio effect of verticals under pressure offset by verticals with growth. We think Ad Agency sentiment has improved over the last 60 days, and it's probably not coincidental with deteriorating sentiment for Media names. All Eyes on Q2 Previews & Results While the data points were helpful we don't think debates were settled in our meetings. Overall, we think conviction in the sector is pretty low as investors worry about incremental downside from advertising and cord cutting in Media and fee pressure at the Agencies. We think relative safe-havens like IPG and DIS are most liked with longer-term buyers, while most of the rest of the group remains a trading space in the eyes of the market pending better visibility of fundamentals. We thus don't think sentiment will meaningfully change until Q2 results provide more tangible evidence around the key debates. Local-direct Revenue provides a greater revenue cushion than does transactional revenue at net, says Dr. Philip Jay LeNoble, CEO of Executive Decision Systems, Inc. of Littleton, Colorado. Local-direct clients prefer to brand annually in most cases and are learning behavioral targeting and retargeting to capitalize on their net cash growth, he adds.