COMMENTARY

Your Value Proposition Is BS

• by Scott Gillum , Op-Ed Contributor, October 24, 2019

Story time. One of the first agency assignments I had was to help an organization finalize their value proposition. It began with a call from the client who said their agency had resigned the account, and they needed some help with their value proposition.

She went on to say they had gone 400 rounds and still didn’t have a final version. Laughing at the comment, I then asked, “Really, how many versions have you actually created?” She replied “Four hundred.”  

Fortunately, we were able to get them to a final version. It lasted about eight months. Hundreds of thousands of dollars spent, and all they received were words on a powerpoint slide that was constantly being called into question.

The truth is, value propositions are meaningless words for external audiences. They may be good for helping salespeople articulate the value of the organization’s products and services — but at the end of the day, it really comes down to delivering on that value. A more accurate term would be to call it a “value promise.”  

Humans have existed on earth for thousands of years, but only in the last hundred years have our lives dramatically changed. Our bodies haven’t had the chance to evolve to keep pace with the rapidly changing world around.

As much as our brain would like to believe that we are rational actors, the truth is, we’re not. Especially deceiving is how we think we behave in a business setting.  

Research has shown that our brains perceive brands similarly to the way we perceive human faces. Our business relationships are similar to personal relationships, and as a result, how we assess their “value” very much comes down to basic human emotion of a “gut feel.”

Dashboards, RO!s and reports seem like great ways to prove the value of a service or product — but no matter how you might try to rationalize it, they can leave customers unconvinced because they lack a personal connection. That’s just how we’re wired.

So instead of spending your time (and money) developing ways to talk and demonstrate your value, invest in how customers experience it. Think about how easy (or not) is it to use your tool or service, the responsiveness of your account managers, help desk and service department. Can customers understand their invoice or bill — and the full extent of the services for which they are being charged?

For all of the advancements in technology that has changed our lives, our brains are not that different from our caveman days. They are built for survival. Our perceptions kept us a step ahead and “gut feeling” kept us alive. Those essential human attributes guide us in business today. That’s why customers don’t buy value — they feel it.

Video Time Leaps Among Teens And Tweens, While TV-Set Screen Time Drops

• by Karlene Lukovitz  @KLmarketdaily, 8 hours ago

Online video viewing is “going through the roof” among young people, while time spent watching television on TV sets is declining, confirms a new study from nonprofit Common Sense Media.

Since the organization’s last media-consumption survey among tweens and teens in 2015, the percentages of those reporting that they watch online video every day has more than doubled among both groups.

Common Sense surveyed more than 1,600 U.S. eight- to 18-year-olds in detail about how they consume media, including video, social, mobile games and traditional media including TV, radio and books.

More than half (56%) of eight- to 12-year-olds now report watching video daily, versus 24% four years ago, and 69% of those 13 to 18 report the same, up from 34% in the last study.

Further, the average video consumption time per day has also doubled among both groups, from about a half hour to an hour. Tweens now average 25 to 56 minutes per day, and teens 35 to 59 minutes per day.

Meanwhile, the percentages saying they enjoy watching TV “a lot” have dropped from 61% to 50% among tweens and from 45% to 33% among teens.

And both groups report watching about a half hour less of TV on a TV set today than four years ago: 25 minutes less per day among tweens, and 24 minutes less among teens.

Even among shows watched on a television set, most viewing is now time-shifted.

Teens now average 42 minutes a day watching time-shifted TV on a TV set (such as through a DVR, on demand, or a subscription service like Netflix), 38 minutes watching TV on other devices, and just 25 minutes watching programming on a TV set as it is aired -- down from 54 minutes a day on average in 2015. (The 2015 survey inadvertently excluded on-demand viewing.)

Smartphone ownership has grown substantially over the past four years among all ages, increasing from 24% of all 8- to 12-year-olds in 2015 to 41% today, and from 67% to 84% among 13- to 18-year-olds. Even nearly one in five 8-year-olds (19%) have their own smartphones, up from 11% in 2015.

Interestingly, time spent on social media has remained steady (down one minute versus 2015 to an hour and 10 minutes per day).

But the age at which young people first start using social media varies widely. Among 16- to 18-year-olds who use social media, the median age of first use is 14, with 28% reporting that they started before age 13, 43% at 13 or 14, and 30% at 15 or older.

Both African American and Hispanic/latino teens spend more time using social media than their white peers do (among those who use it, Hispanics/latinos devote an average of 2:23 a day, blacks 2:15, and whites 1:35).

Looking at the bigger picture, on average, teens consume a total of seven hours and 22 minutes of screen media entertainment (homework time excluded) per day, and tweens consume four hours and 44 minutes’ worth.

Among tweens, the total amount of screen media time has been relatively steady, rising by eight minutes since 2015. Among teens, the total screen time has increased by 42 minutes per day from the six hours 40 minutes found in 2015, although this change is not statistically significant.

Nearly two-thirds (62%) of teens use more than four hours’ worth of screen media per day, including nearly three in 10 (29%) who use more than eight hours.

Young people from lower-income households spend an hour and 50 minutes more time per day on screen entertainment, on average, than those from higher-income families: five hours 49 minutes versus three hours 59 minutes.

“We can’t say from the data in this report why this disparity occurs, or whether it has any effect on young people, either positive or negative. But we can affirm that this disparity does exist, and is fairly substantial,” write the researchers.

The study also found that despite claims to the contrary by tech companies, young people spend very little time creating their own content on screens.

“Screen media use continues to be dominated by watching TV and videos, playing games, and using social media; use of digital devices for reading, writing, video chatting, or creating content remains minimal,” sums up the report.

Total average media time per day, including non-screen media activities such as reading books and listening to music, is five hours 54 minutes for tweens and nine hours 49 minutes for teens.

The research confirms that reading has taken a beating in the competition with screen time.

Fully 32% of teens say they read for pleasure less than once a month, if at all.

“Most tweens (66%) and just over half of teens (51%) read for fun at least once a week, but 22% of tweens and nearly a third (32%) of teens say they do so less than once a month (17% of teens say less than once a month, and 15% say never),” sums up the report.

Further, “young people’s enjoyment of reading and their likelihood of doing it for their own pleasure drop substantially as they age: 38% of tweens enjoy reading ‘a lot,’ compared to 24% of teens, and 35% of tweens are daily readers, compared to 22% of teens.”

The report can be downloaded free with registration.

The survey was conducted online among a nationally representative, probability-based sample of 1,677 U.S. young people age 8 to 18 years old, using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel. African American respondents were oversampled to ensure a total sample size of 250 respondents. KnowledgePanel members are recruited using probability-based methods such as address-based sampling and random-digit-dial telephone calls. Respondents received a cash equivalent of $5 for their participation; African American respondents received an additional $5 equivalent to improve response rates among this lower-incidence demographic group. See report for more on methodology.

• 
  

When was the last time you called on a vet? Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D.

PETS

Consumers Spend $74B Annually On Pets

• by Tanya Gazdik , Yesterday

“Pet parenting” is reshaping the landscape for the consumer packaged goods and retail industries, according to a study.

Pets are big business, with pet owners spending upwards of $74 billion annually, according to Bigeye, an Orlando, Florida., ad agency that fielded the study. 

For the 2019 Pet Industry Study, in-house researchers conducted a 45-question online survey of 784 pet owners aged 25 to 55 across the United States.

Ninety-five percent of owners consider pets members of their families.More than a third (34%) of owners said their pets even influenced where they live.

Pet owners are the new parents, and young people especially see their pets not as a luxury, but as a necessity they’re willing to splurge on, said Adrian Tennant, vice president of insights at Bigeye, who led the research team. 

“They’re dressing their pets up, giving them nutritional supplements, and basing where they live around them, just as they would with human children,” Tennant says in a release. “And they’re increasingly open to subscription-based services that enhance convenience.”

Bigeye set out to augment its knowledge base for developing successful marketing strategies for pet care companies. It also sought to develop a free resource for organizations that provide pet products and services. 

“This shift toward humanizing our pets will dramatically affect everything from product design and distribution to brand premiumization,” Tennant says. “In particular, strong generational preferences will drive placement in media-buying strategy. Smart brands will listen to the voices of their customers and adapt to these changes.” 

Twitter Bans Political Ads, Globally: Says Political Speech Should Be 'Earned, Not Bought'

• by Joe Mandese  @mp_joemandese, over 1 hour ago

Twitter just announced it will stop all political advertising.

"We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought," CEO Jack Dorsey said in a tweet Wednesday afternoon announcing the decision to suspend all political ads on the platform globally.

"While internet advertising is incredibly powerful and very effective for commercial advertisers, that power brings significant risks to politics, where it can be used to influence votes to effect the lives of millions," Dorsey continued, citing a litany of other reasons why political ads are not appropriate on social media, including "machine-based optimization of messaging," "micro-targeting," "unchecked misleading information," and "deep fakes."

The decision comes as stark contrast to Facebook, which recently revised its political ad policy in the opposite direction, disclosing that it would not block or remove ads from political candidates that have false information.

Dorsey said Twitter considered blocking only ads for candidates for political office and allowing other forms of political advertising, such as issues-oriented advertising, to remain on Twitter, but said Twitter determined that wouldn't be fair to and is stopping those ads as well.

Dorsey said Twitter will release its final policy by Nov. 15, "including a few exceptions," such as ads in support of voter registration.

The new policy will be effective Nov. 22, in order to give current political advertisers reasonable notice.

"This isn't about free expression," he concluded, adding: "This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today's democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle."

Twitter’s decision to ban political ads likely won't have much of an impact on its bottom line, says eMarketer Senior Analyst Jasmine Enberg, noting “It’s likely that political advertising doesn’t make up a critical part of Twitter’s core business. And, given the nature of the platform, people, publishers and politicians will still use Twitter to discuss politics organically, meaning that it won’t fully solve the problem of misinformation.”

• 
  

COMMENTARY

Are We Losing The Spirit Of Radio?

• by Cory Treffiletti , Featured Contributor, 7 hours ago

Do you listen to radio?  Do your kids listen to radio?

Here’s a fun game to play.  Ask your kids to name a radio station by the call sign or frequency number in your area.  

My guess is you will be hard-pressed to get a response.  Kids today do not listen to radio.  There are simply too many other relevant and entertaining options. 

When I was growing up, radio was a key part of my music-listening experience.  In fact, it was the core of it, even after MTV launched.  I vividly remember sitting and listening to the radio, locked into PYX 106 or FLY 92 in upstate New York, with my boombox cued up so I could record the new Prince song when it played (hopefully without too much witty banter from the DJ).  I felt lucky to capture it, and never disappointed to have waited two hours for my success.  

Fast-forward to when I was an adult first living in the Bay Area, and radio stations were the core of local entertainment with their holiday concerts like “Not So Silent Night” or the “KFOG Kaboom.”

advertisement

 

advertisement

These were community events.  Now that community has changed.

Kids don’t listen to radio.  They listen to Soundcloud.  They listen to Spotify.  They may even listen to Pandora, but for the most part Soundcloud is the core of where they go.  

No more time-sensitive listening.  No more trying desperately to capture a song, because it’s all there all the time.  It’s a more consumer-centric approach, and it works.  

For artists, it’s easy to post your music, and it’s easy to promote through social media.  You can be viral, generate millions of listens and establish an audience long before any label ever even hears your name.  Artists get the leverage and consumers get exactly what they want.

The challenge for radio is that it’s not as much a life-stage medium as other types of media.  For example, Facebook is a website that works great for established yet distributed families who want to keep in touch.  It’s not great for friends who see each other every day — they have more immediate options.  

If you broaden out further, TV has evolved to direct-to-consumer streaming and is heating up dramatically.  Newspapers have found a way to remain relevant by downsizing but focusing on the audience they serve.  Movies has shifted their focus to be about the experience more than simply the content.  Radio, unfortunately, is still trying to find its way.

I used to love radio, but even I find myself unsure of how it fits into my daily regimen of media consumption.  I use radio for audio content, but it competes with podcasting and my own streaming music.  I focus on local news and traffic more than anything.  The only saved stations in my car are local news and a local morning show that entertains me on the way to work.  

Radio needs to find a way to resonate with the younger audience who multitask in a digital world.  I Heart Radio has done a good job of evolving over the years and reinventing its approach to live music, festivals and artist programming, but that’s only part of its success, which is tied to the ways it has embraced the digital landscape, too.  Not every radio company has done so as seamlessly.  

I have a heartstring to strum for radio.  I hope it can find a way to re-establish a connection with youth.  I hope it can become a viable medium for the future. 

What are your thoughts on the state of radio these days?

COMMENTARY

Determining The Value Of Legacy TV Versus Digital

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, October 25, 2019

Legacy TV companies might be pushing more advertising to newer D2C (direct-to-consumer) sites from linear TV networks. 

But what will that look like? Will marketers be happier? And what about those bad actors.

In a MediaPost Agency Daily story about the vying for Walt Disney’s big media account, a $2.2 billion piece of media business, the potential move focused on something called a  “share shift” -- asking whether prospectus agencies may encourage a shift in moving some of their clients money to Disney TV networks.

Sounds crazy?

Surely, media agency clients hearing this might have the hair on the back of their necks stand on end. At the same time, media agency executives told TV Watch this would mean any such agreement would also include a firm caveat: Would it meet clients' media campaign parameters and needs?

For the record, Disney representatives did not respond to inquiries by press time from TV Watch. The resulting winning media agencies: OMD USA and Publicis USA.

Digging deeper, traditional TV network advertising executives have long said their platforms are undervalued -- especially in light of digital media’s issues with brand safety and transparency.

The problem remains: What is the exact value of traditional TV these days? Where is the data specifically supporting marketers' efforts about what they can get from digital media platforms?  For many advanced advertising efforts -- addressable, audience-targeted, automated and otherwise -- this continues to be the goal.

Now, traditional TV owners have a different issue: The move to digital OTT services -- including the subset of connected TV -- pushing content operators to rethink how to sell new digital advertising. This comes as new D2C platforms -- possibly some ad-supported from NBCUniversal, WarnerMedia, as well as existing platforms, such as Hulu, CBS All Access -- continue to grow and/or start up.

But some unsettling stuff seems to be brewing -- that 22% of the programmatic ad delivery on OTT (over-the-top) and CTV (connected TV) today is fraudulent, according to Pixalate.

Legacy TV ad sellers have long talked about brand safety of TV networks/stations. But as they now boost their exposure in the digital fray, can traditional TV advertising selling executives navigate a new tricky path full of potential bad actors?

Radio & Television Business Report

• Radio News

All-Digital AM Radio: A Voluntary Option Up For Thought

By

 Adam Jacobson

 -

October 29, 2019

0

“Just as the FCC is trying to keep pace with changes in the market, so are AM radio operators,” says Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai. “The Commission wants to give them as much flexibility as possible to compete in the digital age.”

As such, an experiment presently being tested at a Hubbard Broadcasting AM in Frederick, Md., fueled by a Bryan Broadcasting petition, could become perfectly permissible for any broadcaster wishing to say goodbye to analogue kHz broadcasters.

In a blog post penned by Pai outlining the agency’s November Open Meeting, scheduled for Tuesday, Nov 19, the FCC Chairman confirmed that the Commissioners will consider a proposal to allow AM licensees to broadcast using an all-digital signal on a voluntary basis.

It’s a major step forward in allowing an operator to abandon their analog signal, and exclusively use an all-digital signal.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for MB Docket No. 19-311 was distributed Tuesday (10/29) by the FCC. It formally opens the comment period for those who wish to chime in on topics ranging from the predicted benefits of all-digital AM broadcasting to the interference potential of all-digital stations, as well as addressing the technical standards for all-digital AM stations.

“And because all-digital broadcasting would be on a voluntary basis, AM operators would be the ones deciding if transitioning is right for them,” Pai said.

The subject of HD Radio use as an exclusive way AM radio stations may broadcast was the subject of an in-depth report appearing in the Fall 2019 Radio & Television Business Report magazine, distributed at the Radio Show in Dallas and via PDF to subscribers.

The article noted that HD Radio technology in the form of digital-only AM broadcasts is being explored as the technical salvation for a broadcast band many younger audio consumers don’t even know exists.

Championing this possibility are two companies. One is based in Texas. The other is headquartered in Minneapolis and has a formidable presence in the nation’s capital.

It is at the latter company, Hubbard Broadcasting, where its Senior Broadcast Engineer Dave Kolesar, just may be bringing to life the biggest technical advance to AM radio ever seen.

At the center of Hubbard’s grand experiment, overseen by the Washington, D.C.-based Kolesar, is “The Gamut.”

That’s the branding associated with eclectic Class B WWFD-AM 820 in Frederick, Md. It has “AM revitalization” via an FM translator at 94.3 MHz in Frederick, and can be heard closer to the White House at 98.3 MHz — a second translator using a feed off of an HD multicast signal tied to top-rated all-News WTOP-FM 103.5.

In December 2011, an opportunity to turn a hobby of Kolesar’s into an actual on-air radio station came to fruition, as internet-only “Gamut” took WTOP’s HD3 channel following Hubbard’s acquisition of the all-News station, originally at 1500 kHz.

By March 2013, what to do with WWFD was asked by Hubbard’s local management team. With Kolesar’s “hobby” gaining traction — meaning people were actually finding The Gamut, and listening — Hubbard placed it on WWFD.

It ran as an analog station through July 16, 2018. Then, a most interesting development unfolded.

“I started asking what can we do with 820 to make it a player, and how could we
just get it so that people could actually want to listen to it,” Kolesar says. The pending arrival, in July 2017, of a Frederick translator helped immensely. “The listeners were there and dedicated, but it was just not growing in number,” he notes. “I just could not get people to try this Triple A music format on an analog AM.”

But what if it were broadcasting in HD Radio? Kolesar says, “Knowing that this translator was coming, I thought to myself that the AM was going to be useless.”

A thought occurred to him. “That facility was di-plexed, and on that facility was the iBiquity experimental station on 1670 kHz, where they were conducting field tests for all-digital AM mode.”

This early trial of HD Radio on AM got Kolesar excited about the possibilities for WWFD and “The Gamut.” He says, “I knew what all-digital AM HD could sound like, and the thought occurred to me, ‘Why don’t we just do that on 820?’”

A few weeks later, Kolesar headed to Las Vegas, and the 2017 CES. Spotting the booth for Xperi, now the purveyor of HD Radio, he walked up, introduced himself, and noted that he wanted to take one of his stations all-digital — WWFD.

“After the stunned reaction, a lot of planning and coordination, engineering and antenna system modifications were done over the next year,” Kolesar says with a laugh. Yes, they were willing to help. They just couldn’t believe that Kolesar was serious about, and committed to, his plan. All that was needed was experimental authority added to
WWFD’s license. This came, and has been renewed once, after a progress report was submitted to the FCC.

Among those who have heard WWFD in HD Radio is Ari Meltzer, a Partner with
Wiley Rein. “It makes listening to music on AM a really viable and almost indistinguishable experience,” he says.

What’s been needed from the FCC is experimental authority. That’s now set to happen.

It’s not thanks to Hubbard, however. Rather, a petition filed by David Oxenford, a partner
at Wilkinson Barker Knauer on behalf of Lone Star State client Bryan Broadcasting, is the catalyst for MB Docket No. 19-311. Bryan expressly asked the FCC for permission to broadcast in digital, minus analog; Hubbard filed comments in support of the petition, filed in March 2019.

And, it appears the Commission is doing exactly what Oxenford and Bryan proposed.

Oxenford explained that the pleading “does not suggest that any AM be forced to convert to an all-digital operation — instead it proposes that stations be given the option to make that conversion whenever they want … Bryan Broadcasting argues that this market-based approach — a voluntary transition to AM digital — may provide the answer for AM stations.”

The family saga behind Forever 21

If you have Forever 21 on the air and have not paid their ad bill yet from your national rep..get your money now. Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D.

The family saga behind Forever 21

Do Won and Jin Sook Chang and their daughters built Forever 21 into a global chain with more than $4 billion in yearly sales at its peak, before filing for bankruptcy this year with plans to close more than 30% of US stores and exit international markets. The insular nature of the family-owned business along with changing retail trends likely led to the chain's troubles, industry experts and former employees say.

Commentary

TV Advertisers Sift Through Facts, Lies And Audience Numbers

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, October 15, 2019

TV and other media news advertisers have a lot to think about these days, especially concerning news -- however one defines it -- and political advertising.

Two Democratic presidential contenders -- Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren -- worry about the accuracy of political messaging in the media.

What will change? Not much, as content and advertising ramp up over the next several months and into the 2020 presidential-election season.

There are some key points to consider from Shepard Smith, who announced his abrupt departure from Fox News Channel last week, the network he has been with since 1996.

“Even in our currently polarized nation, it’s my hope that the facts will win the day. That the truth will always matter. That journalism and journalists will thrive. I’m Shepard Smith, Fox News, New York.”

His exit comes after a recent on-air battle with another Fox on-air host, Tucker Carlson of “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

Smith debunked reports about the Uranium One deal with Russia and Hillary Clinton’s involvement. He recently interviewed former judge Andrew Napolitano who said Trump committed a “crime” when he asked for a “favor” in speaking on the phone to the Ukraine president.

Thereafter, Smith exchanged words -- on air -- with Carlson. Smith called him “repugnant,” which according to Vanity Fair, had the higher-ups at Fox News demanding that Smith knock it off -- otherwise he’d be off the air.

In response to the Vanity Fair story, a Fox News spokesperson told TV Watch that executives Suzanne Scott and Jay Wallace never spoke to Smith about Carlson, nor about taking Smith off the air.
He is off the air now. Critics will say that while Smith’s reporting was in direct opposition (factual and otherwise) to Fox’s higher-viewed prime-time opinion shows, it still has some straight-ahead journalists, including Chris Wallace, Bret Baier and Neil Cavuto.

Does that make things better? Here’s the score (make that estimates), according to SNL Kagan, when it comes to all advertising, affiliate and other revenues at 24-hour news channels: Fox News Channel, $3.2 billion in 2018; CNN, $1.59 billion; and MSNBC, $782.5 million.

TV advertisers go where the audience is. Facts, opinions, half-truths and all the stuff in between? That may just be content, not their issue -- until it is their issue and they decide to sit on the sidelines from “content” incidents on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” or “The Ingraham Angle.”

Commentary

What Would Ad Industry Do If It Heard 22% Of Nielsen's TV Panel Were Bots?

• by Dave Morgan , Featured Contributor, 3 hours ago

What would the industry do if it heard almost a fourth of Nielsen’s panel were bots:  frauds, robotic fictions, not real people?
Folks would be up in arms. We’d probably see stories in the ad trades calling for Congressional investigations, and networks and agencies would suspend their payments for the ratings.
Don’t worry. It’s a rhetorical question. Nielsen does NOT have a panel bot problem.
Juxtapose the anticipated rabid reaction to that hypothetical problem with the tepid industry reaction to research from Pixalate telling us 22% of the programmatic ad delivery on OTT (over-the-top) and CTV (connected TV) today is fraudulent.

What gives?

How come most folks yawn (or avert their eyes) when you talk about the clear, unmistakable problems of fraud and opacity in digital?

No one is yelling to the rooftops about the impenetrability of determining provenance, value and accuracy in data used in digital ad targeting, a multibillion-dollar market — especially when the data sometimes represents 80+% of the raw cost of a targeted digital ad campaigns.

Why? Because many in the ad industry hold new, buzzy digital channels to different standards than they do legacy media.

That needs to change. Digital advertising in the U.S. now receives more spend than any other channel, including TV, and there is no question that building trust and transparency in digital ad data and in OTT/CTV needs to be front and center.

What can be done? Here are some of my thoughts on where we can start:

Simplify the targeting data story. We may not understand meteorology and the science behind it, but we all know how to talk about sun, wind, rain and snow.
Meanwhile, much of what happens around data and targeting is purposefully complex. Just look at how much of it is communicated in acronyms, not words.

Ask hard questions about how shareholders’ money is being spent. This is not just about relationship management. This is about spending shareholders’ money.
Folks buying targeted ad campaigns need to ask (and have answered) key questions like: How do I know the data is correct? Where it came from? How it was manufactured? Did the data/targeting add value? Was the price fair, at market? Who made money on the impression? Who made money on the data? And, how many “daisy chains” did each go  through? Uncomfortable questions to ask partners and suppliers for sure -- but essential.

Do it now, before that targeting data “black hole” invades TV ad budgets through OTT and CTV. There's no question digital ad approaches are going to remake and revolutionize TV. That's a great thing. Advertising on OTT and CTV will be big parts of that future. However, let’s take the good and leave the bad behind. Let’s have a future of fewer, more relevant ads, with no fraud and no opacity. That will lead to happy viewers, profitable publishers and profitable, growing advertisers.

Get involved in the ANA Trust Consortium. The Association of National Advertisers is taking the lead here. These are the kinds of issues that they’re trying to tackle. Help them and help yourselves and be part of the process.

What do you think? Do we hold digital ad platforms like targeting data, OTT and CTV to different standards than we hold Nielsen and TV?