I look and if I want to get the item I'll buy at a later time or change my mind on if it is a want or a need, sometimes I'll ditch it but I never really put in the cart unless I buy it.

Wayne, the real  question regarding the "hit" to the incumben't NBA ad dollars is profitability. How much do Disney and Warners net from their current deal and if they wind up with fewer NBA GRPs to sell are they better off if they simply add more commercials and talking head content to compensate? Based on the stats cited, the NBA games constitute a relatively small percentage of their respective all-content ad revenues.

Good post Joe.

I like that old saying that the most accurate forecast is that forecast is rarely accurate.

Joe, I wouldn't be surprised to see one of these sources breaking out "programmatic" as a "channel" even though it's nothing more than a computerized media selling/buying system---not a media audience venue. 

good review, going to watch. Thanks Adam

Dave, some good points, especially about not just buying clicks, etc.

I see the potential value of programmatic buying---if issues like fraud, poor ad placement etc. can be solved. However I'm not so sure that computerized selling and buying is going to work for the major TV advertising companies or those who sell time to them. One of the supposed benefits of programmatic was that the computers could canvass all of the millions of websites offering ad time or space and, with the aid of targeting generate very low CPMs.However the costs of going programmatic are about 10 times the corresponding costs for traditional media---like 35-40%, or more. Supposedly the CPM savings justify this---but do they? And what about issues like reach attainment when the computers have no way to assess user duplication across venues or program content values?

The way things are developing, it looks as if 10-15 CTV ad sellers will account for 90%+ of CTV's national ad income for TV-style-advertisers and dealing direct with such a limited number of sellers is hardly out-of the question for a savvy media agency. Also, the kinds of sellers we are talking about---Hulu, Paramount +, Netflix, Amazon, etc. ---are not likely to turn over their prime quality GRP inventory to the computers, nor will the larger advertisers --many of whom have major "must buys" on their  media shopping list, be willing renounce these buys when a computer thinks that it has found a cheaper way to reach targeted audiences. Sports buyers are going to buy sports no matter what and the same goes for news buyers with news and those that feel they need to be in big time specials or simply in broadcast network prime time. These account for a huge share of national TV ad spend---probably around 50% of it.

So, I see a situation developing where there are two kinds of CTV buying---one as you indicated--- for individual brand buys---not the upfront--as well as small budget advertisers , local advertisers and direct response/search advertisers; the other for companies like P&G, General Motors, Coca Cola, etc. for their branding efforts. I also see this latter group transferring more and more of their linear TV ad spend to CTV--to the point where it accounts for 40-50% of the ad dollars---or, maybe more. I don't think that it's reasonable to assume that these advertisers---or the major time sellers will go all computer any time soon no matter what the theoretical  promises of programmatic buying---and selling---may be.

Just my ever humble opinion--which may change as future events dictate.

Paramount & Charter signed an extension as the deal was to end yesterday not surprised that there was an extension since upper management changes in the CEO and maybe being sold to Skydace or Sony. I believe that Paramount & Charter do reach a new deal.

I thought that Fubo didn't have TNT, TBS, or TRUTV. Reading that it was dropped a few years ago. In a dispute that Fubo and others complain about the rates and don't say what the rates are and put it in 200% in some cases seems to be what Dish says when I read an article about local TV stations going dark. Fubo for a long time didn't have Disney family of networks and no ESPN either, I putting Fubo along with Dish & DirecTV beng the worse not getting deals done in my opinion.

I am reminded of the chess competitions between Deep Blue and Garry Kasparov 17 years ago. Garry won the first match in 1996 but lost the second match in 1997.

Years later, AI has become a big "opportunity" but not for humans. Neural networks are here to stay.

Your move.

PLEX is a great app to add things to a Watchlist then click out to view if it's not on PLEX. Any show or movie you can search and it will show you where to watch it and you can click out of the app and go directly to your other apps (Netflix, Amazon, etc.) if you've signed in once. Easy Peezy.

Hee hee!

@Ed Papazian: Here's PQ Media's definition:

"Ad-supported media are considered to be those platforms that generate over half of its revenues from advertising, while conversely consumer-supported media are considered to be those platforms that generate over half of its revenues from consumer spending on media. The lines have blurred, such as newspaper advertising cratering over the last decade, while circulation declines less deep; while most of mobile and internet spend was generated by consumer spend on access (broadband, wi-fi, etc.) versus the advertising behemoths that Facebook and YouTube have become."

Readers should interpret that however they want, but it's a definiiton that has been used conistently for decades -- including by Veronis, Suhler & Associates before PQ Media -- to plot the shift in media economic models over time.

The truth is many media have multiple revenue streams these days, and always have.

The analysis is a way to look at where the perponderance is coming from.

Exactly right.  The vast majority of consumers shop based first on utility, with other values trailing far behind.  We see this in privacy and personalization studies all the time.

Joe, once again, I must point out that the ad-supported definition used is based on the proportion of support that comes from ads versus subscriptions, and does not tell you what percentage of all media usage features ads.

As I understand the stats, if a medium obtains 49% of its revenues from ads and 51% from subscriptions, it would be classified as "consumer supported". But it still sells ads and these are exposed to its audience.

Actually, the vast majority of media time presents ad messages---the major exception being SVOD and  digital venues. The rise of SVOD is the main factor that is causing a  decline in the availability of "TV" GRPs, however the influx of FASTs and AVODs in the slowly expanding streaming space may soon counter the loss of GRPs by Pay TV due to cord cutting. This will be especially true as the AVODs and FASTs begin to increase their commercial loads in an effort to become profitable.

I agree with that sentiment Ed.

It is hard enough to get unanimity of media owners, advertisers and media buyers in a single medium,  So I like your use of the phrase "each medium in a comparable manner".   Can I borrow it?

Barbara, I suspect that as I age my memory lags.   Can you remind me what you call a female dog?

Ed ... rock, paper, scissors?

0f course ed is right; i've been preaching this solution for ages, including comments on this web site. so how do we get a full court press by a coiple of major advertisers or the ANA? if they're not listening one option option--and it's ugly --is a full court press on the cfo's of major comapnies --maybe through an ANA finance committee. after all theses are the folks whose reponsibility  is to insure integrity in meda spend as well as other elemnts that marketers employ. 

going to the finamcial types will also make the marketing and ad people, including agemcies and their ad buying groups ,VERY  nervous. 

of course, one or two messengers may get "shot", but "C'est la Guerre"

Younger people in the business may have no idea of what happened tenty years that led to Dan Rather's downfall.  In short, Rather's presentation of hoax documents in an attempted smear of President Bush is viewed by some as the start of the era of "fake news".  For those too young to remember, this is a good overview and it includes the hoax documents themselves:
https://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/Hoaxes/cbsmemos/index.html

Wayne, if the 'legacy" TV networks continue to  compete with Netflix for the most streaming subscribers and are wiling to vastly overspend on Hollywood content to accomplish this goal---most of them will  operate in the red. The only solution ---considering the realities---too little viewing time/too many players competing for audience---is to eliminate redundant "me too"  services and to dramatically reduce program costs. Only then will each surviving service find out what its natural circulation level might be---based on the content it offers---and become profitable.

As I keep pointing out in various forums, the big profit makers in linear TV on a national basis were the cable channels by a wide margin over the broadcast TV networks ---despite the latter's much  larger audiences. Why? Because cable devised a better business plan---lower program costs, lots of reruns, more commercials and two types of revenue---ad dollars and carriage fees. Also, the average viewer devoted 4-5 hours per day to TV---giving cable access to lots of viewing time. In contrast, the corresponding viewing figure for streaming is only two hours per day, yet 10-15 major services plus hosts of little tykes are competing for this relatively small amount of viewing activity. It doesn't add up.

Hi Barbara,

I suspect that she wrote her book  for those who consitute her "base" rather than all of us. In which case she probaly felt that it made her look like a strong decision maker. Bad decision. But that's only conjecture on my part.

Hi Ed--
  I know that nature can be brutal and so can life on a farm.
What I didn't get was why she would choose to include this incident in her memoir. 

It would be great if MP dedicated this kind of attention and analysis to legitimate news outlets that ignore or fabricate real stories of significance vs. an outlet and an individual that has been considered a "rag magazine" for nearly 50 years.