Wayne, you can't really compare Adult 18-49 CPMs to CPMs "for all demographic groups". Ask SQAD to put the CPMs against a demo group that is the same across Network, Cable, and digital. It may well show that whatever SQAD is including under "digital instream video" has higher CPMs than network according to their data. I would also question how SQAD determined the 1% year to year drop in Digital.

I wonder what the CPMs are for ads that people actually see. BTW, just curious, but let's say woman watches a particular commercial on the network morning news (relatively cheap CPM) before going to work and then watches the same commercial in prime time on the same network (much higher CPM) when she's back home for the night. Why is there a different price to reach the same person with the same message on the same network? And why are we even debating this foolishness when that same woman spends two hours a night on Facebook where CPMs are less than a buck? Sounds to me like the TV guys have this perverted mess well in hand.

@Debbie, FWIW, I am the guy who, 32 years ago as a business development specialist for the CBS affiliate in Honolulu, first introduced "emotion" to the TV sales lexicon in the prize-winning spot I produced for the TvB's first-ever contest among member stations to produce an on-air spot promoting the use of television as an advertising medium (at least that's what it says on the FIRST PRIZE plaque I received). So, please, drink all the Kool Aid you want, but spare me the TV sales primer. And your response still doesn't reconcile the difference between the CPM in the network morning news and the same network's prime time CPMs, so you entire thesis sort of flies out the door. BTW, you can view my prize-winning spot -- which, admitedly wouldn't play very well online -- by simply Googling: Mike Einstein, Why Television Works.

Thanks, Darrin. Say hi to Larry for me.

There are simple quantitative reasons, too. The CPM is based on the characteristics of all 1000 viewers, and to say each viewer in the 1000 has the same value is not quite right. The CPM is an average across viewers, and some viewers are expensive and some are inexpensive. Let's give the woman in our example the same price in both prime and early morning. The difference in daypart prices is because of the value of the other 999 viewers. Primetime has more expensive hard to reach viewers than early morning - and on top of this there are a host of qualitative environmental and ad receptiveness factors as Darrin points out.

Timothy,you make no sense at all. The HUT levels in morning vs prime tell us that folks are easier to reach at night, not harder to reach. Same number of channels, just lots more folks watching TV. That's why they call it "prime" time. Just follow the money. Scalable reach is the only non-discretionary line item in most big-brand media spends, and TV is where they spend it. Better yet, try this one on for size: If you look at the weekly cume (audience reach) totals in any market for the four major networks, you see them each "reaching" similar percentages of audience, which, when added together, total more than 300%! Assuming you agree that there can only be 100% of anything (including an audience), these cume totals reveal that all 4 stations reach the exact same people -- over the exact same time period! And yet for some reason, media buyers and sellers -- apparently some folks here, too -- think there are "qualitative" differences among stations and viewers. Logic, common sense, and Neilsen, say otherwise. But don't despair, Timothy, there may be a place for you at McMann & Tate.

Once more for grins, Timothy: You have it completely backwards. The reason the nets can and do charge more in prime is because advertisers want the guaranteed audience scale and ease of buying that only prime time TV continues to deliver and which is MIA online. But the real argument against your "harder to reach in prime" position is the emergence of local news as the highest-rated, most expensive inventory on many stations. No matter how many distractions across the cable band and/or the Web, at news time, it suddenly becomes a 3 or 4 station TV universe. The point is, local news ratings in many markets now eclipse their affiliated network's best-rated programming, with prices in most markets to reflect the easy, repeat, easy way to reach consumers in scale. And your reference to cumes is dead on -- it measures the cumulative reach of the station, which was my point. In fact, the real irony hidden in the cumes is the fact that upon closer inspection, you realize that a consistent ROS schedule always outperforms a cherry-picked schedule of similar weight in terms adult delivery. And over time, say 10,000 adult GRPs worth, you notice that you're actually paying less for the folks in your presumed target demo than if you had purchased them a la carte.

One of the prime reasons morning news costs less than prime is the assumption that the morning viewer is putting on makeup and feeding the kids breakfast while she's watching. The prime time viewer has fewer distractions. I doubt that can be definitively proven, but I must admit, it passes the smell test.