@Ken Fadner: Good question. I have no idea if it was serendipity, or something else. I'm just reporting what happened. My guess is that Biden's travel plans were last minute, and I was already reserved in a seat the Secret Service determined to be the best available option and that they profiled me in advance somehow and figured I was harmless. It surprised me.

But Joe ... how did Joe happen to sit next to Joe??

Joe an amazing serendipity! Socrates famously didn’t want his speeches written down (on wax or papyrus), precisely because words lose context and can’t defend themselves once they circulate. Your piece captures that same problem in the age of AI, and your emphasis on disclosure and restraint feels like the modern answer.

Wayne, if the expanded station groups try to pressure the networks in order to reduce their share of the re-transmission fees they run the risks of the networks cutting back on unprofitable national programming thereby creatng voids which they, the stations , would have to fill. Worse, such "pressure" may cause the networks to accelerate their thinking about how to sever their ties with specific station affiliates and opt for more flexible content distribution methods. At present, they are only  thinking about such moves but taking no action. Why speed up the process?

Dan, no question that my statement relative to media was a broad, over generalization and extreme. That was i's point. I personally work around linear TV advertising, and used to work in newspapers before entering the digital world, so I know well the power and resilience of older forms of media distribution. However, I don't think that anyone a few decades ago would have anticipated the develop;ment of trillion dollar value digital utility companies with profits fueled significantly or entirely by "commercial communication" (advertising) and every other media company in the world added up still pale in comparison to them. Thus, I call them obsolete because I don't know that they are survivable. I don't know how they will acquire customers, advertisers and the capital needed to serve them in this new media environment.

Statements like “media from ten years ago is already obsolete” are not bold insights — they’re provably false generalizations made by people who don’t work with media that delivers real reach, real trust, and real results.

AM/FM radio reaches roughly 90% of U.S. adults, dominates in-car listening, and remains the most scalable ad-supported medium in America — exactly as it has for decades. People still drive. They still commute. They still listen. None of that disappeared because a new dashboard or AI headline arrived.

What’s obsolete isn’t media — it’s lazy thinking that assumes new technology automatically replaces human behavior. History is littered with that mistake.

In 1894, experts confidently warned cities would drown under horse manure within 50 years. They called it inevitable. They were wrong. Innovation didn’t destroy transportation — it evolved it. The Great Horse Manure Crisis wasn’t solved by declaring horses obsolete; it was solved by better systems.

Calling enduring media like radio obsolete smells a lot like that manure.

Radio isn’t “legacy media.” It’s infrastructure — resilient, trusted, and aligned with how people actually live. You don’t tear out infrastructure just because it’s old; you build smarter systems on top of it. Electricity isn’t obsolete because it’s old — neither is radio.

If the argument is that buying models, measurement frameworks, or integration strategies must evolve, that’s fair. They must.

But dismissing media with demonstrable reach and proven effectiveness as obsolete isn’t forward-thinking.

It’s historically ignorant — and factually wrong.

RE: "In athletic footwear, consumer demand for “fit and comfort” increased nearly 35%, allowing Skechers to kick Nike aside" 

This rationale for brand change is not brand or loyalty, but mass cultural acceptance of comfort apparel & clothes to be everywhere.

It's less an I hate this brand an now llust after this brand... than a categorical decision that performance athletics is not my lifestyle. 
Casualization (Americans turning into shlump) is not loyalty... unless other comp brands are being bypassed for Sketchers.
As an athletic person, Sketchers has never crossed my mind. But I have no loyalty to Nike vs Adidas vs UA... I end up with more Nike & UA, but its based on fabric and fit and use.
Loyalty is not there, as I do not care in the slightest about the logo. In fact, I'd rather the logo not be there... then it would be marketed cheaper.

In short, the "consumer" is not 1 persona. If ATHLETES are purposely choosing Sketchers for the name, then Nike, Adidas and UA are in serious (categorical) trouble.

Cory, I strongly concur. with you.

I recently needed to buy a new mobile.  Same brand.  I was stunned by how much more crap appeared out-of-the-blue.   One example ... for unknown reasons photographs appear ...not mine but apparently other parties (AI I bet) link their photo with mine and thought I'd appreciate it.

Yes, AI will work on tidying it up ... but I bet that the scammers will negate that barrier.

This :30 Target spot is also running on digital screens in 3,700+ gyms this month via GymTV (shamless self-promotion :) )

I'll check it out I watched a few of the talk shows Ricki Lake, Montel Williams etc. Sometimes Jenny Jones, I'm a sucker for these type of shows a look back.

Yes but "if you build it, will they come*"? 

As someone who lived and breathed MTV as a viewer and superfan, later with the fortune to work there, this article and others neglect to explain why MTV stopped airing so many videos in the first place. The answer: advertising dollars. 

At a time when Nielsen was measuring TV in 15-minute increments and music videos lasted 3-5 minutes each, viewers were simply not sticky with MTV's video rotating format. I myself changed the channel if a video I did not like (too pop! too mainstream!) suddenly came on. A fickle teen/young adult audience would abandon the channel and fail to contribute to consistent viewership patterns. 

Cable networks had affiliate carriage fees and had to support themselves and their programming with advertising dollars. At the start, MTV wasn't cutting it, ratings were low. Thus began the "120 Minutes" music block, "Yo! MTV Raps" block, and so on. Viewership increased as like minded fans stuck around to watch videos of their chosen genres. Then came the :Remote Control" game show, followed by "The Real World," and a whole host of other longer-format, eyeball sticking content. This drove ratings and ad dollars, as did the various awards programs and sporting competition shows. Over time, the longer programming format worked for MTV in driving revenue, so the network ended up only airing the music video blocks during the already low-rated overnight television viewership daypart. 

It's wild to think You Tube, TikTok and other short form content vehicles are the norm these days and that MTV may strive to return to that format. Cable providers and YouTube have had designated music genre channels for some years now. How this will manifest on MTV remains to be seen, and one has to wonder *what will happen to the advertising dollars. Can the network sustain itself? 

I wonder if Freston spent an hour with YouTube Music, Spotify, or Pandora.

What about presenting the music contextually -- in terms of "focus," "workout," "dinner" and "sleep" specific areas? Perhaps we can think of MTV as an AI-helped digital streamer curating and personalizing music.

These already exist on those platforms, and I'm a big fan of YT Music recommendations based on context or genre or activity.  Celebrity playlists and community playlists have existed on these platforms for...ever!

Seems like MTV is still a victim of it's past mistakes and woefully behind in its approach.

Hi Elisa, remember me from our Chevron days? Love this article and very spot on. 

I'm a market-timing sort of gal. Reach people at the right time if you want impact. New Homeowners, Turning 65-ers, New Mortgage Holders, New Movers.....targeting by need.

Good one, Maarten and very important for adverrtisers to heed. The problem is that the advertisers are not an organized or unified body that will take concerted action. You need something else--dare I say it----governmenal regulation with real penalties imposed for situations such as you described as well as the fraud issue, generally. Yes, I know that any governmental initiative will, no doubt, lead to bureaucratic behavior and might be counter productive in the long run. But how else do you get something really done--at scale--to remedy the situation?

I have watched all those Amish series Amish In The City was on UPN in summer of 2004, the rest were on TLC like Suddenly Amish starting on Tue, I'll check it out sounds good I couldn't live the Amish life style just not my thing.

I'd do it if it was free and just for fun and win a little bit wouldn't play for a fee. I know it has a market if it didn't wouldn't see the light of day if it didn't have a market.

Very well and good, but the best path for safety is to restore some physical controls to reduce time spent looking at the screen

If Mr. Craig Charney worked or supported USAID, as his bio reads, then I have doubts surrounding the legitimacy of his comments or research.  

John, of course it's unreasonable to expect any research design to produce a 100% accurate--or "perfect" ---result. Indeed, there's no way to determine what's 100% accurate. The problem is that the people meter was designed to fix problems with the diary method, but it was never seriously expected to produce what's being asked of it--second by second viewing information.

The diaries were set up way back when by ARB to  note whether a person was "watching" a program--not how intently nor at any particular moment. At the outset, the household diaries tracked extremely well with the meters re set usage as most homes had a single receiver and the diary keeper was present much of the time when a set was in use. So there was little  memory loss or ignorance about the set being used and who was present. As time passed, with more sets per home and fewer viewers per set, coupled with declining cooperation rates, the validity of the diaries was questionsed--so the solution was the peoiple meter--in effect, an electronic diary supposedly catching the "viewing" as it happened. 

The problem is that even then it was known that many "viewers" left the room from time to time and many who remained were not attentive--especially to commecials--I cover all of this in my book. But nobody seemed to care--until now, when we  have finally awakened to understand what was always obvious. Our estimates of commercial "viewing" are grossly inflated. If we really want commercial ratings and, by that, we mean "viewing" not set usage, then it's time to retire the people meters and switch to an observational method to "photograph" the "audience on a second by second basis. 

"Like all of the late-night talk shows of the last 10 years or so, "The Late Show" is aimed at the left, not the right, thereby alienating half the country."

The first incorrect assumption is that "all the late-night talk shows in the last 10 years" are aiming towards a policial leaning audience.

The incorrect statement is that Colbert is "alienating half the country" because Gallup and Pew consistently show that at least 1/3 of Americans identify as moderate or independent.

When you open a show and spew the same, repetetive hard left leaning diatribe hating the republican party and/or the president, you just alienated 66% of your potential audience who doesn't care if you have intellectuals or movie stars or musicians as guests - they just want to be entertained.

A ten minute monologue telling you why you should be mad every night before you go to bed is not something the audience wants.

And it makes no business sense at all to have 200 staff to run a show driven by an ideological jester.  Take out the band, camera people, and lighting folks, what is everyone else doing?  Do you need 10 writers for a 10 minute monologue every night? What are the other 150 people doing?

People want to be entertained and chill and relax and laugh before they go to sleep - not be yelled at and lectured about the same political issue(s) night after night.  And why an advertiser would want to be associated with such "comedic" vitrol every night is head scratching.

Hi Ed.

I understand your commensts and questions Ed.   Having being a Nielsen statistician for 7+ years in the 1990's, and then for a leading agency in Australia until OzTAM started their TV ratings (utilising the Nielsen Panel, their meter usage, and their mathematical methods) I was appointed by the MFA (Media Federation of Austrlalia) to investigate all sorts of deep-data.

Yes, I agree that Nielsen does not know if anyone is in the room at any point of time.   (P.S. they might be in the room but snoozing ... count them or not?).

In fact, I go a step further and say that absolutely no research cannot produce information with 100% pure accuracy.   If anyone wants perfection of the inclusion of people's beliefs, numeration, time frames, genders, locations, ages etc. they will never be happy.

In my 35 years of TV (and press, print, radio, cinema, internet etc.) I've focussed on the production of 'usable' data that the masses of publishers, agencies and marketers can accept as reasonably strong enough to trade upon.

John, the 42,000 people meter panel is, Ibelieve,  a combination of about 27,000 actual people meter homes with about 15,000 meter-only homes drawn from Nielsen's local market rating panels. So right away, there are internal weighting questions. As for how they handle the melding of STB and smart set data I din't know, nor can I explain what they do when a home has two kinds of sets--"smart" and "dumb" ones. I assume that both kinds are tracked. 

One thing that I do know is this. Nielsen does not know if anyone is in the room and watching at any given point in time. The people meter was never capable of obtaining such information with any degree of credibility. Instructions are given, prompts flash on the screen urging micro-cooperation, but most of the time the panelists ignore them--it's simply asking too much of them. Who is going to press their  button on and off every time they leave the room or aren't paying attention, then press it again when they return or resume  "watching"? Answer: nobody.

I cover all of this and much more in my new book about TV, "TV Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow", which will be published shortly.