I mean, if they were looking to brand their LSD, I'd have gone with "Owsley."

It is pathetic that GOP must resort to misdirection in effort to gain support for their legislation. Just shows they have no meaningful evidence that a problem exists with current voting proecess. 

"While well-intentioned, this bill misses the mark by imposing broad restrictions on protected commercial speech that may extend well beyond advertising directed at children, while relying on vague standards that create substantial uncertainty regarding the scope of the prohibition," the organizations write. - Spot on.  Banning advertising to certain groups for products they are NOT prohibited from buying is over reach. Rasing children with healthy eating habits is a challenge that has existed for generations.  Banning advertising adds cost and complexity and doesn't offer reasonable chance of creating better eating habits for children.  

"Honoring our legacy". Too bad.

Here's a chance to totally reinvent Spanish-language advertising with a solid base of clients and a good brand name. And "honoring our legacy'? Clients don't give a s**t. 

If I could give a solid piece of advice to JP it would be "figure out what organization (never mind "agency") will make clients come to you and remain there, then build it"

The past is done. Se acabo. My favority phrase is "the best way to predict the future is to invent it". You have this opportunity. Don't waste it honoring the past.

The bill is a slippary slope in my opinion, and it's up to parents not government about junk food they know best for their household. I agrree with the groups that doesn't support this bill. 

Wayne, if you project the percentages in the chart to the number of respondents for each league, cited in the footnote, you get some even more interesting comparisons. For example, the NFL gets about 42% of all four league's claimed casual viewers while the next closest is MLB with 26% followed by the NBA with 18% and NHL 13%. However if you do the same thing with the avid sports fans, the NFL's margin of superiority shrinks dramatically--down to only 32% while the MLB and NBA score 27% and 25% , respectively. In other words, die hard TV sports buffs are much more into the MLB and NBA than the NFL. Food for thought?

Agree completely. What marketers really need to know is whether the cost of their ad spending is more than offset by the profit from the INCREMENTAL sales generated by the advertising. ROAS doesn't measure that in any way, shape or form.

Wayne, I might add that as "creator videos" are invariably much shorter in duration than preofesionally made content that in terms of the number of times the content is accessed --not viewing time--- the creator share is considerably higher than our chart indicates. 

Our subscribers also get a most interesting breakdown showing how the time spent factor varies by kids/teens, adults 18-34 and up to the 55+ age group.

Yes. Exactly this. Being itself is possible only in the specific time it finds itself in. If one is floating on an ice floe of only specifically tailored media experience, the "You" as an identity is less than the "you" that there actually is. The algorithm -- and the personalized zeitgeist it manufactures -- limits who we are to its own enframing (Gestell). We are rendered as standing reserve (Bestand), just waiting around as a resource to be further used by the very algorithm that put us there.

I saw The Odyssey today was going to see it on opening day but other things got in the way. It was a pretty good movie but a bit long in my opinion.

I totally agree that.

I have seen various 'reports' that were based on the duration of 'the broadcasting device' but not knowing (1) how many people per househide are watching (2) for how long they are viewing (3) and when 'the household' have stopped viewing, does the reported viewing timing be based on the household and not the device.

Dave, again, I'm surprised by some of the data you are citing re Netflix subscribers. For ecample, if they devote 40% of their viewing time to cable, that's way above the overall share of viewing that cable now gets--around 20-23% per Nielsen. So one can only conclude that Netflix subs are tremendous cable TV fans--which I find very difficult to accept. And you say that much of the cable fare they gobble up is non-premium in nature--like old sitcom reruns? News, I can buy and sports plus some of the better dramas and even a reality show like those on Bravo, maybe, but not way above the normal consumption rate for those genres. Same goes for broadcast TV. NFL games--yep and evening news, maybe, and certain specials and a few dramas OK, but not game shows, talk shows, small claims court shows, most reality shows, etc. 

You mention Nielsen as a source plus what sounds like set usage data from big data panels. Maybe you are being given set usage not viewer findings. I don't know. I'd love to see the Nielsen report that confirms what you are saying. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it.

Seems the key issue is not the relevane of legacy media but rather that a very large number of Americans lack the interest and ability to understand and correctly disect the BS spewed by POTUS , who has acknowledged his belief that repetition of lies will cause many people to beleive thay are the truth. POTUS is the ultimate disaster created by a malignant political system created by the evasive and non-responsive words and actions of the career politicans in both parties. 

Dan,
I don't deny the value of the content, but I do have thoughts on some of your points:
A. Viewing data from Smart TVs, set-top boxes & Nielsen show that Netflix viewers spend almost 40% of their time on low priced cable entertainment, much of it non-prime, and quite a bit of time watching linear TV mid-day. Both pools with low cost spots.
B. Yes. It uses its homscreen (as do the smsart TV's), but it has very limited inventory there to promote shows, typiclaly only one at a time. It's a very precious promoition position. Reaching millions of Netflix viewers when they are on TV and not on Netflix can only bring incremental value to their propmotions. It works. Entertainment companies have been doing it forever.
C. I do think that they have a content problem and agree that this is as much about programming as it is marketing. Suprixsingly, teh shows that are doing badly are the same ones that did well in their first seasons.

The real story here is how irrelevant the legacy networks have become.  We were told not to believe our eyes and ears when Biden was stumbling through every TV appearance - and they were few and far between.  So while Trump spews BS, at least we can see it and hear it for ourselves and make a determination vs. being told by the press secretary and presidential aids how "sharp" Joe Biden was as POTUS and how his own press secretary couldn't keep up with him.

Bullshitter or not - who the POTUS is or not - is irrelevant.  The legacy networks have little to no impact on getting general public interest.  This is not new(s).  

A.  Netflix viewers are primarily watching premium linear TV - like live sports - which carry a massive premium to reach a small segment who may watch a specific Netflix series

B.  Netflix uses its own homescreen to remind viewers of a new series and to watch a new season - the homescreen is tailored to each viewer - you can't get more targeted than that

C.  Maybe Netflix's programs just suck and that's why they can't get people to come back to a series or tune in.

D.  It's the content, stupid

John, with an 8% share of all TV set viewing in the U.S. and counting the total pop not just the TV pop, Netflix is averaging about 20-23 minutes of "viewing"per person per day. Of course about 15% of that "viewing" happens when the "viewer" is absent and another portion--say, 40-50%, happens when the "viewer" isn't actually looking at the screen. 

FYI, the 97 billion hours over 6 months average at 500 Million hours a day.   Given that globally the reported population is 8.3 billion, it equates to somewhere around 16% to 17% an hour per day.

Dave, the data I keep seeing re the viewing time of the Netflix versus linear TV audience tells me that Netflix more or less mirrors the profile of the total TV home population--that means that it draws a fair amount of kids/teens 15-18%---plus , younger and older adults and the median age of its average minute audience is probably around 40-43 years. Contrast that with the linear TV norms--kids and teens account for less than a tenth of the viewing, adults aged 55+account for over 60% of it and the median age of the linear TV average minute audience is around 63 years. 

I suppose that here or there you can find exceptions to the linear older audience skew--NBC's "Saturday Night Live", for example, or some of the cable stuff, but these are few and far between, I'm afraid.

If Netflix want's to buy time to promote its content and stimulate more viewing I'd try to work deals with other streaming services--if they are willing--as well as social media  and the podcast folks. Just my ever humble opinion, of course.

Ed, yes. I have verified the eMarketer data with our own direct viewing data from comments TVs and set-top boxes and Nielsen. The Netflix viewer is slightly younger and higher income than the "average" lienar TV viewer, but they both carry the same amount of average viewing per day/week, even if the Netflix viewer watches it differently, which they do. Basically, they watch quite a bit of TV, both streamed an in linear.
On the pricing of the under 55 audience on linear TV, it's all about how granular and deep your audience analytics are. There are plenty of them watching linear. They key is not to buy the shows that everyone else wants to buy. We are able to find plenty of younger consumers for clients at very good prices, and can certanly beat the streaming prices significantly.

There is only going to be 3 or 4 TV broadcast station groups outside The O&Os in the major markets in my opinion. Public Knowledge, Chris Ruddy the NewsMax owner and a few others just want to keep it status quo which just isn't reality. Even if polls show that the public wants local owners to own the broadcast TV stations in their area which isn't going to happen that has passed since the early days of TV, when a lot of them cashed out and sold the local TV stations that became big. As I've said The Big 3 non-O&Os will be Nexstar, Sinclair, & Gray in my opinion.

As for the cap I think 50 or 55% is good even 60% the 39% has always been too low in my opinion which I know ack in 2003 The FCC wanted 45% cap but Congress wanted it to be at 39% which they should've made it an even 40% in my opinion. Broadcast is facing Big Tech and other opitions than they were 20 or 30 years so many choices now than in the 90s or early 2000s.

Ed, Emarketer stats never correspond to Nielsens and I agree there is little relevance there. As far as buying airtime on networks, especially cable nets, there are many workarounds that can be used to obtain solid ad inventory. In fact Simumedia specializes in many of them. 

Dave how can that eMarketer stat about an average Netflix subscriber hold up when the norm for all TV home residents re their daily dosage of linear TV fare is only 2.2 hours per day and the corresponding figure among those under the age of 55--presumably the targets for Netflix program tune in ads--- is considerably lower. 

Traditionally, the variousTV networks and cable channels traded program promo announcements for free until they finally  realized that they were, in effect, promoting their competitors fare which worked against their own interests. I can't see the broadcast TV networks even accepting Netflix cash buys for promotional announcements--though I may be wrong about their level of intelligence. Some cable channels--sure--providing they don't feel threatened by Netflix---A&E, The Food Channel, Weather Chanel, CNN, etc., maybe, but TBS, USA, even Bravo, I tend to doubt it. 

As for the CPM differentials, broadcast TV CPMs are higher than streaming based on total viewers 2+ and go through the roof if you are targeting the under 55 crowd and this--as we reveal in our new report, "TV/VIDEO CPM track, also aplies to cable despite its much lower overall CPM.

I think you hit the nail on the head by pointing out that it's time for Netflix to stop trying to serrialize its shows across seasons. That's asking for much too much loyalty from viewers who now have an overabundance of  viewing options. It worked fine when Netflix and Hulu had streaming all to themselves and most viewers were young adults or teens--but not now. Give each season some sort of ending, then revive the series, with some new regulars and scenarios,  while keeping a hold on the original premise and theme when you start another skein of episodes. 
.