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. 
.

Spot on Jack. Netflix knows subscription marketing like no one else. But they don't know promo marketing and TV research stars like you and Howard delivered it day in and day out at massive scale for years.

Great points Howard. I should have highlighted the high amount of reach and recency that TV can deliver in tight windows ...

We now get to the difference between promotion for subscription vs promotion for tune in. Netflix may have mastered the former, but promo folks who worked for cable nets could easily do what's needed for program/tune in promos.  Howard saw it across Turner nets. Jay Leon, also at Turner, used it to maximize NCAA basketball inventory.  Just using a single nets own air has never been the ideal, even in the days of broadcast dominance.  Nowadays it's easy to find what linear shows watch any program on Netflix. A no brainer. Wonder if Amazon Prime and Apple are listening. They have the same lessons to learn from seasoned linear network marketing and research folks. 

Dave, incredibly smart thinking. I think Netflix is like Home Depot. Imagine you went to Home Depot without knowing what you needed to buy, and you spend hours roaming the aisle hoping to find something. You'd leave frustrated. I think searching through Netflix, without intent for what I want to watch, is equally frustrating. The other important benefit that linear offers is the ability to generate an incredibly high amount of reach in a day/two days/three days. Exposure closer to the point of viewing is much more effective than reach further away. We knew that from research we did at Turner 15 years ago.

Microsoft seems to always be introducing new ways to trick people into using their products. Very irritating. 

One thing is fairly certain. If the major KidVid sellers get involved rest assured that the "solution"--whatever it is, will produce the largest possible  kid's "audience" numbers.

TeenNick should shutdown in my opinion along with a few others from WBD & Paramount in my opinion would that help with this lawsuit?

I wonder if the 12 AGs would've sued Netflix if they got WBD merger before Paramount wouldn't take no for an answer?

From what I can see agentic media buying is merely a refinement of programmatic, with greater flexibility to consider alternatives and less rigid in its approach. I guess that's fine for digital display and search advertising, but I don't see it having much of an impact as a substitute for media planning or buying by national branding TV  advertisers. They have too many must buys locked into their "plans" and the upfront, which as a rule, involves big spending, lower CPM deals with a relative handfull of time sellers, doesn't really need agentic to make its critical buying  or selling decisions.  

I'm going to go out on a limb and say, Disney and Warner Discovery.

Excellent take, Dave!  The oligopoly is definitely a concern for the broader market.

Great one Cory. I think that a big issue here is that the market dominance today of Google/YouTube, Amazon and Meta in the market (no to mentoin TikTok), means that this is not a open industruy issue but a oligoploy competitive issue. They will publisher and utilize agentic architectures as they determine that it is in their best interests, which it certianly is. Given that those companies' market share growth is much faster than the total market is growing, they are eating up the rest of the market. Thus, I expect transformation to come form one of those three (four), probably to check moves by Open AI or Anthropic, will push agentic hard and that will then kick of moves by the rest of the market.
Interestingly, we've recently seen Fox Broadcasting take the lead in true agentic buying/selling transactions in both streaming and linear TV ads with their announcement at Cannes a few weeks ago as it works on building a reference architecture for the ecosystem with key partners. That is already causing a number of companies, from TV publishers to holdco agencies to streaming/CTV SSPs and DSPs to try to find their way to jump on board or build in parallel. My bet is that this sector adopts agentic transactions cross-company before we see it in the open web.

Joe, it has always been recognized that measuring children's  TV "viewing" is almost impossible without the use of surrogates to report that the kids were "watching" something in a diary or to press their buttons for them under the people meter system. The younger you go--say, down to two-year-olds--- the worse the problem gets. So I wish the folks at CIMM luck--but who is going to fund whatever solution they come up with? The sellers? I'm not so sure about that. And how will the methodology be validated? The only way I can see this happening for TV at any rate is via an observational methodology. 

The article should have said $110 billion. Thanks for catching that!

Gees Wendy ... if I could acquire Warner Bros for $110 I'd rush in as I checked the cash in my wallet.   Chuckle, chuckle.

Spot on as usual Ed!
When advertisers and "genuine" quality content providers listen seriously to Ed Papazian, who virtlually always "gets it right" plus their media agency research directors (some at least, and certainly the IPA, UK!), they will stop being hood-winked by the technopolies and their data walled gardens plus all this "alternative ad currency" nonsense, via the highly conflict-of-interest OpenAP that still masquerades as a JIC, on a variety of dubious media metrics that potentially misdirect truly effective media investments whether for ad campaigns or content development.  
I respectfully suggest that Aquila and its use of the technopolies' driven,"revised" and false defintion of impressions or opportunites-to-see, is a disservice to the entire industry.  Even as a "Commercial Goverance Tool" Aquila is also unfortunately weak as a result of the many scientific flaws across the various stages of the highly complex data integration and calibration processes and the resulting, so called, "reach & frequency" metrics - not to be confused with Reach and Frequency metrics of the past that had real value! 
FYI: I am a member of the WFA's HALO Industry Technical Advisory Group, HITAG so have attempted to understand the various constructs of HALO and its offspring, Aquila via ANA, US and ORIGIN via ISBA, UK as welll as, and most importantly, the companies significantly influencing the HALO model! 

Joe, I dopn't know why  we keep calling the so-called "alternative currencies" competition to Nielsen. They were never intended to be that  and the ANA's Aquila service is also supposedly not competing to be the single standard "audience" measurement service, either. . Whether that ends up being Nielsen's service remains to be seen--though barring a collosal screw up--- it seems that Nielsen is the likely winner in this regard. 

As regards the finding that the national TV industry can support only two standard rating services, it's extremely unlikely that this is what the sellers who rule desire. They would have to fund both competing services at considerable expense for two years or longer before feeling safer with one or the other. And then we'd be back to one.

What the sellers really want is a single, standard "audience" source that scrounges up every last tiny bit of "viewing" on any device, anywhere, any time ,so they can charge advertisers more--and I can't blame them for that. But it's up to the other side to be wary of these machinations as we were in olden times.

As I have said before, if the industry--not just the sellers---was serious about this it would get together, review the evidence and the capabilities of the various research companies and decide if  one or more  of the proposed "outcomes"--in addition to "audience"---will produce actionable results. These would then be standardized. Alll of the players--buyers and sellers ---would get such data for all sellers and all ad-supported content, along with the "viewing" data, instead of allowing each seller to pick only those "alternative currencies" that are favorable to it. 

It's simple. national TV time buying and selling involves comparisons between one seller's wares and all others. Without standard information--the same for everybody--like it or not--the system can't work.

It seems that the myth of amounts of appointment viewing remain with us. Andrew Ehrenberg and I showed decades ago that repeat viewing of episodes of TV shows on linear nets was quite low. If appointments were being made, they were more often broken -- because people have lives and other things get in the way. Netflix release of many episodes of a series all at once changed some of that, as people could and did binge. But still, the vast majority of tv tuning has always been just "stuff" to fill time.  Everyone has a few shows they hate to miss, and those are the shows folks remember. That's why recall has always been a miserable way to measure TV viewing.