Plus 1.   Byron hit the nail on the head.

Ad frequency capping should not be challenging in CTV in situations you describe so well -- same show, same ad 15x.  I dont get it except to say that if you overpromise huge impressions, and need to deliver, you do those for the advertiser you like the best (who pays you the highest cost per impression).  Lower cost advertisers get few impressions at all, and the higher priced ones get frequency.

Am guessing that younger viewers spend more of their time on non ad supported sources, making it even harder.

A growing share of younger viewing going to non ad supported streaming (paid for by their parents?), lower ad loads, makes for low supply and high deman for whats left.

Josh, many people who watch streaming content also watch linear TV. Also heavy vieewers once they add streaming to their sources of content usually remain heavy viewers--so there is a huge pile up of ad impressions among streaming's top quintile--just like in linear.

Howewver, you are correct, that about 25-30%--mostly younger--consumers watch only streaming content while a smaller--mostly older group does the same for linear.

Finally, it's not a mad rush to streaming, it's a slow, steady movement in that direction. And the composition of the streaming audience is changing. The median age of adult streamers--per minute viewers-- is now about 44-45 years and rising. Sure, that's younger than linear--median age about 60 years---but the two platforms are going to look more and more alike as ad-supported streaming continues to grow and ad loads push upward.

There aee a couple of other dynamics at play. 

We know that tonnage of viewing is quickly shifting to streaming; and that impressions per minute viewed on streaming are way lower than on linear. But at the same time, the cohort of viewers who do most of their viewing via streaming are incredibly difficut to reach sufficiently. There aren't enough available impressions to go around to reach that cohort. And dumping more money into linear TV isn't going to solve that porblem, becsuse that's not where they are. 

But here's the crazy thing, and I do not have data to dupport this, but I'll submit that all of us who watch a lot of ad-supported streaming content know this is true. 

If you binge a show on an ad-supported streaming service, you're going to see the same as, if you watch long enough, like 15 times. Every time my wife and I binge a show with ads, she makes fun of me. "If you people are so smart, why did we see that Neil Degrasse Tyson TikTok STEM ad 14 times tonight?" And I don't know what to tell her. 

I'd love to understand this. Too many of us are primarily available only via streaming, there's nowhere enough impressions to meet the needs of all the advertisers who want to reach us-- but we see the same ads over and over. 

One colleague with HoldCo and network experience told me recently that he thought this is the dark underbelly of advanced targets-- that when targets get thin enough, each of us sees only the ads for the tiny target we belong to (say, lefthanded diabetic cat owners.) Dave, what do we need to do to fix this?

Good points, JWC. There's nothing wrong with segmentation--if it's done right--by considering the mindsets of various consumer groups as this relates to what your sales pitch happens to be. Even so, you will always wind up with the need to take various segments--however defined--that comprise your total market--and weight your media delivery accordingly--rather than focusing on the most promising group and ignoring the rest.

Hi All!

Exceedingly curious where option to buy existed and to whom.
Author, paid media insights?

Best

I would also pursue smarts over size, Maarten but many marketers have  gone in the other direction as they, too, morph into huge holding companies. As for how you find smarts in a big agency holding company, I suspect that it's there--but only if your brand managers are skilled enough to define and find it and only if they are willing to pay for it. The latter is usually the part that prevents them from getting the best service----you can't keep crunching the agencies on fees and expect to get super premium service---especially if another client, seeking the same thing, out bids you. Smarts is a limited quantity-- you need to compete to get it. 

The NFL is the National Pastime for the last 2 decades. I watch the Tigers in the back ground I watch the postseason as well flip it when the college and NFL are on a break for a minute or 2 in Oct. I prefer football over baseball and I like the changes that MLB has done to speed up the game.

In West Michigan Nexstar doesn't have to sell WZZM as they can just merge WOTV SAT with WZZM's SAT and you have just one ABC TV station in the market. In 2019 when Nexstar bought Tribune then owner of WXMI FOX17 they sold it to Scripps since they couldn't have 2 top 4 TV stations, as Nexstar wasn't selling the crown jewel that is WOOD TV/WOTV/WXSP.

WZZM bought channel 41 for whatever reason didn't finalize it to whoever owned WZZM at the time in 91 and LIN TV swooped in and bought was LMA and LIN TV fully bought it in 2002, so it would be full circle 30+ later.

I don't see Donald Trump running for a 3RD term since there is no way around it in my opinion. Only couple on the Dem side I'd vote for PA governor or Whitmer I'd bite the bullet and vote for her even know I didn't vote for her when she ran for governor of Michigan in 2018 or 2022. Or I'll vote 3RD party in 2028 if Trump runs again but I don't see it. 

He may stop himself, Josh. The man doesn't look very healthy to me. 

The number of things Trump has already done that are constitutionally prohibited is comically long. As with pretty much everything else-- if he decides to run for a third term, who's going to stop him? 

Dave, while you can still reach about half of the 18-34s and about two-thirds of the 35-49s with linear TV buys if you keep at it for many months, but you would have to spand a lot of money to do so and you would be piling up older GRPs at a phenomenal rate. Local news is cetainly not the way to targer 18-49s in linear and if you go heavily into sports the median age of your audience isbout 53-54 years and you get mostly males at a very high CPM.

As you say, advertisers have only just begun to get serious about streaming, but if they want a more balanced mix of media weight as well as reach among most age groups a combination of linear and streaming seems almost mandated these  days.

Curtis, there is no question that TV viewing among younger demos is much, much lower than it used to be. Unfortunately for marketers, they haven't transitioned efficiently to ad-supported streaming services at anything like the scale that they were available on national TV before. Their viewing is very fragmented and linear TV is still one of the more efficient media to reach them, particularly in local broadcast, where news, sports and diginets (extra digital channels tied to local station licenses) audiences have held up much better than their national counterparts over the past five years.

Regarding the CTV ad "inventory" problem, Brian is right tht it's a small part of the total--about 20%,currently, and that claims that Amazon is "flooding the market with CTV GRPs , thus forcing CPMs dows, is vastly overblown.

However if you look at the demos, you will find that most of linear TV's advantage is generated by old folk's viewing and this has no bearing when the buyers are using 18-49 or 25-54 as their audience guarantee "currency". Streaming's share of available GRPs among the younger age roups is considerably higher than its overall average and advertisers seeking a more balanced audience by age are using CTV to move in that direction.

Jack, linear TV's 18-49 and 25-54 audience comps are a shadow of what they were before streaming. Then about 40-45% of their viewers came from these groups--sometimes more. Now, it's more like 10-15%. As for streaming--I'm referring hto the major sellers. the broadcast network owned services, plus Roku, Netflix, Amazon, etc.--- their CPMs are now lower than the broadcast networks for prime time but higher than what most cable channels are charging. The buyers have made that happen. The mile high CTV "honeymoon" period is over.

I expect that soon all of the big agency holding companies will roll out something similar, just as happened many years ago when BBDO announced it's new, supposedly sophisticated, computerized media selection model. In no time  Y&R had one and a consortium of agencies was formed to back another model. Nothing came of it--but that's how the game is played. If one shop has a toy, everyone has to have one. 

I'm not saying that this particular initiative has no value nor that it's a "toy".Let's see if it delivers on its promises--unlike the agency media selection models of the past.

@David what's "Alpha Media?" Did you make that up because "Big Angry Internet Guy Media" was already taken? :)

There's a huge price gap and has been for at least a decade, if it's coming down, there's still plenty of room -- and my guess is camps agains 18-49 are also far higher and need to come down -- especially given the frequency problems we all know too well. 

LOL, speaking of facts or the lack of them in your post.

"Last week, Donald Trump, now the presumptive Republican nominee and very much back on the campaign trail..."

WTF does this mean? LMAO.

David - why don't you respond with facts. Explain why Tarrif's are going to make us 'ritcher' and 'safer' - please do tell. 

Save your anti-Trump rant for Facebook
Try writing something of substance instead of "Orange Man Bad"

Maybe they will revive that oldie, "Max Headroom", to offer something "fdifferent", Wayne. Or, maybe, "Kung Fu".