I like going to the movie theater I go once a month which I just saw Master Of The Universe this past weekend was pretty good I enjoyed it.

Gord is right that as consumers we are being poorly treated. But we are only partly at fault. Industry consolidation has led to less competition which means fewer brand and product options for us. Consolidation also contributes to informal collusion and sameness among brands. 

Refrigerators? Yes, but let's look at the biggest offenders: automobiles. I thought they were for transportation, but I was wrong. Unabashed luxury, entertainment, phone, the internet, email, even massages while you drive. And at an average price of over $49,000 (for a "car," not necessarily the ubiquitous SUV), that's a lot of non-transportation-related add-ons.

But seriously, I didn't ask for any of this.  

Sounds like you're saying Make America Great Again - huh Gord? :-)

Dan, I agree with you about the familiarity bias in such surveys. Also, I can't imagine what a respondent is thinking about when answering about his "degree of "trust" in the CBS or ABC TV network news?   So what does a low score for CBS among Democrats mean--a response to the recent shakeup at "60 Minutes"--maybe? But does it also apply to the network's nightly news, its early AM show, its weekend political interviews? And more to the point, does any of this affect the response to advertising on those networks? 

The best way to go at the "trust" thing is to do it on a show by show basis--but that kind of specific questionning is impossible for the online researchers as it takes too long to execute. So, instead, we get highly impressionistic evaluations which may provide some interesting directional evidence--but little more. 

Seems like a highly flawed and misleading analysis.

The poll does not take into account the scale differences through the distortion of familiarity.  It's silly to take a broad poll where niche outlets with small audiences (The Daily Caller, National Review) are unknown to most survey respondents. This results in a high volume of "Don't Know" or neutral answers, which artificially compresses their scores close to zero (±0) and makes them falsely appear "equally trusted." Conversely, massive outlets (NBC, Fox News) are recognized by almost everyone, whether they watch or not, generating strong, polarizing reactions that pull their scores to the extreme ends of the spectrum.

It also treats entirely different content models as identical.  The comparison forces properties with fundamentally distinct purposes into the same category. It stacks a universally utilized, non-political outlet like The Weather Channel against commercial, 24-hour cable and broadcast networks (Fox News, NBC) that mix hard news with highly polarized evening opinion blocks.

I'd like to understand how they chose these properties and why MP, along with other outlets, constantly conflates opinion and talking heads with "news."  The Daily Wire's about section literally states that it is about "news, opinion, and entertainment...The Daily Wire does not claim to be without bias. We’re opinionated, we’re noisy...The Daily Wire was meant to be something unique in the right-of-center media landscape."

It's like asking who do you trust to get medical advice?  Your doctor, the Mayo Clinic, Joe Rogan, or Oprah?

It's not even close to being apples to apples.

If I was on that jury in LA I wouldn't have found YouTube or META has to pay as it is the parents job and they shouldn't have let there kid sign up for social media at 6 years old that is on them not YouTube or META.

Very interesting that "How Brands Can Finally Measure Incremental Growth".

In order to measure all brands, when "Can Brands Finally Measure Decremental Loss"?

Couldn’t agree more. AI may be the headline, but authenticity is what actually determines whether people pay attention, engage, and trust a brand.

The real challenge isn’t creating more content, it’s creating relevance. That’s why cultural understanding, credibility, and context matter more than ever. AI can help brands scale, but it can’t manufacture trust. That still has to be earned.

In many ways, AI is making authenticity more valuable, not less.

I've been watching this play out... the communications on air are so very non-speecific, Is it WABC (NYC area) or something more national?  Is it national airing of The View and ABC under fire?  There is simply not enough information to form an opinion...

TESTING

All sorts of questions remain. For example, aside from defining "outcome" fairly and attributing it to the agency's work, what happens if a brand uses a "creative" agency from one holding company--or an independent--plus a media planning/buying shop owned by another agency holding company. How do you negotiate the fees for both functions and how do you coordinate their actuvities as well as determine their respective contributions to the"outcome"?Or does it only apply when both functions are performed by the same agency holding company or a "full service" agency?

Also, what happens if a creative agency is being judged by an outcome that ties in directly to its work--like ad awareness---not factors outside of the agency's control---like sales, which can be affected by product quality, distribution, pricing, etc.? Even then, bad media buying might diminish the effectiveness of the agency's work--again without it being to control the media function.

At the end, the push for "outcomes" in both creative and media buying/selling is doomed because the party promising the outcome does not have control over most of the variables at play. Carry the push for outcomes to it's logical end and why shouldn't the advertiser guaranee the media seller a profit on his time or space sale? Sorry. That, too, won't work/

Advertisers, agencies and media sellers should do their jobs --but not everybody elses jobs as well. 

Cue, who was being honored as the Lion's "Entertainment Person of the Year,"

LOL, the only reason they did that was to placate Cue's gigantic ego, so he can still produce projects that very few people watch, especially Apple TV. But hey it creates jobs.

Strong placement and a clear point of view. Polaroid keeps finding culturally relevant angles without losing what the brand actually sells: tangible, offline moments. The data center hook starts the conversation; the camera gives people a way to act on it.

I respect your opinion on this, Cory,and you may well be right. I don't see it as a positive, though, if the direction of execrable, boring AI art and design are any indication of what AI will bring to other endeavors.

WPP still leads on billings, but Publicis is the story of the year. And if Omnicom had IPG for the full year, we’d be having a completely different conversation about who’s actually #1. Rankings are snapshots; share trajectory is the better read.

The Stanley Cup Finals should always be on broadcast than on cable I wonder once Paramount & WBD deal if the stanley cup finals moves to CBS than TNT.

Wayne, that's only an average minute rating estimate. Many more were reached at some point--or several points--during these telecasts.

Hey Cory...
Based on what you have just written about AI's potential to create jobs, I have a bridge you might be interested in.
Cheers George

Fascinating! 

Interesting that in 2022 the average World Cap viewing was 5.1 million for Fox and 2.5 million for Telemundo, in a 334 million country.

Is that based on all the games and all the countries?

Li'l Ol' Australia's smallest TV channel SBS's broadcast managed to produce a Total TV National Reach of 4.783m viewers which delivered a 3.035 National Average Audience.   Not bad in a 28 million population on our 'Population Clock'.

Oh ... and Li'L Ol' Australia won 2-0 in Group D beating Türkiye to the surprise of many.    Türkiye ranked 5 higher than the Socceroos, and USA ranks a further 5 higher than Türkiye ... would love a draw!

We are running ads on Broadcast, YouTube and Meta. The ad employs some good-looking food shots (if we say so ourselves). The comments are brutal.  "AI Slop" is the most common.  We commented back that it wasn't AI and received a response calling us liars.  At one point we considered putting a small graphic on the spot saying "produced with RI (Real Intelligence)"  It may be perceived as self-promoting, but it may cause critics to pause before so confidently attempting to belittle our efforts.  We, now document all our shoots with extensive BTS footage.

So AI is just like humans! Misattribution never dies. People forget names, people associate ads/promotions with wrong brands. In this instance let's not forget the adage "garbage in, garbage out. The web pages AI uses are not always right and unlike humans, AI does not have human intuition built from life, not web page experience.