I believe that Amazon blocked Muse because an AI-enabled Shopify-Meta ecommerce alliance is something Amazon is worried about.

Agree with the spirit of this and a good reminder. Creative diversity has two sides to it - one is you need a cohesive message so while color variation isn't enough, too many different concepts aren't going to work either and dilute the effect. A lot has been written about one big brand platform and a "lot of littles" across channels and formats - i.e., tying cohesion and coherence without too much singlemindeness. 

Josh, I think we’re coming at the same issue from two sides. As AI agents create more legitimate activity, distinguishing machine activity from genuine human response becomes increasingly important. Attention, emotion, and specifically resonance are human signals.
I believe that verified human actions and outcomes can provide another layer of proof. Perhaps measurement can use both.

Skydance needs to sell CNN immediately! to have accurate newscast you have to have the progressives with the conservatives. CBS is going to start being conservative!

A couple of tangentially related things.

1. All the standards for measurement (MRC, etc.) stipulate the filtration of non-human traffic as invalid. Now much of it is not only valid, but desirable. That's non-trivial. Measurement standards-setting entities will have their work cut out for them. 

2. Bots don't click. But they also don't exhibit attention, emotion, resonance, or even eyes-on, which are all things we're used to wanting our advertising to elicit, and that we endeavor to measure. Bots won't respond to humor or sex appeal. You can't tug at a bot's heartstrings. So the entire 150-plus year-old art of creating advertising is going to have to change. 

Tony, I agree with your reference to the resonance and impact of the creative message. Bill Harvey and RMT have demonstrated the importance of creative resonance in driving advertising effectiveness. Attention matters, but ultimately, we also need to connect that attention and resonance to independently verified consumer actions and outcomes.

As a member of the WFA HALO Technical Advisory Group, HITAG, and based on in-depth discussions with various technical data integration/calibration/projection experts, I would remind everyone that the HALO construct, on which Aquila (ANA) and ORIGIN (ISBA) are based, contains fundamental flaws. 
In addition, so called "viewable impressions" (MRC/iab) used extensively by digital social media are typically non-independently verified "content-rendered-counts" with no consumer or persons-based contact/exposure or Eyes/Ears-On measurement. They therefore reflect neither REAL OTS nor certainly persons-based attention metrics.  Per The Attention Council, "No attention - there can be no outcomes." 
Considering Ed's terrific points, there are multiple relatively basic reasons as to why major media should not buy into these surely problematic CMM models and why digital social media are strongly supporting them, not the least of which is the undue influence of Google on their development. These industry entities were asked to explicitely define the basis of their "impressions" used for estimating reach and frequency. We are still waiting for an answer!   
Please remember that outcomes, while the unequivocal brand campaign goal, depend to a much greater extent on the resonance and impact of the creative message versus the the media audience (actually exposed media vehicle by media vehicle!) albeit together with each media's potential associated brand and creative related attributes.  Various media attributes can significantly enhance the vitally critical "attention" levels required and the relative cost effectiveness of achieving them.  

Dave, completely agree. So what-now what?  Perhaps technology could be part of the answer. If AI is creating sophisticated bots, why not fight fire with fire and use equally sophisticated AI bot-detection technology to distinguish automated activity from real human response?           
The next challenge may not be measuring more activity, but determining how much of it is actually human.

Frank, I believe that making the media guarantee outcomes is a hidden objective of Aquila and this is where we run into difficulties due to the ability to ascribe results seller by seller as a new form of currency. An overall mix of media elememnts may be found to produce the best results but that doesn't have to apply to every component of the plan. Some media will be used more to attain reach, others more for refined targeting or controlled frequuency and the CPMs wil vary acordingly. 

Also, when it comes to buyng time or space, you need a common metric for all sellers, not just any metric the seller is willing to supply data on. So, at the end, you will probably buy on audience--perhaps modified by attentiveness--- not an assortment of currencies. And most sellers will not guarantee much beyond what the source tlls them is to be expected by type of product.

Joe, I have no doubt that you are right about Helen using it for her clients.

My question is how frequently if they have to pay for it each time and the results are found to be highly predictable.

Next step, media mix modelling?

It should be noted that Aquila is not being sold to the media--I believe---which is a mistake as they have something promotionally to gain from it.

But my main issue is wth the underlying assumption that the data will be comparable enough to  evaluate audio, TV, video and print media mixes fairly and with that, another likely underlying or implied assumption which would lead to media sellers guarantiing mostly  outcomes, not just audience.But that's another discussion.

Ed and Joe, I think this discussion gets to the "heart of where measurement is heading." Cross-media reach and frequency establish exposure, but the next layer is determining what consumers actually do as a result. Connecting exposure to independently verified consumer actions and outcomes could ultimately make the measurement far more actionable for advertisers.

@Ed Papazian: I think Helen Katz will be among the main users -- and I think she was speaking on behalf of her clients (which currently are among the biggest Aquila initial supporters) -- and that the whole point of Aquila is to paradigm shift from a media impressions-centric mindset to a consumer-centric one, looking at advertising effects across the broad spectrum of media they are exposed to. But I'm just reporting on what she said publicly, so what do I know.

Joe, that's fine, but the main users will be advertisers and I suspect that they will be mainly concerned about possible advertising effects like brand awareness, message registration, sales, etc. Hrer's a link to a piece I wrote on Linkedin on this subject --if it connects:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/edward-papazian-84471420/recent-activity/all/

@Ed Papazian: Well, if you read what Helen Katz said, the whole point is NOT looking at advertising exposure from a media "impressions" level, per se, but looking at it from a consumer POV: "We are measuring what media they are using and they're not differentiating between, 'Oh, this is display and this is podcast, you know. And this structure will help enable us to do that."

But what are they going to use to determine an "impression" --let alone the ad reach---for audio or a  display page in a newspaper, magazine or website?

And is it a real problem from a media planning--not buying---standpoint that is being dealt with? Does it really matter if a media planner estimates that a certain media mix may generate a 65% reach and 6.6 frequency  per month next year and an actual tally finds that the "correct" numbers were 63% and 6.9.

A similar enterprise has been operating in Great Britain for some time and what they have found is that it is not used very often because once a basic layer of tabs is performed the results become highly predictable---which is what media planners have  found for TV over the years. 

Thanks, Frank! I'll also add that creative is also an optomization lever - good creative is required to win quality bids as well these days. Without good creative you start losing opportunities to even reach quality customers. 

Adam, is it possible that instead of the 'traditional rating' (i.e. the more accuarate rating based on the total of duration per viewer) could be based on other 'rating methods' (such as having something like 1 minute counts the same as 1 hour)?

In Australia we report the 'average audience rating' and also append with the 'gross audience rating'.  For example the average audience may have been 4.5m of 7.3m partial viewers.

The importance is that accounts are paying for their ads which are expensive, and therefore they rely on and need to be closer to realistic audience.

Mike, I agree, it is the creative that will earn the viewer’s attention and ultimately motivate actions that measure outcomes.

Hey Joe, I believe Aquila’s expansion across media is another important step toward a more unified and transparent measurement ecosystem. Understanding reach and frequency across platforms is essential. However, the next evolution will be connecting that exposure to verified consumer actions and outcomes. 

If anyone asks you what is the very best possible way you can earn a living, do not tell them you play the pianno in a brothel, tell them you work for Rich and Jeff.

I'm not interested in short form dramas for a minute or 2 I'm more into long form dramas on what you see on broadcast, cable, & streaming. There is a niche market for it why it will be here to stay but not everyone will be into 1 or 2 minute micodramas. 

Quite interesting that "X has launched a new rewards program asking creators to submit preferred use cases for the company's artificial intelligence (AI)-powered personal assistant.".

I'm interested that a further 'reward program' should be produced.

For example, my wife and I had been assessing major Home Insurance Policies so as to save some money.   We finally settled on the 'winner'.

And not long after paying 'the winner' another 'business' that we did not select ... but selected us ... was still trying to get their hand in our pockets and wondering why we didn't use him.

That entity was one of quite a few that would send a 'phone-call' that lasted only two rings ... daily ... with no text.
 
So ... I would be very pleased that the next step for the purchaser would be able to simply (by law) not allow the 'non-wanted seller' them to contact again.

This is an interesting trend, Wayne. As vertical storytelling moves from the phone toward streaming and to the television screen, can vertical commercials be far behind?

We may soon see brands experimenting with short-form vertical creative built specifically for streaming environments. The format may change, but the objective remains the same -- capture attention and create a measurable consumer response.