Dave, I absolutely agree..

Ed, to be clear. TV viewers may not have the highest income levels at the highest veiwing levels, but that doesn't mean that they are desttute. I would expect to see brands like banks, cars, industrials, and business publications on the air.

Dave, what I meant was that upsacle brands still regarded TV as their most effective way to communicate their message--even if they also used magazines  and other more "selective" media. As to their spending, we had plenty of upscale clients at BBDO-- "The Wall Street Journal", City Bank, GE, U.S. Steel, various car brands, etc. and they spent heavily on TV. 

Ed, of course, luxury brands have used TV. My point is that the TV audience and its reach was never the primary media for those brands ... magazines, events, direct marketing have generally been more efficient than TV since TV's audience is so media and viewership screwed middle and lower income. And yes, Broad TV is sometimes in their mix. As Irwin Gotlieb always says, "If the first time you see a Mercdes Benz ad is when you can afford it, Mercedes Benz has a problem."

Dave, rey our point about TV never being for luxury brands, in my expoerience this has not been true. The upscale advertiser did not reject TV because low income groups watched more of it than upper income folks--so long as enough of the former could be reached by TV's more powerful ad messages.

So luxury cars, banks, financial services, etc. have always been big TV users  even if few TV shows delivered higher compositions of upscale versus downscale viewers. Upscale reach was never in question--they all watched TV--just less of it.  A two hours a day viewing diet for an affluent adult versus five hours a day for a lowbrow, afforded the luxury brand sufficient opportunities to reach its kind of customers via TV.

Josh, adults with low household incomes have always been the most frequent broadcast TV and cable viewers as the activity piles up in the daytime and early evening hours--plus weekends--- to a greater extent than in prime.But even in prime they outview the upscale lot to a degree.

Bear in mind that  low income groups fall into two clearly defined segments. The majority are older adults with low current incomes as many are retired ( many are home owners or own stocks, bonds, etc. so a  low income as defined by current income does not automatically equate with net worth. ) And older adults are, by far TV's heaviest viewers. The second segment--and there is age overlap---is the Black community--traditionally more frequent  TV viewers than "whites". 

The interesting question is whether this pattern will carry over to streaming. I expect that it will, though if a significant linear TV presence remains--say 30% penetration----this will slow down the low income migration to streaming and it's inevitable effect. 

Great pojnts Josh, but lets not forget that TV was never a medium for luxury brands. You are not their target. The biggest spenders on TV have came from brands the McDonakds, State Farm, Bud Light, Walmart, Pampers, etc. Free and low cost TV in places where fixed broadband is a luxury (where I'm from) is the biggestvmedia channel.

This points to a problem though... we're segmenting video viewership into two tiers, the tier that pays their way out of adverting, and the tier that does (can-)not. 

But study after study has revealed the ccorrelation between people who have money, and people who buy stuff. 

We were watching Bosch on Prime, when a commercial break popped up. "WTF?," my wife and I said together, as at the time neither of us had seen a commercial on Prime. I grabbed my phone and looked it up-- for another $3 a month, we could buy up to the ad-free tier. I upgraded before the pod was done.

I'm guessing that if you looked at impressions viewed by quintiles of household income, the bottom 2 quintiles are seeing 70% of the imopressions. Maybe more.

We went throgh the sam eting with my mom.

Sorry about those typos--I responded in haste. 

Josh, I'm speculating, but the number of sellers and the etent of their GRP inventory are not fixed at the same level year to year. Remember that, unline linear TV, streaming viewing as well as the amount of time that is ad-supported are incresing. So it's perfectly possble that more GRPs wre available in aggregate-- and this allows for greater ad spend but lower CPMs.

I didn't have this on my BINGO Card that the Lakers would be sold once again in a year, I thought that Mark Walter would've been an owner for at least 10 to 15 years before selling. Seems that Mark needed money and maybe in trouble with the feds will he have to sell the Dodgers as well?

So Ed: if revenues are up but CPMs are down, one of two things must be happening: either a higher % of inventory was sold in the upfront than in the past; or, there must be more inventory (you can't raise total revenues and lower unit costs without one of these things happening.)

Which is it? I'm guessing the latter (more streming inventory, same linear inventory.)

Sorry for your lost Gord 91 is pretty good. Yeah, going through hoops with programs and the government is a pain and it shouldn't have to be that way.

I appreciate this piece Joe. I think that last point is really interesting. The chill does cut both ways. Advertisers have every right to decide what environments they want to fund, and publishers and platforms have every right to decide how they want to operate but neither gets to pretend those decisions don’t have consequences. Three years later, the revenue numbers make that pretty hard to ignore. It’s also a good reminder for those of us making media decisions every day that where we invest has an impact on what ultimately grows.

Wayne it's interesting to note how important to streaming those national TV ad dollars are. In addition to the $17 billion in upfront buys other negotiations ,which may shift some linear TV scatter dollars to streaming, might amount to another $3-4 billion throughout the upcoming season. If so, that means that this type of advertising will amount to, say $20 billion. Since You Tube garners about $10 billion under its way of capturing screening ad revenues, this leaves very little for those supposedly super targeted "outcome" based streaming campaigns that we hear so much about from the theorists at the various industry gatherings.

The question is will traditional TV advertisers simply swamp streaming with their ad dollars to the point where take it over and use it as they have always used TV or will there be some sort of push back to prevent this from happening--as it did, largely, to cable. Will streaming become mostly an untargeted eyeball aggregator--based on 18-49 time buying with lower CPMs the primay goal and upfront buys the mechanism for attaining that--or will some of the promises bear fruit in a big way--to the possible benefit of advertisers, screening services and consumers.

Now, if only Meta would turn its attention to eliminating bots from its Facebook platform!

My father was blind in one eye and his other eye had blurred vision. 

The optometrist office had a visual captcha puzzle necessary to access his account. 

The level of stupidity and incompetence is unfortunately, normal  

As I have urged for too long, Congress needs to abolish Section 230.   

Dave, I often use Gemini to find sources of information which I then access to dig deeper. Also, if you ask it media questions like what percent of the average minute TV audience watches an average TV commercial you get a pretty good answer--often citing TVision or even myself. On other queries I have received off the wall answers but when I challenge Gemini on them it seems to reboot, check new sources and often cmes up with a totally different and better answer. 

90 hours a month is 3 hours a day. 

This also touches on discoverability as a catalyst for the deal. As AI search impedes clickthroughs, brands need to figure out which partnerships will aid discoverability. And it is going to get pretty crowded on social networks soon - if not already. 

As Josh Chasin opined in a comment on this revival of the X suit against the WFA and its now shuttered GARM initiative, brand responsible social media planning & buying requires ardent brand safety considerations which the major social media site contemt gutters do not deliver. Meta, X, etc. do not need a boycott just the application of fundamental solid media planning & buying principles based on persons-based attention metrics and common sense!