Dave, I think you're getting to the heart of the issue. FAST is clearly growing and is offering advertisers more choice, and Ed’s reach numbers should reinforce your concern. I think we all agree that more CTV impressions don't necessarily mean more incremental reach when the same viewers are being hit repeatedly.

Maybe what's missing is an added performance layer alongside reach and frequency, one that verifies when a viewer actually chooses to respond.

Artistically should read artificially. :-)

Apologies for the typing errors in my comment ... automatically should read artistically. Buttered should read viewers. int eh should read in the.

Spot on Ed. Because CTV pricing is automatically high, and targeted at the same relatively small audience of heavy buttered of ad-supported CTV programming, frequency is way too bad. I think that we all see this in our personal streaming veiwing. Funamentally, there is no plannning in CTV, not int eh way that lienar is planned. Freqwency caps are set, but are totally ineffective in CTV. The caps are just cosmetic.

Ed, it does make sense, however. Many years ago, Marcio Moreira, the inventor of the "Wave" for Coca Cola and a delightful guy, made a study that showed that McCann offices that won creative awards were more profitable. Not 100% related, but it does point out to the messaging being important.

Having been on both sides (2 Addys as a creative) I can instinctively tell you that a message that is "creative", that is, makes you look at it in a different way, as long as the way is relevant, has got to be better than a boring one.

And, as you know, I 100% agree: when it comes to data, more is better.

According to Nielsen tabulations, an average streaming buy delivers far less reach than a comparable linear TV buy at the same GRP levels-but far more frequency. Something's wrong with the way streaming buys are being planned--accross sellers as well as per seller.

Frankly, this is hard to swallow without a clear understanding of the underlying data. 

Basically:

1. Creative sells
2. Reach sells
3. Multi-media sells

Great

If you try to determine the reeach of FASTS you get as much a s 50% of your respondents who claim to us them to varying degrees. But if you monitor their set usage this translates into about 10-15% of streaming viewing and only about 6% of all viewing time with the lion's share going to Tubi, Roku amd Pluto.

Brian, no question that FAST is big, but all verified panels show viewership of FADT well below impression counts. That issue much be addressed. Particularly since the sdk's so many TVs show viewership titally evennall 24 hours throughout the day, with no normal human deviation (sleep, work, school, etc.)

I've just run my Fall 2026 survey and I'll tell you what: FAST is not only real, it's seriously big and getting better by the day. I think I have to disagree w the premise here altogether. Folks that haven't been watching FAST decks aren't understanding how good they are these days. I have more choice and quality on the free services like Roku Channel, Fire TV Channels, Pluto, Tubi even Plex has just about everything you could ever want. And do you know what? They have inventory available. In my view, advertisers need to recognize how high quality is in this new era of FAST - it's time to get aboard the next big thing in TV.  

All of those shows will outlive us all Adam LOL.

Linear scale vs CTV is the ticket here. So many advertisers pursuing so few impressions on CTV platforms with so many ads seen over and over again within minutes of each other even in the same program. It's been like this for years but either nobody cares (everybody making money from each airing) or or they don't think it's worth finding out. Should they?  It can't cost all that much. Advertisers or their agencies should scrape off a few percentage points from what they spend to know. It's like having your own lawyers. Aren't they needed? 

There's been at least one Law & Order or a sister show on NBC straight through since 1990. 

Wayne, the only viable business pllans are those which maximize revenue while controlling costs. So what we are witnessing is the gradual adoption of the traditional TV business plan that was revised 20 years ago to include money paid by consumers with ad dollars.. Will it matter--based on past experience, probably not.

Quick follow-up to my comment above with the link I forgot to include: the tool is AI STL Generator at https://aistlgenerator.com/ (free tier available). It turns text prompts or reference images into 3D printable STL files in seconds. Mentioning it here because creative iteration speed is exactly what the fatigue problem demands -- whether the asset is a Meta ad variant or a physical product prototype, the teams that can spin up more quality variations win.

Good take on creative diversity becoming the bottleneck now that AI has made production cheap. We are seeing the same dynamic outside paid social. I run a small shop making 3D-printable props for product shoots, and AI generation tools have been a lifesaver for rapid creative iteration. I have been using AI STL Generator to turn text prompts into 3D printable STL models in seconds, which lets us test physical product concepts without a 3D artist on staff. Variety really is the new lever, whether it is Meta placements or physical goods.

I love this -- I can't tell you how much I love it .... it's a nice day outside and I want to leave rignt now and play! The more we get out into nature, do something or nothing -- away from screens, AI, and all the other crap that's ruining our lives, the better off we will all be -- and our work product will benefit from it! 

Who said bots don't click on ads? Dr. Fou would have a lot of thoughts about this.

AI is here to stay there is pros & cons like most things, and a good article Steven I agree with it and I don't believe that AI will kill all of humans as that seems to get the headlines. Needs guardrails by these AI companies they can do on their own and maybe some government but I don't believe that government is the end to be all on AI.

I'm going to watch The Traitors looks good haven't watch the others since I don't have Peacock, I'll also checkout Newlyweds along with Cupertino to see if there good or not.

I agree for the most part that what passes the Karen test doesn't necessarily translate to a good idea and that risky ideas should break patterns. But I'd add that as soon as a brand fails to recognize that a human being is on the other side of the messaging, the risk can go from being memorable to becoming extinct. 

What a big shame and strategic blunder that Trump has caused such a needless mess with Canada.