Great point Bill. Calling it "performance" marketing reinforces a presumption that it performs!

Ready, Dave, and great analysis!  The problem is it's complicated, and as you implied, taking the easy way out has been the default MO in this business for decades.  

As a side note, can we please rebrand money spent with Facebook, Google, etc. as something other than "performance marketing"?  Or let's find a better label for all other advertising that is not "performing"!

Any Media Agency "worth its salt" for any brand can, I believe, easily demonstrate a media plan's superior cost effectivenes regarding the potential achievement of the brand's objectives for a given budget without the inclusion of various unsafe, brand damaging, misinformation cesspits like X.  GARM offered a real opportunity for social media to be fully accountable and transparent to advertisers. This lawsuit surely underlines the need for all advertisers to re-evalute and increasingly embrace the proven power of other major media in leveraging their  brand's creative message in an safe syngeristic context and environment that drives attention.    

Love this and agree with every single word! 

Wayne, most of what is happening  was decided in last year's upfront marketplace where streaming got about a third of the total dollars placed by national advertisers. These deals are still in force now. So this is not a new trend. What remains to be seen is how much will streaming gain in the upcoming negotiations for the 2025-26 TV season. Some of the things we at Media Dynamics Inc are watchinjg are the degree of commercialization on many streaming platforms--which we expect to increase, thereby promoting more ad revenues. On the other hand,buyers will keep pressing streaming ad time sellers to lower their CPM demands--as happened last year---which works against huge gains relative to linear TV.

Bravo Ed.   Spot on.

The difference between a good creative agency and AI is that AI is primarily based on information that is easily accessible that anyone dig into the pool.

A creative ad agency (the ad and the placement strategy) produces a new communication to the market.   Yep, once such strategies are public they will flow into AI.   If you can't afford originality with your product ... just knick the ideas your liked and do it via AI. 

Richard, ad agencies helping clients to develop new products is nothing new. BBDO was doing that way back in the 1960s and with some success--Campbell's Chunky Soup and Gillette's "Soft & Dry" were two  examples.

But when we talk about "outcomes" what exactly do we mean? Sales? For years, ad agencies have tried to snatch clients by promising to share in their profits but otherwise they would not get paid. Usually, this is a sign of desperation and it deosn't work as a business model because 85-90% of most marketer's sales are not a direct function of advertising. And the ad agency has no control over these factors--product distribution and quality being the main ones.

There's lot of talk about advertisers and agencies changing emphasis and focusing on "outcomes" with AI being the driving force not only in media buying but also in creating ad campaigns. . Sounds great but isn't it also necessary for the client side to dramatically alter it's own operations --with most brand managers and CMOs replaced by AI---or is it only the agency business models that need changing?

I think that AI will cost a lot of people their jobs at first--until it is realized that AI should help people to do their jobs better---not replace them. After all aren't most consumers people? Do we really want machines to sell us everything we need--or don't need?

Sangat baik 

Joshua, I think she was thanking Schwarzenegger because he agreed to let her name appear alongside his and above the title of True Lies in all marketing material and opening credits. She said he didn't have to do that.

Did Jamie Lee Curtis really say True Lies launchd her career? I woud have thlught the first Halloween film did that, 16 years prior.

How does one take advantage of it at the local level or market level. We know that streaming live anything is ast the forefront but how do you create that synergy like your talking about for a local brand. What do you see as a first good step.
Thanks
Terry 

"Contrarian" is a bit much. Fox Corp(se) is just as Establishment as the other media conglomerates, it merely tacks to the right.

Basically it's Lenny Bruce's observation on the Gore Vidal-William F. Buckley television debates of the mid-1960s: "I have no interest in watching to the two political wings of CIA argue with each other." Amen. 

You're of course right, Ed. This was more of a personal rant and frustration as a user... I know there's no easy fix but I do believe the algos are a reason for people going "social light". Maybe someone will come up with a creative AI (of course AI...) solution for a fix as I'm not sure the human oversight will be scalable. 

All true, Shirley. The problem as regards digital media  attentiveness is that trying to measure it by electronic means doesn't work very well. What's needed is a human based measurment such as is now possible using camcorders to  observe if anyone was present and, if so, whether they looked at the screen for how long. It's not a perfect solution as what happens in response to an ad exposure in the viewer's mind remains unknown but at least you are monitoring all of the presumed "audience" not just a small fraction that moves its cursor around or pauses the picture.

Joe, if they counted CTV as "TV" along with linear--as most TV advertisers do--- the "TV" figures would probably show an increase in   "TV" spending while the gains of "digital" media would be lessened.

I believe the proposed B2B tax would significantly burden local businesses, increase operational costs, and hinder economic growth. We urge lawmakers to consider the broader impact on Maryland’s business ecosystem before moving forward. 

I am profiting (500$ to 1000$/hr )online from my workstation. A month ago I GOT chek of about 30k$, this online work is basic and direct, don’t need to go OFFICE, c160 Its home online activity. h By then this work opportunity is fbegin your work….★★

Copy Here→→→→ W­w­w­.­E­a­r­n­A­p­p­1­.­C­o­m

I agree Ed.

Marketers and advertisers wish for much ... but want to pay for less.

John, a truly  new and modern measurement system would substitute a camcorder panel for the button pushing one and would probbaly not cost that much more per home. However, to get at a more accurate and stable viewer-per-set figure it would need a panel at least four to five times larger than Nielsen's current people meter panel which, by the way, is only about 25,000 homes as the rest are local market meter- only homes--no buttons. So, yes, to get a combination big data set usage panel plus an actual viewing panel of,  say, 100,000 homes  to produce realistic "audience" projections--without the problems inherent in the buttton pressing system, the cost wwould go up.

Are advertisers willing to pay for the extra cost? Probably not, directly.  But even if they successfully pressured the sellers to foot the bill and allow more accurtate ad viewing data to be available, the advertisers would pay via higher CPMs. So that's not the problem. It's an almost total lack of interest---which continues to amaze me.

Thanks Ed.

I totally agree that regarding the people-meter button is not that accurate, especially for the 'young-uns'.   Mum & Dad may push the button for them (cough-cough) so no surprise that youth is probably under-represented even while their TV viewing hours diminish.  I doubt that the parents have a 100% record.  OzTAM has installations in about half the homes (I think) that can track pretty well (but I doubt perfectly), and I think that data could also be used to extrapolate the other half as a better estimate.

Dave, are the marketers willing to pay for the 'attention numbers'?   The current system is paid by the agencies (and claw back some costs in their rates).   When you consider that in, say a 60 minute program, there is 'one program' and probably 50+ ads.   Who would pay for the new 'data deluge'.   I doubt that the client would pay for measuremen of THEIR ads.   

Very good points Ed. There are several sources of data that could be used to enhance attention numbers of ad viewership, both TVision Insights and Telly come to mind. Both have opt-in camera-based attention tied to ACR data that capture both number of viewers and attention to the screen.

John, the 90%+ figures come directly from the people meter data--sometimes the figure is as high as 96%.

In Great Britain, they were saying only a few years ago, that the U.S. experience was atypical and that in England people watch almost all of the commercials that appear on their TV screens. This was based on BARB findings which are based on  nothing less than a British people meter survey---indeed the U.S. version ws adapted from Britain's AGB methodology in the mid- 1980s.

In the U.S. we have had many small scale attentiveness studies as well as a much larger operation--a 5,000 home ---15,000 person  panel maintained by TVision. for many years. It uses camcorders to note presence in  the room and eyes-on-screen. When TVision recently set up a panel of about 500 homes and 1500 people in the UK  everyone was "surprised" to find that the results were very similar to what has been reported in the U.S.  I believe that exactly the same thing would happen in Australia. People are people everywhere.

Finally, it's all well and good to say, ,""We can't have perfection,so let's stick with what works"--which you and Dave are saying. But the current system is vastly outdated where measuring actual "viewing" is concerned. It does not--repeat, not--give us the number and kinds of people who were  watching program content before a break and it absolutely does not measure commercial audiences accurately. And now there is evidence that suggests that the people meter  button pressing methodology may actually understate "viewing claims" by younger people to a greater extent than older folks--as the younger set is less likely to bother to press its buttons to signify viewing when a channel is selected. So even the audience profiles are suspect--too many older viewers being reported relative to younger?

As far as "perfection" is concerned, I doubt that any system can deliver that. But it is now possible to measure both program and commercial viewing---actually being present and looking at the screen on a "granular" basis--second by second. But the sellers have vetoed that as it would drastically lower their numbers and advertisers can't be bothered to demand change to protect their interests. So the beat goes on---and on....

Thank you Ed, you make valid comments.   They do seem to be based on US research.

'People Meters' were an improvement back in the 1980s and 1990s.   But I am not sure where the source for the 90% of all TV commercials being watched came from.  We didn't see that magnitude in AU.

Camera studies are generally done on a small cohort knowing exactly what the research purpose is and they strive to be "good citizens" and co-operate.   In fact most 'camera studies' are now done on mobile phones and/or household digital equipment.  In AU we have devices within the household's rooms that have a TV et. al.   Roughly half co-operate, and the other half are extrapolated based on the co-operation data.

I agree that Attention is a very desirable metric.   There are some methods of attention rates, but given the plethora of ads I suspect that it will be quite some time before being measured is a standard.   P.S. I would wonder how they would be able to measure the Sony Bravia bouncing balls ... I know I loved it but didn't buy one.   Yep, research is never 100% correct.