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. 

Noble cause, but a bit of a slippery slope. Virtually every brand/business that wins a Lion is using fossil fuels in their manufacturing and delivery process. No doubt most are spending some of their profits trying to reduce that dependency, but the usage still exists. How about instead of "banning" companies from awards we highlight and lift up through high profile awards those doing the most to reduce dependency on fossil fuels?

The cable channels sell huge numbers of commercial positions in their volume discount deals, yet, for the most part, you rarely if ever see the same message for a brand repeated in a given break. Which is what really matters. There is no evidence that being exposed to the same ad message in three different breaks in the same episode is, necessarily a bad thing for the advertiser. In fact, this degree of repetition probably raises the actual ad attentiveness level from only 40-50% to around 65% for those three commercials.

Why has cable beenj able to avoid bunching up a brand's commercials in the manner everyone is complaing about for CTV? 

The answer probably is that the cable folks may use computers as an aid in ad scheduling  but the humans are also involved and they correct such situaions as they arise. So,is CTV too reliant on computerized ad placement? Probably.

Great insights Rachel!

My apologies.  If I see an article about Uber Eats, I'll usually comment.  I don't know how long it will be before I'm no longer annoyed by a months-long experience of Uber Eats not honoring the promo offers it sent me.  The only response I could obtain from the company was AI-generated -- even for the Better Business Bureau complaint I filed!  So, I never miss an opportunity to let Uber know (if it's reading here!) that as a result of my experience, I switched ride-sharing companies (and urge others to do the same).  Lyft is now always my first choice.

Hi Wayne.

Very interesting that the 'Most-Streamed' broadcast was 13.38 minutes in a 60 minute broadcast.   13.8 minutes in an hour is about 22% of the duration.

It's a valid mathemetical calculation but many people take that as a rating, assuming it is large and worthwhile rating of advertising.   A genuine rating reports the average audience over the broadcsat time, which is a better estimated audience for any minute in the broadcast, rather than cumualting minute-by-minute.

This has been going on for years and beneficial to all- additional revenue for the sites and additional easy spend by the agencies who can tell their clients they bought x dollars on Hulu or whoever without mentioning 20% of spend were spent on the same content or in the same pod.
if not then this would have been solved years ago 

Maarten if a time buyer gets twice as many impressions at half the price at one  seller this doesn't necessarily mean that many or all of those horrid, repetitive, exposures weren't effective--providing they were reasonably well dispersed. More likely, the problem is caused by relying too much on computers to do work that humans should play a role in--re how the commercials are scheduled.  It's a simple problem to deal with if handled correctly.

The walled gardens make it hard across channels/olatforms. But I saw the same ad, usually an insurance with a bird in its commercial (not a duck) or a weight loss drug, multiple times in one show just like you. That's not a walled garden issue. That is either an advertiser issue who is only interested in cheap CPM's and not the consumer experience. Or an disingenuous agency that thinks it's ok to schedule for profit, not effectiveness. 

Spot on Cory.

In AU it is happening as well ... three blokes on the sand is one and it is nauseating.

We also have an ad of a garden hose that 'extends further than the standard hose.'  The original ad was about 4 minutes .... it seems they have bought the entire 30 minutes and repeated showing the ad.    Vomating.

Wayne, the kids cable channels are almost  surely doomed so why not try to sell them--if a sucker buyer can be found? Same goes for most of the other CBS cable channels--but not so for WBD's CNN. So one has to be selective.

Not all cable channels are doomed to speedy extibction---the three news channels, for example, ESPN, Bravo and others may well survive and be profitable for some time to come.

What's happened  is that cord cutting has diminished in intensity which means that eventually cable may wind up with a hold on about 15-20% of all viewing. That will be enough to sustain anywhere from 15-30 chanels once the rest of the herd is culled.