In the chart depicting the MRC's "core" metrics, the only one that has any significance for advertisers, as well as offering some measure of comparability in value, is the last one----"liklihood to see". But here we need something tangible---and measurable---like attentiveness for TV as well as digital video and display and OOH media. Theoretical metrics based on time on-screen----such as "completion " ----are simply not acceptable. As for audio and print media, it is not even clear how attentiveness to ads can be measured---but as nobody seems to care about those media we are talking mainly about TV and or video in this discussion. So my question is if the MRC comes up with a "core" metric for "likliehood to see" will this be based on measurements that  determine whether people look at ad messages ---and the duration of that exposure---or is even  this  clear and basic definition yet to be determined for application sometime in the possibly distant future?

Pardon me for being skeptical, but based on past experience, I have a suspicion that we will never get to the point where visual attentiveness to ads or program content is mandated as a "standard" part of the equation. And I also suspect that this will  be the case for "audience" which is very closely related to the issue of attentiveness. Of course, I'd love to be wrong on this and I am a strong supporter of the MRC, but I think that the rececnt experience of the "JIC"suggests that if the sellers don't like a MRC decision to include attentiveness as a standard, they may simply "certify" sources that do not employ it as being better suited  for "transactions". In that case, where does that leave us?

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

First off, many thanks Maarten for your kind words and for amplifying the message!
And to those who have commented.
Nick Manning and I have been talking about this topic for ages, our frustrations and concerns may have only recently been made public but this is by no means a new issue either for us or indeed for the industry.
Part of our frustration has been the lack of debate, the apparent acceptance of the status quo. 
Ad fraud? Well, meah! What can I do about it? It happens, it sucks but there you go!
When did you last see a large network agency express their concern, or do something about it?
They don't and they're not alone. 
It's as if the industry has just accepted that losing huge amounts of money to criminals is somehow just OK.
Or, that everyone is complicit so don't rock the boat with inconvenient truths.
We want to raise these issues not just because the industry loses money but because the byproduct is excessive automation, sameness, lack of originality, lack of creativity and ultimately inefficient and ineffective advertising.
We also see fewer talented people entering the business, leading eventually to a stagnant talent pool, and fewer rewarding and great careers.
So we think this is a battle worth fighting. We may be two old guys shouting into the void and nothing may change, but we think it's worth a go!
We hope many of you reading this will think so too.
If so, you can if you prefer anonymity mail me at brian@bjanda.com.

Bounce is on WXMI FOX17 DT3 was on Wood TV about 8 years 2013 to 2021 before moving to Scripps. I wonder if Scripps sells Bounce if Fox17 will drop it they still air Antenna TV even know Nexstar owns the network, Antena TV has been on Fox17 since day 1 when it was a Tribune TV station. Not really a fan of diginets.

Thank you Joe.  I will be the first to admit this standard is not perfect, in fact no standard we've produced has been perfect.  Flaws can be mined from certain of the details.  The OOH standard is vast majority good (my opinion).  This standard took 5 years to write, unfortunately, and compromises have been hard won.  As I previously commented the standard builds a bridge toward comparability.  I personally care about this and have a strong desire to finish the job getting to standards for OOH audience metrics in phase 2.

George Ivie: Thank you for the visceral marketplace example, and for explaining how phase 1 is a building block toward a workable common denominator.

Those who think they can accurately measure impressions (and/or their 'quality' or 'effectiveness') are deluded.

The more marketing requisites the more data points (not just digital data) are required and the permutations rapidly increase. In the vain attempt to increase permutations, the accuracy generally decreases.   And then the results are generally atypicaland very often misleading.

Phase 2 will cover audience measurement; the phase 1 standard is not intended to be anti-audience measurement or anti-Geopath.  MRC believes strongly in the merit of audience measurement.  

Consider an example: YouTube had $8.1 billion in ad sales for Q1 2024, a 21% increase year over year and Alphabet, YouTube's parent, had total revenue of $80.54 billion and net income of $23.66 billion for Q1, a 15% and 57% increase respectively.  We still have people arguing against seeking to align OOH measurement with other media types and prepare OOH for cross-media measurement, which was one of our key objectives.

This corroborates the findings of Dr. Vilma Todri from the Goizueta Business School at Emory University, who researched the effects of ad blockers on online spending. Her study indicates that the decrease in ad exposure among ad blocker users leads to a reduction in overall online spending. This effect is particularly pronounced for new market entrants. Moreover, the study suggests that the use of ad blockers also impacts overall brand searches, as reduced product awareness from decreased ad visibility affects consumer search behavior.

https://blog.getadmiral.com/adblock-use-drops-consumer-spending-14-billion

Tony, this is just another example of the sellers getting what they want---this time for OOH  from the MRC. They all think that bigger numbers give them more ad dollars--hence OTS or "impressions" ---not actual ad exposures. This kind of thinking was behind the Geopath revolt of a few years ago that Joe wrote about recently. The TV ad sellers think the same way---and wrongly--- if advertisers realized how few actual ad contacts they are getting for their dollars they would probably spend more---not less--to rectify the shortfall.

@Tony Jarvis: Do tell, what are the flaws?

But without the ads, Douglas, the "audience" would have very little to watch---so it's a well understood trade-off. Most people have always accepted ads as the price for getting their favorite TV shows. That's what's happening now in streaming---not the reverse.

Advertising is primarily great for the ad people, not the audience. With scarce exceptions, TV ads are unwelcome interruptions and often louder and more insipid than the show. DVRs were the savior for fast-forwarding but ad-supported streamers are bringing back the poorly-behaved visits from sponsors. Even cable operators like Charter/Spectrum are in on the return of forced ads, by discontinuing DVRs to new subs.