I'll watch if they make a Lions Love Story for Hallmark next year or a few years from now. Hallmark should just create a Christmas channel for Christmas movies 365 or a FAST channel. I don't watch Hallmark not my type of network.

This is why I have stopped watching Hallmark. Not only have the plots become numbingly formulaic, but this Xmas in July, followed with Xmas weeks before Halloween has completely ruined any enjoyment I might have previously had. Sorry HM, but I have broken up with you for good!

In case anyone was wondering, there are 5 countries in the world with public executions.

Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea.

Reposting without the typos: Great question Frank ... for sure, there are too many players who while having the ability to help stop malicious bots from operating in the ad ecosystem but who benefit for their existence and thus, seemingly, have determined that knowing inaction or willful ignorance is the best path for them to take

Great question Frank ... for sure, there are too many players who while having the sockeye to help stop malicisou bots from operating in the ad ecosystem but who benefit from their existence and thus, seemingly, have determined that knowing inactoin or willful ignforance is the best path for them to take

Sounds fantastic. What could possibly go wrogn?

I wouldn't have watched it not my thing and I'm kinda have change my tune on the death penalty as well. I don't believe in eye for an eye.

I'll be glad when it is all over and not seeing anymore political ad since all of it is personal attack ads that are slander, smearing, & defaming I wish that there was rules that you can't air political ads until 6 weeks before primary & Nov elections in my opinion. Atleast there is light at the end of the tunnel now even know it's still long UGH.

Dave, excellent points. Not pointing fingers and knowing the answer, I will comment with a question...  "If we already have the technology to detect fraudulent bots, does everyone in the advertising industry really have the same incentive to eliminate them?

Cool idea, honestly. Guest experiences win the day! 

This summer I checked into a hotel in Seattle right before the World Cup Game and had no idea until the lobby filled up with face painted fans! LOL Caught me completely off guard.

Frey’s argument that out-of-home advertising is inherently more authentic because it’s displayed publicly is a massive leap in logic. Public visibility doesn’t guarantee truthfulness, accountability, or authenticity. AI-generated images and misleading claims can appear on a giant billboard or OOH display just as easily as on a smartphone. I'm not following (or agreeing) that reaching thousands of people simultaneously in public makes a message any more truthful. 

The interview also gets off to a contradictory start where Frey criticizes Mandese for spelling out DPAA, then immediately says, “We’re not that anymore,” before describing the organization as a digital out-of-home trade association or a trade marketing group. He seems to demand recognition for a brand identity he struggles to articulate himself. And AT&T is a 141 year old brand, but his own organization has already had a name change back in 2010. Comparing the two is nonsensical.

More fundamentally, he repeatedly invokes AI, authenticity, measurement, and automated media buying without explaining how they connect. If authenticity is the industry’s next big KPI, how does DPAA define it, identify it, or measure it? What technology or methodology distinguishes authentic content from synthetic or deceptive content? For all the talk about authenticity, the interview never answers the most fundamental question, "What, precisely, makes out-of-home advertising authentic—and how do you prove it?"

I've never bought or sold OOH and while I appreciate it as a medium, Frey just seemed to use a lot of industry buzzwords without crystalizing how they intend to prove out authenticity.

On a final note, authenticity is subjective. What feels genuine to one person may feel completely contrived to another. You can observe people's reactions to something they perceive as authentic, but that doesn't establish an objective measure of authenticity itself. It's like trying to measure how much someone loves you. You can observe their words and actions, but those don't quantify the feeling itself.

Barry is a class act and the DPAA is 1,000% lucky to have gotten him.

Authenticity is red-herring. Relevance is key and relevance leads you inevitably to segmentation. You can be as authentic as you'd like, if you're not relevant to me, I'm not buying it. 

The best example is Tampax. I'm sure Tampax is as authentic as they come; it's truly an icon among tampons. I don't use them. They are not relevant. So, I'll never buy them, authentico or not.

Joe, it's 2026.... of course, DPAA is a well established organization run by a very talented guy in Barry!   It's time!!!   Hope all's well buddy.

Chart does not support editorial.  As I look at the chart, my opening sentence would be that 80% of viewers watch microdramas for less than hour (42% stated up to an hour, so assume it is 15-to-60 minutes). It does not show that 62% of viewers watch microdramss for more than one hour as stated in the article.

Sorry to be late, but this story is 6 years old and the upfront is still here. Yay.

Yes Joe, DPAA, is absolutely known by buyers and sellers in the space, second to that would be native to digital. As for TV, likely executives do, beyond that, IDK. 

Wayne, interesting analysis. Just because viewers tolerate more advertising doesn't mean advertisers are getting better results. At some point, adding more minutes may become counterproductive. The real opportunity isn't increasing advertising interruptions, but creating greater value from the advertising already being delivered. We have reached a saturation point where some measurable outcomes will matter more than additional impressions. 

It's wrong what Trump's DOJ is doing looking into ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX News there right in standing what happen to MS Now, CNN, & Politico as they shouldn't have gotten banned because Trump doesn't like their coverage of him. Plus it's abuse of power as well.

I'm not into pressers of any kind at most will watch a minute or 2 and flip the channel or just flip the channel ASAP.

Very true Timothy.   My comments are based on Aussie media, so I could be very different to other countries.

When I was a researcher in an agency, then conducting research on behalf of the agency group, was a wonderful time when advertising was creative, effective and profitable.   Many of those ads are easily remembered, and there are ads that were so liked and effective that are still discussed ... at no additional cost (i.e. very slow clocks still working and within Aussie language).

In AU there is a flood of 'ads' of which some play for 5 minutes ... and one is now considered a 30 minute ad!   That is basically because the TV stations (being eaten by US companies) are losing income and will take any ad.

The smarter viewers are beginning to undertstand that the products not only rattle on for ages (yawn), show the product from all angles, then show the ad's product can have amazingly big discounts!   Pity that they don't tell the actual cost.

I wouldn't be surprised that it might follow the music industry.   Remember floods of CDs?  Any body still buying fresh CDs?   Hmmmm ... vinyl records are now the thing (better than CDs?)

John, good question. A fair comparison is the same window and the same outcome. That means site visits and sales while the CTV flight runs, against a holdout or the pre-flight baseline. TV also responds on a slower clock than social, so a longer attribution window is important to consider.

Rob, fully agree the idea comes first. My argument is that on social, the audience has already voted on which ideas work. The best creator ads carry one: a real person, a real problem, a product that fixes it. The crafts you list are how that idea earns its place on a big screen. And you’re right that it runs both ways. Thanks for reading.

Your approach omits the critcal piece of having an actual IDEA for the commercial. Something the best ones ALWAYS have. The ones everybody remembers. And all your "What has to change" criteria are the exact crafts that make it a TV commercial. I always hear what works on TV won't work on social. I beleive the opposite to be true as well. 

Bill, so good to hear about your work here. I agree that influencers can deliver real value for brands. My concerns are that I've seen so much abuse of great capabilities in the past. Great to know that the ANA is out in front here, and that you led that work.