I get paid over 220 Dollars per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. i never thought i’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 15k a month doing this and she kaz convinced me to try. it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do, check it out by Visiting Following Website

HERE—————www.giftpay7.vip

Heya Joel – My team and I are appreciating the dialogue we are seeing here coming out of this article.

For full context and transparency, this is how we asked the specific question that seems most germane to your comment (where we were trying to understand consumers’ awareness of ad repetition and how they perceived it under different situations): "When watching your streaming subscription(s), how do you feel when seeing the same advertisement two or more times during your show?" And we gave folks choices for level of annoyance at "same ad during your show" when it occurs 2x, 3x, 4x or more. And at 4x or more, 61% of people chose "very frustrating." We asked tons more questions – for example, under different situations like different from the same brands, same ad across different platforms, etc. that led to the full analysis in the piece. So if you are interested in how the full report turned out you can check it out here (sorry in advance, it’s gated): https://transform.omnicommedia.com/whitepaper/why-frequency-matters-combating-negative-reach-download-form/

Also, I wanted to mention that we hyperlinked to your work on the Movable Middles in our Future of Brand Influence thought leadership in the context of rethinking traditional notions around audience selection (as well as highlighting the MMA’s piece, Brand as Performance: Proving Brand Marketing Drives Long-Term Growth), because we think the whole body of work around marketing growth frameworks is so fascinating and so important. If you want to check out that piece, it’s here (also gated, sorry, haha): https://transform.omnicommedia.com/whitepaper/future-of-brand-influence/

Joanna

Yes we will Joe!!! ANA and TAG TrustNet are drafting the Q2 Transparency Benchmark as we speak and wait until you see some of the newest findings!!! If anyone wants to see the collective work of 100+ brands pushing the bounds of transactional transparency, come find us. https://www.tagtrust.net/ 

Thanks for saving me from yet another dreary TV show. I had a similar "ugh" eaction to Big Mistakes but made myself watch two full episodes because I love Dan Levy and hoped it woud get better. Nope. Not so much depressing as just about of annoying screaming. And this is entertainment? 

It does seem like the IAB Tech Lab is the fox guarding the hen house!

 I found that ads delivered probabilistically proximal to the category purchase event had 2-3 times the ROAS. also, I find excessive frequency is not so excessive to Movable Middles.  that is fresh data and experimental evidence

Spot on Curtis.   The repetitive frequency degrades the product ... and also degrades the quality of the broadcaster's product.   No wonder viewing is declining.

This is not really about effective frequency, and more about repeititve frequency within a couple platforms in a very short time period. It's people being annoyed by same CTV ad running 3,4,5x within the same program or within a short period of time (an hour). Same with Social where retargeting ads hitting you every time you open the ap. 4x in one program is different than 4x in a week.

Joel, Erwin's theory was based on a misreading of a study by Professor Jones which measured the supposed share of market sales effects of household --not viewer--reach for TV campaigns over a week for an arbitrary sample of packeged goods brands. From this  Erwin concluded that the ideal TV media plan should attain a 70% reach but a 1.0 frequency every week  adding  the famous quote, "Frequency is grabgrass". Amazingly this has been quoted ever since by people who seem to think that it meant that frerquency should be avoided --which makes no sense at all. Of course, its less desirable to pile up your frequency so the consumer is exposed many times in a short time frame, but aside from that, without frequency you have no ad campaign.

I do not buy into this.  frequency over what time period?  how does that relate to recency theory (the late Erwin Ephron) which I have determined in experiments with Viant and NCS increases ad response by 2-3 x. Frequency is needed to probabilisticly dliver an ad proximal to an upcoming purchase. How about Movable Middles vs "Dead zone" brand rejectors? do they have the same frequency response curves? as Einstein said, "It is important to make things as simple as possible but no simpler".

Scott is the ultimate professional leader. The adult in the room. Congrats on a job well done. 

Thank you for sharing this. I loved reading it!

You guys really cared and understood. 

Spot on Phil. What you did at GM changed the market. Unfortunately, almost everyone has now regressed.

Ed. You. Nailed this.  It's the reason we created media works during my GM days to force this interaction. 

Jack, many media owners lose too. On a macro basis, linear TV companies lose spend that is irrationally shifted to streaming. TV companies also lose pricing on entertainment programming and over shift to live and sports, that doesn't need extra help since they're already emotionally popular. Having the artifically low pricing floor under entertainment and less popular dayparts pulls the overall yield down and imbalances the schedule and programming despite viewers desiring that programming and those viewing times.

Only the advertiser suffers from any of this. Media nets and publishers make more, agencies make more and advertiser's marketing gurus look better with inflated numbers pumped by self graded metrics and fraud. FOFO (fear of finding out) still seems to rule.  So discouraging. 

Great point Dan. It's amazing how much media money is wasted (and has been for decades) on personal client biases with no real justification.

Clients backseat driving media buys has been a practice for half a century. I remember doing large print buys back in the day and having to add magazines that made zero sense because the client just happened to like the magazine. 

TV shows, websites, events, whatever - a client bias, right or wrong, will always be a factor. 

Cory, I was one of those who  pionered the idea of objective media planning way back at the outset. For a while, we believed that if we got more data on product usage, media audiences, ad attentiveness studies, etc that we could show our clients  how alternative media mixes compared to what they were compelling us to buy. I didn't expect major flip flops--like a TV sports advertiser dropping such sponsorships or a TV fixated "pakaged goods" advertiser switching major funds to magazines, etc----but I hoped to start a much needed dialog, stimulate new thinking and, maybe, make a contribution. 

Well I and my like minded colleagues failed as clients universally said, "That's very interesting, Ed", then continued to insist on making media decisions their way--the arbitrary way.

Ok, so here and there one will find exceptions--especially when a new CMO appears and starts asking questions nobody can answer. But little has changed over the years--despite the vast changes in media distribution and targering options. Which is a shame as it's the advertisers who are to blame and they are the ones who are not getting full value for their ad spend.

Spot on Ed. Yes. This is by no means new, though one would hope we would be doing better today given the technology now avaiable that makes data and facts visible much faster and the culture and practices of digital, where planning is directly connected to buying.

I've been watching Jersey Shore & it's spinoffs since day 1. I'm not surprised that it is ending once again but they may come back and maybe another spinoff but who knows maybe it really is the end.

I wonder when the C-Suite will start reducing their head-count to increase profit?