I agree Adam, it's just the greatest hits with Trump & Kimmel just repeating the talking points and neither being grownups and acting like children. I don't agree with looking at ABC licenses for renewal early for Kimmel or DEI. The FCC shouldn't be up to whoever is president should be 3 indpendents and 1 liberal & conservative on The FCC in my opinion. 

What Jay said.

Adam, You are completely wrong on this. Kimmel has had the same attitude/thoughts on Trump for over 10 years now, this is not a new thing, and it is personal to him in two key ways: In Trump Regime 1.0 he tried to kill health care coverages that effected Kimmel's son born with a heart issue. In Trump Regime 2.0 he has had an even more shameless and repulsive attack on the first ammendment and a free press. There is a reason freedom of speech/press is the 1st ammendment,think about it. The fact that Kimmel is resisting at every turn is heroic and important. When people ask "what did you do when Trump tried to kill the free press?" Jimmy will have a great answer!  

Not to date myself, but I grew up watching Carson,Leno,Letterman and on and on make fun of the leaders of the day. I remember Carson focusing on Ford's falls and general clumsiness, could you imaging if Kimmel did that? How would the orange buffoon react to that? I know Kimmel made fun of Biden and Obama as well, he is not just picking on Trump. Trump is the only one who does not understand the constitution and is not manly enough to laugh at himself. 

Clients and agencies need to constantly reinvent compensation models and nothing is perfect. Commission models in media get awa from hours, but the agency bears too much risk of budget cuts out of their control.  PRIP (Performance Related Income Potential) are good, but hard to count on.  One thing I think about AaaS is it is going to need objective, predictable outcomes and a better acronym! Maybe Marketing as a Service (MaaS)

Joe, I think ... would you believe ... that Barbara Feldon as Agent 99 has been omitted !!  Just shows you how poor what we see on the TV.

Pornomafia - Sexlug - Sexlog

@Adam Buckman: Doh! Great catch. Hope there's a TVBlog in the future about that. Lift the Cone of Silence, please. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Adams#/media/File:DonAdams.jpg

Speaking of 86, we must never forget Agent 86, the secret agent Maxwell Smart (Don Adams), famed for his mobile shoe phone on the 1960s spy comedy series "Get Smart." Sorry about that, chief! - Adam Buckman, MediaPost TV blogger

@Dan C. from MS Entertainment: You're conveniently ignoring my "for illustration purposes only" disclaimer on Gemini's (not my) analysis. I wouldn't put statistical significance in that. As I noted there has been a conflation between the terms "86" and the lesser known/used mobster term "8 miles out 6 feet under." Perhaps my most important points were about "gaslighting" and "Mandela Effects" and the collective misremembering and twisting of reality that happens when someone like Donald Trump is using the powers of his office to distort the meaning of things, including a pop culture term like "86." It clearlly has never been meant to "kill" someone, but to get rid of someone. The real meaning of words is about the context of who, what, when, where and why people use them. If a mob hit man were using the term "86," I'd grant the meaning was to execute someone. If a top career law enforcement official who happens to be a president's political rival is using it, I believe the context was to remove that president from office. #seashells

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that even by your own graph, 86 has increasingly meant "to kill" or "eliminate."

The median age of an Instagram user is 27 with 70% of its audience being below the age of 34.  Referencing its meaning before most Instagram users were even born is irrelevant as most of them would believe 86 means eliminate or kill.

Regardless of its meaning - it's incredibly immature and irresponsible for the former director of the FBI to post it.

Comey was an idiot for posting it and Trump is an idiot for pursuing it.

Brandon Carr is wrong to look at ABC O&O lincenses early because of Jimmy Kimmel's joke which I don't find Kimmel to be all that funny. Just how I felt when a group went after the FOX O&O in Philly over what FOX News said about the 2020 election when FOX O&Os didn't talk about that as it was baseless and without merit as well. The out going chairwomen Jessica scolded the group.

And I just hope whoever is the new chair in 2029 doesn't go after FOX because of FOX News on cable. As censorship is wrong on so many levels. 

Totally agree, Walker. RMT in partnership with Wharton Neuroscience/AI are working on training AIs to be able to compute human feelings. We have a head start in that Wharton has identified the RMT 265 psychological dimensions as roughly the same as the neurological brain events called Value Signals which appear in the brain only during choice behavior. We stand on the shoulders of giants including Dr. Michael Platt of Wharton Neuroscience, one of the pioneers of Neuroeconomics, which has identified these Value Signals and has also determined that all human choice behavior is computed exactly the same way in the brain regardless of the items being chosen among, whether cookies or investment opportunities or spouses. 

Evidence of Mediapost's Adam Buckman problem?
Asking for a friend.

All this bloviating and not a whisper of criticism about the Trump-aligned FCC calling for a review of ABC's broadcast license, a thinly (if at all) veiled effort to censor Kimmel simply because he criticizes the Dear Leader. I'm not a Kimmel fan at all but it's clear to anyone with a functioning brain that this is nothing but political retribution from a thin-skinned president who has many more important things to worry about than a late night comedian. Absent that context, what is the point of this "article?"

Adam, I totally agree with you. There is comedy, and there is Kimmel, unspectacular comedy. You see his true colors, political positioning, and hatred of Trump. This show should have a disclaimer shown throughout: a late-night political-bashing commentary. Viewers should be warned of what they are seeing and hearing. 

Your bias is showing. This isn't a Disney problem...this is a U.S. government censoring problem. That you are using your column to critique the comedy rather than the larger issues this represents for every media publisher is shocking and dismaying. 

The fact that young Americans don't care all that much about the country, Joe, also reflects the "age of me" sentiment that took root in the 1970s and has persisted ever since--replacing "the age of we" outlook that prevailed earlier.

It's a sign--and a sad one--of the maturing and, let's face it, the begining of the decline of a great nation. Now, for many people--especially the young with their penchant for babbling about themselves and their "group" via social media---all that matters is themselves. Yet they  think that they are entitled to support by the government and everyone else --the tax payers, for example--whenever they need it. And they complain bitterly when their need for self gratification is not satisfied.

Will this sorry situation change? I hope so--but I'm not holding my breath on that hope. 

Newspapers and Magazines right?

Joe,
Persuasion theory goes back to the Greeks, not Romans, particularly Artistole and some of his teachers who taught tools like syllogisms and ethymatic structure (most famously used by Budweiser during the 1984 Olympics held in Los Angeles). The structure of all political messaging can be traced back to Artistole's Stotis Method: Ill (the problem), Blame (what caused the problem), Cure (the solution to the problem) and Cost (how to implement the solution).
Leo  

@Anthony Katsur from IAB Tech Lab: Thanks for the update. Interesting you didn't say that when you announced it and only after MediaPost pointed it out. Your release reads like a supply-side and agency-side intiative with the only reference to advertisers being a quote from an agency executive stating agencies "are responsible for navigating a massive supply chain on behalf of advertisers" -- coming years after advertisers undertook for themselves (see above). Feels like catch up, but others can read for themselves @ https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/iab-tech-lab-launches-industry-council-to-address-transparency-in-200b-us-programmatic-ad-market-302748778.html

The PGC doesn't exclude anyone. It is open to all Tech Lab members, including advertisers. Several have expressed interest, but are going through the process on their end to join.

Regarding the ANA's work, its transparency reports are among several of the inspirations for this council.

I definitely agree that campaign outcomes should become the currency of premium video. We idealists applied this hope to previous digital channels. I also appreciate Ed's point that we have seen the (at least at one point) ideal formula for a particular advertising channel be ... optimized ... in furtharance of changing business dynamics. 

Years ago, introducing advertising into "new media" involved both a new media format and new advertising experience, leading to quite a bit of user whiplash. The very basic expectations of the video advertising environment have been established. This is our chance to enhance the experience for all parties.

Maarten, when I started in the agency business they ooperated on a flat 15% commission basis, based on media spending. The advertiser didn't buy a particular number of hours. Such information was used, internally, by agency top and account management to control costs and, thereby, make a profit.

The current fee for "creative" and "media" system runs on more or less the same basis. Usually, an advertiser agrees to pay the "creative" agency a particular fee for its services and the meida agency--frequently a separate operation which may be owned by another agency holding company---gets paid fees for various media services--planning and buying, with distinctions drawn between  media based on the complexity of making the buys and servicing them. Again, I don't think that these deals call for the purchase of a specific number of agency hours--though  tabs on who is working on an account are often referenced by client bean counters when they are challenging an aency about its fees beng overloaded with "overhead" types or people who they never see.  

As for going to a combination of systems--say a flat fee that guarantees the agency a certain amount of income plus some sort of incentive system linked to "outcomes" --that sounds fine in theory. And it may even work in certain situations--direct response campaigns, for example.. But It's hard for me to see it being generally adopted as the agency does not have--or want--the degree of control over non-advertising aspects like product quality, distribution, pricing, etc.  which affect "outcomes" that it needs to participate as a full "partner". And the agency can't dictate how the brands are to be positioned or what their basic sales pitch should be--it can only make recommendations based on whatever information or direction is provided by the client. The client can overrule its "partner"--as often happens--and it is not unusual for the client's judgement to be faulty. 

The basic premise behind all of these discussions about the agency system  being "broken" and needing to change seems to be that if only this were done all would be well. But the other systems are also "broken". The advertiser holding companies, which often consist of forced marriages of companies serving disparate marketing categories--all poorly coordinated if at all---is one of the prime reasons why the agencies have become what they are. They have mostly responded to what their clients are doing, how they are organized and the process of consolidation that is going on.