Yay!!

@Dan C. from MS Enterainment: That's the thing you zero in on? I don't understand why you always comment on some personal slight instead of commenting on the overall substance of something we publish. It's like you're always looking to make a dig, and I suspect that's your real objective.

Personally, I tolerate that when you do that with my commentary, because I'm editor-in-chief, but I don't understand why you're always looking to stir up some kind of personal criticism about someone posting something on MediaPost. In any case, you're entitled to express your own opinion about "sauce" vs. "gravy," but that's literally why I put the word "gravy" in quotes. It was an homage to my Italian American ancestors, not what I personally use to describe tomato sauce.

In fact, my article referred to "sauce" five times and referenced "gravy" only once, and that one was in quotes.

But I suppose you'll pick a fight over those quants too.

Come on, Joe. Buy your own admission, sauce versus gravy is always a hotly debated topic. My comment is not a personal attack.

Sauce or gravy refers to a Ragu which is completely different than marinara. I'm sure your friends at Dell'Amore can back me up on this one and perhaps you can share some vino with them while discussing.

Cin cin!

@Dan C. from MS Entertainment: Not sure why you always personalize your comments, but gravy is what the old school Italian Americans I grew up with called tomato sauce. Some of them from Arthur Avenue.

https://share.google/323C3d3YEA3JySfLX

A bit disappointed for a kid from the Bronx to call marinara "gravy."

I think the guys down on Arthur Avenue would agree :-p

My opinion is secondary TV station should air say Lions, Colts than having to have to go to a streaming service in my opinion. That most of the state should get to see their teams in my opinion, since I'm a night owl when the Lions are on late at night I'll watch it if it is a close game win or lose but if it's a blowout loss then I'll not watch which I didn't when they were on Christmas Day and lost to the Vikings since it wasn't a close game.

Vermont is home to some amazing brands: Ben & Jerry's, Dell'Amore, Cabot Creamery, Shelburne Farms, and Darn Tough socks!

The end of an era(another one)

Great stories Joe.

Wait.........George The Animal Steele could speak actual proper English....no f-in way.

Thanks for checking in, Joe. Of all the things you just described -- I can't decide which is better -- witnessing Hulk Hogan lifting Vanna White over his head or seeing Cloris Leachman drunk. It's a toss-up!

Nice obit, Adam.

NATPE was something else.

I remember arriving at my first one in Las Vegas in the early 1980s, checking into the Hilton and seeing Hulk Hogan lift Vanna White over his head in the lobby. Had a dinner with some of the WWE wrestlers too, and was surprised how erudte George The Animal Steele was. I once inadvertently hit "Bud" in the groin with a metal folding chair while posing for a photo with the cast of "Married With Children." Had dinner with the drunken cast of "Facts of Life," including Cloris Leachman. Got served jambalaya straight from Chef Paul Prudhomme while sipping hurricanes and watching Chubby Checker twisting and shouting on a Mississippi steam boat in New Orleans. Got held up at gun point while walking the back allies of the French Quarter with the late great trade reporter John Higgins. And those are just the stories I can talk about.

It's amazing what a spectacle it once was, but oldtimers told me it started as programmer/station sales meeting in hotel suites, long before it took over giant convention halls.

Good way to frame it, Gord. It's kind of a sad conclusion that even this kind of a "loss" won't be meaningful enough to truly hurt. 

Thanks, Tony. Looking forward to youir upcoming report.

Ed: Just posted this on LinkedIn in response to Dr. Tracy Adams', ARF, excellent observations on the complex barriers facing media measurment in the US. I believe it underlines the concerns we have both expressed regarding the critical importance of people-based real exposure measurement for too long. 
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tracy-adams625_cimmeast2026-cimmeast2026-measurement-activity-7444879478142439424-_Jnw?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAKo4FUBIAk90m3xtqphku7ECsUhBCx676Y

"I would add a caution that relying on device-based ("content rendered counts on the glass" aka "viewable impressions") measurement essentially takes the industry back years to circulation/distribution metrics that we seriously left behind after the seminal Advertising Research Foundation (ARF) Media Model was published, 2003. Understanding how advertising works and the most relevant metrics to use has continued its sophistication with Attention metrics. No Attention. No outcomes!"

I have a piece coming out imminently on ARF's Evaluation of Attention Measurement, Phase III that was driven by Tracy together with Paul Donato at ARF.  Terrific work on this critical media dimension by ARF.  

Very comprehensive report, Tony. I gather that there wasn't much interest in determining whether anyone was watching TV content or ad messages---which still continues to amaze me.

Gord ... come to us Aussies!

Hmmm?

So ARF DASH is based on 10,000 interviews, and it appears that many media people consider 10k PER ANNUM is sufficient.

10k per annum equates to 10,000 people in a population of 349,000,000.   Don't hold your breath ... that is one-in-34,900.   Each survey is generally based on a current day up to the latest week.

Pffft.

Exposure does not mean that it is watched, and further ... not liked.

Great points Phil. Important validation that top brands have - and will - push their partners to achieve better; and, not let the pursuit of perfect get in their way.
And yes; we'll keep pushing and make it happen for many.

How is this a win for anyone by unscrupulous email marketers?  How does this build confidence with consumers or affirm the social contract marketers should have with existing or would-be customers?

dave,
the respnes you've received all have value, but still don't  assure me that the problem is understood. the smartest advertisers WILL find a way to reasonably "feather" their campaigns to a point where reach consideration is recognized and acted upon. the research communiy may want a perfect answer; a savy marketer will push for doing it bettr. we were solving this for P&G in the late '70's and i pushed for solutions when i was at GM --where this is a particular problem because of the narrow buying parameters used by regionla associations and individual dealers. it was so over done at one point in time that we initiated a program to either reward or penalize stations that ignored our intra clutter plan. the outcome wasn't pretty, but we did succed at  some level of clean up and our own research supported our move. the industry will NEVER reach consus on this, the big players on the spend side will have to find their own spolutions with the help of platforms that offer  realistiic  benefits and understand the issue. 

keep pushing at the windmill : it will evenyually dend some.

Anyone who studies the history of TV, including fairly recent history, not just what happened in 1955 or 1960, knows that habitual viewing "appointment" shows like daytime serials, game or talk shows, the early AM "Today" type of fare as well as early evening newscasts , take time to build their consituencies. You don't just insert a new anchor or make some cosmetic changes and expect an instant response. I cover this with many examples in my new book, "TV: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow". 

I guess that this is a lesson that Bari will have to learn. Give it at least six months to a year before concluding that the new look for the CBS Evening News isn't working--not a few weeks or months. This isn't primetime TV. 

Ed, thanks much. The historical perspective is very helfpul. Actually, I am not worried about chanigng the entire linear and straming TV indsutry. Many of today's players will be shunken, bankrupt or gone in a few years. I am hopiong to encourage the ones who want to survive, thrive and win to use true ad frequency control as a powerful and highly differntialiting benefit for the advertiers, publishers and viewers.

Dave, here's some interesting historical facts about excess frequency and high degrees of ad clutter in ad breaaks to ponder.

When TV first began it was customary for the networks to air twice and sometimes triple the number of commercils per hour in their daytime game shows and serials--compared to prime time. This, plus their bias against "women's fare" caused many advertisers to decry daytime TV and assume that because of the ad clutter, women weren't paying attention to the commercials. However, when ad recall studies were conducted, they showed that daytime commercials attained the same level of verified ad recall as those in primetime.

When cable arrived on the scene similar complaints were made about its excessive ad loads, yet when recall studies were conducted cable usually came fairly close to the primetime norms--about 15-20% lower, but not at all proportionate to the clutter differential. And in one major study about 25 years ago, using unaided recall for people who had jsut been watching broadcast and cable in the evening hours, the two platforms got virtully identical results. 

My conclusion from this is that, yes. people do become accustomed to high doses of commercial clutter. This does not mean that a brand should ignore the subject regarding when and how often its own commercials are scheduled. But trying to change the entire industry's business plan--which relies heavly on lots of ad clutter---- may be a bridge too far.